Gay marriage rights? Your thoughts?

Just because someone doesn't think homosexuality is right/moral doesn't make them hateful and bigoted.
I see your point here when putting it that way.

If San Francisco suddenly decided to hand out guns and carry permits without following the law, would that be okay. That is also against state law in CA. I think the NRA would dig that very much and encourage that. Yet I am sure people who opposed that would not be called intolerant or bigoted. Then there is that 2nd amendment thing too

My serious opinion (finally I do actually have one)

I could care less if two people of the same sex want to be together, that is their choice by their free will......
the impact comes in the areas of how they should then be treated in aspects pertaining to benefits (corporate as well as governmental) et al.....
does a bigamist then get the same type of "benefits" (some believe bigamy is fine), do we then bleed into other beliefs--where does it stop...

what if some just use it as a scam to gain these benefits......

saying that you don't agree with homosexual marriage for any reason, does not mean you are bigoted or want to see gays executed or sent off to exile.......now as for killing or exiling Oklahomans--that is just GREAT.... :P :P :P

Said amendment wouldn't teach bigotry or hatred. All it would tell children is that men couldn't marry other men, women couldn't marry other women. Because I believe homosexuality is wrong I need to "grow up and accept change"? I don't need to grow up and accept anything that I feel is wrong because a small segment of the population decides it's okay. Let's do it the American way and put it up to a vote.

If we vote on it then some judge will tell us we are wrong unfortunately Rob.

I agree with this completely.
You know, for some of us, homosexuality is a religious issue. I am very conflicted, because on the one hand, I don't feel it's my place to tell anyone what they should or should not be doing, so long as it doesn't interfere with my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. On the other hand, my religious beliefs are such that I don't think homosexuality is moral. Any more than I think abortion, murder, lying, cheating, or stealing or moral. IMO, a sin is a sin is a sin. I consider myself a sinner, just as I consider myself a Christian. I'm imperfect. We all are.
As far as what your beliefs speak to your children, well this is where parenting comes in. I'm not going to teach my children that things are "ok" just because everyone is doing it. Or someone is doing it. However, I'm not teaching my children to hate either. You can hate the sin but love the sinner, and in fact I think that's what Christians are supposed to do. Just because I may not condone a particular behavior, it doesn't mean that I condemn the person who does it. There is a difference.
I believe in God. I believe in scripture. I've read a few scriptures today relating to homosexuality, and from what I've read, it doesn't seem like God stands behind this.
I have gay friends. The fact that they are gay does not diminish my affection for them. I don't have to agree with the lifestyle, but also I don't have the right to judge or hate. So I don't.

Based on precedent and interpretation, an unbiased court would probably say they would.
Care to cite that precedent for me?

I can also say this Brie. I have Christian gay friends who are more sincere then "straight" christian friends I have. All people are sinners saved by Grace. I believe in the time of judgement by God. God will sort them out properly according to their beliefs.
That being said. God I am sure will have words to say to them as he welcomes them into heaven. As he will me because I have lived far from a perfect life. Just because I do not do that one "sin" does not mean I live perfectly either and vice versa.

Care to cite that precedent for me?I wasn't referring to same-sex marriages in particular. What I meant was the court's ability to rule on an issue and thus set a precedent - my apologies for not clarifying this.

Obviously, a ruling here would set a precedent for future court decisions, much as Roe v. Wade has been the yardstick on which courts have made rulings on abortion laws.

You think people don't get married now just as a scam to get health benefits? My sister is going to marry her Indian boyfriend so she can get commodities too. My aunt told me about 3 couples she knew that are married, live in separate houses just so they can benefit from the others' retirement benefits as a spouse.
Ok, so a constitutional amendment against gay marriage doesn't teach hatred. I do believe it teaches bigotry because it separates homosexuals out as a group and teaches that it's wrong to marry someone you love, based on gender. What's next? Where do you draw the line?
Homosexual is wrong in most people's opinions based on their religious beliefs. How is making an amendment outlawing homosexual marriages not incorporating religious beliefs into our governmental system? We will then get into the round and round debate of separation of church and state and how far does that go?
I'm also with you on the exiling and killing Oklahomans...the world could be a better place after that :D

Whassamatta with Okies? I kinda like Reba and Tanya. Now Massholes should be exiled from everywhere we find them and never allowed into Nuhampsha.

I've heard this argument from some pretty conservative folks lately. These individuals in particular annoy me, so I always disagree with them. Here is how I applied logic to their big argument points:

"Marriage is under attack."

Well, homosexuals haven't been invited to the marriage table, yet less than half of marriages succeed. Can't blame them. I figure they might actually help bring up the numbers.

"What if people get 'married' just to get benefits?"

What if. Nothing stops heterosexuals from marrying each other just for benefits or to help someone obtain US citizenship. What percentage of people do you know get married for that reason? What would make you think that homosexuals would be any worse? Marriage is a pretty serious thing. And I hate companies. They don't really give out sweet benefits to heterosexuals... married or single. Bastards.

"Marriage is for procreation only."

What about heterosexual couples that can't have children due to infertility issues.... I guess they can't get married anymore? What about heterosexuals that choose not to have kids? Do we annul their marriage after some length of time?

"Homosexuals have a promiscuous lifestyle."

Well, duh, they can't get married. What do you expect.

"Religions don't support it.'

Females also used to not be able to be a part of the church in any type of leadership role. But I've seen female pastors, preachers, etc. The Vatican has been talking about letting priests get married. Speaking of, when a gay priest molests children, they have actually supported them. I think any topic is open for discussion.

"God says it is wrong."

Depending on who you talk to, God says a lot of things. Some people say that God wants them to blow up Federal buildings in Oklahoma or Allah wants them to take down skyscrapers in NYC. Some say that God told them to kill abortionists or any person that is not white. I'd be very careful about making any local, state or federal law based on what people think God said.



As for me, I could care less who gets married. I've seen many heterosexual couples get married that shoud never have been allowed to in the first place. But they have that right. I guess that same blind faith right should go for everyone else. Just because the thought of gay people (other than hot lesbian chicks) gets me sick, doesn't mean those that don't should have less rights than me.

Finally, I think that an amendment for this topic is ludicrous. There are more Gallowalkers in the US than homosexuals that wish to get married. Pass a law on that c**p first, then get back to me about gay weddings.

Jobs are getting sent to India, people all over the world want to kills us and our partner nations don't seem to care, Social Security is running out, our beef and poultry industries appears to have forgone any kind of governance.... but really.... let's tackle gay marriages. That is something that whole country really needs to have resolved! I hate politicians. I really do.

You think people don't get married now just as a scam to get health benefits? My sister is going to marry her Indian boyfriend so she can get commodities too. My aunt told me about 3 couples she knew that are married, live in separate houses just so they can benefit from the others' retirement benefits as a spouse.
Ok, so a constitutional amendment against gay marriage doesn't teach hatred. I do believe it teaches bigotry because it separates homosexuals out as a group and teaches that it's wrong to marry someone you love, based on gender. What's next? Where do you draw the line?
Homosexual is wrong in most people's opinions based on their religious beliefs. How is making an amendment outlawing homosexual marriages not incorporating religious beliefs into our governmental system? We will then get into the round and round debate of separation of church and state and how far does that go?
I'm also with you on the exiling and killing Oklahomans...the world could be a better place after that :D
First yes I believe people do get married for a myriad of reasons and ways to abuse the system--so therefore extending it would make it better in what way?
As for all the other issues you posted--think they are more directed at other peoples posts....

Religious beliefs are ALREADY in our system of govt. Read the Declaration of Independence, it speaks of a God. Look at the back of your greenbacks. "In God We Trust". God is a part of our government, whether you or me or anyone else chooses to acknowledge it.
I don't think we need an amendment outlawing it any more than I think we need an amendment allowing it. Is there an amendment in the consitution allowing for traditional marriage?

I ask you the question where do you draw the line. I guess the 12,13, 14 amendment single out blacks too right.

Those say they CAN do stuff. Just like wimmins right to vote. This would be an amendment that says a group of people CAN'T do things. That comes off creepy to me. My whole point is that I don't think this topic warrants an amendment either for or against.