Do you support gay marriage?

[LadyKitty]

Image by Dall-E

Yes

No

[wolfcat87]

Of course! Marriages predate religions and laws. It's no one's business when two people of any gender want to commit to each other for life and get equal treatment. Laws and societies have no right to decide who can marry and benefit from marriage.

Only miserable and hate filled people feel the need to try to restrict the love and relationships of strangers... Misery loves company. They deserve any bad karma they get in life from acting like that. It's disgusting.

[Sirenboobzilla]

Absolutely. My best friend is gay. I've already threatened... err, I mean suggested that I should be his maid of honor

[LadyKitty]

My brother is gay and I told him the same thing lol

[AviatorTom]

I have been chastised before for my opinion, but please hear me out.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I have no problem with same-sex couples (male or female) but I dislike calling it marriage, and calling a same-sex coupling marriage really messes up some laws that have been around for centuries..

[Curmudgeon]

Bingo. As for gay intentional lifelong relationships, classify them as something other than a marriage, just because they exist.

And even the honestly churchy people should be able to accept that. "Render Unto Caesar" and all that. See the accounts in Matthew 22:15–22 and Mark 12:13–17 and Luke 20:20–26. Now churchy people, you might still find such relationships abominations, but they do exist, and Caesar (the rules on this world, not the next) needs some way to classify them.

[Friendlybro79]

@Curmudgeon @AviatorTom this sounds like a you problem. You can get over it because it doesn't affect your life at all. You're certainly allowed you're opinion but it doesn't really matter because this doesn't really matter what it's called.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Friendlybro79 So you are offended because someone has an opinion that you don't like? That sounds like intolerance.

[molonski2]

My thoughts exactly Tom.
They can have a civil union or whatever you want to call it , legally binding of course , but marriage is between a man and a woman. There is also the element of children , when in same sex you should not be able to access government funded means to reproduce , you give up that right.
Now , sure if you have some friend willing to donate sperm or eggs ( at your cost ) , then fine , you worked your way around it , fair enough , although that does open a whole other can of worms on medical history and the like.

[Friendlybro79]

@OlderAndWiser sounds like you didn't read what I wrote. I said you're entitled to your opinion but it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter what it's called. I'm not offended because it doesn't bother me at all that you feel it should be between man and a woman? Are you offended that others don't agree with you? This is a you problem because your opinion isn't going to change the fact that marriage doesn't have to be just between a man or woman. My point was who cares which implies I'm not offended lol.

[Friendlybro79]

Simply put me don't care what it's called because it doesn't matter what I or anyone thinks. This isn't an actual problem.

If you do think it is that's a you problem. You're not able to change it.

[Friendlybro79]

I don't... me don't is what you should make fun of me about haha

[OlderAndWiser]

@Friendlybro79 I read what you wrote: "this sounds like a you problem." That sounds very judgmental. Maybe that's not the way you feel; I'm just responding to the words I read.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

The institution of marriage is over 4000 years old with recorded origins in Mesopotamia. In Mesopotamia, marriage was perfectly normal between same sex couples in the same way it was between men and women.

In fact, ancient marriages also made their way into Greek, Roman and Jewish society from Mesopotamia. Gay marriage in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome was only considered shameful to the male who took on the role of the woman. So, gay marriage predates Christian marriages with your definition being contemporary—a historical fad—and messes with the oldest traditions of the human race.

[OlderAndWiser]

@TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff Assuming that what you reported is true, this would be a great argument if being an ancient tradition automatically made something good and worthy. Rituals involving human sacrifice are ancient, aren't they? Should re reinstitute human sacrifices?

Here's another. "In early Greek history, during times of plague or famine, when the precarious agrarian societies started to fear for their survival, each Greek town would elect its ugliest inhabitant, known as the pharmakos. (“Ugly” in this case probably meant deformed in some way, and certainly from the fringes of society. An aristocrat with a big nose would not qualify.) For a while, this person would be fed at public expense with the most exquisite delicacies available at the time—figs, barley cakes and cheese. Afterwards, he or she (or they – some places, like Athens, would choose two lucky uggos, a man and a woman) would be driven through the town while being violently smote with leeks and wild plants by a wrathful mob. This ugly unfortunate’s fate largely depended on the town’s own tradition. In some places he or she was merely cast out of the city, while in others the pharmakos would be stoned to death, burned, or thrown off a cliff." www.atlasobscura.com/.../the-ancient-greeks-sacrificed-ugly-people

Here's another great ancient tradition: "Under Roman law, fathers had the right to inflict horrendous punishments on their children – from beating and starving them to killing them, although history shows us that few dads resorted to the latter." www.uq.edu.au/.../beating-starvation-and-murder-%E2%80%93-childhood-was-tough-ancient-times

So, your argument falls short of being convincing to anyone who thinks critically.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@OlderAndWiser let's put aside your straw man and red herring here. Leeks were not traded from Central Asia with Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome until around 100 AD. The same sex tradition of marriage predates that by 4000 years. So, what may or may not have come later with the rise of Christianityand the throwing of leeks is moot. As is the sacrifice of people and animals. Modern religion, where the anti-same sex marriage draws its basis, also instructs in moral practices that no one follows. So, you are cherry picking here. These are red herrings and have little to do with the actual matter of same sex marriage, which also predates Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece.

If you want to take a moral basis for same sex marriage being amoral thus wrong and change the meaning of marriage, which was appropriated from Mesopotamia, then let's look at that.

Is homosexuality wrong because of anal sex? Does that mean heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex should be barred from marriage? With a failure to decry anal sex in general, then that in itself leads us to look at other possibilities.

Is homosexuality an unnatural state or a perversion of nature? Well, we know that isn't true because it is naturally occurring in nature and not just in humans. Furthermore, we know that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, which is also related to hormone levels in the womb during pregnancy. So, we know that it is a naturally occurring state. Let's move on to a cultural consideration.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@OlderAndWiser Is same sex marriage wrong for cultural reasons? Cultures adapt and change and many cultures do not have an issue with it. The contemporary (recent) rise in anti-same sex marriage has its roots in Christianity, which also prosecuted innocent women and burned them at the stake. Like the treatment of women, the basis for the prejudice was a lack of education so as to understand the natural causes and basis for same sex attraction, which would support the historical basis for same sex marriage going back to 4000 BC.

I think regardless of what you may wish or want, same sex marriage is between the people getting married and has little to do with what you want or think or believe or feel. There will be marriages again between same sex couples as there were historically as people go back to the original definitions of what is and isn't marriage. Like I said, the anti-same sex marriage position is a contemporary fad like fashion and taste in music. It comes and goes and changes especially where a minority is concerned.

[YesterdaysChild]

@Curmudgeon Just because man chooses not to follow God and instead follows men and their own ways, it still doesn't mean it's an accepted thing to do. Just don't push it up my nose.

[OlderAndWiser]

@TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff "let's put aside your straw man and red herring here." Hahaha!

I don't justify my feelings on the basis of what basis of what people did 4,000 years ago. That's simply pedantic.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@OlderAndWiser am I to understand that you use fallacies to reason or that there is an actual reason for your belief because I am interested in understanding that. What makes your belief morally superior? Because so far it is coming across as "just because" and that isn't very logical at all.

[Friendlybro79]

@OlderAndWiser I can see how you could read it that way and no that's not the way I feel. When I think of disagreements I have I ask myself the question, Does this really matter in the grand scheme of things?"

For ex.
Will this end the world?
Do my opinion or feelings get to disrupt other people's happiness?
Are we playing a semantics game?

If I say no and yes to the semantics question, I tell myself this is a me problem, and I move on.

Obviously there could be some exceptions depending on the conversation or topic where it's more complicated. For this topic, I unemotionally believe this is a problem for people that haven't answered the above questions for themselves and have it thought it through. If you're a married man and woman your happiness isn't being infringed on over the semantics of the word and how it's used. Worry about yourselves. Why do you even care is a follow up question? This is one of the easiest things not to care about.

[YesterdaysChild]

@TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff And many will be going to the basement of Heaven because of their beliefs. Fact: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. He made them one flesh, which in today's term is marriage. It was between a man and a woman. If God did not think homosexuality was wrong he would have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. God makes the rules and His rules are the only ones that matter. People today are only interested in hearing what tickles their ears and not what God says.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@YesterdaysChild from your statements, I would think that you're following the Old Testament in the fashion of the Jews?

[YesterdaysChild]

@TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff The Old Testament rules were mostly done away with after the Day of Pentecost, which when Christ was crucified. However the 10 commandments and others are still in force. In the New Testament Paul says to abstain from sexual immorality. That includes homosexuality. But that is just our view, how others choose to live their life is up to them. If there are any repercussions it is on them.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

@YesterdaysChild Sexual immorality would also include sex without the intention of having children (e. g. using contraceptives), watching porn, engaging in anal sex with a woman or as woman, dressing in a sexualised way, taking, sexualised images of yourself or others, looking at sexualised images of yourself or others including topless men or women, masturbation, sex before marriage, divorce, sex out of wedlock, giving or receiving oral sex, etc. Can't really pick and choose. You either follow the rules or you don't.

[jennifer_bloom]

I don't find the idea of gay marriage to be pleasing and pleasurable but I will not interfere with gay people or with the relationships they choose to build in their homosexual condition. I also will not disrespect them or treat them like an enemy but I personally do not like the idea of a homosexual connection, I think it is at variance to what is biologically desirable. However, I've met gay people who are absolutely amazing in their level of compassion or intelligence or devotion to philanthropy. My friend said, she does not endorse homosexuality but she believes it's just one aspect of their personality, they can still have very admirable qualities that she esteems and values, even if there are certain things about them she does not relate to or share. One of the nicest guys I know was a gay doctor and I want him to be healthy and content with his life. Some gay people really do deserve award medals for the good things they have done.

[Curmudgeon]

As for gay intentional lifelong relationships, classify them as something other than a marriage, just because they exist.

And even the honestly churchy people should be able to accept that. "Render Unto Caesar" and all that. See the accounts in Matthew 22:15–22 and Mark 12:13–17 and Luke 20:20–26. Now churchy people, you might still find such relationships abominations, but they do exist, and Caesar (the rules on this world, not the next) needs some way to classify them.

[_piotr]

Not at all! It is a horrible abomination and against God as other alphabet LGBT... stuff.

This is what Bible has to say about this wickedness:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Case closed.

[wiltingrosepetal]

Marriage is designed with an outdated, heterosexual lense. Many of the traditions are rooted in beliefs that we left in the past long ago. The dad walks his daughter down the aisle to show him handing his object off to another man. The garter toss has the groom strip a piece of clothing off of the bride to show he's removing her virginity.

The fact is that weddings evolve as we evolve. It's now common for the mother to walk her daughter down the aisle, or to see a bouquet toss. Homosexual weddings are just another evolution. If people want to get angry over gay weddings then they should also get angry the garter toss doesn't happen anymore. And must I add, that was about STRIPPING in front of a bride's family to show him defiling her innocence... yeah... some traditions have to change.

[molonski2]

Every wedding I've been to ( Western ) the garter is still tossed , I like that tradition..

[wiltingrosepetal]

And I like the tradition of the dad walking his daughter down the aisle, I'd never want to take that moment away from my father. But still, it's important to recognise the sexist implications behind these traditions

[molonski2]

That still happens too.. who remotely cares , its tradition.

[wiltingrosepetal]

Okay

[Orangekiss]

@wiltingrosepetal - "STRIPPING in front of a bride's family to show him defiling her innocence..." Where in heaven's name do they do this? I have NEVER heard of this ever going on. That wouldn't be a marriage, that would be a strip show and her pimp.

[molonski2]

@Orangekiss
Its not stripping , she is referring to tossing the garter , which certainly happens all over the world , its simply removed and tossed ( generally ) although you can be hand selected , but its certainly NOT stripping.

[Orangekiss]

@molonski2 Sure didn't sound like it to me. But there are a lot of things I've never heard before on G@G. 😮

[molonski2]

@orangekiss
Yeah , look it just a ludicrous exaggeration of what happens of course , when the garter is gifted thrown it's just a part of tradition and fun.

[TenderFantasy]

Yes, it's none of my business who they are going out with or who they end up marrying. I'm not in their bedroom about to film them doing the dirty. If they want/NEED the tax breaks that come with being married or having a long-term domestic partner, then so be it. If they want someone (and that someone happens to be their same sex partner who they are romantically invovled with) to be on their DNR or Medical Directive forms, then so be it as well. Who am I do dictate what they do with their personal lives? I don't have that right with a heterosexual couple, why would I have that right with the gay ones?

[abc3643]

It's only logical that same-sex marriage should be permissible. "Pair bonding", as biologists call it, between two organisms of the same species exists in many other species and not just humans.

In the human world, denial of same-sex marriage is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses. That's easy to see for even a student not yet in law school. And that's exactly why the US Supreme Court ruled the way it did in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

[abc3643]

I forgot to add: With pair bonding in other species, the two organisms may be of the same sex. In other words, being homosexual is not exclusive to humans and so homosexual pair bonding exists in other species as well. This is endemic and not based on religion or law, but on biology.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[Curmudgeon]

Except that marriage has in it the very act of breeding, which has legal and societal implications that same sex unions, no matter how loving such unions are. And I won't knock them, get your love where you can and all that, and "not that there is anything wrong with that", as Jerry Seinfeld put it. But to call such pairings the same as marriages is like calling a Mule a Horse because both have four legs and a tail and both can pull a cart. It's still a Mule, and I am sure you know your biology which is why the analogy is even more apt.

But more importantly and mark my words, just as Roe. V. Wade was finally overturned for trying to read something into the Constitution that Just. Was. Not. There., Obergefell v. Hodges should go the same way, and hopefully a lot sooner. This is a 9th and 10th Amendment Issue, and the Constitution is silent about Homosexuality; it is not even a little bit bi-curious. These issues need to be hashed out in the State legislatures as the Constitution intended, for matters not spelled out as powers of the Federal Government.

[abc3643]

@Curmudgeon Again, as I mentioned earlier. Procreation/breeding are irrelevant to marriage.

[Curmudgeon]

@abc3643 Sez you and the Court. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see otherwise.

But leaving that aside. Obregefell is again, as has all too often happened in the past, reading magic into the Constitution that Just. Is. Not. There. These matters have to be hashed out in the states.

[abc3643]

@Curmudgeon Believe what you wish. It is irrelevant.

[RainbowMarinade]

@Curmudgeon
“Except that marriage has in it the very act of breeding.” But it’s not a requirement. Because if it was, then infertile couples couldn’t be married either.
You’re not arguing that, are you?

[katiesmuff]

Support NO, Do I really care NO as it is actually none of my business. Now ask me if a gay person or couple could be friends with me and I'd answer YES absolutely, just don't push the marriage part on me. I am not very religious but I do believe as most all religions do that marriage is intended for a male and female.

There however should be a legal term for gays and lesbians who want to be married as such so legal matters can be handled. Call it some kind of Union where it can legally go through the legal system for whatever.

[Curmudgeon]

Bingo again. Just call it something other than a marriage, because it doesn't have the baby making potential of marriage, which does make a heck of a lot of difference legally and otherwise. "Love is Love"? NO.

The love of sex partner to sex partner is different than the love of parent to child, which is different than the love of siblings. All are fine things, but they are all *different*.

Even the ancient Greeks, who were totally gay as we all know, understood this and had different terms for love: Sex vs. Eros vs. Philios vs. Agape and all that. Surely we in the 21st Century still understand that.

[rigmarole]

Nope. Marriage is a religious idea. The concept is one man and one woman merge together into one person. That even makes sense on a biological level because when a man impregnates a woman, half of his chromosomes merge with half of her chromosomes to form one new human. Before we even discovered how that worked at a genetic/molecular level that was laid out in the Bible. It doesn't work the same way when two men plow each other in the ass or two women scissor each other. No marriage occurs...

[abc3643]

Marriage is not a religious idea. It's more instinctive than that.

[Curmudgeon]

@abc3643 Be that as it may, the legal and societal implications of breeding are much more serious. So call such same sex partnerships something else, which would be fine.

[abc3643]

@Curmudgeon Breeding is irrelevant. I married my wife after she had a hysterectomy. SCOTUS itself said that procreation was irrelevant to marriage in their Obergefell v. Hodges opinion.

"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e. g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556

[abc3643]

" That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one."

[abc3643]

" No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

 The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered."

[Curmudgeon]

@abc3643 Sorry, until recent history, breeding was very much relevant. Now that it cannot happen anymore for older folks does not make the legal recognition of the fact that it all too often happens for younger folks any less relevant and important to them, and to the broader society as a whole.

The Court's reasoning here, like that of Roe, will be found flawed.

But even more importantly is the Court's overreach, again not letting the process of where and how a same sex partnership be structured play out in the state legislatures, as the Constitution originally intended where it was silent on matters. The parameters of Federal power were meant to be narrow unless amended. And to try to apply the 14th Amendment (meant for freed slaves) to this matter is just gross Court overreach.

[rigmarole]

You’re missing the entire point. Being that marriage is a religious idea, the freedom to marry or not marry a person cannot be infringed by the State. Under the first amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Clearly homosexuals have a different religion than the Christians that founded this country. The Bible speaks plainly about sodomy being amoral. Marriage is explicitly laid out as between a man and a woman in the Bible so on and so forth. This is why marriage licenses had to be obtained from the county clerk by the General Assembly in 1777. According to the law, certain kinds of relationships were prohibited from getting married and Christian clergy had to officiate at the wedding prior to 1963. This was the original intention of marriage law in the eyes of those who wrote it an enforced it, because those eyes belonged to fellow Christians with common beliefs. The flaw in the law, is that the State has no place in religious matters to begin with. Therefore, marriage licenses should not exist through the state at all. The state should not regulate marriage or divorce. Your religious institution, whatever that may be, should manage that in it’s own institution for it’s own believers under your own religious code. The state should remove itself completely from the concept of marriage. Then you are free to pursue whatever religion you’d like and practice your associated customs. Obviously different religions will disagree on religious matters, but it is not the Sate's place to take sides on how people practice their religion.

[rigmarole]

Furthermore as I have previously outlined science agrees with the Christian view of marriage. In Biology you have mating practices that lead to pair bonding in certain species. That occurs between a male and female of that particular species for the purpose of reproduction. The pair become emotionally attached and typically stick together for long periods of time if not for life, yes but it’s ultimately for raising their children together. That is the intent regardless if they are successful or not. When they mate in sexual reproduction half of the male’s chromosomes merge with half of the female’s chromosomes to form a unified offspring. Biology and Christianity are in agreement. You might be anti-Christian and you might be anti-Science; if that’s what your religion teaches so be it, that’s fine… No one said you had to be right. The reality of marriage is none the less observable in nature and well defined in religion. It was also well defined in American law, even if in recent years those laws have been perverted.

[abc3643]

1. Breeding is irrelevant to marriage. If marriage was required for breeding, every organism on Earth would be dead.
2. "Being that marriage is a religious idea" is false. Marriage predates any formal religions and exists, via pair bonding, in non-human animals as well. Not too many penguins go to church, last I checked.

[abc3643]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWqdqkP6jlk

[rigmarole]

@abc3643 Yet somehow "marriage" is an English word. You've spun yourself into a logic trap because the English language didn't predate formal religion. Language is at the center of law. The concept of marriage orginates in Europe in the common era after Christ's death. Europe was and still is a geographical region dominated by Christianity. Hesse marriage is a religious idea specifically pulled from the Bible. Christians migrated to the Americas and founded American marriage laws based on Christianity. Face it, you’re wrong… Get over it...

c. 1300, mariage, "action of entering into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife, matrimony, wedlock;" also "a union of a man and woman for life by marriage, a particular matrimonial union;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, past participle of maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The Vulgar Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje, and compare mariachi

Meanings "the marriage vow, formal declaration or contract by which two join in wedlock;" also "a wedding, the celebration of a marriage; the marriage ceremony" are from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) "intimate union, a joining as if by marriage" is from late 14c.

[rigmarole]

*Hence

[rigmarole]

[Anonymous]

I am not opposed to homosexuals and lesbians have long term relationships that are recognized at law, by I am bothered by calling it "marriage." This is an attempt to label homosexual and lesbian relationships is a way that makes them seem comparable to heterosexual marriages, and the two are distinctly different. After all, the survival of our species depends on heterosexuals reproducing.

I don't care what people do behind closed doors but don't use tricks to try to make me think that it is normal.

[Curmudgeon]

Well put otherwise, but even avoiding the value judgment of "normal", such a relationship just *does not* have the breeding implications that marriage has. It just doesn't.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Depends on what you mean "support". I mean... I'm not going to do it. I don't think the government should recognize it. I don't think the government should recognize straight marriage either. That's a pact between you and the other person and god/the judge/priest/jedi/whatever. No reason the government should have a say in that.

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, given the children that all too often emerge from it, marriage DOES need a government recognition. And frankly, same sex partnerships merit some kind of government recognition too, render unto Caesar and all that, but a the *same* kind of recognition as a marriage in the way we have always understood it? No, it is not that.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Curmudgeon What does your having kids require a government recognition to do?

[Curmudgeon]

@BoopBoopBeep who has custody, who is responsible for them, who PAYS for them, and that is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Curmudgeon Yeah none of that is relevant. People that have kids out of wedlock deal with the same shite. Government isn't the magical solution there.

[Curmudgeon]

@BoopBoopBeep And how much bad shite that has turned out to be! My point exactly! No, Government certainly is not a magical solution, but when the law it makes becomes "clear as mud", well now, we are where we have been for the last few decades, which is frankly craptastic.

[bobalife]

I do wish the world just let people be themselves and let people love who they want… instead of trying to have a say of who they are and who they love or can not love. ❤️🧡💛💚🩵

[strateguy632]

you missed the point i can "love" a married woman but i still must restrain myself. the issue in this question marriage but obviously they feel whatever feelings.

[bobalife]

Yes anyone is allow to have feelings.

[strateguy632]

to @bobalife i agree with you about feelings.

[RebelinSteel]

If two people love each other, the fact they are gay should not come into it. The thing that everyone should be behind is that love is important, however no we have people coming out with hate because two people love each other.

[bobalife]

Very heartfelt, thanks for being pawsome and an ally ❤️🧡💛💚🩵

[RebelinSteel]

@bobalife aww spank you

[bobalife]

🙊🙈 your whalecome hehe

[RebelinSteel]

@bobalife you can have my whale come to

[OfDeath]

No. I don’t see the point. Why would a man want to get married to another man? It’s just weird.

I am not ignorant that homosexuality exists. Past civilisations such as the Greeks and even the Vikings had plug pushers, but they didn’t marry each other. The whole point of bun buttering was as a sexual escapade either in secret as part of genuine desire or simply because there were no women available or none available to those men. It also happened as a luxury available to those in power or of great wealth. However it was not seen as socially acceptable for 2 fairies to tie the proverbial knot because that doesn’t lead to any social benefit or economic growth and doesn’t sustain population which was important.

Times haven’t really changed since then in terms of the functionality of marriage so I have to say no to tying two penises together in a knot so to speak.

[Danny_dan92]

I have nothing against it.




Two caveats.




1. (Obviously this means they would have to adopt kids (if they want kids)




That being said, if this happens. They best not molest them, yes. This does happen. They adopt same sex children as them and have their way with them.






2. Don’t try and say you don’t have equal rights. Cause everyone can get married to whoever they want at that point. NOBODY, regardless of their ethnicity or whatever should seek special treatment, that naturally is frictional to society and polarizing. It causes problems




Just like with women’s rights, I believe gay people have a right to marry each other. Just keep it reasonable. And don’t push the envelope to fit your personal needs/wants.

[BCA6010]

It isn't a marriage by definition, because that is a specific relationship that requires a man and a woman.

I don't care that gay people exist or want to be formally recognized as partners in some way, but it isn't a marriage nor should be it be mislabeled as such.

[wolfcat87]

marriage -

the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

a combination or mixture of two or more elements.

[Curmudgeon]

@wolfcat87 Be that as it may, the breeding potential makes it every different. Just to be clear, this does not mean I wish that gay/lesbian people don't get their love where they can in this cold and cruel world; i sincerely hope they do. However, such a same sex union needs to be classified and something else, for the sake of the law and the children. That is all.

[wolfcat87]

@Curmudgeon Why would it make a difference for children? Also, about 20% of people suffer from infertility. Should their marriages be cancelled as well? What about hermaphrodites and other people who are not technically male or female? They make up about 2% of the population.

[Curmudgeon]

@wolfcat87 If we wish to narrow the bounds to just strict breeders rather than *potential* breeders, that might be up to a state legislature, fair enough. (See my 9th and 10th Amendment arguments with @abc3643).

And again, I am all in favor of *some* kind of legal recognition of a same sex partnership, not only for the particular kind of love that it is, but also for the practical matters of property ownership, medical and personal decisions, etc. This is not an all-or-nothing matter, creating some kind of legal framework for such relationships is essential, but calling such relationships what they are not just makes law clear as mud, when ideally law should be straightforward so any average citizen can understand it.

[wolfcat87]

@Curmudgeon What do you think a marriage is exactly?

[Curmudgeon]

@wolfcat87 A situation for sexual congress by which the children which may result have defined people responsible for them. That may not be romantic, but there it is.

[wolfcat87]

@Curmudgeon When and where was that ever the actual definition? 🤔 I'm not saying it can't be that for you, but redefining what marriage means for yourself doesn't mean everyone else has to fit that arbitrary definition.

I have my own definition more based in historical and modern practices, but I also don't expect everyone else to fit it or else they have to give up the marriage label... How long have you been married?

[Yoursweetgirl]

Absolutely. I think gay love is just as valid as straight love so I don't see why they shouldn't be married legally

[molonski2]

At first I would have always said Yes ( We voted on it in Aussie ) ..

But , when it all happened these gays started getting just too confident , and kept adding a letter to the LBYQUTZPAT , etc , and they were really starting to piss me off , they destroyed the rainbow , all want to have children , and saying " love is love " and all this other nonsense , so I thought " Fck em " and voted No.

[Curmudgeon]

Whether it was done out of sincere well meaning naivete, or a sinister desire to make family law an even bigger clusterf*ck than it already is, the facts are that such relationships do not have the baby making and child raising implications that marriages have had for centuries. "Love is Love" is a mindless slogan as there are obviously many different kinds of love. Even the very same sex ancient Greeks understood that and had different terms for love in their language. Have we lost the wisdom of the ancients? Sadly yes.

[molonski2]

This was a turning point for me , I agree with you , had this sloppy dike starting to get into about IVF

How can you qualify for IVF when the point of commencement is impossible? That's when I really began to think " this is just not right "

[NamerOfStars]

I'm surprised the vote's so close. Yes, I support it; I've long been a staunch supporter of strong family presences in people's lives. I have yet to encounter any reason that should be limited to straight people beyond "Ewww!" which isn't actually a reason.

[laurieluvsit]

I am Bi and, yes, it is fine but it needs to have a different name.

They have bastardized the term.

It needs to have a term/name of it's own, exclusively for that.

The Communist Marxist Socialist Democrats running our country have purposely done this to try and destroy 'Traditional Marriages' and that is wrong.

[Curmudgeon]

Bingo. I am all for calling it a same-sex romantic partnership, a Civil Union, what have you. Just NOT a marriage, because that term has legal and societal implications.

[laurieluvsit]

@Curmudgeon
You're right again, as always... lol

[BCRanger10]

No. Marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. While a loving union is important, the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. If you reduce it simply to "two people who love each other", that creates all sorts of issues with the law and with what makes a culture what it is. There has to be something that makes it unique. In the case of marriage, it's the procreation and education of children.

[TheGuyWhoKnowsStuff]

Looking at ancient times, marriage between any sexuality predates all marriages that were believed to be exclusively between a man and a woman. In fact, the concept of marriage has its roots in Mesopotamia where same sex marriages were normal. Attitudes wax and wane across history just like people's taste in music.

[Jessikaah91]

I do support it.. my uncle is gay not married tho but I do see it as if they ain't hurting anybody by their decision then who cares if they marry whether it's male and male or female and female or male and female. their decision doesn't have anything to do with me.

[MrOracle]

Gay people have just as much right to be miserable as straight people.

[LadyKitty]

A little misery builds character lol

[genericname85]

no. i think we should use a different word for that. because to me, marriage is the unification of a man and a woman. not 2 men or 2 women. they should be allowed to live a "marriage like" life but whatever we call that relationship should not be the same name we call the unification between men and women.

[msc545]

I absolutely support it. People that love each other should be allowed to form legal and emotional bonds that they find satisfying. Also, in a more cynical sense, I guess I believe in sharing the misery as well as the joy.

[RavVid]

It is done and dusted where I am from a plebiscite in favor.

Interestingly there is a really high divorce rate in lesbian (two women) marriages and a low divorce rate in gay (no women) marriages.

It seems women are the leading cause of divorce!

[DizzyDesii]

People can sex and marry whoever they want but i will not go out of my way to support a lifestyle that i dont necessarily agree with

[Anonymous]

Huge no and it's cause the aids STDs are passed around like candy!

Omg I will end your life if we do this but w condom should work!

Ops you got HIV giggle giggle I'll give it to my next dozen partners for funs!

Women are more manipulative about giving it and take pleasure in making sure every one they kiss gets it before moving on. Like they make them get tests pretending Thier fake test is negative!

[KittygosMeoWW]

I don’t go out of my way to support it or believe the lgbt+ community should be pushing their agenda with kids but I’m not one to stop someone from their happiness. I’d rather have someone living their truth than lying to another person and robbing them of their time.

[Hanrej]

So long as it doesn't have to involve the church. I strongly believe a society should respect all it's inhabitants and grant gay people marriage in the eyes of the law but forcing it on the practitioners of faith that abolish homosexuality isn't very respectful. Also, I never understood why homosexual people would even want to wed at a church under a religion that view their relationship as a sin.

[ManOnFire]

I do not support gay marriage but have no problems with gay people on a day to day to basis.

[AngryCarl]

As Mr. Burns famously said, "Let the fools have their tartar sauce." You don't believe me?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/X25rP4rTw3A

[SphynxUK]

Marriage is marriage regardless of who’s participating.

[rosemilk]

i don't care what other people want to do with their lives or relationships

[Anonymous]

I don’t really like the marriage use, it’s more like a civil union to get the same benefits as a married couple since marriage was intended for a man and woman because during the time it was established, women were property and second class citizens. I don’t care what they do, but they should probably use some other type of contract for that

[msmissydc]

I was maid of honor for my best friend's and her wife's marriage. I support their marriage, yes. 🤗

[D_Bone_Steak]

Marriage is already broken... bitches get their child support without it now, so why does it even exist anymore? I don't give a fuck... let the butt fuckers and rug munchers do it as well.

[HawkPerception]

Sure. Do whatever makes you feel happy. I don't agree with transitioning genders, but if you like your butthole rammed or doing some weird scissor stuff, who am I to judge?

[sean1234]

There is no "gay" marriage as its not in the bible. Biblically speaking, it makes no sense at at considering "marriage" is also symbolic between christ and his church. Marriage between 2 churches is nonsense and there is only one christ Jesus.

[Nikki1989]

Absolutely.

Nobody has any right to say who can get married and who can't.

[JacobJordan]

My brother is gay. Doesn't bother me long as i am not expected to celebrate it. He is a guy. I am a guy. I married a woman. He is marrying a man. Outcome is largely the same except. I had my own children he will have to adopt.

Besides i know the science behind it and it is rather tragic

[LadyKitty]

'Science'? There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

[JacobJordan]

I didn't say there was lol. The assumptions are hilarious.

[LadyKitty]

You implied the science behind it is rather tragic < To imply it is tragic is would mean there was something wrong.

[JacobJordan]

Lol walked right into that one didn't you. No I said it was tragic because it is rather sad. Gay is completely natural and lots of evidence of it in nature. No what I am referring to is the fact that not everyone is gay. Being gay is an evolutionary trigger. Everyone has it actually but it is rather like a locked box. In most people that box remains locked their entire life. For some that box is unlocked upon birth. In animals it is common to see the gay animals as the weak, unneeded, essentially those whose bloodline should not carry on through that particular animal. So essentially humans that are gay have been selected by nature as not necessary for humanities continued survival. As such they do not need to procreate so they are attracted to same sex partners. In fact in nature the activation of that is one of the first signs of an animals negative effect on the environment around it and nature's attempt to correct that. We have seen it many times in wild animals. Stage 1 of restoring balance is same sex attraction to decrease breeding and offspring production. If that fails stage 2 is evolution of another species to hunt the threat so as to cull the numbers. Should that fail stage 3 typically involves the mutation, emergence and spreading of a virus, bacteria, pathogen, etc designed to wipe out large portions of the threat (we have not had an emergence like that in a long long time) and lastly if that fails stage 4 total ecological collapse triggering extinction level events designed to plunge the earth into an extreme cooling phase and restart the environment.

[LadyKitty]

The idea that homosexuality in humans or animals is a kind of nature's control mechanism or a sign of being 'unnecessary' for survival is a big misconception. Actually, homosexuality is pretty common in the animal kingdom, and it's not about being weak or unneeded. Evolution and nature don't really work in those deliberate stages you mentioned. It's more about random changes and survival, not about judging who should be around or not.

Also, being gay isn't about nature selecting someone as not needed for humanity. It's just a natural variation, like many others in nature. It's important to understand and respect this diversity rather than boiling it down to a simplistic 'nature's culling' viewpoint.

If you want to dive into some of the science behind this, check out these articles. They explain things way better and in more detail:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02312-0
open.lib.umn.edu/.../

[EdgyBoi2002]

Actually, I have to point one thing out. Technically gays still can have children and there's 3 options (including adoption, yes but it's not the only option)
1. sperm donor. You're still reproducing, assuming some woman actually uses it.
2. surrogate mothers. Actually in the homosexual community, I've seen it again and again.
Since gays and lesbians technically can't reproduce, they can actually be surrogates.
and then yes there is adoption.

Lastly, no. It's not saying that they're 'unneeded.' because that factor is too loose. If that was the case, why in the hell do we still have genitalia if we don't bloody need it.(As a gay person myself I have done my own research.) The simple truth is, some people have kids, some don't, doesn't matter what sexuality, they can still reproduce (unless they're infertile which oof sorry for them then) Also that is comparing human reproductive genes and preferences to animal genes which is, again, too loose. That may be the case with animals themselves (yes humans are animals, but we're much more complex than most, and so is our sexual preference. That and technically this 'gay gene' isn't really locked because at the end of it all, it comes down to choice.) but it's not reliable to compare our sexual habits to that of animals. (Now I'm not saying you are wrong, okay?) The fact with humans is, sexual preference isn't necessarily genetic at least for us, unlike things that can pass down, autism, ADHD, and other mental/physical disorders.) It literally all comes down to choice for us. So no that's not nature saying homosexuals are unneeded for humanity's survival. Then finally it also comes to whether that person actually wants to reproduce or not. luckily, the majority does so it doesn't matter, and those who do, regardless of preference at least in guys' case: I listed to reliable options other than adoption if a gay guy or a lesbian actually wants to reproduce. Sperm banks and surrogates.

[EdgyBoi2002]

Well okay they can reproduce and that's where surrogates come in. If you are infertile, then yes you would need to adopt and that is a sad truth.

[EdgyBoi2002]

Last thing- Bisexuals exist thus trumping the gay gene in humans completely. Because if anything that's sexual preference in humans, not genetic. Those who are infertile do need to adopt as I said (assuming they want kids in the first place). But as long as you still have functional fertile reproductive organs and do desire children you can make them, gay or not. Thus, it comes down to choice like I said. If homosexuals want to reproduce they can get a surrogate (probably the better option frankly than a sperm bank.) either by donating the sperm to a single woman/or lesbians who want children, and requesting to be in contact/or see their children, etc.(again, if they want kids). That's actually pretty common in the homosexual community for a gay couple and a lesbian couple to take turns caring for kids as surrogates and it applies to the same with single women too.

[JacobJordan]

I don't need to dive into the science behind it lol I am a scientist. Well I was I still own the laboratory and employee people. You can deny it all you want though.

[LadyKitty]

See now I know your talking out your ass. You claim to be a scientist but as soon someone prevents you evidence and debunks your claims you pulled from some right wingers agenda ya start lying.

[LadyKitty]

presents*

[Orangekiss]

Now that depends on what your beliefs and perceptions are. The 2000 U. S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

It may be that no one will ever know for sure. To some people, homosexuality is a matter of perception and definition. Furthermore, many people have trouble admitting their homosexuality to themselves, much less to a researcher. But when Gallup asked Americans for their best estimate of the American gay and lesbian population, the results made all the figures mentioned above look conservative. So I would say more think it is wrong than those that think there is nothing wrong with it. But ultimately, God calls it an abomination and His opinion is the only one that matters in the end.

[LadyKitty]

@Orangekiss Religion is a personal belief, and if your religion requires you to hate someone based on their sexuality then that is something I wouldn't want to be apart of.

[EdgyBoi2002]

ok no. I'm not denying anything I'm stating an open fact, which a supposed scientist should know well. The if it's a gene animals that may be, but humans are far more complex on our sexuality and our intelligence than animals will ever be.
Again, for us, homosexuality isn't a genetic, it's a choice and a preference. Again.. There's no science to it, and I know my sexuality, good sir. If it was as you say, then why the hell do we still have the reproductive fluids? I'm not denying any facts, I'm denying false evidence with real facts from actual experience (sort of). I'm already gay, and I've seen it thousands of times in the homosexual community as one. Natural selection will never influence personal choice (i mean it can, but the chances are slim, and again if there is any science behind it, explain bisexual people because if a 'gay' gene exists I'm sure that one exists too. Hell I know actual doctors who know that stuff well (Including my own doctor). And even he said it's not a gene for us like it is in animals, it's a choice. And who knows human anatomy better than a damn doctor (s) because I'm sure if you went to a handful, they would also tell you it's a choice. And I have actual sources that can prove my own evidence further. Actually in fact, genes play very limited role if any at all in homosexuality. Sexuality is just complex at least for us, animals are a different story that I will not delve into. Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are usually that way by choice. I'm not going to ever have kids, but there are gay guys who do, and they don't necessarily have to adopt (unless both men are infertile.) Surrogates, surrogates and surrogates.(Sperm banks too if absolutely necessary but the chance of you actually meeting a child of yours as a sperm donor is too slim, which is why I put surrogates over donating sperm.)

[EdgyBoi2002]

@Orangekiss love, if your god thought it was an abomination, why do they even exist? With all the power gods supposedly have this should be easy for them to shut down. Heck its a big misconception: I know friends who do go to church (I do not, but that's another story that doesn't belong here.) and never once did they have an issue with homosexuality.

[AngryCarl]

@jacobjordan Firstly your "science" seems more like an unsubstantiated theory. Secondly you imply that gays are of no use to the larger community, which is clearly wrong. Well-known homosexual Alan Turing basically saved Western civilization by breaking the Enigma code in WW2.

[JacobJordan]

@AngryCarl false I said they are not needed for the continuation of humanity. They are just as useful as everyone else. Nor is it unsubstantiated. It occurs quite often in nature it occurs often enough that we can predict which species is liable to go through it next should they continue damaging the ecosystem. I and about 15 others wrote a multi hundred page document containing our findings. The cause of homosexuality in animals is a form of population control. In non sentient animals it prevents them from reproducing. In humans as someone pointed out they can utilize a surrogate or donate sperm. So among humanity it is not as effective. What is vastly more interesting is the apparent growing comfort of wild animals in proximity to humans. Animals that normally would run from humans have begun to display signs that they are not as scared of us as they originally were. Genetic samples of those animals has shown an interesting change in their biology as well compared to 10, 20 or even 40 years ago. Not conclusive evidence as of yet but based on the information it seems like some animals are beginning to evolve to potentially hunt us. That is the second phase we see in nature should the first phase not work. Still early but we shall see. The last major phase 3 event humanity went through was the bubonic plague. The Spanish flu was rather odd in that there were no leading factors that one can normally track to associate it with am attempted correction by nature.

[JacobJordan]

Right now my lab is going through samples of viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites etc that have been sealed under the currently thawing permafrost. Stuff that has not seen biological life since the dinosaurs or before. We have to break them down into their building blocks to determine which (if any) pose a threat and determine how much of a threat (if at all) they pose to humanity. The ones that pose the biggest threats will be prioritized for study and developing treatment, vaccines or cures. As things stand right now various parts of earth are on the verge of ecological collapse. It is not information spread all that much but it is one of the main driving forces behind the push to move away from fossil fuels.

[EdgyBoi2002]

Technically, no one human is actually needed for humanity's continued survival but rather the mass, and if anything ecological collapse has more to do with urbanization than natural selection. Pollution is one of the biggest playing factors out there- Global warming too, but then there are too factors we can't control because it is beyond our control and it has nothing to do with natural selection: climate change and continental drifting which are tied: as the climate changes and continents drift, they slowly get closer or further from the equator, which causes climate changes from rising/lowering temperature, which is also causing collapse. The only thing life can do is adapt to changes, it's slow but it happens. Though even life can't adapt quickly when pollution/urbanization are messing with the environment to: so the thing damaging humanity's survival is humanity itself. And half the stuff we do doesn't help. Yes there are people who clean up the environment which does help a bit. Then comes global warming, which the primary factor is again pollutants, many of which are greenhouse gasses, heck even water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The most we can do is delay it and no one human is going to help survival or ecological issues. Everyone pitches in, in some way or the other.

[AngryCarl]

@jacobjordan That sounds wrong in principle. Evolution is a survival mechanism, not a way of protecting the ecosystem. How would animals "know" that they were becoming too populous? And what would be the biological mechanism for producing gayness?

[JacobJordan]

@AngryCarl evolution is not just survival of a species but also preservation of an environment. Deer for example evolved to survive off plants if left unchecked they destroy eco systems so nature has created a predator that evolves to hunt deer. That predator if left unchecked would kill all deer so nature has created migratory movements to allow for replenishment of the herd. Some amphibious creatures are capable of self reliant reproduction or changing from male to female or female to male based on population. It is not something animals have control over it is a biological mechanism that trips when an animal begins to be a threat to the environment. Every animal has several failsafe triggers in their genetics to prevent complete destruction of an ecosystem as well as several external threats that evolved to thin the damage caused. Example Yellowstone national park. Humans killed and/or drove off all the wolves thus removing the main predator for the deer. The deer grew exponentially and over the course of many years vegetation vanished, bugs disappeared, insects fish birds bears rivers dried up they introduced a small population of wolves. It was a project that began on January 12th 1995. And is to this day one of the most successful wildlife reintroduction programs on earth. The entire ecosystem was collapsing as a result of human hunting. Even with the safeguards evolved into every animal it was not reverting. Upon introduction of the wolves and over the last now 30 years Yellowstone has entirely changed. Healthy foliage, insects, birds, rivers, bugs, everything has stabilized. This has been going on for a very long time all over the world.

[JacobJordan]

Currently we know of closing on 2000 species of animals that exhibit SSB (Same-Sex Behavior). So to answer your question animals have no control over being attracted to same sex. Nor do humans. Not every biological change is related to the survival of the species. Many of them are in relation to survival of an ecosystem. We still aren't 100% certain how or why it is part of the genetic make up.

[Orangekiss]

There is no hate involved. It is going by the rules set down by God. If you don't believe in God that's your choice. But then gays should not shove their life style down our throats either, or try to indoctrinate children to their lifestyle, especially when gays keep saying they are born gay. So why do they want their children to be gay too?

[JacobJordan]

@Orangekiss while I am not religious at all I absolutely agree. They just need to live their life and stop trying to make us accept it. Most people I know don't care until then. Then they start getting annoyed and don't want to support them.

[AngryCarl]

@jacobjordan It sounds like you believe there is an omnipotent, intelligent entity controlling animal behaviour to preserve the ecosystem in a specific condition. Is that an accurate summary?

[JacobJordan]

@AngryCarl is that what I said? No. Every single living thing on earth evolves to be in a state of equilibrium with the surrounding environment. This includes what may be perceived as a negative for sentient species. Or a disadvantage. It has nothing to do with some omnipotent being. Every living thing has advantages and disadvantages over other living things.

[AngryCarl]

@jacobjordan So then gayness is just an evolutionary accident?

[JacobJordan]

@AngryCarl nothing is an accident when it comes to evolution. It has a purpose. The question then remains what purpose and to what end. In nature we see it happen regularly. Question is why... from our findings animals that exhibit SSB (same-sex behavior) produce less offspring than animals not exhibiting SSB. As a result it slows down the growth of an animal populace. Thereby decreasing over time an animals effect on the ecosystem. However unlike animals and despite us being animals by definition. Humans are the only species that is strict when it comes to SSB. In nature animals that display SSB do not ALWAYS maintain that. Also unlike other animals humans have the ability to utilize a surrogate, sperm donation and other forms of reproduction should they wish to reproduce despite the evolutionary safeguard being activated. That is the difference of sentience over non sentience. Ultimately doesn't seem to mean to much as we have begun seeing evolutionary changes in animals that have a propensity to attack humans as it is. That is the second stage that brings balance back to an ecosystem. Every living thing via evolution and genetics and biological design is meant to be in a state of equilibrium with everything else. Humans are an exception and it shows.

[LiamJHayden]

I do not care what relationship agreements consenting adults make. I just do not trust the third party in marriage, the government.

[strateguy632]

neutral, not supported.

I'm not going to tell people what to do with their lives even when I don't agree with it.

[Redstang88]

Support is a strong word, but I’m not gonna interfere with anyone not bothering me

[Paul09]

Well I don't support religious stuff. But they do have the right to get married. I guess if it makes people happy.

[SotiCoto]

If I said "no" you'd get the wrong idea. I don't agree with marriage at all. Whether it is gay, straight or whatever else doesn't matter in the slightest.

[NathanDavis]

love is love...

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Of course, I do.

[Miristheiss]

No, not really. They are free to do whatever they want... that just isn't really "marriage".

[wolfcat87]

Marriage is just two lives becoming one. There was no other original purpose other than to bring tribes together or gain money or power.

[Miristheiss]

@wolfcat87
Marriage is created by God. Obviously, by your answer, you don't believe there is a God and all right or wrong is determined by humans and their laws and there is no higher authority or ultimate accountability. Whatever humans think feels good... do.
Yes, mankind has made up something called same sex "marriage" and reduced made up their own definition of what marriage is. Yes, I get it.

[wolfcat87]

According to all historical records, marriage predates any written history. It certainly predates any modern god. Making assumptions about me is silly. I'm just stating facts. Everyone knows that modern religious books were edited and compiled by fallible men looking to manipulate people into obeying them. They even left parts out on purpose.

[Miristheiss]

@wolfcat87
"Modern God"
LOL

[jahaims]

I am neutral on all consenting marriage that doesn't involve a minor

[Notherndude84]

100% agree


Everyone should live a free authentic life!!

[Berethor]

No, I live in a country where gay marriage is not legal.

[sean1234]

We live on a planet where it is legal to man and not legal to God.

[Berethor]

Well God is against it, so it's obviously a secular thing to allow it.

[AnusNdaPainus]

I find it hilarious and ironic how most women support gay marriage because Lesbian marriages have much higher divorce rates and Domestic Violence

[grega239]

No. I used to not care, but since the lgbt community decided to force themselves into everything from videogames to movies to hobbies and politics, they can go fuck themselves

[wolfcat87]

"Force" or want to be included like anyone? Have straights forced their way in as well?

[grega239]

@wolfcat87 yes forced.
Example: warhammer 40k space marines can only be male. Feminists want to change that just because it bothers them. Even thou there are in universe reasons for why only men can be space marines.

The last 3 star wars movie are basically the same as the 1st 3 except they swapped luke with rey.

Straights didn't force their way in because heterosexuallity isn't even considered as something to be brought up

[wolfcat87]

Except straights are obviously in everything...

[grega239]

@wolfcat87 yes. But their sexuality isn't being paraded. Its just implied and not mentioned. Its irrelevant

[DextroShade]

I have no problem with because it doesn't adversely affect me or my marriage in any way. One of the biggest failures of the right was complaining and trying to block gay marriage while doing nothing to stop no-fault divorce.

[Anonymous]

Nope but I'm not going to protest against them either. They do them but I will not go to a gay wedding ever.

[worldscolide]

Yes.. Again like your prior question, as long as they aren't hurting anyone and aren't involving children, i do not care.

[matty6500]

I used to be against it, but I've basically come around to not really caring. If it makes 2 people of the same gender happy to be married, I have no reason to stop them from it.

[krin_m]

Of course. I'm not going to tell people what to do with their lives even when I don't agree with it.

[IslaTheWitch]

I support marriage out of love