Do you support gay marriage? Nationwide Poll With Semi Real Time Results By State!
-
-
- toyotabedzrock
- added this
-
- groups:
- Community, Politics, Current Tonight, US Politics, 12 more
-
- tags:
- Gay, GLBT, LGBT, Gay Marriage, 3 more
-
-
veeger
-
Just a little typo. Happens when I try to type fast. Anyway, just a simple way of profiling. hip hop being one of the lasiest forms of music, next to cave man days tells me you're selfish. And once again, you seem angry. Could it be that you do not like anyone to disagree with your behavior. Maybe feeling a little guilty?
- 4 months ago
-
veeger
-
-
hiphopstar
-
LOL, It's funny cause all the states that vote it down (Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Alabama...etc) are places that you'd expect for the obvious reason that 90% of their population are made up of unintelligent, ignorant fucks :)
They're probably all racist too. Wonder how they'd react if they knew I was a black lesbian... - 4 months ago
-
hiphopstar
-
-
veeger
-
bc_f - You're upset because you cannot "breed".
- 1 year ago
-
veeger
-
-
donkeyfly69
-
veeger:
why can't bc breed? you do realize being gay does not make you sterile
- 1 year ago
-
donkeyfly69
-
-
bc_f [removed]
-
donkeyfly69: This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
-
bc_f [removed]
-
-
veeger
-
bc_f:
I too busy feeling sorry for your parents.
- 1 year ago
-
veeger
-
-
hiphopstar
-
veeger:
@veeger
Why would that even be an issue? Gay people adopt all the unwanted pregnancies. I think that's a plus for everyone.
dumbass... - 4 months ago
-
hiphopstar
-
-
veeger
-
hiphopstar:
your name tells me that your not that smart. Your language proves it. The world is beter off not to listen to prople like you.
- 4 months ago
-
veeger
-
-
hiphopstar
-
veeger:
The fact that you judge people based on things as insignificant as someone's name show's me that you are judgmental, ignorant, and stupid. (and probably a product of incest, considering your mental capacity can't be too large since you insulted my spelling then proceeded to misspell "people" and still post...) but that's probably a touchy subject, so I won't bring it up.
And not that I need to explain myself, but I made my username within' 6 seconds of seeing your comment and I just happened to be listening to "Hip Hop Star" by Classified.
Things aren't always what they seem. Stop judging people by what you think you know.Lol, "prople"
- 4 months ago
-
hiphopstar
-
-
veeger
-
donkeyfly69 - "Why not?" does not answer my question. The heterosexuals you know are not the majority of US citizens. Your feeble attempt to upset me will not work. I just give you an honest opinion which you don't like.
- 1 year ago
-
veeger
-
-
donkeyfly69
-
veeger:
REPLY BUTTON!!!
USE IT!!!
"Why re-define?"
even though it should read "why redefine?" i'll answer it anyways. because it is the right thing to do. if two adults want to get married then they should be able to. their race shouldn't matter and their gender shouldn't matter. also it doesn't affect anyone else's marriage if two people get married. there are plenty of people who don't believe in interracial marriage but it goes on and they still get married. because it doesn't change their marriage.
"Your feeble attempt to upset me will not work."
dude, this is the internet. no one is trying to upset you. if you're getting emotional or feeling slighted then don't turn on the computer. it's as simple as that. just because someone disagrees with you does not mean we're all out to get you. take off the tin foil hat and step outside.
i answered your question so you can answer mine:
""Why re-define?"
why not? it wouldn't be the first time.
"Could some other classification be used instead?"
why should it?"
one last thing; reply button. seriously.
- 1 year ago
-
donkeyfly69
-
-
donkeyfly69
-
veeger:
the intelligent response i expected. good job!
- 1 year ago
-
donkeyfly69
-
-
freecrack
-
veeger:
no, u offer opinion as fact and fact as opinion.you switch between the two.
- 1 year ago
-
freecrack
-
-
freecrack
-
donkeyfly69:
i guess if redifining marraige is forbiden we are all sinners for pairing up in to twos instaed of living with multiple wives like abraham.redefining marraige aparently is ok, just as long as it is the church doing it.just ask the mormons who are too stupid to realize you are thier allie in this house of hate
- 1 year ago
-
freecrack
-
-
Edward_Sharon
-
donkeyfly69:
If you change the meaning of marriage then a church that turns away gays would be charged with discrimination. ITS NOT DISCIMINATION UNLIT YOU REDEFINE THE WORD MARRIAGE
- 15 days ago
-
Edward_Sharon
-
-
veeger
-
galwayman - Re-define marriage. These is the problem. Why re-define? Could it be monetary in nature? Why re-define? Could some other classification be used instead? Why re-define?
Have any of gay marriage supporters ever, I mean ever, considered how others might feel about re-defining marriage? I'll bet not. It is consistent for the gay population to behave selfishly with any one others that their supporters or partners and this issue clearly supports my case. Try to consider others!!!
As far as your comment about outdated religious beliefs, again, that way of thinking further supports my claim.
- 1 year ago
-
veeger
-
-
donkeyfly69
-
veeger:
"Why re-define?"
why not? it wouldn't be the first time.
"Could some other classification be used instead?"
why should it?
"considered how others might feel about re-defining marriage"
others as in heterosexuals? because most heterosexuals i know don't really care if i am included in marriage (not redefining it).
"It is consistent for the gay population to behave selfishly with any one others that their supporters or partners and this issue clearly supports my case."
b.s. and grammar errors...
"Try to consider others!"
you should too.
fyi there is a reply button next to the (x days ago) under the comment and redefine is one word that does not need to be hyphenated
- 1 year ago
-
donkeyfly69
-
-
freecrack
-
veeger:
Have any of gay marriage supporters ever, I mean ever, considered how others might feel about re-defining marriage?
have any of the anti gay marraige supporters ever, i mean ever, considered how gays feel about the standard marital practices socialy endorsed?
gay marriage proponents have thought at great length about how it would effect everything.hence it being offered for legislation, and judicial review.unless you suppose we just throw shit out there with out thinking about its effects, just to see what sticks?
the effect is your sensabilities are offended, wich is a far lesser travesty than denyig people the right to love one another openly.god help the person who denies my gay family memebers the right to see the other in the hospital.you will see me on the news.
having your partner die alone is an actual event, as your twisted morality exists only as a feeling.
just that simple. - 1 year ago
-
freecrack
-
-
alexandrek [removed]
-
veeger: This comment was removed by its owner.
-
alexandrek [removed]
-
-
freecrack
-
veeger:
ya know what your right, why redefine marraige.im gunna go and get me some more wives like abraham.this redefining of marraige thing puritanical christianity has done is for the birds.
- 1 year ago
-
freecrack
-
-
galwayman
-
Some of the posts here are beyond belief! We are taking about committed couples who deserve social justice and equality,not marrying your dog,goat,or family members! Why is it that on a serious subject like this people just go so far off the track? While I'll admit getting married isn't for me,tried it once,had two kids and have nine grandchildren,I like my space! Anyone in a committed relationship should have the right to do so if that is their choice! Gay or straight shouldn't matter! We must take government out of peoples lives and allow self determination on personal matters! Gay Marriage doesn't impact straight marriage at all, and the Christian Rights claim to the contrary is just not logical and based on fear and outdated religious values! All the Gay community is asking for is equal rights and there is no reason not to give them that status! discrimination is illegal on it's face and it should,and must, end!
- 1 year ago
-
galwayman
-
-
Naumadd
-
A more revealing poll would be an answer to this question: "Do you believe other human beings are yours to do with as you wish?"
That's essentially what this debate boils down to - the right of an individual to dictate the liberties of another. Other people are your property or they are not.
That is the question one must decide. If you decide you do not and cannot own another human being, you must side with restoring the liberty of homosexuals to marry one another if they choose.
As a side issue but no less relevant, you must also side with the right of individuals to form marriages of as many members as they choose. This speaks to the issue of voluntary polyamorous relationships which are more and more common these days and of particular interest to me.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
versasrev
-
It's an interesting Idea, although internet polls are notoriously inaccurate. For a more accurate view check Gallup.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/Americans-Opposition-Gay-Marriage-Eases-Slight...
44% support of Gay marriage with 53% opposed to it, with 95% confidence of + or - 4%.
It's important to keep in mind that these kind of polls only gauge the opinions of the populace, and not the legality of such issues. It is interesting to note, that the percentages for Americans finding gay relations as morally acceptable are reverse of the previous numbers; with 52% finding it morally acceptable as compared to 43% against.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Thr...
So pretty close to and even split.
If your interested Gallup has a wide range of polls on same sex relations (their phrasing).
- 1 year ago
-
versasrev
-
-
Varex_Sythe
-
I'm a wee bit intoxicated from a boilermaker that I ingested not more than 10 minutes ago, so I might write something that either amounts to gobbled y gook or is just plain stupid. Now that I've gotten that out of the way...
Why don't we just legalize it gay marriage all around, and if the actual action of having gay marriage starts to tear this nation asunder then we can repeal it. Note, I'm not talking about religious or homophobic groups going apeshit and tearing the nation apart because they hate or disagree with the idea. I'm talking about the moral fabric of our nation dissolving, or God dooming our nation to destruction or something without the aid of extremely anti-gay people.
Seriously, who thinks that if gay marriage was made legal across the nation tomorrow that the nation would fall apart or something equally horrific would occur?
- 1 year ago
-
Varex_Sythe
-
-
Naumadd
-
Varex_Sythe:
I get what you're saying and agree mostly, but consider this: "nation" is an abstract derived from the fact that millions of individuals live on this particular continent with common values and goals. Which is of primary importance, the integrity of individual lives OR the integrity of the abstract "nation"? A nation can dissolve and individuals be the happier for it, yes?
This is, in fact, precisely what happened in that great numbers of individuals came to this continent from many different nations and, at some point, opted to dissolve their relationship with those "nations" to form one of their own and, at least for a time, were happier in that dissolution. Granted, the formation of the new nation cost thousands their lives, homes, property and future.
Their happiness was purchased by inflicting tremendous misery on others ... but that's a different story.
Suffice to say, a "nation" is a happenstance - not an essential. What's essential is the integrity of individual lives who, if they choose, might form a nation, might dissolve a nation, or might simply live in peaceful non-interference and avoid the whole mess.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
Kentucky is now
1,760 support 1,665 oppose Votes cast in 208 cities !!! - 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
-
-
pissedoff
-
Nope
Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.
Their should be an option for those heterosexuals living together and Gay, lesbian, transgender or any two people that allows them to share in the same legal rights as a married couple. - 1 year ago
-
pissedoff
-
-
Varex_Sythe
-
pissedoff:
Didn't marriage, by definition, use to be between two people of the same ethnic background?
- 1 year ago
-
Varex_Sythe
-
-
Naumadd
-
pissedoff:
Nope, "marriage" in ONE definition is between a man and a woman. By many other equally valid definitions, it is something quite different.
Today, I "married" two bags of different sorts of bird seed into one container. One "man", lots of birdseed, one trash can and no woman involved. It happens my right and liberty to perform such a marriage is constitutionally protected because it's no one else's f--ing business.
You see, some us can remember and use more than one simple-minded definition for the words we're familiar with.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
Naumadd
-
Varex_Sythe:
Hell, it used to be you could only marry someone in your own tribe or own village.
Some - even today - wouldn't and won't marry outside the family. Having said that, human culture seems to be making progress along the lines of leaving the individual alone to do as they please if it doesn't genuinely hurt another or their rightful property.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
Mariased
-
pissedoff:
"Their should be an option for those heterosexuals living together and Gay, lesbian, transgender or any two people that allows them to share in the same legal rights as a married couple."
That would be a little something called "segregation". Historically it didn't work out so nicely.
- 1 year ago
-
Mariased
-
-
EdJoyProductions
-
Yay Staten Island, all 5 voters are in support. I was pleasantly surprised.
- 1 year ago
-
EdJoyProductions
-
-
div
-
Can someone explain to me what the obsession with the word "marriage" is? Conservatives say that gays can do what they like without calling it marriage (because marriage is a special union between a man and a woman, etc). But are they really, truly unaware that the word marriage has no inherent meaning? Words don't mean anything until we give them meaning.
Did the original bible use the word marriage? Probably not. It wasn't in English. And what about "marriage" in the multitude of other languages? Are those equally untouchable? And when the act of marrying began (however many years ago), was the word "marriage" in use? I sincerely doubt it.
Like I said, the word is merely a symbol made to represent whatever we want it to represent. It has no inherent meaning. So... can we please move along and find something of substance to argue about? Anyone still concerned about gays marrying can find themselves a boot and kick themselves with it.
- 1 year ago
-
div
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
div:
It has a legal meaning in American society. And confers many rights along with it.
- 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
-
-
remanns
-
div:
Government should simply completely abandon the legal use of the term "Marriage".
All legal bonds having to do with property/death/health should simply be termed "domestic social contracts" ,...and they should be flexible and cover just about all groupings and alliances imaginable. Only "religions and cults" should have the use of marriage,....and MARRIAGE should have NO LEGAL MEANING OR APPLICATION.( Take away the "POWER" of marriage,......its the church meddling with the state. )
- 1 year ago
-
remanns
-
-
remanns
-
toyotabedzrock:
Yep. And it shouldn't. See my response above.
- 1 year ago
-
remanns
-
-
EdJoyProductions
-
remanns:
Because of all this nonsense, I have to agree with you. Religious ceremonies can be deemed marriages to make those wing nuts happy, but legally "domestic social contract" should be how they register with the government and all will be legally viewed as equal.
It is always all the church's need to control people and money that are behind these idiotic arguments.
- 1 year ago
-
EdJoyProductions
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
EdJoyProductions:
While i am no church supporter there are LGBT people who are very religous, and there are LGBT priests as well.
- 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
-
-
remanns
-
EdJoyProductions:
Yep. Thats how I see it as well. The church is one greedy bad tempered dog and it needs to be house broken and given a chill pill.
- 1 year ago
-
remanns
-
-
Naumadd
-
remanns:
Actually, "marriage" - a word borrowed from French and originally derived from Latin - only came into common usage in what we now refer to as "english" circa 1300. The usual term used before this - and sometimes still - was "handfasting" or, earlier, "handsel" or "handfaestnung". Although, yes, this was usually between a "man" and a "woman", the point is that "marriage" was not always the word used among english speakers. Also, the word "marriage" as commonly used today in standardized english has many meanings, only one of which refers to the original idea of the handfasting of man and woman. In any event, to say that any one person or any one group can actually have exclusive ownership and usage of the term is a misunderstanding of the genuine nature of language.
The legal system can, yes, invent and apply a very narrow and specific definition of "marriage" when it comes to the law, however, outside of that context, "marriage" will continue to have many different meanings both with regard to the union of individual human beings and in many other diverse contexts.
This claim that "marriage" has always meant "the union of man and woman" is a grossly inaccurate and incomplete assertion. It has, yes, meant that, but it has also meant and continues to mean a great deal more and acquires new connotations as time passes.
A "dictionary" is necessarily an incomplete GUIDE to how language is used among many, NOT a rulebook for how is must be used. It is right that U.S. law adopt a legal meaning that restores the civil liberties of some that ought never have been denied. That adoption, however, does not change the fact that "marriage" has many diverse meanings and will no doubt acquire a diversity of others outside that adopt by the legal system.
That is the authentic nature of language.
P.S. - those who claim there is only ONE marriage custom in the United States or around the world are mistaken.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
div
-
remanns:
But that won't work! You can not take away the power of the word "marriage" by refusing to accept any meaning of it. If you take the word out of the dictionary, it still has a meaning, does it not?
What we need to do is redefine it in a way that encompasses all types of relationships that wish to seek validity in the eyes of the law. That would take away not only the power of the word "marriage" in a Christian sense, but would also force the church to accept that they do not have a hold on anything outside their fences.
- 1 year ago
-
div
-
-
div
-
toyotabedzrock:
I know what you mean. What I am objecting to is how there are some people in a panic about how same-sex unions could possibly ever be called marriage.
- 1 year ago
-
div
-
-
timetide
-
I see two options in this debate. We can either allow same sex marriages with all equal rights and options. The second option is to get government out of marriage period and reclassify all marriages as civil unions.
- 1 year ago
-
timetide
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
timetide:
If we abolished the word marriage then they could credibly say that we redefined/destroyed their marriage.
I personalty am an atheist but I would like to get married one day, I think for me the word marriage has a non religious meaning of two people committing to be there for the person they love for the rest of ones life.
- 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
-
-
lrl1035
-
Having a son and his partner who have been together 20 years--sure I believe in gay marriage. Maybe they can teach 50% of those men and women marriages that don't make it something. http://rogerlovette.blogspot.com/2010/05/anniversary-benediction.html
- 1 year ago
-
lrl1035
-
-
idealist
-
semi real time polls huh?! i like it sounds like something that should happen all the time!! get people back into the voting spirit were change actually should happen!!!
gay marriage is a freedom that should be provided in America. that's OK with me.
something i'm not OK with is the 70 year old man to 12 year old marriage in "other places". now that's something a bit more messed up. - 1 year ago
-
idealist
-
-
thetrimsmith
-
Yes, Marriage Equality for all Humans (people try to de-rail the tread, mentioning animals, furniture, and such). If we separated Church and State, why is the Church dictating Civil Laws? If Religion is removed from the argument by Separation, why the conflict? Marriage is under the Civil Umbrella because of property, child custody, and incomes. It is under Religion's by the choice of the couple. Some couples are married in a Church, many couples are married in a Court House! Logically then, the State and Federal Governments are discriminating against Citizens by allowing denial.
- 1 year ago
-
thetrimsmith
-
-
thetrimsmith
-
thetrimsmith:
Before the onslaught of the Zealots of Opposition, I would like to mention I went to the site and voted; yes.
- 1 year ago
-
thetrimsmith
-
-
EtVoila
-
America will not be able to call itself a free country until these basic rights are extended to ALL citizens. Period.
- 1 year ago
-
EtVoila
-
-
insaintity
-
EtVoila:
People cannot be free until they stop drawing lines on the Earth.
National boundaries are government-created fictions, used only to separate people and give the illusion of power.
- 1 year ago
-
insaintity
-
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
insaintity:
Sovereignty is not an illusion. I am not in favor of world government.
- 1 year ago
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
-
insaintity
-
TheEmpireGuy:
I'm saying, "Where there is fear, there is power."
We do not need to wait for someone else to bestow Freedom upon us because we were born with it.
The more we expect official entities to recognize our identities, the increasingly disempowered we become.
- 1 year ago
-
insaintity
-
-
Naumadd
-
EtVoila:
... and likely not even then. "Marriage" is only one issue where "liberty" is inconsistent in the United States.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
Naumadd
-
TheEmpireGuy:
No, not an illusion, but an immaturity in the least. And, yes, I am for one-world government because we, in fact, all live on one world and, as a species where all of its members have the same basic needs - genuine civilization and individual liberty as necessary to it - we ought to have one government to define, govern and preserve those values for all no matter their location.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
cakemonster
-
I couldn't get my vote to take, said my numbers were wrong. I was in support of human marriage for all humans. But I agree, hardly reliable polling data.
- 1 year ago
-
cakemonster
-
-
fun_size
-
Very cool map. According to the current polling on the site Kentucky is the only state that doesnt support gay marriage
- 1 year ago
-
fun_size
-
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
I'm more of a...I don't honestly care who you marry or sleep with or whatever. Isn't any of my business or position to say what another person does in his or her personal life, regardless of what I believe. If two human beings want to be together in such a union, then go ahead. Have a great life. Best of luck.
But marriage should not be controlled by the State, obviously.
- 1 year ago
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
-
fun_size
-
TheEmpireGuy:
I agree my personal opinion on the matter shouldnt decide if someone down the street is allowed to marry the one they love... and nor should anyones opinion. The state needs to have control over marriage however as it comes with benefits that can only be ensured by the Government.
- 1 year ago
-
fun_size
-
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
fun_size:
Interesting point.
- 1 year ago
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
-
Idoknow19
-
If you check the other issues, though, this is hardly an accurate poll. The offshore drilling, health insurance reform, and the Arizona Immigration Law debates all lean heavily to the right.
It'd be nice if this percentage of the country favored gay marriage but, as with the other issues, it's more likely another case of email blasts and chat room messages in order to rally people to try to swing the vote in one direction or another.
My name: Buzz Killington.
- 1 year ago
-
Idoknow19
-
-
Replicant
-
If marriage is a religious institution then the state should not be involved. Let consenting adults get a legal marriage and or a religious one.
- 1 year ago
-
Replicant
-
-
Naumadd
-
Replicant:
But it's not "a religious institution" - at least, not exclusively. This is only their narrow-minded belief, not an authentic truth.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
Dagum
-
We should abolish the State marriage licensing system and allowing anyone who wants to get married to do it contractually.
- 1 year ago
-
Dagum
-
-
Varex_Sythe
-
Honestly, I don't support gay marriage, nor do disapprove of it, anymore than I support or disapprove strait marriage. If people want to have a gay marriage, then let them. At the end of the day it really does not effect the personal life of people who are in a happy heterosexual marriage, so why do people who are strait care so goddamn much?
Want to know some of the things I disprove of?
Murder.
Rape.
Child Molestation (which is not determined by a persons sexual orientation, despite what some may claim).
Theft.
Damaging of Property.
Being an Asshole in General.On the other hand, a list of the things I approve of include:
Being Polite to People in General.
Helping People.
Saving Another Person's Life.
Charity.
Paintball. - 1 year ago
-
Varex_Sythe
-
-
Naumadd
-
Varex_Sythe:
... Genuine Love and Commitment
(people frequently fail in that - heterosexual or otherwise.)
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
Jahvega
-
Adam and Eve is a child's story. Stop basing your reality on children stories.
No one can speak for GOD
No Supreme being would care what we do with our booty holes
Freedom of body means just that!
Marriage is not sacred or women would stop wearing white to wed!!!
- 1 year ago
-
Jahvega
-
-
remanns
-
Heh. added to "infoporn" Heh.
- 1 year ago
-
remanns
-
-
remanns
-
Government has NO BUSINESS being in the marriage business in the first place. That being said-- the more the merrier.
- 1 year ago
-
remanns
-
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
remanns:
Amen to that.
- 1 year ago
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
-
ScottyT
-
remanns:
Yep...+^d
- 1 year ago
-
ScottyT
-
-
CalPal
-
remanns:
“The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” - Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Truer words couldn't have been spoken... +^d for you.
- 1 year ago
-
CalPal
-
-
BrushwithDeathToothpaste
-
Yeah great poll. Boston has 1 supporting and 1 opposed. Real scientific. I could give a crap what Internet surfing link clickers think. The question is simply this. Are we depriving a minority group of their rights or are we supporting a traditional definition of marriage? The Constitution trumps polls.
- 1 year ago
-
BrushwithDeathToothpaste
-
-
acknchip
-
I support gay marriage As a minister I will marry anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
- 1 year ago
-
acknchip
-
-
Naumadd
-
acknchip:
I am ordained myself and heartily agree with you.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
Kaveh_Kompani
-
Give the people what they want gay marriage everywhere except Kentucky
- 1 year ago
-
Kaveh_Kompani
-
-
danitassin
-
I believe in a seperation of church and state.
I believe that we all should have the same rights.
wish they would reallly do a poll. They won't though, because they know what the majority would say. - 1 year ago
-
danitassin
-
-
ayipis
-
Marriage DOES NOT EQUATE love..so IT being the reason is unacceptable..however...if its rights and benefits.......EVERYBODY should have the rights and benefits associated with marriage...gays should had instead fought for a more expansive and broader CIVIL UNION rights..
but i know a lot of people are fighting for it because they want to spite other people...
- 1 year ago
-
ayipis
-
-
eden49
-
ayipis:
...this may be too much pressure on your neural pathways, but why would you care who gets married or not...how does it effect you in any shape or form???
- 1 year ago
-
eden49
-
-
Jahvega
-
ayipis:
lets just call all marriages from now on Civil unions.
- 1 year ago
-
Jahvega
-
-
EmperorThan
-
ayipis:
Yes, blacks fought to drink from the whites only drinking fountains because they wanted to spite other people.
"Those selfish blacks.... wanting equality like that."
- 1 year ago
-
EmperorThan
-
-
fun_size
-
ayipis:
Marriage doesnt equate love? No wonder divorce rates are sky high...
- 1 year ago
-
fun_size
-
-
Naumadd
-
EmperorThan:
Indeed, those uppity barbarians wanting Roman citizenship. How silly.
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
cmdinc
-
I have no problem with any two individuals expressing their love towards each other...just don't call it marriage
- 1 year ago
-
cmdinc
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
cmdinc:
The problem with current law is that marriage confers 1138 additional benefits, civil unions don't.
Also, although it defies logic, some gay people are very religious and want to have a religious ceremony.
- 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
-
-
Naumadd
-
cmdinc:
Actually, they can and will call it whatever they like and, as a "married" bisexual, I grant them that liberty.
Neither heterosexuals nor the religious have a monopoly on the term "marriage". Language doesn't work that way. Frankly, if "marriage" is only to be the union of the small-minded, I'd encourage those who do not fit that description to abandon the term altogether so that "marriage" comes commonly to mean the "legal union of immature human beings" in contrast to "the legal union of two or more reasonably minded human beings regardless of gender".
- 1 year ago
-
Naumadd
-
-
fauxsherrrr
-
I think we should eliminate all ties between church and state including the term marriage. Civil unions and equal rights for all! Some people's dogma should not be dictating the rights of others.
- 1 year ago
-
fauxsherrrr
-
-
emsroses [removed]
- This comment was removed by its owner.
-
emsroses [removed]
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
emsroses:
I find it interesting that the voting level is 10 times higher in Kentucky and Tennessee.
California and Texas only have ~1/4 the number of voters
- 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
-
-
FlexSF
-
Stupid question!
- 1 year ago
-
FlexSF
-
-
1947lucymaldonado
-
Love has no gender or religion I support two people living together as a couple regardless of who that is, except for father,daughter, sister brother, etc. this I would call sico. I think the mistake that the gay movement made is using the word marriage. The word marriage is associated with all types of religion, the words "civil union" would have served them better. Everyone needs a license to get hitch anyway. A civil union it's still a legal union which would allow all couples regardless of who they marry to enjoy the benefits that being legally united entitles you to. I wish all couples gay or straight a happy life.
- 1 year ago
-
1947lucymaldonado
-
-
donkeyfly69
-
1947lucymaldonado:
so gay people can't be religious? can't have a marriage?
- 1 year ago
-
donkeyfly69
-
-
alexandrek [removed]
-
donkeyfly69: This comment was removed by its owner.
-
alexandrek [removed]
-
-
donkeyfly69
-
alexandrek:
i know plenty of gay religious people who were married (or had commitment ceremonies) in churches. it all depends on your church/community
- 1 year ago
-
donkeyfly69
-
-
Toadchick
-
What I would like to know, is how it is possible for people to say gay marriage, or relationships is wrong. I'm focus on the facts of the modern world, and what the human population is going through.
1) We are overpopulated and there are children out there that need a home. Couples willing to forgo reproduction, and adopt someone that wants them, and willingly committing to a loving family relationship, all with absolute understanding of their situation, should be a applauded, not punished or repressed.
2) With the opinion I stated above, consider this hypothetical situation: it is completely possible for a teenage couple to become knocked up, out of ignorance or simply no understanding of the real world and the competition in it, marry, realize that it was a hormone induced relationship and are not committed to each other, end up detesting each other, and subjecting the baby that they decided to keep to stress and unhappiness in the only childhood he/she will ever know.
Now consider if that same couple at the beginning were gay. None of that unpleasantness would happen. They would have to think before bringing another life into the world, they would have to be at the age of majority and have a steady career in order to adopt should they wish to. They would know what their situation is and how to deal with it. How is this wrong?
How is years of steady decisions and understanding of your situation, as well as a deep and abiding love for your partner, wrong? How backwards do we have to be, to think that allowing teenagers, say the straight couple were 16? to reproduce without any means of supporting another life, and feel it is right. I am thinking of the child in this circumstances, because that should be the only individual that would be impacted by the relationship in any way, it's no one else's business, period.
Since it is hypothetical, there are some holes in it, such as marriage being possible only if the parents support it (I believe this is the case in America, if someone can direct me to the laws, please do) as well as the fact that it is entirely possible for the gay couple to have a child that young as well, mind you it would not be an accidental child, which is my main point. The condom broke is no excuse, they would literally have to make the decision to have sex or find someone willing to carry the baby or donate sperm.These are my main views on the subject. I cannot comprehend how someone would trust a 2000 year old manuscript that has no knowledge of the current circumstances of the world today (overpopulation and resource scarcity), over common sense.
- 1 year ago
-
Toadchick
-
-
bailey78
-
Why sure why would i want to be the only one pissed off most of the time. Besides we all deserve a chance to be miserable. Just kidding folks I've been married for twentyone years now I truely believe that if any one wants to marry a person they should be able to do so be it a guy or a gal or a gal an a gal or a guy an a guy or any other combonation that they see fit. Just don't breed them if ya can't feed them.
- 1 year ago
-
bailey78
-
-
jubal
-
Based on the map on that site...it seems more people support gay marriage then don't. The only state where the nays win over the yays is Kentucky.
Glad I don't live in Kentucky.
- 1 year ago
-
jubal
-
-
zHellas
-
jubal:
Eh!(meant to say that in a way like Cartman from South Park)
I like Kentucky. It's a very nice place.
- 1 year ago
-
zHellas
-
-
jubal
-
I support not only gay marriage, but plural marriage as well. I believe people have the right to determine their own kinship family ties and their choices need to be tolerated and should be equal to what many call "traditional marriage", which they don't realize is far from "traditional" if they even ever had taken an Anthropology class they would realize the lucridity of their claims.
- 1 year ago
-
jubal
