|
A. P.
Beltsville, MD
|
marriage as define by law and the major religions is bewteen a man and a woman. Period.
|
|
Douglass
Zion, IL
|
Homosexuality is a catastrophic failure
|
|
Government Foe
Royal Oak, MI
|
Ahhh, more self righteous homophobes who think they have the right to tell others what to do in their own bedroom.
They aren't what's wrong with this country, you are.
|
|
Marcia Simms
Grosse Pointe, MI
|
|
|
James
Detroit, MI
|
Your seriously going to say that marriage should be man & woman just because the law says so. Doesn't that make gay marriage ok if the law changes? Isn't that the definition of a circular argument?
And guess what, not everybody follows a religion (or any religion) that condemns homosexuality.
|
|
Tony
Dearborn, MI
|
I support gays doing whatever they want in private and not bothering me. I do not support changing the normal laws for marriage. A gay union is something other than a marriage. If somebody wants to legalize it, come up with something else to call it. If a "gay union" is something people want and vote upon, go for it.
|
|
Government Foe
Dearborn, MI
|
Tony wrote: I support gays doing whatever they want in private and not bothering me. I do not support changing the normal laws for marriage. A gay union is something other than a marriage. If somebody wants to legalize it, come up with something else to call it. If a "gay union" is something people want and vote upon, go for it. The definition of "marriage" is the "union of two people". The law changes the definition to "two people of the opposite sex". Similar to the Bible, it's written by self-righteous bigots who think they know how people should live their lives. In fact, marriage was once a private issue between a couple who simply professed their love for each other. Their wasn't a law required. Now, of course, you involve the government and they mandate a law because they can benefit from it. If you support gays doing whatever they want since it doesn't bother you, how would their marriage be any different? It doesn't bother you.
|
|
Tony
Dearborn, MI
|
Government Foe wrote: <quoted text>
The definition of "marriage" is the "union of two people". The law changes the definition to "two people of the opposite sex". Similar to the Bible, it's written by self-righteous bigots who think they know how people should live their lives. In fact, marriage was once a private issue between a couple who simply professed their love for each other. Their wasn't a law required. Now, of course, you involve the government and they mandate a law because they can benefit from it.
If you support gays doing whatever they want since it doesn't bother you, how would their marriage be any different? It doesn't bother you. Actually GF, I'm for no marriage legally of any kind. I'm in favor of a whole lot fewer laws on the books. The legal system sucks.
|
|
|
kimmerly
Port Huron, MI
|
Marriage isn't a loving, romantic arrangement, it's a socio-economic institution with the purpose of determining property rights as well as the right to control another person by making one-sided decisions that the other has to live with. Yet NOBODY gets the contract to read before they agree to it. That's why I oppose all marriage.
|
|
kimmerly
Port Huron, MI
|
Marriage isn't a loving, romantic arrangement, it's a socio-economic institution with the purpose of determining property rights as well as the right to control another person by making one-sided decisions that the other has to live with. Yet NOBODY gets the contract to read before they agree to it. That's why I oppose all marriage.
For some reason, my opposing vote isn't being accepted.
|
|
kimmerly
Port Huron, MI
|
I apologize for clicking submit 3 times that I was aware of. Obviously, it went a LOT more than that. Oddly, when I used the popup form, the page didn't refresh, so I wasn't aware of the glitch until I used the form at the bottom. I wasn't trying to overload the system.
|
|
Xanadu
Gaylord, MI
|
|
|
missy
Canada
|
Ppl should marry who they love I kno its against my religion and family but if ppl arre in love let them love
|
|
Tony
Dearborn, MI
|
How about an "arranged" gay marriage? Would that be OK in this era?
|
|
Government Foe
Royal Oak, MI
|
kimmerly wrote: Marriage isn't a loving, romantic arrangement, it's a socio-economic institution with the purpose of determining property rights as well as the right to control another person by making one-sided decisions that the other has to live with. Yet NOBODY gets the contract to read before they agree to it. That's why I oppose all marriage. As I stated, the government became involved. They screw up everything.
|
|
Government Foe
Royal Oak, MI
|
Tony wrote: How about an "arranged" gay marriage? Would that be OK in this era? Hell, that partakes already. "Bobby, my friend's son is also gay, you should meet him" Bingo...an arrangement. LOL! Ok, I get your meaning. The bottom line, if it's part of a culture or religion, so be it. No different than opposite sex arrangements. BTW, even with arranged marriages, many couples are very unhappy with their chosen spouse as well as their post marriage life. I don't understand why people simply can't allow others to love whom they choose.
|
|
LaMonica
Grand Rapids, MI
|
Consenting adults should be able to marry the person of their choosing and not have others trying to force their religion or ideology on them. It's a fundamental right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
|
|
Skeeter
Sterling Heights, MI
|
Some times with male plumbing you can run into a clogged drain ?
|
|
Ashley
Southfield, MI
|
|
|
Jerome Greene
Brighton, MI
|
I just have to look over at Windsor which has gay marriage and see families are doing much better than all the broken families here in Detroit. Gay marriage is a scapegoat people point to that takes the guilt off themselves.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Support
Oppose
Capricorn