Shared publicly  - 
Imagine How Stupid You are Going to Look in 40 Years!
Fred Williams's profile photoBrent Friar's profile photoDevin Christensen's profile photoDaniel Cowman's profile photo
Precisely. The old adage is true, the more things change the more they stay the same.
savvy G
so dont be stupid
So your really going to say gay marriage is the same as pedophilia, and furthermore, where exactly does it say marriage is man and woman only. I am not gay and I have no stance, other than the one that says leave people alone.
Outside of a religious context, I see no harm to letting gays marry. It's not like we're forcing anybody to get gay married. Nor are we saying they have to be married in churches. Give me one bit of evidence, outside of a religious context, that homosexual marriage is damaging to anybody.
And with gay marriages no "Shotgun" marriages, that ought to piss off some people.
And whats all this suffrage bullshit, who's brilliant idea was that, add those banners while your at it.
I'd like some Christian views on this: 
+Daniel Börresen You can't debate with a philosophical idealist. They neither hold an opinion nor submit to the practice of logic. It is an exercise in frustration and futility.
The thing is a lot of the people still vehemently opposing gay marriage probably opposed interracial marriage too (they're just too chickenshit to admit it). Notice they're all white... Either way they look stupid.
^ When I wrote "opposed" I meant, "probably still oppose".
we're talking about gay marriage in my civics class, and i brought up this exact point; in 40 or 50 years, this whole thing is going to look as stupid as racial discrimination does
+Erik Bray Don't beat about the bush. They're racist, homophobic, sexist, fascist bigots. You can't make a point by being timid, it is the timidness of those that oppose such nonsense that allows it to pervade our culture.
Are you serious Mr Carroll? Comparing people that are ATTEMPTING to defend something holy and good, even if they don't know WHY, to racist people of the 50's?

I don't oppose gay marriage...I stand in line with the word of God.
I love when stupid people pretend they aren't stupid. Changing the definition of a word that has meant one thing since it's beginning is nothing like prohibiting people from voting based on the color of their skin. End of discussion.
+Juan Carlos Lopez Which god. There are quite a few and it helps to be specific. Might help to point out which prophet as well. Leviticus demands you kill your disobedient children, is that on your list of things to do today, hate gay people, kill my child for not doing his homework or (god forbid) masturbating?
Not if people with brains can do anything. If gay marriage is okay. everything is going to end up being okay. Where do we draw the line?
Hate = religion = Ignorance = Fundamentalists (nobody wins)
Gay marriage is going to kill america. how do you not see that? Gay marriage and abortion are both going to end up killing america.
+Gator Moore It's something you learn as you grow older. I don't agree, religion doesn't equal hate as such. Ignorance breeds hate and religion breeds ignorance but they are not mutually inclusive, just often hang out in groups.
you can see in the way men and women are designed that they were made for each other - the complement of the sexes. why is it "outdated" or "old-fashioned" to support the fundamental building-block of human society?
+Pete Fenelon It's not that men and women don't belong together as monogamous couples (that's likely another debate) it's that if someone should choose to do something else they be given the same human rights anyone deserves. They do not get relegated to some sub human status because they don't fit your view of what a human should be.
Wait? Gay marriage and abortion are going to kill America?? I thought it was the spics and niggers. So confused...So can I tell my peeps that we are not targets anymore...or is that being brown in America still a threat, along with gay marriage and abortion? Just let me know.
Marriage is a government function. The Government is not allowed to align itself with any one religion. Therefore any argument involving religion has absolutely no say in what our government does about marriage.
Nancy Pelosi's comment on this issue was priceless. She says that since her Catholic Faith teaches against discrimination, she has no choice (according to her self-proclaimed Catholicism) but to accept and condone gay marriage. Funny logic there :D
They r already in relationship,marraige won t make anydifference
+John Hansen Abortion. killing the next generation. Gays are Making it so there wont be a next generation.
Natural Law must be respected Male and Female created so we could procreate. We need to becareful things are pretty simple it's our passions that tempt us to believe the unnatural.
haha This gives me a good laugh. How about adding a third picture of "Pro-Gay Marriage Protesters" and add them into the mix? Just because you don't agree with others beliefs doesn't give you an excuse to be ignorant.
Homosexuality and abortion are cancers that ensure that bloodlines will end. Like cancer they cannot exist without preying on that healthy part of society that doesnt need them. We are the first living organisms to adopt lifestyles that go against the imperative to reproduce, to leave proof that we were here. That tbere was some purpose for our existance.
moral degradation of societies...
somebody should secure the limits.
+Paul Hickey Actually no, there are species (several of the monkey's I believe and recently I read something about squirells but they do some weird stuff already so it doesn't surprise me) show monogamous homosexual relationships, and more that show homosexual activities for what I assume is pleasure. I'm not a scholar on such topics.
So what your saying is...humans should take after the habits of squirrels and monkeys? Not trying to be cynical, but thats pretty much what you just said.
+Lutz Ifer I read a short document alluding to an attempt to classify indoctrination of youth child abuse in Europe. I don't believe it will get anyware but it is an important thing to realize that academics are targeting this very young form of intentional retardation as damaging to a child's development.

Remember, it is not 'what' is being tought, it is 'how' it is being tought that academics are concerned with.
+Juan Carlos Lopez That's the thing though, holy. We're not talking about marriage as the church sees it. We're talking about marriage as the government sees it. The church and the government are two separate bodies, and they should stay that way. The church can ban homosexual marriage all they want, but that doesn't mean the government should.
+Kyle Zeman Very astute of you. Except I did not say that, I argued someone else point which was that only humans as a species commit such acts as are not int he species best interests. I assume he was referring to sex for procreation.
A if someones gay cool nothing against that. But I feel marriage is between a man and woman no matter how you spell it
Marry who you want it none of mine or anyone else business. Catholic church is all upset, there nothing but a criminal enterprise like the mafia. Its OK to rape little kids but to grown adults cant get married?
Well, suppose a gay marriage amendment is signed by every state and soon gay marriage is in full force. Choosing between a heterosexual or homosexual union would be no different than choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream; it would be a mere matter of preference. Would that not undermine considerably the complementary nature of a man and woman? There would be nothing special about the male-female union when it is clearly set apart (this union was designed to be fertile only when a man's masculine attributes and a woman's feminine attributes were present). I would hate to see a union like this lose its unique and beautiful nature and see it on the same level as a union that lacks this special, unique quality.

Btw, before I am bashed for discrimination, what if someone desire to practice polygamy? It's not interfering with anyone's basic human rights, no one apparently cares anything about the natural order, and if the people involved really wanted it bad enough, by all means we should sanction it, by that logic.
+Pete Fenelon So as soon as Gay marriage is allowed your going to go out and try the new flavor ? This is the common argument I see between gay's and haters. Choosing to be gay, or not. I think we can all just stop pretending this is a reasonable argument.
For anyone talking about "nature" go take some nature courses. Many, many species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, so it is perfectly natural.
The original post has no logical substance. It is just an emotional appeal for action. And if you see how many irrational comments have been made on this post, you will agree that it has done its job.
+Steve Sampson There is always a hidden agenda, but railroading the conversation doesn't achieve anything except muddying the waters so those with an agenda can make a cash grab and run.
You are ignoring everything else I said and focusing on what you call a "weak point" in my argument, attacking it, and calling me a hater. I see bias here, yet you accuse everyone supporting male-female marriage of hating and bias.

With all due respect, I see you hating more than I am, but I don't bear any hard feelings against you. Pro-choicers get offended when a pro-lifer calls them "pro-abortionists", yet you are doing the same thing by referring to the sides as "gays" and "haters" versus "gays" and "heterosexuals".
+Pete Fenelon Whats funny is she is partially right. In Catholic/Christian religion, You are told that you are not to judge, but in reality this is the first thing they seem to do. Not only do they judge, but they judge and jury. This has always puzzled me. This is why I do not believe in "Organized" religion. I will take the word of the book over the word of the church.
+Pete Fenelon I thought it was the underpinning point for your entire dialectic. I'm happy to continue discourse but I won't entertain slippery slope. As for hate, yeah I have a problem swallowing the kind of mentality that demeans someone for choices that neither harm nor in many cases even affect another.
in that case, I hope you don't discriminate against polygamists or cannibals. apparently that is normal for the natural order, too....... for animals.
the pro-gay arguments I'm hearing could also be used to justify incest too
+Pete Fenelon If you're talking with me can you use the +Ian Ridgwell. it helps me pick who your conversing with. It's a very simplified scenario for a very complex scenario.

No I do not discriminant against polygamists. Why would I? That's another debate on a different topic.

I also do not discriminate against canibals, not that I have had the opportunity to (that i know off).
+Donatello spaghettio Are you promoting anarchy. It's ok if you are,m but remember in doing so you'r giving up public welfare, public transport, police security, public education, regulations of any sort. It' really not as simple as letting people do what they want as long as they don't mess with other people. People will mess with other people.
Let's see... I address all those who are supporting gay marriage, and who tell those who don't: "mind your own businesses - it doesn't affect you - human rights - marriage is not only for a man and a woman as religions define it - and all the rest..."

let's assume you are correct, and that because gay marriage "does not affect me" (I argue that, but let's assume it doesn't) we make it legal; then why on earth don't we also make it legal for people to marry animals?
there are a lot of people who do have sexual relations with animals, and they would be happy to be joined in a marrige with their "beloved ones". And it wouldn't affect us all! (or would it...?)
If in 40 years from now, gay marriage would be legal, and those who now are against it would be laughed at...
then imagine yourselves in those years (40 from now) in a situation to decide on "human-animal marriage" legalization... how would it be after 40 years from then? (80 years from now) according to your concepts...

We are witnessing moral degradation of societies... and YOU are part of it.
Take your responsibilities.
so if 85% of children of interracial unions/marriages live in poverty TODAY (i.e. 40 years later....) is that their own fault , or yours ...?
+Pete Fenelon as an only child I can't speak first hand about this, but I don't understand why incest is a problem. What consenting adults do to each other is not your problem. The Royal Families didn't seem to have a problem with it in the past.
@Donatello S. You make an interesting point but maybe not the one you intended. I don't think the same-sex marriage case has much to do with love. It's about financial benefits. If the financial benefits of marriage (many of them gov't provided) disappeared I would suspect there would be far less desire to get married even in the straight community. Marriage is mostly about committment and responsibility. It will be interesting to see what the divorce statistics on same-sex marriages will be in the years ahead.
+Paul Hickey Cancer is growth out of control, not growth constrained. There are many instances of homosexual animals (not just having sex with the same gender, but actually bonding emotionally for life), and yet homosexuality has never spread to an entire species. In fact, often homosexual parents adopt children who would otherwise be abandoned and unloved, thereby doing our society an immense favor.
+Johnny Semaan. We don't acknowledge animals as people most religions say animals don't have souls ....but times will change and it is enviable that human and animal "unions" will happen
So instead of you may now kiss the bride it will be you may now sniff the bride
y do we have to get old it gay os pardy hard now :)
Love is all that matters.

I don't oppose gay marriage, why does the government get to define marriage in the first place? I don't agree with the lifestyle but its not my life, just don't push that i have to accept it or teach our children its acceptable. You have the right to be free and I have the right to be free from you,
+Jason Daniel My friend, you are a human with a mind and a soul! You have a purpose and are capable of immensely more than a wild animal. Please don't degrade yourself and the rest of humanity like that. Yes, we're messed up (what I would call sin), but we have more worth than that.
The anti-gay protesters look stupid already. No need to wait 40 years.
There is little doubt, if we maintain our honest commitment to free speech, that we will hear all kinds of demands for freedom for all kinds of monstrous things. If we are so frightened of change that we reject all demands for individual liberty as being equally bad, then we condemn ourselves remaining slaves of every curse of our history.
comparing homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia is akin to comparing african americans to apes or monkeys. Doing so makes you look ignorant today, and that much more so 40 years from now
It has already been proven that homosexuality is a symptom of psychological disorders, but the media does not point that out anymore just because people DO NOT LISTEN, nor do they seem to understand.

So, for +Ian Ridgwell , +Jessica Morrell , and all of those who use as arguments the fact that some animals have shown homosexual behavior (hint: research again; it was all under experimental studies and/or in forced causing situations), and try to support their pro-gay-marriage stance with that fact,

well, animals DO NOT GET MARRIED. (and there's a reason for that... maybe, and I believe, it's because of the Sanctity of Marriage.)
So as you are basing your argument on animal behavior, base all your argument on all animal behavior, and you end up with the following equation:
"Gay? I'll mind my own business. But, Marriage? hey... NOT YOUR OWN BUSINESS!"
Well, I sorta took for granted that you guys had enough morals to know that cannibalism, polygamy, and incest were wrong. On the purely emotional side, it feels wrong. On the purely logical side, it's not normal or upright human behavior, etc. If we can't agree on that, well, then I'll just leave this debate as I have no place here.
I Am very board I hope you are not reading this because you just wasted a tiny bit of your lives but if you are still reading this don't stop because something unbelievable will happen these are the steps to doing it 1) go outside and yell a meracle 2) say why you would like that 3) yell your name 15 times and then post this 5 more times and it will happen but if you don't do that and your still reading this you will have bad luck after 3days you have 24hours to post it five times anywhere and like bib body boppidy Bo you will have your wish so post this 5 times hurry you are wasting time da da da da da da circus Afro circus Afro polka dot polka dot Afro hurry time waister what are you waiting for stop reading this and do ps there is no chance for the following wishes money cars houses pools talent celeberty
ALL GODS made us his/her way. Man's laws have no right to say what is right or wrong. Everyone should have the same size piece of the whole picture..
The purpose of every life form ever created is to reproduce. Perhaps the one saving grace of tolerating the insanity is that the bloodlines these people came from will end. Obama's daughters could well ensure we never go through this again if they too choose to buy into the nonsense. To end the dreams of ones ancestors who for 7002 years did what they could for us to be here is the epitome of selfishness and good riddance to them.
+Pete Fenelon Incest is something else again. Cannibalism is as far as I am aware almost wiped out due to current social scenarios not able to tolerate such practices and polygamy is under debate and has been a for a long time, likely will be for a long time as well.
The whole argument is funny because most of my friends are divorced anymore so what are they really fighting for ... making sure that heterosexuals are the only ones how have the privilege of commitment of half your worldly possessions to someone who had a greater then 50% chance of leaving you... Hum they should just make marriage illegal for everyone ... Lol 
+Johnny Semaan Please can you cite references (preferably peer-reviewed) for that assertion that homosexuality is a symptom of psychological disorders. If it has been proven I would be interested to read that research.
The legal definition of marriage - at least, in the UK - is the union of a man and a woman in wedlock.

I personally have no problem with couples of the same sex being joined in wedlock too - at the end of the day, there's no greater sign of love and respect for another person that that.

However, the legal definition of marriage does not cover same sex commitments - that's a 'civil partnership'. At least in the UK, a civil partnership has the same legal status and infers the same rights and responsibilities as the 'marriage' of a man to a woman.

I'm therefore not really sure what all the fuss is about...?
Who Care's Who You Date They Just Wanna Have That 1 Love In That Life Woman & Men Men& Men Woman & Woman So What? In The End They All Love Each Other? I Mean I'm A Woman Who Love's Men But I Don't Think That They Should Pass A Law Saying No Gay Marriage! Think About That They're Blocking Love!!!! I've Never Heard Of A Law Between Love! That's Just Wrong! Love Is Love! Same Gender Or Not You're Doing What You Love Most With The Person You Love Most And Cherishing Ever Moment Of It! Seriously Take Down This Senseless Wall Between Love! STUPID LAW!
+Chris Bier is right. It's like rebels without a cause this. You've asked for something to be redefined and the majority of people have said no. Thank goodness for logic and common sense. As for this fridge magnet poster, you could that with anything. Pick a topic, any topic, it'll be as related to the black civil rights movement as this. Beans on toast is beans on toast. A pile of toast is not beans on toast and neither is a bowl full of beans. I've not problem with either but don't try and sell me a pile of toast and tell me its beans on toast because it isn't. 
marriage is not just a legal contract- its in god's eyes as well. a marriage between two ppl that are in love with each other should be excepted regardless of age, religion, nationality, disabilities, diversities, race, and sex for that matter. marriage is a unifaction, a commitment, a long lasting love and friendship between two ppl. i am not really for same sex marriage but i am not against it either...i don't hate ppl for what they are- if they chose to- make it a law-
Get real... God never said that a black man is not a man.
Seem like you are the stupid one....
Enough, ya basta, focus on personal hygiene not who diddles who.
Scott you are right but there is sayings in the Book of Mormon (I'm guessing not a "legit" bible...I'm not Christian) that indicate Blacks are not equal in the eyes of Mormons. In the says that Noah cursed Ham and his skin turned black. Make a connection if you will. :)
I love it when these religious nut cases say being gay is a choice and not to press their beliefs on them, but then they seem to think that its ok to press their religious choice on them. Religion is a can choose to be catholic, protestant, muslim...etc.
If you are against gay marriage, think about this: When a man gets married to a woman, they need to get a license from the government. If they're members of a church, then the church might have certain requirements too. What you don't need is to check with any other church. If you're a Lutheran, only your minister has to give the OK. You don't have to ask permission from the Baptists. If you're a Baptist, you don't need the Catholics to OK your marriage. If you're a Catholic you don't need to go talk to the Muslims. The Muslims don't need permission from Hindus or Buddhists or Shinto or whatever. In this country we've got tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians that want to be married. We also have churches willing to marry them. Why should they have to get your church's permission to get married? Why does your version of Christianity get to decide? Many of the people who settled in this country did so because they did not want to be forced to follow someone else's religious rules. It's because of those people that we enshrined religious freedom in the Constitution. Don't be so quick to give those rights away, because the next time something like that comes up, your version of Christianity might not be the one that gets to make the decision.
Jeff your comment has some merits to it except for one fact you have overlooked. As a christian one is supposed to live thier faith and that includes standing up and voicing that faith on issues such as this.
+gambershaw shaw haha so true!!
I feel the need to get in this...I'm just going to state my opinion. First off...I am gay. I believe that same sex couples should be able to get married. It may say it is wrong in the Bible but where in the Constitution does it say that? Does it not say that all citizens are equal?? Why can a man and a woman get married but my lover and I can't? Oh yeah...because marriage is a religious thing. WRONG. Marriage CAN BE through the state government. I believe it is time to come out of the dark ages and let same sex couples wed. Give me one reason why IT IS BAD. It is the same exact thing as a hetero couple. The world won't end because of it, so why act like it?
Not to downplay this whole human rights thing, but children starve to death every day across the world or die from easily curable diseases at the same time expired food and medicine is disposed of. Homeless people, the unemployed, and dilapidated buildings are all over, but they can't seem to connect.

Every day some legislator, purchased cheaply, is attempting to destroy even more civil liberties.

Again, universal human rights.. yes, important. I believe that there are much more important things to discuss.

We could live in a world in which everyone and everything is free. It is possible and it is easy. We could do it tomorrow. We could start today.

It is time to open source the world.
+Paul Moody In the U.S. civil unions do not necessarily grant the same rights as a marriage. It depends upon the state, and may not be recognized at all in another state. A gay couple can get married (civil union) in DC but if they then move 10 miles away into Virginia, their union would not be recognized (they might lose their family insurance policy, right to inherit, etc.). If they moved to Maryland 10 miles away in the other direction, their union would be recognized. Makes a whole lotta sense doesn't it? That's why it needs to be legalized officially through Congress.
Dan Eveland: Don't use fallacy. If this was debate class you would have been penalized right there for using the slippery slope fallacy. I have something I want to show you.
+Neil Sato I would but unfortunatly I am only 16. I try to influence others with my opinions. Trust me, if I could I would.
Jim A
Too bad that what they are marching for has been right for 4,000 years. It is never stupid to stand up for what God clearly says. And to compare them to the white separatists is to show how stupid you are.
I honestly don't give a fuck whether you marry a man woman dog hell even marry yourself! It spent effect me why should I care and to those who try to infringe on others rights how would you like it of you were in the same situation?
+Jim A I don't know where to begin. You say that "your God" says that Marrige is man and woman..."HE" also says that all are equal in his eyes right? Sounds to me your "God" is a little mixed up...Why is same sex marrige wrong? You have nothing to back it up except personal hatred.
I find it interesting that the same people (gay rights activists) who promote "tolerance" and "logic" and "gay people are just like us," are the same people who use arguments like "Straight people are saying we should live like animals with just a male and a female" and somehow make that sound like it's wrong. Male + Female = Obvious Natural Order of Life even by their own definition and example. Gays are promoting a lifestyle that is unhealthy (AIDS and STDs anyone?) and one that creates no offspring. Ever wonder why a man's body doesn't fit with another man's? or A woman's body with another woman's? Seriously stop acting like you're so smart and realize that homosexuality isn't "natural," it is SIN, it is a cultural abomination, it is harmful, and is degrading.
I can't believe people are comparing two consenting adults wanting to express their love for each other with an adult abusing a child, what the hell is wrong with you? If you want something to fight that is destroying marriage, stop all the people blindly marrying and not fighting for it by divorcing after a year, not the people willing to fight through all this hate just to have the right to marry. If anything gay marriage will set an example, at least for a short time that we should not treat marriage like a joke and treat it like it was meant to be treated, a life long union between two loving adults.
i think gay man should marry gay women. they understand each others problem, they should not be discriminated
Seems ok here in the UK. Don't see what massive negative thing it can do over the pond.
The day when a man and another man, or a woman and another woman can lay together and produce offspring naturally without any 3rd party assistance, then I'll concede to same sex marriage. Text me when that happens, ok?
The U.S. Constitution does not give the government any authority to tell us we have or don't have the right to do anything. It's purpose is to protect the rights given to us by our Creator. The Bill of Rights delineates the rights historically most often targeted by out of control governments. Our rights come from God just as the Constitution says, and God says............. Careful here, the bible is what God says, religion is what man says God says. You were all born with Gods law written on your heart, aka conscience and we all know right from wrong even if a government acting outside its authority says otherwise.
+Jon Carnes You are an...ugh I don't even want to waste my time writing a post to a degenerate like you. You must be real smart yourself sir... Straight people can't get AIDS huh? Say your wife (assuming you have one) gets diagnosed with HIV/AIDS tomorrow. She must have gotten it from another woman huh? Because straight people ARE IMMUNE TO AIDS RIGHT?! WRONG! Pardon my language but hop off your fucking high horse and see that you "Almighty God" should not have an influence on our nations laws. We respect religious acceptance and so should you as a citizen.

So me, a 16 year old male, is promoting a unhealthy lifestyle? I think not. They make these wonderful things called CONDOMS! Yeah Mr.God they are for us "abominations" too. They protect us from our "unhealthy lifestyle" that apparentlly you don't life becuase you like women and not men.

Hope off your high horse. You are NO BETTER than me. You are NO BETTER than ANYONE gay or straight. As far as I am concerned, you are just a degenerate loser that refuses to change with the times.
I dont see a difference between people who attack gay marriage and the people who attack religion.
I don't know why those of you who use language even bother trying to convince anyone of anything. If you're confident that you're right, you should be totally secure in your position and not explode over someone else's belief. You are losing your credibility by exposing your belief that when you can't prove someone wrong, you just cuss them out until they agree. Right?
I don't know what's worse, America's religious fundamentalism or America's insane government... What ever happened to showing respect and dignity for your fellow human beings?...
I say legalize incest while we're at it...
wow! some comments are insane... the two before me i.e.
+Zach Hazel I am amazed the way someone like you is highly offended by being called "degenerate" yet you can throw around the term like the word "the" at anybody else and think you're profound. Btw, I am a 16-year-old male who dares to hold an opinion other than the government/liberal-controlled schools tell me. Our American school system was invented by the PRUSSIANS, and was promoted by the Prussian kind, who came over here to do it. (ever heard of "King of Prussia?") And it was the Prussian leaders quoted as saying of their education system "If our people could think, we would have no soldiers to fight our wars." The SCHOOL system is the one indoctrinating (yes, indoctrinating) BEHIND PARENTS' BACKS (a well-documented fact) 3-year olds that it's fine to have "Two daddies," or "two mommies."

And so what if heterosexuals can get AIDS. Where did AIDS start? And where is it most prevalent? Among GAY people. I am also floored that the same people who promote liberal causes like PETA and animal-rights groups and who say we as people are NO BETTER than stupid animals can say that we somehow have something better because a man can be stupid enough to sleep with another man.

And seriously, shut up and act your age. You show off your ignorance and disrespect for anyone and everyone when you curse someone out. Cursing is a perfect display of an unimaginative and uncreative mind regurgitating onto someone else because you really have nothing to say much less anything to back it up with.
However, one thing needs to be said. Despite that gay marriage is wrong, we can't discriminate against gays, because as people, they have a dignity that surpasses anything in this world, they have the same rights as everyone, and they are dealing with a large amount of bigotry and hate directed against them. It's not easy to continually be the target of everyone else, and all people are called to be loved. If I showed bigotry against another human person, no matter what faults he has (and everyone has faults), I would be obligated to change myself and I would have no place correcting his faults until then.

As Jesus says, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
I have my great great great grandparents (that's three) marriage record. As far as I can tell they weren't married in a church. They were married by a Justice of the Peace. That tells me that it is more of State function; now I accept that it may well have been a spiritual event for them but the law saw it as a legal event rather than religious.
LEGALIZE INCEST!!! The same sex thing is a done deal!!!!
yaaaa...the top picture is SO interchangeable. Stop trying to make your point with sensationalism. Emotional lashing out is just another form of bullying.
Ok, based on the comments here we need to add some laws to the books -

1. A man and woman cannot marry if one of them is infertile.
2. Divorce needs to be outlawed
3. Children in single parent homes need to be taken away immediately
4. Anyone quoting Leviticus must immediately kill their children and beat their wives. Then on Sunday they need to go out and kill everyone that is working. Once they have finished that, the will need to find another righteous person and kill each other for touching a pig or eating shrimp.

Not really a law per se, but someone should also inform Mother Nature that all of the animals that exhibit (and there are lots of them all over the food chain) homosexual behavior are doing it wrong.
There is no homosexual marriage because the pluming doesn't work that way.
Im sick of that same stupid controversy over gays getting married. They are people too image how you would feel if you werent allowed to marry your girlfriend or boyfriend
Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman
That is detestable
I'll accept the "they can't have kids" argument once the defenders of so called traditional marriage get infertile marriages banned. If you won't fight to stop both you are a hypocrite. 
+Kyle Zeman lol
I lo e everybody man I think it is a great thing that the president said that dude its about time know gay men and women have no civil rights Harvey Milk tried no one else dares to try again.
What we need to do is stop the damn breeders from having litters. White trash are the worst of the breeders lol.. anybody ever see the movie Idiocracy the beginning is so true
+Grant Lewis And what about a man and a woman who choose to marry and not have children? Should children be a requirement for marraige? Children aren't necessary for one to love another. Oh, and what about a person who is incapable of having kids? Should it be illegal for them to marry because children aren't "naturally" possible for them?
+Chris Bier But same sex couples aren't given the same rights as others legally in this country. There are many definite legal advantages of being married. To say they aren't discriminated against is to ignore the truth. Equality for consenting adults should be our goal. Who are you you to say that they aren't committed to one another, love each other as you would love your wife, and deserve the same advantages that a man and a woman has within our legal system. Are they not equal to you?
Bill M.
seeing this sort of thing in a historical perspective sends a powerful message
Banning gay marriage is like banning soy milk. Some people are naturally gay and some people are naturally lactose-intolerant. And neither is a problem unless you subscribe to a biased perspective of what's "natural." And just because you don't like soy milk or don't want to marry someone of the same sex doesn't mean that you have the right to tell others that they are not allowed the same choice and shouldn't expect the same legal protections. If your only argument is that your interpretation of god is opposed to it, you've just proven why your argument supports an unconstitutional position.
You really haven't seen true racism have you? You've got no idea. There is no comparison here. You can have your cause and that is just fine but this kind of ridiculous statement has no place in the discussion and only lessens you. You might as well have started tossing around "nazi" and "hitler" nonsense.
Great....nothing like blasting the truth into the face of the irrogant
I wonder how many people today would be getting married if it wasn't for financial reasons. I'm referring to insurance, tax breaks, etc..
I have read a lot of these posts. Can someone explain to me WHY gay marriage is wrong ? It is not like someone is forcing a straight person to have gay sex. I personally see nothing wrong with it. I am just curious as to the other side. Oh, please do not say "because GOD said so". Unless he has told you directly, I don't wish to hear it.
This is still a ridiculous arguement. The opposing sidesays things like: it is an abomnation in the eyes of the lord, it paves the way for incest/beastiality/pedophilia, gays can't reproduce so they have no reason to marry, they are erroding the foundations of society/morality/faith and a slew of other things that I won't bother refuting.

1) This isn't a religious matter. Gay couples are seeking the same legal rights and protections that are offered to straights. Why shouldn't they have them? If your religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin, then gays are going to be sinners. How ever if your doctrine says to love your neighbor and treat them with love and kindness, then maybe you should re-evaluate how you treat and speak to others that think differently than you do.

2) The argument that other lifestyles will be embraced is a straw man arguement at best. The union of a gay couple is between two consenting adults. Only people that are legally able to enter into a binding contract can or will be impacted by this. Incest is still illegal, as is polygamy, and beastiality or pedophilia cannot not be legitimized in any form by this idea as children and animals cannot be party to a legally binding marriage contract.

3) Reproduction, while a biological imperitive, has never been a requirement for marriage or love, so to place any weight on that arguement is simple ignorance.

4) The erosion of society has been going on for as long as there is a society to errode. Ending slavery was going to destroy America, alcohol was the root of all evils that led to prohibition, the moving pictures were a gateway to view witchcraft and hell, pornography is an absolutely vile evil that debases people and drives them to a life of crime, comic books were showing children horrors and acts of evil, Dungeons and Dragons taught kids how to cast spells to summon demons and so on. Our society has been facing down these "corrupting elements" for as long as there were people willing to take an extremist stance on anything.

So tell me, why does it matter to you who can and can't get married? Are you worried that if gays are given the rights to marry, you'll jump ship and start batting for the other team? Are you thinking that you'll wake up from a drunken bender in Vegas to find out you've married some random Chipendales dancer? For a purely secular issue, give me a single good reason why gays can't marry. Don't spout religious rhetoric or bigotry to back your point, just give me a solid bit of information that backs your arguement.
+Dan Eveland, how would the legalisation of gay marriage harm you? Would it stop you from marrying a woman? Stop you from having children?

We redefine words and concepts all the time. It's progress if it benefits people, but it's a backward step if we stand in the way of progress. Don't be the guy who goes to the grave resenting someone for their choice. Live your own life and let others live theirs in what ever way they choose.

And for the record, people don't marry their mothers because the offspring from that relationship would be at risk of developing a genetic disorder. In cases like that, people are being harmed. But nobody is being harmed by gay marriage.
The definition of marriage was not ccreated by Christians. Civil unions were held long before an still are in many cultures.

Traditional Christian marriage can include several wives...there is no standard.
Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Leviticus 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people

Guess we better kill everyone that cuts their hair, shaves, or gossips while we are at it.

By the way, try not to make yourself look like an idiot by comparing any legal union to bestiality or pedophilia. Neither animal nor child can legally consent to sex or any sort of legal contract making your point not only moot, but ridiculous and demeaning.
Before king Henry 8 there was no divorce... he changed traditional marriage to include that.
+chris currence All I am saying is that it's not society who determines this, it is nature. People may be against mixed race marriages, but a mixed couple can produce children. The approval you seek does not come from man, but from nature. If you can't reproduce, then that's a thumbs down. In the case of a man-woman marriage where one is infertile, that's too bad, but it's the exception - not the rule. Nature decrees that offspring are produced by a male and a female of the species. You can have all of the certificates and ceremonies you want, it's not going to change that basic truth.
+Grant Lewis marriage has nothing to do with having children. Marriage has everything to do with property rights, perserving wealth, and inheritance. Marriage predates women's and children's rights by several millennia, they were just considered property until recently. You are changing the definition of marriage by including procreation as part of it.

Not only that, but as multiple people have mentioned repeatedly, homosexual behavior is found all over nature in animals throughout the food chain.

Marriage as you are defining it is a religious construct that is governed by your God. My God and church believe differently than yours, so why should I be subjected to your beliefs. Unless you plan to subject yourself to mine, keep your beliefs to yourself and out of the government.
+Grant Lewis How is that related to same sex marriage ? I live in a country where voting is compulsory so I can't speak for experience there bur to be honest, I might consider that an entirely reasonable position in an entirely differant discussion.
+Brent Friar This is absurd. Property rights!? Lol! I can buy property with and leave it to anyone I please! (it doesn't even have to be human!) No one is seeking to change the definition of marriage except gays. That's all this is about, redefining an age old word that has always had a single meaning.

And I always have to laugh at the "its natural, animals do it" bit. First we are looking for progress not regression to rare animal tendencies. Second, animals kill each other for a mate, for territory, or just because.. Hell, dolphins take hostages and kidnap other dolphins! These animal tendencies are all far more "natural" and prevalent than homosexuality. Why aren't you arguing for the legalization or re-definition of these things?
+Brent Friar Who mentioned God? You brought God into this, not me. I said nature, the rule of nature is what dictates that in order to procreate then a couple must be a male and female. If you choose to make that a religious thing, that's your hangup, not mine. I'm not religious, just a realist. It has nothing to do with religion, since the institution of a couple exclusively pairing off predates any religion. Even in the natural kingdom you see examples of male-female couples pairing for life to ensure the safety and security of themselves and their offspring. Where in nature do you see same-sex couples doing that?

As far as legal justification, it's already there. Most states will recognize Civil Unions. In some states, there doesn't even have to be a ceremony, just the mutual declaration by both parties that they are an exclusive couple. Most insurance companies will recognize even a "domestic partner" now. Why the legislation for marriage instead of just getting all states to fully recognize Civil Unions?

You speak about subjecting someone to another's belief's, but isn't that exactly what you would be doing by pushing same-sex marriage on the population? I could care less what two consenting adults do in private, but now you want to force me to accept your beliefs? Perfect example of hypocrisy on your part.
+Grant Lewis The argument of nature is getting old. Humans have detached themselves from nature. No animals, other than humans, that we know of, believe and worship gods, work and have established currency, and get married and divorced. We can't apply the argument of nature to defend something that is clearly not natural.
No one is pushing beliefs on anyone else here. No one is going to make you marry someone of the same sex. It's about letting one type of person have the same recognized and affirmed rights as another type of person. At what point is discrimination acceptable?
+Devin Christensen yes property right. Marriage confers certain rights automatically without any additional legal contract. It has far reaching legal implications. If you and your partner are not married and you don't have a will in place, it will take a ton of time and effort to simply retain the possessions you have accumulated. For a married couple there is no such issue. Also, I am not the one that brought up the animals do it. It's the people who claim that homosexuality is against nature. It s prevalent in nature in both intelligent and not so intelligent animals. To claim that it is a choice when it happens in nature and when gays tell you it is not a choice and heterosexuals claim that they were born heterosexual makes it an asinine argument. My point is that by definition it is natural because it occurs all over nature.

+Grant Lewis fine, take God out of it. I am an agnostic anyway. The point stands that marriage is not only about procreation, specifically it was originally about property rights, wealth and inheritance. If marriage was about procreation and protecting the children then infertile couples or those that choose not to have children would have no reason to marry and should not be allowed to do so. They do however get married to enjoy the additional legal protections that marriage afford them. Otherwise, why would they get married?

You are dead wrong about civil unions as well. Not only do they not confer the same rights as marriage, but same sex civil unions are banned in over half the country. NC, the state I live in just added a constitutional amendment banning ALL civil unions and recognizing only marriage. That is basically the separate but equal argument that a much smarter SCOTUS than the one we have now struck down.

Last, I am not pushing gay marriage on anyone. Allowing gays to marry does not infringe on your rights in any way. You are not forced to marry another man nor would anyone else be. No church would be forced to marry same sex couples. There would be absolutely no change in anyone else's marriage. The sky did not fall in California or Massachusetts and they allow gay marriage as we speak. No one in either state has had their non-gay marriage invalidated, forfeited, or taken away because they are gays getting married in droves on those states.
+Brent Friar +Andrew Dieffenbach I was responding to Brent's comment that I would be "subjecting" you to my beliefs, when in actuality it would be the other way around completely if this were to be made into Federal Law. There is really no valid argument for the federal legalization of same-sex marriage. As you say, keep your beliefs out of the government!

There are many states that will honor same-sex marriage, and have done so for years. Get thee hence to VT, NY, CT, ME, NH, NJ, IA, WA, DC, or even CA or NV. That's more states than recognized inter-racial male-female unions less than 50 years ago.

Devin makes a valid point above, preservation of wealth? Specious argument, you can leave your wealth to whomever you so choose in a valid will. Opening a joint account doesn't require a marriage license. Any number of totally non-related persons can be on a deed. You can name anyone you want as your benefactor for insurance purposes.

In fact, the only argument that persons have for wanting federal legislation for same-sex marriage is just to force other people to recognize and accept the fact that they are a homosexual couple. Ok, whatever, if that's the case, then just come out and SAY it instead of making all of these strawmen and red herrings.

However, the point still remains that, whether it becomes law or not, it will never be recognized by natural law, and that is the law that rules us all. Take that as you may, I didn't make it up.
I don't think someone is stupid for standing for traditional marriage. marriage and family is the basic foundation of civilization. If you undermine this, humankind as a civilization is going to be in big trouble, and then we will see who will look stupid.
+Steve Sampson I'm having just a tad bit of a problem determing if you are being witty or serious. Infringing rights and taxes are not the same. The way you put it, perhaps the best thing to do is to eliminate marriage altogether.
+Oliver Nina It would make sense to try and strengthen the family unit. But so many other policies and practices set a poor precedent. Military families are separated especially during war time--for long term if not permanently. Higher cost of living puts both parents at work for longer periods of time--job scarcity and competion lead people to look and find work farther from home. Finding yet another reason to prevent two people from having a family does not make anything better.
+Brent Friar Just FYI, the law just passed in NC does NOT ban civil unions, it only defines marriage. Any other contractual agreement is outside of that amendment, unless I am misunderstanding the wording.
+Devin Christensen, it actually does ban civil unions. It says that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” So any form of domestic union is also invalid in North Carolina.
+Brent Friar you forgot about people with tattoos, or anyone who has ever written a note on their hand
If you'll let me summarise the 'religious argument' that seems to have be prevalent on here:

1. All authority comes from God
2. The Bible is the word of God
3. The Bible forbids gay marriage

C: Gay marriage must be forbidden by law.

If I have misinterpreted that, please feel free to correct me, but this is the way I have interpreted it. This argument is unsound (and probably invalid without adding another premise: 4. The law is derived from the authority of God)

It is unsound because I reject premise 2 and 3 (and also premise 4 if we are allowing that one). I would allow premise 1 purely because no one on here is going to convince anyone else to abandon their beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God. Premise 2: the Bible is written by humans, and has been translated many hundreds of times. I therefore reject that it is anything more than a passing resemblance to the word of God.

Premise 2: To the best of my knowledge (feel free to correct me), the Bible does not actually ban gay marriage. Additionally as has been commented above, there are sections of the bible which conflict.

Premise 4: There are many many sections of the law which have nothing to do with God. Fraud laws are one example, copyright law, I'm sure a good lawyer could name several thousand.

Please feel free to critique my reasoning or correct me on any mistakes.
+Daniel Börresen yes, it has. Homosexuality has been embraced in previous cultures, however it has never been considered marriage. If you think I am wrong, prove it.
+Jon Carnes Yes I blew up on you. Look at any of m other posts...I DON'T BLOW UP ON PEOPLE. It is just peolpe like you bother me. Why shouldn't I be allowed the same liberties as you? Just because of one minor diference. Calling ME ignorant?? AIDS started in AFRICA. Want to condemn black people too? Oh yeah, I am soooo ignorant.
+Zach Hazel You have the same liberties (you can marry a woman) you are not being deprived of anything by force, but rather by your own choices.
Marriage is nothing more than a contract between consenting individuals. Nobody seems to care that corporations (recognized as people by our Supreme Court) merge (marry) and divest (divorce). I don't see a problem with people being able to choose to enter into a contract. I also don't see a problem with multiple people entering into contracts. Neither same-sex marriage, nor bigamy, has any mention in the Constitution.

Being an American, I am concerned that we can't let the states decide this issue. I don't see how it's a federal matter. In fact, unless you want to amend the Constitution, there is nothing there at all, expect the 10th amendment, which relegates the authority over the topic to "the states and the people." Why can't there be a state that allows it, and another that doesn't? Where's the harm in that? I can go live in the state I choose to live in, and neither of us need to fight about it.
To Dan Eveland, based on what i just said, then marring ur cousin should be on that list. Wait there is several states were u can marry ur first cousin and have inbreeding, but allowing two gay people in love doing so is a horrible thing??
+Preston von Helf actually its the exact concept. Both tried to push their religous ideals and personal believes into everyone lives without a thought they live in a free nation
um.... wow... I step out for a weekend, and come back to find.... this.... wow....
It appears that the image was provocative at least... good for me.
That being said, can we push to legalize incest now?
+Jessica Morrell whether or not there are homosexual animals freely living in the wild or not is a stupid point. As I stated previously, there are animals that kill each other for territory, a mate, or just because. There are animals that take hostages and kidnap. Just because animals do it doesn't make it desirable.

No one is preventing two people who love each other from committing to one another. The gay marriage argument is absurd. Its not a civil rights issue, as no rights that are available to others arent available to homosexuals. It is not about inheritance, visitation, or the like because all of those things can be given through either a will, or a power of attorney. So its about a tax break or ss.

SS is a non issue since it will likely be bankrupt by the time most of the upcoming generations hit that point.

So all of this fuss over a tax break? I dont receive many different tax breaks due to my desires and decisions being contrary to what the people think deserves credit. I'm not discriminated against because i am drawn to gas guzzling trucks, and as such dont receive a tax break for buying an electric car. I chose to exercise my agency, to give in to my desires for a big truck rather than go with the car that society wants me to pick.

Homosexual rights are a non issue.
"You're mistakenly applying that point to a separate argument"

Where am I mistaken?

" it's not appropriate to tell other people what they should or should not do in their own relationships"

Correct. People can do whatever they please in their own relationships. However, when they try to compare apples to oranges and push for the public change of a word that has had one meaning throughout time, that's a different story.

There are three aspects of marriage, Religious, Social, and Legal. Religious and social, none of my business. Legal, that's everyone's business. We as a society decide what is legal and what is not, so this is an issue that is everyone's business.

"...think about the "rights" that you want so dearly to "protect" - why do they matter?"

This is a false argument, as there are no rights associated with marriage that are denied to others outside of a tax break and SS. Both of these are trivial at best, and definitely not worth blurring the lines between apples and oranges.

"Lastly, when you say that homosexuals enjoy the same rights as everyone else, that is ridiculous - they do not share the right to MARRY the person whom they wish to commit to."

Wrong again. One can go out and do a ceremony and commit to any other they please. No one can deny them that commitment, nor can they change their friends and families view on the commitment they have made (An outsider, not approving of the relationship does not make it any less valid between the two people nor does it make it less valid in the eyes of friends and family). The only thing that they cannot do is file taxes jointly in some states. Just because a commitment isn't legally recognized doesn't change the commitment.

There is a criteria everyone must fit to have their commitment legally recognized. They must marry a member of the opposite sex (A straight person cannot marry a member of the same sex and have it legally recognized, the law is not skewed). The only advantage of a legal marriage is a tax break, as all other advantages (that I am aware of) can be gotten through a will or a PoA. So this is an argument over the criteria required to receive a tax break.

So, from a government point of view, is a homosexual commitment an endeavor that will contribute greatly enough to society to allow for a tax break? My answer is no. Is the potential there for creation of more tax paying citizens? No. Is this union the ideal situation for child rearing? No. That's not to say that homosexual couples cannot be good at raising children. However, just as a single mother or father is not the ideal child rearing situation, nor is a homosexual household. Not because they are homosexual, but rather, because they are missing a mother or a father from the household. Whether they'll admit it or not, all other things equal, it is best for a child to have a mother and a father. The only upside to legalizing homosexual marriage is to increase revenue on marriage certificates and to make someone feel good. Laws should not be based on either revenue nor should they be based upon making people feel good.
Hahahaha. Nice one +Devin Christensen. First you say:
"is a homosexual commitment an endeavor that will contribute greatly enough to society to allow for a tax break"


"Is the potential there for creation of more tax paying citizens"

Then you go on to say:

"Laws should not be based on either revenue nor should they be based upon making people feel good."
+Brent Friar wow, a true liberal trained seal! Great job mincing words to make it sound like I contradicted myself.

In context, the first one you quote: since there is no advantage of marriage that can't be obtained through a will or PoA other than a tax break (not revenue creation, rather a reward for behavior that gov/people deem worthy of reward) , that is how we have to view the legal aspect of marriage so...

Second, in context that was only one of two qualifiers I listed (I am sure there are many more, but these are the biggest), meaning that there are other desirable things that come from heterosexual marriage to leave the definition intact, and hence the law is not BASED on revenue.

Lastly, I should have realized I was talking to libs who seem to have reading comprehension problems. As such I should have added the word "solely" before "based". This last one, in context, was a clarifying statement that tied everything, previously said, together. As there is no other gain for homosexual unions outside of a tax break for the couple and a boost in marriage certificate revenues for government. 
Non sono contro i matrimoni gay per principio. Ma la natura (non Dio) rende le coppie omosessuali INERENTEMENTE sterili.
Per cui sono contrario a che possano avere bambini orfani in affido.
Questi, già hanno subito l'abbandono dei genitori naturali. Avranno diritto o no ad avere un padre e una madre ?
Se hanno dei figli loro la questione ovviamente cambia, ma nessuno mi farà mai credere che un bambino figlio di una coppia homo cresca più felice di uno che ha entrambi i genitori.
Quando si ragionava del divorzio nessuno poi pensava ai figli dei divorziati. Chiedetelo a loro figli dei genitori divorziati, chiedete loro se si sentono o no più felici o piuttosto non invidiano le quelli che hanno una famiglia unita. Lo so per esperienza mia personale come ci si sente.
Add a comment...