Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. Obama's views on same-sex marriage are "evolving," which is oh-so-convenient right before an election. I would be he deep down inside believes in it, but doesn't have the guts to come out and say it.

I think he might in the interview he's doing with ABC News today. We'll see.

C'mon folks, don't be naive--he needs to get re-elected! Like it or not, this is an unpopular issue that affects 10% if that of all Americans. Let him get re-elected, then he can push for gay rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. Obama's views on same-sex marriage are "evolving," which is oh-so-convenient right before an election. I would be he deep down inside believes in it, but doesn't have the guts to come out and say it.

I think he might in the interview he's doing with ABC News today. We'll see.

Anonymous wrote:

What the Flock are you talking about? Where do I say that marriage is for Christians only? You take offense at my calling marriage a religious ceremony, yet you seem to conclude that this excludes Jews, Muslims and Buddhists. Last time I checked, those were religions. Looks like you should be the one checking the dictionary. Or, at the very least, some reading comprehension courses.

Anonymous wrote:

NotSoAnonymous wrote:" Instead, they continually try to legitimize their lifestyle by pushing these marriage laws, and the unfortunate outcome is that they fail to gain certain privileges."

My life, my family, and my love is legitimate. I am not asking for privileges, I am asking for rights. Pursuit of happiness, liberty... It applies to all of us.

I disagree that your family and love is legitimate, as I believe homosexuality is fundamentally disordered and abnormal. I believe it represents a disfunction in human existence, probably caused by a variety of factors. Celebrating, endorsing and promoting homosexuality should be discouraged as it causes ever-deepening confusion and ultimately chaos in a society. Yes, I live and work alongside gay people, and would never say this directly to anyone's face as I realize it is hurtful. In fact, I don't know that I've ever written or spoken these words before, as it would be considered rude and impolite; however I figured it's not fair to be having this conversation without clearly and honestly stating my beliefs. Clearly I hold an extremely unpopular opinion compared to those on DCUM; however the majority of people living in this country agree with me. That said, I don't care what you do with your life or in your bedroom. That's between you and whoever you choose to be involved with in your life. And, certainly you should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness, without any condemnation or persecution from our legal system. Aside from that, marriage has a very specific purpose and definition, and I am not willing to vote for that to be changed. I would be fine voting in favor of a domestic partnership law which allows two consenting adults to have certain exclusive powers with and for each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not gay. I'm a woman married to a man - however, the thought that a friend or a coworker would not have the same rights to marry or visit a loved one that I would. I wonder how many of these people who voted against equal rights would have voted against rights for African Americans? Would have voted against rights for women? To me it is the same thing - equal rights for everyone - or for nobody.

Please don't bring black people into this discussion. I HATE it when folks make this comparison. It's short-sighted and stupid.

you don't choose your race and you don't choose your gender. some choose their sexual orientation.

You think people choose to be gay?

yes

Even if it were true, so what? You're choosing to be ignorant, and that's your right, right? What if we started limiting your rights just because you're ignorant?

I don't agree that I am ignorant. I could choose to be gay tomorrow. Many people go from men to women back to men as its now accepted to do so. Perhaps a small percent of the population are 100% gay or 100% straight, but the vast majority are somewhere else along the spectrum. So if it is a choice, why do we need to bend over backwards to legitimize it?

Anonymous wrote:

And finally, the only reason you've articulated against gay marriage is a religious one - you want the government to (continue to) enshrine a religions definition of marriage in secular law. That seems . . . problematic.

Where do I say anything about religion in my post? Please use caution before you jump so eagerly on the anti-religion bandwagon.

Wait - what?

You did write this, correct:

I believe that marriage is a religious ceremony that forms a union before God (or that person's "God").
Civil unions are for those who are non-believers and/or those forming a union outside of "the church".

So, to answer, "where did I say anything about religion in my post?" - the parts I quoted before, and reproduced here. Not sure why you need to ask.

I believe that marriage is a religious ceremony that forms a union before God (or that person's "God").
Civil unions are for those who are non-believers and/or those forming a union outside of "the church".

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.

Anonymous wrote:

And finally, the only reason you've articulated against gay marriage is a religious one - you want the government to (continue to) enshrine a religions definition of marriage in secular law. That seems . . . problematic.

Where do I say anything about religion in my post? Please use caution before you jump so eagerly on the anti-religion bandwagon.

Wait - what?

You did write this, correct:

I believe that marriage is a religious ceremony that forms a union before God (or that person's "God").
Civil unions are for those who are non-believers and/or those forming a union outside of "the church".

So, to answer, "where did I say anything about religion in my post?" - the parts I quoted before, and reproduced here. Not sure why you need to ask.

And finally, the only reason you've articulated against gay marriage is a religious one - you want the government to (continue to) enshrine a religions definition of marriage in secular law. That seems . . . problematic.

Where do I say anything about religion in my post? Please use caution before you jump so eagerly on the anti-religion bandwagon.

I believe that marriage is a religious ceremony that forms a union before God (or that person's "God").
Civil unions are for those who are non-believers and/or those forming a union outside of "the church".

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't. Why should your beliefs trump mine?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not gay. I'm a woman married to a man - however, the thought that a friend or a coworker would not have the same rights to marry or visit a loved one that I would. I wonder how many of these people who voted against equal rights would have voted against rights for African Americans? Would have voted against rights for women? To me it is the same thing - equal rights for everyone - or for nobody.

Please don't bring black people into this discussion. I HATE it when folks make this comparison. It's short-sighted and stupid.

you don't choose your race and you don't choose your gender. some choose their sexual orientation.

You think people choose to be gay?

yes

Even if it were true, so what? You're choosing to be ignorant, and that's your right, right? What if we started limiting your rights just because you're ignorant?

I don't agree that I am ignorant. I could choose to be gay tomorrow. Many people go from men to women back to men as its now accepted to do so. Perhaps a small percent of the population are 100% gay or 100% straight, but the vast majority are somewhere else along the spectrum. So if it is a choice, why do we need to bend over backwards to legitimize it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not gay. I'm a woman married to a man - however, the thought that a friend or a coworker would not have the same rights to marry or visit a loved one that I would. I wonder how many of these people who voted against equal rights would have voted against rights for African Americans? Would have voted against rights for women? To me it is the same thing - equal rights for everyone - or for nobody.

Please don't bring black people into this discussion. I HATE it when folks make this comparison. It's short-sighted and stupid.

you don't choose your race and you don't choose your gender. some choose their sexual orientation.

You think people choose to be gay?

yes

Even if it were true, so what? You're choosing to be ignorant, and that's your right, right? What if we started limiting your rights just because you're ignorant?

I don't agree that I am ignorant. I could choose to be gay tomorrow. Many people go from men to women back to men as its now accepted to do so. Perhaps a small percent of the population are 100% gay or 100% straight, but the vast majority are somewhere else along the spectrum. So if it is a choice, why do we need to bend over backwards to legitimize it?