My stance on gay marriage
 

The problem with the "sanctity" of marriage is that the United States of America is not a theocracy. We cannot support laws just because they uphold our belief system; it is our right and duty as a democracy to stand up for the rights of the minority.

No doubt, there are religions and ethnic groups that do not frown upon gay marriages. Why should we impose the religious belief system of the majority onto the minority?

The legal rights of gays should reflect the human and civil rights of all citizens. As human beings and citizens of this great country, their right to marry whomever they choose should be held sacrosanct.

Re: My stance on gay marriage
 

:(

This is nothing more than an assumption. The Bible is written vaguely enough that it can be read to say almost anything that you want.

Just another reason why I don't read the Bible.

I do have a problem with telling people that they can and can't get married. It makes zero difference to me if two gay men want to be committed to each other. I see no reason why their love shouldn't have the protection of the law.

I also think that the biggest problem is people thinking that religion and government are the same thing. Just because you think something is morally abhorent doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be against the law.

You're an uneducated child with no manners and remind me of a younger female version of cutiepatootie with your posts.

-Rudey

Re: My stance on gay marriage
 

While you're busy talking about what America is an isn't in your mind, and what it should and shouldn't be doing, what it has done and is doing is clear and distinct.

-Rudey

I came across this and thought I would share.... For anyone not smart enough to know the difference.... IT IS A JOKE.... PURE SARCASM. Thank you. :)

10 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans...

Well, thanks. You are a stubborn ignorant dick. I guess we both have our little flaws.

-a.e.B.O.T.

Not really big boy.

-Rudey

What's the big deal gays can get married.... a gay man can marry a gay woman whenever he wants.

Wouldn't that depend on whether they passed a "gay" marriage ban or a "same sex" ban?

There were a couple suspect relationships in the Bible...I believe David had one extra close male friend (I forgot the story..but i'll look it up if I have to..sorta doin hw now tho).

Hmm, and someone said that in the culture of the time written homosexual behaviors weren't accepted, but the biggest thing that seemed to be condemned was homosexual prostitution, rape, and adultery. But that junk wouldn't even be accepted if it were heterosexual prostitution, rape, or adultery...so who's to say what's the take on loving homosexual relationships since there wasn't one directly talked about? Somebody included this in sexual immorality...but homosexuality was usually linked to one of these three...never alone.



In addition, aren't most major changes made not in favor of the majority?..But in favor of the minority?...And was marriage always about benefits, insurance, and partner rights? Like when did the religious definition of marriage & gov't definition of marriage become one? Everybody doesn't get married in a church. Most people have to already deal w/ being turned away/off by their church, losing their faith, and/or reconciling their religion (if they even do). Should their religious decisions have an affect on their civil rights which they pay taxes for? If you can honestly say no, then despite your own morals and the morals of the elected officials, what's right is plain and obvious.

I have spoken to people who worry that legalizing gay marriage is just going to clear the way for people to yell about legalizing polygamy or such things as people wanting to marry their dog, or their horse or their couch.

I definitely think that is a weak argument, but it seems to be the way some people think.

There are other arguments that I have heard too, but that is the main one that I can think of right now.

I personally see no reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry, and it seems to me that declaring marriage as between two human beings (be they man or woman) would be a good idea, and also make it clear that things like polygamy are still not approved.

Just a question out of curiosity.... Does anyone out there approve of gay marriage and also think that it is alright if a man wants to have 4 or 5 wives?

I think that if 5 consenting adults wanted to be in one marriage together, that's their business and not mine. It's not something I would want to engage in, but I really don't care what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their home as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of anybody else. The way inflation is going, I could see needing more than two incomes to make it.

It's not my business and I don't think it should be legislated. The accompanying divorce laws would be a bear to draft up though.

I think we're ignoring some key points here in favor of an ideological discussion that is wholly irrelevant:

1 - Regardless of whether or no Jesus condemned homosexuality (which is the ultimate in useless arguments), Texas voters have dictated that official state recognition for marriages will not be extended to same-sex couples. This measure passed overwhelmingly, and as dictated by the people is now the standard in the state of Texas.

2 - Regardless of your personal interpretations of Church/State separation, and the potential reasons for the Texas vote, until a challenge is issued the law stands.

3 - Both parts 1 and 2 are vital parts of our system of government, and should be protected at all costs.

I think it's clear that there are few, if any, arguments against same-sex marriage that do not rely on religious bases or grounds, in most cases exclusively as well. I do not think it's clear that this makes a whole lot of difference, due to the fact that a popular vote carried the measure by a wide margin.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that those key points are not important. We all recognize those points. Of course, prop. 2 was passed (as you said by a wide margin) and will stand.

I think it has just opened up an interesting discussion on the separation of church and state and how people feel about the whole thing.

I think if this topic had been brought up BEFORE the vote took place, it would be more centered around prop 2 specifically.