The 6 New England states, New York, Maryland, Washington and then you got Iowa. Hopefully Illinois or New Jersey is next, I could see either one of those states passing legislation

The 6 New England states, New York, Maryland, Washington and then you got Iowa. Hopefully Illinois or New Jersey is next, I could see either one of those states passing legislation

All those gay people getting married in all those states. God, it won't be long now until my marriage is completely destroyed. Oh well, almost 40 years down the drain.

Yeah, and hopefully we'll all get the plague too.



Straw man argument.

The fact that your comparing gay marriage to the plague is a bit disturbing. Maybe you should take a time machine back to 17th century Europe. You know you could burn innocent people for witchcraft back then sound like a good time?

Maybe you should take a time machine back to 17th century Europe. You know you could burn innocent people for witchcraft back then sound like a good time?

I myself will admitt that I also thought that the "big hoopla about the basketball player Jason Collins "coming out." was a bit much.
And there are those who will say that this is something "special" and I say BULLSHIT. He is no hero or Jackie Robinson. Maybe it is just the need to write something for the news space.

It's not anything special. People just need to leave it alone, you can support him not support him or whatever, I personally think its a good thing that Jason Collins came out, but the media really blew it up. It was inevitable though, stories like that are too irresistible to pass up

Gays have never been oppressed like black people have, just most people find homosexual marriage to be absurd, and not on the same playing field as real marriage! Humanity has hummed along quite nicely for a couple of thousand years without the need of gay marriage. You don't have to go all the way to Iran to find "freedom haters," just go to France. Over one million French men, women, and children marched in French cities against the passing of gay marriages. You're the reason why people think Americans are morons for the most part, most sane people are against gay marriage, not just Ayatollahs in Iran. Go spout your pro gay marriage crap in any hispanic or black neighborhood in America, you might leave with a black eye though.

Again ivy I'm not a "lib" so don't put me under that label. Yes I support gay marriage but I've stated before people don't have to accept it. I disagreed with the Massachusetts board of education on that recent ruling they had in order not to discriminate against transgender kids. That was going too far.

My basic point is that I suppport gay marriage. Doesn't mean everyone has to accept it, but I absolutely hate it when people slam gays as "disgusting, sinful, or degenerate" thats when I get a little angry.

Gays have never been oppressed like black people have.

Ivy you mistake transgender people with gay people. The two are not always hand in hand. Many gays identity themselves as their born gender, I don't see how gays marrying has anything to do with the Massachusetts school board decision.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Insignificance of Men and Women
Dennis Prager
August 17, 2010

The left passionately supports the most remarkable and radical change in modern social history -- the redefinition of marriage from male-female to include male-male and female-female.

Marriage is the building block of society. Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called "gender") no longer matters for society's most important institution, it no longer matters in general.

Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance. Which is exactly what the cultural left and the gay rights movement advocate -- even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting. Most Americans who support same-sex marriage feel (and "feel" is the crucial verb here, as the change to same-sex marriage is much more felt than thought through) that gays should have the right to marry a member of their own sex. It is perceived as unfair to gays that they cannot do so. And that is true. It is unfair to gays.

But the price paid for eliminating this unfairness is enormous: It is the end of marriage as every society has known it. And it is more than that. It is the end of any significance to gender. Men and women are now declared interchangeable. That is why, as I noted in a recent column -- the "T" has been added to "GLB:" "Transgendered" has been added to "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual." "T" does not represent transsexuals -- people who choose to change their sex. No one is arguing against such people.

"Transgendered" refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish to publicly act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women's clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left's primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both. Gender doesn't matter.

That is why Judge Walker and his supporters dismiss the argument that, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a married man and woman than by two men or two women. If Walker or GLBT activists and their supporters admitted that children need a mother and father, they would be affirming that there is great significance to the differences between men and women.

They reject that. Instead, they and Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic studies are as unserious as all those academic studies of a generation ago that "proved" that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers.

These newer "studies" of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: the denial of male-female differences and the promotion of same-sex marriage. That many Americans believe these studies -- studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers' own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is -- only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept "studies" in place of common sense.

Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

One has to assume that most people -- including supporters of same-sex marriage -- would respond in the affirmative. How, then, can they support same-sex marriage? The left's trinity -- compassion, fairness and equality -- is one reason. And "studies" and "facts" are another.

That is exactly how so many college graduates came to believe that boys would be happy with tea sets, and girls would be happy with trucks -- compassion, fairness, equality and "studies." That is also how many Americans, including a judge who overturned a state's constitutional amendment, have come to believe that never having a mother or never having a father makes absolutely no difference to a child.

And if mothers and fathers are interchangeable, men as men and women as women lose their significance.

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx...f_men_and_women

By the way, you say that not everybody "has to accept it" but, for instance, California voters certainly are being made to. They voted twice on this issue, only to have their votes negated by a gay judge.

Well, the gay and transgender community has done this themselves by using the acronym LGBT. And that actually goes to the underlying point I've always made in these debates about homosexuality. Read the article below, where Dennis Prager articulates it much better than I can. It applies directly to you and others who share your position.

It's like saying people in California voted that no one should have brunches and said that you should have lunches, or breakfasts. You don't get to vote on people's choices and way of lives that doesn't concern you. So what if someone wants to have brunch and you don't? Simply don't have a brunch.

Oh, yeah. This is what it comes down to, what has got the panties of homophobes in the bunch: The image of a man, doing house chores and being called a house-husband?! Because that's a low for a man. That's a woman's job to pick up your dirty socks and make you dinner and do your laundry and clean up the house. And it's just a thorn in your eyes to see a woman go out and make money. Because the fair sex must be dependent to male sex, or your masculinity is threatened. [sarcasm]Yeah, it's all about you. Gay people are doing this just to make you miserable. There's no other reason really.[/sarcasm]

Wrong. People in each state certainly DO get to vote on whether they want something like gay marriage. What should NOT happen is one GAY JUDGE overruling the will of the people. And notice how NONE of you gay marriage supporters have commented on the conflict of interest there.



An atheist and a feminist. Talk about a lost cause.

I don't really have an opinion on this subject, but i completely agree with your first paragraph, but it does seem like you're omitting a crucial piece of info i apolagize if i'm completely missing something obvious.