California Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Reyairia]

If you find it disgusting, then why wouldn't you prevent it and pretend it is not there?

They can still harm other people. It doesn't always have to be in a physically way. They are hurting those that loves them, corrupting the world in a way.

I can just see that in the future, little kids are starting to have same sex parents and asking them why and how could this actually happen.

I still don't get how it is "looking down" on their behavior.

How are they hurting those that love them? How are they corrupting the world?
Little kids are not stupid and shouldn't be sheltered. There's nothing wrong with same-sex relationships to begin with, why would it be a problem if they knew how it did work?
I was told how babies were made when I was four years old, and I'm not sexually deviant and getting pregnant and AIDS. (In fact, I'm 18 and still a virgin and don't plan to lose that any time soon) It's not any more different than "you were conceived in a different way than usual." Believe it or not a child understands so long as he's not being teased in school about it. It's no different than the "why is mommy white and daddy black?" argument back when interracial marriages became legal.
Then there's the people that actually considered interracial marriages disgusting and associated it with bestiality.
I mean, again, it's not any different than a woman being impregnated by artificial means because either her husband isn't fertile or whatever problem they may have. Hey, those kids are special too, does that mean that that heterosexual couple should not be able to marry because it means children being conceived differently? No!
And kids getting teased in school about parents was an argument used against interracial marriage and heck, nothing happened.

 

[iankobe]

How are they hurting those that love them? How are they corrupting the world?
Little kids are not stupid and shouldn't be sheltered. There's nothing wrong with same-sex relationships to begin with, why would it be a problem if they knew how it did work?
I was told how babies were made when I was four years old, and I'm not sexually deviant and getting pregnant and AIDS. (In fact, I'm 18 and still a virgin and don't plan to lose that any time soon) It's not any more different than "you were conceived in a different way than usual." Believe it or not a child understands so long as he's not being teased in school about it. It's no different than the "why is mommy white and daddy black?" argument back when interracial marriages became legal.
Then there's the people that actually considered interracial marriages disgusting and associated it with bestiality.
I mean, again, it's not any different than a woman being impregnated by artificial means because either her husband isn't fertile or whatever problem they may have. Hey, those kids are special too, does that mean that that heterosexual couple should not be able to marry because it means children being conceived differently? No!
And kids getting teased in school about parents was an argument used against interracial marriage and heck, nothing happened.

No, I'm saying what the little ones are forced to have something that they may not want. Like a female dad. And just like how they are taught in school about health and safety. They'll only learn how our reproductive systems work the "correct way". Not the "gay" way.

Besides, no one is actually born gay/lesbian. There's no such thing as Gay gene either.

(I'm going to bed)

 

[Blackadder]

Not debating or anything here, just letting Desu know that I bothered to read his post. ^^
And that is that. Aww yeah.

 

[Reyairia]

No, I'm saying what the little ones are forced to have something that they may not want. Like a female dad. And just like how they are taught in school about health and safety. They'll only learn how our reproductive systems work the "correct way". Not the "gay" way.

Besides, no one is actually born gay/lesbian. There's no such thing as Gay gene either.

(I'm going to bed)

You can say that about interracial marriages and having a black dad or a black mom.
You can also say that about heterosexual marriages, rather having two moms instead of a dad.

And why can't they be taught about the homosexual way too? In honesty, there is no homosexual way but in case they do turn out to be homosexual (often come out of the closet at 12) they should know too.

No, there is no gay gene. However there have been numerous studies that suggest homosexuality is genetic and there is proof towards it

* The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.
* The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men, the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.
* The anterior commissure is larger in women than men, and larger in gay men than in non-gay men.
* Gay men have, on an average, slightly longer and thicker *****es than non-gay men. (lol)
* Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.
* The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).
* The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.
* Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material.
* Gay and non-gay people emit different armpit odors.
* Gay men are more likely to have a counter-clockwise hair whorl pattern.
* Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).

Even if it were a choice, it doesn't make a difference. People should do whatever they want, and time and time again I see no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality harms in anyway that a) can't be dismissed entirely from a secular point of view or b) can't be applied to interracial or international marriages.

 

[Mic_128]

No, I'm saying what the little ones are forced to have something that they may not want. Like a female dad. And just like how they are taught in school about health and safety. They'll only learn how our reproductive systems work the "correct way". Not the "gay" way.

Wrong path.

1. There have been no studies that show Homosexual behaviour affects children. They don't become gay because they have two parents, they aren't all 'omg I have two mummies!' It's what they think is normal, because it's all they know, and more than likely ,the parents will teach the child at a young pre-schooling age, that not everyone has two mummies, but a mummy and a daddy, or even two daddies.

2. The only way homosexuality will affect a child would be the posibility of the child being bullied. But before you go 'aha!' children are bullied for everything. You're a different skin colour than me. You're a different religion than me. You don't like the same cartoon as me. the majority of this sort of behaviour comes from intolerant parents spreading (or as you put it, corrupting) their children.

3. In regards to sexual education, all that teachers teach is literally what you said: Sexual reproduction. Male to male and female to female do not sexually reproduce in humans, so it will not be taught. And as for why isn't it taught because it's how they do it? simple. All that's taught is what the parts do, and how they make a baby. you might as well ask why isn't oral sex taught in schools? Because it's not based on sexual reproduction.

I'm not pulling these out of my butt either. These things have been brought up in my lectures on becoming a teacher.

Solution? Treat it like was mentioned, eating boogers. You might not like seeing it, but it's not harmful. It's not for you? Don't do it, and it would be nice if they didn't do it in front of you. However, I'm using that for more overt shows of affection, and that goes for all types of couples. I don't need to see someone's tounge down someone elses throat, wether it be male male, male female, or female female. I don't care what they do, but I'd rather not see it.

 

[Ztarfish]

What?
Weak curtains of excuses?

Excuse me, but there are several things wrong with your post.
First off, in a thread like this, the first thing every poster needs from one another is RESPECT, which is what you don't seem to have. You throwing such snide barbs at me shows how your grasping at straws for an argument. I got a couple more cents to give, as well.

I'm using Abomination in the exact context it is used in the Bible, not in an insulting way in the least bit, so I'd suggest you lay off of that. The Bible says it's an abomination, so that's what I'm going to call it as well; no time for political correctness.

Free Will was one of the biggest faults of humankind, because whether or not you believe in God, I'm going to school you on some Christianity right here. God did not want us to have free will; he knew it would bring sin to the world, and people to move further and further away from him. He loves all of us and wants all of us to go to heaven, no matter the sins, as long as we trust in him and take him for our Lord.

Religion may not be important to you, but I can assure you, to BILLIONS around the world, some kind of religion is. Many religions are strictly against homosexuality, which is probably why today it is considered such a controversial topic; and many are against it as well due to such influence. And please tell me how this is considered a monstrosity? Men were not made to reproduce with other males, and females were not made to reproduce with other females. Even if you are atheistic, basic anatomy should tell you this.

Keep insulting me, it makes you look all the more pathetic.

I enjoy how you talk about respect and then shake off political correctness as it apparently doesn't concern you. Whether or not it's used in the Bible, it's pretty much common sense you don't call other people, or a group of people, abominations. That's like going up to a mentally challenged kid and calling him a ****** because that's how the dictionary defined it. I'm not saying the dictionary = The Bible but I'd suggest a more appropriate term before chiding him on respect.

That aside, you're using a very common tactic people use called stating an opinion and then calling it fact. Your claim that God intended for humans not to have free will, that God does not condone homosexuality, that is your BELIEF which is very different from a FACT. And while yes, you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, you are not perfectly entitled to insult an entire group of people based on your beliefs.

Also, the religions themselves do not disprove of homosexuality, as that's impossible. The individuals practicing the religion, and interpreting the text do, however make their own judgements about homosexuality. This is why we have Christian churches that are fully ok with homosexuals. And because it is individual interpretation, these interpretations are subject to change over time, as has been proven over and over again throughout history.

And one more thing, why does it have to be about reproduction? Why can't it just be about love?

 

[Adi]

I wonder how all of the homophobes in this thread would feel if they by chance happened to be gay. Would you still consider yourself an abomination?

 

[blink777]

Call me inhumane, call me whatever you will, but I consider homosexuality a sin, and that's bottom line. If they want to get married? Fine. It's really not my call in the end anyway.

What appalls me most in this thread (well, maybe not most, but we'll get to that), is that posts like this and Desu's are completely ignored in favour of grabbing at the "easy arguments".

This is, as a gay guy, all I want from Mach, and sure many others would agree. Just as how my sexual preference shouldn't affect him in any way, his religious beliefs shouldn't affect me either (as he directly stated above). I make sure my sexuality doesn't affect those who find it wrong in terms of religion: I will never tell my highly religious friends back home that I'm gay, if I ever get married (unlikely) I will not do it in a church, and I will do my best to avoid public displays of affection.

While I dislike you saying I'm an "abomination" and the like, I see where you're coming from in that it's a direct reference from your religious texts. While I don't agree, I can understand it, and I'm sorry.

The one thing I cannot tolerate here though is when people say that I chose to be this way and that I have a choice to be another. I'm not going to repeat what I said last, as it was hard enough baring myself once to complete strangers. If you wish to read it, I believe the post was made back around pages 13-15, before Machspeed entered the discussion.

I truly hope you share Mach's feelings expressed in the above quoted post, Kobe. You've offended me horribly and had me on the verge of tears, but I know you're only doing what you believe is right. So would you stop me from trying to be happy?

 

[Mediocre]

This is, as a gay guy, all I want from Mach, and sure many others would agree. Just as how my sexual preference shouldn't affect him in any way, his religious beliefs shouldn't affect me either (as he directly stated above). I make sure my sexuality doesn't affect those who find it wrong in terms of religion: I will never tell my highly religious friends back home that I'm gay, if I ever get married (unlikely) I will not do it in a church, and I will do my best to avoid public displays of affection.

You shouldn't feel obligated to do this at all. I mean, it's fine if you want to do this kind of thing, but you seem to have a bit of a double standard going on here that's really unfavorable to yourself.

You say you won't tell your religious friends at home that you're gay. This would be equivalent to them not telling you they were Christian, for fear that you might find it offensive. You say you'll avoid public displays of affection, but do straight couples feel any need to do so? Not most of them. Nor do many of the strangers you meet on the street refrain from sharing their religious views with anyone in earshot.

So, while I respect your desire to avoid conflict by totally avoiding the issue of your homosexuality with people who find it offensive, don't compare this with people telling you that your sexuality is a disgusting sin, but they'll tolerate it anyway because the law requires them too. Those are not equivalent terms. On the one hand, you are going out of your way to hide your homosexuality, while they are shoving their religious views in your face. You are making a much larger concession than they are in the interest of avoiding conflict.

 

[Lucrece]

I love how kobe apologized if he offended the guy's friends, saying that he does not hate gay people, and then proceeds to put them in a parallel with serial killers within his analogy...

Oh, and Mach's typical "I'm fine if teh homo's decide to get near me, so long as they don't **** me hit on me" crap comment.

Seriously, peeps, stop debating with them. I don't see how engaging in a Sisyphean task can be rewarding on any level. Just let them stand as the epitome of poorly contrived prejudices.

 

[blink777]

good long post

I guess I didn't explain myself over-well there. I grew up in a rather religious area, but in a good way. It was a small community and everyone was super friendly. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I don't want those wonderful people to feel conflicted through this. I know that the vast majority of them would be alright with it, but I just don't want to confront them with the choice.

My reasons behind the other two are much more selfish past the surface. I'm bad for caring far too much about what other people think of me. At this point in time, I feel that either would make me a spectacle, and I can't handle that. So yes, behind the sugar coating of not wanting to offend, I'm being selfish in that I don't want to be judged. Maybe this will change as myself and the global community grows, but right now, just no.

I've never dealt with people who feel so strongly about this issue outside of the internet, and until I do, I'll continue paying them respect online as I would offline. Johnthegalactic, for example, ended up being a very good person after we exchanged PMs. For now, I'm content to believe that Machspeed and Kobe are good people too who I have no desire to upset.

 

[Magus-Cie]

What?
Weak curtains of excuses?

Excuse me, but there are several things wrong with your post.
First off, in a thread like this, the first thing every poster needs from one another is RESPECT, which is what you don't seem to have. You throwing such snide barbs at me shows how your grasping at straws for an argument. I got a couple more cents to give, as well.

Firstly Mach Speed, the best way to get respect is to give it, just because someone is an ******* to you does not mean that you should go back and act in the same manner to them.

I'm using Abomination in the exact context it is used in the Bible, not in an insulting way in the least bit, so I'd suggest you lay off of that. The Bible says it's an abomination, so that's what I'm going to call it as well; no time for political correctness.

That is no excuse. You talk about respect and yet you still aren't showing any. Now isn't this the exact same Bible that preaches love and understanding as well? What I cannot understand is why you feel the need to insult people just because you have a personal problem with their way of life. Does is say in the Bible to prosecute homosexuals? No. If I recall, the Bible says not to judge, I mean after all is not God in charge of the entire "laying your sins before you" sort of thing? Last I checked, you weren't God, so I suggest you stop playing at it.

Free Will was one of the biggest faults of humankind, because whether or not you believe in God, I'm going to school you on some Christianity right here. God did not want us to have free will; he knew it would bring sin to the world, and people to move further and further away from him. He loves all of us and wants all of us to go to heaven, no matter the sins, as long as we trust in him and take him for our Lord.

As a Christian (Lutheran specifically) myself, I cannot agree more on the point that he loves us all and wants us to join him in Heaven. But what is the point of loving God if you have no respect for everyone else who is going to be in Heaven with you? Though I am not homosexual, I have friends who are. My personal interpretation (and there are many many others I have met who agree with me on this point) is that God wishes two things of you: 1.) Love and accept him as God, your creator, and the sole deity/idol of your worship. 2.) Live your life as you will, so long as it does not bring intentional harm onto others.

I don't see how being homosexual specifically violates either of those. Sure, maybe they aren't Christian, but I have never met a homosexual who was not Christian because he was gay.

Religion may not be important to you, but I can assure you, to BILLIONS around the world, some kind of religion is. Many religions are strictly against homosexuality, which is probably why today it is considered such a controversial topic; and many are against it as well due to such influence. And please tell me how this is considered a monstrosity? Men were not made to reproduce with other males, and females were not made to reproduce with other females. Even if you are atheistic, basic anatomy should tell you this.

And obviously the religions who spearhead the anti-gay message are the most kind, loving and understanding ones. [/sarcasm]

Now let us take a look at something...

mon·stros·i·ty Audio Help /mɒnˈstrɒsɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mon-stros-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or character of being monstrous.
2. a monster or something monstrous.
[Origin: 1545–55; < LL mōnstrōsitās, equiv. to L mōnstrōs(us) monstrous + -itās -ity]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Okay...so now let us look at monstrous...

mon·strous Audio Help /ˈmɒnstrəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mon-struhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. frightful or hideous, esp. in appearance; extremely ugly.
2. shocking or revolting; outrageous: monstrous cruelty.
3. extraordinarily great; huge; immense: a monstrous building.
4. deviating grotesquely from the natural or normal form or type.
5. having the nature or appearance of a fabulous monster.
–adverb
6. extremely; exceedingly; very.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < L mōnstrōsus. See monster, -ous]

Okay, you can argue semantics at this point, but I think that no matter where you look it up, the definition is going to be roughly the same, so let us continue...

Homosexuals are not "frightful or hideous" (unless you are a homophobe) strictly speaking. That is more of a personal opinion more than anything else.

Homosexuals are not "revolting" in the literal sense of the word. (Once again, saying they are revolting is purely personal opinion), though I guess you could consider them "shocking," though it really isn't a bad thing.

The only other thing in the list I am going to address is #4. Now I am going to spare everyone from the entire "What is normal?" dialogue, and instead just point out a few facts about people who were "normal."

The Salem witch hunts. The people who killed so many of their own were considered to be quite normal.

Suicide bombers in Iraq or other locations around the globe. By many they are considered normal. Just dying for the cause right?

My personal favorite: The crusades. "I'm a Christian and though I am chivalrous, understanding, kind, and loving, I am going to get thousands of my countrymen and go kick those dark-skinned Muslims out of the holy city because I don't agree with them, and though many will die on both sides, I really don't care about that so long as I get to worship God in the holy city. Totally worth it."

You are Christian you say? Start acting like one.

Keep insulting me, it makes you look all the more pathetic.

lolz Keep thinking that.

 

[Aesir]

Mosaic laws clearly point out if you commit a homosexual act you are to be killed. >_>

Not to like start a religious debate I just wanted to point that out.

 

[Crimson King]

All right, this got way to far and I can't remember if I started it or not, but I am ending it. Anymore debating after this post will constitute a one week ban. Seriously, this topic was made in CELEBRATION of gays being allowed to marry, not arguing about their rights. You want to argue? Take it to the DH or PMs.

 

[Machspeed]

I enjoy how you talk about respect and then shake off political correctness as it apparently doesn't concern you. Whether or not it's used in the Bible, it's pretty much common sense you don't call other people, or a group of people, abominations. That's like going up to a mentally challenged kid and calling him a ****** because that's how the dictionary defined it. I'm not saying the dictionary = The Bible but I'd suggest a more appropriate term before chiding him on respect.

That aside, you're using a very common tactic people use called stating an opinion and then calling it fact. Your claim that God intended for humans not to have free will, that God does not condone homosexuality, that is your BELIEF which is very different from a FACT. And while yes, you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, you are not perfectly entitled to insult an entire group of people based on your beliefs.

Also, the religions themselves do not disprove of homosexuality, as that's impossible. The individuals practicing the religion, and interpreting the text do, however make their own judgements about homosexuality. This is why we have Christian churches that are fully ok with homosexuals. And because it is individual interpretation, these interpretations are subject to change over time, as has been proven over and over again throughout history.

And one more thing, why does it have to be about reproduction? Why can't it just be about love?

I've said it once, and I'll say it again.

I'm using ABOMINATION in the context it is used in the Bible. Taking away that word would cloud my argument, and many people would not understand me. Abomination is the *down to the letter* word used to describe it, so that's what I'm going to use, seeing as it's the basis for many of my arguments. While I may not think they are children of satan or anything of the sort, I'm just using that word in context. Sorry if it is offending.

Alright, are you a Christian? While I understand some churches may allow it, I'm the most strict religion of them all: a catholic. We go by the holy book and what we believe is right, and that alone. EVERY Christian's belief is that God did not want us to have Free Will. You can read the first few pages of Genesis and see that: Adam and Eve listened to Satan and ate from the Garden of Eden which gave them Free Will.

And btw, when did I ever call what I've said a fact? I've been stating, plenty of times, probably over 10 times by now, that I'll I'm doing is stating my opinion, which clearly does not affect the lives of others or anything. And those Christian churches who allow homosexuals have been derived from I don't know where: in the Bible, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly dictates that homosexuality is a sin.

Alright. Let's get something straight.
I don't mind them getting married, seeing as it's not my choice in the end of it all, however, I still think it's wrong.

That's all there really is to it, bud.

EDIT: Crimson King, spare me, I was typing this for quite a long time as I was si-tracked by playing MGS4.

 

[Mini Mic]

A serial murderer is different because a serial murderer harms and brings suffering.

What if the victim deserved it <.< >.>

 

[~L~]

I believe something like this would be more appropiate in the Debate Hall.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Disclaimer: My opinion, if you don't care about it, go onto the next post, and rather than flame it, logically analyze it.

Sometimes, you shouldn't take things into your own hands, but there is a difference between murder and killing.
Murder is a planned out killing, and usually an act of hatred.
Killing, can fall into the category of murder, which is a bad form of killing, which deserves punishment, even if the victim deserved it.
Killing could also be in war, where you are killing in defense of something, whatever you are fighting for.
My philosophy on killing in war, you kill the enemy, or he could kill your friend you fight beside.
Anyway, sometimes killing is necessary, but killing out of hatred, is a stupid, senseless act, that needs to be punished, or so I believe.

Anyway, I believe the murderer deserves punishment, as, I believe, even if the victim deserved death, justice will always be served.
But, murder is often less of a serving of justice, and more killing out of selfish motives, like hatred, jealousy, or greed.

 

[BlackFoxPariah]

Do you realize how stupid that makes you sound? That's like saying that owning a dog makes you support beastiality.

The fact that you think I was serious about that post just makes me laugh at how intensely you are fighting for this.

I don't know about anyone here (especially since how many people are supporting gay marriage) but I am not comfortable with the thought of another guy blowing another guy off.

Take that in whatever definition you want. OMG now we are going to get into how messed up sexual acts between a man and a woman are.

If you don't like it go out and get AIDS. PLEASE DO. The world might be a better place with less defective people running around.

You have a choice. I bet these "gay" kids are only gay because thats all they know. Had they had a real first sexual experience they wouldn't be gay

 

[Aesir]

I don't know about anyone here (especially since how many people are supporting gay marriage) but I am not comfortable with the thought of another guy blowing another guy off.

Thats nice but in all honesty it really doesn't matter what to they do in the comfort of their own home.

If you don't like it go out and get AIDS. PLEASE DO. The world might be a better place with less defective people running around.

Please stop.

You have a choice. I bet these "gay" kids are only gay because thats all they know. Had they had a real first sexual experience they wouldn't be gay

So you refuse to see the scientific evidence which states the opposite? Theres no choice in this look back a few pages I posted a article about this.

Theres load of evidence which suggests it's not a choice it's hardwired into our brains what we're attracted to.

edit I just realized CK said no more debating. My bad I'll stop now >____<

 

[Crimson King]

Yes, and after a few hour leeway, I will begin banning, now.


Just post things complimentary or don't post at all.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Ok, am I the only one who sees the sponsored link that says "Is Gay Marriage Wrong?"

Is this some sort of admin joke?

 

[Aesir]

Ok, am I the only one who sees the sponsored link that says "Is Gay Marriage Wrong?"

Is this some sort of admin joke?

It's the way Ads work.

the way I think it works is google ads searches key words so phrases like gay marriage and they put adds reflecting something thats talked about the most.

 

[Lucrece]

It's the way Ads work.

the way I think it works is google ads searches key words so phrases like gay marriage and they put adds reflecting something thats talked about the most.

Actually, that ad is a link to a survey that doesn't show any bias.

I've seen it in various gay-themed sites, actually (to hell with you, I like the god****ed word); so, no, I would say it's not a joke, rather mere coincidence.

EDIT:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1407952648/bctid1614766169 (couples getting married)

Tell me that the baldie's quivering, teary-eyed demeanor isn't just unbearably adorable.

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, the most predominant word or words (and usually the topic header) is the advertisements for the post.

 

[iankobe]

I don't want to say anything anymore.

I just don't to get banned or anything.

 

[Reyairia]

lol same sex marriages shouldn't be legal!

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t changed at all: women are property, Blacks can’t marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. 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 license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

/sarcastic famous list.

Sorry, but "I think it's gross to see it" is not a valid legal argument.

Anyway, I just hope other states get the common sense. Oregon shouldn't be too far behind, considering how liberal they are.

 

[_V_]

Haha that list is hilarious.

I think this is amazing. I just moved out to California and I was proud to see this. I am originally from Connecticut, in which the state approves Civil Unions. I, personally, do not understand why the word marriage cannot be used. To me, marriage represents love between to people. There is no man and woman.

What people do with their own lives does not directly affect anyone else, but them.

Anyway, yay for California! I have heard they might overturn this decision and null all the marriages...has anyone else heard this?

 

[RavenPsyc]

There is something that people don't consider when they brandish the word abomination when talking about homosexuals.

1)Heres how i feel (as a Christian): since Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and since all humans are sinners (since only Jesus was without sin) NO ONE has the right to pass judgment on people who are doing unnatural things (sorry, didn't mean to label homosexuals heterosexuals do unnatural things too). so yes even those who are protesting against gay marriage are sinners too so they should not be placing judgment.

2)All people have to right to be happy. the term "marriage" i just a word but it has important repercussions . for instance, I have a friend who is gay and in love with a guy and it would be a tragedy if something happened to one of them and the other wouldn't be able to claim the body, make hospital decisions, or even see them because they are not "family". so I say that homosexuals should be able to get "married" in the sense that they are legally allow to be a family at least.

 

[Mediocre]

There is something that people don't consider when they brandish the word abomination when talking about homosexuals.

1)Heres how i feel (as a Christian): since Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and since all humans are sinners (since only Jesus was without sin) NO ONE has the right to pass judgment on people who are doing unnatural things (sorry, didn't mean to label homosexuals heterosexuals do unnatural things too). so yes even those who are protesting against gay marriage are sinners too so they should not be placing judgment.

2)All people have to right to be happy. the term "marriage" i just a word but it has important repercussions . for instance, I have a friend who is gay and in love with a guy and it would be a tragedy if something happened to one of them and the other wouldn't be able to claim the body, make hospital decisions, or even see them because they are not "family". so I say that homosexuals should be able to get "married" in the sense that they are legally allow to be a family at least.

You seem like my favorite kind of Christian.

Thanks for reminding me that religion doesn't have to suck.

 

[_V_]

You seem like my favorite kind of Christian.

Thanks for reminding me that religion doesn't have to suck.

Quoted for truth!

I agree.

 

[GreenKirby]

Am I the only one who finds this odd?

California, probably the most liberal state, has just NOW legalized gay marriage?

They're slipping as Minnesota beat them to that.

 

[Lucrece]

Am I the only one who finds this odd?

California, probably the most liberal state, has just NOW legalized gay marriage?

They're slipping as Minnesota beat them to that.

California isn't a liberal state per se. San Francisco and L.A. are liberal. The rest of California is similar to Maryland: A complete mix depending on the zone.

Bear in mind that even blue states are not necessarily socially liberal; they're just more inclined toward a socialist approach to the economy.