Gay Marriage Debate - Griffin, GA

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Griffin, GA.

Do you support gay marriage?

Griffin opposes
Oppose
 
46
Support
 
22

Vote now in Griffin:

Comments
41 - 60 of 71 Comments Last updated -
really?

Newnan, GA

#43 Mar 21, 2013
Go back to your rock. You are grasping at straws.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#44 Mar 21, 2013
Jeffrey wrote:
Caps used, because it is obvious that you are ignorant, and I wanted to ensure my FACTS are clear.
Your OPINION is the Supreme court will rule against State's rights. I do not think this will happen.-That is my opinion as well, but the FACT is, it is not legal, and it really does not look like it will change, but go on and state your opinions as facts if it makes you feel better.
Oh yea, why don't y'all protest Chick Fil A again? We all saw how well that worked out for ya. The silent majority spoke, y'all looked ridiculous, and Chick Fil A couldn't have paid for such effective advertising.
Hey I agree the chik filet thing was silly. The owner has as much right to be a biggot as anyone else. Just as the south had a right to biggoted thinking in the 60's by having segregated seating water fountains restaurants..... Protesting against those seemed futile to many at the time..... not quite so much today.
Jeff Griffin

United States

#45 May 26, 2013
... this is the ghost of Jeff Griffin... I died decades ago... I licked my fingers while biting my nails and made them slimy... when I held the children's hands I didn't even think about it... once I smashed a packet of hot sauce and it shot some in a kid's eye... and I laughed like a little girl... and now I'm dead... I still laugh when I think of rimmers... the things I knew as a little boy, the things I thought of... pray for me... I am ragged and lonely...
Mike Jimerson

Buford, GA

#46 May 26, 2013
God's view
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#47 May 26, 2013
Mike Jimerson wrote:
God's view
doesnt matter we are not a theocracy.... constitutions view
Some local guy

Oak Ridge, NC

#48 May 29, 2013
To those in favor of gay marriage, I have a question. Leaving religion out of it and assuming that even the most liberal thinkers among you have some boundary line or moral standard that you believe should not be crossed-what would that be? And would you not fight to keep that line from being crossed based on your beliefs or ideas. If you do have some line in the sand and it gets crossed there is no going back. All you can do is accept it and draw another line. Here is the problem-that one will be crossed as well. Meaning, if we don't stop our moral decline in this country, while you may not care about gay marriage, it will certainly lead to something that you do feel is important. The chipping away of our foundation will destroy us from within-forget about our outside enemies. I have the same love and concern for my gay and lesbian friends(even in my immediate family) as I do for my straight friends and family. However I don't see where keeping marriage between a man and a women is really hurting anybody. It does however say they're things we believe are right and good. Allow same sex couples to be on each others health ins recognize these couples in the work place etc...... Then leave the issue alone
Gina

Dayton, TN

#49 Jun 7, 2013
like many people have said i support gay marriage. If you dont like it then you dont have to do it but let the ones that do love each other that are the same sex let them do what they wont to stop judging others and let them live there own lives...................
Some local guy

Carrollton, GA

#50 Jun 8, 2013
Gina wrote:
like many people have said i support gay marriage. If you dont like it then you dont have to do it but let the ones that do love each other that are the same sex let them do what they wont to stop judging others and let them live there own lives..........
i noticed you totally ignored my questions. That tells me a lot. Ignorant response on your part. Who says same sex people can't love each other? No one. Just leave marriage defined as between a man and a woman that's all. They can love,live together,commit to each other etc.......but wait that s is not enough is it? They want to push the issue just for the hell of it. Remember, the erosion of our society will soon reach your doorstep.
come on now

Romeoville, IL

#51 Jun 8, 2013
Some local guy wrote:
To those in favor of gay marriage, I have a question. Leaving religion out of it and assuming that even the most liberal thinkers among you have some boundary line or moral standard that you believe should not be crossed-what would that be? And would you not fight to keep that line from being crossed based on your beliefs or ideas. If you do have some line in the sand and it gets crossed there is no going back. All you can do is accept it and draw another line. Here is the problem-that one will be crossed as well. Meaning, if we don't stop our moral decline in this country, while you may not care about gay marriage, it will certainly lead to something that you do feel is important. The chipping away of our foundation will destroy us from within-forget about our outside enemies. I have the same love and concern for my gay and lesbian friends(even in my immediate family) as I do for my straight friends and family. However I don't see where keeping marriage between a man and a women is really hurting anybody. It does however say they're things we believe are right and good. Allow same sex couples to be on each others health ins recognize these couples in the work place etc...... Then leave the issue alone
However I don't see where keeping marriage between a man and a women is really hurting anybody."

How is it hurting anybody... really... of course this is coming from the have, not have not...
Does it hurt for two u.s. citizens to hve less government granted privledges?... you being a have.. not at all...
Does it hurt for two. u.s. citizens to have less legal rights... you being a have ... not at all....
Does it hurt for two u.s. citizens to know that they are not covered bv the 14th... you being a have ... of course not......
come on now

Romeoville, IL

#52 Jun 8, 2013
Some local guy wrote:
<quoted text>i noticed you totally ignored my questions. That tells me a lot. Ignorant response on your part. Who says same sex people can't love each other? No one. Just leave marriage defined as between a man and a woman that's all. They can love,live together,commit to each other etc.......but wait that s is not enough is it? They want to push the issue just for the hell of it. Remember, the erosion of our society will soon reach your doorstep.
They can love,live together,commit to each other etc.......but wait that s is not enough is it? They want to push the issue just for the hell of it. Remember, the erosion of our society will soon reach your doorstep."

You are right... I mean why do they think they have the right to have the same legal rights that other citizens get for saying I do....
Why do they think that they get no monetary benefits that other u.s. citzens get for saying I do... the nerve of them thinking that they should be treated equal as u.s. citizens....

Your "erosion" argument, has been used ad nauseum throuhgt out history, be it womens right to vote, rock music, black civil rights... funny thing is... the chicken littles of yesterday are not much different from the chicken littles of today (like you)... they all scream "that will be the downfall of society"... net nothing ever has or will come from their warrentless, pointless fear.
Some local guy

Prairieville, LA

#53 Jun 12, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
However I don't see where keeping marriage between a man and a women is really hurting anybody."
How is it hurting anybody... really... of course this is coming from the have, not have not...
Does it hurt for two u.s. citizens to hve less government granted privledges?... you being a have.. not at all...
Does it hurt for two. u.s. citizens to have less legal rights... you being a have ... not at all....
Does it hurt for two u.s. citizens to know that they are not covered bv the 14th... you being a have ... of course not......
what? Are you kidding? We are all "haves" and "have nots"(as you put it) sometime or other regarding something. Take a look around-things are not equal among everybody.
Some local guy

Prairieville, LA

#54 Jun 12, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>They can love,live together,commit to each other etc.......but wait that s is not enough is it? They want to push the issue just for the hell of it. Remember, the erosion of our society will soon reach your doorstep."
You are right... I mean why do they think they have the right to have the same legal rights that other citizens get for saying I do....
Why do they think that they get no monetary benefits that other u.s. citzens get for saying I do... the nerve of them thinking that they should be treated equal as u.s. citizens....
Your "erosion" argument, has been used ad nauseum throuhgt out history, be it womens right to vote, rock music, black civil rights... funny thing is... the chicken littles of yesterday are not much different from the chicken littles of today (like you)... they all scream "that will be the downfall of society"... net nothing ever has or will come from their warrentless, pointless fear.
they have the same legal rights. What Legal rights are they denied? What monetary benefits do they not receive? If they work do they not get paid? What govt. benefits are they denied? Don't they get social security, disability? they must pay their taxes like everyone and yet if they overpay don't they get a tax refund? Also, the correlation between women's,blacks civil rights and gays right to marry has been used ad nauseum as well. We are all protected from discrimination from sex,race,creed so where does a homosexuals right to marry fall into that. They actually would receive nothing more than they have access to now. They just want to push the issue. Btw, I still find it interesting no one has answered what it is that they would find morally pushing boundaries. If nothing is off the table God help us all
come on now

Romeoville, IL

#55 Jun 12, 2013
Some local guy wrote:
<quoted text>they have the same legal rights. What Legal rights are they denied? What monetary benefits do they not receive? If they work do they not get paid? What govt. benefits are they denied? Don't they get social security, disability? they must pay their taxes like everyone and yet if they overpay don't they get a tax refund? Also, the correlation between women's,blacks civil rights and gays right to marry has been used ad nauseum as well. We are all protected from discrimination from sex,race,creed so where does a homosexuals right to marry fall into that. They actually would receive nothing more than they have access to now. They just want to push the issue. Btw, I still find it interesting no one has answered what it is that they would find morally pushing boundaries. If nothing is off the table God help us all
Are you serious... really?
They are not allowed to marry whom they choose and are attracted to... simple contract that all hetero's are allowed to participate in.... right denied there

As a hetero married couple you enjoy various government granted rights and privelddges both monitary and legal that are not offered to a ssc because they are not allow to legally marry. Do you want a list of such benefits?....

"the correlation between women's,blacks civil rights and gays right to marry has been used ad nauseum as well. We are all protected from discrimination from sex,race,creed so where does a homosexuals right to marry fall into that."

The correlation is made because it is a apt correlation. Before Loving, states could say who could marry whom. They could say that there would be no interracial marriage. Loving was decided based on the 14th equal protection clause... Tell me how that differs from ssm?... Tell me what the overwhelming states interest (this is what SCOTUS has ruled a state must show) the state has in denying ssm?

They actually would receive nothing more than they have access to now. "

Really... lets see....
There are two people working for the federal government . Both worked the same number of years and are both vested in federal retirement. One is married for 5 years, one has been in a ssc relatinship of 10 years... They both are killed in a plane accident... The widow automatically gets a portion of their husbands pension... the partner of the ssc... GETS SQUAT. So care to tell me how that is receiving the same access?.. Do you want other examples, maybe legal examples instead of monetary.... Heck even those ssc who are legally married in the states that allow it do not get the same treatment as hetero married couples.

Now your "morrally pushing boundries question" goes back to the overwhelming states interest. What is the overwhelming states interest in denying ssm?.... Oh it is not about "morally pushing boundries" as your moral boundries are different from your neighbors.
Some local guy

Anniston, AL

#56 Jun 12, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious... really?
They are not allowed to marry whom they choose and are attracted to... simple contract that all hetero's are allowed to participate in.... right denied there
As a hetero married couple you enjoy various government granted rights and privelddges both monitary and legal that are not offered to a ssc because they are not allow to legally marry. Do you want a list of such benefits?....
"the correlation between women's,blacks civil rights and gays right to marry has been used ad nauseum as well. We are all protected from discrimination from sex,race,creed so where does a homosexuals right to marry fall into that."
The correlation is made because it is a apt correlation. Before Loving, states could say who could marry whom. They could say that there would be no interracial marriage. Loving was decided based on the 14th equal protection clause... Tell me how that differs from ssm?... Tell me what the overwhelming states interest (this is what SCOTUS has ruled a state must show) the state has in denying ssm?
They actually would receive nothing more than they have access to now. "
Really... lets see....
There are two people working for the federal government . Both worked the same number of years and are both vested in federal retirement. One is married for 5 years, one has been in a ssc relatinship of 10 years... They both are killed in a plane accident... The widow automatically gets a portion of their husbands pension... the partner of the ssc... GETS SQUAT. So care to tell me how that is receiving the same access?.. Do you want other examples, maybe legal examples instead of monetary.... Heck even those ssc who are legally married in the states that allow it do not get the same treatment as hetero married couples.
Now your "morrally pushing boundries question" goes back to the overwhelming states interest. What is the overwhelming states interest in denying ssm?.... Oh it is not about "morally pushing boundries" as your moral boundries are different from your neighbors.
so what ? They can be in a committed relationship no one is stopping that. Marriage is a commitment as well. The contract part big deal. Btw I don't consider my wife and I as having a contract. For you to look at it that way speaks volumes about how you see your relationships-sad for you. As I said earlier discrimination is prohibited based on sex( male/female) race a persons sexual preference is not. As for as govt benefits each one of us has them as individuals again big deal people can take advantage of. Govt benefits that I am not eligible so grow up and get over it. This is getting old so I will just spell it out because I don't think you understand what I'm asking. You are ok with same sex marriage. Fine. My point is be assured they is someone or group of people somewhere who is "into" something else and they will want it accepted,legalized etc.........whatever-use your imagination. Are you ready for that? For the record as I said earlier I wish ssc all the privileges(govt related issues and employer related issues) that married couples enjoy-I fully support that. However I believe a unity in marriage should be between a man and a woman. To do otherwise, then we should allow any combination of individuals to "wed" the possibilities could be endless.
come on now

Romeoville, IL

#57 Jun 12, 2013
Some local guy wrote:
<quoted text>so what ? They can be in a committed relationship no one is stopping that. Marriage is a commitment as well. The contract part big deal. Btw I don't consider my wife and I as having a contract. For you to look at it that way speaks volumes about how you see your relationships-sad for you. As I said earlier discrimination is prohibited based on sex( male/female) race a persons sexual preference is not. As for as govt benefits each one of us has them as individuals again big deal people can take advantage of. Govt benefits that I am not eligible so grow up and get over it. This is getting old so I will just spell it out because I don't think you understand what I'm asking. You are ok with same sex marriage. Fine. My point is be assured they is someone or group of people somewhere who is "into" something else and they will want it accepted,legalized etc.........whatever-use your imagination. Are you ready for that? For the record as I said earlier I wish ssc all the privileges(govt related issues and employer related issues) that married couples enjoy-I fully support that. However I believe a unity in marriage should be between a man and a woman. To do otherwise, then we should allow any combination of individuals to "wed" the possibilities could be endless.
They can be in a committed relationship no one is stopping that. Marriage is a commitment as well."

Right marrige is (or is suppose to be) a comitted relationship... how ever that commited relatiionship offfers governent granted perks which are denied to homosexaul CITIZENS of the united states... tell me why you believe this is ok....

I don't consider my wife and I as having a contract. "

Sorry to burst your bubble,, but legally speaking that is what marriage is a legally binding contract... if it wasn't divorce proceedings would be much simpler... Since it is a legally binding agreement between two adults, to get a divorce is to break the contract....

As I said earlier discrimination is prohibited based on sex( male/female) race a persons sexual preference is not"

Hate to burst your bubble but sexual orientation is a protected class just like gender race... so once again you are incorrect.

So in all your inaccurate staments you fail to show why ssc should not be allowed to legally marry....
Some local guy

Anniston, AL

#58 Jun 13, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
They can be in a committed relationship no one is stopping that. Marriage is a commitment as well."
Right marrige is (or is suppose to be) a comitted relationship... how ever that commited relatiionship offfers governent granted perks which are denied to homosexaul CITIZENS of the united states... tell me why you believe this is ok....
I don't consider my wife and I as having a contract. "
Sorry to burst your bubble,, but legally speaking that is what marriage is a legally binding contract... if it wasn't divorce proceedings would be much simpler... Since it is a legally binding agreement between two adults, to get a divorce is to break the contract....
As I said earlier discrimination is prohibited based on sex( male/female) race a persons sexual preference is not"
Hate to burst your bubble but sexual orientation is a protected class just like gender race... so once again you are incorrect.
So in all your inaccurate staments you fail to show why ssc should not be allowed to legally marry....
and you continue to fail to answer a direct question. Typical. While marriage may be contract it serves mainly as public commitment between two people to live and love together. Again, I'm for ssc having the same benefits. However fight the employers,insurance industry,the govt for these rights! Just leave marriage as defined between a man and woman. You continue to show what changing this would prove other than pushin your agenda. You are obviously a gay or lesbian so we are just going to disagree on this. I don't wish you luck on this issue but I can wish you good health.
come on now

Romeoville, IL

#59 Jun 13, 2013
Some local guy wrote:
<quoted text>and you continue to fail to answer a direct question. Typical. While marriage may be contract it serves mainly as public commitment between two people to live and love together. Again, I'm for ssc having the same benefits. However fight the employers,insurance industry,the govt for these rights! Just leave marriage as defined between a man and woman. You continue to show what changing this would prove other than pushin your agenda. You are obviously a gay or lesbian so we are just going to disagree on this. I don't wish you luck on this issue but I can wish you good health.
I hve answered all your questions... just not the way you want. Your morally objection question can not be answered directly bcause what you find objectionble.. "pushing the boundries" I may not. This is why the state can make the call as long as it is in line witht he constitution. In order to outlaw ssm the state must get around the equal protection clause by showing a overwhelming states interest in denying ssm... now what would that be...notice how I have asked that and you never responded,,,, typical.

While marriage may be contract it serves mainly as public commitment between two people to live and love together. "

Fair enough... not t ell me why a ssc can not meet those objectives...

Now you are not grasping the point. Marriage in the terms being used is a legal concept. By being legal one MUST fight the government to get legal recognition. Your caught up on one definition of maraige, yet ignoreing the one that is appropriate to the subject at hand

You are obviously a gay or lesbian so we are just going to disagree on this"

Really,, show me were I stated my sexual preference. Let me guess because I am for ssm... I must be a homosexual.... I am also for black rights, disabled rights, and womens rights... doesn't make me a black wheelchair bound woman does it..... just someone who believes all americans deserve to be treated equally... to bad you do not share that concept.
Some local guy

Anniston, AL

#60 Jun 13, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
I hve answered all your questions... just not the way you want. Your morally objection question can not be answered directly bcause what you find objectionble.. "pushing the boundries" I may not. This is why the state can make the call as long as it is in line witht he constitution. In order to outlaw ssm the state must get around the equal protection clause by showing a overwhelming states interest in denying ssm... now what would that be...notice how I have asked that and you never responded,,,, typical.
While marriage may be contract it serves mainly as public commitment between two people to live and love together. "
Fair enough... not t ell me why a ssc can not meet those objectives...
Now you are not grasping the point. Marriage in the terms being used is a legal concept. By being legal one MUST fight the government to get legal recognition. Your caught up on one definition of maraige, yet ignoreing the one that is appropriate to the subject at hand
You are obviously a gay or lesbian so we are just going to disagree on this"
Really,, show me were I stated my sexual preference. Let me guess because I am for ssm... I must be a homosexual.... I am also for black rights, disabled rights, and womens rights... doesn't make me a black wheelchair bound woman does it..... just someone who believes all americans deserve to be treated equally... to bad you do not share that concept.
gay and lesbians are treated equally within our framework as it exists. Tired of beating a dead horse . I expressed my view as well as you. Enjoy your contractual relationships and I will enjoy my marriage to my beautiful wife. Is your name Kevin? Never mind . Lol!
come on now

Romeoville, IL

#61 Jun 13, 2013
Some local guy wrote:
<quoted text>gay and lesbians are treated equally within our framework as it exists. Tired of beating a dead horse . I expressed my view as well as you. Enjoy your contractual relationships and I will enjoy my marriage to my beautiful wife. Is your name Kevin? Never mind . Lol!
I have proven where you are wrong time and time again.. not treated fairly at all...unless you can explain how the 14th does not apply to hnomosexuals. Enjoy your contractual marriage to your wife..
Some local guy

Ponchatoula, LA

#62 Jun 14, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
I have proven where you are wrong time and time again.. not treated fairly at all...unless you can explain how the 14th does not apply to hnomosexuals. Enjoy your contractual marriage to your wife..
no you haven't-yes they are-I will

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Griffin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
GA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 2 hr ChicknButt 53,587
Violet Esteppe (Jul '10) Mon Nobody 12
Johnny Harris Jones Aug 29 Huntress 1 1
GA Who do you support for Attorney General in Geor... (Oct '10) Aug 28 Pfffft 185
Review: Bots Auto Repair And Services Aug 14 LarryBaker 1
Back to school for Metro Atlanta students: Key ... Jul '14 Big Daddy Roy Goo... 2
Prophet Michael Obeng Jul '14 chrichna 3

Griffin Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]