I think if a priest wants to marry gays he should be allowed and if he doesn’t want to then he shouldn’t be forced to. Whether gays can get married or not isn’t a question the court should be answering that’s up to the church to decide. But outside of the stupid title of marriage gays should def be allowed to have the same sort of rights as straight people I think.
My views are more republican oriented but I can’t support of ban of gay marriage. There’s no reason to intrude on other peoples lives and what they choose to do
All democrats have done for the past 250 years is burn the country, cherish criminals while hurting victims, and trying to take away every civil and constitutional right we have.
It's long overdue that we start stripping them of their rights that they clearly don't deserve, 90% of LGBT+ people vote Democrat so they're on the chopping block, as they should be
@Rangers so you think other people shouldn’t have rights because you don’t agree with the democratic side? Typical narcissist stance. I’ve noticed men that are republican are all about themselves
I'm doing this in response to centuries of democrats depriving others of their God given rights. Being the good guy time is over, it's time to start depriving them of their rights
@Rangers no you are using social media to shove your views down peoples throats and then acting like you aren’t like every other political nut case. Go away narcissist
It’s none of my business who someone falls in love with. As far as I’m concerned, just leave people alone. The only government involvement should be to prevent children from being married.
If marriage is merely about "love" then the parties involved do not need the permission of a government license, nor any pressure from any peers or state service to remain.
The trouble is Marriage as defined in the thousands of years prior to mid 20th century was really about the security of the children produced. In whose stable development the rest of the civilization and in particular their family has a vested interest justifying the support.
This historic fact should be obvious to you after all nobody would 'arrange' a marriage that was simply about 'love' nor would they force it when a child was born as was regularly the case.
Regardless its increasingly clear the children of our civilization desperately need the institution of marriage. As the consequences of lacking a father or mother are becoming increasingly difficult to manage.
Ok how tf is allowing somebody to exercise their freedom to love who they love "overreaching" while banning them isn't? I thought America was supposed to be the Land of the Free? It's in your song and everything ffs
@hayley2008 america is not land of the free or the land of opportunity! its all propaganda so more people immigrate to america and they can exploit them and enslave them with debt. america is land of the enslaved and home of the corrupt lol
No, and this is why im not a republican. Im with them on most things but who consenting adults have sex with is irrelevant. And not all conservatives feel that way.
Pro-freedom party should stop forcing people to support things which in no way benefit them. Marriage is a social service to help hold both parties to a commitment not a 'right'.
We agreed to support said service known as marriage for the proposes of helping to insure more of the next generation will be stable members of our civilization. (We don't want what is currently happening to cities dominated by people lacking father or mother happening to our community).
We did NOT and would not agree to support unions between 2 adults simply because they have such feelings. Their feelings don't entitle them to the benefits of a service intended to protect children, and frankly they shouldn't want to be bound otherwise.
@monorprise Your argument makes no sense. Straight couples who are infertile are not banned from being allowed to marry. So, if it having children were a necessary requirement to get married, then you would have to ban infertile straight people from getting married. Also, single people are allowed to adopt children, as are gay couples (whether married or not). So, maybe for you marriage is all about children, but in reality, people get married for all sorts of different reasons (to show a commitment to spending the rest of your life with someone and caring for them; to be able to make important medical decisions if your spouse is in the hospital and unable to make decisions for himself/herself without having had to get a lawyer to draft documents that would otherwise be necessary, etc. etc.). Also, how does two gay people who live together, and spend their lives together being married (versus being a domestic partnership or just a couple that is dating) in any way harm you?
@Karate_Guy How do you define infertile? The medical definition is not getting pregnant after a year of trying. This is far from not being able to have a baby naturally or even with help. So why would you ban 2 adults from getting married when you DON'T know they can't have a baby?
As for single people adopting kids this is permitted simply because 1 parent is better than none, regardless of weather or not one of both sexes is ideal.
As for your alternate reasons for getting married one does not have to claim nor enjoy the spesfic social and legal benefits of such an institution to achieve theses spesfic ends.
Marriage has a propose and those benefits from society are tied to that propose. Whether you like it or not We are paying for those benefits, and we did not consent to paying for them without even the remotest possibility of children.
@monorprise You are so wrong. If a guy goes to war, and has his junk blown off from a grenade, he cannot procreate. Yet, he can still get married for all the other reasons that society supports marriage. And you say that marriage is all about children, but then you totally ignore the fact that gay couples can adopt children. So, if a straight guy (with his pecker blown off in the war) can get married to a woman and adopt a child, then two gay men or two lesbians should be allowed to get married and adopt a child. So, even assuming marriage is, or should be, all about children, your argument fails. What it comes down to is that you are anti-LGBT and you are just trying to find an excuse to ban them from getting married. Likewise, you fail to explain how two gay people getting married in any way harms you. Mind your own damn business; marry who you want; and let others marry who they want.
@Karate_Guy The fact that some more recent politicians have decided to overlook more obvious barriers to marriage does not change the historic definition. As for adoption that is indeed an option, but probably should be restricted to male and female pairs when possible to best meet the natural needs of the child.
That some people more recently have decided to broaden the terms and conditions for marriage licenses for 'compassionate' reasons does not change the original reason. Technically among the legitimate reasons for divorce is failure to produce children.
@monorprise I'm obviously not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me. Society has evolved, but apparently some people's opinions have not.
@Karate_Guy How does Society "evolve" into not sustaining itself? You need to reread the theory of evolution.
The cultures doing this are dying and will continue to dye until they stop or are replaced by the cultures not doing this. That is the application of evolutionary theory to culture if you opened your eyes you would see its happening right before your eyes.
Wow look at all those 51 male republican idiots that want to stick their nose into other people's private sex life fucking cancerous morons! 🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
1 y
Government should have no say in marriage as it is a religious sacrament. King Henry VIII understood this when he had no interest in a separation of church and state. Which is why he created the Church of England when the Pope refused his divorce request. The only reason government got into marriage in the US was to prevent interracial marriages during segregation.
Yes I support gay marriage, what two consenting adults chose to do with their romantic lives is no ones business other than their own. Separation of church and state.
Regardless of how non-seriously some states take the institution of marriage, the fact is our society's children desperately need something in the role of the original institution to protect them.
Redefining 'marriage' to be about the mere feelings of the adults rather than the protection of the children produced as robed children of their primary system of support and security.
The question of 'gay marriage' is thus built upon an idea that makes any such 'marriage' pointless and increasingly undesirable.
What is the point of the risks and expense of the legal institution that provides no security for anyone in return? That ship didn't sale in Los Vegas, it sailed with no-fault divorces in the 1960's after marriage had in the popular culture been so redefined. The institution not-surprisingly struggled then collapsed in the generations that followed.
I do not support gay marriage ban its dehumanizing. They always tell us when we're little girls to get married and have kids, but I can't decide who I want to do it with? Wtf this. is some bs
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
66Opinion
thats how it starts, then they ban interracial marriage and keep minorities from voting. the latter they already try to do.
these stupid fucks want to bring us back to 1700s culturally, so that the rest of American can become ghost towns like the ones you see in the south.
they out of their damn minds.
why would i care about other peoples marriages
unless you want a 3some with a gay couple its really none of ur business what they do in their free time lol
I hate both Republicans and Democrats
Both sides are crooked, Evil and Wicked People
But I believe, a person has a right to what in the hell they want to do
I think if a priest wants to marry gays he should be allowed and if he doesn’t want to then he shouldn’t be forced to. Whether gays can get married or not isn’t a question the court should be answering that’s up to the church to decide. But outside of the stupid title of marriage gays should def be allowed to have the same sort of rights as straight people I think.
My views are more republican oriented but I can’t support of ban of gay marriage. There’s no reason to intrude on other peoples lives and what they choose to do
Even though all democrats do is try to control everything we do?
@Rangers that has nothing to do with the context being asked. Try again
All democrats have done for the past 250 years is burn the country, cherish criminals while hurting victims, and trying to take away every civil and constitutional right we have.
It's long overdue that we start stripping them of their rights that they clearly don't deserve, 90% of LGBT+ people vote Democrat so they're on the chopping block, as they should be
@Rangers so you think other people shouldn’t have rights because you don’t agree with the democratic side? Typical narcissist stance. I’ve noticed men that are republican are all about themselves
How am I a narcissist when all democrats do is force their beliefs on others and threaten to take their God given rights with violence?
@Rangers and what are you doing to me right now? Pot calling kettle. Stop projecting onto others what you do without even noticing
I'm doing this in response to centuries of democrats depriving others of their God given rights. Being the good guy time is over, it's time to start depriving them of their rights
@Rangers no you are using social media to shove your views down peoples throats and then acting like you aren’t like every other political nut case. Go away narcissist
It’s none of my business who someone falls in love with. As far as I’m concerned, just leave people alone. The only government involvement should be to prevent children from being married.
If marriage is merely about "love" then the parties involved do not need the permission of a government license, nor any pressure from any peers or state service to remain.
The trouble is Marriage as defined in the thousands of years prior to mid 20th century was really about the security of the children produced. In whose stable development the rest of the civilization and in particular their family has a vested interest justifying the support.
This historic fact should be obvious to you after all nobody would 'arrange' a marriage that was simply about 'love' nor would they force it when a child was born as was regularly the case.
Regardless its increasingly clear the children of our civilization desperately need the institution of marriage. As the consequences of lacking a father or mother are becoming increasingly difficult to manage.
Ok how tf is allowing somebody to exercise their freedom to love who they love "overreaching" while banning them isn't? I thought America was supposed to be the Land of the Free? It's in your song and everything ffs
@hayley2008 america is not land of the free or the land of opportunity! its all propaganda so more people immigrate to america and they can exploit them and enslave them with debt. america is land of the enslaved and home of the corrupt lol
No, and this is why im not a republican. Im with them on most things but who consenting adults have sex with is irrelevant. And not all conservatives feel that way.
No. Any party that is pro-freedom should stop banning things and let people live their lives
Pro-freedom party should stop forcing people to support things which in no way benefit them. Marriage is a social service to help hold both parties to a commitment not a 'right'.
We agreed to support said service known as marriage for the proposes of helping to insure more of the next generation will be stable members of our civilization. (We don't want what is currently happening to cities dominated by people lacking father or mother happening to our community).
We did NOT and would not agree to support unions between 2 adults simply because they have such feelings.
Their feelings don't entitle them to the benefits of a service intended to protect children, and frankly they shouldn't want to be bound otherwise.
@monorprise Your argument makes no sense. Straight couples who are infertile are not banned from being allowed to marry. So, if it having children were a necessary requirement to get married, then you would have to ban infertile straight people from getting married. Also, single people are allowed to adopt children, as are gay couples (whether married or not). So, maybe for you marriage is all about children, but in reality, people get married for all sorts of different reasons (to show a commitment to spending the rest of your life with someone and caring for them; to be able to make important medical decisions if your spouse is in the hospital and unable to make decisions for himself/herself without having had to get a lawyer to draft documents that would otherwise be necessary, etc. etc.). Also, how does two gay people who live together, and spend their lives together being married (versus being a domestic partnership or just a couple that is dating) in any way harm you?
@Karate_Guy How do you define infertile? The medical definition is not getting pregnant after a year of trying. This is far from not being able to have a baby naturally or even with help.
So why would you ban 2 adults from getting married when you DON'T know they can't have a baby?
As for single people adopting kids this is permitted simply because 1 parent is better than none, regardless of weather or not one of both sexes is ideal.
As for your alternate reasons for getting married one does not have to claim nor enjoy the spesfic social and legal benefits of such an institution to achieve theses spesfic ends.
Marriage has a propose and those benefits from society are tied to that propose. Whether you like it or not We are paying for those benefits, and we did not consent to paying for them without even the remotest possibility of children.
@monorprise You are so wrong. If a guy goes to war, and has his junk blown off from a grenade, he cannot procreate. Yet, he can still get married for all the other reasons that society supports marriage. And you say that marriage is all about children, but then you totally ignore the fact that gay couples can adopt children. So, if a straight guy (with his pecker blown off in the war) can get married to a woman and adopt a child, then two gay men or two lesbians should be allowed to get married and adopt a child. So, even assuming marriage is, or should be, all about children, your argument fails. What it comes down to is that you are anti-LGBT and you are just trying to find an excuse to ban them from getting married. Likewise, you fail to explain how two gay people getting married in any way harms you. Mind your own damn business; marry who you want; and let others marry who they want.
@Karate_Guy The fact that some more recent politicians have decided to overlook more obvious barriers to marriage does not change the historic definition. As for adoption that is indeed an option, but probably should be restricted to male and female pairs when possible to best meet the natural needs of the child.
That some people more recently have decided to broaden the terms and conditions for marriage licenses for 'compassionate' reasons does not change the original reason. Technically among the legitimate reasons for divorce is failure to produce children.
@monorprise I'm obviously not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me. Society has evolved, but apparently some people's opinions have not.
@Karate_Guy How does Society "evolve" into not sustaining itself? You need to reread the theory of evolution.
The cultures doing this are dying and will continue to dye until they stop or are replaced by the cultures not doing this. That is the application of evolutionary theory to culture if you opened your eyes you would see its happening right before your eyes.
No I fucking don't...Live and Let Live.
Wow look at all those 51 male republican idiots that want to stick their nose into other people's private sex life fucking cancerous morons! 🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
Government should have no say in marriage as it is a religious sacrament. King Henry VIII understood this when he had no interest in a separation of church and state. Which is why he created the Church of England when the Pope refused his divorce request. The only reason government got into marriage in the US was to prevent interracial marriages during segregation.
Yes I support gay marriage, what two consenting adults chose to do with their romantic lives is no ones business other than their own. Separation of church and state.
Ted Cruz was offered a position on the Supreme Court and he turned it down. I’m going with what he thinks and I don’t care if he’s Republican…
They will try. They probably won’t succeed but you never know.
I do not because marriage is a Judeo Christian covenant. But the Constitution supports domestic partnerships which, as a Libertarian, I accept.
No. If this is about the sanctity of marriage that ship has sailed the moment drunk idiots got allowed to marry in Vegas.
Regardless of how non-seriously some states take the institution of marriage, the fact is our society's children desperately need something in the role of the original institution to protect them.
Redefining 'marriage' to be about the mere feelings of the adults rather than the protection of the children produced as robed children of their primary system of support and security.
The question of 'gay marriage' is thus built upon an idea that makes any such 'marriage' pointless and increasingly undesirable.
What is the point of the risks and expense of the legal institution that provides no security for anyone in return? That ship didn't sale in Los Vegas, it sailed with no-fault divorces in the 1960's after marriage had in the popular culture been so redefined.
The institution not-surprisingly struggled then collapsed in the generations that followed.
It's nobody's business what others do. I find a lot of gay people cringy but that's my problem. I wouldn't want to tell them what they can/cannot do.
I think two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't hurt others.
I agree.
Exactly
I do not support gay marriage ban its dehumanizing. They always tell us when we're little girls to get married and have kids, but I can't decide who I want to do it with? Wtf this. is some bs