"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[ScreamingEagle]

Where is the government telling anyone who they can or cannot love? I know many people not married that love each other.

STILL....., why do gays want to get married ???????

why can't they just love and live together without the marriage banner over their bedroom doorway ?

many hetro couples live this way and have children together, with marriage far from their minds.

gays being "married" will not produce any damn thing nor does it prove any damn thing.


just my OPINION !!

They want to get married for the same reason as hetero couples do. If I can't produce sperm and my wife is fertilized in vitro, I will automatically become the legal guardian. With a non-married couple, a social services employee would need to come out (which costs lots of $) and evaluate the situation (over a number of months) before granting custody to the spouse.

Too, if I ever get into an accident and cannot answer for myself (hopefully, temporarily lol), my wife can step in without issue and access all my medical records, make decisions, etc. With a non-married civil union couple, this is much, much trickier and can often leave a person in a position where the state - and not the significant other - is making the decisions. How awful would that be knowing you cannot make a decision for your injured spouse, and the state instead was taking control?

Just a few of the reasons.

I've long been a proponent for having the state ONLY provide civil unions for all which are wholly equal in every legal way, and then leave it up to the private individual to define "marriage" (via a church, community center, etc). Wouldn't that be reasonable?

your arguments sound all skippy until you look under the covers.....

what about denying a child his right to have both his mother and father.....?
or denying the child his rightful lineage and inheritance and knowledge of who are his relatives...?
not to mention the argument that you are promoting confusion in society and the breakdown of the family unit which is the building block of society...

don't bring up the adoption or divorce argument because that applies only to negative situations for the child as well....

the main reason that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman is because only one man and one woman can create a child together....this is the fundamental fact of nature....you don't even need to bring up religion....'gay marriage' is bucking Mother Nature....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Citizens united has been found to be proper, appropriate and constitutional, same as the recent court decision. I guess that means you find both acceptable.

The point is this particular regulatory policy is idiotic, serves none of the public interest, and creates a situation where people have to either ignore their moral compass or go out of business.

This is all about progressives not being able to stand people with opposing belief structures, nothing more.

You can't let every person be his own law.

What? How is a private business deciding who they want as customers be their own law? Are they stopping said customers from going to more accommodating businesses? Is the government somehow involved?

your statement doesn't make any sense.

Private businesses are subject to the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION was is and forever will be an ABOMINATION.==Men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Romans 1:27

I see you revised the quote to leave out the part about children who disobey their parents should be put to death.

 

[GISMYS]

BELIEVERS= DO NOT CONDONE SIN. Jesus never condoned sin. Jesus does not approve or sin. He died for the sins of mankind. If sin could have been condoned, He wouldn’t have died. The New Testament Bible teaches that the wages (salary, payment) for sin is death. It cannot be condoned but, rather, a price must be paid in death to nullify mankind’s sin. Jesus paid that price with His own death.

However, Jesus did not condemn those who sinned. He offered them grace and freedom from sin by dying on the cross for the sins of the world. His redeeming blood paid the price for sin.

The first chapter of the Gospel of John in the New Testament shows that Jesus came into the world to reveal the darkness of mankind – to shed His light on the sinful state of man. Sin cannot be hidden from God. He condemns sin but He does not condemn the sinner who turns to Him to receive His forgiveness.

When the adulterous woman was caught in her sin, Jesus did not condone her act. He forgave her sin but asked her to sin no more: "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more." (John 8:2-11 NKJV).

 

[KevinWestern]

your arguments sound all skippy until you look under the covers.....

what about denying a child his right to have both his mother and a father.....?
or denying the child his rightful lineage and inheritance....?
not to mention the argument that you are promoting confusion in society and the breakdown of the family unit which is the building block of society...

Eagle – a child is a child. If the gay couple didn’t choose to bring that soul into the world (via in-vitro) the baby would not be living. He/she would not exist!

Providing a child with two responsible guardians is much more important than simply two guardians of opposite sex. The child will become part of the same sex parent’s family, lineage, inheritance will it not?

And breakdown of the family unit? If you’re truly concerned about this (as I am too), worry about the inner city families – for example –where kids are growing up with one or no parents who love them, worry about all of the divorces and kids that are being shuffled from house to house, worry about the two parents that work full time and stick their kids in a day care to be raised. Those things truly damage a child, and until we solve those problems why even begin to think about this??!!

Am I concerned about a child have two loving same sex parents that are there for him/her, to guide and to raise? No.

don't bring up the adoption or divorce argument because that applies only to negative situations for the child as well....

But divorce IS the problem – in my view. Lack of support/love IS the problem – in my view. So of course I’m going to bring those up. What I don’t think is the problem is having two loving adult parents supporting and raising a kid.

the main reason that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman is because only one man and one woman can create a child together....this is the fundamental fact of nature....you don't even need to bring up religion....'gay marriage' is bucking Mother Nature....

But we’ve learned time and time again that just because a couple can “create life” doesn’t make them good parents that raise good kids. I’m focusing not on the couple’s ability to create life - ANY DIMWIT CAN DO THIS (as I'm sure you're aware) - but rather their ability to successfully raise a child.

If the gay couple adopt a kid and provide no support, drink, are not around, I will criticize them too!

 

[Unkotare]

I've long been a proponent for having the state ONLY provide civil unions for all which are wholly equal in every legal way, and then leave it up to the private individual to define "marriage" (via a church, community center, etc). Wouldn't that be reasonable?

No.

 

[KevinWestern]

I've long been a proponent for having the state ONLY provide civil unions for all which are wholly equal in every legal way, and then leave it up to the private individual to define "marriage" (via a church, community center, etc). Wouldn't that be reasonable?

No.

No problem, but why not?

It's obviously a hot-button issue that's taking up a large chuck of time/resources. How about we leave marriage to be defined privately? Keep the State neutral?

What is your opposition for only civil unions for any two consenting adults?

 

[NYcarbineer]

its all the same fascist wave.

Oh puhleese. Public accommodation = fascism?

its the same boat. Its forcing people to go along with the groupthink or face punishment.

No, it's enforcing the laws that don't allow you to discriminate...

...no, the freedom to discriminate is not the new freedom. You have wandered intellectually down the wrong road.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, this is not that country. Find one and let them know how much support they have here for regime change. The United States is well on its way to being a nation of perverts and drug addicts. Either support it or don't. If you don't, change cannot be effected internally. It will take a powerful external force with whatever internal support decency can muster.

 

[Silhouette]

If you think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, this is not that country. Find one and let them know how much support they have here for regime change. The United States is well on its way to being a nation of perverts and drug addicts. Either support it or don't. If you don't, change cannot be effected internally. It will take a powerful external force with whatever internal support decency can muster.

You mean a powerful internal force like the US Supreme Court and maybe Fox News releasing dirt on the cult of LGBT that it has in its storehouse stacked up to the ceiling?

If the US Supreme Court can create a backdoor for our enemies to control our internal affairs by becoming "citizens" without the naturalization process or swearing the Oath [Citizens United] then it can clarify what it meant in Windsor by "the unquestioned authority" of a state's consensus to define marriage for itself.

Upon doing so, the total number of states where gay marriage is allowed will be 3. That's hardly "going to hell in a handbasket". And when those 3 states' citizenry learn of the dirt in the LGBT closet, like dirtbag/LGBT messiah Harvey Milk's "sexuality", they may very well pass consensus laws forbidding the normalizing of that cult in their borders.

The best voters are informed voters. I believe that people still can make good informed decisions if the truth isn't being withheld from them.

 

[GISMYS]

DO NOT CONDONE SIN!!! If you do not oppose evil, you condone it. Each soul will be judged, in part, according to his response to these times when we see good called evil and evil called good.==4Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, But those who keep the law strive with them. 5Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things. proverbs 28:4-5===1 Thess 4:3-5 says, "It is God’s will that you should be holy; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God."

 

[ScreamingEagle]

your arguments sound all skippy until you look under the covers.....

what about denying a child his right to have both his mother and a father.....?
or denying the child his rightful lineage and inheritance....?
not to mention the argument that you are promoting confusion in society and the breakdown of the family unit which is the building block of society...

Eagle – a child is a child. If the gay couple didn’t choose to bring that soul into the world (via in-vitro) the baby would not be living. He/she would not exist!

Providing a child with two responsible guardians is much more important than simply two guardians of opposite sex. The child will become part of the same sex parent’s family, lineage, inheritance will it not?

And breakdown of the family unit? If you’re truly concerned about this (as I am too), worry about the inner city families – for example –where kids are growing up with one or no parents who love them, worry about all of the divorces and kids that are being shuffled from house to house, worry about the two parents that work full time and stick their kids in a day care to be raised. Those things truly damage a child, and until we solve those problems why even begin to think about this??!!

Am I concerned about a child have two loving same sex parents that are there for him/her, to guide and to raise? No.

don't bring up the adoption or divorce argument because that applies only to negative situations for the child as well....

But divorce IS the problem – in my view. Lack of support/love IS the problem – in my view. So of course I’m going to bring those up. What I don’t think is the problem is having two loving adult parents supporting and raising a kid.

the main reason that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman is because only one man and one woman can create a child together....this is the fundamental fact of nature....you don't even need to bring up religion....'gay marriage' is bucking Mother Nature....

But we’ve learned time and time again that just because a couple can “create life” doesn’t make them good parents that raise good kids. I’m focusing not on the couple’s ability to create life - ANY DIMWIT CAN DO THIS (as I'm sure you're aware) - but rather their ability to successfully raise a child.

If the gay couple adopt a kid and provide no support, drink, are not around, I will criticize them too!

your disregard of children is duly noted.....like most irresponsible gays you just blow off children as it they are something that shows up under the Christmas tree to please THEM...because the kid 'wouldn't even EXIST' if it wasn't for them buying the kid in the first place...what arrogance...

you haven't answered the questions in terms of what is best for the child....

what makes you think two 'guardians' is better than a real mom and dad....?
what makes you think non-related relatives can take the place of real relatives and inherited lineage....?
what makes you think two gay men in general are going to be more or even as stable than a man with a stabilizing woman....? even this runs counter to Mother Nature...

and it doesn't matter whether or not a DIMWIT (funny how gays are all Dimwits) can produce a child or not....intelligence is not a requirement for having children....one man/one woman/producing children is simply the way of NATURE...what exactly gives gays the 'right' to force us to accept unnatural practices against Nature..?

 

[KevinWestern]

your disregard of children is duly noted.....like most irresponsible gays you just blow off children as it they are something that shows up under the Christmas tree to please THEM...because the kid 'wouldn't even EXIST' if it wasn't for them buying the kid in the first place...what arrogance...

Eagle, the point is if a gay couple chooses not to have a kid then that kid would not exist, and life wouldn’t have been created for that individual. Is this not correct? If the gay couple doesn’t have the kid, will he/she pop up somewhere else? What am I missing?

And it's incredibly ignorant (and a$%holish) to infer that most gays "blow off children" as something that "shows up under the Christmas tree to please THEM".

you haven't answered the questions in terms of what is best for the child....

what makes you think two 'guardians' is better than a real mom and dad....?

What I said was it’s irrelevant if the two guardians are same or opposite sex. I didn’t say one or the other was better or worse.

what makes you think non-related relatives can take the place of real relatives and inherited lineage....?

I didn’t. What I said is that the child will still have relatives, and an inherited lineage which will be "theirs".

what makes you think two gay men in general are going to be more or even as stable than a man with a stabilizing woman....? even this runs counter to Mother Nature...

All I have is my experiences, and in those experiences I’ve known/interacted with 3 same sex families and the parents appear just as stable/unstable as anyone else, and the children seem as happy/same as the kids I know from opposite sex marriages. I see no difference, but this is my experience.

and it doesn't matter whether or not a DIMWIT (funny how gays are all Dimwits) can produce a child or not....intelligence is not a requirement for having children....one man/one woman/producing children is simply the way of NATURE...what exactly gives gays the 'right' to force us to accept unnatural practices against Nature..?

But my point was that how you raise the kid is by far more important than “how the kid was produced”, and therefore we should focus on that first and foremost. That’s a fair statement, I believe.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

your disregard of children is duly noted.....like most irresponsible gays you just blow off children as it they are something that shows up under the Christmas tree to please THEM...because the kid 'wouldn't even EXIST' if it wasn't for them buying the kid in the first place...what arrogance...

Eagle, the point is if a gay couple chooses not to have a kid then that kid would not exist, and life wouldn’t have been created for that individual. Is this not correct? If the gay couple doesn’t have the kid, will he/she pop up somewhere else? What am I missing?

you're missing the fact that two gays cannot have children together.....therefore they have to go OUTSIDE THE MARRIAGE to have one...thus it is not a natural marriage...

And it's incredibly ignorant (and a$%holish) to infer that most gays "blow off children" as something that "shows up under the Christmas tree to please THEM".

not at all....when two gays have to go outside their marriage to obtain a child they pretty much have to buy one....in fact they pretty much go 'shopping' for the mother....it's all pretty sick and more about THEIR needs and wants...

you haven't answered the questions in terms of what is best for the child....

what makes you think two 'guardians' is better than a real mom and dad....?

What I said was it’s irrelevant if the two guardians are same or opposite sex. I didn’t say one or the other was better or worse.

i'm saying that having a mother and a father IS RELEVANT...because it is BETTER than two gay 'guardians'....and there has been recently more and more proof to back this up...

I didn’t. What I said is that the child will still have relatives, and an inherited lineage which will be "theirs".

that is NOT the same thing...ask yourself why do many adopted children go to great lengths to find their real parents...?

what makes you think two gay men in general are going to be more or even as stable than a man with a stabilizing woman....? even this runs counter to Mother Nature...

All I have is my experiences, and in those experiences I’ve known/interacted with 3 same sex families and the parents appear just as stable/unstable as anyone else, and the children seem as happy/same as the kids I know from opposite sex marriages. I see no difference, but this is my experience.

appearances can be fooling...it could be temporary....and there are always exceptions....however where in general have you ever seen men more willing to be monogamous than women....?

and it doesn't matter whether or not a DIMWIT (funny how gays are all Dimwits) can produce a child or not....intelligence is not a requirement for having children....one man/one woman/producing children is simply the way of NATURE...what exactly gives gays the 'right' to force us to accept unnatural practices against Nature..?

But my point was that how you raise the kid is by far more important than “how the kid was produced”, and therefore we should focus on that first and foremost. That’s a fair statement, I believe.

'how the kid was produced' is CRITICAL to the kid.....it colors his whole life and relationship to the world...

the focus is always on the gays and THEIR supposed 'rights' or wants.....the focus should be on the CHILDREN that will be negatively affected by 'gay marriage'....

marriage has always been about the children.....and gays just don't qualify in that area...

.

 

[Unkotare]

40 million + dead from aids another 40,000,000+ hiv positive for what??? Sick minded sexual perversion!!

Heterosexual people can get AIDS too, you know.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage,multi partner marrage,brother sister marrage, child marrage,marrage to animals?????????

The state cannot prohibit same-sex couples to access marriage law, which is why such laws are being invalidated by the courts.

As for multi-partner marriage, brother/sister marriage, child marriage, marriage to animals, and the like, laws prohibiting such unions are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone (or everything) equally; there’s no particular class of persons being singled-out for exclusion, and consequently no equal protection rights violation exists in those situations.

And more importantly, marriage law is currently capable of accommodating same-sex couples, where that’s not the case for multi-partner marriage, brother/sister marriage, child marriage, or marriage to animals. Because no marriage law exists for any of those configurations, there is no violation of the right to due process.

Disallowing same-sex couples to enter into marriage law they’re eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional because it violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and to single-out same-sex couples for exclusion to marry absent a rational basis and proper legislative end violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

So make laws accommodating me. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Nonsense.

It's your responsibility to petition your state's lawmakers to enact such a measure, having nothing to do with same-sex couples accessing marriage law.

 

[Unkotare]

I've long been a proponent for having the state ONLY provide civil unions for all which are wholly equal in every legal way, and then leave it up to the private individual to define "marriage" (via a church, community center, etc). Wouldn't that be reasonable?

No.

No problem, but why not?

If the civil liberties of this very tiny minority can be guaranteed, there is no need to alter a time-honored tradition recognized by the vast majority of the population just for the sake of semantics.

 

[martybegan]

Oh puhleese. Public accommodation = fascism?

its the same boat. Its forcing people to go along with the groupthink or face punishment.

No, it's enforcing the laws that don't allow you to discriminate...

...no, the freedom to discriminate is not the new freedom. You have wandered intellectually down the wrong road.

Unless you are the government there should be freedom to discriminate. There already is in the private sector, unless you are a member of a protected class, and then all of a sudden you are more equal than anyone else.

Mandated anti-segregation was required in the south due to the pervasiveness and the government approval of said segregation. There is no such condition when it comes to gays.

 

[KevinWestern]

No.

No problem, but why not?

If the civil liberties of this very tiny minority can be guaranteed, there is no need to alter a time-honored tradition recognized by the vast majority of the population just for the sake of semantics.

But isn't it the case that the consensus among US citizens is that gay marriage should be legalized? Gays are most definitely a minority group, but the opinion regarding gay marriage is held by all - gay and straight.

Say in ten years if 75% of the population is "in favor" of allowing gays to legally marry in the public sphere, wouldn't there be a need to modify the law so that it's a better representation of the views of the whole?

If the popular opinion on the subject was trending as "less favorable" I think your point would be stronger. But it appears to be to be trending in the opposite direction.

 

[GISMYS]

YES!!! During the end time the Bible says that wickedness and evil will run rampant all over the world. We can already see our world being consumed by liberal leftist propaganda such as legalizing gay marriages, allowing homosexuals in the pulpit, increased sexual immorality, and other vices that are clearly forbidden in the Bible.