one argument i have heard was not wanting to pay death benefits or social security to a same sex "spouse" or a partner.
i overheard some guy in line talking sayin...i aint payin another man cuz his man is dead...
and he said his with such venom...i just informed him he payed way more money to my mother in law to stay at home in a horrible marriage, pop out kids, and collect ssi benefits for being "crazy" with in fact is not the case.
he did not have a smart comeback, so he said..what if someone wanted to marry a broom, or a horse..then we have to pay our money to it!!!!
i laughed..he has no idea where his taxes go, and when i asked him if he paid more money to welfare or social security...he said welfare...
i laughed, threw my head back and laughed some more then i ordered my coffee, just shook my head at him, and walked away.
I put my reasons and thoughts on hear and tried to explain them. I know I probably did not change anybodys view and mine did not change but.....
When this comes up for a vote I am in the majority. More people vote against gay marriage.
Where are these people? I was the first out of 5 pages to personally give any reason against gay marriage but for civil unions. Others gave reasons but kind of in a pack down way. Some played it off like "I know this person that says xyz." There was no back and forth conversation.
Are they afraid to post anonymously? Are they that week and not informed? Wrong people just showed up to vote? Why is this and what does it say about the people that vote?
Are you saying that siblings should be allowed to marry, so long as they agree not to produce offspring? And what does insurance have to do with gay marriage, other than the fact that married couples can be put on each others healthcare benefits at most companies? I'm really not sure if you are being snarky or serious...
There was a story a while back in the news about two women. Sisters, never married and lived together. One had a job and healthcare, the other was sick and didn't have HC. So why shouldn't they be able to marry and get healthcare from the working sisters plan? How are they different from two lesbians who dont have sex, other than they share parents?
So if we open up marriages to gays, then I think it's only fair we open it to any two people who can take the vow. No other restrictions. Posted via Mobile Device
There was a story a while back in the news about two women. Sisters, never married and lived together. One had a job and healthcare, the other was sick and didn't have HC. So why shouldn't they be able to marry and get healthcare from the working sisters plan? How are they different from two lesbians who dont have sex, other than they share parents?
So if we open up marriages to gays, then I think it's only fair we open it to any two people who can take the vow. No other restrictions. Posted via Mobile Device
You are getting borderline into a universal healthcare discussion at this rate. I am not going there.
I put my reasons and thoughts on hear and tried to explain them. I know I probably did not change anybodys view and mine did not change but.....
When this comes up for a vote I am in the majority. More people vote against gay marriage.
Where are these people? I was the first out of 5 pages to personally give any reason against gay marriage but for civil unions. Others gave reasons but kind of in a pack down way. Some played it off like "I know this person that says xyz." There was no back and forth conversation.
Are they afraid to post anonymously? Are they that week and not informed? Wrong people just showed up to vote? Why is this and what does it say about the people that vote?
Oops, I was 2nd to be against it.
I am not that great at putting what I think into words, but I agree completely with you. I really have nothing at all against them being together, but I think that it's wrong when they are demanding that they should be able to get married in a church, and if a church refuses it is vandalized (I know this is a case by case occurance, not every single time) I mean basically they are fighting for the right to marry so that they have the same legal rights as other married couples, so why not just make it a civil union, give them the same rights as all spouses get and be done with this...there are so many bigger issues in this country than gay marriage. I do not think that it should be called marriage, as I too believe that marriage has biblical ties and is between man and woman.
And also, yes there are sky high divorce rates, but that doesn't speak for the entire heterosexual population....I do believe marriage has already turned into just another part of "pop culture" and to most people has no real meaning, but for some of us, it still does.....
It's goes against most religions so why should they marry someone in the church O.o
But to go to a court house and get married? Or get married by someone in a forest/beach/whatever? Sure. My BIL was our "minister".
Right, I feel like it should be ok for the church to not do it because it goes against their beliefs...but for them to go anywhere else and make it official is fine....Idk to be honest the government/politicians make this world such a difficult place to live...I don't understand why the government has to have a place in our personal relationship choices anyway...idk nobody should have to clear who they love or want to be with with any other person....idk just tired of all the fighting and all the arguing in this world, no matter what side it comes from, I just wish people could be happy and live their lives....I know lol so not realistic
I agree with everything in red. Churches are private organizations and they should in no way be forced by law to do something that directly contradicts their beliefs. This is the same reason I believe gay marriage should be legalized though. Just like the law shouldn’t be able to for the church, the church shouldn’t be able to force the law. This country is a hodge-podge of belief systems and for that reason, no one religious group should be able to bias law.
I also agree with you about the isolated incidents of vandalism and protests. Do you remember the YouTube video that came out of the singing protest/demonstration in Target? It was called "Target Ain't People" and it was appalling, you should look it up. What started it was Target had donated some money to a politician who was against gay marriage and the demonstrators were saying that corporations shouldn't have the right to donate to political campaigns because they're not looking out for the best interest of "the people". Frankly, I disagree. Target is people and their board has the right to donate funds to whomever they please. Also, I am pretty sure that these specific demonstrators wouldn’t have been up in arms if Target had donated to a proponent of gay marriage. Everyone has a right to their opinion, which is the beauty of democracy.
To be honest though, you are going to have the “Westboro Baptist Church” of every group, so you are always going to have one group or another literally shoving their beliefs down your throat. You just have to take a deep breath and say “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
On a side note, civil unions are a good idea and I am not really sure if it has or hasn't been suggested. Again though, I don't really believe that changing the termonology would make a bit of difference to the opponents. The true opponents who are against them being together period. JMO.
Yup I totally agree with that....the people that are stopping it from becoming legal could really care less what it's called I'm sure, and holy crap, the Westboro Baptist church and people like that, I won't even get started haha I could go on forever about that.
I really like that quote you used, if more people thought that way I think there would be a lot more happiness on this earth...
I put my reasons and thoughts on hear and tried to explain them. I know I probably did not change anybodys view and mine did not change but.....
When this comes up for a vote I am in the majority. More people vote against gay marriage.
Where are these people? I was the first out of 5 pages to personally give any reason against gay marriage but for civil unions. Others gave reasons but kind of in a pack down way. Some played it off like "I know this person that says xyz." There was no back and forth conversation.
Are they afraid to post anonymously? Are they that week and not informed? Wrong people just showed up to vote? Why is this and what does it say about the people that vote?
Oops, I was 2nd to be against it.
The people who agree with you on this matter are not here - they are probably doing something more productive than arguing with closed minds.
That said, every time this issue comes up you will see various straw man arguments such as "Christians think this will affect their marriage" when the truth of the matter is that when a small minority (and I mean SMALL - about 2% the last time I heard) wants to rewrite civil law against the will of the majority there WILL be an effect, and not just on marriage. What you basically have is very nearly a plutocracy of political power enforcing their will on the majority. (These are the same people who will try and tell you that the OWS people have the right idea with their "1%" and "99%" notions, that claim that 1% of the population controls all the wealth in the country.)
In the case of gay marriage, it is the 1% pro gay marriage forces that use whatever tricks they can to impose their will on the majority, up to and including nullifying the will of the people, as it did in California.
This is what most people object to - the minority pushing the majority around, invoking "minority rights" only when they are in the minority. When they are in the majority, their tune changes - "we won", and they don't have to listen to the minority.
The majority also objects to the imposition of the burden of proof on marriage as it is. It is the minority who must justify any change they propose to make. Marriage as it has existed for thousands of years is not ours to defend. It has been shown over and over again that children do better when raised with two opposite sex parents. It's not a debatable point. Side issues such as who gets divorced and who doesn't are irrelevant rabbit trails.
Finally, it is my opinion that the people who are pro-gay marriage have no motivation other than that they know Christians are against it, so anything that chafes Christianity or the church is fine with them. You see it in every thread like this one, it doesn't take long before it degenerates into Christian bashing, with the usual charges "hypocrisy, intolerance, bigotry".
It's funny that they never see the irony in their statements.
So don't despair, you are not alone. We vote, too.
The people who agree with you on this matter are not here - they are probably doing something more productive than arguing with closed minds.
That said, every time this issue comes up you will see various straw man arguments such as "Christians think this will affect their marriage" when the truth of the matter is that when a small minority (and I mean SMALL - about 2% the last time I heard) wants to rewrite civil law against the will of the majority there WILL be an effect, and not just on marriage. What you basically have is very nearly a plutocracy of political power enforcing their will on the majority. (These are the same people who will try and tell you that the OWS people have the right idea with their "1%" and "99%" notions, that claim that 1% of the population controls all the wealth in the country.)
In the case of gay marriage, it is the 1% pro gay marriage forces that use whatever tricks they can to impose their will on the majority, up to and including nullifying the will of the people, as it did in California.
This is what most people object to - the minority pushing the majority around, invoking "minority rights" only when they are in the minority. When they are in the majority, their tune changes - "we won", and they don't have to listen to the minority.
The majority also objects to the imposition of the burden of proof on marriage as it is. It is the minority who must justify any change they propose to make. Marriage as it has existed for thousands of years is not ours to defend. It has been shown over and over again that children do better when raised with two opposite sex parents. It's not a debatable point. Side issues such as who gets divorced and who doesn't are irrelevant rabbit trails.
Finally, it is my opinion that the people who are pro-gay marriage have no motivation other than that they know Christians are against it, so anything that chafes Christianity or the church is fine with them. You see it in every thread like this one, it doesn't take long before it degenerates into Christian bashing, with the usual charges "hypocrisy, intolerance, bigotry".
It's funny that they never see the irony in their statements.
So don't despair, you are not alone. We vote, too.
Made some very good points.
I was curious what your thoughts were about calling it "civil unions" for gay people. I think there is a lot of people sitting on the fence voting wise and I think this could be supported.
Other people here think that changing the name from "marriage" to "civil unions" will not change anything but I disagree.
I was curious what your thoughts were about calling it "civil unions" for gay people. I think there is a lot of people sitting on the fence voting wise and I think this could be supported.
Other people here think that changing the name from "marriage" to "civil unions" will not change anything but I disagree.
A "civil union" as I understand it, would be nothing more than a contract between two individuals, which already exists, I believe. This is what marriage is in the secular sense.
If the name doesn't mean anything, then call it "civil unions" and be done with it. Somehow I don't think that's the intent - I think the intent is to re-define marriage, specifically Christian marriage, which is why "civil unions" is not workable for many.
A "civil union" as I understand it, would be nothing more than a contract between two individuals, which already exists, I believe.
And if the name doesn't mean anything, then call it "civil unions" and be done with it. Somehow I don't think that's the intent - I think the intent is to re-define marriage.
Marriage has already been redefined and it wasn't gays who did this. Our society is changing what marriage means. It used to be "til death us part" but now? Not even close.
Gay people had nothing to do with the implosion of marriage. If anything, they are fighting to bring it back in to popular demand.
You cite Christianity as a reason why gays should not marry. I am Christian as well and have zero issue with two consenting adults wanting to marry. I wonder what part of Christianity states that gay people shouldn't marry? The Bible? The same book that says only God can judge and all beings are made in the likeness of him? If you believe that....as I do, then who are we to prevent "his flock" from wanting to legalize the union between two people? It just blows my mind.
This goes back to the whole; marriage between adults and minors, marriage between man and animal, marriage between man and inanimate object...
This is really no argument because there are laws and bans already in place against incest, pedophilia, and cruelty to animals. A marriage between siblings would be incest, therefore, illegal. Gay marriage isn’t currently illegal or legal, it’s non-existent.
Also, what you are talking about is healthcare fraud.
laws against cruelty to animals... thats funny.
Hinuduism came out and stated they are 100% not condemning Homosexuality.
Incest laws vary from state to state. In hawaii it is considered incestuos to have intercourse with an in-law, and thats 5 years in jail for banging your wifes hot mom. (its a joke, simmer down!!)
Rhode Island allows Uncles to marry nieces... which is somehow better than sexing your MIL.... people on the east coast are ****ed up
Also, I just heard that all gay marriages that occured in Canada have been completely nullified. Its going on in the news right now. There is supposedly some big time actor that has been affected by this, so Im sure its going to be all over the news.
2Likes
Re: What is so terrible about gay marriage? 
