Shared publicly  - 
 
Every couple gay or straight deserves the right to marry. I'm Out4Marriage, are you? #out4marriage
Every couple gay or straight deserves the right to marry. I'm @Out4Marriage, are you?
356
46
Daniela Vaz's profile photoDusty Wilson's profile photoDick Thomas's profile photoDan Baker's profile photo
236 comments
 
This is completely right, every one deserves that opportunity if they desire it, regardless of sexuality.
 
Certainly they shouldn't be treated as second class citizens as now happens.
 
There's nothing wrong with being gay, but marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Life is a parade of choices.It is all a quest for Love,for GOD.
 
+Greg Bowler The literal definition of marriage is indeed between a man and a woman, but isn't it about time that it was changed to reflect modern day society more? It should be between two individuals, regardless of sexuality.
 
sure, lets get government out of the religious ceremonies. Lets end the tax cuts for marriage and all other government benefits for marriage and go back to the way things were supposed to be. The marriage license has been the means by which the government has denied people from getting married.
 
Marriage isn't 'natural', it is a social construct invented by humans. Sheep don't 'get married'. If it doesn't suit modern society, we should change it and, in many countries, we already have.

Yes, every couple deserves the right to marriage.
 
+Nick Hanchet there are already mechanisms for gay people to be seen as one item in the eyes of the law, I just don't see why gay people need marriage too.
 
Let's not confuse 'marriage' in a 'religious' context to marriage in a civil/legal context. In any case, most people are married more in a legal context that simply denotes a long-term (hopefully life-long) partnership between two people. Why not simply extend that simple right to gay couples?
 
+Greg Bowler so they are somehow different from heterosexuals and don't deserve the same rights?
 
if u exclude sex between gay marriages then i don't have any issue of supporting this :) it is just two males are living together like a best friends... and yes, u may disagree with this.
 
Marriage is against the law of nature. Nature has no laws.
 
+Greg Bowler No one "needs" marriage, they chose to do so as a symbol for their (supposedly) eternal love. Are gay people not allowed that?
 
I don't understand this whole 'gay rights' thing. Are gay humans not still humans? What's the difference?
 
+james james It is not against law of nature. It is against Nature. It is not the way Nature exists and functions.
 
People that want equality, but dismiss gay's as a different class to "normal" humans are disgusting.
 
Is funny how powerful people like politicians and businessmen like sir Branson are "ok" with gay marriages at the end of the Day is all about business and the sad part is looking at us average Joe debating who is right and who is not
 
The gay community wanting the right to be married has nothing to do with love, it is only so that they can receive the tax breaks and insurance benefits that the government gives to married couples. If the government did away with those tax deductions and other benefits everyone would be equal. Single, straight, married or gay all would be treated fairly and marriage could go back to being part of religious ceremonies and a covenant between 2 people and their god.
 
Especially when people dismiss their own kind because they like their own sex +james james . I've never spoken about supporting gay marriage is I don't believe there should be any issue regarding it. Let it happen. If people don't like it, well, tough.
 
+Olivier de Broqueville So presumably you are also against the right to divorce?
 
+Greg Bowler

but marriage is between a man and a woman.

Bollocks. Marriage is an entirely human construct, and thus it's whatever we say it is. If we say it is a contract between two people who love each other then that's what it is.

there are already mechanisms for gay people to be seen as one item in the eyes of the law, I just don't see why gay people need marriage too.

You're right. However, by the same logic, I just don't see why straight people need marriage too. No-one needs marriage. That's a stupid argument. It's about equality, not needs. The fight by those on the wrong side of the argument to keep marriage as exclusive to heterosexuals is nothing more than the thrashing out of a religion under threat, and the unreasonable protestations of those who had they been around pre-1960s would likely have been campaigning against equal rights on basis of skin colour. The argument against equal right to marriage is nothing to do with equal rights from that side of the argument and everything to do with enforcing discriminatory policy.
 
What is marriage? A tax break, right?
 
It is not against law of nature. It is against Nature. It is not the way Nature exists and functions.

Sure, sure - tell that to the dozens and dozens of animal species which are known to have homosexual members +Roman N. Ivanov.
 
I personally believe that marriage is a religious expression of your devotion to someone and so as an atheist I choose not to marry as I don't believe in any god and feel like it would be disrespectful to trample of other peoples beliefs by getting married.

So saying that I can see why some people get annoyed when gay couples marry as they believe it's trampling on there beliefs. HOWEVER be it gay or straight, anyone can have faith in a higher power (I just don't) and if you do have that faith, be it gay or straight and you choose you devote yourself to someone special in your life then yes you should have the right to marry.
 
Maybe if Pandas weren't allowed to get married, they'd fuck more often?
 
+Adam Schemanoff Marriage is a legally binding contract, outside of the ceremony it has nowt to do with religion.
 
+Anya Smith No heterosexual OR Homosexual public displays of affection. You all turn everyones stomachs playing tonsil hockey on the street.
 
Marriages roots all lye in religion. That's where it comes from. If you want a civil ceremony then that's another thing. However if your just in it for the legally binding contract, well that seems rather cold hearted and I doubt you should be getting married at all.
 
As with all arguments for equal rights, we have here two sides. One side uses facts, science and reasoned logic, the other side uses innuendo, tired old lies and pure nonsense. Reason will win out, eventually.
 
+Adam Schemanoff Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[50] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[51]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[52] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[53]
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[54]
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[55] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[56] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[57] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[58] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[59] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[60]
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[61]
 
I like we should just mind our bees' wax because. It is nonne of my bees' wax who is in your bed or who you want to spend the rest of your life with same sex or not
 
Lets give women equal pay, then let the homo's get hitched.
 
Marriages were always meant to be defined and governed by the Church. The State or Government has no business in marriage. The State could regulate a civil union, but not a marriage.
 
i think it's a horrible idea to have government defining sanctions on interpersonal relationships, but apparently i'm in the minority.
 
I don't understand where the opposition gets their belief that same sex marriage is a gateway to other things like bestiality and polygamy. Where does that come from?
 
Jamea James that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard 
 
Marriages were always meant to be defined and governed by the Church

Again, total nonsense +James Blackstock. That's only true of Western marriage under modern Western Abrahamic religion. Go back to Ancient Greece or Rome and that's simply not the case. Marriage in either of those ancient civilizations had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
 
lets talk about this from different points of view, christian point of view its a big no.
from African point of view its a big no,
from Islamic point of view its a slight yes,
this will only work for a few people
for me its a no and biologically not helping
what do you think of my view
 
Jason I hope you know that if you want tto have kids you cant do it that way 
 
what's the deal with people unable to use basic kindergarten reasoning and treating the number two as if it were a holy magic fairy tale number? if two men can marry, three should be able to marry, unless you're a closed minded asshole prick.
 
Ok i will no longer be talking about this
 
I'm sorry but I think it's wrong. This is coming from a woman that had a 8 year relationship with another woman.
 
Well, +Olivier de Broqueville in Greece a married woman was pretty much property, and her job was to produce children. Those children were considered lawful and could inherit, because of the marriage contract. As Demosthenes put it: "We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring." So marriage was really about a contract which ensured that the offspring of the male could inherit and be seen as the legitimate heir.
 
But who thinks the world would be better off if we mind our one bees' wax? And james you did not have to use bad words and that is how i feel !!!"" Kayla- Out !!!! 
 
I think everybody has the right to such a lovely institution.......
 
I have nothing against gay marriages (it's their choice), as long as their behaviour isn't an "in your face" attitude. When they do that, it annoys me.
And I hate the gay parades where they come wearing stupid clothes, they paint their faces, etc. If you want to be accepted, act normal, like any human being, not like a bunch of monkeys!
 
But it seems to be very wrong for the whole world... World is going towards the destruction due to such pathetic things....
 
+Ali Ahmed yes. I don't think it's correct. I have learned so much from that time of my life. Only woman and man can have children ( the natural way, no science ) 
 
If you want to be accepted, act normal, like any human being, not like a bunch of monkeys!

Yes, of course you are right +Bogdan Sladaru - maybe they should take up child traffiking, or pick up weapons and try to ethnically eradicate their neighbours. Maybe they should start discriminating against anyone they don't like or going door to door as missionaries. Maybe they should start logging companies and begin illegal clearances of the Amazon rainforest, or join a drugs cartel and behead people. All of these things are done by "normal" human beings. Not that great an example to be honest, and I'd take a Gay Pride parade over any of the examples I've just given any day.
 
+Bogdan Sladaru i also hate it when anyone male/female is checking me out like fresh gilled pork chops... but i leave them alone so long as they don't try to force themselves on me. sometimes prays gasp i even talk to them!
 
Welcome to the black and white thinkers club. Black and white thinkers only allowed in this thread.
 
+Aimee Perez Obviously man and women's relation have children.. there is no doubt about it..
 
Well. Marriage is not social bond, marriage was set by the creator ( which is the fact even if you don't believe in ) to organize our life as superior creatures that grant the mind to be different than the animals. After all, I have never heard about a lion mates with lion or male with male in the animal kingdom. 
 
I always get looked at like I;m grilled ribs. But that's what I look like so I have no problem with it, enouh about me, back to same sex unions....
 
Against the laws of nature? lmao. That's hilarious. Two of the most intelligent mammals on the planet outside of humans (Chimpanzees and Dolphins) both engage in homosexual behaviour. You don't see animal welfare groups out trying to "cure" them of their "disease". A quick Google search for "Homosexuality in animals" will quickly and easily show you that it is, indeed, not against nature.
It might also be worth pointing out that a mere 500 years ago or less, it was completely legal for your king to have sex with your wife before you did, and you couldn't say no. Oppressing gay rights should follow along with that tradition and disappear. Gov't, and religion for that matter, should have no say in what any consenting adults do behind closed doors. We oppose persecution of people based on race, religion, ethnic background, but support the oppression of gay people? The US Declaration of Independence, and as such, it's Constitution, is founded on the principles of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", it does not say "...unless you are gay". I don't think any less of my gay friends, or my gay relatives because I'm a heterosexual man. They are still just as much of a person as I am. Wars have been started, and millions killed, fighting for their freedoms, and we honour them for it, but then tell gay people "Sorry, you don't have the right to do that".
It's wrong. It was wrong when they did it to women. It was wrong when they did it to Jews. It was wrong when they did it to Africans and African-Americans.
I believe every person on this planet has a right to their own life, liberty and their own pursuit of happiness, and I firmly believe everyone has a right to their own opinions, and I will openly back that, and their right to freedom of speech and expression UNLESS that results in any person, religion or organization, gov't or otherwise, taking those very same rights away from someone else.
 
The more important issues are the shared property right for a couple that shares a home. The right to make medical decisions and access to medical information for a incapacitated partner and to make decisions on funeral and final arrangements. While these things can be taken care of in wills and other legal documents they can be easily contested in court by the family. I personally believe that the term marriage should be removed from civil law. Marriage would be a religious ceremony and covenant between 2 people and their god(s). If the couple wants the legal rights I just talked about they would enter into a civil union. This would be between 2 consenting adults, they would be allowed to combine all assets to include income for tax purposes. No special deductions would exist unless there are dependent children or disabled adults. Then the tax breaks intended to help families would still have the desired effect. To help people that have dependents that cannot do for themselves.
 
Only Satanist does it
 
+Ali Ahmed - only superstitions religious idiots from 3rd world countries believe in demons. grow up dude, monsters under your bed are in your head.
 
Everyone's gay at some level.
 
After all, I have never heard about a lion mates with lion or male with male in the animal kingdom.

More religiously motivated nonsense +Usama Samman - here's a list of animals which mate for life:
Gibbon apes, wolves, termites, coyotes, barn owls, beavers, bald eagles, golden eagles, condors, swans, brolga cranes, French angel fish, sandhill cranes, pigeons, prions, red-tailed hawks, anglerfish, ospreys, prairie voles and black vultures.

And here's a list of animals which display homosexual behaviours:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
 
There's rights to live, and rights to make everyone else call it marriage.

The real argument is about making everyone else call it marriage but it masquerades under a fight for the legal right to have the same legal benefits.

The age old definition of marriage pre-dates all existing legislatures, and so do a large corpus of documents that use marriage in the traditional sense. Good luck trying to legislate on the meaning of an ancient word and it's interpretation in all those documents.

On the other hand, truly good luck on getting the legal rights of next of kin, tax benefits, and so on.

I don't see why those rights should be restricted to married couples, or in fact even to sexual or romantic relationships.

+Neil Callaghan I don't care if people think "gay marriage is an abomination". Whatever it is, it isn't marriage, because that's not what marriage is. So although abomination may be a motivator for many as they exercise their rights to political participation, I don't find it so relevant to the legal discussion.
 
Love my Google+! Have a great day everyone !
 
Well Gays are belong to illiterate community...
 
+Ali Ahmed that's funny, because I can read what you typed quite easily, or did your mum do it for you?
 
+Ali Ahmed on second reading, you might need to check your sentence structure.
 
+Olivier de Broqueville - while that may be true of Greek society, the point is that marriage in Ancient Greece had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Also, in Ancient Rome, women were treated quite fairly as far as marriage was concerned - they could even request divorce if they wanted it. They were not seen as property.

Again, the point is that all these people claiming that marriage is, and has always been, a religious matter, are talking out of their backsides. It's only comparatively recently that religion has had anything at all to do with marriage. It wasn't more than a few hundred years ago the Catholic Church, before the schisms which ripped Christianity into different sects, claimed that the very idea of marriage to a woman was blasphemous since it was akin to idolatry, putting love of another person before love of God.
 
+Richard Branson I'm a believer in the fact that marriage is meant as a sign of commitment and love between two individuals. Its a way to show openly your feeling and bond.

Surely, this commitment be it straight / same sex deserves to be respected and honoured.

Religion is too often to blame for intolerance. Society now needs to learn tolerance and understanding, and lose its biggoted stance.

I married my wife in 2008, and am proud to openly show my love for her. So much so, that after she and my daughter were killed in 2010, i still wear my ring. I made a commitment to her and my daughter, and even if they are not here, they are always in my heart.

I think +Jason Pittman points are so right, nature laws dont define sexuality.
 
Homosexuality is against doctrine.......................
 
Kayla Navaro I am speaking from a spiritual perspective, you know, God! and what He wants for mankind. Before Christianity, I refer to Judaism. Christianity is an extension of Judaism. Let's see......I think this goes back a long way......The Ancient Greeks were Pagans!
 
Is sad when people talk about gay people and straight people they forget how they came to the this world not through a man,s ass
 
+Joel Bondurant +Ali Ahmed Joel, your comment about demons is fair, and it reminds me of Stargate SG-1 where Daniel Jackson would keep teaching superstitious natives: They're not gods, they just <happen to meet all your definition of gods through means you don't understand, so meh, why do I bother>

Maybe there is room for discussion on the meaning of satan but in a large universe I'm sure there is someone who fits the general description whether or not we can agree on whether or not the term "demon" is applicable.

To illustrate: "The Boogieman was originally called the Boney Man. Boney was the nickname that English men gave to Napoleon Bonaparte In the early 1800′s" (http://daisyandzelda.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/guest-daddy-rant-stepmothers-lets-end-the-hate/)

There may be no boogieman but there was a Bonaparte, and mothers would threaten their children with him if they did not behave.

I note that aversion to the trappings of superstition is not the same as enlightenment.

There may or may not be <whatever it is you think he means by satan> but that doesn't mean the world wide tradition isn't about something. Whatever it is about left a big cultural impact through time on this planet.

I merely give this as an alternative perspective.
Fred Wz
 
Why do you need the laws approval for marriage? i think its stupid to want another law enforce on you and your friends as witnesses are good enough
 
Since when every thing become normal lets call wrong and right
 
Ali Iain it sick for your son to come to you said dad am going to marry another and you people say ok ,r you forgetting how came here
 
In my view it's a definite NO, WHY?
The one thing that scares me the most and should many other people is the actual damage this is causing to society as a whole.
I am a man of the faith, so I have strong grounding in a covenant between a man/women and God. Secondly, as a MAN this has a very detrimental impact on us MEN as a whole. Standing and supporting these types of behaviors announces that we as MEN have lost our standing as the Provider,Protector,and Preserver of our family units ethics,integrity and character. We loose our authority as MEN also, which is something that in times when required will avail to nothing. At times when our WOMEN, who need us for the 3 important foundations we stand on I just mentioned will not be able to be provided in its entirety. Its just foolishness to think that standing up for this movement is going to make a better society then the one we all currently live in.Just think about this: Already we are currently living in a socially fragmented Fatherless and Motherless society, do those who support this think doing this will actually help this situation or just add more to the already out of control fire we all are currently facing? Over 60% of the crimes that happen in this world have come about because of ideologies of the few who have manipulated the many, and supporting this will just make that situation worst...Wake Up and stop playing around with a perfect design that has worked for centuries, stop dabbling in things you know nothing about. Mr Branson I thought you were a MAN of wisdom, integrity and character, Hmm my personal view of you has changed dramatically. Stand up and be a man of true leadership, who doesn't follow the crowd just to gain extra brownie points. I hope that you seriously reconsider this.
 
+John Pointon Agreed! Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. Paganism: 12,000+ years. Christians are right, Pagans are evil??? Always confounds me.
+James Blackstock Ancient Greeks are only Pagans by current (Christian) standards. In the days of Ancient Greece, they were the height of democracy and religion (so much so that the Romans stole Greek religion as their own). Now they are called pagans and their religions are myths. Christianity may be that way in another 2,000 years


Book: "Folks like a man of God."
Mal: "No, they don't. Men of God make everyone feel guilty and judged."
 
Jason, Christians think that 12,000 years ago does not exist...
 
well said , every intellectual must feel the same.
 
I dont agree that being gay is ok, I think it's a mental disorder
 
+Jason Maurirere "Perfect design that has worked for centuries".
Hate to break it to you, Greeks thought it was their right to have young male lovers before they got married. They also believe that was a "perfect design that worked" before NEW religions sprung up and believed that was wrong.
 
No complaints here, if gay people want to marry let them. People like Kim Kardashian have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage - making millions off it and it only lasting 72 hours. Plus, marriage has very little to do with religion anymore, get on with your own life and let everyone else get on with theirs.
 
Well, I hate to break it to you Jason Pittman, but if you look at the Greek society now, its nothing but old ruins, and about to be bankrupt. There society collapsed purely because there ideologies didn't work. Take a lesson from it. If it had carried on You and I and the rest of the billions of us on this planet may not have been here at all. Just as well someones looking out for us.
 
This:
"Homosexuality is against doctrine"...err, which one mate? Think you need to be a little more specific. Oh "THE Doctrine" with the whole biblical justification thing. Right. Got it. Pity after a couple of thousand years of 'worship', the various religions still haven't got the tolerance thing figured out.
 
Graham, marriage was birth from religion. It has an always will be the pivotal point of all marriages. It has and always will be the covenant between God and a man and women. If you remove God from it, you can no longer call it marriage.
 
Ummm, their society doesn't work now. It FLOURISHED for centuries until meddlesome Christians and oppressive cultures destroyed it. As they have done with countless other civilisations, cultures, religions and countries. They were doing well enough until someone told them they were wrong and that THEY needed to change. Now we look back on Ancient Greece in wonder and are still amazed at how they created the democracy you so love and enjoy today.
 
I don't know what is attraction for one man in another man...
 
+Ali Ahmed I don't get it either, lol. I get woman with woman, but men seem strange to me, lol. It always amazes me that women ever find us attractive, haha. BUT, I don't feel that gives me the right to tell any man that he can't love another man if that's what his heart tells him is right.
 
Quite funny when one men tells to another men "Baby I love You":p
 
It never ceases to surprise me, how many people are against gay marriage... But then, people used to oppose interracial marriage, supported slavery and were against women's suffrage. Now this sigh
 
John Pointon: "If you want proof of what I have said above, you only need to ask yourself, if that is not the case, then how did some STIs spread from gays to women?"

Wow - didn't realize this was a high school chat forum.
 
i'm straight, and i think we have to respect the gay people's right to get married and have the same law protection as we do. coz everyone is equal. that simple. let's dont see it thru point of view of any religion. whose fault is that that the gay people exist anyway? if it's really a fault. who's the creator? is that gay really the matter of choice or is that in their gene? if dont really understand that, we dont have the right to judge.
Matt V
 
Being straight I could not care less. Actually I cared enough to post this comment but that's it. 
 
You know this was not a point of view from my belief but my own point of view as a man. Its amazing how people take one small portion of a statement and believe it was all about that one small bit of the whole statement. Hmm, must be the Greek coming out of you lot...Oh an by the way Jason, a flourishing society is not just an island disconnected from the rest of the world, thinking nothing exist but them. Get real..if you want to debate a subject at least have some substance to it.
 
Hmmm- A comment of assumption based on where one happens to live - real mature.
 
EVERYONE has a right to participate in one of the dumbest customs EVER....
 
When we were not so smart or enlightened, we knew that we are carrying on that part of the human experience that began 7002 years ago. Our ancestors did what was right and therefore we are here now taking the selfish approach to ensure that the bloodline which began so many millenia ago comes to an end. For those so enlightened, perhaps its best society stops trying to protect you from yourselves and allow your bloodline to end whether it be by tolerating lifestyles that preclude procreation of 'your' bloodline or by abortion. With no descendants to come, an evaluation of you on the scale of the human experience renders you irrelevant and your ancestors unnecessary.

The Virgin group of companies is bringing society many great and wonderful things that would have never been possible had the elder +Branson decided a homosexual lifestyle was appropriate. Had any of our fathers believed that, we wouldn't be having this exchange because most of you would never have been born.
 
Ummm John Pointon which Jason are you talking to....lmao dude it sounds like your up a creek without a paddle...lol
 
Hey when did this become about religion? My original statement was about the impact to our fragmented society caused from ideologies which lead to nowhere.
 
Estoy de acuerdo con este i agree
Translate
 
The majority of the British public is against changing the definition of marriage. 70 per cent support the view that marriage should remain an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman (Marriage Survey, ComRes, 23-24 February 2012). The Coalition for Marriage petition against redefining marriage gained half-a-million signatures in little over two months and is still growing.

Marriage has four key components: it is voluntary, heterosexual, monogamous and lifelong. These four elements belong together. If any one of them is amended or removed, this would change the definition of marriage and the meaning attached to it in society. Parliament should no more be asked to legislate for same-sex marriage than for forced marriage, polygamy, or temporary contract marriages.

Same-sex couples can already obtain all the legal benefits of marriage by entering a civil partnership. There is therefore no need for same-sex marriage. The homosexual Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw, has said, 'This is not a priority for the gay community, which already won equal rights with civil partnerships. We’ve never needed the word "marriage".' (Daily Mail, 14 April 2012).
 
We're all gonna die one day. The beauty of life is not how we called happy life as marriage between man and a woman. There are some family who are broken. Children being fostered or adopted. Would you want to die without humility and understanding why gays/lesbian ever existed? People only sees human gay/lesbian but they don't see the animal kingdom.
 
I can bet my life on this, that supporting this movement will cause irrecoverable damage. Hmm how many generations will not exist because foolish people with no wisdom, support things they really don't know anything about. Look a little deeper into this, and then many of you may find the real truth behind this movement. Stop looking at just the surface. Ok im off to a webinar...
 
Appreciate the advice John - very wise. Well done cherry-picking a piece of medical research to support your argument. I mean it supports your POV so it must be true, right? Consider me enlightened to the real reason behind to spread of STI's. It was those nasty g.... ...(correction bi-sexual's) all along! ;)
 
Isn't it odd that nearly every celebrity type, especially the Hollywood elite, is pro-gay?
 
I've been married to four people (all women - my choice). Never for a tax break (or anything else really. Don't know why I bothered). But I would be very upset if I couldn't marry whoever I choose, with their agreement, especially if the reason was where I prefer to put my willy. What's that got to do with anything ?
 
i am against it. and i say a big NOOOO to it
 
We have no right to tell people hew to marry and hew not to. What only matters is what makes you happy. People hew think that gays should not marry are people that have not ban parented right. I raise my children to love hew loves you and we are all the same. love is for everyone.
 
the bible says between man and woman
 
Dam those free lovin' bi-sexual types - I knew there was something shifty about them AND now "several studies" show these cats are responsible for world wide spread of STIs as well...I'm glad we've got people here to keep us Southern Islanders educated about what's really going on!
 
the way a bi-stud thinks , (shudder) is you have a better chance of getting a date.
 
+John Pointon not sure what country you're in, but in the US, it's definitely mob-rule. Well, representative mob-rule. If we wanted it to be illegal for people with green eyes to have children we could do that. It would require an amendment to the constitution, but you could campaign to elect congress members and governors who would pass, and then ratify such an amendment.

I'm not saying that we should oppress people with green eyes, I'm just saying that if enough Americans wanted to, they could make it happen.
 
+Jason Maurirere of course, "this will cause irrecoverable damage" sounds an awful lot like the argument against any minority's quest for civil rights.
 
+gary gregory The bible? You mean that book that was written ~2,000 years ago, by a species that has been around for roughly 200,000 years? There are millions and millions of books in the world, and cave paintings before that. Why should one book be a definition for how the entire world should live?
 
+Paul Hickey glad to see you support equal rights, though a bit confused as to why you think homosexuals can't reproduce. I can't swing a stick, here in MA and avoid a lesbian couple that's raising a couple of kids. The nuclear family is alive and well.

Gay male couples that I know tend to be more hesitant to raise children, but it's certainly not rare.
 
It's called democracy +John Pointon not mob rule. And history proves that the "religious" as you call them helped to abolish slavery.
 
Adopting otherwise unwanted children is a separate issue from ensuring the continuation of ones bloodline. A thousand years from now I want DNA to prove I existed. This wouldn't be possible had my father decided that a homosexual lifestyle was a viable alternative. I did not become a Richard Branson but to deny the chance that my great great great..... granchildren could do it is the epitome of selfishness.

Furthermore, in the USA, we the people who by the grace of our Creator are born with every right under the sun instituted a government to protect those rights not tell us what they are, but perhaps we are no longer smart enough to do what's best for ourselves and posterity.
 
Egyptians, near the end of the classical Egyptian civilisation era lasting 3,000 years, knew less about the pyramids than we know now. Zoroastrianism, one of the world's largest religion of its time and all time, started in Persia about 1,000 years before Christianity - and yes, they were celebrating December 25, the holy father and heaven & hell. In time people will have evolved from Christianity. Don't let a few left over Christian bigots block anyone's happiness.
 
According to the book you bigots are so happy to misquote, God didn't marry Mary, so Jesus was.........?
 
+John Pointon the beauty of civil rights is that you don't have to be OK with being a minority, you just have to let minorities live their lives in peace without having to sit in the back of the bus or live a life of committed love without being able to marry. You can go on feeling that there's something twisted and awful about being whoever someone is. Just don't try to make their lives miserable because of it.
 
No, You're supporting gay/lesbian marriage, meaning you are changing the law of nature?
 
Nature is about unity not duality. Your sex should not matter but sadly religious dogma has done a great deal of deliberate damage to our world.
 
How is it against nature if homosexuality already occurs in nature?
 
Gay is not the way. Gays are discussing.
 
because a man/man or woman/woman can't reproduce... Therefore it is against nature.. Not to mention they aren't sexually compatible..
 
If this happens my marriage to my wife will be worthless! Worthless I tell you! next people will want to marry dogs...even though dogs aren't people and can't enter into contracts.
 
I think we need to let the "nature" argument go. As +John Pointon pointed out, humans do things against "nature" all the time, and there have already been posts, and a link, saying that homosexuality exists in nature, in species that are considered close to humans biologically, and in species considered intelligent. Dolphins have been known to have long-term, or even life-long, homosexual relationships and sex.
 
Tornados are in nature too. That doesn't mean we should believe they are beneficial to society and our general well-being. We are higher than animals and ought to know better. Marriage is primarily about creating a family structure and heterosexual relations is the only legitimate way to create a family. Children need fathers and mothers, not two of one or the other. Children aren't for the parents' fulfillment, but the parents function for the children's fulfillment.
 
Love is love, not matter if it is to the same sex or the opposite sex. Why should it be that only man and woman can receive the benefits of a marriage/civil union. If a church does not condone a same sex marriage, that is fine. However, it should not be illegal and same sex partners should be able to receive all benefits of opposite sex partners who are legally married. 
Lonc Lo
 
I think gay should change to gaymarige
 
+Bill Lueg I hope your wife doesn't see that she's only there to "help create a structure" that's the most heartless view of marriage! While I agree that when kids come along it is certainly not about the parents anymore, each parent will need their partner after the children are gone. Life doesn't end once your kids are off on their own expeditions. Marriage is about love and companionship, regardless of if children come along. With such a limited view on marriage, you may find yourself alone once the kids are gone. It is not just about the kids (if they even happen).
 
No to gay marriage; union may be but not having the communion of ppl or God bless? It is a sacrilege to think this way.
 
The day I'm cool with it is when two men or women can have a baby! Its against mother nature and the bible. Sign of the end times indeed
 
+david blanchard I'm glad you agree that women who have had their ovaries removed due to ovarian cancer should not be allowed to get married! Marriage if about babies. If you can't have babies, then you don't deserve to get married, period. Vasectomy? Out! Just don't want kids? You should be required to promise the state at least two offspring before you get approved for a procreational license (AKA marriage certificate). If marriage were about love and commitment then it would be reasonable for any loving, committed couple to get married and gender wouldn't matter, but of course love and commitment have nothing to do with marriage!
 
What we should be doing is preventing straights from getting married.
 
"No kinds of love are better than others."
 
+John Pointon I'd like to add a bit to your HIV spread. The current thinking is that it started with hunters who killed monkeys with knives. They would sometimes get cut by the monkeys and mix blood. The reason it became known as a gay disease is because a subset of that community engaged in riskier sexual behavior than heterosexuals because they were unaware of the risks and didn't have to worry about things like pregnancy.
 
are you all forgetting where diseases like HIV originated, how it spreads and where is its prevalence??! what you proving here is that the only thing that makes us different from animals is our ability to maintain endless debates on topics like these..
to gay - you may have started the campaign for marriage (or whatever you want to name it since marriage is so religiously-socially constructed it's untrue) a little bit too early.. wait for the time when everyone will be born from surrogates. you will have a lot less issues with family unit destruction. be who you are but don't forget about your limits and to fight for the cause just to prove the point does not really apply here.
to non-gay - so if 4% of people will get "married" it will destroy our superhuman race?? what do we think destroys our families? do we want to blame feminism movement? high divorce rate? money-driven capitalistic society? western democracy? you choose but it's not gay people.

i can sense a new target for all the blame.. bisexuals are responsible!! how can you be so hedonistic!! stop f***ing everything that moves! )))
 
+Olivier de Broqueville what does gay marriage have to do with whether children have a father and a mother?

You don't get a child just for getting married and gay couples can already adopt without marriage so your argument doesn't actually argue anything. As long as the parents of the child love them and care for them properly, what more can you ask for?

I think they should allow gay marriage. If the churches don't want to allow it then that is down to them and their closed minded ways. Heck, the more fanatic religious people will tell you evolution is made up but being made of dirt by someone you can't see is correct so it is no good arguing gay marriage to them. Luckily not all religious people are like that +Christopher Griswold proves that religion and common sense and compassion for the wishes of others can work together.

Let gay couples marry in civil ceremonies and get the same legal rules and regulations as any other couple.There is not one reason why they shouldn't be able to except for the perceptions of some people who it doesn't actually affect anyway. Those who are saying "Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed" be aware, they aren't going to ask YOU to marry them so it doesn't affect you, your family, your way of life or anything so how about you get on with your life happily and allow everyone else, regardless of their decisions and preferecnes, to do the same.
 
If people pay their share of taxes, obey the laws of their country equally, they should have every right that everyone else has. As for one persons comment about HIV, well, it is a disease that should have been completely eliminated by now. Straight, bi & gay all played a crucial role in keeping it alive and well. Marriage has not a thing to do about it. Responsibility does. The majority of heterosexual people do not practice safe sex. Sad but true. Be responsible in posting and commenting on what someone else said. Please do not twist the issue. Equality...it's a right.
 
"Bryan Jones06:57

Gay is not the way. Gays are discussing."

What are they discussing +Bryan Jones ? Politics? Cars? The meaning of life?
 
I think that animals should get married as well.
 
Supporting equality is just simply the right thing to do
 
John stewards show just gave the diffation of marriage as follows ;Its a business contract for live stock or daughters. And we do teach our kids to read the dictionary? Right? :-\
 
You do not teach your kids too read the dictionary... So some day they can spell like Me ...HA HA HA !!!
 
I'm straight, and I wouldn't marry if you paid me. But if others want to go through that hell, more power to them!
 
70% of people with Aids. Are gay men. Fact!! I guess that's a lot of insurance money
O:-) 
 
+Dawn Brumbaugh it's because i looked at the actual data that made me comment the way i did.. because there are people who were trying to pinpoint all the blame at homosexual intercourse where in fact it is a combination of things. i am trying to be impartial and objective..
"superhuman" was meant ironically in the context of certain people pretending to be the best they are.. the best to judge and the best to decide.. there is nothing better than the human brain.. shame we don't use it to its full potential..
 
This has been pointed out in previous comments but it needs repeating: we are mixing up several things here.

There's the religious concept of marriage; I don't get religion at all, so all I can say about this is you choose your belief so put up with it.

Then there's the love concept: two people (or more?) commit to each other willingly because that's how they feel. You don't need a government or a church for this; you don't even need someone to carry out a ceremony or witnesses: your commitment is up to you.

Next comes the social recognition of the relationship for things like deciding in medical procedures, etc. This is already possible through civil partnership and other types of contract.

Which only leaves the tax breaks and other benefits left for marriage as such. Imho, the underlying reason for the reluctance to extend it to same-sex couples is actually an economic matter: these benefits are the government's lever to promote demographical policies; changes in the specifics of the tax breaks, the impact of the number of children and so on correspond to the intentions of promoting higher or lower natality. It is not perfect, of course. Some objections already expressed may apply (can marry and have no children, infertility, etc.), and they are intended to be tackled by the specifics explained above (your benefits at not the same if you don't have children).

It is quite difficult (and unpopular) to withdraw rights that have been there for a long time, but less so to prevent the creation of new ones. Allowing same-sex marriage would extend this benefits making it more expensive to exert the same amount of leverage on policy.

Other policies related to family already have their own legislation (e.g. adoption).

I understand there are many people out there that oppose it out of other reasons, religion being outstanding among them a can be seen in the comments here, but I think that this explanation is more consistent with a situation that actually acknowledges these unions (though civil partnership). But still it is just an opinion.
 
I'm against it...sorry. Marriage is between man and woman. The way God intended it. 
 
Changing the dynamics of the family structure has negative social probabilities. The balance of having a father and a mother to teach, nurture and guide has a better likely outcome than same sex parents. Two gay people can not conceive so why does it make sense to confuse children on what the right course for success is.
 
Love is love....no one should judge....
 
Give gay people and Island to live on. Don't worry though, you'll get it back in less than 80 years
 
Why should anyone really care who someone else happens to fall in love with? It's their life, let them live it they way that makes them the happiest. With all the injustices and tragedies happening in this world, I'm sure there are a lot of other more pressing issues to concern ourselves with.

Here's an idea,.. If the definition of "marriage" is such an issue for all you religious bigots out there, what if they just give gay marriage a different name? Would you then be able to focus a little bit on some real issues?
 
I don't think Christianity has anything to do with "straight" people condoning gay marriage or not. I think there is a unsaid fear that, if gays have a right to marriage that straight marriage could be oppposed one day by the majority whom ever that might be. Really think about civil rights and what the main concern was letting people have equality. It is fear of the unknown, fear of being the minority, fear of losing control, fear of losing your rights. FEAR is the issue!
 
I don´t care who is gay or lesbiane, I have 2 times devoced and once a cohabit ...no more because my mistook and comprehend to myself what is important for my life and love is what? Love is not sexual-relation-ship and no restriction, Love is spirit and endless ☆
⌒_⌒
 
the government should have nothing to do with marriage... there is no reason that any gov needs to be involved...
 
Couldn't have said it any better. The whole marriage issue is only an issue because Government is involved. Take the government out of the equation, the issue is reduced to one of religion, where people can decide (or not) to do as their conscious dictates. Gays could form their own church, the Holy Church of the Sausagefest, or whatever, and get "married".
 
Since when did "Marriage" = "Happy Life" ? If only life could so easily be explained by this last statement.
'...only the unhappy want to stop them'. I think this does not help the matter. It only enflames. It is name-calling and therefore childish.
But I agree with the gist of the statement, I think.
Also, a lot of people who claim it is nothing to do with them are coming up against another lot of people who are more passionate in the argument because they realize that one day the matter may concern one of their OWN children.
 
Another thing. In the USA, where they have the Bill of Rights, that should be the place of all places - where it's in the Constitution - that you are allowed to pursue your own version of happiness unhindered.
And finally, having kids. So long as we are producing them somewhere then mankind will survive. Try stopping us! And if your own child turns out to be homosexual, are you as parents going to stop that from being fulfilled if indeed you care about them as individuals, your own offspring???
 
Just imagine if all you who support this, had a gay mother or father.
Non of you would exist...you all know its wrong, and I'm not taking the religious view or the political view, it is the natural, and spiritual make up of every human that walks on the face of this planet. Unless you can come up with an argument that denies this make up of every person, I would suggest that the supporters of this go an either further there education, or go back into there little hiding spot and stay there. Stop bringing your ideas of what you claim is civil rights when it is just a angle your trying to use to justify what is ethically and morally unjustified. Here's an idea, put every single one of them on an island and lets see how long they exist, before they realize only a man and women can carry on our human race. I can guarantee you that when they are down to the last few, the gay/lesbian stance will crumble and they would have to succumb to the natural state of existence for our race.
 
+Jason Maurirere Well Spoken, my Take: if they wish to get married, let them, But they shouldn't be allowed to Adopt kids, since they won't do it the way that produces kids. And by the way, what happens when a priest/reverend/pastor refuses to wed them.
 
When dealing with others we should try to understand them, as we grow and understand ourselves. Never should we force them to live according to our own personal prespective. By so doing we shall never be disappointed, nor feel defrauded of our own rights...
 
Really Nathan? And your at university...If you don't reproduce the human species will cease too exist. I think you need to learn abit more about life. This comes down to the pebble in a lake philosophy. Try it. Take the smallest pebble you can find and drop it into the center of a flat quite lake, What starts off as a small ripple soon covers the entire lake to the very edges of the lake itself.
 
OK, so you want some statistical data? How about the fact that the population of the earth has jumped from 2.5 Billion in 1950 (roughly) to roughly 7 billion at present. We've almost tripled the population of the earth in 60 years but people are worried about the human race not surviving? If we keep reproducing at the rate we are going, it won't matter because there won't be enough planet to populate.
Also, the a majority of the areas of the world that have the highest rate of offspring being born are also epicentres of AIDS/HIV spread. It's education, not condemnation, that will prevent, stop or reverse disease. +Jason Maurirere keeps pushing the "education" route, but educators that try to teach their students about safe sex alternatives are condemned while being told to "preach" abstinence, but yet, we are seeing a steep rise in teenage pregnancy and a rise in HIV/AIDS related cases.

Arguments like these ALWAYS turn in to a religious debate, because it was religion that wrapped "god" around a union of two people who love each other. There were weddings long before the christian god came along, and they will be around long after.

The debate on gay marriage has nothing to do with religion or the survival of the species or how educated someone is. There are plenty of LBGT people in all walks of life, with all ranges of IQ's. The debate on gay marriage is about equality and the right to "life, love and the pursuit of happiness". Bottom line!
 
It is rather a privilege and great joy to find your soul mate and to get married, have kids and have a family - few things are a right - even the breath we take is a gift from God. BTW He created the marriage concept and wrote the original rules - won't recommend we advise Him on how to change it...
 
A privilege to get married and have lots of kids. Okay, I can see that point of view, however, what I don't understand is how homosexuality can still be considered aberrant behavior if, according to Wikipedia, the estimated homosexual population of the planet is somewhere between 2-10%. That's somewhere between 140 million and 700 million. That's roughly half the number of Muslims out there, 2/3's the number of Christians and a boat load more than then number of Jewish people out there, just to list the big 3 western religions. So, can we call it aberrant behavior still?
 
Good point - aberrant behavior can refer to abnormal behavior, deviant behavior etc.

Normal: is normally perceived as majority or 50%+ e.g. 1.22 billion smoked in 2000 (according to Wikipedia) but it was a lot more in the 60's/70's - did it make smoking more healthy and/or better in any way?

Deviant: some might find this word offensive in itself however it unfortunately indicates our human nature. We struggle to do good all the time and to be the best we can be. How do we know what the standard is - by looking at the design and guidelines our Creator God laid down - they are very simple but we don't always want or feel like living it out even though it results in the most healthy lifestyles and relationships.

Just hope that we don't have to repeat history again and again to learn the same lesson. This is not the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time that this lifestyle is being advocated for and later practiced by "majority" in the recent 4000+ year history of the Earth - the basics however remain: a man and woman were made to fulfill different roles in the family.

I have sympathy for those that struggle with this just as I have sympathy for those who struggle with overeating, lust, cheating, gossip, lying, stealing, laziness, pride and the long list goes on - WHY? because all of us including me struggle with a bunch of that - luckily not all of it normally occurs at once but it is the good and evil wolves inside of us that battle - which one survives depends on which one we feed....
 
Where I have problems with homosexuality, is there decision to adopt children. When a person choose to become a homosexual they chose not to have children deliberately, so why adopt?
 
Everything is a choice
 
Marriage was once about procreation, now it is about government benefits, figures Richard would be all for it..
Add a comment...