Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66264
Posted: March 27 2013 at 15:29
Man With Hat wrote:
Silly queers...thinking they have rights!
Of course, option #1 for me.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off to my BDSM, 17 husband, 22 wife afternoon orgy in the graveyard dressed as past US presidents using replica constitutions as birth control...
This is why I added the Other option. For those who believe marriage should only between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and ......
Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584
Posted: March 27 2013 at 17:10
Epignosis wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
Government should have nothing to do with marriage
Scott gave me a position in the poll, and I'm the first to vote for it.
My religious views give me a clear position on gay marriage, but just because something is against my beliefs, that doesn't mean that I should be in favor of laws prohibiting it.
I HIGHLY recommend watching a documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So for anyone who believes that Christianity requires an anti-gay marriage stance.
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Posted: March 27 2013 at 18:31
Epig, MoM, and King of Loss have already articulated my political position on this issue. Marriage is a function of individuals/communities and in no way should be regulated by either federal or state governments. The very fact that the state attempts to define what "marriage" is shows that they have overstepped the proper bounds of their responsibilities. I personally oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but it's none of my business or the government's business to prevent two men or two women from getting married. Their action doesn't affect me in any way.
The Supreme Court case is an entirely different issue, however. I can understand how they might declare DOMA unconstitutional (goes way beyond the boundaries of the constitution) but it would be patently ridiculous if they made up a "constitutional right" for gay marriage that quite obviously does not exist.
voted other, btw
Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - March 27 2013 at 18:34
Epig, MoM, and King of Loss have already articulated my political position on this issue. Marriage is a function of individuals/communities and in no way should be regulated by either federal or state governments. The very fact that the state attempts to define what "marriage" is shows that they have overstepped the proper bounds of their responsibilities. I personally oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but it's none of my business or the government's business to prevent two men or two women from getting married. Their action doesn't affect me in any way.
The Supreme Court case is an entirely different issue, however. I can understand how they might declare DOMA unconstitutional (goes way beyond the boundaries of the constitution) but it would be patently ridiculous if they made up a "constitutional right" for gay marriage that quite obviously does not exist.
voted other, btw
It's interesting that you don't tell us what those moral objections are. Perhaps it's just none of our business but I suspect you must be a christian to take this view. (and similarly to your political stance, a scripture of your choice articulates your position?)
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 7852
Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:08
I'm not a Christian, but I prefer traditional things - one man, one woman. That's it.
Call me homophobe, but for me there is something unnatural in gay marriages. I don't mind if people of the same sex love each other, but can't understand why they need to be a groom and a bride (and who is who in their case).
And if they adopt kids I don't think gay family is a natural surrounding for children.
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)
Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584
Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:11
NotAProghead wrote:
I'm not a Christian, but I prefer traditional things - one man, one woman. That's it.
Call me homophobe, but for me there is something unnatural in gay marriages. I don't mind if people of the same sex love each other, but can't understand why they need to be a groom and a bride (and who is who in their case).
And if they adopt kids I don't think gay family is a natural surrounding for children.
Joined: April 15 2012
Location: My Bedroom
Status: Offline
Points: 14169
Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:14
There's a theory going around that Homosexuality is caused by Epigenetics. If it's true, then it is natural (technically a natural mistake, but natural nonetheless)
I'm not a Christian, but I prefer traditional things - one man, one woman. That's it.
Call me homophobe, but for me there is something unnatural in gay marriages. I don't mind if people of the same sex love each other, but can't understand why they need to be a groom and a bride (and who is who in their case).
And if they adopt kids I don't think gay family is a natural surrounding for children.
OK, Perhaps a male father and female mother who love, care and nurture their offspring is 'best case scenario' but given the choice, would you still feel more comfortable with an abusive and neglectful straight couple rearing children or a loving, caring and nurturing gay couple?
Joined: April 15 2012
Location: My Bedroom
Status: Offline
Points: 14169
Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:35
NotAProghead wrote:
Earendil wrote:
In what way is it unnatural?
In what way it is natural?
smartpatrol wrote:
There's a theory going around that Homosexuality is
caused by Epigenetics. If it's true, then it is natural (technically a
natural mistake, but natural nonetheless)
also Homosexuality is something which has been practiced by species after species sense the beginning of time. I think that counts as natural
Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584
Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:38
NotAProghead wrote:
Earendil wrote:
In what way is it unnatural?
In what way it is natural?
It has been around for millennia, and two siblings can grow up together in a "traditional" home, with one turning out homosexual and the other heterosexual.
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66264
Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:50
Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species. 2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own. This is what makes it unnatural. Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest. A homosexual species isn't going to survive. That being said, homosexuality exists. Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade.
Despite this, I am all in favor of a little thing that my favorite band sings about called Freewill, and peoples' right to "choose" who they marry or don't marry. And if a child needs a home and there is an adult or two adults of the same sex that would like to take care of said child than that is what is important. Everyone knows there are plenty of same sex parents that quite frankly should have those rights taken away from them and there are plenty of straight persons who really should be removed from the gene pool.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage
Topic Options
Man With Hat wrote:
