I'm against gay marriage.

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Nonsequitor

Actually, it is a very reasonable question that might arise from opening up "marriage" to include other types of union.

Those are two completely different things.

Not that I have issues with bygamy.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Nonsequitor

Actually, it is a very reasonable question that might arise from opening up "marriage" to include other types of union.

It's still the slippery slope: gay marriage, then bigamy, then underage brides, then bestiality, etc, etc, etc, until you're arguing that murder might be made legal in the wake of legal gay marriages. It's ridiculous.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Nonsequitor

Actually, it is a very reasonable question that might arise from opening up "marriage" to include other types of union.

It's still the slippery slope: gay marriage, then bigamy, then underage brides, then bestiality, etc, etc, etc, until you're arguing that murder might be made legal in the wake of legal gay marriages. It's ridiculous.

Slippery slope is a weak argument. Two men have the ability to say yes in a marriage. A donkey or underage child does not.

 

[blueskye13]

To be honest. I do not understand what all of the fuss is about....Yes, for many people it is a religious ceremony BUT when you get married by say...a judge...it is not a religious issue...It is LEGAL. Marriage in the eyes of the government is a legal contract entered into by two people. That is why you HAVE to get a marriage license thru the court house, etc.
My husband and I were married. We wanted to have a Pagan ceremony BUT we could not find someone who was LEGAL!!! and recognized by the government to perform such a ceremony.....so we had to go Unitarian...

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Nonsequitor

Actually, it is a very reasonable question that might arise from opening up "marriage" to include other types of union.

It's still the slippery slope: gay marriage, then bigamy, then underage brides, then bestiality, etc, etc, etc, until you're arguing that murder might be made legal in the wake of legal gay marriages. It's ridiculous.

Slippery slope is a weak argument. Two men have the ability to say yes in a marriage. A donkey or underage child does not.

Of course it's weak, but it's still one of the first things those opposed to gay marriage will bring up. I have yet to have anyone inform me how a gay marriage would directly degrade their quality of life.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Nonsequitor

Actually, it is a very reasonable question that might arise from opening up "marriage" to include other types of union.

How so? Let me define what "marriage" (or any "union" for that matter) should allow: ANY 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. PERIOD. There is no confusion about what it allows: NO animals, kids, dead people, insects, etc... ONLY ADULTS.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: SoylentGreen
I think gays do have the right to be just as miserable as married straight people.

OH HOW TRUE!!


:thumbsup::beer::thumbsup:

Ausm

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: shuan24
yeah even the news posted that the most important issue to the midwestern states was the "moral stance".

Not terrorism, not war, not taxes, not a single IMPORTANT issue......the only reason they voted for bush- BAN gay marriages! Talk about ignorance.

if you really think terrorism or war didn't weigh in on people voting for bush then you are the ignorant one. granted, there are people with morals in this country and they probably did vote for bush, but i can't hardly believe that was the sole reason. of course, 55 million people voted for kerry because he's not bush, so i guess anything is possible.

Everyone has morals, they might not match up to yours though. Some of us opened our eyes in the past X years and realized that the world has changed and grown past the Church.

Please keep your religion out of the government, it has no place there.

what? i'm not even religious. that doesn't mean i don't have morals. thanks tho for the reply that seems to have nothing to do with mine....

It does have something to do with your post. See the bolded section.

i love you people that assume that having morals means you are religious. it just makes you look like an ass.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Gothgar
I'm for gay marriage, as long as both chicks are hot...

UUUUM most lesbians I know would not meet your criteria

Ausm

 

fisher is just a homophobe, don't mind him.

 

[SuperTool]

Evangelicals want gays marrying women, not other gays. They still think it's a choice.
Homosexual man married to a woman: natural. Homosexual man married to a homosexual man: unnatural.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Gothgar
I'm for gay marriage, as long as both chicks are hot...

UUUUM most lesbians I know would not meet your criteria

Ausm

Most lesbians I know _do_ fit the criteria.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: shuan24
yeah even the news posted that the most important issue to the midwestern states was the "moral stance".

Not terrorism, not war, not taxes, not a single IMPORTANT issue......the only reason they voted for bush- BAN gay marriages! Talk about ignorance.

if you really think terrorism or war didn't weigh in on people voting for bush then you are the ignorant one. granted, there are people with morals in this country and they probably did vote for bush, but i can't hardly believe that was the sole reason. of course, 55 million people voted for kerry because he's not bush, so i guess anything is possible.

Everyone has morals, they might not match up to yours though. Some of us opened our eyes in the past X years and realized that the world has changed and grown past the Church.

Please keep your religion out of the government, it has no place there.

what? i'm not even religious. that doesn't mean i don't have morals. thanks tho for the reply that seems to have nothing to do with mine....

It does have something to do with your post. See the bolded section.

i love you people that assume that having morals means you are religious. it just makes you look like an ass.

You're right fisher. Morals != religious.

However, in this PARTICULAR argument, religion plays a BIG factor on gay marriages. You can not deny this. Why do people associate the ultra conservative or the "right wing" with the Religious Right? Please tell me the nonsensical relationship there.

Where in the constitution does it say that our PRESIDENT should define morals? (especially based on religion) That is not the role of the president, and should not even be in the debates period.

And yes, I know laws are based on morals. But again, read my first paragraph.

 

[J0hnny]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Fausto
I still don't know why you, or anyone else, voted yes.

Because they're incompetent, homophobic, worthless, pathetic excuses for a human being, let alone one living in the so-called United States of America, land of the free, where equity reins.

Shouldn't it be against the constitution to ammend the constitution with discriminatory wording or something? Gah, you anti-gay people make me sick. It's your worst fear, yet you need to pull the sausage out of your asses.

I guess, unfortunately, you're always right when you believe you have God on your side.

:frown:

First off, people are entitled to their opinions and they're not necessarily ignoranant, worthless, etc. because of what they believe. You may consider that they haven't been educated to your beliefs/ideals.

I know many religious and even non-religious people who are extremely smart and capable (post-grad degrees, 80K salaries, etc.) who believe that allowing gays to marry destroys the sanctity of a union of two hetero-people. This issue is an emotional issue for many Americans (as voiced by your opinion) and they voted according to how they felt, not necessarily what's right.

Think about it, there was an amendment banning alcohol!

Either way, it may have set back the civil rights groups, but it did set a certain precedent that those groups should not approach those issues without thinking how it'll impact the average American voter.

 

[Mucho]

I all for equal rights for everyone; black, white, yellow or gay but then I am from Canada the "Moral Superpower"

 

[Deeko]

Those of you saying it should be banned, I don't care what reasons you cite, you're a homphope through and through. Admit it and make life easier on all of us.

 

[MaxFusion16]

why not just let homosexuals marry and let natural selection take its course. Within a few generations, the homosexuals would become extinct with no offsprings. Problem solved.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Sorry but religion has NO PLACE in 2004 in this world. That CRAP has to be forgotten and we must do our best to promote social progression.

Burn in hell :|

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: MaxFusion16
why not just let homosexuals marry and let natural selection take its course. Within a few generations, the homosexuals would become extinct with no offsprings. Problem solved.

If that were true, homosexuality wouldn't even exist today.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Sorry but religion has NO PLACE in 2004 in this world. That CRAP has to be forgotten and we must do our best to promote social progression.

Burn in hell :|

He can't, he doesen't believe in Hell.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Sorry but religion has NO PLACE in 2004 in this world. That CRAP has to be forgotten and we must do our best to promote social progression.

Burn in hell :|

He can't, he doesen't believe in Hell.

:laugh:

 

[marcello]

Originally posted by: MaxFusion16
why not just let homosexuals marry and let natural selection take its course. Within a few generations, the homosexuals would become extinct with no offsprings. Problem solved.

It's not a genetic trait, so that won't happen.

 

[gflores]

So from my understanding of the pro-gay marriage people is that there are no cons to having gay marriages in the United States? None whatsoever?

 

[Eavan]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Sorry but religion has NO PLACE in 2004 in this world. That CRAP has to be forgotten and we must do our best to promote social progression. Banning gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction, however it's one of such stupid little things that shouldn't have a major impact on the election anyway. A healthy economy promotes peace and security in any nation. Bush has helped greatly in that regard over the years.

Tell that to all the Christians, Bhuddists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Shintos, Scientologists, and Pagans (my apologies to those religions I missed, I don't know how to spell you). I hate to break it to you but that is the way the world is, so you better get used to it. And your president, who according to you has helped greatly in improving our economy, is Methodist.

At any rate, I am ambivalent when it comes to gay marriage. While being gay is not for me, I'm not one to legislate my beliefs upon others. :roll:

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: gflores
So from my understanding of the pro-gay marriage people is that there are no cons to having gay marriages in the United States? None whatsoever?

You better tell us what they are so we understand.