Gay Marriage Debate - Austin, MN

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Austin, MN.

Do you support gay marriage?

Austin opposes

Vote now in Austin:


New London, MN

#1 Aug 6, 2010
"Marriage" can only be between one man and one woman. It cannot be corrupted by people who behave in aberrant, unnatural, deviant behavior.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#3 Sep 13, 2010
Hobob wrote:
"Marriage" can only be between one man and one woman. It cannot be corrupted by people who behave in aberrant, unnatural, deviant behavior.
So you are saying there should be a moral test before people can get married, and no aberrant, unnatural, or deviants shal be married? Who gets to set the standard for these tests?

United States

#4 Sep 28, 2010
The very word and act of Marriage is now and has always been defined as a sacred vow between a man and a woman in front of God!

While I am opposed to it I would not stand in the way of a gay or lesbian couple being united in some type of civil union. I would however ask them to show respect for our sacred act of marriage. Why not pursue a civil union or something of that nature.
Why the compelling need to change our society's and our founding father's religious views.

It seems that sometimes people feel the need to upset others by pushing their relaxed views and morals upon them. We are told that is their right.

But here's some food for thought.....What
are we leading ourselves into?(One small step of redefining marriage now)-is it right or wrong? allow two women or two men to be acknowledged as being a married couple. Where do we draw the line between right and wrong anymore. If it is now okay to be gay or lesbian, would it also mean it's okay for an adult mom and son to marry, how about a father and a daughter, or maybe a brother and a sister,and if that is okay for adults, how about an adult and a child, an adult and an animal...if those are wrong then why? How do they differ from marrying someone of the same sex ? Will people soon call those examples okay too ? Will people feel it isn't wrong to murder, rape, steel, lie, bribe, commit adultary, marry more than one person etc...maybe those are more freedoms people feel they are entitled to. If I could help people in these positions I would like to.
But I can not and will not justify calling something that is "wrong" right. We will all be held
accountable for our actions in the end. But
are we truly be willing to compromise the general well being of the United States and our families by allowing our children to be desensitized and told not to destinguish the difference between right and wrong because it might offend someone? I hope not.

“The Lee”

Since: Jan 08

Austin, MN

#5 Oct 16, 2010
I say let them get married. We live in modern times and should be willing to adapt, after all the church has shown over the years that they aren’t the best judges of what’s wrong or right. If the church doesn’t want to recognize the marriage certificates issued by the state, then I say cut off any government funding, tax breaks or cuts, or any other privileges afforded by the government. After all, the hard earned tax dollars of homosexual’s end up making it into these places, and why help support those that openly encourage discrimination, intolerance, and separation of a certain group of people. Love thy neighbor, don’t hate them!

“The Lee”

Since: Jan 08

Austin, MN

#6 Oct 16, 2010
Hobob wrote:
"Marriage" can only be between one man and one woman. It cannot be corrupted by people who behave in aberrant, unnatural, deviant behavior.
Have you taken a look at most of the people getting married now days? Most of them dont have squeaky clean backgrounds. It's not really about love any more; it's kind of a popular thing to do. Look at the level of divorce out there because of the bad choices. As for deviant behavior, ask some of the hundreds of molested altar boys out there about what this should include. The church has a lot of growing to do before it should tell others whats right or wrong.
Kathryn Weiss

Austin, MN

#7 Jan 17, 2012
Everyone deserves to share in the happiness of marriage and commit to the one that they want to share their life with.

Austin, MN

#8 Jan 18, 2012
Separation of church and state. Screw religious definitions, screw your attachment to the goddamned bible. People are being denied rights, and that's what this is about. Not your religious beliefs.
Andrew Hull

Austin, MN

#9 Jan 18, 2012
Any one who loves another person should be able to be unified together.

Austin, MN

#10 Jan 19, 2012
Hobob wrote:
"Marriage" can only be between one man and one woman. It cannot be corrupted by people who behave in aberrant, unnatural, deviant behavior.
This is a religious view point, not the how the law is. So you are in fact trying to enforce a law based upon your own religious view. Not everyone is this country/state/city have the same religious views. There fore your argument is completely lacking any factual support. Separation of church and state was set up to prevent a national religion and so by quoting the bible and trying to ban gay marriage because of your own Christian beliefs you in fact trying to enforce a national religion. Which is a violation of the Constitution.

Lithia, FL

#11 Jan 31, 2012
Not too long ago people with skin color that wasn't "white" was considered wrong and below everyone else. This included Hispanics, African-Americans,Asians and so forth. They were said to be against god. They were told that "god" hated them. I wonder if you people who are so opposed to an act of given rights can tell me why your god would hate and deprive his own creations of something he allowed for everyone.

Anyways, marriage is not and never has been "sacred". It has existed long before Christianity as a PACT between people. Not just a man and a women. FAMILIES married their children together as a SOCIAL PACT. A TREATY over LAND, MONEY, AND QUARRELS even POLITICAL PACTS. It wasn't until later that people started calling marriage "sacred". Please look up more resources to validate your argument. The Bible was not the only book in history, and it certainly does not have all the facts. Look at ACTUAL history before forming a biased opinion please.

Austin, MN

#12 May 13, 2012
human rights.

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.

Austin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Edwards to Serve Nearly 14-Years for Murder (Apr '08) Dec '14 ajmorty 10
Friend (Jan '08) Oct '14 Dereck 7
Beau Zabel Murder Investigation Update (Jun '08) Jun '14 Steve and Mary 9
Rate cuts won't mean loans will be easier to get (Mar '08) Mar '14 Valli 2
Blooming Prairie, Minn. / Ku Klux Klan's past i... (Mar '10) Feb '14 Destiny 6
Crude oil remains above $102 (Feb '14) Feb '14 3 Months USA Oil ... 1
Former 1986 Hormel Strikers Facebook Page (Jan '14) Jan '14 Facebook 1
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]