Should the US Constitution ban gay marriage?

::Points and laughs at MobileTheDinosaur::

Haw, Haw. Dad!! Look at the homophobe!

Oh no! I'm a homophobe! I better just agree with everyone else rather than having my own opinions and beliefs!

Ok....I change my answer. Gay marriages are a-ok!

:rolleyes:

what kind of example are they setting for young kids? seeing two males, or two females fondling each other outside, at the park etc. so much for not letting them watch raided R movies because of the sex content now its going to be on the streets. Will you tell your son its ok to be gay, go ahead introduce me to your gay partner. If they dont ban gay marriges it will be cause of money as someone said earlyer, they way they see it is, More marriges , more divorces, more money....... and on the religious issue its simple it was adam and eve...not adam and steve...being gay is wrong

Although i must say my supervisor and other workers here where i am employed are gay, i dont have a problem with them but i dont agree with the whole issue of being gay, but thats another topic...

Hoo boy, Infamous.

Pat Robertson called. One of his minions is missing.

My solution is for Bush to allow gay marriage, but ban gay divorce when nobody's looking. That way all these gay people are stuck with the same homo for the rest of their lives. :P ... But honestly, I think there will be some kind of weird vibes going around when gay couples do divorce.

[QUOTE=random]Well look at the countries that already have gay marriage... Nobody sees the point in getting married at all, so the whole idea of marriage has been underminded.

Oh, and I just wanted to know what you thought about Howard Stern and the whole Clear Channel deceny standards thing - without starting another thread.[/QUOTE]

Let's keep this one on topic and start a new thread for this one. I think they are both very very serious issues that deserve their own threads...

Also... Keep it on a debating level. Don't stoop to one liners. If you have a point make it. I think we are all capable of having an adult discussion without flaming one another...

well, i'll go against the flow here, suprise. and to preface, no, i'm not homophobic, if someone wants to be gay more power to them. i've had gay friends, co-workers, etc. in the past, and feel to ask any one of them if i didn't treat them with the utmost respect and love just like anyone else. i may not agree with a gay lifestyle, but its absolutely their choice to live it if they'd like.

that being said, i have no problem with banning gay marriage. marriage would, at its most basic level, be designed for a man and woman to come together in union, procreate and have children. in gay marriage we've already lost the procreation part and the idea of gay couples raising kids is debatable at best. marriage in this country was, whether you like it or not, based on biblical marriage, as are most of our basic laws (from the ten commandments.).

i find spectra's idea of society "evolving" and accepting homosexuality an interesting one, especially since i see much more as society devolving and relaxing its moral standards. the roman empire did the same thing, homosexuality became commonplace followed by pedophilia and incest, bestiality, and a list of other perversions. that is a reach, no question, but there are also gay/lesbian support groups that include "transgeneration" as one of their categories. that term, for those who might not know it, refers to people who "can't help" the fact that they're attracted to kids sexually.

if we decide to take it to popular opinion there's not much debate there either, even in liberal california there have been laws passed banning gay marriage. san francisco's mayor took it into his own hands (going directly against the law) to ok gay marriages, and now that elected officials who have sworn to uphold the law have abruptly gone against that oath (probably mostly for personal political gain, no matter what saints people may've made them out to be) we suddenly seem to be thinking this might be a good idea?

chris

Just on a side note:
Doesn't anybody actually question the timing of this. The gay's are being used as political pawns. Bush was asked during the last election if he would ban gay marriage. He said no. I honestly think it would have remained no if his hand was not called.

What they are doing in SF is basically forcing him to do this. And before you go bashing, Kerry and Edwards feel the same way Bush does. They just won't come out and say it in black and white.

If I were gay I'd be more upset at being used then anything else right now.

[QUOTE=Fig] marriage would, at its most basic level, be designed for a man and woman to come together in union, procreate and have children. in gay marriage we've already lost the procreation part and the idea of gay couples raising kids is debatable at best. marriage in this country was, whether you like it or not, based on biblical marriage, as are most of our basic laws (from the ten commandments.).[/QUOTE]

I am pointing this out as a general comment and not that it was you who said it.

If this is an arguement against gay marriage, that marriage was initially to form a union between man and woman to procreate, I would like to disgree. Many heterosexual couples can not have children or choose not to have children. Does this mean the marriage is invalid or flawed or even illegal? Of course not. That would be too black and white. But its not held against them. Two men cannot naturally have a child. Neither can two women (naturally), but that does not mean they are any less of a provider or a loving environment for an adopted child. The initial ideas of what makes a marriage or a union are changing. These are not biblical times.

Let me put it to you this way. Just because you create a great website that functions perfectly and does the job, doesn't mean it will withstand the tests of time. Things become dated, opinions change and we evolve as a species. That beta website may have worked back in 1990, but it sure isn't going to cut it today. That is the same with marriages. It's time to restructure what is considered acceptable.

[QUOTE=infamous]what kind of example are they setting for young kids? seeing two males, or two females fondling each other outside, at the park etc. so much for not letting them watch raided R movies because of the sex content now its going to be on the streets. [/quote]

So you are saying that good, wholesome heterosexual couples don't kiss or fondle in public? Or if they do, its ok for young kids to see it because that is the correct way public affection should be? Just because you are gay doesn't mean you grope and fondle in public. If I were a parent, I'd be more concerned over the young girls trying to look "slutty" over two dudes holding hands or having a kiss.

and on the religious issue its simple it was adam and eve...not adam and steve...being gay is wrong

It's also wrong to kill, cheat, steal, lie, curse etc...if you are a religous person, won't Jesus forgive you? Honour thy neighbour. Wouldn't that come into play somewhere around here?

but i dont agree with the whole issue of being gay, but thats another topic...

That's sort of what this topic is about.

So anybody that is against gay unions, I have a question. Honestly, has a gay person/couple effected your life in a negative way? Are they a detriment to your everyday life? I'm not talking about your personal feelings, I'm talking about them maybe holding you down at your job, maybe stealing your newspaper in the morning. Are they emotionally or physically preventing you from being yourself?

People need to worry about their own lives and not worry about whats happening behind another persons closed doors.