I don't believe in gay marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

You don't need a marriage to have a baby. Technically you don't even need a woman and a man. All you really need is a cell to clone. And as mankind learns more, you may need even less to reproduce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a civil rights issue. It's a money issue. Like most issues

I don't see what the big problem is. Call civil unions what they are (gay or straight), and leave marriage for the church. But I guess that's way too much to tolerate for the tolerant

That would have been one way to handle it. But I don't remember any "defenders of marriage" introducing legislation to make this happen. So, what we now have is marriage for everyone. You can't just take your ball and go home when your team loses.

I pity you. You really think this stuff is important.

Yeah. And those grapes were probably really sour, anyway.

[Anonymous]

OP, have you pointed out to your mother that we allow plenty of people who can't have kids to get married? And there is no fertility test required?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

You don't need a marriage to have a baby. Technically you don't even need a woman and a man. All you really need is a cell to clone. And as mankind learns more, you may need even less to reproduce.

And you think this is a GOOD thing?

Hint: it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

You don't need a marriage to have a baby. Technically you don't even need a woman and a man. All you really need is a cell to clone. And as mankind learns more, you may need even less to reproduce.

And you think this is a GOOD thing?

Hint: it's not.

You think this is a BAD thing?

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

You don't need a marriage to have a baby. Technically you don't even need a woman and a man. All you really need is a cell to clone. And as mankind learns more, you may need even less to reproduce.

And you think this is a GOOD thing?

Hint: it's not.

Tell that to Bristol Palin and her baby daddies.

[Anonymous]

I don't care one way or another because 1, it doesn't take my money, 2, it doesn't interfere with my life, 3, I don't have to witness or read anything I don't want to so hell, marry a lizard if you want.

MOO, you need an outlet to plug in power. Nuff said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Medicare, medicaid, spouse benefits for veterans. If a gay couple owns a home what happens when one is elderly and needs medicaid for a nursing home? I hate the ridiculous variation between states and not just on this issue.

I hope that one consequence of today's decision is that it will result in the elimination of spousal benefits. Why should a spouse get veteran's benefits if he or she didn't serve in the military? Just because a couple make a decision to have shared property, it shouldn't mean that an employer has to support both people. (And if the employer wants to supply this benefit, it should offer it to *everyone*, married or single.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in God, but I don't try to put laws in place stopping people from going to church. We are all entitled to our beliefs, as long as we don't impose them on others.

Which is why calling it "marriage" is inappropriate . Just keep it secular and call it a contract.

Great. As long as you erase marriage as a legal term and everyone has the same legal designation, that works.

. Erasing the entire legal system would be even better.

Hey, well you are in luck! There's a place that you can go to now, where they've done just that! It's called Somalia. Hope you go to stay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

I have no problem with gay marriage from a marriage standpoint. I have a problem with government in marriage to begin with.

I DO however, feel that a child needs both a mother and a father for healthy development. Now, if a child is up for adoption, I believe they should be placed in a loving home, and if those people happen to be gay, I'm good with it. Not ideal, but better than an orphanage.

A lot of adoptions occur overseas and it will be up to those countries as to whether or not they will adopt to a gay couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, have you pointed out to your mother that we allow plenty of people who can't have kids to get married? And there is no fertility test required?

+1
And if OP's mother is hooked on the "what about the children" angle, well, then she should ask the kids raised by gay couples if they honestly feel deprived of anything. In the end, shouldn't their thoughts on all of this matter the most? (Same with kids of polygamous relationships. Are they ok with the life situations handed to them?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care one way or another because 1, it doesn't take my money

But it does take your money. Many social, retirement, and health benefits are increased if one has a spouse. Some benefits doubly so if you share custody of your spouses dependent children once married. Or if after marriage you decide to adopt or have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

Who says married couples of ANY combination need to have babies? Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, so butt the eff out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

I think only smart people should hold official Government positions; and there are bunch of stupid people in office!! So OP do you also think that only men should be Military pilots because women are "considered a weaker species?"

OP get a life, I did not have sex with my husband to bring our smart, witty, sensitive, handsome twin boys into this world. Why can't people be able to spend their lives with a partner they care for, love passionately regardless of the partner's sex or what other people believe. Love is love regardless of color, sexual orientation, faith, etc.

Do you also not believe in a mixed marriages? Please understand that the world is evolving around you regardless of what you believe or "accept" it's going to happen. People are people regardless of sexual orientation, faith, color, political beliefs. Just accept people as humans and see them for their characteristics instead of making biased judgments against them.

[Anonymous]

While I am all for equal rights, I am a bit sad that everyone in this country is so freaking politically correct that we aren't allowed to be for traditional marriage only.

The LGBT community is very small - less than 4% of the population. And yet, from the wall to wall media coverage of LGBT issues over the last 10 years, Americans think they comprise 25% of our population.

Truly, the traditional family is the foundation of society and of our country.

A traditional family is something that deserves respect.

Our country has gone downhill ever since the explosion of out of wedlock births.

And honestly, while I do know some very devoted gay couples, the truth of the matter is that most gay men do not form committed long term relationship. Ask Dan Savage. Some do for sure, but most are into other things.

So, attack me all you want, I do think that allowing gay marriages can be seen as denigrating traditional marriage.