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.
On a side note, I always laugh at how the gays seek validation from all sides. If what they where into was as natural as they claim they wouldn't care what others thought.
When people are verbally attacked for who they are, the natural, healthy reaction is to defend themselves. The reaction you're suggesting would be completely unhealthy.
With that said, I do think the attackers are idiots, for the most part.
The SCOTUS needs to represent the will of the voters. Passing gay marriage will cause more divisiveness than this country has ever seen. You're cheapening a fundamental tradition in this country to concede to a wants of a small group. Ridiculous.
No it doesn't. The SCOTUS is designed to ignore the will of the voters if they violate the Constitution. Justices are appointed for life. Voters can't kick them out of office.
Quote:
We have much more important matters for the SCOTUS to entertain than Joe and Chris wanting to get married just because Linda and Mike can do it.
What's more important than civil rights?
Quote:
Interracial marriage and homosexual marriage are two separate topics. Race is a ridiculous medium to judge anything. There are no biological barriers when people of a different race marry. When two men or two women are allowed to marry the fundamentals of marriage are altered tremendously. The SCOTUS will see that.
Nope. SCOTUS will see that the laws are gender discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS doesn't care about tradition.
Quote:
As I said, once gays are allowed to marry, marriage will soon be open for anything and everything.
Slippery slope fallacy. No other country with gay marriage has had this problem. Your argument is absurd and does not play out in reality. And by your logic, straight marriage should be banned, since it leads to gay marriage, which leads to all other types of marriage.
Quote:
Gays are not a minority in the way people of different races and religions are minorities. Gays want to compare themselves to African-Americans all the time, but there is no comparison. Gays have all the rights of everyone else, unlike African-Americans did for hundreds of years.
Gays are a smaller minority than Blacks and have suffered quite a bit.
Quote:
It seems like you are intolerant with anyone with a stance that differs from your personal one. I don't agree with you so I must be trolling.
It amazes me that people can be this simple minded.
I'm intolerant of ignorant people who make ridiculous arguments in order to attack others they don't like. You know nothing about the law, government, or homosexuality, and yet you pretend that you do.
Quote:
Gays aren't a minority like black, Asians, women, or Muslims. So I guess since "all men are created equal" if two brothers want to marry, we should let them? After all, we're created equal.
Gays are most certainly a minority. Muslims are not a minority by world standards, they make up 1/6th of the world's population. Nor are Asians, nor are women.
Quote:
Nope, let's keep marriage the way it was meant. Between and a man and a woman. They gays should be creative and come up with their own commitment ceremonies.
You know nothing about marriage. For most of human history, marriage was a business contract between families where a girl (not a woman) became the property of her husband. And in many cases, the man married multiple woman.
The modern version of marriage is not the traditional form.
I just laugh thinking about when gays can get married and Miamiman has to hear another man talk about his husband.. LOL.. not for the social or political statement it would make.. but just to watch him react and lose the plot....LOL
Think to yourself, if your thoughts turn into words and actions to hate others then keep it to yourself.
The whole gay issue is somewhat tiresome. I am not gay, and dont have a problem with people who are. Love is something people have instilled in them, and is something all long for. If you find it, have it and live your life. Stand in judgement of yourself and let people live their lives. Seems simple enough to me anyway.
With a marriage license giving 1400 civil benefits like tax breaks and hospital visitation, the idea of getting government out of the marriage business is a pipe dream.
If marriage is redefined to an entity no longer exclusively one man and one woman then what about the situation where two straight males “marry” just for the convenience of the 1400 rights? In this very real and highly likely example they are neither homosexual nor in love yet they are “married” just like you. Will you not feel that your “marriage” has somehow been diminished and affected because anybody can do it? This is part of the “slippery slope” that homosexuals don’t want to deal with when opening the Pandora’s Box changing marriage. Would you attempt to limit marriage to same sex partners who must be homosexual and if so how would you go about verifying this or would you welcome any and all participants who wanted to “marry”?
If marriage is redefined to an entity no longer exclusively one man and one woman then what about the situation where two straight males “marry” just for the convenience of the 1400 rights? In this very real and highly likely example they are neither homosexual nor in love yet they are “married” just like you. Will you not feel that your “marriage” has somehow been diminished and affected because anybody can do it? This is part of the “slippery slope” that homosexuals don’t want to deal with when opening the Pandora’s Box changing marriage. Would you attempt to limit marriage to same sex partners who must be homosexual and if so how would you go about verifying this or would you welcome any and all participants who wanted to “marry”?
No, because any couple can marry in the Elvis chapel in Las Vegas and get those benefits, so long as they aren't the same-sex. Marriage is already cheapened. Look at Britney Spears' 52 hour wedding. She got those 1400 benefits, but a same-sex monogamous couple who have been together for 40+ years cannot? You don't see the absurdity in that logic?
I believe in equal rights for all (even gays) but I still feel homosexuality is wrong.
Am i allowed to feel this way?
Yes, here is the reality. All members of a species exist to perpetuate the group. Occasionally there will be mistakes in the message ( ever play a game of telephone?). It doesn't mean the mistakers should be eliminated, simply ignored. In order to perpetuate the species there is no reason to pay attention to annomilies.
You didn’t address the question which is what about two non-homosexual males “marrying” for the 1400 benefits?
Who cares? What's to stop a heterosexual man and woman from "marrying" solely for the benefits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Yes, here is the reality. All members of a species exist to perpetuate the group. Occasionally there will be mistakes in the message ( ever play a game of telephone?). It doesn't mean the mistakers should be eliminated, simply ignored. In order to perpetuate the species there is no reason to pay attention to annomilies.
If we give gay people civil rights we'll have to give them to EVERYBODY !
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.
