I do not support gay marriage!

Gay marriage advocates are fighting this fight the wrong way. I think gays should fight for same-sex civil unions, and then argue that all unions to include marriage be simply recognized by the government as a union and marriages be considered a type of union. They can argue that using a number of clauses including the separation of church and state. In other words, when a person wants to make decisions regarding a spouse or receive spousal benefits, whether straight or gay, they would simply check one box that says they do have a civil union. And gays can argue that marriages be then considered a civil union.

 

Then you do support gay marriage lol, the idea of gay marriage is only one of them being together not so much the actual 'Marriage in a church' part.

When asked if you support gay marriage your actually being asked if you agree with a man/woman being with another man/woman (respectively). The whole situation of an actual marriage through religious terms is a completely different thing.

 

Putting the word "Civil Union" is just making it politically correct. I don't think the religious conservatives out there would appreciate taking the sacred element out of marriages. To them, a marriage is (and will always be) a contract between a man, a woman, and God.

 

I'm a firm believer that marriage should consist between a man and a woman. Being able to serve my country nowadays doesn't even stand for what it used to back in the day. I'm a strong believer of the good book and that's why i do what i do today.

 

I believe marriage should be between a man and a women. By allowing gay marriage and being okay with gay marriage, you must also be a supporter of pedophilia and beastiality, correct?

If you are okay with gay marriage, but not okay with pedophilia or beastiality, then you are implying a double standard. Even though the regular marriage and gay marriage debate consists of a double standard.

In a sense, the debate is just trying to move gay marriage to the other side of the double standard.

 

How can you compare to men loving each other to that mess? By your logic, if I were to force my self to marry a female, then why not all 3? Sounds crazy right?

 

Homosexuals getting married doesnt bother me, but marriage is a 'sacred ceremony' which is ment to be performed under the eyes of god.
And the bible states homosexuality is wrong so getting married just seems pointless to me.


although im for it it doesnt bother me what gays get up to.

 

How in the world do you make that connection?

 

misread post before.


the creater of the thread is gay himself which i thought was :O

 

Gays should be able to marry, just not a typical marriage. That should be between a man and a woman, a man and a man should never be recognized. Sorry, if this offends any of you.

 

Gay marriage to me is a joke. Sorry, you can say all you want. If they allow this its taking meaning away from marriage. Let them create another type a union for gays, but gay marriage isnt right.

As to the comparison that Kill dank made...thats just retarded. Being gay is different than some pedophile with kids or twisted people with animals. What you said is simply out of line.

 

My two cents: I don't believe in God. I'm not gay. I don't care who marries who, just live your life the way you want to live it.

 

To answer you all, Being gay is nothing more than a sexual preference. As with pedophiles, their sexual preference is children. Beastiality is a sexual preference, or fetish, towards animals. Both pedophilia and beastiality are considered taboo in our society, as was homosexuality back in the day.

Now, we have grown to accept homosexuals into our society, even though their preference is different from the norm.

Why is it okay for guys to like other guys, but not okay for adults to like children, or adults to like animals?

Thats called a double standard.


The only difference is what society accepts or denies as appropriate. And the fact that people are afraid of being shunned for arguing otherwise.

Logically, either you should have a problem with anything other than man-woman marriage, or you should accept everything.

 

I see what your trying to say but its not correct.

Gay is simply liking the same gender, mutually.

Pedophiles and beastiality consist of a person having relations with a child or animal, most likely not mutual as a child doesn't yet have a fully developed brain to make such decisions or of age to make such choice legally in most states and as for the animal...no need to say anything there.

 

In the United States, marriage is a function of the state; it is provided and licensed by the state, which has zero religious affiliation. A religious argument doesn't work, because the organization providing the marriage is irreligious. A private religious institution has every right to deny gays a marriage within their setting (just as I have a right to call such an establishment barbaric), however this is not what is being debated here.

Again, the United States is a secular country. You're free to do whatever you want in a private setting, but you're not free to pass an unconstitutional law preventing a happy couple from being married on the advice of a 3,000 year old book which calls for the stoning of witches.

The should, but they shouldn't? You also failed to provide any justification for your position.

If gays are going to have a union just like marriage, why not call it that? We use words as abstractions for larger ideas, what useful purpose does referring to homosexual marriage by a different term serve, other than making a few homophobic people few better about themselves?

I do not see pedophilia or bestiality as wrong, but as variants of human sexuality. The problem arises when people act on sexual urges which involve the infliction of pain on others; I am perfectly fine if a pedophile enjoys his thoughts about children in a private setting, so long as he isn't harming any. I'm find if a person who prefers non-human animals (I'm unsure what the proper term is for such a person) enjoys his desires, or even acts on them in such a way that the animal is not physically harmed.

There is no double standard here. I am fine with consensual sexual actions which do not cause harm to others.

 

I do not support gay rights but that is because of my religious views. I do not believe it should be against the law because of the Constitution says all men are created equal and also its not right to oppress someone because of my Religion of choice.

 

I don't support gay marriage either. Gay people can fortunately be cured by God and they can take part in christian rites again. Marriage is a bond beetween man and woman as it's said in the Bible.

 

The first marriage in history were performed 'through' the eyes of god i just presumed if you wanted to get married you'd more then likely be religous...but after thinking there are many other benefits of marriage other than god

 

Marriage is a legal term now, not a religious one.

 

Your adding other factors into this. Whether or not the attraction is mutual was never discussed. If the relation is not mutual, then it would be wrong, no matter who or what else is involved.

But by your logic, What is the difference between a man/woman that wants or has a mutual sexual relationship with a child and a man/woman that wants or has a mutual sexual relationship with someone of the same general age and gender?
What is the difference between a person that is sexually attracted to the opposite gender and a person that is sexually attracted to animals?

Other than that they are called different things.