Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Same Sex Marrriage

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
May 11, 2012 3:03:58 AM

Do you believe in same sex marriage?

More about : sex marrriage

May 11, 2012 12:32:42 PM

You have to change the definition of marriage and matrimony. It's a word. Words have meanings. The root and origin of matrimony is 'mater' which is latin for mother. It's not patrimony, it's matrimony. The joining of a man, with a woman.

I believe same sex couples can enter into a civil union with eachother by which they will be treated equally under the law. As all Americans should be treated equally under the law. But, you can't call it marriage unless like I said you change the definition of the word.
May 11, 2012 12:51:48 PM

Im fine with gay people getting married.

May 11, 2012 3:09:18 PM

I do not like it.

But, then, no one died and appointed me God.
May 11, 2012 3:39:52 PM

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/rev-franklin-graham-o...
According to Graham, who noted that North Carolina is the 31st state to pass a traditional marriage amendment, Obama’s message flies in the face of 8,000 years of tradition.

“The institution of marriage should not be defined by presidents or polls, governors or the media,” said Graham. “The definition was set long ago and changing legislation or policy will never change God’s definition. This is a sad day for America. May God help us.”

May 11, 2012 3:50:33 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/rev-franklin-graham-o...
According to Graham, who noted that North Carolina is the 31st state to pass a traditional marriage amendment, Obama’s message flies in the face of 8,000 years of tradition.

“The institution of marriage should not be defined by presidents or polls, governors or the media,” said Graham. “The definition was set long ago and changing legislation or policy will never change God’s definition. This is a sad day for America. May God help us.”


Exactly. You can't change the definition. You can however, change how same sex couple are treated under the law concerning taxes, property rights, hospital visitation, etc. I agree with this whole-heartedley. Equal treatment under the law for everyone.
May 11, 2012 4:04:13 PM

And if this was all it was, it wouldnt be an issue, but this is a in your face scenario to many people, to the very definition, and I personally think pols do this for political reasons only.
Another evolved devisive attitude from our president.
May 11, 2012 4:16:48 PM

Not to really get nit picky here but marriage was pretty much a formal exchange of property, accompanied with a dowry and the promise of a son.

Also, if you want to use the 8,000 year old definition polygamy would have been included there. Solomon had like 700 wives, there were multiple gay marriages in medieval China, Japan, the samurai were notoriously gay, so were the Spartans. Its not like homosexuality is a new thing. So we as a notion can change the word marriage to mean a union between ONLY one man and one woman instead of multiple but we cant change it to accommodate this? Seems like hypocrisy.

But again these are all steps in the right direction. I live in a state that allows gay marriage and has for years, there is no problem.

I think Oldman represents the majority of conservatives, at least as I see it. But I also think that having two same sex people propose by one of them asking ¨Will you Civil Union Me?¨ is going to fade fast and in 30 years same sex couples will be getting married both by law and by name.

Also what would be the harm of the federal gov acknowledging a same sex marriage?
May 11, 2012 4:46:59 PM

You know, this whole issue is such a huge distraction from what's really going on.

Greece just elected the Nazi party to control 20% of their legislature.

Vladamir Putin has walked away from the G-8 summit, and cancelled a meeting with Obama.

The U.S. economy is NOT recovering no matter what the stock market or the media says.

Real joblessness is around 15% with over 80 million people not working.

Europe is officially in a recession........again.

We are drastically cutting our military next year while China, Russia, et al are drastically increasing their military spending.

The Obama administration is appointing members of the Muslim Brotherhood to the Dept. of Homeland Security to "advise" us.

Energy costs for businesses and households are rising at an increasing rate.

The student loan program is a bubble that is going to burst and OWS organizers are urging students to default to help it along its way.


And what is all over the media? Gay marriage. Seriously? :pt1cable: 

May 11, 2012 4:49:29 PM

My feeling exactly oldman, conservatives need to step back let gay marriage happen so we all can carry on with our lives, gay or straight.
May 11, 2012 4:54:47 PM

"And what is all over the media? Gay marriage. Seriously? "

Only because of two things.
The presidents madness for reelection and appeasing his followers
and two
Those followers, the MSM, actually got another tingle down their leg effect, which shows how truly messed up things are, and instead of trying to step away from such foolishness, the president embraces it, and makes our MSM worse whores than they already were.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/10/abcs_...
May 11, 2012 5:29:00 PM

Whats a tingle down their leg effect?
May 11, 2012 5:52:05 PM

Oh so stuff about the last election cycle and not gay marriage......
May 11, 2012 5:52:21 PM

Point is, this is being delusional, and theyre here, by the rights given them thru the constitution to give the truth, the facts, not go out and call 1 guy a flip flopper, then call another a thrill to listen to, while that one flips as well.
In the mean time, all these things are going on, and the very job of these people are left behind them to promote and be thrilled by Mr B.O.
May 11, 2012 6:01:04 PM

Its the obvious bias shown, the disregard of the 31 states that have their own constitution definitions on marriage, as they only give it lip service, mainly due to their bias.
I would ask you, if this were a tradition of color, of race or anything else, it would be held sacrosanct, but since its against traditional ways, its shoved in the peoples face.

This is not a matter of right, this is a matter of changing the meaning of a tradition, which is taboo in sooo many ways for many people, regardless of political position, and shows the disrespect the MSM and the president has.
May 11, 2012 6:12:07 PM

wanamingo said:
My feeling exactly oldman, conservatives need to step back let gay marriage happen so we all can carry on with our lives, gay or straight.


No, the vast majority of the American people are against it so it's never going to happen. At least not anytime soon which is why the gay community needs to push for and accept the compromise of accepting civil unions with all the benefits (and penalties) of marriage without offending 80% of the country by calling it marriage.

Much more reasonable IMO.

Or, just do as our suddenly Federalist president said and just "leave it up to states".
May 11, 2012 6:14:07 PM

I think its disrespectful not to allow people to become gay married. And your argument goes both ways, I live where it is OK to be married to a person of the same sex, but the federal government doesn't acknowledge them as being married. Could you imagine slave owners using the ¨Its a tradition defense?¨ Or the church justifying child abuse with the same idea?

But again the point you made about the 8000 year old definition always being between a man and a woman is wrong. If anything the original definition of marriage was a business proposal between a man and as many woman as he felt is necessary.

Are we more or less free if the government tells us who we can and cannot marry?

and

Why would allowing two people of the same sex to get married be detrimental to our society?

Also since the bible never explicitly states anything about lesbians can they get married? It says a man shouldn't lay with a man but it says nothing about scissoring.
May 11, 2012 6:23:22 PM

So, youll now be considered a liar mingo, not because its true, nor because its a majority decision that shows you arent a liar, its just this little group over here wants to change a few words, and how you used them.
It doesnt change anything at all about you, or about them, it changes the perception of you and your words.
Once you change the meaning of words, there is not justice.

This is simply a time honored, and respected tradition, and even tho it means far less than it used to, people want it to be honored so.
May 11, 2012 6:25:43 PM

Also its not 80% that will be offended more like 48%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Suppor...

Also JDJ Im having a really hard time understanding what you are saying. I dont get the me being a liar thing because I want rights for all people.....

If straight marriage is such a time honored tradition why are divorce rates skyrocketing? Wouldn't want to mar 24 hour marriages.....

Beside its not about what you want, why should the government care about who you marry? Move to North Carolina or 30 other states if the thought of two gay people being married within the same state as you makes you uncomfortable. States can do whatever they want but there is no reason to block this because the gov shouldn't care about marriage.
May 11, 2012 6:47:29 PM

So, words have no meanings.
There is no justice.
When a poll comes out, it looks good.
When it goes to ballot, even in Cali, it gets crushed.

Understand, there are misperceptions here, and honor has not died concerning marriage and what it means to people, and only shows so by the gay initiative anyways, so Im not sure where youre going with the divorce thing.
You cant have it both ways.
May 11, 2012 7:00:14 PM

Well, I basically think its ok for them to marry. Just don't call it marriage officially to keep the people who honor traditional marriage happy.

I do think there is an "in your face" psychology in the gay community concerning this though. They want forced acceptance. That never ends well when dealing with religion, traditions, etc.
May 11, 2012 7:43:12 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Well, I basically think its ok for them to marry. Just don't call it marriage officially to keep the people who honor traditional marriage happy.

I do think there is an "in your face" psychology in the gay community concerning this though. They want forced acceptance. That never ends well when dealing with religion, traditions, etc.

I totally agree
My response to the in your face issnt what many gay want, nor most people want or both think, but there are some driving a agenda
May 11, 2012 9:22:44 PM

why not. People just like we are.
May 11, 2012 11:11:57 PM

Fred1Andrews said:
why not. People just like we are.


Read the thread before you post.
May 12, 2012 2:52:34 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
You have to change the definition of marriage and matrimony. It's a word. Words have meanings. The root and origin of matrimony is 'mater' which is latin for mother. It's not patrimony, it's matrimony. The joining of a man, with a woman.

I believe same sex couples can enter into a civil union with eachother by which they will be treated equally under the law. As all Americans should be treated equally under the law. But, you can't call it marriage unless like I said you change the definition of the word.
You are really pertaining to semantics here in your post.
May 12, 2012 2:53:14 AM

jsc said:
I do not like it.

But, then, no one died and appointed me God.
A good honest answer.
May 12, 2012 2:54:42 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/rev-franklin-graham-o...
According to Graham, who noted that North Carolina is the 31st state to pass a traditional marriage amendment, Obama’s message flies in the face of 8,000 years of tradition.

“The institution of marriage should not be defined by presidents or polls, governors or the media,” said Graham. “The definition was set long ago and changing legislation or policy will never change God’s definition. This is a sad day for America. May God help us.”
Divorce in the Bible is not praised by GOD by we still do it today.Explain that one.
May 12, 2012 12:47:10 PM

I am all for gay marriage.

I want to keep all my bets open.

Once day I may wake up and want tits instead of to kust getting to play with them.

I think having that option ... as well as wanting to be spiderman, flying a jet plane, perhaps walking on mars and owning a Cray should not be denied me.

In the meantime i am going to scope out some overclocked red pumps.

:) 
May 14, 2012 2:58:02 AM

Just giving differing opinions
It perceived here as mainly a Christian resistance, while it isnt elsewheres.
May 14, 2012 6:00:48 AM

Who cares what other people do as long as it doesn't directly affect you?

Making civil union and marriage the same thing doesn't directly affect the individual that thinks it is immoral.

The day that it's ratified people of the same sex aren't going to start instantly asking them if they want to be married. They aren't going to be forced to marry the same gender. They still have choice. So what's the problem here?

It's inconsequential. Let them do as they like. Nobody is being hurt here. There are far more important things in the world to think about.

Like what you all are going to buy me for Christmas.
May 14, 2012 6:54:05 AM

:lol: 
June 29, 2012 8:57:36 AM

musical marv said:
Do you believe in same sex marriage?


No, same sex marriage is disgraceful. It would not long last forever most of the time. These type of marriages are conducted due to lust and not because of love.
June 29, 2012 9:59:17 AM

Maisie Anderson said:
No, same sex marriage is disgraceful.

How so, does both or one of the partner did something criminal that is worth the disgrace, or is it just your opinion?

Maisie Anderson said:
It would not long last forever most of the time.

As if opposite sex marriage are forever.

Maisie Anderson said:
These type of marriages are conducted due to lust and not because of love.

How many opposite sex couple rush to a chapel to get marry after a vacation holiday full of steamy sex? Countless.

Welcome to the 21st century.
June 29, 2012 10:06:35 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Well, I basically think its ok for them to marry. Just don't call it marriage officially to keep the people who honor traditional marriage happy.

I do think there is an "in your face" psychology in the gay community concerning this though. They want forced acceptance. That never ends well when dealing with religion, traditions, etc.

That is what I would describe as when a person's believe disable another person's right. People have their right to get married? Yes. People have their right to choose to believe in a religion? Yes. So what happen to the religious side when same sex couple exercise their right to get marry? Nothing, religious people can still believe it is wrong. It is freedom of expression that you can have different opinion. But having the right for an opinion does not make it a correct idea nor does it mean it is so important that it can violate other people's right. Same idea I am trying to get through to mubin in the muslim thread.
June 29, 2012 12:47:31 PM

Pyree said:
That is what I would describe as when a person's believe disable another person's right. People have their right to get married? Yes. People have their right to choose to believe in a religion? Yes. So what happen to the religious side when same sex couple exercise their right to get marry? Nothing, religious people can still believe it is wrong. It is freedom of expression that you can have different opinion. But having the right for an opinion does not make it a correct idea nor does it mean it is so important that it can violate other people's right. Same idea I am trying to get through to mubin in the muslim thread.


I would agree with that Pyree. Well said.

Now, how do you get it done without pissing off 75% of the population for the benefit of 2% of the population?
June 29, 2012 1:27:22 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I would agree with that Pyree. Well said.

Now, how do you get it done without pissing off 75% of the population for the benefit of 2% of the population?



Call it Civil Union. Same rights as the title "marriage" without calling it marriage?
June 29, 2012 1:54:48 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I would agree with that Pyree. Well said.

Now, how do you get it done without pissing off 75% of the population for the benefit of 2% of the population?

Political and personal gain by unanimous support from a large group of people via manipulative brain control. There needs to be a social change. The only way is to education people to form their own opinion with a multi-perspective analysis of the current society, drawing in arguments from multiple view point, critically analyse on whether the arguments are validated and use diverse range of trusted resource instead of relying on a handful of text with the same opinion for information. When they think deeper and question the "moral value", they will be shocked to discover how little relevance some people's marital status affects their lives, when the constant influence of "moral value" is out of their head.

The situation is, I think, not unlike black right activist fighting for black right. A society with a majority unfavourable opinion on a minority group of people, where the fundamental right of the minority is taken away because it is against the view of the majority and contradiction displease them.
June 29, 2012 2:04:04 PM

Crush3d said:
Call it Civil Union. Same rights as the title "marriage" without calling it marriage?

If same sex marriage is given protected status as a normal marriage, then why name it differently. Seems like discrimination to me. Like people, if you recognise them as people, then why give a special word for it (e.g. negro)? I don't meant t offend people, I am just pointing out the seriousness of the problem. You call them people of (whatever cultural or racial) background, if you really need to describe them, e.g. black people or more politely, people of African American background. I think marriage should also follow the same convention, (description of the couple pairing) marriage, e.g. opposite sex marriage, same sex marriage.

May be the society is not quite ready yet.
June 29, 2012 2:41:28 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I would agree with that Pyree. Well said.

Now, how do you get it done without pissing off 75% of the population for the benefit of 2% of the population?


Tell them that it doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

Passing a gay marriage law doesn't affect those staunch defenders of straight marriage.

Not like we'll make them marry the same sex.

:p 
June 29, 2012 3:17:38 PM

Pyree said:
If same sex marriage is given protected status as a normal marriage, then why name it differently. Seems like discrimination to me. Like people, if you recognise them as people, then why give a special word for it (e.g. negro)? I don't meant t offend people, I am just pointing out the seriousness of the problem. You call them people of (whatever cultural or racial) background, if you really need to describe them, e.g. black people or more politely, people of African American background. I think marriage should also follow the same convention, (description of the couple pairing) marriage, e.g. opposite sex marriage, same sex marriage.

May be the society is not quite ready yet.



I agree that it is silly to have to call it something differently.. however, if the ultimate goal is for same sex couples to be granted rights equivalent to traditional couples, does the name really matter? Are these individuals fighting for the right to have a piece of paper say "Marriage" instead of "Civil Union" or are they fighting the the ability to be recognized as a couple under the state with the same rights as traditional couples?

At the end of the day if the state recognizes the joining of the individuals and grants them all of the rights that they would otherwise be entitled to I don't see the loss. The couple can call it a marriage if they want, no one can stop them. The couple can have a marriage ceremony if they want, no one can stop that either so long as the joining is recognized by the state, regardless of terminology.

It seems fickle to insist on being granted the title.. if you're in it for love title doesn't mean squat. You get treated just as anyone other couple by the state and that's what you should be aiming for. If the easiest way to attain that is to say "Fine, you keep your title, I'll take mine," I don't see that as a loss.
June 29, 2012 3:38:56 PM

The naming convention, apart from being a form of legal recognition, is also an indication of social acceptance and social change. Imagine if black people have the same rights and status as the majority, but are still constantly called by the society as negro.
June 30, 2012 3:39:34 AM

Crush3d said:
I agree that it is silly to have to call it something differently.. however, if the ultimate goal is for same sex couples to be granted rights equivalent to traditional couples, does the name really matter? Are these individuals fighting for the right to have a piece of paper say "Marriage" instead of "Civil Union" or are they fighting the the ability to be recognized as a couple under the state with the same rights as traditional couples?

At the end of the day if the state recognizes the joining of the individuals and grants them all of the rights that they would otherwise be entitled to I don't see the loss. The couple can call it a marriage if they want, no one can stop them. The couple can have a marriage ceremony if they want, no one can stop that either so long as the joining is recognized by the state, regardless of terminology.

It seems fickle to insist on being granted the title.. if you're in it for love title doesn't mean squat. You get treated just as anyone other couple by the state and that's what you should be aiming for. If the easiest way to attain that is to say "Fine, you keep your title, I'll take mine," I don't see that as a loss.


"Will you civil union me" doesn't sound very catchy.
June 30, 2012 10:04:53 AM

Maisie Anderson said:
No, same sex marriage is disgraceful. It would not long last forever most of the time. These type of marriages are conducted due to lust and not because of love.
I agree with you completely on this.
June 30, 2012 3:19:56 PM

amdfangirl said:
"Will you civil union me" doesn't sound very catchy.



I doubt that would happen, no. The term civil union should be used to get people on board to call their congressperson and get them to support it. Just don't call it marriage "officially" and I believe the majority of people would support it.
June 30, 2012 4:23:02 PM

Other than calling it something that it isnt, as words do have meaning, I believe in fairness, and cant see why gays cant suffer through it like heterosexuals do
July 1, 2012 3:21:14 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Other than calling it something that it isnt, as words do have meaning, I believe in fairness, and cant see why gays cant suffer through it like heterosexuals do
They want more pity than the ordinary couples and amplify to much also.
!