How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who live homosexual lifestyles have the same rights as everyone else. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, and so do they. No one is saying that they cannot get married.

Stop arguing over this ridiculous mess and repent for all of your personal sins before God's judgment comes flying down on your head. Once you are finished, pray for this sick and perverted country full of baby killers, perverted sex, witchcraft, and all other kinds of hell.

Talking about this is a Christian nation..please, give me a break. God's judgment is coming, and sorry, no one will be raptured away from it. Repent and pray for protection.

Who opened up a can of crazy?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's about the "degradation" of our society. Traditionalists are alarmed at the changes they see in our society. A black President. Women in power, not dependent on men. Disrespectful teenagers (like that's new). Drugs (ibid). Homosexuality being accepted instead of shunned is, to some folks, condoning an immoral society. If we keep going on the path we are on we will have a country where there is no right or wrong, just "do whatever makes you feel good". This threatens the social order which threatens their standing in it. Just like civil rights did, and immigration does.

I don't agree with any of this. It is just what I think they are thinking. I live my life by the motto, "do whatever makes you feel good - as long as you harm none".

[Anonymous]

^^^random.

[Anonymous]

I'm a mother, Christian, heterosexual and fully support gay marriage.

Why is it that most of my fellow Christians in opposition to gay marriage sound like the Westboro Baptist nut jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

While you're at it, ponder why polygamy is illegal. That too can involve consenting adults and in no way threatens your family.

Marriage is about legal and tax benefits. In other words, legally it is one big loophole. I would not want that loophole extended to an arbitrarily large group of people. One partner is enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

While you're at it, ponder why polygamy is illegal. That too can involve consenting adults and in no way threatens your family.

Marriage is about legal and tax benefits. In other words, legally it is one big loophole. I would not want that loophole extended to an arbitrarily large group of people. One partner is enough.

It would change the tax system but not necessarily lower revenues. People who want to get married, get married whether it's a 1 to 1 or 1 to many relationship

[Anonymous]

Concerning polygamy, do you mean a marriage consisting of more than two people (as in Big Love) or one person engaged in more than one marriage (each probably unknown to the spouse in the other(s))?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Concerning polygamy, do you mean a marriage consisting of more than two people (as in Big Love) or one person engaged in more than one marriage (each probably unknown to the spouse in the other(s))?

This is a discussion about what constitutes legal marriage so it would be the former.

[Anonymous]

Yes to polygamy. Long overdue. That's really traditional marriage.

[Anonymous]

As Clinton educated us... if you can't have offspring, it isn't sex. It's sodomy. The term is homosodomist not homosexual. Sex occurs among heterosexuals. Homosodomist civil unions should be legal. The term marriage applies to the ideal of heterosexual and implies judeo-christian approval. Why muddy the waters..keep the terms separate to respect all groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As Clinton educated us... if you can't have offspring, it isn't sex. It's sodomy. The term is homosodomist not homosexual. Sex occurs among heterosexuals. Homosodomist civil unions should be legal. The term marriage applies to the ideal of heterosexual and implies judeo-christian approval. Why muddy the waters..keep the terms separate to respect all groups.

Why do you define the person by how they get their jollies off? People in same sex relationships do a lot more than bump uglies. They love, hug, kiss, fight, annoy, care for, and watch over one another. They do all the things that opposite-sex couples do. 99% of a same sex couple's relationship looks just like my opposite sex relationship. For whatever reason, we focus on the 1% of the relationship that is different. And even THAT aspect is sometimes the same (we engage in our fair share of "sodomy").

[Anonymous]

the correct term is same sodomist relationship. homosodomists never practice actual sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the correct term is same sodomist relationship. homosodomists never practice actual sex.

So you get to decide how others define their relationship? Fine. Then I get to decide how your relationships are defined. You seem like a selfish douche, so I'm going to refer to your relationship (presuming you are in one, which is probably being overly generous) as a selfish-douche-partnership.

I'm curious... what do you call opposite sex relationships between people who abstain from sex? The bible thumpers, which you may well be a part of, aggressively push this type of relationship for unmarried people. I guess those aren't heterosexual relationships, since there is no sex. And if they resort to forms of sodomy to meet their very natural sexual needs, I guess they would be considered sodomist relationships as well! Heterosodomists???

[Anonymous]

While I can't speak to why gay marriage would threaten me, I can speak to why opposition to gay marriage threatens me. It threatens me because it is based on the premise that outside agents, among them the government and individuals with whom I have no relationship of any kind, have the right and authority to define my relationship. If they can decide that two loving people cannot be married because of their genders, whats to stop them from deciding that my interfaith relationship is something other than what my fiance and I determine it to be? Whats to stop them from deciding that us living together and having sex before marriage somehow disqualifies us from attaining a certain desired label for our relationship?

While this may appear to be a slippery slope argument, it is not. Arguing for a specific definition of marriage (in this case, a committed relationship between two opposite sex individuals) is to argue that the government and the electorate have the right to define marriage as they see fit. This is threatening to me. And to all of us. The definition of a relationship is between the people involved in the relationship and those whom they seek recognition from. It is not up to the will of the people or agents of the state.