|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 7/6/2013 6:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 64723
As someone who was raised religious (went to a private baptist school, and church 3x a week) and someone who is STILL religious, I'm stoked. Absolutely stoked. I completely do not understand the whole sanctity of marriage argument either, and... just as an aside, we arent meant to judge or impose our beliefs on others, only make them aware. They choose what to do with it.  |
Date: 7/6/2013 7:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 63026
What bothers me the most is the PDA of those who choose to flaunt their sexuality. Sexuality either straight or gay to me is just a label amongst many labels that someone could give themselves.  |
Date: 7/6/2013 8:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63194
Psy, are you saying that you oppose PDA in general?  |
|
Date: 7/6/2013 8:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 63026
No not PDA, more of the flaunting of those who are gay. |
|
Date: 7/6/2013 8:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63194
In why way do you think that it is flaunted though? For example, do men walking down the street, are they flaunting that any more than the man and woman walking next to them who also happen to be holding hands? |
|
Date: 7/6/2013 8:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63194
What* |
|
Date: 7/6/2013 8:15:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63194
I guess I should start over... It is late. I mean to say, are two men walking down the the same street holding hands just like a straight couple, flaunting their sexuality? |
|
Date: 7/6/2013 10:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 63026
More of the media overhype, so what if your gay, good for you. Actually I would hope with the accepting of gay marriage there be less "pride" parades and less media coverage of gays. Let it be accepted and we can move on from it. |
|
Date: 7/6/2013 10:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
My viewpoint remains steadfast in this regard. I further don't buy into the terminology that DOMA was overturned. No one at the federal level showed up to defend it; and what the Supreme Court basically said was those small minority of states that have governed the issue can continue doing so. They did not change the definition of the word " marriage" for those states whom deign a marriage is as between a man and a woman. Personally, I think that we are going to have to come to an agreement that the government recognizes Civil Union as the federal designation, period, and the states maintaining the legal designation of marriage as between a man and a woman subsuming marriage into civil unions for federal purposes. Any further monkeying with the concept of marriage opens up the Pandora's box of any "special interest group" now claiming that their idea of what they believe constitutes marriage is just as valid as the homosexual lobby. God Bless.  |
Date: 7/7/2013 7:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 62993
I think this is a good thing. About 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway. Gay people getting married has no impact on other marriages.  |
Date: 7/7/2013 12:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 28848
"If anything, monogamy brings with it a sense of stability, which is something that our society can only benefit from. Is it so wrong to no longer discourage any attempt by human beings to become committed?" Yeah that pretty much sums it up.  |
Date: 7/7/2013 9:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 64819
I believe everyone has the right to be miserable   |
|
Date: 7/8/2013 1:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 21903
Soooo many thoughts on this...I will try to keep it short. first off, I'm fairly religious....but I'm different in truly feel God is the only one who can judge us...why do some people think they can pass the judgment that gays are bad? I think people need to lighten up. How is roger being married to bob or betty-sue being married to Lindy going to affect me? It won't! Second, if we really want to "defend marriage" then why do we allow 50 percent of people out there to marry, divorce and remarry all Willy nilly. rushing into marriage and using divorce as an opt out if you feel 2 years down the line you made a boo boo is more damaging to marriage than gays being allowed to marry. Oh, and by the way, separation of church and state people! We aren't trying to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies...just trying to have it legalized. *sigh* sorry. Rant.  |
|
Date: 7/8/2013 9:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I honestly do not think that a lot of people give too much in-depth thought about this, feel that it really has no direct impact on them, and want to assure themselves that they are not prejudiced, in backing gay marriage. What they fail to consider is that we consent to be governed, expect all to be treated equally, and are bound by the law as citizens of this country. If being treated equally by the government means to you that whatever governmental benefits that inure to heterosexual couples who license their union with the state (most commonly via "marriage licenses"  should also be available to homosexual couples who license their union, then I would say that that is a reasonable, fair-minded regard. To believe that in order to achieve this type of equal treatment requires an equal designation is also a valid regard. But to insist that that equal designation be "married" is woefully short-sighted in conceptualization, intolerant of others' beliefs, and, frankly, a physical lie. There exists in our legal lexicon the use of the term "Civil Union" which, to the best of my knowledge, is defined as a two person partnership, whereupon both persons are of age, not related, and not currently a member of any other civil union; why doesn't our elected representatives, who are supposed to have WE, THE PEOPLE's best interest in mind, legislate that at the federal level, the subset which has been known as "married" will not be subsumed into the set whose legal designation is "Civil Union". States would still be sovereign to recognize all civil unions, or the subset of marriage -- which the federal level (any branch) should not 'redefine'. Otherwise, and please, THINK this through: to allow a special interest group to make the institution of marriage something other than the long-held union of one man and one woman, opens up the door for other special interest groups to demand THEIR EQUAL RIGHTS in their group's belief as to what is 'marriage'. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/8/2013 10:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Typo! "not be subsumed" should be: NOW be subsumed. Sorry for the confusion. God Bless. |
Date: 7/9/2013 9:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 61013
I'm extremely happy. I don't feel like it damages the sanctity of marriage. I mean Kim Kardashian had a 72 hour marriage and that was perfectly legal but some of the homosexual couples that have been together 5 or more years can't even get married. What would go wrong in the world if gays got married? Nothing bad would happen it would just be two people who love and care about each other getting married.  |
Date: 7/13/2013 2:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 17081
I believe in the Biblical marriage. But the Bible says not to judge others. If everyone was gay, there would be no more population. I don't believe in parades to flaunt your sexuality whether it's gay or straight.  |
Date: 8/7/2013 6:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 56297
I'm very happy about it. It's not legal in Maine too, so yay, I can get married eventually.  |
|
Date: 9/12/2013 4:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
"to allow a special interest group to make the institution of marriage something other than the long-held union of one man and one woman, opens up the door for other special interest groups to demand THEIR EQUAL RIGHTS in their group's belief as to what is 'marriage'." Marriage has evolved radically throughout history. It has changed before and will likely change again. There's no reason to think that allowing gay marriage is somehow unique in this regard such that it will create an inevitable slippery slope towards other things.  |
|
Date: 9/14/2013 11:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
So, DP, you decide once again to make an issue of something I have said. (I will give you props for learning that you best sure use quotation marks.) Did you, in your rush to get back to arguing with me on this subject, even read what you wrote???!!! If marriage has so radically changed over the course of humankind, then obviously it has slipped and sloped before, so, once again I ask the question: what is your position, for or against, any special rights group to claim that marriage should be whatever it is they lay claim for it to mean? God Bless. |
|
Date: 12/14/2016 9:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 61013
I honestly do not care. If you're gay that's cool, if you are straight that's cool. What I don't like is that now people can't even have a different opinion. Like now if someone is against homosexuality because of their religion than those people are deemed as homophobic and/or bigots. I do find it ironic that DOMA has been overturned since it was Bill Clinton who signed it. Although I am against PDA from anyone. I don't mind the hand holding or a peck but the making out part or the fact that some people will have their hands all over their partners in public just makes me want to hurl. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
