Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't get it. What is there not to understand in that the majority of this population is against gay marriage? Last I checked, it was a democracy.. that means the people decide. And they just did. Is this less of a voice guaranteed to us than people who just voted in a president? ONE person made the unilateral decision AGAINST his constituents (obviously by the outcome of the vote) that gay marriage should be allowed. They called him on it and executed their right to vote.
If you want this issue shut down, then we should just let one or two people decide the presidency from now on, etc. etc.
But the bigger issue is the deviance from mainstream. There are a lot of freaks out there (and no, I didn't just call gays/lesbians freaks.... let me finish the thought). If we allow marriage other than "conventional" which historically in America has been man and woman, what do we open the doors for? Let's say we allow gays and lesbians to marry. What if someone wants to marry their pet? Don't say it won't happen... people once said men wouldn't want to marry men and women wouldn't want to marry women. But, how many people leave their entire estates to their pets instead of "people" relatives? When does it become "deviance?" When do we say you can't marry your pet, and your sick for even thinking that way (sound familiar to gays?). What about people who want to marry inanimate objects.
If we open it up to historically "unconventional" marriages, then open it up. I think the general population doesn't want this idiocy to continue down a road we won't be able to back up from.
I don't get it. What is there not to understand in that the majority of this population is against gay marriage? Last I checked, it was a democracy.. that means the people decide. And they just did. Is this less of a voice guaranteed to us than people who just voted in a president? ONE person made the unilateral decision AGAINST his constituents (obviously by the outcome of the vote) that gay marriage should be allowed. They called him on it and executed their right to vote.
If you want this issue shut down, then we should just let one or two people decide the presidency from now on, etc. etc.
But the bigger issue is the deviance from mainstream. There are a lot of freaks out there (and no, I didn't just call gays/lesbians freaks.... let me finish the thought). If we allow marriage other than "conventional" which historically in America has been man and woman, what do we open the doors for? Let's say we allow gays and lesbians to marry. What if someone wants to marry their pet? Don't say it won't happen... people once said men wouldn't want to marry men and women wouldn't want to marry women. But, how many people leave their entire estates to their pets instead of "people" relatives? When does it become "deviance?" When do we say you can't marry your pet, and your sick for even thinking that way (sound familiar to gays?). What about people who want to marry inanimate objects.
If we open it up to historically "unconventional" marriages, then open it up. I think the general population doesn't want this idiocy to continue down a road we won't be able to back up from.
No... I said it could open doors to what is "legally" allowed to happen with regards to marriage. If we don't have a norm for marriage, why can't I marry my _____ (dog, cat, computer, couch). There are idiots out there who enter litigation all the time for dumb things ... and win! (Look at the moron lady who spilled McDonald's coffee on herself and sued the company... and won!!).
No... I don't care whether they marry or not. My preference is that they didn't.. but I'm not religious, I just don't agree for my own reasons. Regardless, if we allow it, what legal precedence are we setting? Just be ready to foot the bill for it regardless, as a tax payer.
I don't get it. What is there not to understand in that the majority of this population is against gay marriage? Last I checked, it was a democracy.. that means the people decide. And they just did. Is this less of a voice guaranteed to us than people who just voted in a president? ONE person made the unilateral decision AGAINST his constituents (obviously by the outcome of the vote) that gay marriage should be allowed. They called him on it and executed their right to vote.
If you want this issue shut down, then we should just let one or two people decide the presidency from now on, etc. etc.
But the bigger issue is the deviance from mainstream. There are a lot of freaks out there (and no, I didn't just call gays/lesbians freaks.... let me finish the thought). If we allow marriage other than "conventional" which historically in America has been man and woman, what do we open the doors for? Let's say we allow gays and lesbians to marry. What if someone wants to marry their pet? Don't say it won't happen... people once said men wouldn't want to marry men and women wouldn't want to marry women. But, how many people leave their entire estates to their pets instead of "people" relatives? When does it become "deviance?" When do we say you can't marry your pet, and your sick for even thinking that way (sound familiar to gays?). What about people who want to marry inanimate objects.
If we open it up to historically "unconventional" marriages, then open it up. I think the general population doesn't want this idiocy to continue down a road we won't be able to back up from.
If the majority thought segregation is ok and blacks, hispanics and asians should sit at the back of the bus is that ok with you? Why should my civil rights be subject to other's approval? I thought they were, "God given".
I don't get it. What is there not to understand in that the majority of this population is against gay marriage? Last I checked, it was a democracy.. that means the people decide. And they just did. Is this less of a voice guaranteed to us than people who just voted in a president? ONE person made the unilateral decision AGAINST his constituents (obviously by the outcome of the vote) that gay marriage should be allowed. They called him on it and executed their right to vote.
If you want this issue shut down, then we should just let one or two people decide the presidency from now on, etc. etc.
But the bigger issue is the deviance from mainstream. There are a lot of freaks out there (and no, I didn't just call gays/lesbians freaks.... let me finish the thought). If we allow marriage other than "conventional" which historically in America has been man and woman, what do we open the doors for? Let's say we allow gays and lesbians to marry. What if someone wants to marry their pet? Don't say it won't happen... people once said men wouldn't want to marry men and women wouldn't want to marry women. But, how many people leave their entire estates to their pets instead of "people" relatives? When does it become "deviance?" When do we say you can't marry your pet, and your sick for even thinking that way (sound familiar to gays?). What about people who want to marry inanimate objects.
If we open it up to historically "unconventional" marriages, then open it up. I think the general population doesn't want this idiocy to continue down a road we won't be able to back up from.
What I don't get is the argument that a legal union between consenting adults could lead to marriage between humans and animals, or legalized pedophilia. As far as the argument that it could lead to polygamy -- check out the FDLS, it already exists yet it is still illegal and will remain so. Marriage between two consenting adults, no more and no less.
Certainly marriage has historically been between people of opposite sexes. But then, historically women have been sold into arranged marriages. That kinda sucked -- glad that changed, aren't you?
Besides, this idea that gays finding each other and sharing their lives as a new and modern deviance is ridiculous. My mother who is in her seventies has memories of two 'old maids' who lived together for forty years. One stayed home and looked after the house, the other went out to work and took care of the lawn. Lesbians back in the depression? Hmmmmm? Could be, and if so they weren't all that unique. People just called them by different names such as spinsters or bachelors.
As for me, I think this is sad that gay marriage was overturned. I can only hope that it will be legalized once more.
What a sad, sad thing. I hope people will start voting with their hearts,
IMO - I believe that is just what the people did -
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
