Gay Marriage Debate - Albuquerque, NM

a legal marriage should only be between a man and woman.

If the homosexuals of either sex can impregnate their partner then fine but how can two females make one of them pregnant or two guys?

IMPOSSIBLE and that is why marriage should only be between male and female.

And not a she/male or any other of the homosexual types.

On top of which back in the 1960s and 70s they had everything they wanted before they started "demanding" we give them what they cannot legally have.

Bunch of sissies, they whine and pout to get what they want.

Give them an island and let them all move there and do what they want but stay out of the USA.

Wow, blunt, never thought I'd see you spouting off that kind of sick, bigoted rhetoric.

Segregation, as a fellow Jewish person, of all people,*you* should know how well that works...

Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:

Wow, blunt, never thought I'd see you spouting off that kind of sick, bigoted rhetoric.
Segregation, as a fellow Jewish person, of all people,*you* should know how well that works...

Hey keep in mind I do believe in live and let live, what you do in your home is you business.

What you do in public becomes everyone's business.

And I was a bit ticked off by all those in the forum about the gay guy being beat up.

Am I not allowed to have an off day?

Bluntly Spoken wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey keep in mind I do believe in live and let live, what you do in your home is you business.
What you do in public becomes everyone's business....

What I do in public??? I pay taxes in public, and I don't believe they should be redistributed to some, for whom the ability and proof of procreation is supposedly important but never required. That's just B.S. Get rid of all financial benefits of marriage, and you'll see just how materialistic Christians are. Talk about taxation without representation.

Leave the gays alone and let them live in peace, as couples if they wish.

Bluntly Spoken wrote:

a legal marriage should only be between a man and woman.
If the homosexuals of either sex can impregnate their partner then fine but how can two females make one of them pregnant or two guys?
IMPOSSIBLE and that is why marriage should only be between male and female.
And not a she/male or any other of the homosexual types.
On top of which back in the 1960s and 70s they had everything they wanted before they started "demanding" we give them what they cannot legally have.
Bunch of sissies, they whine and pout to get what they want.
Give them an island and let them all move there and do what they want but stay out of the USA.

So if a man or woman are biologically unable to procreate are you saying that they should not be allowed to marry since they cannot have children? I am shocked that you could post something like this, Blunt. Why can't you just leave the gays alone and let them live in peace?

I am for traditional Biblical marriage. Not a marriage of sin.

Lobo and Silk,

What people do in their home is their business, if two guys or gals want to sleep together let them but when you throw kids into that arrangement things change, I refuse to believe those kids can be taught and brought up completely normal, they will be taunted by others at school, they will know that their moms or dads are not like others, face it how can someone have a dad that is female or a mom that is male?

Let them live together, fine with me but a legal marriage, not so fine.

I think we all know the real reasons for their push, like any other special group they demand everything they either don't or cannot have legally so they want to change the laws.

I have nothing against anyone who is not a criminal or breaking the laws, want to smoke dope in your home, do so but don't go out and rob for the money to buy it.

Want to sleep with your lover, who cares but don't demand we accept your kissing, hand holding, and humping in public.

Some things are meant to be kept private.

As I have said many times, I believe in two things, Live and Let Live and What one does in their home is their business but what you do in public becomes everyone's business.

My first post was said more in haste then in thinking it out first.

Enough said here, reply but I won't.

JosephOne wrote:

I am for traditional Biblical marriage. Not a marriage of sin.

Then remove all CIVIL benefits from your b$ "biblical" marriage.

Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Then remove all CIVIL benefits from your b$ "biblical" marriage.

Okay. I am all for that. I don't want government in my marriage anymore than in any other persons marriage.

"These days its not just that the line between right and wrong has been made unclear, today Christians are being asked by our culture today to erase the lines and move the fences, and if that were not bad enough, we are being asked to join in the celebration cry by those who have thrown off the restraints religion had imposed upon them. It is not just that they ask we accept, but they now demand of us to celebrate it too."
— Ravi Zacharias

JosephOne wrote:

Okay. I am all for that. I don't want government in my marriage anymore than in any other persons marriage.

Then since you are all for that, and since others are all for CIVIL, but NOT religious marriages, you can have your "biblical" marriage, and they should be able to have their CIVIL marriages.

Problem solved.

Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Then since you are all for that, and since others are all for CIVIL, but NOT religious marriages, you can have your "biblical" marriage, and they should be able to have their CIVIL marriages.
Problem solved.

Not opposed to civil unions.

Not at all.

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
Not opposed to civil unions.
Not at all.

Agreed.

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
Not opposed to civil unions.
Not at all.

Great, then the government should recognize only civil unions, gay or straight, and leave marriage out of government completely. Sounds good to me!

Everybody Just Relax wrote:

<quoted text>Great, then the government should recognize only civil unions, gay or straight, and leave marriage out of government completely. Sounds good to me!

You know very well he is referring to homosexuals.

Everybody Just Relax wrote:

<quoted text>Great, then the government should recognize only civil unions, gay or straight, and leave marriage out of government completely. Sounds good to me!

Yes. And only churches recognize marriage...and whichever church chooses to recognize Biblical or gay marriage that is their business, not to be interfered with by government.

After all a Biblical marriage has the inherent blessings of God anyway, much better than what government can purport to give.

Bluntly Spoken wrote:

<quoted text>
You know very well he is referring to homosexuals.

Sometimes Blunt they can be maddeningly obtuse and tortuously vague but oh well...

This how many of them think.

Over 100 oppose nationally and in Albuquerque the opposition is quite close to the supporters.

Interesting.

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
Sometimes Blunt they can be maddeningly obtuse and tortuously vague but oh well...
This how many of them think.

Yes JosephOne, you are absolutely correct but heck that is what they do best, bug the hell out of intelligent people.