Before you make your summer plans to visit the Outerbanks ofNC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have voted against the marriage between same sex people but I support their rights.

No, you don't.

yes I do, I believe in marriage between a man and a women, you have no idea what I believe are you dictating what a person should believe in? I have no problem with a gay couple having the rights of me but you can;t tell me what I would do or believe in-You sound like you have a problem with people who are not affraid to stand up for what they belive.

Let me guess, you are against peopel owning guns ?

sorry for the typos darm phone

You are still an idiot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of you actually read past the headlines?

They voted on the definition of the word marriage-between a man and a women. The entire gay marriage thing is not about the word marriage it is about not being afforded the same benefits as a marriad couple.

+1

"Marriage" = Man + woman
"Civil union" = man + man, or woman + woman.

I believe civil unions should be legal in all 50 states, but I do not consider that to be "marriage." I believe in the Christian definition of marriage.

And as a Christian, can I please ask you to stop invoking Christianity in your defense of your personal prejudices? I'm Lutheran and I believe gay and lesbian citizens should have the same rights as the rest of us.

Also, "the Christian definition of marriage"? Wtf is that? Did you get some intolerance dictionary upon confirmation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the person who thinks homosexuality is a disorder also argue against equal rights for other genetic disorders?

I don't think this is a an equal rights issue, and that is a bad analogy. we are simply defining marriage to its current and established definition

Current and established by whom? People like you? No thanks. I categorically reject your "established" definition.

[Anonymous]

You have the right to your religious beliefs (whether or not Jesus would actually believe as you do is another issue). You do NOT have the right to impose them on others.

History will not look kindly on people who hold such backwards, intolerant views. Just like the misegenation laws and the folks that supported them. They look like ignorant fools. You will too.

It's a simple as this, you either support equal rights or you do not. If you don't, at least own the fact that you support discrimination. Don't hide behind your god.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and inasmuch as civil benefits flow from marriage (taxes, survivor benefits, testamentary benefits, health benefits) flow from marriage, it IS an equal rights issue. To say nothing about allowing gays the same stability and recognized relationship as you have. You're treating gays as second-class citizens. That's discrimination at its essence.

[Anonymous]

we discriminate against people all the time in all sorts of ways. Dumb people get discriminated against. Heavy people. Short people. Mentally ill, the physically ill. Doesn't mean you bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of you actually read past the headlines?

They voted on the definition of the word marriage-between a man and a women. The entire gay marriage thing is not about the word marriage it is about not being afforded the same benefits as a marriad couple.

+1

"Marriage" = Man + woman
"Civil union" = man + man, or woman + woman.

I believe civil unions should be legal in all 50 states, but I do not consider that to be "marriage." I believe in the Christian definition of marriage.

Have you actually read what your bible says about marriage? Seriously, check it out and get back to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we discriminate against people all the time in all sorts of ways. Dumb people get discriminated against. Heavy people. Short people. Mentally ill, the physically ill. Doesn't mean you bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.

Yes, but there has to be a rational basis for that discrimination. "Yuck!" is not a rational basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we discriminate against people all the time in all sorts of ways. Dumb people get discriminated against. Heavy people. Short people. Mentally ill, the physically ill. Doesn't mean you bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.

Yes, but there has to be a rational basis for that discrimination. "Yuck!" is not a rational basis.

230 years is a long time. I don't think the need to change is so compelling. you can correct the issues through contract rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we discriminate against people all the time in all sorts of ways. Dumb people get discriminated against. Heavy people. Short people. Mentally ill, the physically ill. Doesn't mean you bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.

Yes, but there has to be a rational basis for that discrimination. "Yuck!" is not a rational basis.

230 years is a long time. I don't think the need to change is so compelling. you can correct the issues through contract rights.

Whether or not you think gays want it badly enough is irrelevant. The question is, if you want to discriminate against gays, what is your rational basis for doing so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sweet -more room for on the beach and less traffic

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would discourage people from spending their vacation dollars in MD too. It is a one party state. Very undemocratic.

That's hilarious. And untrue.

Heres the solution, gays go to beaches in maryland and the rest can go to OBX, problem solved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we discriminate against people all the time in all sorts of ways. Dumb people get discriminated against. Heavy people. Short people. Mentally ill, the physically ill. Doesn't mean you bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.

Yes, but there has to be a rational basis for that discrimination. "Yuck!" is not a rational basis.

230 years is a long time. I don't think the need to change is so compelling. you can correct the issues through contract rights.

Whether or not you think gays want it badly enough is irrelevant. The question is, if you want to discriminate against gays, what is your rational basis for doing so?

1, not enough of a compelling argument to change such an established institution. we can find other ways to give gays the rights they think they are being denied.

2, dangerous to change the definition of marriage. what is the compelling reason to not then alloy polygamy? what is the compelling reason to not allow people to marry children under certain ages?

3, more research needs to be done on the causes and effects of homosexuality. just 25 years ago we thought it was a mental illness. no reason to rush.

[Anonymous]

The question is, if you want to discriminate against gays, what is your rational basis for doing so?


1, not enough of a compelling argument to change such an established institution. we can find other ways to give gays the rights they think they are being denied.

2, dangerous to change the definition of marriage. what is the compelling reason to not then alloy polygamy? what is the compelling reason to not allow people to marry children under certain ages?

3, more research needs to be done on the causes and effects of homosexuality. just 25 years ago we thought it was a mental illness. no reason to rush.

Can you please read the whole thread? All of this bullshit has been addressed already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The question is, if you want to discriminate against gays, what is your rational basis for doing so?


1, not enough of a compelling argument to change such an established institution. we can find other ways to give gays the rights they think they are being denied.

2, dangerous to change the definition of marriage. what is the compelling reason to not then alloy polygamy? what is the compelling reason to not allow people to marry children under certain ages?

3, more research needs to be done on the causes and effects of homosexuality. just 25 years ago we thought it was a mental illness. no reason to rush.

Can you please read the whole thread? All of this bullshit has been addressed already.

so if it has been addressed that means it has been resolved? sorry, doesnt work that way.