I don't have a problem with Gay unions, but I still believe that "marriage" is sacred, and is between a man and a women.

It also does effect people- you just don't know it.  When your company drops health care for married couples do to the increased cost due to gay marriage, you'll realize how many things are effected by it (Gays are at a higher premium due to the % of AIDS among gays versus heterosexuals). 

My sensibility is against Marriage for anyone but one man and one woman.  It has nothing to do with religion, it just seems like something in this messed up world should remain sacred.

 

So true OckHam, and well said!

 

It boils down to this as well Stubby. 

 

Some people come with the sam argument no matter what Doc.  When they can't make their case, they justify their argument by saying illogical things!

 

Neither do I or a lot of others.

 

I know a gay couple who have been together for a very long time!  Does that makes what they have worthless?  Are they not important too?

 

BTW Doc, there are so much more 'deviant' than gay people in the throws of sex!  Seriously, thee are better arguments than this?  I'm sure I can be as deviant as the next  person, and that's nobody's business but my own, or your own!  They might as well come out and say that they ban everyone from having anything but missionary position sex!  For God's sake even in the days of the Romans, deviance was in existence!

 

I didn't get married in a church. Does that make my marriage obsolete.  I'm just as strong a beiever in faith, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghosts, a Christian, but not  as the next holier-than-thou person, am I not worthy of God's love then?!

 

Well said M!  We've had our differences of opinions, but you never talk nonsense and you always put the truth out there! Thank you!

 

Jythier, your emphasis is what is under fire here, because people such as yourselves, only look at what your faith dictates (no insult meant here, just stating a fact).  The world has changed, and it is time that a of people and their religions meet all people half way!  Saying that gay marriage, or union, is acceptable does not mean that they have to believe in it. But they have to believe in the individual freedom of each person in our society, otherwise what they preach, they don't practice and they say nothing but lies!  But it is hard for them to do that because they do what they say they don't, they JUDGE!

 

 

Now that's an honest opinion against it. I can respect that. No hyperbole or fear mongering, just an honest opinion.



Some proponents of gay marriage maintain that allowing it would eventually result in a reduction in this % as it would encourage more monogamous relationships among gays. Maybe so, maybe not, but it is a possibility worth considering.

So do I, and the many people who believe that people do have the right to choose who they want to be married to.  Marriage is sacred, for as long as the couple involved it holds it so.  Gay marraige, or union doesn't or shouldn't lessen this fact.

 

 

The higher cost of medical insurance doesn't just stop at a gay couple who are married, it also affects any woman or any man who have a change in their coverage because of a serious illness or disease.   These days, more couples have been forced to pay more out of pocket expenses, or the bigger portion of their health insurance because companies are not covering them 100% the way they used to, or they no longer bother to carry the types of insurance that would give their workers more benefits.

 

But this is what all those who object to gay marriage do, it is all about religion!  And I guess  I look at things a lot differently because in no way does what they (gay people) do affects my sense of sacredness or what I hold true.  We might as well tell them to pack up and get out of dodge, basically!  As some people I'm sure would want them to do. Then where does it stop? Where does the rights of every individual begins, because, if they can do that to Gays, they will do that to other people, that has been done in the past.

Well said, Serenity.  Like most here, I have absolutely no problem with the idea.  I do, however, have a problem with those who think the institution will be degraded because homosexuals want the same rights as the rest of us.  Live and let live, I say.

Well, right now, a copy can choose to cover "domestic partners" which covers live in partners of either sex.  I can assure you, this raises insurance rates higher than just about any disease due to HIV/AIDS.  It's all about actuary science,  The fact is that, even with a legal union of some sort, homosexuals will still have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS.  Right now, there is no way to add that to base insurance premiums, but I can assure you, once there is a legal union, it will be put into base rates to that everyone can pay.  And, yes, I do know a lot about insurances and how they are based and how underwriting and statistics change the costs. 

"all those"?  Uh, I don't get that point.  My opinion has NOTHING to do with religion. 

As I said, I have no problem with them having a legal "union", but "marriage" is different.

OK, I'm going to be completely against the popular view here, but, homosexuals should not be equal to heterosexuals.  Why?  The union of two people of the same sex is simply not natural.  I don't care about all the PC crap in this world- it's simply against nature to have to humans of the same sex as a couple.  Yeah, I know there are a lot of gay couples, I even have friends who are gay, had a lesbian couple at a pool party of mine, etc.  I have no problem with them or what they do behind closed doors.  But, do I think it's natural?  No.  Do I think they should be married?  No.  Do I care if they could have a legal "union" and pay higher taxes and that jazz?  Nope.

"Marriage" should be held sacred.  It should be between a man and a woman and should not be taken lightly. Maybe if we treated it a bit more sacredly we would have the divorce rate and mixed up families that we do.

 

As a woman who makes her living entirely from manipulating the horrifyingly unnatural (with nearly everything a techie uses made directly or indirectly through the desecration of the remains of the long-dead, as used for plastics or in transportation) I'm surprised you're against the unnatural.

I guess we all have our hang-ups!



It's never been held more sacred than in our past, and yet if you look at human history I don't think it led to families that were any more balanced than those we have these days.

 

I don't get this at all either Mark!  To me what I hold true and sacred, no one in this world can take that away from me!

 

Oh I wouldn't disagree with you on this as I myself only have insurance experience from paying it, not administering it!

I should clarify that "all those" by saying most people who are against Gay marriage.  Those people was a reference to all those people whose arguments are against why Gays should not be married uses religion as their main source of argument.

 

It is not an unpopular view and it is your opinion and you have every right to it!  As much as we don't agree, I respect it just the same!

 

 

 

Do you ever think that it is not unatural because it is not what is known to be natural because what is known to us is man and woman?  That is how religion as us introduced to the earth in its' sexuality.  Sure God made Adam and Eve, this is what we know because this is what we were told by those who translated the bible from the beginning of time.  But did you ever wonder if there was something else, other things that we were not told because they (the translators) didn't want us to know, or to be overwhelmed by?  I dunno, there are just some things that I wonder about and one of them is, if it was not supposed to be, Gay people, why is it?  Did they get the ideas in their heads that "hey, yes, we can be attracted to each other and love each other the way a man and woman do".  How did this happen?  This would be delving even further into the psyche of what and how homosexuals exist that have yet to be answered, and a discussion that many people don't want to have, is beig homosexual a natural thing that they have been born with, or is it learned?  Don't you think that if they weren't a part of God's design, his creation, that it would not be? 

I guess now is the time when some people will say they are the work of the devil!

 

I agree it should be held sacred and it is sacred to all who enter into it!  I agree that it should not be taken lightly because it requires some serious work and dedication for those who enter in it!  If it were held more sacred by the people who broke their vows, yes, the divorce rate would not be so high.  But I'm sure it was as important to them when they entered into it, they held it sacred, it just didn't work for one reason or another.   It's a sad part of life, but a reality.  Do we say to those people that they were not true to themselves, that they did it as a joke and didn't hold their vows sacred?  Do we have a right to judge them?   I think not.  In saying this I know you don't either, a lot of people don't and would not. 

Most times when I hear about a gay couple getting married, most couples use the word, "commitment" or "union" because they know legalizing their relationship will not be considered equal to "Marriage".  They also know that they won't have all the benefits and rights of a woman and man in a Marriage, but they will have the same thing that all (most) couples do (including those who are unmarried and living together), love for each other, dedication and commitment to their relationship, working towards the better for their relationship.  That in my opinion is what I believe tis is all about.  Now let me be PC and say that I cannot and do not speak for Gay people are anyone else.  These are my opinions, what I believe.

 

LULA POSTS:





MasonM posts:


The point is 4 California judges have usurped their position and authority by making California law and overturned the will of a majority of the people by mandating a re-definition of the universal understanding of marriage since the dawn of time as between a man and a woman.... and...all of you have said you accept homosexual "marriage", but none have answered my question....which logically points the unintended consequences of activist judges changing the marriage law....what if Tom, Dick and Harry ...Or Tom, Dick and Sally apply for a marriage licence?

Did they change polygamy laws and nobody noticed? Again, it's an irrelevant question as this is about TWO people getting married. You're trying to throw in something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If they decide to change polygamy laws that's different, but they haven't, so you're question is an irrelevant attempt at hyperbole.

What he said!

When a 42 year old marries a 14 year old, who does it really bother?

When a person marries an animal, who does it really bother? (remember the law in Washington read that sex with animals was only illegal if there is evidence that the animal didn't want it).

When a married man marries two or more women (or vice versa), who is it bothering?

If that is your standard, then I guess there shouldn't be any definition to marriage.

Yes, in essence they did...they wittingly or unwittingly opened "Pandora's Box"....the new definition of "marriage" now becomes open for any arrangement, whether it's same gender, threesomes, bisexuals, you name it. They, too, under their "sexual orientation" may claim "equality" under the judges' new definition of marriage and could apply for a marriage licence.

No, they didn't, and no it doesn't. Polygamy, age of consent, and bestiality laws are all separate laws. Hyperbole.

Good point, ParaTed.

Being pro-homosexual "marriage" is being against marriage. There is no having it both ways.