For those against gay marriage...

ForceofNature101

What is your reasoning for being against it? Every single person's reason that I have spoken to purely base it on their own religious beliefs of what is right and wrong in terms of mariage.

AELARA

Religion and especially Christianity is responsible for discrimination against homosexuals. At least this is my opinion.. I think gay pairs should be free to live the life of their choice and unite their lives in the way they choose..

hedave

I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against the people who oppose the voters that voted against gay marriage (specifically California). It's just as constitutional to vote against a proposition as it is to vote for it. Such a facet of humanity isn't the same as a sign a store owner posted sending "blacks" to another bathroom. The people voted. It's also just as democratic to challenge the vote as unconstitutional, taking it to the appellate and Supreme Court. When the smoke clears, I can't tolerate the posturing and the name calling by the conquered. If someone's vote is motivated religiously, so what. If a specific component of citizenry puts into question the perception and partnership of marriage, why can't another group oppose such a question? For some people, freedom is supposed to be one-sided...at least for them.

Godfather.

it musta took awhile to think up this topic.......TRAIN WRECK AHEAD !!!!!!!!



Godfather.

ForceofNature101

ha yeah im sure i will regret asking it once more replies start coming in

BinauralJam

Cant get married? they don't know how good they have it.

haffajappa

I agree with the religion thing.
Ask people who oppose it and they say some sort of religious excuse that marriage is between a man and a women in the eyes of God.

Why not let them get married, and if God has a problem with it, let him come down and deal with it ...though you may be waiting a while.

I usually ask, in what way does it physically harm you, or disrupt your life, that you don't want two people of the same sex to get married?
They usually can't answer that...

polaris_x

hedave wrote:

I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against the people who oppose the voters that voted against gay marriage (specifically California). It's just as constitutional to vote against a proposition as it is to vote for it. Such a facet of humanity isn't the same as a sign a store owner posted sending "blacks" to another bathroom. The people voted. It's also just as democratic to challenge the vote as unconstitutional, taking it to the appellate and Supreme Court. When the smoke clears, I can't tolerate the posturing and the name calling by the conquered. If someone's vote is motivated religiously, so what. If a specific component of citizenry puts into question the perception and partnership of marriage, why can't another group oppose such a question? For some people, freedom is supposed to be one-sided...at least for them.

i see your point but just because a vote is democratically won doesn't make it right ... in canada gay marriage is allowed simply because of our charter of human rights ... and this is indeed a human rights issue ... if there was a vote to deny any minority group privileges that are afforded others - it's an issue of equality, justice and fairness ... the people you are opposed to in this case are fighting for equal rights similar to those that fought for the blacks and women not so long ago ...

pjfan021

hedave wrote:

I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against the people who oppose the voters that voted against gay marriage (specifically California). It's just as constitutional to vote against a proposition as it is to vote for it. Such a facet of humanity isn't the same as a sign a store owner posted sending "blacks" to another bathroom. The people voted. It's also just as democratic to challenge the vote as unconstitutional, taking it to the appellate and Supreme Court. When the smoke clears, I can't tolerate the posturing and the name calling by the conquered. If someone's vote is motivated religiously, so what. If a specific component of citizenry puts into question the perception and partnership of marriage, why can't another group oppose such a question? For some people, freedom is supposed to be one-sided...at least for them.

well see....there's supposed to be seperation of church and state..so when you have people voting on something purely based on religious reasons it kinda goes against the whole "they have a constitutional right to vote against it" not to mention voting against their right to get married also goes against the "all men are created equal" portion of what we believe in.

Godfather.

haffajappa wrote:

I agree with the religion thing.
Ask people who oppose it and they say some sort of religious excuse that marriage is between a man and a women in the eyes of God.

Why not let them get married, and if God has a problem with it, let him come down and deal with it ...though you may be waiting a while.

I usually ask, in what way does it physically harm you, or disrupt your life, that you don't want two people of the same sex to get married?
They usually can't answer that...

I not real informed on roman history but I think you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction. as I say not real sure but worth a look.

Godfather.

dasvidana

KO282453 wrote:

Cant get married? they don't know how good they have it.

OnTheEdge

Well, i'm not very religious so I guess i'm just prejudice.

gimmesometruth27

i just do not think it is right to keep an entire section of the population from enjoying the same freedoms as those of us that are heterosexual. i say let them get married. many of those people are in committed relationships that last a lifetime and when the partner dies they have no legal right to make decisions and can not have next of kin status. i think that is wrong also.

haffajappa

Godfather. wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

I agree with the religion thing.
Ask people who oppose it and they say some sort of religious excuse that marriage is between a man and a women in the eyes of God.

Why not let them get married, and if God has a problem with it, let him come down and deal with it ...though you may be waiting a while.

I usually ask, in what way does it physically harm you, or disrupt your life, that you don't want two people of the same sex to get married?
They usually can't answer that...

I not real informed on roman history but I think you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction. as I say not real sure but worth a look.

Godfather.

gay marriages were the fall of the roman empire? :shock:

Drew263

I'm a southern, christian, conservative, white male from Alabama.

I do not care one bit if gays can marry. If they want to marry, let them. It does not affect my life whatsoever. I have gay couples as neighbors, my parents do as well and are good friends with them(they throw a great neighborhood Halloween party every year ).

Who is it hurting?

he still stands

Drew263 wrote:

Who is it hurting?

The xenophobic.

unsung

Is the search function not working?

Godfather.

haffajappa wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

I agree with the religion thing.
Ask people who oppose it and they say some sort of religious excuse that marriage is between a man and a women in the eyes of God.

Why not let them get married, and if God has a problem with it, let him come down and deal with it ...though you may be waiting a while.

I usually ask, in what way does it physically harm you, or disrupt your life, that you don't want two people of the same sex to get married?
They usually can't answer that...

I not real informed on roman history but I think you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction. as I say not real sure but worth a look.

Godfather.

gay marriages were the fall of the roman empire? :shock:

good grief.......re-read my post, :roll:

Godfather.

he still stands

Godfather. wrote:

good grief.......re-read my post, :roll:

Godfather.

I did... it clearly implies that you think gay marriage was the fall of the Roman Empire. This is a thread about gay marriage... the context of the discussion was gay marriage... then you say "you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction" which is incredibly ambiguous, but in this context it means that acts of homosexuality caused the fall of the Roman Empire. If that isn't what you meant, you should use the english language to clear things up rather than smugly saying that isn't what you meant.

know1

I have mixed views on marriage - homosexual or otherwise.

My biggest thought is the government should stop sanctioning marriage altogether. Let that be a private thing/contract/agreement between individuals that has nothing to do with the government.

I also do not think that marriage is a "right". I believe it's a privilege.

I have not seen a compelling argument from either side either pro or against gay marriage.

haffajappa

he still stands wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

good grief.......re-read my post, :roll:

Godfather.

I did... it clearly implies that you think gay marriage was the fall of the Roman Empire. This is a thread about gay marriage... the context of the discussion was gay marriage... then you say "you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction" which is incredibly ambiguous, but in this context it means that acts of homosexuality caused the fall of the Roman Empire. If that isn't what you meant, you should use the english language to clear things up rather than smugly saying that isn't what you meant.

whew i thought i was going crazy there for a moment... i re-read it three times and couldn't figure out where the part was where he put it all in context