Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Some of us do not think gay marriage should be called "marriage". And guess what, a lot of other people in the country agree. So I'll have to 'agree to disagree' because I'm not changing my mind on this anytime soon. And don't try to tell me that I hate gays.

Yes, the reason we don't think gay marriage should be called "marriage" is because its not.

It's the gays who are trying to redefine marriage to obtain more social acceptance for their lifestyle choice.

Taking religious connotation completely out of it, not being able to have a government-acknowledged committed union means that things like options with income tax and decision-making around health care issues are not in parity with the rights of every other citizen.

Sexual orientation shouldn't diminish those rights.

Everyone has the freedom to choose whatever lifestyle they desire, but they shouldn't expect everyone else to help pay for it.

how does everyone else pay for it?

Daniel

:energetic:

good point brother.. i like to know..what higher insurance premiums..?

i'd really like to know.

Daniel

:energetic:

Some of us do not think gay marriage should be called "marriage". And guess what, a lot of other people in the country agree. So I'll have to 'agree to disagree' because I'm not changing my mind on this anytime soon. And don't try to tell me that I hate gays.

Yes, the reason we don't think gay marriage should be called "marriage" is because its not.

It's the gays who are trying to redefine marriage to obtain more social acceptance for their lifestyle choice.

Taking religious connotation completely out of it, not being able to have a government-acknowledged committed union means that things like options with income tax and decision-making around health care issues are not in parity with the rights of every other citizen.

Sexual orientation shouldn't diminish those rights.

Everyone has the freedom to choose whatever lifestyle they desire, but they shouldn't expect everyone else to help pay for it.

how does everyone else pay for it?

Daniel

:energetic:

You think income tax advantages and health care benefits are free?

they pay taxes? or work for the employer who provides health insurance? i don't see how thy cost anymore than you or i do.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Cristy 4]

Ohhhhhhhhhh so all the gay people should pay taxes but only straight people should get the benefit? Maybe they need a gay tax bank that all their taxes go into and you can't have any?

[Vipul and Jamie 0]

Alot of people here seem to miss the point, and like Christina said maybe we'll all have to agree to disagree. Calling those who don't agree with the term same-sex marriage as bigots, closed-minded, homophobic, and ect is simply immature and should be disregarded. I realize not everyone shares my opinion on this issue, but here it is. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. If homosexuals wish to have a legal binding relationship of some sort then they need to call it something else because it never has been and never will truly (regardless of what happens in the future) be a "marriage." Sorry to put it bluntly but there it is. Yes, everyone has the right to love whomever they want to. Homosexuality goes against my husband's and my religious beliefs, but if people choose to live their life that way then that's their choice and none of our buisness. However, to redefine the word marriage to accomodate various types of "relationships" is wrong. Call it a union whatever just not marriage.

-Jamie

[vocalize 0]

Yes, the reason we don't think gay marriage should be called "marriage" is because its not.

It's the gays who are trying to redefine marriage to obtain more social acceptance for their lifestyle choice.

You mean the same way marriage has been redefined to exclude polygamous marriages?

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

I just choked on my water.

Dang had you pegged for a SWALLOWER, Steve.

bwahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

I totally agree with a marriage ban.

I think marriage should be defined as 1 man and 1 woman. 1 white man and 1 white woman. Any of y'all who are in love with the coloreds can call your union whatever you want, as long as it isn't "marriage." I mean really, your "spouses" could have tried harder to be decent white folk, it's just a matter of willpower. It worked for Michael Jackson. If they're not willing to make that change for you, then you're just not moral enough to be in a marriage anyway. Practice your perversions out of my sight, and don't expect me to have to condone it, or support it by using my tax dollars to pay for your justice of the peace, or whatever you freaks do.

(For the definition of satire....click here)

We clear on that?

Ok then, I want to address something else I read. Murder, bestiality, pedophilia......aren't something one can consent to. It's a ridiculous comparison. Nobody is in any danger of a homosexual walking down the street, seeing them and whisking them off to be married. You have to consent. If gays are allowed to marry.....guess what!! They'll probably marry gays. So unless you're miffed about potentially not getting asked...I don't see why it gets your knickers in a twist.

(Complete and utter side note....nice to see you VipulandJamie.....hope all is as blissful as you'd hoped)

[ceriserose 1]

Alot of people here seem to miss the point, and like Christina said maybe we'll all have to agree to disagree. Calling those who don't agree with the term same-sex marriage as bigots, closed-minded, homophobic, and ect is simply immature and should be disregarded. I realize not everyone shares my opinion on this issue, but here it is. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. If homosexuals wish to have a legal binding relationship of some sort then they need to call it something else because it never has been and never will truly (regardless of what happens in the future) be a "marriage." Sorry to put it bluntly but there it is. Yes, everyone has the right to love whomever they want to. Homosexuality goes against my husband's and my religious beliefs, but if people choose to live their life that way then that's their choice and none of our buisness. However, to redefine the word marriage to accomodate various types of "relationships" is wrong. Call it a union whatever just not marriage.

-Jamie

I agree with what you're putting down here...I don't think attacking beliefs or name calling should be any part of this issue. However, I do have to add that not every Christian is as open-minded as you are here, allowing for any sort of "union". Many feel the relationship is "unnatural" and "against God" and therefore shouldn't exist at all.

If the only issue was whether it should be named a "marriage" or not, it wouldn't have such furor. I think.

[Cristy 4]

I totally agree with a marriage ban.

I think marriage should be defined as 1 man and 1 woman. 1 white man and 1 white woman. Any of y'all who are in love with the coloreds can call your union whatever you want, as long as it isn't "marriage." I mean really, your "spouses" could have tried harder to be decent white folk, it's just a matter of willpower. It worked for Michael Jackson. If they're not willing to make that change for you, then you're just not moral enough to be in a marriage anyway. Practice your perversions out of my sight, and don't expect me to have to condone it, or support it by using my tax dollars to pay for your justice of the peace, or whatever you freaks do.

(For the definition of satire....click here)

We clear on that?

Ok then, I want to address something else I read. Murder, bestiality, pedophilia......aren't something one can consent to. It's a ridiculous comparison. Nobody is in any danger of a homosexual walking down the street, seeing them and whisking them off to be married. You have to consent. If gays are allowed to marry.....guess what!! They'll probably marry gays. So unless you're miffed about potentially not getting asked...I don't see why it gets your knickers in a twist.

(Complete and utter side note....nice to see you VipulandJamie.....hope all is as blissful as you'd hoped)

best post of the day.

[dalegg 143]

That's a tough break for Gay couples planning to move to Idaho..

Interesting that the Virginians voted on a same-sex ban but at the same time ousted what was considered a very strong Republican Senator. If we are still in Iraq in 2008, it is reeeeally going to be bad for Republicans.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I totally agree with a marriage ban.

I think marriage should be defined as 1 man and 1 woman. 1 white man and 1 white woman. Any of y'all who are in love with the coloreds can call your union whatever you want, as long as it isn't "marriage." I mean really, your "spouses" could have tried harder to be decent white folk, it's just a matter of willpower. It worked for Michael Jackson. If they're not willing to make that change for you, then you're just not moral enough to be in a marriage anyway. Practice your perversions out of my sight, and don't expect me to have to condone it, or support it by using my tax dollars to pay for your justice of the peace, or whatever you freaks do.

(For the definition of satire....click here)

We clear on that?

Ok then, I want to address something else I read. Murder, bestiality, pedophilia......aren't something one can consent to. It's a ridiculous comparison. Nobody is in any danger of a homosexual walking down the street, seeing them and whisking them off to be married. You have to consent. If gays are allowed to marry.....guess what!! They'll probably marry gays. So unless you're miffed about potentially not getting asked...I don't see why it gets your knickers in a twist.

(Complete and utter side note....nice to see you VipulandJamie.....hope all is as blissful as you'd hoped)

best post of the day.

i concur.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Fandango 1,439]

My truth is that I'm not sure how I feel anymore. I was all for gay marriage...I have a ton of gay friends whom I all love and respect. I have been very vocal about my belief that gays should allow to marry. My basic premise always was 'they are born gay' and that it's unnatural to have to stifle who they are.

However, in a recent debate, someone asked me...'what about Ted Bundy?' he was always a lunatic. As a child he tortured animals....then he killed people. Does that make it ok that he was born that way?' This person also brought up beastiality & pedophilia....and asked me if that was their natural perdisposition...did that make it ok?

Obviously I said no it wasn't ok, but then I was asked 'how is it different?' and I really didn't have a fantastic answer.

So yeah, I'm torn. But banning gay marriage is not going to make gay people 'go away'...in fact, it perpetrates the very stereotype of the gay person jumping in and out of bed with many people'...because first we disallow the marriage, then blame them for not being monogamous.

So yay for me for straddling this fence, but it's the truth as I see it.

Ok charlesandnessa so if you expose children to the fact that there are gay people in the world they will be gay.

What if you read them a book about bears? Will they become bears? Or do they have to be born bears to be bears?

Teaching hate, ignorance and intolerance is child abuse.

Cristy, I have to say, this is way out of line imo. If someone has beliefs that you don't agree with, it's really quite wrong to leap to the 'child abuse' thing. You may see it as hate and ignorance and intolerance, but I'm sure Charles doesn't see it that way. I think if there were a couple who are staunch in their beliefs and love their children and do the best they can for them, but they happen to believe that gay marriage is wrong, it's really quite horrible and completely out of order to say that they are abusing their children. You should recant this statement.

You say intolerance is wrong, yet you're intolerant of another pov, which is quite ironic...

[mercy 1]

I totally agree with a marriage ban.

I think marriage should be defined as 1 man and 1 woman. 1 white man and 1 white woman. Any of y'all who are in love with the coloreds can call your union whatever you want, as long as it isn't "marriage." I mean really, your "spouses" could have tried harder to be decent white folk, it's just a matter of willpower. It worked for Michael Jackson. If they're not willing to make that change for you, then you're just not moral enough to be in a marriage anyway. Practice your perversions out of my sight, and don't expect me to have to condone it, or support it by using my tax dollars to pay for your justice of the peace, or whatever you freaks do.

(For the definition of satire....click here)

We clear on that?

Ok then, I want to address something else I read. Murder, bestiality, pedophilia......aren't something one can consent to. It's a ridiculous comparison. Nobody is in any danger of a homosexual walking down the street, seeing them and whisking them off to be married. You have to consent. If gays are allowed to marry.....guess what!! They'll probably marry gays. So unless you're miffed about potentially not getting asked...I don't see why it gets your knickers in a twist.

(Complete and utter side note....nice to see you VipulandJamie.....hope all is as blissful as you'd hoped)

Oh no, you have it totally wrong! Gay marriage was legalized in Canada and they started making us be the gay! They even dissolved all existing hetero marriages. Don't believe me? Why do you think all of us Canadians are marrying Americans? Exactly. I said it before on here, everything just went into chaos. Want to marry your own brother? It's okay now! Want to marry 10 people, a dog, a horse, your computer, it's all good. You give gays a few rights and the world goes straight to hell, the entire fabric of society just crumbles.

I think maybe a few people are going to have to review the link you so nicely supplied.

[almaty 19]

I totally agree with a marriage ban.

I think marriage should be defined as 1 man and 1 woman. 1 white man and 1 white woman. Any of y'all who are in love with the coloreds can call your union whatever you want, as long as it isn't "marriage." I mean really, your "spouses" could have tried harder to be decent white folk, it's just a matter of willpower. It worked for Michael Jackson. If they're not willing to make that change for you, then you're just not moral enough to be in a marriage anyway. Practice your perversions out of my sight, and don't expect me to have to condone it, or support it by using my tax dollars to pay for your justice of the peace, or whatever you freaks do.

(For the definition of satire....click here)

We clear on that?

Ok then, I want to address something else I read. Murder, bestiality, pedophilia......aren't something one can consent to. It's a ridiculous comparison. Nobody is in any danger of a homosexual walking down the street, seeing them and whisking them off to be married. You have to consent. If gays are allowed to marry.....guess what!! They'll probably marry gays. So unless you're miffed about potentially not getting asked...I don't see why it gets your knickers in a twist.

(Complete and utter side note....nice to see you VipulandJamie.....hope all is as blissful as you'd hoped)

i am with ALLCAPS...excellent satire...

[Cristy 4]

My truth is that I'm not sure how I feel anymore. I was all for gay marriage...I have a ton of gay friends whom I all love and respect. I have been very vocal about my belief that gays should allow to marry. My basic premise always was 'they are born gay' and that it's unnatural to have to stifle who they are.

However, in a recent debate, someone asked me...'what about Ted Bundy?' he was always a lunatic. As a child he tortured animals....then he killed people. Does that make it ok that he was born that way?' This person also brought up beastiality & pedophilia....and asked me if that was their natural perdisposition...did that make it ok?

Obviously I said no it wasn't ok, but then I was asked 'how is it different?' and I really didn't have a fantastic answer.

So yeah, I'm torn. But banning gay marriage is not going to make gay people 'go away'...in fact, it perpetrates the very stereotype of the gay person jumping in and out of bed with many people'...because first we disallow the marriage, then blame them for not being monogamous.

So yay for me for straddling this fence, but it's the truth as I see it.

Ok charlesandnessa so if you expose children to the fact that there are gay people in the world they will be gay.

What if you read them a book about bears? Will they become bears? Or do they have to be born bears to be bears?

Teaching hate, ignorance and intolerance is child abuse.

Cristy, I have to say, this is way out of line imo. If someone has beliefs that you don't agree with, it's really quite wrong to leap to the 'child abuse' thing. You may see it as hate and ignorance and intolerance, but I'm sure Charles doesn't see it that way. I think if there were a couple who are staunch in their beliefs and love their children and do the best they can for them, but they happen to believe that gay marriage is wrong, it's really quite horrible and completely out of order to say that they are abusing their children. You should recant this statement.

You say intolerance is wrong, yet you're intolerant of another pov, which is quite ironic...

It is child abuse to teach a child to hate others. KKK members have had their children taken away for doing just that.

It is totally different than any of the things you listed because none of those are 2 consenting adults.

Edited November 9, 2006 by cristy

[Fandango 1,439]

My truth is that I'm not sure how I feel anymore. I was all for gay marriage...I have a ton of gay friends whom I all love and respect. I have been very vocal about my belief that gays should allow to marry. My basic premise always was 'they are born gay' and that it's unnatural to have to stifle who they are.

However, in a recent debate, someone asked me...'what about Ted Bundy?' he was always a lunatic. As a child he tortured animals....then he killed people. Does that make it ok that he was born that way?' This person also brought up beastiality & pedophilia....and asked me if that was their natural perdisposition...did that make it ok?

Obviously I said no it wasn't ok, but then I was asked 'how is it different?' and I really didn't have a fantastic answer.

So yeah, I'm torn. But banning gay marriage is not going to make gay people 'go away'...in fact, it perpetrates the very stereotype of the gay person jumping in and out of bed with many people'...because first we disallow the marriage, then blame them for not being monogamous.

So yay for me for straddling this fence, but it's the truth as I see it.

Ok charlesandnessa so if you expose children to the fact that there are gay people in the world they will be gay.

What if you read them a book about bears? Will they become bears? Or do they have to be born bears to be bears?

Teaching hate, ignorance and intolerance is child abuse.

Cristy, I have to say, this is way out of line imo. If someone has beliefs that you don't agree with, it's really quite wrong to leap to the 'child abuse' thing. You may see it as hate and ignorance and intolerance, but I'm sure Charles doesn't see it that way. I think if there were a couple who are staunch in their beliefs and love their children and do the best they can for them, but they happen to believe that gay marriage is wrong, it's really quite horrible and completely out of order to say that they are abusing their children. You should recant this statement.

You say intolerance is wrong, yet you're intolerant of another pov, which is quite ironic...

It is child abuse to teach a child to hate others. KKK members have had their children taken away for doing just that.

It is totally different than any of the things you listed because none of those are 2 consenting adults.

Hate is not the same thing, cristy. Someone can be a wonderful person and happen to believe in heterosexual marriage only, and that doesn't make them hateful, nor child abusers.

Teaching them to kill gays? Totally with you on that....but that's not what's being discussed here. You still should apologise.