For those against Gay Mariage: WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT TWO CONSENTING ADULTS DO IN PRIVATE?
I mean, allowing Gay Mariage doesn't mean you have to marry a same sex partner. What difference does it make to YOU what two consenting adults do with there lives? How does it affect YOU PERSONALLY if your next door neighbor is gay. Unless they are making out on the front lawn, it's no concern of yours. How would you like it if someone told you you couldn't marry the love of your life because that person had green eyes, and you had blue eyes. And that is not a strawman argument, because you don't choose to be gay, just like you don't choose to have blue eyes. It's just the way you are. So, I personally feel you should live your live, and not worry about the guys next door.
2008-07-07T01:45:54Z
Mujahid--You are telling me you are going to get a disease because two men got married? How does that work?
2008-07-07T01:47:14Z
whitehorse456- As long all parties involved are consenting, I see no reason why a plural marriage shouldn't work
2008-07-07T01:53:52Z
pdjh- I said between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. No one is talking about marrying animals and inanimate objects.
2008-07-07T02:01:13Z
Sean C- Not to argue with you, because I agree with your answer, but I don't think you mean transexual. That is a choice where someone decides to alter themselves to become the oppisite sex. I think you are refering to hermaphrodites, people born with both male and female reproductive organs.
Anonymous2008-07-07T02:08:28Z
Favorite Answer
What I find Morally wrong is two partners who have been together for 40 plus years be denied the right to make life changing decisions if one partner comes ill. Most of the gay community isn't the flaming queens you see on your tv, but everyday people- teachers, sports players, contractors.
I walk every day with god- I'm a strong Christian man who happens to be gay. Yes I sin, but to sin you need to choose, and I never choose to be gay, why would I choose to live a life where I hear I'm nasty and perverted. I saw a prayer every time I'm insulted based on being gay "Father forgive them for they know not what they do!"
You ask why people bother about what two censenting individuals do with their lives ? People do bother for thats the way the world is ! When a Christian marries a deist people bother, When a muslim marries a christian people bother, When a Jew marries Hindu people do bother and there is no end to people's botherings. When in a Christian neighbourhood a muslim resides people do bother, when people reject their own faith for some other faith people not only bother but turn aggressive. If the world stops bothering many of the worlds major problems would be solved overnight. The world would get respite from violence, cruelity and blood shed if people stop bothering about others affairs. Once people stop bothering about other's affairs there will be less need of socio-religious value and moral impositions on a individuals life . No body knows if ever we would be in a time when we stop bothering about others affairs . But on the flip side why should a husband bother then when the wife goes out with a male friend ? Is it not a affair between those two individuals ? People, society and the world will bother and should bother for that matter. Any new social phenomena will have to fight its way in to acceptance by gradually demolishing the existing social order and resistance . The nature creats such typical characteristics in humanbeings by way of colour, feature & genetic dysfunctions, that they become a target of other people for no fault of theirs. So as long as blacks, whites, coloured, men and women are there, people cant simply live in insular cells in the society but are certain to react to any or all basic social relationship changes. The people wishing to change the social order for what ever reasons, will there fore, have to row against the current till they reach their destination.
My husband and I are conservatives and we don't care at all. You're confusing 'conservative' with Christian again (Liberals do this constantly, it's not your fault, it's just the way you were trained) BTW...It was DEMOCRATS in California who shot down gay marriage...Those Democrats were mostly Catholics. For some, homosexuality goes against what their religion teaches and stands for...That's why Obama said he was against gay marriage because of his "religious beliefs". My husband and I are non-religious, but we believe that everyone should be allowed to believe in whatever they want, or nothing at all...Religion is a very personal thing. Most (not all) of the conservatives we know are non-religious, agnostic or Pagan, and they don't care either...Birds of a feather, I guess @ Lois Griffin: Do whatever you want in the bedroom, just don't make us pay for it...Buy your own condoms and birth control pills, pay for your own abortions, or feed the child you create...Don't involve us if you don't want us involved.
Think about it this way. Most people think that allowing same-sex marriage will encourage more people to be gay. So, not allowing it will encourage more people to be straight. And, the only people that don't want to have it allowed are bigots that are just ignorant and think that homosexuals are gross, and want to get rid of it. At least, that's what I've come up with.
if the bigots don't want gay marriage then they shouldn't marry a person of the same-sex and let others live how they feel best Toby is wrong as 2 men and 2 women can love each other like many heteros do. Rolling Stone and many others think it's wrong because they are homophobes Pdjh has produced the usual bigots nonsense of "slippery slope" - does he want to do the stuff he claims? as the answer's probably no then why would LBG people?? People into the same-sex are into the same-sex for many reasons and not cos it's easier then the opposite gender. heteros are the ones who have successfully devalued marriage yet many LBG people still wanna be married! Yehsub is a bigot, there are many LBG children - bigots like Yehsub have corrupted children with hatred, lies, bigotry and intolerance. many heteros hold parades too, gay parades are there to show solidarity and pride and that gays wouldn't hide like the bigots want "homosexual" wasn't a word till 1869 so it can't be a sin "The Greek text of the NT does NOT use the specific word homosexual. If you have a Bible that uses the specific word "homosexual," then you need to throw it out and get a new Bible, the translators have taken gross liberties. The word being translated to "homosexual" in 1 Corithians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 is "arsenokoitai." This word does not appear in Greek writings prior to Paul's use of it in the NT. PAUL MADE THE WORD UP!!!!! Nobody knows for sure what meaning Paul was trying to convey by it's use. If the meaning Paul wanted to convey was homosexual, then he would have used the word "paiderasste", which was the term used at the time for male homosexual. The word "paiderasste" does not appear in the Bible. "Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." Literally translated "arsenokoitai" is a "male-bedder." It is interesting to note that during the time of Martin Luther, the word was universally translated as masturbators untill the 20th century. Male-bedder has also been interpreted to mean a male prostitute. Which seems to me would be much closer to it's meaning than homosexual. The Greek word being translated as effeminate is "malakoi." The word appears two other times in the NT, both times being translated as "soft." Taken in the context of this passage some believe it to actually mean "soft in morals." Within it's context, that meaning makes more sense than it does as a descriptive of a person's outward mannerisms. Jesus, himself, never says one word against homosexuality. If it is the grave sin it is made out to be, then you would think that Jesus would have mentioned it. In fact, Jesus may have confirmed that homosexuals are from birth in Matthew 19:11. The modern meaning of the word eunuch is a castrated male. However, in ancient times it was a broad term that includead any man who lacked sexual desire for women for whatever reason. Hence, their use as chamberlains or officers in the Bible. It should be noted that men who are castrated after puberty do not lose their sex drive, and historically have made untrustworthy chamberlains. In fact, many women of the harem preferred having sex with castrated males because they could not get pregnant by them. Jesus even states that not everyone can accept this word. If eunuch simply meant a castrated male or a person born with deformed genitals, then why would some not be able to accept this word? If the ancient term "eunuch" did indeed include homosexuals (some surviving ancient Roman literature points to this), then Jesus was proven right, some cannot accept that homosexuality is normal and natural from birth. BTW: Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality. The decision to destroy the city of Sodom was made prior to the incident with the angels. Ezekeiel 16:49-50 tells us exactly why the city of Sodom was destroyed: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." There is no mention of homosexuality. In Matthew 10:14-15 & Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implies that the sin of the people of Sodom was inhospitality to strangers. Jude 1:7 talks about the sin of Sodom as "going after strange flesh." That would seem to me to be talking about bestiality, the angels were not human. Would angels even be confined to definitions of male or female sexual characteristics? The other problem with saying that this story is about homosexuality is that Lot offers his two daughters to the mob. Lot lived in Sodom and would have certainly known if the men in the mob were homosexual. Why would he even offer his two daughters to a mob of homosexuals? If the mob's intentions were homosexual in nature, then why didn't Lot offer the mob his two future son-in-laws? Romans 1:26-27 is not speaking about people with a homosexual orientation. It is speaking specifically about heterosexual men and women who go against their own sexual orientation. The key word here is "exchanges." That implies that the men and women being talked about had known something different previously. They had previously known the truth about God, then exchanged him for what they knew to be a lie, (what went against their own nature.) They had previously been heterosexual, and again exchanged it for what goes against their own nature"