Friday, August 06, 2010
Opinions abound on Prop 8 ruling

Same-sex marriage has always been a hot topic for iReporters, so we weren't surprised when your opinions flooded in after a district court judge declared California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The measure banned gay marriage in the state and will now likely head to the Supreme Court for review. And as usual, the iReport community didn't pull any punches when it comes to sounding off on this controversial topic. Here's a sampling of what you're saying:

 

Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and I'm thrilled

 

"Why is this even a question? Prop 8 is completely unconstitutional because [the Constitution] clearly says that we are all equal. ... Come on America! It isn't taking away your rights and it is not hurting you.  The only one you are fooling is yourself." -- jaredbmapes

 

"At one point most Americans thought women shouldn't have any proprietary rights. Were they correct? Before that most Americans thought we should not interfere with the South's right to own slaves. Then most Americans thought Jim Crow laws were OK. In all instances, most Americans were wrong and the government stepped in and ruled via the Constitution. Thankfully. And hopefully they will do so again and rule against any laws banning gay marriage." -- LorifromMass

 

"The real issue is [that] most people don't think being gay is normal so they make broad assumptions and say it's not supported by religion or other nonsense when, in fact, a union between any two people is their decision alone and not the decision of religion or law." -- sbeasla

 

"This proposition should have never been on the table for voting on in the first place, as it clearly discriminates [against] a certain group of people. ...There was a time not so long ago when it was taboo for a black and a white to be seen together, lest they be killed for this horrible 'crime.'  We have come a long way since then and now realize that people are people and that love knows no color. Why is it so hard to also accept that love knows no gender either?" -- hottmama

 

Prop 8 should not have been overturned

 

"The overturn of Prop 8 in California was a slap in the face. What is the use of voting when one person can come in with their personal opinion and tell me my vote is wrong? Why vote if it means nothing?" -- TanGriffin

 

"How can a judge strike down something that has been voted on by the people of California? This is how our country works: We vote, the votes are counted and the votes stand. I personally think that it isn't the government's job to say who can marry and who can't, but if the people of California have voted against gay marriage, then that should be that, case closed. If a judge can just overturn a vote then why do we vote at all?" -- Dman361974

 

"The liberals say we voted for President Obama, but denounce the vote for Prop 8. It boils down to wanting to get their way in this world and not accepting the majority vote which they defend for their own causes." -- deadeggs

 

And another thing...

 

"[Prop 8] was a real blow to the economy of San Francisco and other cities in California because of the large number of people coming into the state to have their marriages preformed.  From working in a service industry at a business near city hall, I saw business skyrocket due to same sex marriages.  Proposition 8 not only took away the rights of thousands of California voters, it also took millions of dollars out of the pockets of local businesses and city coffers." -- Pelion

 

"I don't really have an opinion on [Prop 8], but I'm glad it was ruled unconstitutional because it made a lot of people happy. Lifting the ban on same-sex marriage is also going to bring money into [California], which is a good thing, because this state is really broke." -- dinalee

 

Have a different opinion? Sound off on Prop 8.

227 Comments
August 6, 2010
Click to view Sitm22's profile

I really don't see why all the upheave over letting people of the same gender unite in matrimony (can we now say patrimony? :-) ).  Why not let gay people be involved in marriage, which isn't even sacred in general.  When 50% of marriages end in divorce, why not let gay people participate in being unhappy as well, or damn, they might even bring back some of the piety back into the institution.

 

 

August 6, 2010
Click to view NMEofthehate's profile

First

August 6, 2010
Click to view notFauxNews's profile

Gay lifestyle is a perversion. Two or however many consenting adults can do whatever they want (this IS freedom), but leave the marriage and children out of this sickness, please.

August 6, 2010
Click to view phillco24's profile

notfauxnews....The only perversion is you biased, discriminatory, and prejudiced views.  Stop pushing your values onto me.  If you don't like gay marriage then you don't marry a gay person.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Sitm22's profile

@notFauxNews

I don't consent on how people bring children into the subject or use it as an excuse.  Having two parents of the same gender, what problems does this really bring to fruition.  The most frequent argument I heard was that they get picked on in school.  Have you been to school lately? what do people not get picked on for?  clothes, intelligence, race, class status?  It might be only one more mound to get over on that mountain of problems kids encounter throughout their life.

Gay lifestyle is not a perversion.  Please take your homophobic views elsewhere.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Daremonai's profile

While I know it would never make it to court... from a strict constitutional perspective, government regulation of marriage at ALL is unconstitutional.   But breaking the constitution generally gets votes, so over the years the government has mucked more and more in the institution...

August 6, 2010
Click to view verifynfield's profile

hey "notFauxNews" - what part of the South are you from? To say that gay is a perversion is to express the highest level of ignorance. Read a book (if you even have one other than "Nascar's Greatest Moments") and educate yourself for change. Then maybe one day you and your wife/cousin can learn to live without hate and kick that meth habit..

August 6, 2010
Click to view eytansw's profile

To say that it shouldn't have been repealed because it was voted on is absurd. South Carolina also voted not to allow Blacks to vote in the late 1950s-early 1960s. Should they not have been allowed to vote because the people of SC said so? We are not a democracy, we are a republic, which means a certain level of separation from the people. This is one of those times it's put into effect

August 6, 2010
Click to view roughrider12's profile

Why are gay people so biased, prejudiced,  and insensitive to heterosexuals, why do you hate us so much? We cant help it, we were born like this.

 

 

August 6, 2010
Click to view findesiecle's profile

Here's a big "who cares" to the sanctity of marriage. It doesn't affect you. Debate issues that matter.

August 6, 2010
Click to view mormandy3's profile

This is common sense. The whole point of marriage was for a man and a woman to bond, and raise a family, thereby continuing our species. If everyone was gay we would go extinct. Therefore yes, gayness is illogical, but that isn't the point, they are free to be as they are. However, making a mockery of the family institution, which is exactly what this is, is counter-productive to our continued existence. Some hairy guy kissing another hairy guy and marrying him at the alter is just, well, stupid, not to mention gross. What's next? Can I marry an animal if the animal and I really love each other? What if I want to marry two people? Why not? Let's not re-define marriage, the core institution of our and every other organized society and faith. >>>NO<<

August 6, 2010
Click to view Fejjy's profile

 

Choose Freely.

 

August 6, 2010
Click to view roughrider12's profile

@verifynfield - which book did you read that states gay acts are normal and natural state of existence in biology?? due tell.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Sitm22's profile

@roughrider

Well if humans aren't natural enough for you, dolphins, who are the only other species who have 'sex' for fun, also participate into homoerotic behavior.

Natural enough for you?

August 6, 2010
Click to view shalurkdows's profile

to quote jack black on this one: "you pick and choose! so please choose love instead of hate. besides, this nation was built on separation of church and staaaaaate!"

 

religious bias should not influence law. end of discussion.

August 6, 2010
Click to view phillco24's profile

This issue is not about being able to marry an animal or multiple people so hatemongers stop skirting the issue. Not everyone that marries has to have kids.  I would think you married you wife because you loved her and are not worrying about continuing the species.  The supreme court is going to have to agree with the judges ruling because our prop 8 is unconstitutional and the gay minority will finally be about to marrry Anywhere in the US!

August 6, 2010
Click to view verifynfield's profile

@roughrider - you might start at a Library. Its that publicly funded building down the street from the Wendy's where you celebrated the 20th anniversary of your Klan membership.

August 6, 2010
Click to view hal9thou's profile

America will soon join the list of other countries that allow gay marriage: Canada, Argentina, Norway, Belgium, South Africa, Iceland, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, etc.

This will happen in the next few years once the US Supreme Court rules against Prop 8 as the discriminatory legislation it is.  Get over it, religious types and morally outraged citizens.  This great nation is for ALL of us to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  

August 6, 2010
Click to view MsMarch's profile

The Lord said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. -Genesis 2:18

 

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out fo the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh. -Genesis 2: 22-24

 

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. -Leviticus 18:22

 

The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. -Romans 1:18

August 6, 2010
Click to view Whiteram's profile

The "what's next, bestiality?" argument is no argument.  That's not on the table, gay marriage is.

 

There simply is no non-religious rationale for denying gay marriage rights, and religion has no place in determining governance in a secular republic.  If you enjoy religious rule, go to Iran.

 

August 6, 2010
Click to view TheGoldenBea's profile

I just don't see why people are so worked up about what two people do. How does it affect you? People want rights to visit their spouse in the hospital or be able to be a part of their pension and retirement. Besides gay parents aren't going to try to convert children to be gay or molest them. That is what church and scout leaders are for.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Scout535's profile

Why can't people see this as similar to the black civil rights fight...I heard that during the civil rights era there were many white people that woke up and were black!  I guess they were denying their true lifestyle.  I mean this is like the Nazi's extermination of the jews....I have heard elder Jewish people say, "Man...this reminds me of what it felt like to be put into a concentration camp. Of course a civil union means nothing unless they call it marriage!"  Yes...these comments are as dumb as everyone elses.

August 6, 2010
Click to view sdguy92126's profile

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mohandas Gandhi

 

anti-gay Marriage = anti-Christ

August 6, 2010
Click to view truth1117's profile

"Love-hate debate on Prop 8"? Wow that title's great! Was it planned or just fate? What do you think mate? Oh well, I off to buy some bait for my fishing trip on the lake. We'll talk about it on a later date.

 

Title FAIL.

August 6, 2010
Click to view notanintern's profile

@notFauxNews Yesterday I was watching Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. It was an episode involving six children that were adopted by their mom's sister because they were abused. The children were ages 3 months to 16. The four year old boy was so scared to trust anyone that you could tell he didn't think that his new "AMAZING" room was really his. The children told stories about how their mom constantly told them that they were the worst thing that ever happened to her while her ever-changing boyfriend would beat them in front of each other.

 

I hear about this type of thing happening all of the time. Even in my own family, five of my cousins were taken away from my aunt/uncle for neglect and child abuse.

 

When have you ever heard of a gay couple adopting children only to abuse and hurt them? I never have. If gay people will go out of their way to adopt children and go through the lengthy process they will do nothing but love and raise them better than many straight parents.

 

I'm not calling all straight parents bad parents. Far from that. I'm simply trying to point out that there are many "accidental" children that have crappy lives. Since gays can't have accidental children, the children they adopt have been thought about extensively before hand.

 

Science has proven that a child doesn't need a mother and a father. Some of the strongest and most successful people I know in my life have been raised by a single parent.

 

@mormandy3 If everyone was gay then our world would go extinct. But not everyone is gay. This world is exponentially becoming overpopulated (IE China). Sometimes I feel like one of the reasons there are gay people in the world is to help balance this out. That might not make any sense to some, but it's just how I feel sometimes.

August 6, 2010
Click to view klpinkston's profile

What scares me is when people align gay marriage with the (supposed) eventuality of marrying goats, pigs and cats.  I'm afraid of those people (how do they get to that point of view?  Eeck!).  Ignoring all of the real reasons why this is obvious, these people have no concept that animals cannot choose to marry, nor do they have plausible thumbs to sign the marriage certificate, so, let's just say that issue is a "moo point" (intended play on words from an episode of "Friends" - Joey:  "it's like a cow's point of view - it doesn't count").  Sooo... if you're going to be that stupid (and disgusting), then your opinion is "moo...baaa...meow!"

August 6, 2010
Click to view NoOn8's profile

@ Mormandy3....I hate to break it to you Mormandy3, but your argument has no common sense.  Marriage is not for the sole purpose of procreation.  It is a legal contract between two people.  It always has been and always will be.  Otherwise straight couples who could not have children or intended to not have children would not be allowed to marry.  To think that letting gay people get married would make the human race extinct is absolutely ridiculous. I know of not one straight couple that would decide to stop getting married or stop having children because gay people could get married.  And here is a scary thought for you to ponder…..gays can have children!  Your views are not based on common sense they are based on bigotry, hatred, and from the looks of your screen name religious stupidity.  It’s people like you that should go extinct. 

August 6, 2010
Click to view verifynfield's profile

religion = islam = hinduism = christianity = judaism = mythology .... go ahead and waste your life hoping one of the above is right in order to please your "maker", categorically denying logic or science. Just stop judging and telling other people how to live with some old manuscript written by petrified men over 2000 years ago as a basis for reality...

August 6, 2010
Click to view NoOn8's profile

@MsMarch.....Your religion has no place in politics -NoOn8 8:6:2010

August 6, 2010
Click to view lilsob86's profile

the whole antihetero idea is completely backwards. i have plenty of gay friends, and in general they are some of the most loving, funloving and accepting people ive met. it seems like gay people are always trying to educate people about acceptance, and perspective, and trying to help people realize not only to love others for who they are, but to love themselves as well. they have most likely struggled with their identity at some point, realized who they were, accepted it and found what makes them happy. they have no intention of hating any heterosexual people for what their sexual preferences are. as with any group, there are radicals, and they certainly shouldnt be taken seriously as a portrait of the entire group they seemingly represent. if gays hate anything about this situation, it is the general ignorance of the opposition, but certainly not how they are oriented. its about ideology, not sexuality.

to be clear, the heterosexuals who continue to try to play the victim must realize that the only people in this argument who hate anyone are people from their own group, their christian values are based in hate and anger towards difference and progress, when in reality, if there is a god, and he is as perfect as everyone claims he is, i can imagine he accepts everyone for who they are, judges them based on how they treat themselves and others, and for that, he would certainly look down upon his so called loyal followers who judge, berate and terrorize gays on a regular basis. it is certainly their constitutional right to speak their mind, but that does not mean that they are right.

they should really drop the whole reverse discrimination idea, how easy it is to say things like that while being so called "normal".

August 6, 2010
Click to view findesiecle's profile

@mormandy3

 

What does gay marriage have to do with the future of procreation? Even if legalizing gay marriage brings out everyone who's ashamed of being gay, they'll still be the overwhelming minority in the world. The world is overpopulated as it is. It won't affect the already tainted reputation of marriage. The importance of marriage is relative to the individual. It's not like somebody's gay marriage depreciates the value of your marriage. Worry yourself with things that matter, like your own life.

August 6, 2010
Click to view kmvelez1's profile

here's how we solve this:

separation of church and state. fix all the paperwork so no one can be "married" only "unioned." everyone gets the same rights and perks and are recognized by the government. if you want to be "married" then you go and do it yourself in your own PRIVATE ceremony.

August 6, 2010
Click to view eliq91's profile

Proposition 8 was entirely constitutional. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that anything not covered in the constitution is left to the states or the people. California Left the decision of what constitutes a marriage to the people and the people voted and passed proposition 8. They followed proper procedure and then some judge chose to over step his impartiality as an empire of the law and stated his beliefs in a direct attempt at undermining the people of California and their constitutional rights to self government.

August 6, 2010
Click to view 1Hustle's profile

What's to hate I say good job for California.

August 6, 2010
Click to view rocketD's profile

Prop 8 was never about religion or threat to family.   If it were, then non-Christians and people who can't or won't reproduce would also be prevented from marrying.  Nobody's marriage ever threaten's anyone else's. Prop 8 is about discrimination and control, and thus we should never have even been voting on it, constitutionally.  All those crying, "why bother voting?" should hearken back to the last century, when surely all the bigots in the southern states said the same thing when the US overturned segregation laws.

August 6, 2010
Click to view GMcFernis's profile

Proposition 8 is not constitutional on the grounds that if violates the 14th Amendment under the Equal Protection clause.  Throughout the history of the United States, the Majority has often denied "rights" from a minority group - and because of Equal Protection, this was found to be unconstitutional.

 

If a vote was all that was necessary, only white heterosexual male land-owners would have had any rights in this country.

 

In regards to religion, stop attempting to get the laws of the United States in line with any give religion.  It has never supported the laws and guidelines of a religion.  The highest law of the land in the United States of America is the Constitution of the United States; not the Holy Bible, not the Quran, not the Torah.

August 6, 2010
Click to view CSinCA's profile

@MsMarch

 

If we are going down that road...

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." -1 Tim. 2:12-14

 

 

August 6, 2010
Click to view Helmut2112's profile

They should be focusing more on inter-racial marriage than gay marriage.

August 6, 2010
Click to view ltmartin86's profile

Honestly, why do people care if homosexuals want to get married? With the hetero divorce rate over 50% it's quite obvious we can't do it either. Never mind that whole civil rights thing, people should not be outcast because of their sexual orientation. I was raised to believe this and defend this because it is what America was founded on. But I guess a lot of people have forgotten that.

August 6, 2010
Click to view chloho's profile

i write this not as a bisexual woman, but as a woman who uses logic and reasoning and believes that each and every person on this earth should simply "live and let live":

 

1. there is nothing about the legalization of gay marriage that will ever impact those who are not the two individuals involved in the union

 

2. if you don't like it, don't YOU go out and marry someone of the same sex

 

3. to compare the union of two human beings to that of a human being and an animal only proves your ignorance and confirms your stupidity

 

4. the use and abuse of quotes from religious texts to establish the "perverse" nature of homosexuality or anything that is not heterosexuality is pathetic and for all those who truly consider themselves to be religious...since when is it your place to judge?

 

5. you should be completely and unabashedly ashamed of yourselves for even beginning to suggest that any person on this earth is less deserving of basic human, legal or political rights until they have in some way committed an egregious crime against humanity

August 6, 2010
Click to view BlimeyLimey's profile

Marriage is not a Christian prerogative, nor is it even a religions prerogative, so quit quoting your religion at me.

August 6, 2010
Click to view chloho's profile

@helmut2112

 

and what exactly is the issue with inter-racial marriages?

August 6, 2010
Click to view midshipmanx's profile

It's funny. I have rebuttals to arguments made by both sides of this issue. I guess I should start by saying I'm a supporter of the rights of homosexuals to marry. If two consenting adults want to participate in marriage or in a marriage-type union I am perfectly fine with it. That being said there are some things to consider.

 

The argument that the law is unconstitutional because it creates an inequality isn't necessarily true. The prop 8 law does not place homosexuals in an inferior class. They have all of the same rights as their hetero sexual counterparts. "But" you say, "they don't have the right to marry." to which I respond saying, yes they do. They have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do. The law applies to me, a hetero sexual as well, because I too am not allowed to marry someone of the same sex. I just don't want to anyway so it really doesn't hurt me in anyway. Forgive the pedestrian comparisons I'm about to make but they get my point across if albeit in an inelegant way.

 

A stoner complains that the law making marijuana illegal is unconstitutional because it puts stoners in a separate and unequal class as those who aren't stoners. But it's not true. Stoners can't smoke marijuana and non-stoners can't smoke marijuana. It's illegal for all. Just some people care more about it being illegal than others.

 

Now I apologized in advance for the pedestrian comparison because I realize that being gay and being a stoner are not the same. Homosexuality isn't just a life style, it's at the core of who you are as a people. I just think that the argument that it's unconstitutional is a bit weak. There has to be another reason it is. I just can't put my finger on it. Also, I just think there's no reason the government should even get involved. Marriage, minus the religious implications, is simply a contract between two individuals that confers certain rights and privileges with respect to the other individual and creates a certain class under the law. Why should the government care which two adults are entering into that contract? It smacks of a very strict, specific set of personal "morals" that are being imposed on the population where there is no need. The law serves no public good.

 

Now, for those who voted for prop 8 asking why a judge has the right to overturn the will of the people. That's the silliest question I've ever heard in my life. Are you not at all familiar with the American legal system? The people have the right to vote for laws, to be certain. But those laws MUST be constitutional. They must be in keeping with the contents and intents of that document. The legistlative branch writes laws and either passes them or puts them up for a public vote. That DOES NOT mean that they will pass a test of constitutionality. This is the role of the judiciary, to rule on the constitutionality of written law. It's part of the checks and balances system that has been in place since the country's inception and I find it offensive that an argument has been fashioned inquiring where the judiciary gets this right. It's their job you simpletons.

 

Also, what in the hell does voting Obama into office have to do with voting on anti-gay legislation? Is it because Obama is a minority and gays are a minority? Please, keep your arguments grounded in non-stupidity for those of us with half a brain.

 

I think I've made my point so I won't summarize. That being said, I will leave with this and say that I'm glad that homosexuals are being given another chance in CA and that I hope that the appeals process supports the judges decision (even if I'm not a big fan of the argument being used in a logical sense). Good luck.

August 6, 2010
Click to view snaab77's profile

Mormandy, you need to pull yourself together. Nothing in your argument represents any sound legal argumentation other than the tired and ridiculous argument that same-sex marriage is a gateway into legal bestiality or polygamy. Courts have ALWAYS defined laws as those between consenting adults, most recently and significantly Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Lay off posting your ignorance and educate yourself on the facts.

 

On a different note, this trial was completely necessary because of California's decision to allow marriages to happen before sending it to a vote. NO judge in his right mind would have overturned the vote on its own merits. But California officials created a HUGE legal gray area by allowing 18,000 couples to wed (legally, I might add) before overturning the legislative action that allowed the weddings to happen in the first place. Now the state has created a huge area of ambiguity about what happens for these 18,000 couples.

 

Laws are overturned quite frequently in our legal system for being too broad, too narrow, or too vague to apply to groups of people. This case, and the subsequent cases that will follow through higher courts, is a completely necessary action to clarify a state's right to govern equality issues under the 14th Amendment and define which action (legislative versus people's vote) will hold higher precedence in the state of California.

August 6, 2010
Click to view kls911's profile

THANK YOU MsMarch!! (no sarcasm)

August 6, 2010
Click to view countboy's profile

and God said what is evil will be looked upon as good and what is good will be looked upon as evil. It has nothing to do with the government or religious affliation. It's a God thing. Let the gays marry, what difference does it make in the end beside hailfire and brimsone. Judge not lest he be judged. Don't we have enough to worry and stress about. While we're at it lets make everyone happy, Let's keep taking care of the illegals coming into our country , let's keep on shipping our jobs overseas and let's keep letting our government tell us what we can and can't do. Since I'm not adult enough to make the right decisions for myself or my family. Oh and if your athiest then just disregard the God quotes since they don't apply to you. Happy now?

August 6, 2010
Click to view 1Hustle's profile

I am happy for California. Now hopefully a bunch of them will leave Texas and relocate to Cali. GO CALI GO!

August 6, 2010
Click to view Lando14's profile

The liberals who support gay marriage and who comment on this board are hypocritical and hateful.  You show NO tolerance WHATSOEVER, and liken people who believe in traditional marriage to Klan members.  Talk about being a melodramitc, whinig fool.  The supoporters of gay marriage are, ironically, the least tolerant, most hateful people I have ever come across.  To liken someone to a klan member because they believe in traditional marriage proves you are hateful, intolerant, and just plain stupid.  It also shows you have no morals whotsoever. Grow up.

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

It is constitutional for states to decide things that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  However it is not constitutional for a state to arbitrarily divide people into groups and deprive specific groups of rights that other groups have.  The state must have a valid reason and a compelling interest to define these groups.  Prop 8 defenders failed at court do provide credible evidence to why homosexual marriage is significantly different than heterosexual marriage and thus Prop 8 is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

August 6, 2010

Ms March.  You so cleverly quoted the bible to support that homosexuality is wrong.  This indicates to me that you believe each word of the bible and believe to be absolute law.  According to certain passages in the bible it is our duty as a society to punish people for such heinous crimes as wearing garments made of two different fibers, planting crops side by side, touching the skin of a dead pig (football players across the country weep) ect.  Yes, I ripped this off from Aaron Sorkin of the West Wing, but does that make it any less true? I hope no one you love wears a cotton blend t-shirt.

August 6, 2010
Click to view boggler's profile

First of all, marriage is first and foremost a religous act. The governmental perversion of marriage is just a contract to make property rights easier.

 

I do not hate gay people. Let me get that out there. I have nothing wrong with them as human beings. But just like every human, homosexuals sin too, and part of their sins are acting on their homosexual tendencies. Being homosexual is not a sin in itself (so stop hating on religous people, because that is the belief held by Christianity), but carrying out the sin is, just like any other.

 

You have the same rights as everyone else. You are allowed to marry a member of the opposite gender. No rights are being violated. It's not right to have sex with kids, nor is it right to have it with the opposite gender.

 

It is true that homosexuality is irrational, and irrationality is a symptom of many diseases.

 

Also, as far as kids go, they might not become gay themselves, but we don't want them to accept your sins. Public nudity, profanity, drunkenness, and smoking are often not allowed not because people are afraid their kids will become nudies, drunks, or smokers, but because it is bad for our health.

August 6, 2010
Click to view 3R1K0's profile

@roughrider So who paid you to come on and spam the comment board with that childish crap? If anything, your comment only shows that we are the ones who are biased and prejudiced towards the gays. I have friends who are homosexual and they are all very nice and don't make me uncomfortable at all. They seem more open-minded even than the rest of us. There is also a girl at my workplace who had two mothers and she is a very nice, selfless and caring person.

 

Even if the couples don't get married, they are going to live together, so why deny them the right to make it official? There is absolutely no non-religious reason to deny them the right to marry.

 

@mormandy3 Well, everyone isn't gay. And the last thing our species really needs right now is to be continued. The population is estimated to reach 7 billion by 2011. Does it sound like we're a threatened species?

And a family institution is a tight-knit group of people who live together, support and love each other, and work to help each other survive and thrive. Why can't a family be based around two people of the same sex?

And you are seeming to forget that there are female homosexuals as well. Does the image of two beautiful, normal looking women kissing at the altar still "gross you out"? 

August 6, 2010
Click to view oncemoor's profile

Mormanlady said, "This is common sense. The whole point of marriage was for a man and a woman to bond, and raise a family, thereby continuing our species." Actually that wasn't really the purpose of marriage. Really marriage as we think of it today is a relatively new concept. You may find this hard to believe but Man & women were already perpetuating the species well before marriage  was popularized by the French in the 1600's. And unfortunately as the world continues to over populate it seems we are having no problem in that area. So I wouldn't worry too much about that.  But I have digressed...  Marriage as a ceremony and public record was something originally only for the very rich. It was a contract that was used to pass rights of property and other benefits (the dowry) to the husband and to ensure that bloodlines could hold onto wealth and privilege. Marriage for the masses meant nothing more than words of saying we are husband and wife. There was no need for marriage because the vast majority of people had nothing to protect and thus no need for a contract..which is the real purpose of marriage.

August 6, 2010
Click to view AncoraImparo's profile

@Lando: In 20 years from now you will be ashamed of your current views. Equality is coming and you cannot do a thing to stop it. You are on the wrong side of history, and many prominent civil rights leaders who marched alongside Dr. King himself would absolutely agree!

August 6, 2010
Click to view notFauxNews's profile

My views are not homophobic, they are my personal opinion. I do laugh at the way gays are portrayed by mainstream media and have no animosity towards them whatsoever. But like many, I need to draw the line somewhere. They want to get married, divorced and miserable? Be my guest, but leave the children out of this. Numerous research had shown it is not good for their psychological development.

August 6, 2010
Click to view BrentStallo's profile

Okay. Here is my family.  My parents married (one man, one woman).  They could not have kids. Should they have not been allowed to get married?  So they adopted my sister and myself.  Our adoptive father, sexually assaulted my sister when she was in early teens til she was 18.  Is this the sanctity of marriage that people want to protect?  Then my adoptive father divorced my adoptive mother because she had multiple sclorisis and could not walk. Is this the sanctity of marriage that people want to protect? My husband and I have been together 18 years. We have not molested any one nor separated during any hard times.  Yet people want to say we don't fit into the sanctity of marriage because we are gay! 

I am so glad that the Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional.

Although we can not get married here is the U.S. because we are already married (in Canada), I will be glad when our marriage is finally recognized here. And by the way, our marriage in Canada was sanctified by Mother Earth, Father sky and Grandfather.

 

August 6, 2010
Click to view nyr40x94's profile

It never should have been on the table for a vote in the first place. Aa American citzens we do not vote on laws, we elect officials to do so. There is no valid argument against same sex marriage....especially one based on religious beliefs.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Gays are just as likely to have psychosocial disorders as straight people, and to make a blind statement like "have you ever heard of a gay couple adopting a child and abuse them" is ridiculous.  Of COURSE there are abusive gays.  Being abusive isn't related to a persons orientation.  Plenty of battered gays and lesbiens at shelters right now.  Plenty of emotionally and physically abused children attached to gay couples.  To imply that gays don't abuse is SOOO uneducated.

 

I don't understand why so many gays have to be so flamboyant.  If you want to be treated like everyone else, act like everyone else.  Don't go around flamin' and talking with a lisp, skipping, and being ridiculous and then wonder why people seem annoyed at you.  I believe that most straight people are more annoyed by flamboyant gays because of the "flamboyant" part, not the "gay" part

August 6, 2010
Click to view sudipminhas's profile

Was the first human child born as a result of marriage? Do animals need marriage to propagate their species. Please stop using marriage as something meant for a man and a woman to continue their species. Do you even know how many children are born everyday in USA out of wedlock, so stop the ignorant cacophony. Marriage as a historical fact is nothing religious but a social evolution of proprietary control over women as well as livestock with the advent of agricultural societies which the organised religion appropriated to continue the power equation of man over woman. I don't even know why so many people wish to fight for a regressive institution like marriage in a society built on equal rights.

August 6, 2010
Click to view teargarden's profile

For all of you people calling gay a 'sin'.  I ask you this... WHAT ARE YOUR SINS?  How are your sins less than mine?  If you are a true Christian you can not say you are not a sinner. How very dare you be so pious. I am a Christian and I have been with the same man for 18 years. While we have watched all of our heterosexual friends divorce we have stayed together.  It is sickening that you people don't even know me and still you talk about me and treat me like you do. ..then go around calling yourselves Christians when, actually, you are simple minded bigots. 

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

So the name "marriage" was made up by someone at some time.  However, the IDEA of a man and a woman celebrating their union, becoming one has been around since day one, literally.  It's all been said before on these posts.  Why must people who don't believe in the sanctity of marriage try so hard to bring those of us who DO believe down to their sad, lonely, Godless level?

August 6, 2010
Click to view ebd74's profile

Thank you GMcFernis. I couldn't have said it better.

August 6, 2010
Click to view sdguy92126's profile

@mormandy3

 

I found your opinion is sooo unrealistic.Even if there's 100% gay population on this earth, we're still gonna find our way to reproduce and we have. It's a human nature. btw, if you so concern about our extinction, you should concern about nuclear weapon, the polluted environment, serious diseases around the world, and wars. Those are more dangerous to our extinction than gay. oh, I hope there's an asteroid heading toward earth....just for you.

August 6, 2010
Click to view 3R1K0's profile

@IRAHitman So, all gays who want to get married are Godless? Check teargarden's comment.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Teargarden, you are a pseudo-Christian.  You've chosen to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to live by, and discard the rest.  I am not judging, and I'm not claiming in any way to be without sin.  I'm simply saying that it is very very clear in the Bible that it is bad for a man to lay with another man in the way he was intended to lay with a woman.  I think someone even had one of the verses cited above, Leviticus, I believe.

 

You believe in God, but you don't believe in all of His teachings, right?  I'm honestly asking the question, not trying to badger.  I would like an honest answer if anyone in the gay community could clear that up for me.

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

Alright midshipmanx, I'll bite on one of your arguments.  "The argument that the law is unconstitutional because it creates an inequality isn't necessarily true."

 

Its not an argument of whether Prop 8 doesn't apply to everyone equally, its about the inequality of marriage being defined as a man and a woman.  Just because it applies to everyone equally doesn't mean the law treats everyone equally.  Its like a law mandating stairs are the only way to reach new floors in a building; its not a problem for everyone who can use their legs, but when you are disabled you are out of luck.  It applies to everyone, but it discriminates indirectly (as opposed to a law stating disabled people cannot legally move between floors of a building directly). 

 

  The main argument is whether a homosexual couple is significantly different than a heterosexual couple.  The defenders of Prop 8 could not provide any credible reasons the two types of couples are different.  That is the crux of the argument, are homosexual couples so different they actually need a separate institution? The answer is no.

 

On a side note, biology and evolution are the weakest arguments for opposing gay marriage.  Please stop using them.

August 6, 2010
Click to view roughrider12's profile

Why are gay people so biased, prejudiced,  and insensitive to heterosexuals, why do you hate us so much? We cant help it, we were born like this.

August 6, 2010
Click to view 1Hustle's profile

LOL @ people defending gay marriage by bringing up some idiot straight people that were molestors or wife beaters or just plain jerks. That is everywhere, there was a story on here not too long ago about a 30 year old woman posing as a young boy to have a relationship with a teen girl. Does she represent lesbians everywhere? No. You can always pick out a few bad apples in EVERY group.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

3R1K0 - you've proven my point.  I said that those who don't believe in the sanctity of marriage, I never said "gays."  There are a LOT of gays that believe in marriage.  Pull your head out of your @$$.

August 6, 2010
Click to view teargarden's profile

IRAHITMAN....What are sins? How are mine worse than yours? This is all I am asking. Pseudo Christian? What?

August 6, 2010
Click to view AncoraImparo's profile

This is inspiring, in my opinion, so I thought I'd share. :)

 

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

 

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

 

---Mildred Loving, along with her husband, Richard, were plantiffs in the historic Supreme Court decision "Loving v. Virginia" which overturned state laws preventing two persons of different races from getting married.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Scout535's profile

U.S. Constitution Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"  This law may have religious implications (so does murder, stealing and lying), but does not go directly with a specific religion.  The constitution does not specifically say separation of church and state!

August 6, 2010
Click to view 3R1K0's profile

@roughrider12 Seriously, who's paying you again...? Or are you just a bot?

 

@IRAhitman And you know, the Catholic Church TOTALLY didn't go through the Bible themselves and pick and choose what they wanted to be in it. For all we know, in the original Bible, it could've been fine for people to be gay. Te King James version is just that: The KING JAMES version. As in the version his censors tore apart and rewrote so that it suited him.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

teargarden, when did I say yours are worse than mine?  Oh, that's just your slant, right?  Try to make me look bad so you don't?  How about you take my question seriously instead of just offering more arguement?  I asked a real question and no one seems to be able to answer it.

August 6, 2010
Click to view 1Hustle's profile

Why do gay people always assume that because someone is against homosexuality they are a bible thumper? (Serious question)

August 6, 2010
Click to view 3R1K0's profile

@1Hustle Because...that's the only even semi-logical reason to be against homosexuality, I'd assume. I don't know, of course.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

3R1K0 - so you're saying you don't believe in the Bible?  Then you're not Christian, right?  If you're not a Christian, why are you attempting to answer my question?  My question asked about how Christian gays interpret the Bible in a way that makes it approve of their orientation.  It's a real question, not intended to incite arguement.  If you don't have an answer, then don't answer.

August 6, 2010
Click to view teargarden's profile

IRAhitman. No, seriously, my sins have been laid out for the world to see.  Now let's see yours.  Tell the world what your sins are.

August 6, 2010
Click to view NickyB7393's profile

Hey 3R1K0,

 

Don't speak about the historical reliability of scripture unless you really study it.  It is your choice to deny what the Bible teaches but don't make ignorant uneducated comments about what the original documents of scripture might have said.  It is obvuious you are just spouting off what other uneducated people on this topic believe because it is a "cool" idea about the bible.  Again you can not believe what it teaches but you look incredibly ignorant when you make your comments and have nothing to really back your statement.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

3R1K0 - Religion is one reason.  Another is even more simple - Many heterosexuals cannot understand the attraction of homosexuality.  Understanding lesbians, for example, is difficult.  They use toys that simulate male anatomy, so do they actually want that?  Is it just that they find other women pretty but they still want the right parts put in the right places?  And gay men are difficult to understand, too.  They enjoy a very similar act of putting something somewhere, but for a straight guy to see THAT attraction is very difficult as well. 

 

I love steak.  My good friend hates red meat.  I couldn't imagine NOT liking steak until I understood why my friend didn't like it.  I could see her point, but I still love steak.  I haven't been able to find anyone to explain the attraction of gays, or the aversion to straight relationships.  I've also not been able to find anyone who can explain how Christian gays interpret Christian teachings to support their orientation.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Teargarden - Again, the only "sin" you have laid out is your sexual orientation.  I'm straight - now we're even.  Are you saying that since you admit to being gay and you call it a sin, that you've displayed all your sins?  Not by a long shot.  I'm no priest, I don't want your confession.  There's no way I'm confessing to you, either.  You are not better than me simply because you have expressed to the world that you are gay and I'm still just a straight man.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Still no answer from anyone in the Christian gay community about how they interpret the Bible?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

I think like the majority of Christians they just don't interpret the bible literally, especially since it says ridiculous things like:

 

Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

And stuff like this:

 

Numbers 31:15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16  "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

 

I mean that's disgusting. And that's God's army being led by Moses himself.

August 6, 2010
Click to view roughrider12's profile

@3R1K0 - are u a bot? you sound pretty clueless, yes the bible is a version, u actually think they through at the parts that endorsed gay life, u are funny.

 

FYI, religion is not issue here. To consider gay lifestyle to be the same or equal to heterosexual lifestyle the building block of a society is just ignorant.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Then you have other bad advice from Jesus himself like that divorce shouldn't be allowed, but that if it is, remarriage certainly isn't allowed, it's adultery...and not too many years ago that meant that those who are remarried are living in adultery. Of course that's ignored now even though it's Jesus' own words. And no one's passing a law saying that 2nd marriages aren't allowed.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Roughrider, there is no 'gay lifestyle' or 'heterosexual lifestyle'. Gays and straights live all kinds of different lifestyles.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Marsetti - You are the first person to bring any logic to the arguement.  You make a good point.  How do we know what is ridiculous (like the verse you quoted) and any others?  Which ones are real Heaven "deal breakers"? 

 

The New Testament brings a lot of new ideas, changes to old thinking.  I was asked once by a Muslim why, even though the Bible says not to eat pork, does our Church have a whole hog sausage and pancake breakfast twice a year (which is delicious, by the way.)  The answer is in Acts ch.9, the vision of Peter.  Basically God said it's ok now.  Odd?  Yeah.  Apparently pork isn't a Heaven-excluding thing.  Are there any references to homosexuality?  I've looked but haven't found any yet.  I'm not saying there aren't any, just haven't found it yet.  I'm also not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, they are entitled to the same "happily ever after" that we are.  But it does bother me that they want it to be a religious ceremony (Not all of them, simmer down Teargarden, I can hear your blood pressure rising).

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Well I think for the churches and the believers that just look at some Old Testament scriptures as being unenlightened words from men who judged homosexuality as being wrong because it was different and very much in the minority, and in light of the fact that all mainstream medical and mental health associations say it's normal and healthy for 5% of the population, you're going to have churches who just don't take those verses seriously, yet they take God very seriously and may even have arrived at their answers about scripture through prayer. And of course they're entitled to marry, religiously, if that's what they wish, in my opinion.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Marsetti, your reference to Numbers is out of context.  Yes, it sound's horrible the way you quote it, but the whole story is different.  The women were sleeping with all the men to turn them away from God toward a purely hedonistic life.  God was pissed.  The males had "turned" and wouldn't go back.  They were done for.  The virgins were the only ones without fault, so they were spared.  According to what I've found, "save them for yourselves" meant that they should be allowed to live to hopefully perpetuate a new, positive society.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Oh and of course they'd have to look at the words of Paul in Romans in the same way...but there are plenty of people that don't take the bible literally and glean much more through prayer.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Actually no, IRA, I think you're confusing the Sodom & Gomorrah stories with the one in Numbers which is about the Midanites being exterminated...and their crime was that they worshipped idols. Funny too that the infant and toddler males were somehow 'tainted' by this idol worship and the young virgin girls weren't and were 'rewards' as it says, to the soldiers who they just watched cutting their families to pieces with swords.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

But then that story is rarely covered in sermons...

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

I've even thought about contacting Adrian Lamo to tell him I'm going to send those scriptures to wikileaks.

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

That is a good question.  Roughrider12, what exactly is the gay lifestyle?  How is it different to the heterosexual lifestyle?  Concrete examples please.  I am pretty sure homosexuals eat, breath, sleep, go to work, read books, watch television, complain about how the car is in the shop, gas prices are too high and everything else heterosexuals do.  Is their physical attraction to members of the same sex really so important?

 

Also I believe the building blocks of a society is reason, culture and industry (hard work).  If you go the procreation route, sheer numbers of offspring don't drive civilization.  Lot of more mosquitoes than us out there, I have yet to see their society coming into conflict with ours.

August 6, 2010
Click to view gc999's profile

The Bible is a view of morality that's hundreds to thousands of years old depending upon which part you are looking at given the numerous times the word of god has been edited. And yes, the entire bible was written by us humans. That doesn't mean it wasn't inspired by god, but anyone's connection to god comes through a prism of what they want to experience, to see, to believe. Christ, the one many give credit with the purest expression, didn't have a word to say on the subject. Which begs the question as why so many put so much energy into today.

August 6, 2010
Click to view AncoraImparo's profile

@NotFauxNews: You are quite wrong about the psychology of children but it's all good, I'm here to inform you.

 

A recent 25 year study proved children raised by lesbian parents develop into psychologically healthy teens and have fewer behavior problems than their peers. It was recognized by the prestigious Journal of Pediatrics, sitting alongside abstracts dealing with asthma, pediatric oncology, blood disorders, etc, and the journal is consulted by pediatricians all over the world. Spare me the "it's a biased study" BS because this particular journal doesn't accept incorrect information that hundreds of thousands of MDs consult daily in their practices.

 

And ps, it IS faux news.

August 6, 2010
Click to view MsMarch's profile

First of all I don't hate Gay people.

 

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. -- Mark 12:28-31

 

I don't judge people either. I know gay people and not once have I told them they are going to hell or that I don't like their lifestyle. I treat them like I do anybody else. I was only giving my opinion just like everybody else.

 

“Judge not, lest ye not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

 

CSinCA... Thank you for that. I do know what 1 Timothy 2:12-14 says and I don't have authority over any man nor do I try to. Nowhere in the bible does it say a woman can't tell people what God's word says.

 

God Bless!

August 6, 2010
Click to view nolawatch's profile

@verifynfield - not all of us in the south are backwoods hillbillies.

In New Orleans we have a large gay community( which I am a part of) please don't sterotype us.

@MsMarch -

Judge not, lest you shall be judged- Matthew 7:1

August 6, 2010
Click to view kls911's profile

Marsetti, referring to you saying that God does not approve of divorce and anyone who remarries is living in adultry shows that you trully do not know the bible as you portray yourself too.  God also says that he does not want us to live in bondage, that if your spouse is unfaithful or whatever other reason that could be your "bondage" as in getting abused verbally or physically, that he does not expect us to stay in that bondage and that he does not frown upon it.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

@kls911

 

Matthew 19:7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

 

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

 

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

August 6, 2010
Click to view roughrider12's profile

@Marsetti - you are hopelessly brainwashed. You are saying the world would be no different is everyone was gay verse everyone was hetero? just clueless.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

And really if you go to the King James Version which all the fundies like because it's supposedly more accurate, it doesn't say 'maritial unfaithfulness' it says 'fornication', which is a little more clear.

August 6, 2010
Click to view LogicPlease7's profile

If we are going to inject biblical law into our states or national constitution, I vote we go all way. We need to end the cherry picking. Gay Marriage is just the tip of the iceberg here, folks. We need to weed out ALL abominations mentioned in the bible. I'm talking about divorce, consumption of shellfish, working on the sabboth, the wearing of 2 or more linens at one time, disobidient children and any woman who is not a virgin on their wedding night. And we should use the accepted biblical punishment of stoning. Anyone reading this guilty of the above mentioned "abominations", please round up your neighbors and submit to your punishment. It is the Lord's will. It is in the bible. 

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

No roughrider, I didn't say that. Show me where I said that.

August 6, 2010
Click to view kls911's profile

Marsetti: Then you have other bad advice from Jesus himself like that divorce shouldn't be allowed, but that if it is, remarriage certainly isn't allowed, it's adultery...and not too many years ago that meant that those who are remarried are living in adultery.

 

Marsetti: 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

 

You say one thing trying to use the bible to back up what your saying, then you use a verse from the bible to try to back yourself up again while contradicting what you said in the first place. Funny...

 

Think you how want and believe in what you want, but just decide on what exactly it is that you believe, before you come on here trying nit pick at everything that everyone is saying and try to sound like you know what you're talking about.  When it is very clear that you don't.

August 6, 2010
Click to view nyr40x94's profile

Religion has NO PLACE in this argument. We are talking about laws. We are talking about HUMAN RIGHTS. Not heterosexuals rights. Seperation of church and state people.  

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

kls, the only thing that even appears slightly contradictory is that I didn't mention that Jesus did say if one's wife cheated on him then divorce is allowed. Still says remarriage is adultery.

 

If Jesus was giving good advice he might have said 'if your husband is beating you or emotionally abusing your kids or if you two made a mistake or just grew apart and your toxic relationship is destroying your kids' lives - go ahead and divorce' - hopefully you can find someone you love or have a full life as a single person'.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Seriously, KLS, what specifically is the contradiction in what I said with the bible verse? I'm not seeing any.

August 6, 2010
Click to view notFauxNews's profile

@AncoraImparo, let's see the link and who sponsored this "research"?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Or are you one of those, KLS, who thinks 'damn, he was right about that - it does say that - but I'll just make a long post about how he's contradicted himself (even though he didn't), hopefully no one will read past the first sentence, and it will look like I've caught him...'

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

    Is it at all surprising that this commentary is dominated by discussions about religion?  Makes me wonder the credence of any secular arguments against gay marriage.

August 6, 2010
Click to view kls911's profile

Marsetti, one day I hope you can actually open up the bible without pre-judgment and try to read and understand God's word and understand God's love for us.  Instead of opening the bible up trying to find "mistakes" or "lack of" in it.

 

God bless you, and remember Jesus loves you : )

August 6, 2010
Click to view DownToEarth8's profile

I'm a little behind in this, but...

 

Saying that people who argue in favor of gay marriage "pick and choose" what to believe is a hypocritical statement. According to the bible, everything from shellfish, tattoos, and undershirts are considered sins and were punishable by stoning. Not to mention a less obscure one--Don't work on the sabbath.

 

And to IRAhitman...You're interpreting the rules of the bible you wish to acknowledge based on their wording and structure without question. However, when someone quotes particularly indecent parts of the bible, they're misquoted and not reading between the lines. If you're going to take things at face value, then take everything at face value, or if you're going to read deep into things, then do it for everything.

 

People have to realize, that a lot of the stories in the bible are'nt to be taken literally. The bible is a reference for guidance and structure, and if every word is taken literally, then it will lead to unneccesary polarization. I was told this by a pastor at Sunday school when I used to be a Christian. We can't take everything in a book written 2000 years ago seriously.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Marsetti, one day I hope you can actually open up the bible without pre-judgment and try to read and understand God's word and understand God's love for us.  Instead of opening the bible up trying to find "mistakes" or "lack of" in it.

God bless you, and remember Jesus loves you : )

 

 

INTERPRETATION: "I can't point out the actual contradiction because there wasn't any. In the verse Jesus does say that remarriage is adultery."

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

And KLS, I just look at the Bible for what it is. It's been my experience that fundamentalist Christians are the ones that want to pretend certain things aren't there. But then the funny thing is that they often want to bash others with the things that the find there that they like. I think Romans 2 gives some healthy advice about that one...something about removing the plank in one's own eye...

August 6, 2010
Click to view kls911's profile

First you said God did not approve of divorce and that any one who remarried was living in adultry to prove your point.  Then you referred to a verse that said divorce was ok if the spouse had been unfaithful to try to prove your point and back up your "opinions."

 

Your trying to make your point, yet you can't even decide what it is that you're trying to say.

 

No on is trying to catch you, just show you that not even you know what your trying to say when your trying to prove others wrong for believing in what they believe.

August 6, 2010
Click to view roughrider12's profile

@nyr40x94 - Explain to me how Marriage is a human right and what society in the history of time considered gay marriage a right??

 

one reference anyone??

August 6, 2010
Click to view DownToEarth8's profile

Does the fact that this prop-8 discussion dwindled completely into a religious debate turn any heads? Last time I checked, isn't religion supposed to be separate from church and state? And isn't one of the best characteristics of America it's religious freedom and diversity? If this were a Christian nation, then yes, lets bicker about the ins and outs of bible passages, because they'd be relevant. However, NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN JESUS! Anyone trying to push their religion on other people when it doesn't affect them AT ALL are just weak.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Actually I said that "Jesus said..."

 

then I said that he said divorce isn't allowed but if it is allowed (because I was remembering that in the verse there must be some exception - and there was, fornication) then remarriage is adultery. And Jesus did say that.

 

Tell me this, why is no one trying to pass a law that remarriage (when no cheating has been proven) isn't allowed when Jesus himself prohibited it? And yet Jesus didn't say a word about homosexuality and that's the kind of marriage that's being banned...does that make sense?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Seriously, are all these evangelicals and born-agains and Southern Baptists who divorce and remarry, are they all cheating sexually? That's a real scandal if it's true...

August 6, 2010
Click to view AncoraImparo's profile

@FauxNews: CNN does not allow web addresses in comments or I'd paste a link to the full text in PDF & abstract.

 

Google "journal of pediatrics lesbian moms"

 

Sponsored by: COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH

 

A link to the direct article on the pediatric journal website will come up on second google page. Happy reading.

August 6, 2010
Click to view DownToEarth8's profile

Marsetti is correct in his remarriage statement. Why is it that two people simply wanting happiness and peace so offensive? Why, to quote people from this blog, is it considered a "sickness"? If this is so offensive, then why haven't Christians been pounding down the doors of Congress since the 50's about anti-divorce legislation?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Boy that was a conversation stopper, DownToEarth. Lol.

August 6, 2010
Click to view AncoraImparo's profile

I think it is so funny when people say that being gay a sickness. If that is so, can I please PLEASE call in "gay" to work!?

August 6, 2010
Click to view jpeay's profile

I don't think the point is how well heterosexuals handle the institution of marriage, but that the institution of marriage was created for them, not homosexuals.  So, regardless of divorce, adultery etc..which defames the institution, it is a battle heterosexuals must take on.

 

Marriage was never created for homosexuals.  But, if a homosexual wants to marry, they can choose to enter into this union w/ someone of the opposite sex.

August 6, 2010
Click to view cliff01890's profile

This entire debate is absurd. Of course Prop 8 should be overturned.

 

There just isn't a rational argument as to how MY marriage or MY kids are adversely impacted by allowing the couple down the street (gay or straight) to enjoy the same legal rights that I do. Until someone explains that to me, I will continue to enthusiastically support the right for EVERYONE to marry whomever they see fit.

 

 

 

August 6, 2010
Click to view DownToEarth8's profile

Lol yeah. I mean, cmon. What is so offensive about two people wanting to be happy? If you're religion forbids happiness then I dunno what to say about that. I get that the bible is vague about gay marriage, and if christians can't wrap their heads around the idea or choose to interpret the text as anti-gay marriage, then thats fine. I'm not gonna shoot down their opinions and beliefs. If they've found peace and harmony, and they're happy with their belief situation, then why can't they just leave everyone else alone and be happy with theirs?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

jpeay, marriage wasn't 'created' for heterosexuals any more than dancing was created for heterosexuals or dating was created for heterosexuals. Marriage is marriage...people in love who want to make a commitment to spend their lives together get married, they don't get 'unioned'. This is common sense.

August 6, 2010
Click to view cliff01890's profile

To jpeay:

 

The question of who created marriage or for whom marriage was created is entirely irrelevant. Marriage in the US today is a legal construct that carries with it a variety of benefits from taxes to insurance to estate planning. It's not a religious issue, it's not a "institution" issue. It's a question of whether we systematically deny a minority group the legal rights and benefits enjoyed by a majority of the population.

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

@Roughrider12

 

In the ruling Walker supplied many examples of judiciary rulings stating that marriage is a right.  Also you have to look at it in context with US history.  The considerations of other societies or the long length of history aren't relevant.  You have to look at how US law has viewed marriage.

 

Anyway from a logic perspective; if marriage isn't a right, what is it?  You could argue it is a privilege, but then you need to have a valid reason that the two groups are separate, and that one group should have the privilege over another group.  The court ruled that no valid reasons for the separation exists, thus marriage isn't a privilege one group gets benefit of.  Also US citizens really don't do anything to earn a marriage license (other than age requirements).

 

Since people do not earn marriage licenses, nor is marriage considered a valid privilege of the few, it means that marriage is something that a person is inherently qualified for, or a right.

August 6, 2010
Click to view DownToEarth8's profile

And lets not forget jpeay, the wording of the doctrines of marriage and the laws behind it were written in a time where being gay would probably result in an angry mob chasing after you. Try to put things in perspective.

August 6, 2010
Click to view nyr40x94's profile

roughrider12  - It's not a matter of having any one specific right. It's a general statement. A Gay person should have the very same human rights as a heterosexual person. There is no valid argument to the contrary.

August 6, 2010
Click to view sdguy92126's profile

every relationship or marriage is different from one to another. I don't see straight marriage run around bitching about other straight marriage but they do have a lot to say to gay marriage which btw haven't done anything wrong to your marriage.

August 6, 2010
Click to view drewsky310's profile

Don't people every get tired of fighting religious morons - do not misinterpret this to say all people who follow religions are morons, its to just single out religious morons, you know who you are. No matter what we say, bible quotes seem to always be spewing from their mouths. They only follow what they want and expect others to follow them. They believe their religion is the right one and nobody else's is. It is a huge problem and history proves it time and time again. If it wasn't for gays, Christianity and Mormon would never agree on anything. This is why church and state are separate. But aside from that let's just consider this.

 

In the most generic sense of the word race, it could mean a specific group of people. (A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.) Under that definition (common history) alone, Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

 

Another argument. Children with a mom and Dad are raised better. Well that concludes that not only gay parents are unfit, but single parents as well. Good job, make sure to let all them single people know that. I think we all know single parents that raise their children just fine.

 

Given the state of the kids without parents, is it truly a necessity to reproduce (which is also a religious argument), not to mention overpopulation. As men we have no control over that anyways. You want a child with your genes, you need a woman, same goes for gay men or straight men.

 

My last statement is to just emphasize what I said firstly. Everyone interprets their religion differently. Who is to say that one has precedent over the other, well I guess God (or like God in other religions), but He, She, It or Whatever is not here right now to speak to all of us. All we have are human-interpreted teachings of what they believe God would like us to believe. I talk to my god everyday, and I am not told that what I believe in is wrong. I ask God to give me the strength to deal with narrow minded people like those who want to judge others before judging themselves.

 

Gay marriage should be legal, because besides from narrow minded religious beliefs there is no other answer why it shouldn't be.

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

Wow, out of all the bickering and long-winded posts I think drewsky310 summed it up pretty well.

 

"Gay marriage should be legal...because there is no answer why it shouldn't be."

August 6, 2010
Click to view asTer0id's profile

All the anti gay marriage people have one argument. Why vote if your vote is being nullified. Well let me tell you, you don't know anything about government if you think this is akin to voting in a new president. Prop 8 shouldn't have gone to the ballots in the first place. Since when do we elect laws to take away someone else's rights by majority vote? You vote on a policy when it affects you. And regardless of your silly cries about protecting the children and traditional marriage, gay marriage is not going to have one iota of effect on either of them. Keep your fake, uninformed and hypocritical moral indignation to yourself. Why don't you go confront your so called leaders who are hiring rent boys on the side and spewing homophobic hatred in public?

 

All the comments here are extremely homophobic. I don't care if you think two men kissing is gross, really, why should it matter? And if these are the kind of people who are voting, is there any wonder prop 8 was voted into law in the first place? Mockery of family? Mockery of marriage? You don't even know the things committed same-sex couples who have lived together for years have to go through, because you don't know even one for real. All you know is dancing go-go boys and lies someone has told you about marriage needing "protection". Yeah, lets oppose equality and civil rights. And lets lie, cheat on our spouses, be a hypocrite and buy those people magazines that detail britney's one hour vegas wedding. Thats real christian-like.

August 6, 2010
Click to view hal9thou's profile

@IRAhitman:  Oh, please.  Let me break out my violin and serenade your poor plight, baby. Looks like the American judicial system is going to bring us ALL down to a sad, lonely, Godless level.  Amen and amen.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

downtoearth8 - you obviously didn't read my other posts.  I have acknowledged several accurate comments, and you're right - you are a little behind on this.  Hopefully Marsetti recognizes that I'm having a real conversation here with real question, I'm not on some holy-roller holier-than-thou trip.

 

You jumped onto the post, tried to sum up each person and point out fault with each that you find when, had you been involved from the beginning, you'd see that you are way out of line.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Tommie54's profile

A marriage is currently between a man, a woman and the state.  The state has every right to say what a mariage is since the state is a participant in every marriage. You cannot marry you mother or your father.  You cannot marry you sister or your brother.  You cannot marry your aunts or uncles.  In most states you cannot marry you first cousins or half brothers and sisters.  You cannot have more than one spouse. These are all dictates of the state, so it is clear the state decides what a marriage is.  The idea of marriage was that a man would become legally obligated to provide food, a homes and protection for a woman in exchange for her taking care of him and the children produced during the marriage. A societal rule in America is that a man must earn a living.  This rules is enforced by governments.  Men cannot get welfare, because men are expected to earn a living by whatever means necessary.  While a husband is legally obligated to provide for his wife, a wife is not legally obligated to provide for a husband.  The reason the stat is involved in marriage is to ensure that the man provides for the wife and children and protects the family unit.  The state has no interest in seeing to it that a man provides for another man or that a woman provides for another woman. Gay couples can be together, love each other and create contracts to protect their interests.  They should not expect the state to be a party to their relationships, the state has no interest in the success or failure of that relationship.  If the people of California do not wish to be obligatged to protect the relationship between two men or two women they should not be forced to do so.  Gay men and straight men have the exact same rights, they can marry any woman they wish.  Gay women and Straight women have the exact same rights, they can marry any man they wish.  Both straight and gay people are denied the right to marry their mother, father, aunt, uncle, sister, brother, first cousins, half sister, half brother, children and people of the same sex. Marriage is a state issue and the Federal Government has no say in who is and is not married.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Hal, what are you talking about?  My poor plight? 

August 6, 2010
Click to view LogicPlease7's profile

@DownToEarth8

People don't like to see others whom they dislike happy. That's the bottom line here....hate. Fundies hate that which they don't understand (and they don't understand much outside of biblical scope) and they envy those who want to enter into a happy marriage when their own is in shambles.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Tommie54

 

"Gay men and straight men have the exact same rights - they can marry any woman they wish."

 

Same thing racists used to say when interracial marriage was a 'moral issue' - we all have equal rights - we can all marry someone from our own race.

August 6, 2010
Click to view PenguinKing7's profile

Stop complaining about the sanctity of marriage when we, straights, have over a 50% marriages fail in the United States. I guess by popular "vote" straight marriages shouldn't be happening because they obviously don't work. I will be happy to see gays marry. I have many gay friends and I value their friendship. I'll continue to stand with them and see this to the end.

 

For all of you who are quoting bible passages… uhh… separation of church and state! There’s a difference between marriage and holy sanctimony, so get over it. You can keep your religion in your church and in your home but don’t press it on people who don’t want it. Your religious dogma shouldn’t be able to rule me or anyone else because you don’t like it. If we all listened to how I thought then all religion would be nonexistent, and that sure would suck for you wouldn’t it? Good day Sir… I SAID GOOD DAY!!

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

And no, Tommie, it's not the state that decides what marriage is - a state couldn't for example decide to do away with marriage or pass a law that remarriage isn't allowed or that Jews or postal workers or whatever can't marry...

August 6, 2010
Click to view Tommie54's profile

Since there is only one type of human being left (homosapien sapien) the racists were right about who people could marrym but were wrong in regards to the mythical ideas of race.  The issue is a legal issue not a moral issue.  The state determines what a marriage is and the state determines which if their citizens can get married.  Adults cannot marry children because the state says son.  A child cannot marry a parent because the state says so.  Marriage is not about love it is about protection.  The states determines who is obligated to protect whom.  California has decided that people of the same sex cannot be obligated to protect their life partner. That is all the decision means.  The state does not prevent gays from protecting their life partner, they just do not obligate them to do so.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Serenity76's profile

Prop 8 was cruel and disgusting, no one should be able to vote away civil rights. The people who voted for Prop 8 should be ashamed of themselves. The GLBT community is constantly under attack and has to fight everyday for basic civil rights. We should have the right to marry the person we love and have the same rights as everyone else. Prop 8 was unconstitutional and only served to give bigots one more legalized way to discriminate against GLBT people.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Wrong, Tommie, the state can pass laws to prohibit marriages that have proven to be harmful and that are described as harmful by modern psychology. Incest is an example of that. Homosexuality is not.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

And Tommie, your ideas about sexuality are just as mythical as the racists ideas about race and racial purity were...they're based on the bible, how could they not be, especially when every mainstream source of science, medicine and psychology says that about 5% of the population is homosexual and that it's healthy and normal for homosexuals to have romantic relationships...

 

Yet you're suggesting that we should marry the opposite sex and that's somehow equal??? That's insane.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Tommie54's profile

And yes Marsetti the state does determine what marriage is and when legal obligations are bestowed on people getting married.  They state says who can marry and under what conditions a marriage can be disolved and if a marriage is disolved what obligations the two parties have to one another (alimony anyone).  The state cannot say Jews cannot get married because everyone has equal rights under the law.  A straight man/woman can get married and a gay man/woman can get married, neither can marry people the state says they cannot marry. 

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

Tommie54

 

The idea of marriage WAS that a man would become legally obligated to provide food...

 

Times have changed from this antiquated view of marriage.  If a husband is legally obligated to provide for his wife, does this mean a stay-at-home dad is a criminal?  Or at least is his marriage null and void?  If this argument is truly the case, it sounds like instituted discrimination based on sex.

 

Also why does the the state have no interest in the success or failure of a homosexual relationship?  Are homosexuals that much better than heterosexual women for providing for themselves?

 

The state needs a reason to deny protections for one relationship but grant them to another.

August 6, 2010
Click to view DownToEarth8's profile

IRAhitman...I've read all your posts and I've read the whole blog from the beginning. You said you're not a holier than thou type person, but why in your first post, did you accuse someone who is gay of being a pseudo christian? Do you know them? Surely you can't pass that kind of judgement on someone based on a couple blog posts. You just automatically assume that there is no way gays can be true christians just because they're gay?

 

You keep asking for Christian gays to justify their religious status in the bible. Now, I'm not claiming to know the bible, but like I said before, its a text from a time where you got stoned for being gay. I know a few gay people who are christian, and theyve told me that they don't get hung up on trying to find a reason to justify being gay. Is the only point of the bible to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and see if you qualify for jesus and salvation? They read the bible for guidance, structure, and jesus' teachings. They believe in God just as any Christian does, and pursue their lives based on what they think he and jesus would want. They're generally just great people. If we're all Gods children, and come with all the Christian accessories like Original Sin, and lead a good honest life, then why do we need to prove ourselves to God? Why would God create Gays (don't give me the argument that being gay isn't inate) if they would be behind the curve from day one?

 

I have a question for you. What criteria in the bible makes gays Pseudo christian? What parts of the bible are they picking and choosing? If i'm not mistaken, you quoted the bible at face value in one of your posts, and then when someone else did the same with Numbers, you immediately dismissed it as a misquote.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Tommie54's profile

Marsetti, marriage has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with gender and protection, that is all.  A person can have sex with whatever adult they wish.  You cannot marry whomever you wish.  I never said anything about sex so you argument is completely bogus.  States that have detemined that thier citizens of the same sex can be married and have the protection of the state had every right to do so, but states that determine that people of the same sex may not get married had every right to deny marriage protections to those relationships.

August 6, 2010
Click to view DownToEarth8's profile

And also hitman, dont use the excuse of, "Im engaging in real conversation." Just because you're not frothing at the mouth and throwing out offensive words like "sickness" and the f word that rhymes with maggot, doesn't mean you're not offending people. I'm not even a christian and I found your "pseudo christian" accusation distasteful. Its fine to engage in the debate, but don't start throwing condescending accusations at people.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Tommie, if you want to imagine marriage is something that it isn't, be my guest, but yours won't be very successful...people marry someone when they're in a romantic relationship together, and part of a romantic relationship is sexual attraction. That's the way it always has been. You didn't know that? If it weren't that way then people would traditionally have married whomever they enjoy being around the most, regardless of their gender...because sex wouldn't be a part of it. No one told you this?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Tommie54's profile

eplatypus - a man's failure to provide food, housing, clothing and other necessities to his spouse is grounds for divource in all 50 states.  A woman's refusal to live in the home provided by the husband is grounds for divource in all 50 states. 

August 6, 2010
Click to view Idonthinkso's profile

Why can't people just admit that most normal people find anything gay related just disgusting and repulsive without any religious reasoning behind it. Lets see how much you defenders like it when you complain because they do the kiss cam with 2 guys at a game then you say it ruined the children. My question is why would the gays want to join a failed institution where you get screwed financially when 50% will fail at some point. They just like making noise like most complainers.

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

Tommie54

 

Laws will not pass constitutional muster if they don't have valid reasons why they were passed.  Essentially, the people of California voted to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, but when two homosexual couples asked (with their lawyers of course), the people failed to provide a reason..

 

If marriage is for protection, why are homosexuals excluded?  A man needs to provide for a woman?  So in the eyes of the state the woman cannot totally provide for herself.  Or if a woman marries, she must give up her right to provide (or at least a majority of) for her family because by the definition of her marriage she is not supposed too.

 

This is an argument about the state's definition of marriage.  Your seems to be "A marriage is a man providing for a woman, and possibly their children."  If marriage is defined as a man and a woman, it must have a reason.  We have seen yours.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

PenguinKing - Seeing as this is a blog and there are obviously several conversations happening at the same time, your is not the position to tell us what we cannot quote.  I simply posed a question in relation to another comment about how Christian gays interpret the Bible in a way that supports being gay.  Marzetti is the only one who has given an answer that makes any sense.  My question wasn't one of condemnation, nor was it some "holy-roller" question.  I'm a straight Christian man and honestly wondered how gays could pick and choose parts of the Bible and discard the rest and call themselves "Christian."  Marzetti made some good points in showing how outdated some of the Bible is (i.e.: you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die within 2 days).  I see where the Bible flat-out condemns homosexuality, and never actually supports it in any way.  But as another post mentioned, Jesus spoke about a LOT of things still pertinant today and not once did he mention homosexuality.  Maybe it's not that big of a deal.  I don't agree with it, and that's my right.  However, I don't treat people differently if that's the life they live. 

 

I did point out at one point (and still haven't gotten a response) that many hetersexuals are more annoyed by the "flamboyant" actions of many gays than the actual fact that they're gay.  Gays, in my experience, don't try to change straight people to become gay.  Their business doesn't affect me at all.  They're just regular people like straight people.  What's the point of being flamboyant?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Tommie54's profile

Marsetti - people marry for money, people marry to stay in the United States, people marry to unite families, people marry because their parents told them to.  People marry because their children to be "legitimate".  People get married because they are drunk and it seemed like a good idea at the time.  People marry for all kinds of reasons.  The state does not care if you love your spouse or not, they want the two parties to live up to their obligations.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

If that's true then why wouldn't they want two same sex spouses to live up to their obligations?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Especially when children are sometimes involved...

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

And basically your argument is that people marry for reasons other than love...and that somehow it's in the state's interest to encourage that???

August 6, 2010
Click to view DownToEarth8's profile

IRAhitmanPeople who are "flamoyantly" gay sometimes choose to do be that way to fit in. I can't imagine the internal/external struggle a lot of gays go through, especially at a young age, so any type of common-ground with other gays is probably a warm welcome for them. I'm not gay, but thats just my thought...If any gay person can validate that statement or tell me I'm completely full of S-, please do so.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Downtoearth8 - Perhaps you could look at the change in my post as that someone made comments that made sense and I understood their point.  It changed my opinion.  Am I obligated to maintain my opinion simply because that's how I started out on the blog?  I asked a question because initially I thought that a gay that called themselves Christian were picking and choosing what they believed from the Bible, therefore I considered them "pseudo-Christian." but as Marzetti pointed out, there are many things in the Bible that are antiquated and make no sense anymore.  That swayed my opinion. 

 

I suppose I'm supposed to just be bull-headed and argue a point that someone else may have proved wrong.  I do see how most people don't admit when they're wrong, but good, valid points were made.  I honestly asked someone to explain how they interpreted the Bible, and someone did.  I got an honest answer and I appreciated it.  Should I rant and rave that they're wrong even if they're not?

August 6, 2010
Click to view qazwsx1's profile

The homosexual lifestyle is a sin. It is clear in the Bible that it is unnatural and considered a sin. Just because I agree that it is a sin does not make me a bigot or “homophobic”.  I can express my beliefs without crossing that line. Several posts attempt to defend their position by stating that Christians should look in the mirror at their sins before looking at others. That is true to an extent. All humans are sinners and must deal internally with their sin BUT the fact that all people sin does not change the fact that certain actions are sin. If I lust after a woman, I am guilty of that sin. It does not however remove the fact that other actions are sin. It cannot be said that since Christians sin then homosexuality is not a sin. Unfortunately most people opposed to this lifestyle claim to be a Christian but act in a completely un-Christian like manner. That is harmful to both gays and Christians alike. To the gays, it is harmful by the pure hate directed at the person. A true Christian is to hate the SIN not the sinner. That applies to all sin. It is harmful to the Christian because the hate mongers present themselves as Christians which dilutes was that truly means.  I have to also comment about the use of the defense of “let the one without sin cast the first stone.” It is very convenient to use that text as a basis for someone not to call your actions a sin. That is not the context in which it was used or meant. Jesus stated that to the men who were accusing a woman of adultery. They were saying the woman should be stoned but they did not hold the man to the same accountability. Jesus was bringing to light their sin along with what they were doing. The part that everyone leaves out is when Jesus turned to the woman and told her to go “and sin no more.” He was not giving her a free pass on her sin either. Both parties were being held accountable not both were ok since they were both wrong. Also as of the statement that the Bible said we should not judge others. That is for judging someone’s salvation not their actions. God is the judge for everyone’s salvation not man. If I lie, cheat, steal… I am wrong and someone has the right to hold me accountable to those actions but they cannot judge if I am going to heaven or not. They should also hold me accountable with love not anger. As for gay marriage specifically, it is the further decline of civilization. People state that what others do in their home does not affect others. That is the same response that was presented to couples living together while not being married. The biblical standard was not upheld and it is now considered the norm. The result…children in several single family homes, children without any father in their lives, etc. The same is true of divorce. Several people have pointed to the fact that divorce even in churches is at 50% which is correct but it does not make it right. Divorce is also a standard that has been lowered. Currently there are split dysfunctional families without a proper father or mother figure. All we hear today is that the prisons are full of men that lacked father figures. The church is wrong to hold these two situations to a lesser standard than gay marriages. No one can argue that society has turned for the worse since both have become acceptable. Gay marriages are the next step. Again, I state this position not in hate but with love for all man. God does love everyone but hates ALL sin…including homosexuality.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Downtoearth8 - What was that last post?  Why are you so stubborn?  You really seem to have it out for me and you're embarassing yourself.

August 6, 2010
Click to view happyemc's profile

Here is the best idea ever. Why not give same sex marriage the same rights as hetero marriage(Civil Union) and let the tradition people keep the word (Marriage)? Everybody will be happy compromise is good. Unless same sex marriage supporters are intentional continuing this cultural war which could have ended a long time ago.

August 6, 2010
Click to view quickreply70's profile

Please do not shove your religious hate and bigotry down my throat. Have respect for everyone's opinion, the last time I check this was a democracy, not a theocracy. Marriage is not sacred, it is a contract used to offer legal protection to the parties involved and their offspring. How is this going to destroy straight marriages is something that you'd have to prove. Religious arguments should not be used in this discussion, as the religious leader of the right have been wrong before in this account (Remember that Pat Roberts was dead set against mixed-race marriage back in the day)

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

I've got an idea, happyemc, why don't we give blacks the same exact water at the same exact temperature out of their own water fountain.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Jerry Falwell also preached against mixed raced marriage because of the bible. Then years later he apologized.

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

Tommie54

 

So, "Marriage is defined as a man and a woman, because a husband (man) must provide for his wife (woman)."  Logically I guess I can go along with that, providing a marriage where the husband does not work or the wife provides more resources than the husband are null and void (even if they couple wishes to remain together).  Marriage shall only be designated for those women who need a man to support them and to those men who will always provide more than the wives.  Also the engaged must provide the evidence that said resource relationship will always be maintained.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Tommie54's profile

eplatypus - Laws will not pass constitutional if the government was not given power to control an aspect of a citizen's activity.  Clealy the state was given the power to contraol the activity of marriage.  If gays wish to have the state obligate the individuals in the relationship, they have to show what interest the state has in enforcing obligations on the two parties,  how the two parties are harmed if these obligations are not enforced and since obligations cannot be determined by gender, who is obligated to do what?

You must remember marriage is very old legally and yes women were less able to provide for themselves than men because of societal rules.  Women still make less than men.  If a woman marries she does not give up her right to provide for herself and her family but she is not obligated to do so, where the man is obligated to do so. In a same sex situation who is obligated to protect whom?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

@qazwsx1

 

All that from a book that says things like:

 

Exodus 21: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

 

I don't think so...and it certainly shouldn't affect MY life.

August 6, 2010
Click to view happyemc's profile

who said anything about religion i think this is just the best solution and just because i dont agree with your opinions does not make me a bigot or racist (the liberal idea)

Why not give them the civil union with same benefits and call it even

why start this battle unless this is part of their idea of making people accept

August 6, 2010
Click to view DownToEarth8's profile

I didn't mean to have it out for you with that last post. I just threw my two cents out on your flamboyant-gay question. And I guess I owe you an apology, before I missed a few of your comments where you acknowledge those things (I'm at work and there is streaky/laggy internet connection. With the blog being a mile long, it tends to skip a little bit.) Either way, didn't mean to look like I was going after you.

August 6, 2010
Click to view exgayChad's profile

Traditional marriage is the foundation of society and has served our state well for centuries. California’s constitutional marriage amendment exists to strengthen society, encourage monogamous and loving marriages and to provide the optimal environment to ensure the well being of children. Thirty-one other states, including California have voted on this issue and every single one decided against legalizing same-sex marriage and instead upheld traditional marriage. California has voted on the issue twice and the people’s voice has been resounding: marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

August 6, 2010
Click to view happyemc's profile

the whole reason for the entire thing is because of not giving them the same rights how about we do as Obama says (liberals) civil union same benefits everybody wins

The whole point of this was for the rights am i correct if it is not what more do they want

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

exGay Chad...LOL. Your name says it all. Why don't you go take a penile plethysmograph and see if you're really 'exgay'. If you are, you'll be the first in recorded history, lol.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Because gays don't want any type of differences.  If you let straight people call it marriage and gays call it a civil union, there would be outrage.

 

As for gay Christians, your interpretation is your interpretation.  I now have a better understanding of your thought process.  I don't agree, but then again I don't have to agree.  I simply wanted to understand.  That being said, my personal belief is that marriage is for a man and a woman.  That belief is basically my religious belief.  Being that there is a separation of church and state, I don't really see how the state can legitimately ban gay marriage. 

 

So - I disagree with gay marriage, but I don't see how the state should be allowed to ban it.  I believe that a gay couple should have a legal union for reasons such as insurance, benefits, medical issues, etc.  But it's obvious that just saying "I do" doesn't make a permenant committment.  That can only come from the heart.  If gays want to marry, and what ever church they belong to says it's ok, more power to them.  The only thing the state should be involved in is the license.  The state gets money for that, so why not?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Well IRA, that's silly to think that we have to come up with a new name for it when there's already a name for it - marriage. People fall in love and make a commitment to spend their lives together - that's called marriage. Always has been. To say we have to come up with a new name for it IS discriminatory, not to mention just plain silly. It's just a device to make it clear to us that our marriages don't have the same value as yours. That's all it's about. But I've got news for you, my 7 year partnership (that would be a marriage if it were legal) that has been monogamous and faithful and honest from the beginning, has a lot more value than a lot of heterosexual marriages I know of...so what I call my relationship should certainly reflect that in general, it's equal to other marriages because in truth, it's better than some and it's probably not as good as some (though I'm not sure where we could improve as a couple, we do pretty well, but there's always room for growth).

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

Tommie54

 

The problem is how the state defines the marriage.  "Marriage is between man and a woman" needs to have some rational basis why it is between a man and a woman.  If the reason why is because a man needs to protect a woman, then all marriages must meet this definition. 

 

The plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case used the 14th Amendment because they could argue that there is no valid reason to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual couples (thus equal) and the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman is arbitrary. With the definition arbitrary, providing benefits to heterosexuals but not homosexuals is discrimination and thus unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Gretchend's profile

fr midshipmanx:

 

>...The argument that the law is unconstitutional because it creates an inequality isn't necessarily true. The prop 8 law does not place homosexuals in an inferior class. They have all of the same rights as their hetero sexual counterparts. "But" you say, "they don't have the right to marry." to which I respond saying, yes they do. They have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do. ...<

 

Let me explain it to you: We glbt's simply want AND DESERVE the right to marry the non-attached, legal, consenting ADULT of our choice. We don't want to marry farm animals, kids, or siblings.

 

Simple enough? GOOD. Grow UP and get a life. WE WON, and there isn't thing one you can do about it!!!

August 6, 2010
Click to view hank0987's profile

Man.

Look at all them corn holers in that picture.

August 6, 2010
Click to view exgayChad's profile

CALIFORNIANS HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. If gay activists want to legalize gay marriage, they should put it on the ballot.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Tommie54's profile

Marsetti, what obligations do two gay people have to each other? In order to accomodate gay marriage, the marriage laws have to change and it has to be stated how obligations determined.

August 6, 2010
Click to view cascadoux's profile

If a Gay, consenting adult, wants to marry a person of  similar persuasion, then as an "equal" Americans, they have that right. Just like the straight people have a right to marry a consenting adult of their choosing. We all have to be protected under the law.  Religious institutions have the right to marry, or not, whomsoever they please.  This is so simple. Nobody is asking for "special rights,"  they are wanting the same right straights may or may not choose to exercise, to get married. We are supposed to be equal under Caesar's laws, the Laws of the land.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Wrong, Chad, we didn't have a majority in this country that approved of interracial marriage until 1991. It was banned in the 60s in 17 states and the US Supreme Court, thank God, overturned those bans, despite the outcries of religious zealots. They overturned them because they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You can't vote for things that are unconstitutional and expect them to stand. That's not how this country works.

August 6, 2010
Click to view IRAhitman's profile

Marzetti - that was my point.  I was responding to happyemc when he wanted to call it something different.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Wrong Tommy, obligations and the level of obligation are determined on an individual basis in the courts anyway. And the correct answer is that we don't have marriage because the government wants to make sure everyone lives up to their obligations, but if they did...

 

Then certainly an unfaithful spouse would be grounds for divorce as it is in straight marriage,

 

Having children would be grounds for financial obligation as it is in straight marriage,

 

One partner not living in the home would be grounds for divorce as it is in straight marriage,

 

What about this don't you get???

August 6, 2010
Click to view ForwardXIX's profile

Why does anyone care? Marriage in the secular sense (which is what this is about) is a status of one's legal standing, not an institution.  The laws and protections afforded by this legal status should be offered to all, but they presently are not, which is why civil unions are not acceptable, as they lack in these attributes.

 

Marriage is an institution in the theological sense, and should be kept as such to those sects which wish to preserve the integrity of it's definition within their beliefs.  However, the Republic of The United States does not have a state religion (ref. 1792 treaty of Tripoli) and thus these religious definitions cannot and should not be transferred into secular law, as they infringe on the rights of all persons contributing to government, but whom do not show favoritism towards a particular beliefs system.

 

In regards to the California democratic decision to enact prop 8, votes take second priority in a Republic, to the rights afforded by the binding Federal Government (generally found in the Constitution)Regardless of democratic process, the people have legally transferred their power to govern themselves to their elected representatives, who in turn, transfer it via Congress to the Supreme court (if violation of the constitution ever occurs) Therefore, the democratic outcome in which this law was enacted was made null the moment it was decided that it did not conform to the responsibilities of government found on a Federal level (which supersedes state level in Constitutional matters such as secular rights)

 

In short, The overturn of prop 8 is simply a SECULAR realization that a law has been made that is contradictory to the constitution and the legal rights afforded therein.  The overturn on prop 8 will have no affect on the religious definition of marriage as there is official state religion in this country, and each faith still has the ability to deny the marriage status of any couple it chooses, so long as it stays within it's power to do so (it cannot, for example, stop a secular marriage from taking place in)  Also, the government does not have the ability to force any religion to perform marriage, as it it that faith's right to accept or deny. 

 

It is not religion's necessity or responsibility to direct government affairs, or to influence them in any way, and if you are of any Christian based religion, you really shouldn't have an opinion on it in the first place, as your primary responsibility is to direct YOUR OWN lives in the ways of Christ, not others.  You may be a role model by your actions, and teach your children to do an be the same, but never has it been in Christ's teachings to FORCE any part of religion on anyone.  We are responsible for our own salvation, and the only help we will get is from Christ NOT from people policing the rights given to others. 

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

My mistake IRA

August 6, 2010
Click to view qazwsx1's profile

This is a serious question and I am not trying to be funny. What is to be stated to a polygamist who asks for the right to marry several other consenting adults? If every one involed is consenting and of age, should that also be considered unconstitutional?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Tommie54's profile

eplatypus  the state assumed marriage was between a man and a woman because as far as most people know its always been defined as between a man and a women even in societies when homosexualy of various forms was fully accepted.  I find it perfectly acceptable to maintain the traditional definition of marriage and have civil unions for people who do not want to participate in a traditional marriage (people who would rather live together than get married, people who choose to have multiple partners, etc...).

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Polygamy may be a constitutional question. I think it depends on what modern psychology says about it...if it's harmful or not, and if that situation is harmful to children. Certainly when it's the Mormon variety that's often abusive and often involves children as brides, the government has every right to prohibit that, but the consensual adult variety, I'm not sure. I just know I wouldn't want to be in a romantic relationship with more than one person...and I don't think that most people do so I doubt it's a huge issue.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Impit's profile

In all honestly, if you're going to use Leviticus as a basis to your argument against same sex marriage than you focus the same hatred on people who eat grapes off the ground #, those who wear two different types of cloth or even those who mate two different types of animals #.

 

What I did not notice, however, was that there was nothing in Leviticus about church officials molesting young children. This explains a lot...

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

I mean I think they could pass a law saying polygamous marriages are legal and I don't think you're going to have it happen very often. But if Todd and Janet and Joan all want to make a commitment to spend their lives together and love each other, who am I to say? As long as it's not shown to be harmful or to be harmful to children.

August 6, 2010
Click to view qazwsx1's profile

@ FORWARDXIX

 

Sorry but your statements in your last paragraph are incorrect. Christians are to help bring other to Christ. True, that does include their actions but that is not all. Jesus did not FORCE anyone to follow him but he did state that not doing so would lead down the wrong path. We are to hold ourselves and others accountable for their actions. What is lost in that translation is the fact that most people (on both sides) cannot communicate properly.

August 6, 2010
Click to view exgayChad's profile

Marsetti, you say that most people wouldn't want to be in a Polygamy relationship so it shouldn't be an issue. Well most people wouldn't want to be in a same sex marriage and it is an issue. Once you say it's okay for one, then you will have to say it's ok for all.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

No, Chad, what I'm saying is sure, if modern psychology says it isn't harmful, then it isn't an issue, let it be legal...and big deal if you do because there aren't going to be that many that will want to do that anyway.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

And seriously Chad, if you're going to say you're exGay, why not go test it scientifically and see if it's really true, if you actually have somehow developed genuine sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

...like before you ruin some poor girl's life or something.

August 6, 2010
Click to view qazwsx1's profile

@ Impit

 

I have to point out Romans 1:29-32 also. As for molestation in churches, I think that everyone on this blog will agree that ALL molestation is terribly wrong and violators should be punished harshly. Remember, wrongdoing in churches or anywhere, is due to teh shortcomings of man not God. Man will fail you every time. That being said, it does not have anything to do with gay marriage.

August 6, 2010
Click to view exgayChad's profile

Marsetti, I know it's not about "marriage" it's about getting equal rights. I know, I was a gay activist myself. But marriage is defined between a man and a woman. You want the same rights, fine, but why redefine the term marriage as it has been from the beginning?

August 6, 2010
Click to view num1runna's profile

Marsetti, that is an awesome idea, he should get scientifically tested to show he is not gay anymore...but wait, there is no scientific test to show someone is actually gay in the first place?

August 6, 2010
Click to view exgayChad's profile

Marsetti, I am in a marriage as a marriage is defined. Between a man and a woman.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Wrong Chad, since the beginning, people have fallen in love and made a commitment to spend their lives together and that's been called marriage. To say it's not is BS. You know if you told someone who had never heard of Civil Unions what a Civil Union was, you'd say "oh it's when gays get married". Duh.

 

If we're going to be this ridiculous then we should have to come up with a new word for when two men dance together because 'dancing' has traditionally involved opposite sex partners and a new word for 'dating' too since dating has traditionally involved opposite sex partners and we're trying to 'redefine it'.

 

What words would you like us to use?

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Then perhaps, Chad, you should go to a site called triple w dot gay husbands dot com where it explains the kind of damage that you do when you selfishly use a woman in a relationship inappropriate for your sexuality.

August 6, 2010
Click to view eplatypus's profile

Tommie54

 

There may be countless years of tradition, but those abstract beliefs and feelings of tradition are irrelevant when tangible benefits are being withheld from a group of citizens because it does not sit well with "tradition".

 

Also it is illogical to build and completely identical system to marriage and call it something else simply to appease people who may become upset because their tradition.  Tradition and beliefs have no potency when real people are suffering from real problems.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

Yeah num1runna, actually there is and they use it on sex offenders all the time to show whether they're attracted to children and to what degree. It also shows clearly which gender(s) a person is attracted to and to what degree. It's called a penile plethysmograph.

August 6, 2010
Click to view drewsky310's profile

What I am trying to figure out by most people on here quoting their bible passages is this. Do you realize that there are other religions out there and you are not the only one. I am not asking to be included in your religion, in fact I am extremely happy to stay out of it, but why do you think I should care what Leviticus says or whatever. I respect what you believe, whay are you having troubles doing the same. Allowing gays to marry has no impact on your life. You can say yes because of whatever you like, but in truth it has nothing to do with you. You don't like gays pure and simple, fine, like I said I don't care, but you force your beliefs on me and that I do care. You think I am a sinner, I think you are too. We can go through this battle forever, but I can agree to disagree. I like the fact people are different, it creates diversity, but you should not dictate to me what I need to do to be pure in your eyes. I haven't met you, and you haven't met me. There is no place in laws for religious views, except that everyone has the right to choose what they want to believe. Every human is created equally, right. So there you go. But funny how you are telling me that is not true and you are actually above me. Whose a sinner? The one who plays god, or the one that follows god. Not all sins are created equal, but we do hold more accountable than others. I think murder and rape should be of the highest, but you think stopping gays from getting married is. I think someone has got some major explaining to do when they reach those golden gates, or wherever it is you think your going.

August 6, 2010
Click to view num1runna's profile

A penile plethysmograph has absolutely nothing to do with proving whether someone is gay or not, it measures blood flow to the penis, you could say this could be used to measure what someone finds sexually arousing, but that is huge leaps from proving someone has a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality.  Currently all someone has to do is "claim" homosexual status and boom, that is what totally seperates this from all previous civil rights struggles.  An black man is born as such and so is a woman, whereas all a homosexual has to do is claim that status and that provides the basis for rights?

August 6, 2010
Click to view roughrider12's profile

@eplatypus - how does an all gay society exist past 1 generation? please explain before you make dumb statements that same gay and hetero make no difference as a building block of society.

August 6, 2010
Click to view num1runna's profile

If homosexuality is indeed genetic then it just goes to reason that the more socially acceptable it becomes, the more their numbers will decline.  Genetic causation should allow for a dramatic decline in numbers, on the other had, if the there are socio-relational factors to blame as the instigating factors then you would see a rise in those claiming homosexuality.  It will be an interesting experiment.

August 6, 2010
Click to view drewsky310's profile

@num1runna ummm no. You may work that as an argument if we were trying to gain different rights than you, but simply we are not. We are trying to gain equal rights. We want the right for a person to marry whichever sex he or she wants. No claiming involved. A straight person would then have the right to marry someone of the same sex as well. No proof is required, which also can apply to a gay guy marrying a lesbian. As far as basis, all humans should have the right to marry, that's the what we're fighting for.

And as far as you can tell a black is a black is a premature argument because let's face it, we don't know how genetics play a role in Homosexuality. We didn't know the earth was round either once upon a time.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Serenity76's profile

People need to stop comparing LGBT Marriage Equality with Incest or Beastiality, they are not the same thing and have NOTHING to do with one another. If you are against Marriage Equality, then you need to own up to your own homophobia and stop hiding behind religion.

August 6, 2010
Click to view drewsky310's profile

@roughrider12 who is talking about an all gay society? Are you gay? We don't want everyone to be gay, although it would make things a bit easier. Regardless, we still have viable sperm and women can still get pregnant. Just because we don't want to sex with, doesn't mean we can't reproduce through a lab. Straight couples do it all the time.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Serenity76's profile

It should not matter whether or not people choose to be Gay or Lesbian or whatever, they aren't harming anyone and they should have the right to live a happy and fulfilling life. People make choices about what they want to be like everyday, they choose which political party to support, which religion they believe in or to be atheist, they choose what to eat or not eat, etc. As long as you are not harming anyone it should not matter as long as you are happy and healthy.

August 6, 2010
Click to view drewsky310's profile

And let me just point out one more fact about the fertility argument. Are you trying to say that infertile straight married couples are in violation of their marriage. My brother and sister-in-law can't reproduce due to cancer (which I am sure is similar to quite a few couples). Be careful with your arguments you young-minded individuals, because just as easily as you are giving us the arguments, we can flop the same right back on to you and your value of marriage.

August 6, 2010
Click to view Sarah32's profile

You know, I was reading the most inspirational book called "The Truth About Wicca and Witchcraft-Finding Your True Power" by James Aten. He reminds us to think and put ourselves in the other persons place before we judge. I think this is a technique we could all benefit from, and not enough people even consider it. Even if you are not gay, why would you want to deny them the same rights everyone else has? They are not hurting anything, they are only living their lives like the rest of us. We either uphold the constitution, or we may as well be Nazi Germany.

August 6, 2010
Click to view num1runna's profile

Serenity, that was a very interesting way of describing the situation of marriage, I have not heard it described that way and it certainly gives me a new perspective to consider it from.  I have to give it up to a good argument when I hear it, I hear so very few out there from either side...

August 6, 2010
Click to view Marsetti's profile

num1runna, just what do you think that means when someone has a plethysmograph on their penis that measures blood flow, which increases when arousal increases, and for an hour they're show arousing pictures of males and females and when seeing the pictures of females they have no response at all in their penis and when seeing pictures of males they get blood flow to the point of being at least semi-erect, repeatedly over an hour.

 

Exactly how would you explain that? That's a straight man who's just confused?

August 6, 2010
Click to view mcola0687's profile

First off, this question and law does not pertain to a religious belief on marriage.

 

If you would like to define marriage between a man and a woman lets first evaluate what a definition is.  A definition is nothing more than a word given meaning by people.  We change the meaning of words quite often.  For instance - "that's cool" is not a phrase meaning that its cool outside temperature wise necessarily, but could be meaning cool as in neat, unique or somehow special.  You can think of several synonyms yourself, I'm sure of this.  So therefore - arguments do not stand on the premises of the definition of the word marriage.

 

Next, the real question here is equality between individuals.  At one point in time we suppressed minorities due to the color of their skin.  Then we would not let people of different skin colors marry.  Lets think about this.  Today we are shocked that society even did that.  So what is different about holding back someone from the one they love?

 

Next marriage in a religious sense is based on personal beliefs.  Some people are "married" and went to city hall to have it done.  Marriage is strictly a financial contract allowing two individuals to get a tax break, share insurance, and so forth.  If two people choose to be in a relationship and want these benefits - all should be allowed to have them. 

 

If you don't like the same sex - then you don't have to marry them.  Who is hurting by allowing the same sex to marry one another? No one.  It is just allowing the same rights for everyone.  Men and women are equal.  Men do not have to take care of women as purposed by previous argument.  In fact that is a rather outdated opinion since women and men are equal in todays society.  It is actually quite belittling to women to assume that women are to be taken care of by men. 

 

 

It's no ones business but their own who they love.  By denying these legal rights that are given in a marriage license, you are supressing  apart of society, and that is against the constitution.

August 11, 2010
Click to view wedidit08's profile

People just need to get over themselves and stop acting like they are perfect! Sorry not everyone lives by your ancient philosophy on how to live and what you consider right or wrong. You would think people would get the hint after all these years that we do not all worship the same god or attend the same church. Not all of us grew up with the same values or were taught the same things. At the end of the day we are all humans, No matter your race,religion or sexual orientation may be and it is time people start treating each other equally as humans! Stop using close minded one sided logic to promote fear and hatred toward people you claim to be so much different then you!

August 12, 2010
Click to view tatpo's profile

I would like to comment on the man who spoke against same sex marriage and gave his reasoning as to why he did not agree with it on CNN.  He said it was "against God" and that this was a free country.  He's right this is a free country, and the last I checked we maintain the right of religion.  Meaning we can take part in whatever religion we like, and we choose how religious we are.  Just because some people believe its against God doesn't mean that everyone thinks it is.  If you believe its against God, great for you. Don't marry someone of the same sex as you, but as our law allows, not everyone has the same beliefs. They should have the same rights as everyone else.  This ruling should not be based off of our beliefs or our bias.

August 12, 2010
Click to view tatpo's profile

As for Matthew Staver, not everyone in the world is going to become gay all of a sudden if marriage is allowed for them.  There will still be male-female marriages and people will still be having children.  Furthermore, he states that there are sociological studies that show children without fathers have problems and thats why children need both a mother and a father.  Well what about all those fathers and all those mothers who walk out on there family and children.  The men and women who abandon their children.  They shouldn't be allowed to marry either because they aren't there for the growth of there children.  They are adding to the children who grow up without a father or without a mother and to the children who may have problems because of that.

August 12, 2010
Click to view forkmaster19's profile

This country is headed straight to the bowels of hell. We had better change our ways before God Almighty unleashes his wrath on us.

You must be logged in to post a comment.



About the iReport Blog

The latest and greatest on CNN iReport, brought to you by Team iReport.


Categories Recent posts Monthly Subscribe