What do you think of gay marriges

Comments

• Nice answer, Rince +6

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on June 20th, 2007

• I meant to click the (-) on the right, but I missed, so you got some points. Guess I'm too stoopid to know left from right. That will teach me to think Gay Marriage should be legal! :)

  • Report
  

  by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on June 20th, 2007

• lol, thanks both :-)

  • Report
  

  by Rince on June 20th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• :)) +

  • Report
  

  by kedar on April 28th, 2008

Comments

• :)) +6

  • Report
  

  by kedar on April 28th, 2008

• I swear I'll be coming to your US wedding. One day, we will be eating cheesecake,smoking & drinking our coffee before you two leave on your honeymoon

  • Report
  

  by Little big mouth on April 28th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Ta for the downrate. It doesn't change my opinion or give you an option to voice why you disagree or anything but if it makes you feel better.

  • Report
  

  by Lovehearts on December 13th, 2007

• Ah, it's okay me of the past.
  I agree with you....

  • Report
  

  by Lovehearts on April 27th, 2008

• And I agree with you too, me of yesterday.

  • Report
  

  by Lovehearts on April 28th, 2008

Comments

• Great answer! +6

  • Report
  

  by kedar on April 28th, 2008

Comments

• Religious marriage is not under discussion- same sex couples can and do have religious marriages now, in various faiths.
   
  The only thing being denied is civil marriage, which already exists as a legal term using the word "marriage".

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on August 19th, 2007

• Yes, but it doesn't exist in reality. That should be addressed.

  • Report
  

  by unknown on August 19th, 2007

• I don't get what you mean- what does not exist in reality?
  The legal term marriage exists.

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on August 19th, 2007

• To take your points in turn: 1. Marriage is not a religious custom. More marriages are celebrated outside church than in. Marriage existed before Christianity. Christianity has hi-jacked marriage and is now trying to force non-Christians to obey it rules. 2. So what you are saying is the the religious - any religious, be it Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto - can call their union "marriage" but atheists have to call it "civil union"? I call that religious bigotry. Marriage is *not* a religious ceremony, though it may (if the celebrants wish) take place in a re3ligious context. It is a public ceremony with level consequences.

  • Report
  

  by Im Alec has abandoned this account on August 19th, 2007

• I'm saying that if you call one marriage and one a civil union you can separate them and everyone can join lives regardless of their sexual preference without interference from the church into civil matters and the government into religious matters. Whether marriage existed before Christianity is immaterial.@ImAlec, in our current society same sex marriage or civil union does not exist. It is not the reality.

  • Report
  

  by unknown on August 19th, 2007

• quote:
  ---
  I'm saying that if you call one marriage and one a civil union ...
  ---
  But there is no need for that. Marriage is marriage.
  If Christians start claiming "cars" are now Christian, does that mean non-Christians have to drive "automobiles" instead, even though they are the same thing?
   
  There is no foundation for the claim that "marriage" is a religious term. There is no reason to cave in to people wo need a vocabulary lesson.

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on August 19th, 2007

• Also, it's not true that "same sex marriages do not exist". It's that marriage exists, and marriages are being denied legal recognition based on the sex of the participants.

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on August 19th, 2007

• It is the nature of our court system to use language to mark differences in ideas. Look, I don't think it's ideal. I just think that it's the only way to allow gay couples to wed while still keeping the government out of the church. I didn't make society the way it is. I cannot control the way the courts work. None of this is my fault. Why are you doing this? I think gay couples should be able to get married. I also think that people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman should have the right to believe that without interference from the government. It's a compromise that might work is all I'm saying.

  • Report
  

  by unknown on August 19th, 2007

• MagentaStudios, You go right ahead and nit pic. But when a same sex partner dies you just try to keep the home you built together and the children of your partner and them come tell me that same sex marriage "exists."

  • Report
  

  by unknown on August 19th, 2007

• quote:
  ---
  I think gay couples should be able to get married. I also think that people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman should have the right to believe that without interference from the government. It's a compromise that might work is all I'm saying.
  ---
  Here is a compromise that works:
  same sex couples should be able to get legally married, using the word "married". Period.
   
  That in no way at all effects the lives of people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. No one is forcing them to marry someone of the same sex. The government is in no way interfering on their lives.
   
  Right now, there are people who believe that divorced people can never re-marry. Because of that, should people on their second marriages not be allowed to use the word "marriage"?
   
  Right now, there are people who believe that mixed-race couples should not marry. Because of that, should mixed-race couples not be allowed to use the word "marriage"?

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on August 19th, 2007

• And your second comment makes no sense whatsoever.
  Equal rights are not "nit-picking".
  Separate but equal is not equality.
  And the situation you describe is exactly WHY marriages between people of the same sex need to be legally recognized, and NOT made second class citizens.
   
  If it's not a "marriage", it is not transferable from one state to another or one nation to another. If it is not a "marriage", then insurance companies and hospitals would not be obligated to recognize the relationship.
   
  All of this can be solved if people STOP the nit-picking, and just accept that marriage is a civil right, and it has nothing to do with anyone's religion.

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on August 19th, 2007

• That won't happen. Are you saying it's all or nothing? If you don't see the validity of this compromise then fine. But, stop badgering me about this. It's too painful a subject to continue with.

  • Report
  

  by unknown on August 19th, 2007

• It will happen. It has already happened in Canada, and many European nations.
  Human rights are ALWAYS all or nothing.
  Equality is equality- there is no such thing as "almost equal".
  There is no compromise when the issue is between the human rights of one group, and the petty misconceptions of another group.
   
  If YOU think it's painful, just think how it is for people like me who are treated like second-class citizens and told to just accept sitting in the back of the bus, and be glad we get to ride the bus at all.

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on August 19th, 2007

• That is NOT what I'm saying at all. And sometimes you have to take one step at a time. If you can't see that from a long line of history telling you that then that's your business. Do not presume to know anything about me and my feelings from one answer.

  • Report
  

  by unknown on August 19th, 2007

• We HAVE taken one step at a time.
  Steps HAVE been taken.
  Marriage IS the next step.
  If YOU can't see that from the long struggle for equal rights gays have been through that's your problem.
  I never claimed anything about knowing you. All I know is what you write. You either believe in equality under the law for all Americans or you don't.

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on August 19th, 2007

• If marriage is a religious institution then why can you get a civil marriage with no religious ceremony? Why do some religions, like Jews and Muslims have a separate marriage ceremonies and a separate system for divorces?
  
  If marriage is religious and there is separation of Church and state then marriage should have no legal standing whatsoever and in the future the only thing allowed should be civil unions, equal for all. And marriage should have no standing other than a religious value. In that case, government could not even ask you if you were married.

  • Report
  

  by Ephraim on December 6th, 2007

• Here is a what I think. http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/1811977

  • Report
  

  by unknown on December 6th, 2007

• Very good Idne! I'm glad you've changed your mind.

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on December 6th, 2007

• I didn't. There were circumstances out of my control when I answered this one.:)

  • Report
  

  by unknown on December 6th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

• says who? Besides were talking about legal marriage, not the kind you do in a church.

  • Report
  

  by XOXMSperfect on April 27th, 2009

• False answer.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 27th, 2009

• "A marriage is between a man and a woman."
  Yes that can be true. Big kids realize that it's not ONLY between a man and woman though.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on April 28th, 2009

• Big kids know how to agree to disagree.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 28th, 2009

• And bigger kids know how to respect the rights and freedoms of others, without trying to oppress them via semantic games. If this were merely about agreeing to disagree, it wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't that, it's a strategy by those with ancient prejudices to marginalize others and deprive them of their freedoms. It's not an innocent disagreement like "who's the best pitcher in the National League."

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

• Gay marrriage will only affect one group, gay people.the constitution it gourantees everyone the same legal rights and protections. When you get a marriage liscence, it comes with thousands of legal protections for you and your family. Gay people can't get access to these rights, because they can't get married. And civil unions only offer 1/4th of these rights.

  • Report
  

  by XOXMSperfect on April 28th, 2009

• Exactly. It appears on the surface that the "high road" approach you're taking ("agree to disagree") has some sort of moral elegance in it, in that you're inviting a retreat from conflict by both sides. But that misses the point: your side started this fight by trying to eliminate rights guaranteed to all. You can't now step back and put on a sweet smile and say "ok, lets all be friends" -- not unless you first work to undo the damage that your beliefs have caused to real people. That would be true integrity. That would be the real "high road".

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

• I concede that my opinion is irrelevant. I gave it because the question asked it. Your opinion is also irrelevant. In actuality, there is only one opinion which counts.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 28th, 2009

• No, actually that's not true. What counts is the very real non-opinion fact that the attitude expressed in your answer has done real harm to real people. That is a concern with ethical dimensions, and you are on the wrong side of that polarity. Your opinion is not irrelevant, it's harmful... and hanging onto it in the face of obvious damage to others says something about your character.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

• You are a thought Nazi and a bully. Get over it, punk. You will never change anyone's mind through intimidation, coercion and straw-man blathering. You are like a child throwing an ugly tantrum in the floor of a department store because you didn't get something you wanted. You need not reply, because I will not waste another moment trying to have an adult conversation with your ilk.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 28th, 2009

• In other words, you have no idea how to defend your opinion except through name calling. Like I said, it's a character issue.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

• BTW, you won today's "bully in the mirror" award for gross overreaction. I was going to give it to the neo-Nazi who thought that anybody who didn't respect Hitler didn't understand him, but you came along and swept it away at the last minute! Good work :)

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

• "Big kids know how to agree to disagree."
   
  I agree. So how about we agree to disagree on whether or not gays should be allowed to marry instead of taking a vote on it and depriving fellow citizens of their rights?

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on April 28th, 2009

• Precisely. It stops being "merely an opinion" when the political steps are taken to suppress the minority.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

• this isn't something that should be voted on. During prop 8 religious groups lied about the outcomes of gay marriage and got away with it. This is something the supreme court needs to decide, just like with slavery, segregation, womens rights, and any other time a minoritys rights are being oppressed by the majority.

  • Report
  

  by XOXMSperfect on April 28th, 2009

• I don't think ANYBODY should be deciding for or against it except the two people involved and the person officiating the ceremony. I think it should just be dropped completely, not decided for or against.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on April 28th, 2009

• Well yes, of course nobody can make a general rule to be "for" or "against" any particular marriage or type of marriage. But when people take action to restrict the rights of others to marry, a strong response is called for in defense of freedom.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

• I know and I agree. I'm just saying that it never should have been a public issue to begin with.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on April 28th, 2009

• Gotcha. Well, I think we've lost our star. Perhaps a game of cribbage?

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

• Well marriage really isnt the issue here. It's the acceptance of homosexuality that people are afraid of. They know that if gay marriage is legalized, the government will be "accepting" homosexuals. Alot of people don't want this to happen, so they use "the sanctity of marriage" as a facade to hide what the real reason is behind the oppisition. If they really cared about the "sanctity" of marriage, they would be trying to outlaw divorce.

  • Report
  

  by XOXMSperfect on April 28th, 2009

• I suspect you're right, but I don't like to put too much energy into explaining the motives of a whole group. I'd rather they came out and expressed what they think, one at a time, so those ideas can be challenged and a discussion can occur.
   
  For better or worse, we're stuck with a world in which a significant percentage believe as Tennessee Hillbilly. We can't just wave a magic wand and make them change their minds, probably only generations of dialog will sort this out. People naturally react negatively when you attribute ugly motives to them, as we saw above where he went off like a rocket in response to a teensy match.
   
  By contrast, when called upon to defend their views with logic and evidence, there's more chances to chip away at the fallacies without just hardening someone into "the enemy".

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

• Yes, i've seen my fair share of people who run out of intelligent things to say and end up resorting to insults and immature blathering. But when peopel ask me how old i am, and i tell them im only 18, for some reason my argument loses all credibility with these people.

  • Report
  

  by XOXMSperfect on April 28th, 2009

• That's why I tend to try to end discussions when people start asking my age. Age has very little to do with ability to discuss.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on April 28th, 2009

• Hehe. Give them your age in binary. In days. By the time they sort it out, you will have already run circles around them :)

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 28th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Troll alert ... I figured some moron would down rate me for an opinion they did not agree with ... -3 from some homophobe ... LOL

  • Report
  

  by Takei-Shihan on December 12th, 2007

Comments

• completely agree.

  • Report
  

  by lobbeton on December 12th, 2007

• Agreed with you Wide Awake Phoenix +6

  • Report
  

  by kedar on April 28th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

• We're changing the legal definition, not the religious definition. And if civil unions are how people are supposed to get marriage rights, then the government should call them unions in all cases, gay or straight.

  • Report
  

  by XOXMSperfect on April 27th, 2009

• Why would that make any sense if marriage has always been understood as a man and a woman? Lets get rid of the term marriage to please homsexuals..??

  • Report
  

  by Somedude81 on April 27th, 2009

• Correction, marriage has changed it's definition multiple times. At first a woman was a mans property, then blacks couldn't marry whites, and now men can't marry men. It's going to be legalized whether people like it or not. It's already legal in 3 states, and only a matter of time till the federal law deems it acceptable. Besides, the definition of marriage isn't the issue here. People are scared that if gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality will become more accepted. THATS why most people are against it.

  • Report
  

  by XOXMSperfect on April 27th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• I didn't know you were married!
  Well bless your soul buddy and may you live in marital bliss!

  • Report
  

  by Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today on June 12th, 2008

• thanks

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on June 12th, 2008

• Bless you and yours my good friend!
  You are a good person all the way.

  • Report
  

  by Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today on June 12th, 2008

• Thanks again,,we are comming up on year 21!!!

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on June 13th, 2008

• Wow, you have successfully broken the myth that gay marriages don't last. You should be a spokesman or something.

  • Report
  

  by Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today on June 13th, 2008

• no, you just don't hear about the ones that do last..my brother in law and his partner just celebrated their 40th.

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on June 13th, 2008

• Wow, that truly is amazing.

  • Report
  

  by Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today on June 13th, 2008

Comments

• Points up...bahhhh on the nasty troll...besides, YOU'RE RIGHT!

  • Report
  

  by Redhawk on April 27th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

• You captured my heart's feeling, as a fellow Christian...and as a Lesbian...better than I could have expressed them myself. Blessings, Joy and Love surround you and your life.

  • Report
  

  by Redhawk on April 27th, 2008

• Thank you very much!!!! =) <3

  • Report
  

  by Snooch on April 27th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• You queers don't like that answer, huh.

  • Report
  

  by 1858 Remington 1-21-13 on April 27th, 2009

• Any educated person wouldnt like it.

  • Report
  

  by Pixie - jeg er elsket on April 27th, 2009

• Any person who cares about freedom and equal rights would dislike it. It's anti-freedom, anti-justice.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 27th, 2009

• Oh well :-)

  • Report
  

  by 1858 Remington 1-21-13 on April 29th, 2009

• At least you don't have to be burdened with ethical concerns. How carefree that must be! :)

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on April 29th, 2009

• Well, more or less, but I got more important things to worry about, but thank you for your concern. :-)

  • Report
  

  by 1858 Remington 1-21-13 on April 29th, 2009

Comments

• ((((hugs))))

  • Report
  

  by Little big mouth on June 12th, 2008

Comments

• lol.

  • Report
  

  by ImNotAnonymous-COAT of Maestro-ness on June 12th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• quote:
  ---
  Well it leaves a disproportionate number of women available for straight guys.
  ---
  You forgot about the lesbians. :)

  • Report
  

  by Magenta on August 19th, 2007

Comments

• oHHH come on now...(points up) where's your sense of ROMANCE and commitment! <wink> Actually...my partner agrees with YOU..(SOB) I'm just an old fashioned lesbian trying to legitimize my relationship here....sniff, sniff!

  • Report
  

  by Redhawk on April 27th, 2008

Comments

• What do you think of Tuesday?

  • Report
  

  by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on May 6th, 2009

• Sorry, thanks for asking, but I already have a S/O. (blush)

  • Report
  

  by Wide Awake @ has closing date woo hoo on May 6th, 2009

• sigh....

  • Report
  

  by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on May 6th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• The duplicate is here: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/305770
  
  Regards,
  -BAM

  • Report
  

  by BAM@Cyberscrewed.tk on June 12th, 2008

Comments

Comments