What Is Your Stance on Gay Marriage?

Full story: Patch.com 1,176
In May, President Obama became the first sitting president to back gay marriage . Full Story
Dude

Newark, DE

#1267 Aug 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Sonny, when all you have is lame insults you lose right out of the gate. Your posts are empty.
Let's go over why you're an idiot one more time. Why are you against gays getting married?
John

Emory, TX

#1268 Aug 28, 2012
It's interesting how idiotic posts bring out idiotic posts. Knee jerk reactions. for the record, I am as guilty as others.
John

Emory, TX

#1271 Aug 28, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your concern Fa$$ot. LMFAO
Alright, so good luck to you. It's not at all funny though.
Dude

Newark, DE

#1272 Aug 28, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Queer Dude, cover your mouth when you talk, no one wants a wet fart burped on them. Your favorite dessert, shi+ on a d:ck, is giving you gas. LMFAO
You're as articulate as Demi Moore, undergoing an epileptic seizure. Too bad you're not as skinny. Ha. Since you capitulated the argument; I win.

“Society is doomed.”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#1274 Aug 28, 2012
Jerry Sandusky wrote:
<quoted text>Where in the Constitution does it say queers have the "right" to engage in their filthy and abnormal perversions and their dirty homosexual/pedophile deviancy? Perhaps in the 4th Amendment. If queers just wanted to be left alone, as they've lied for years, in the privacy of their own private property, I grudgingly tolerate that viewpoint. But now the government at every level from local school district on up to the presidency is promoting faggotry and deviance to OUR KIDS, 24/7/365, on OUR dime!
Just because it makes YOU uncomfortable and YOU think that it is abnormal perversion absolutely does not make it a bad thing. Oh.. also.. Schools don't teach about gay or lesbian relations "24/7/365." So that point that you made is complete bullshit.
John

Osage Beach, MO

#1275 Aug 28, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Just one more question and I'll leave you alone. Have you and Queer Dude been packing each others shi+??
I don't know Dude. You can leave me alone now. You really need help man!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1276 Aug 29, 2012
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's go over why you're an idiot one more time. Why are you against gays getting married?
It's all here, re-read the thread, Sonny.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1277 Aug 29, 2012
BlackCat1600 wrote:
Schools don't teach about gay or lesbian relations "24/7/365." So that point that you made is complete bullshit.
It should be 0/0/0.
Dude

Newark, DE

#1278 Aug 29, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all here, re-read the thread, Sonny.
If it's an argument of any substance, then it's worth repeating. If you can't, then just acknowledge that I called you out, and you had nothing but "dudes don't get my rocks off, so it's bad".
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1279 Aug 29, 2012
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's an argument of any substance, then it's worth repeating. If you can't, then just acknowledge that I called you out, and you had nothing but "dudes don't get my rocks off, so it's bad".
Sorry, Sonny, do your own work or stay stupid. The choice is yours.

“Society is doomed.”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#1280 Aug 29, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It should be 0/0/0.
Oh. So you want you're children to be ignorant and narrow minded just like you.
Dude

Newark, DE

#1281 Aug 29, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Sonny, do your own work or stay stupid. The choice is yours.
The burden of proof was laid upon you, and you tossed it off, so you could better balance yourself on your pedestal. You have capitulated the argument. I guess that's another zero in your score sheet.LOL.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1282 Aug 29, 2012
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden of proof was laid upon you, and you tossed it off, so you could better balance yourself on your pedestal. You have capitulated the argument. I guess that's another zero in your score sheet.LOL.
Sonny, you have never presented an argument. All you have is not so clever insults. Do your own work or stay stupid, the choice is yours.
Dude

Newark, DE

#1283 Aug 29, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Sonny, you have never presented an argument.
Marriage is a fundamental right, and has been established as such in various court cases. In fact, people on death row, oppertunists, infertiles, and the elderly can get married. To deny gay people the right of marriage infringes upon their 14th Amendment rights and simply based upon the sexes of those involved, which is unlawful and unfair. Gay marriage bans also put the children of gay people, and those involved in the same-sex relationship itself, at an unneeded disadvantage and simply because of pseudoscience, monetary agendas, and long-held, yet untrue myths.

Your turn.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#1284 Aug 29, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad he's on your side. He has nothing to say. Look at his posts, they're empty. He's just a bitter little fella, I'm sure it sucks being him.
The words Pot and Kettle came to mind really quickly when I read your response.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1285 Aug 30, 2012
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Marriage is a fundamental right, and has been established as such in various court cases.
2. To deny gay people the right of marriage infringes upon their 14th Amendment rights and simply based upon the sexes of those involved, which is unlawful and unfair.
3. Gay marriage bans also put the children of gay people, and those involved in the same-sex relationship itself, at an unneeded disadvantage and simply because of pseudoscience, monetary agendas, and long-held, yet untrue myths.
Your turn.
1. In each court case one man and one woman was involved.
2. There is no such right in the 14th ammendment. The regulation of marriage is delegated to the states.
3. The children of gay people are at no less a disadvantage than any child of a single parent. In fact, if the child of the gay person has a partner that child would have an advantage over he child of a single parent.

Constitutional promises and protections are for individual people and are the same for everyone. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not people.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#1286 Aug 30, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. In each court case one man and one woman was involved.
2. There is no such right in the 14th ammendment. The regulation of marriage is delegated to the states.
3. The children of gay people are at no less a disadvantage than any child of a single parent. In fact, if the child of the gay person has a partner that child would have an advantage over he child of a single parent.
Constitutional promises and protections are for individual people and are the same for everyone. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not people.
1. Irrelevant, unless you can show that the plumbing of those involved in any marriage is the only basis for that marriage.

2. Equal protection under the law is indeed a fundamental right. That includes marriage law.

3. One of the MAIN arguments for marriage law is the increased protection and security of children. You don't believe that yourself? How odd. Every study to date shows otherwise.

And that last sentence doesn't make a bit of sense. Can you please re-phrase it? Last time I looked gay and straight people ARE individual people, and our laws OFTEN protect groups of people as well.

You might want to think that one through and try again.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1287 Aug 30, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Irrelevant, unless you can show that the plumbing of those involved in any marriage is the only basis for that marriage.
2. Equal protection under the law is indeed a fundamental right. That includes marriage law.
3. One of the MAIN arguments for marriage law is the increased protection and security of children. You don't believe that yourself? How odd. Every study to date shows otherwise.
4. And that last sentence doesn't make a bit of sense. Can you please re-phrase it? Last time I looked gay and straight people ARE individual people, and our laws OFTEN protect groups of people as well.
You might want to think that one through and try again.
1. You are welcome to try and get the supreme court to change their opinions. "Plumbing" is indeed a major factor.
2. Yes, and marriage law is the same for everyone, it's your point of view that is different.
3. I would get tax breaks for a dependant child just like you would.
4. It's always the individual. You might want to think that through too. In the case of a hate crime, for example, certain groups are named in the laws but they apply to any INDIVIDUAL in that group.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1288 Aug 30, 2012
Dude & Quest, one numbers 1 & 2 above:

THIS IS WHAT THE SCOTUS SAID:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1289 Aug 30, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. In each court case one man and one woman was involved.
2. There is no such right in the 14th ammendment. The regulation of marriage is delegated to the states.
Then why was it sited in Loving v VA?
Because all US citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, including marriage laws.
Wondering wrote:
3. The children of gay people are at no less a disadvantage than any child of a single parent. In fact, if the child of the gay person has a partner that child would have an advantage over he child of a single parent.
Constitutional promises and protections are for individual people and are the same for everyone. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not people.
Liar.
A woman who goes into the JP asking to marry a woman will be told "No". A man will be told "Yes".
No != Yes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 min Cali Girl2014 56,253
Ariz. High School Throws Out Ballots for Lesbia... 7 min Sgt Common Sense 9
What if high court rejects gay marriage cases? 13 min WeTheSheeple 17
TN pastor vows not to 'repent' for homophobia: ... 14 min Michael 37
Supreme Court delays action on same-sex marriage 20 min WeTheSheeple 3
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 21 min Reverend Alan 706
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 27 min WeTheSheeple 1,048
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 28 min KiMare 178
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 1 hr Reverend Alan 2,321
Board member opposes teaching definition of gay 1 hr Reverend Alan 156

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE