What Is Your Stance on Gay Marriage?

Judged:

1

1

1

okimar wrote:

"Marriage" as defined thru countless cultures and generations is a union of men and women. This social contract pledged varying conditions on each party but the primary concern was to insure the welfare and legitimacy of any progeny between the participants of the union. These unions originally were sanctioned by religious orders. As governments realized that revenue could be generated by requiring licenses to wed the religious overtones declined,until the church service became a formality observed to provide some sanctity to what had become a commercialized gov't institution.
Never the less,Marriage as an institution of contractural obligations still remains throughout society as one of man and woman. The assault by the GLBT on traditional marriage is seen as further efforts by them to force acceptance of their abnormal attractions on society as a whole.
While there has been a more tolerant attitude towards the GLBT community over the past few decades they risk a backlash with this premeditated destruction of society's most important construct.
This can be resolved with the understanding by both sides that same sex unions (civil unions) can be made legal and accepted in a court of law as binding. Performed by a State appointed JOP they would have all rights/privileges concerning inheritance,property,custody/v isitation(if any are warranted) and benefits. There are Civil Unions performed across the country every year by Judges/JOPs for opposite sex couples. These should be extended to same sex couples without the title of "marriage" appended.
For the GLBT community to demand otherwise will confirm this isn't about "equal rights" but the continued assault on traditional societal norms. And this shouldn't be tolerated.

Andy wrote:

<quoted text>
BRAVO !!!
Very, very well said and 100% spot on !!!

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
okimar, when you use a sock puppet, don't make it such a suck up.
What you said was wrong! Separate but equal !=. That was settled long ago.

Judged:

2

1

1

jusathought wrote:

GAY MARRIAGE A RIGHT? see this is what happens when men think with their members.... they give women(supposedly the compassionate ones) the right to vote, 100 years later we have a black president handing out food stamps to once working people and calling for fags to marry...half of all people in america are recieving some form of gov handout...you pu$$ies... be a man and work to support your families! but, thats what happens when the soft are given a voice...spanish is working its way in as a second language...people are getting jobs based on color instead of qualifications...cant say a joke about anyone, ever...because it might offend someone, men are no longer men... we need to elect leaders with actual balls to stand up to the minorities getting their way... supposed to represent the people of america... that means majority... not just some people in america

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you against equal protection under the law? The 14th Amendment grants all US citizens equal protection. That includes minorities. What could be more unAmerican than being against the Constitution, like you are!
You are a joke.

waitasec wrote:

They don't stay together very long! This country is sooo against it, but the libs and progressives gotta try to destroy this country any way they can! Muslims don't want them, they'll stone them to death!

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you against equal protection under the law? The 14th Amendment grants all US citizens equal protection. That includes minorities. What could be more unAmerican than being against the Constitution, like you are!
You are a joke.

Judged:

1

jusathought wrote:

<quoted text>
why are the people voted in by the majority, working so hard to pi$$ off their boss(the american people) by siding with the minority? why is it ok to create laws that no one wants, just to appeal to a select group? sounds like there is money involved... i would donate money to the causes i believe in... but the politicians have raped me of all disposable income to pay handouts to the special interest groups

okimar wrote:

<quoted text>Rights are subjective.... While the 14th Amendment DOES guarentee equal protection under the Constitution it does NOT allow for said minorities to subjugate the majority's preference in universally accepted mores.

okimar wrote:

Homosexuality being a traditionally outcast behavior is only recently become accepted in certain,but ever expanding circles. S L O W L Y accepted. Change takes time. All it would take to destroy 30 years of hard work is the impatience of a few. You DON'T win arguements by pizzing off those you want on your side. Just sayin'.....

Jerry Sandusky wrote:

<quoted text>Where in the Constitution does it say queers have the "right" to engage in their filthy and abnormal perversions and their dirty homosexual/pedophile deviancy? Perhaps in the 4th Amendment. If queers just wanted to be left alone, as they've lied for years, in the privacy of their own private property, I grudgingly tolerate that viewpoint. But now the government at every level from local school district on up to the presidency is promoting faggotry and deviance to OUR KIDS, 24/7/365, on OUR dime!

Judged:

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
No matter how you feel about gay couples raising children, gay marriage is a totally separate issue.

Judged:

1

Cujo wrote:

Live and let live, it hurts no one!

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
to hell with the children, you have an agenda, RIGHT?

Jane Dough wrote:

By the way, no one cares what you think let alone what silly laws you claim.
I also recall when asked about polygamy, you went right for the "what about the kids"

Jane Dough wrote:

you are a silly hypocrite. have a day!

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
The point is that children are not the issue.

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
no one is discussing the live and let live part which is how it is now.
Anyone can love, live with, and boink any consenting adult they want at any time.
This is about govt RECOGNITION normally applied to a family unit.

Cujo wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, you mean "traditional marriage". It's disingenuous to say that marriage has any tradition, when it has changed over time. Does an engagement ring still mean ownership? It must, because you never know when a man is engaged unless you are told. But guess what. I have heard that some women are getting their men engagement rings now. How DARE they break tradition.