hi I was wondering what you guys think about same sex marriages. I think that it is wrong beause of my religious values, because marriage was meant for men and women, also a million diseases can be transmitted through same sex marriages. Its also weird, I know some people are gay, but it shouldn't be legal, like I say its wrong!
though I want to know what you guys say, if you are gay/lesbian I would love to hear what you think, also I would like to hear what people who are straight think, acually I want to hear everyone's opinion.
remember this is only my opinion, but I want to here youirs:)
thanks

What do you think about the Ford Motor Company manufacturing Chevrolets and calling them Dodges?

also a million diseases can be transmitted through same sex marriages.

Same goes for hetero marriages, so that is not a good argument.

I have been in a traditional man + woman marriage for almost 22 years. I have no problem with gay/lesbian marriages at all. It is a contract after all and that should not be restricted. Many couples can't transfer property or have loved ones making critical decisions at a hospital and such because of the ways our laws are written concerning marriage. If your religion forbids it, then that is a different situation - that gets into the philosophical realm of if it is moral or not. I think people should be able to share their life with any consenting adult they choose.

yeah you have a pint, and yeas diseases can be transmitted through man+women marriages. Though we got to think this through, this country (america) has moral values, now I can't say "america says you guys can't marry" but I still feel the way I do.
now I don't have a promblem with people who are gay living together and having sex together, but once we make it legal there is no going back.

I was married to my wife for 31-Glorious Years. I found her laying face down on the floor in my bathroom; dead from a massive heart attack. If ONLY we would have been homosexuals then I would not have to be living every, every, everyday in hell here in this God-forsaking hell-hole called the United States of America!!! Because I am normal; I do NOT belong to any of those “special groups” and right now I wish that I could blow up the Federal Government. I wish that I could wipe Sacramento off the map, along with Sears, Wells Fargo, City Hall in San Francisco (BTW, where is Dan White when we really need him the most?) . . . And even Circuit City!!! You see, there is no one in Washington who finds it very rewarding to protect me from a Society and Government that sucks! I have no “special dictionary” of political words to grant me special privileges, like gay, closet, and hate. Am I phobic? . . . I am Federal-phobic! I am DEFINITELY afraid of your government. What will their dictionary say of the word, “Marriage” when their just-like-them-attorneys (free of charge) get through with it? Your guess is as good as mine. But for sure, “Marriage’ is about to become “ill-defined”. Now, do I hate anyone? Well, I told you the people who I can’t stand, because of what they did to me, due to the loss of my spouse. Are you telling me that ALL OF THEM are homosexualistic? I know what you are going to say . . . “Well, it’s you own fault! You shouldn’t have married someone who was going to someday die!” Do you know what? You are right.

That my friend was a serious vent, I hope you felt better after you posted it.

I'm afraid however, there is no room in that post for an answer.

Sorry about your loss.

Well first I will most likely offend everyone on both sides, I care less about the marriage, marriage in the US is a legal system to control what is or was a social or religious teaching. So for gay, straight or men with sheep, the state could issue a civil contract for them if they want to make that legal, that is the states rights. The Federal government does not even have a right to rule on it, since it was and has always been a states right.

From the religious side, I don't care what you call it, it is not the paper I object to, it is the actual relationship, their living together in the first place that is offensive to me. So guess what the religious already lost this battle in the US, they are allowed to live together now in every state and there is nothing done about that.

So what they are looking for now is the legal status to protect the rights within that relationship. So let them have their civil union or "marriage" since it is still not a union that God is blessing, no matter what words some pastor says over them.

But with that, since society has allowed them to be together, those in those relationships need some legal protections and some of the pain of the legal system. For example when the gay couple breaks up I welcome them the hassle of divorce court and having to give each other 1/2 of their property. I also know some of the pain, for those couples that have children, often only one has legal custody, so both should have the same rights to their children. And at their death, while we may not like their relationships, they do desserve the right to inherit it property.

Sam depecan,
If you loved her it is good you married, her even though she died. It is not your fault whatsoever.
About you obviouly hating the government, I can't speak to that its your choice. I for one have a lot of respect for this country.
Are you saying that you wish you were gay so this would'nt of happened, well guys have heart attacks you know. You sound like your hurting but I must say I didn't understand most of your post, I betthers something in there, hidden in all the g man and basic g hatred.

One of the few reasons my husband and I got married is because he was admitted to the emergency room, and they would NOT give me any information on him. We had been together 4 years at that point, and had every intention of spending the rest of our lives together--there was just no real hurry to marry. I mean, things were FINE the way they were--why mess with a good thing?

So.. I completely and totally understand the need that homosexuals feel to marry those they love. Without the power of marriage behind them, they can not inherit from each other, they have no rights on medical decisions for their "spouse" if somehow the spouse becomes incapacitated. They have no legal say for ANYTHING a normal married person could expect to have with their spouse. Can you BLAME them for fighting for it?

There's far too much hate in this world as it is. When love is found--should we REALLY punish it because it's not between a man and a woman?

Honestly, what it comes down to is this for me: If those religious conservatives out there are not willing to legalize marriage between homosexuals (and this has NOTHING to do with whether it is in a church--the different religions and churches out there should make their OWN choices as to whether they accept it--this has solely to do with the LEGAL aspect of it), then all rights that belong to a marriage should disappear. If a homosexual couple in the same thing as a marriage can not have those rights, then to keep this country equal, a heterosexual couple should not have them either. No legal rights to property, no tax breaks for each other, no rights for medical decisions--nothing. No legal rights to ANYTHING involving your spouse.

I don't give a rat's nostril about whether it's MORAL. I find some things that religions do highly offensive, bordering on "immoral". Your morals aren't mine. What I care about are the LEGAL aspects of it. If you are willing to devote yourself to another person for LIFE, then you should have LEGAL rights to aid your partner after an accident in making medical decisions, or rights to property after a death, or rights to health care benefits just like any other spouse would get.

Fr-chuck
If they want there (spouse) to inherit proberty they could write it up in a will,or somerting.

Yes, but with the laws in the US, others can object and contest the will, if they do not include other specific people also. If it was a spouse those rules don't apply. You also have the issues in the hospital and also for things like child custody.

I see nothing wrong with two people who fall in love and want to devote their lives to each other.

We will never know what makes someone gay. People can voice their opinion, subject, intergect, judge, but truth is... no one truly knows... except God.

Some people are sadly ( and it breaks my heart) so busy, looking out their window of their sinful house at others and judging, which by the way, is wrong in God's eyes.

Two people who fall in love and want to commit to each other... God bless them... and I bet he will.

The gay community gets slammed for being promiscious... and then when they want to devote their love and lives to one partner... they are not permitted to.

They have a right, to be there when their partner is sick. To have access to the doctors, nurses and be fully involved in their care. Why? Because they love them with all their heart and they have chosen each other to be life partners.

The shoes of a gay person, must be one painfully tight fit, with some in society so willing to throw rocks and stones and trying to prevent them from loving and caring about another individual.

I think we have far more problems then two people truly falling in love and caring about each other.

I have two friends who are partners and I could only wish, that everyone, could have the same, loving, devoted, loyal and caring relationship that these two wonderful people share.

The gay community gets slammed for being promiscious.....and then when they want to devote their love and lives to one partner....they are not permitted to.

Amen to that allheart!

I don't understand the moral objection to gay people living together- they are not hurting you! They are not forcing their lifestyle upon you - why should you do the same to them? I don't think I could ever be capable of understanding this objection.

Although here is the twist- I don't agree with gay 'marriage' as such as it is a religious idea. It's a bit like having a atheist Christmas or a Hindu Hanukah- logically it doesn't work.

Civil partnerships with all the rights of marriage should be allowed however. I know in the UK (don't know about the US) that there is a legal side of marriage where you sign papers and such and the religious churchy/synagoguey/templey bit which is completely unrelated and actually doesn't stand legally without the other bit. Homosexual relationships should be allowed the legal side- the religious side depend on the religion- it is their prerogative to decide. Religion and the state should not mix.

I believe (but I could be wrong) that this is the situation that is currently allowed in many states of the US and the UK.

So here are my questions then:

If you are leaving it up to a particular religion as to whether gays can be "married" in the religious sense, and that a civil union is what a partnership conceived ONLY on the legal side is:

1. Are you going to call all current marriages that happened only in a courthouse "civil unions"? Unless a couple is married in a church, are they then only part of a civil union, and unable to say that they are "married" but just "partners" or "civil unionized"? I mean, that's only fair. You don't get to say you are "married" unless it happens within a religion, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

2. What if there are religions that have NO problem with marrying homosexuals. As long as they convert, can't they say they are married--I mean, if ONE religion counts as okay for approving marriage, can't ANY religion do so? Could homosexuals then say that they are "married"? I mean, it happened in a church!

I have no problem with gay marriage at all. But you can't force upon the church or synagogue to perform the ceremony, they are too set in their ways to change. A civil ceremony should suffice to allow both partners the same benefits as hetero couples.

1. Are you going to call all current marriages that happened only in a courthouse "civil unions"? Unless a couple is married in a church, are they then only part of a civil union, and unable to say that they are "married" but just "partners" or "civil unionized"? I mean, that's only fair. You don't get to say you are "married" unless it happens within a religion, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

2. What if there are religions that have NO problem with marrying homosexuals. As long as they convert, can't they say they are married--I mean, if ONE religion counts as okay for approving marriage, can't ANY religion do so? Could homosexuals then say that they are "married"? I mean, it happened in a church!

1. Yep! Although I really doubt it'll catch on the same way vacuum cleaners are still called hoovers even though that is the brand name.

2. Yes again if the religion says they are married in that religions definition then they are. Of course some religions will say they can't marry in that religion but that is for the said religion to decide.

On a slight tangent I don't think atheist should be 'married' in the religious sense either, just in the legal civil partnership way. Maybe we need a larger vocabulary, civil unionised doesn't sound very romantic, but then again would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?

I guess my reasoning derives from the religious communities should be able to live by their own laws. For example Sharia law in britian- I don't have to live by it as I am not a Muslim but Muslims can choose to live and be judged by it in their own courts.

Therefore civil partnerships and who can have them should not be influenced by religious sensibilities as technically it has nothing to do with them.

I'm not 100% sure I am explaining this correctly!

Come to Massachusetts!

A gay couple can get married here :)

I know in the UK (don't know about the US) that there is a legal side of marriage where you sign papers and such and the religious churchy/synagoguey/templey bit which is completely unrelated and actually doesn't stand legally without the other bit.

It's the same in the US. It isn't even necessary to have a ceremony - just get the correct legal official to sign a document and you are married. Many people get married at the courthouse with no religious ties and they are considered married, so why can't gays/lesbians?

If I understand it correctly a Catholic cannot marry outside their religion. If they do, the church does not recognize it. However, the state does and that is who controls property, child custody and next of kin rights. If straight couples can get married without the blessing of the church and have the state support it then there is no logical reason that gay couples shouldn't be awarded the same courtesy.

Personally, I would not want to be the one who chooses whether a union can be blessed in the eyes of God. I think that choice should lay right in God's loving hands.
What if we down here are wrong, and God would want the couple to site their vows in His presence instead of outside His presence?

Perhaps God would want the couple to be with Him, like all of us sinners, who stand before a religious person to be united, and prefer the couple join together and live together with His love and guidance. Perhaps that would be in His plan. I would not want to be the one
To take away God, when two loving people want to be in His presence.

I would not want to be the one
to take away God, when two loving people want to be in His presence.I think that's the crux of the problem - the two people may very well want a church wedding but they run into problems finding an accommodating priest/parish.

If straight couples can get married without the blessing of the church and have the state support it then there is no logical reason that gay couples shouldn't be awarded the same courtesy.

Most places that recognize civil unions address this equatably in my view. But in California the courts bizarrey ruled that it wasn't equitable unless the word "marriage " was attached to the union . Flawed logic if you ask me unless there is different motivation.

fr-chuck
if they want there (spouse) to inherit proberty they could write it up in a will,or somerting.
Ha! Tell me about it. It would also help too if one could predict the death of the spouse; and be prepared to face a group of lawyers that want to punish you for breathing on their planet. In other words, take it from someone who has experienced it already. It is not so much to do with "Marriage" as it is to do with "Attorneys Having Field Days" with your "Trust Fund" etc. What I am saying is this . . . If you are one who belongs to a "SPC" or Special Political Class then you are "protected" by the Law or "Protected Under The Law" in the USA. If someone pops off his mouth to you and you protect yourself and back-hand him, then you might teach the worm-brain a lesson. For sure, they will think twice about wise-mouthing a tax-paying citizen of the United States of America. However, if that person who bathes daily in "special rights and privileges" because he can make a court-of-law believe that he is afflicted with the highly-curable, highly-treatable mental condition known as HOMOSEXUALISM, then you may find yourself spending 25-years-to-LIFE in a Federal Penitentiary for slapping the dog-crap out of a punk that sucks you-know-whats! It's the law! The tax-paying, normal people have to get used to it. In fact, there are even more and more new-laws on the horizon. It has nothing to do with hating or defending one's rights here in America. It has nothing to do with Bigotry, or any other political money-making word that one can look up in the Webster's Dictionary. It has a lot to do with lawyers running amuck!! Someone needs to do something soon or else we are all going to suffer forever and ever. The bottom-line answer just may be another American Revolution.

Highly-treatable?

And sorry--but I'm of the feeling that backhanding ANYONE is a good way to have assault slapped on your record, whether they are a protected class.

But--whatever. You're entitled to your feelings.

And lawyers only run amok because people sue others rather than taking personal responsibility for their OWN actions. For example, a person wouldn't have to go to court for assault if he or she just didn't HIT someone else, making lawyers not have a case to defend and a case to prosecute. Or if people just understood that coffee is HOT and you shouldn't put it in your lap when you're driving, then restaurants wouldn't be sued for selling a hot beverage the way it's supposed to be, negating the need for some idiot to get money they never earned, negating the need for lawyers on the case.

See my point?

It's not LAWYERS running amok. It's Americans that think they have the RIGHT to do whatever the heck they want. It's Americans believing that they can sue someone else every time they're not happy with something.

The lawyers are just profiting from people who refuse to actually take responsibility for their OWN actions.

No, I don’t. You over-paraphrased my point to such a high-extent, that I couldn’t even recognize that you were referencing my previous post. Here in the United States of America, citizens used to be allowed to defend themselves. There is a socialistic group that wants to destroy the Constitution of the United States. They figure that their best achievement would be to get in “door number two” as it is the 2nd Amendment to the said Constitution. But what they really want is the biggy @ door number one. Just following the Civil War, we had all of our rights in tact; unlike today. Especially the two Decades just following the Civil War. Ironically, the 3rd Decade was known as the Gay 90s. I am not kidding. Gay was a real word then with real meaning; like bicycles built for two . . . Not BI-sexuals, but bicycles. One of the things that lawyers have accomplished is finding a way to get involved in our lives; when they are not needed. If you are a married person, and your spouse passes away then they jump all over like a hungry spider on a sick fly! They bleed you for not because you were married but because your spouse died. They say that it’s possible for them to have fun with your personal life because you are now some kind of “Estate” or some such. I know, it’s enough to make you want to barf. Now, they will not be able to do such a thing to a special privileged group of homosexualist nuptual partners. That is because special laws have already been set in place to provide special protection to those who actually have nothing but an affliction of a “highly-treatable & highly-curable” mental illness; known as “HOMOSEXUALISM” . . . Which is presently cured much the same way as ALCOHOLISM is today. I know what you are going to say, “Then the cured patient wasn’t really an alcoholic anyway.” . . . Or “Then the cured patient wasn’t really a practicing homosexual anyway.” . . .You can apply that rule of judgment to just about anything. I know a guy who has beaten prostate cancer TWICE! Are you going to tell me, “Then he never really was afflicted with cancer.????” We need to really keep policticians and attorneys out of hospitals and we want have to be concerned about ruining the definition of MARRIAGE or hi-jacking any other ligitimate words in the dictionary.

Sam depecan
I am sorry you have been mistreated by our government.

See... this is where we differ.

I don't see homosexualism as a disease any more than I see people who are short as having a disease,or people who have blue eyes. I think it's part of who they ARE, not something that needs to be "cured".

Frankly, your attitude about that appalls me--Hitler thought that being a Jew was something that needed to be either "cured" or eradicated. See the parallel here?

As far as lawyers go--yup, you need them to decipher the law and to help you make sure you're NOT going to get screwed by the government. I agree that the federal government has way too much power--but I feel that the Christian right has way too much power too, and that's as specialized and protected a group as any minority--except they're in the MAJORITY and trying to force their values on those of us who are NOT Christian.

I don't think that asking for tolerance and equality is too much from the homosexual community. I mean--didn't blacks have to go through this same sort of mess in the 60s? Are you going to tell me that being BLACK makes you not as entitled to getting married or bearing arms or having a vote? Again, it comes back to the fact that YOU see it as a disease, and I see it as genetic makeup. Yes, they could probably be "cured" if they just never had sex again--but for anyone that expects THAT to be a solution, I hope you are cursed with impotency so that you can never have sex again, either.

Actually, where we differ is in your totally, totally evading the “ism” affliction that I referred to. You replaced THAT with some kind of 3rd Reich ideology of racial cleansing or some such. Obviously, you are what one might call being “normal phobic”. So be it. [Answer this: Would you be guilty of lying if you were hiding Jews in your closet when the Nazis buzzed your door and asked you . . . Thus, you denied??? Remember now, the topic here is “Are you really a truthful person?. . . NOT that you want to gas a race of people.] BTW, some short people do have a more serious problem related to the Thyroid Gland. The same may be stated about those who are over 7-feet tall, and still growing. Medical Science has to be extremely cautious about how they interfere; remember how they screwed up fertility a few years back; and now some women today are NOT giving birth to children, but instead are dropping litters of human animals?? [I guess you are going to accuse me of what now, drowning puppies when they haven’t even opened their eyes yet?] I was cursed @ the hospital (if you want to call it that) because we were pregnant 3-times in 4-years, and my wife was a workaholic. [Workaholics can be cured also. She passed away from Heart Disease prior to receiving her first treatment.] Thus, that is why I had my vasectomy; because she wanted to work out of maternity some of her life, and not just have babies. Would it have made you happy to know that I wasn’t castrated? That for sure, would cure Michael Jackson of his lovey-dovey problems that he has with Cub Scouts [NOT Brownies!!] I am not about to tell you that being black is going to keep you from marrying anyone. I’m white and married again . . . To another lovely Filipina. Obviously she is not black but she’s not white either. Both of my Grandfathers were “Squawmen” and my maternal grandmother was actually very, very much French Creole and oh-boy! Did she ever look like it too!! So, we have established the fact that your imagination which lead you to the gassing of the Jews and Black Weddings, etc. seems to be your apparent just-looking-at-words, but not reading thoughts. Yes, workaholics can be cured; alcoholics can be cured; and there are several homosexuals who have admitted that they have been treated and cured as well. It’s just that there is no political money in the cure. If you ask Je$$i Jack$on though, there is a lot of $,$$$,$$$,$$$.oo to be had out there in the Homo$exual Coalition. You can politicize “anything” … I have a paper clip that would love to marry my stapler. Why can’t they? Would you dare deny my paper clip and my stapler their right to their conjugal, nuptial freedom? How dare you! You said so yourself, it’s part of who they are! You paper bigot!!!

I guess I will have to go some ( some) with Sam, being black is not a choice, and I still believe as many do that life style is a choice or if not it is caused by some bio make up. We do not merely say that well a chlld molester is just born that way, so he has that right to be that way, no we make laws against it and keep it under control, and yes we try to treat them and change them.
In the early days, being homosexual was considered by the medical community as something that could be treated and there was attempts at curing the problem. It was only after they started gaining political power and became a somewhat protected class that this idea and teaching changed.

Merely being accepted or being forced down our throats by the courts who do not go by the wishes of the people does not make it right, it only makes it legal. And to many this being forced upon us, is causing more and more resentment, which will only harbor more ill will.

/shrug

It all comes back to "who are they hurting by asking their love to have the same legal rights as anyone else's love?" to me.

I don't care WHAT people do as long as it is not hurting anyone else. Want to eat staples all day? GREAT!

And as far as your paperclip marrying your stapler (or whatever the hell stupid argument you put forth there)--if they could express to me without a human translator that that's what they want--who would it hurt? Sure! Let them marry! This is why the argument that people marrying pets is next would be shot down too--a pet couldn't express its preference. And we have laws to protect children from gay OR "straight" marriage.

But whatever. You're going to change my mind and make me believe that you're not just intolerant of other's choices, and I'm not going to change your mind that you believe that I'm an overly tolerant person with poor morals.

Such a lot of bitterness and anger here, and not without do cause in some cases.

This will always be an argument within society and it's various religious beliefs,sadly I don't think it will ever reach an agreeable conclusion.

I personally have no problem with it having worked with people who prefer their own sex as a partner, that's not to say that if I see any intimate behaviour, it does make me feel really uncomfortable, however I do believe that there are those that have been born into this world with a medical imbalance, maybe something has been wrong with the pregnancy or perhaps the mother was carrying some sort of inherited gene etc. etc..
Which allows the new born, to be born into the wrong body... a girl as a boy or vic versa
Something to do with the makeup and development with in the womb.

In this instant it is a medical condition that the person cannot help, just like any other unfortunate abnomality, in later life some people who recognise this, have their body changed to the person that they new they always were,others accept who they are hoping that society will do the same.

It does say one man to one woman in the bible so as far as religion goes it is never going to be right, but we are all the human race despite our differences, whether it be gay, lesbion, disabled by one thing or another, black white , yellow etc.etc... if all our imperfections were to be taken from us,we ,d all still be the same underneath.

If one human being cares deeply for another, no matter what their gender is that so wrong, don't you think there is enough hurt in this world, who are we to throw stones, we are not the judge or the jury and should live and let live as long as it does not harm anyone else I cannot see a problem.

Everyone should get on with their own life and mind their own businness

Aha! We finally have everyone touching on the topic here . . . It is not so great that you are the same sex couple or whatever you are . . . Even a Male Paper Clip and a Female Stapler. What is so significant here though is "Showing Respect To MARRIAGE; and all of those married couples (legally; of course) who have preceded us." . . . Let's don't be such a great policially in-love group that we can't even show respect for everyone else in this world who does not do those things that we might do with our buddies; in the bedroom, the closet or on the back of a flat bed truck where we are throwing off packages of condoms!!! Let's show some respect for the innocent, and their traditional institution of MARRIAGE! After all, it's all about MARRIAGE! MARRIAGE! MARRIAGE! . . . What is MARRIAGE??? That's it. It's THAT simple!!! MARRIAGE!!! Let's keep our thwarted politics out of the lives of the innocent. The innocent are never protected enough in this "new confused culture" of today as it is.

fr-chuck
if they want there (spouse) to inherit proberty they could write it up in a will,or somerting.

Wills are contested by family members, and a gay partner very possibly will lose in court.

I go with FrChuck. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. The word "marriage" is wildly tossed around, mostly and unfortunately because it is that ceremony that bestows on couples both spiritual and legal advantages. I say separate the religious rite from the legal. It would be so easy with separation of church and state.

I really believe that all gays want is a civil union. A civil union guarantees them legal rights in inheritance, health care, privacy issues, financial situations. If gays also want the religious blessing, there are churches and pastors sympathetic to the gay community and who will bless a gay union in a religious ceremony (but no legal rights would be conveyed).

"I really believe that all gays want is a civil union. A civil union guarantees them legal rights in inheritance, health care, privacy issues, financial situations." Then let's call it "Choogalagga" or something. But let's NOT call it MARRIAGE. However, that is NOT what they want. They want to ruin the meaning of the word; thus, the word, itself. THAT is exactly what they want. They are one of the most powerful political groups ever in our glorious history. They know that eventually they will be able to get everything that they ask for. What are they going to ask for next? Don't think that the political scabs are not just sitting back licking their chops right now for all the wealth in power that awates them. There is more money in homosexual politics than Mobile/Exxon can pump out of the ground! . . . Don't think it's not!! Ha! The things that they are claiming that they are right now NOT entitled to dates back to whenever . . . Who cares??? . . . But not now. They get exactly what they want as a couple of whatever they want to choose next as a handle. In fact, I would hate to be the governing body that would dare go against them as what they are right now. I mean, would you want to face Je$$ie Jack$on in a Court-of-Law? You gotta be kidding . . . :eek:

"I really believe that all gays want is a civil union. A civil union guarantees them legal rights in inheritance, health care, privacy issues, financial situations." Then let's call it "Choogalagga" or something. But let's NOT call it MARRIAGE. However, that is NOT what they want. They want to ruin the meaning of the word; thus, the word, itself. THAT is exactly what they want. They are one of the most powerful political groups ever in our glorious history. They know that eventually they will be able to get everything that they ask for. What are they going to ask for next? Don't think that the political scabs are not just sitting back licking their chops right now for all the wealth in power that awates them. There is more money in homosexual politics than Mobile/Exxon can pump out of the ground! . . . Don't think it's not!! Ha! The things that they are claiming that they are right now NOT entitled to dates back to whenever . . . Who cares??? . . . But not now. They get exactly what they want as a couple of whatever they want to choose next as a handle. In fact, I would hate to be the governing body that would dare go against them as what they are right now. I mean, would you want to face Je$$ie Jack$on in a Court-of-Law? You gotta be kidding . . . :eek:

I'm very sorry for your loss.

Gays want marriage only because it is tied up with civil/legal rights through the marriage contract. If the two were separated, and gays were able to get civil rights, they would. A number of companies and municipalities have begun to extend some version of civil rights (health care especially) to gay couples. The civil/legal offering would solve the problem and untangle the confusion over what marriage is.

Damn, Sam, you seem to be a really angry man. For the sake of those near you, I hope it's just a cyber-persona.

Seriously... are you THAT threatened by the use of a WORD?

Why not call church marriages "Religious marriage" and court marriages "civil marriages".

I mean, it works in the adoption community to call one set of parents "birth parents" and one set "adoptive parents" with BOTH sets being able to have some claim to being the "real" parents.

I'm married, by the way. Of course, the MAIN reason I got married was because of the legal stuff associated with it---I was blocked from my "boyfriend's" side during an emergency room visit, and unable to get any information from doctors and nurses. Otherwise, we would have been perfectly happy to just live together for the rest of our lives. I love him, but I don't need a church's blessing on the love to be happy. I DO, however, need reassurance that the state, hospitals, doctors, nurses, credit agencies, insurance companies, etc, will be willing to deal with ME regarding my husband's affairs if he were ever incapacitated.

If it's JUST a word, what difference does it make WHO uses it? If you were THAT upset about it, you'd be upset by the people in TX in their bigamist community using the word "marriage" for their relationships too--because it's one man, one woman. If you were THAT upset by it, you'd be JUST as upset about common-law marriages.

But you're NOT.

You're only upset because you frown on homosexuality THAT much that you don't want them to have the same "rights" you do for their relationships.

When I hear the same people who are against gay marriages protesting ANY common-law marriage, or protesting that communities that have multiple partners using the word marriage for something that by definition ISN'T, well--then I'll take them a bit more seriously. But--they don't. They just don't want the word "Marriage" sullied by a group of people they don't approve of in any way.

I'm with Allheart on this--You are NOT God. YOU can't speak for Him. How about just letting people live and let live? How is someone calling their union "marriage" REALLY threatening to you, when the SPIRIT of the word means "two people who love each other and want to reflect that love to the world"? By using the word "marriage", they are using a socially defined word that expresses what they mean to each other.

I'd be okay with people demanding that gays use a different word than marriage if the straights were willing to use a completely different word as well. Hell, I'd call my marriage "oomgabonga' if that meant that people would be able to have equal rights in this country regardless of sexual orientation.

"two people who love each other and want to reflect that love to the world"? Two people is the problem. A young strapping lad and his good-looking aunt (sister of his mother) could also argue for the same principles of marriage. That's just it. As long as we have not had any probs in the past; and as long as the word is so-well-defined now; please . . . Let's don't let some politically-sexual outfit or some sexually-political outfit ruin it for us now; nor in the future for our future generations. It wouldn't be fair to them.

As long as they understand the dangers if they decide to have a child--and they're both adults--what exactly is the problem?

Prior to the 1960s, there were "no problems in the past" with segregating blacks--why did THEY "ruin it" for future generations? Same with female sexuality--I mean, woman's place was to get married, stay at home, have kids and raise them, get dinner on the table, and keep the house clean! Why did some radical women who were just not happy with what had "not had problems in the past" have to go and want equality in the workplace, and the right to birth control, and the double-standard of sex before marriage dropped, and the stigma removed from never marrying, and the right to determine their OWN lives without a husband telling them what to do--I mean, jeez--women being the caretakers, cooks, cleaners, mothers, and property of their husbands had worked for CENTURIES! And look--they went and ruined it for future generations by wanting to be equal to men in every way. I mean, how DARE they?

"two people who love each other and want to reflect that love to the world"? Two people is the problem. A young strapping lad and his good-looking aunt (sister of his mother) could also argue for the same principles of marriage.

I think that marriage would be illegal in most US states, for reasons that are very different from a gay relationship.

Sam I am so sorry for your loss, however I do think you have a deep seated problem that is eating you up inside.

I have never read such vicious words coming from one mouth.
Ok,yes you have a real problem with this issue, lots of people do but yours is definitely over the top... in a big way.

You've made it loud and clear to the whole world... I would think by now.Why having had your say can't you leave it be!

You talk about gays and lesbians like they are some kind of disease, they are part of the human race as we all are and should be treated like it, not shund like a leper.

The problem today is that everyone talks about bedroom matters so openly, that wouldn't have happened years ago, it's private between two people,in the bedroom is where it should stay.

Believe it or not the gays and lesbians that I have worked with have been extremely nice people I wasn't even aware of their genda... it's none of my business, it's people who disagree that cause all the problems, name calling and alike totally uneccessary and very spiteful.

In my experience they never mention marriage only the fact of one day they would like to make some kind of commitment to each other , just to show their love and sincerity, they don't care what kind of ceremony it is, just so long as they say what ever in front of family and friends, what's so wrong in that...

You cannot rule anyone else's life or expect them to obey your rules, what you believe is fine for you but not necessarily for some one else, I'm sure there are those who disagree with things that you do in your life or maybe in my life... ok tough , it 's our choice, which is how it should be, if you don't like it turn and walk away live your life and leave them to do the same

I don't know if you want an answer, or a long drawn out talk. Sometimes I notice that the 'questions' are really just sparks to start a discussion fire.xD

Truthfully I vote to allow gay marriage. And to those who don't like it, what's "worse", two woman who are deathly in love getting married, or two drunk lovers getting the knot tied in vegas, baby!

If its for the wrong reasons, duh, of course its bad, but so is normal marriage.

I see nothing wrong with two people who fall in love and want to devote their lives to each other.

We will never know what makes someone gay. People can voice their opinion, subject, intergect, judge, but truth is....no one truly knows....except God.

Some people are sadly ( and it breaks my heart) so busy, looking out their window of their sinful house at others and judging, which by the way, is wrong in God's eyes.

Two people who fall in love and want to commit to each other.....God bless them...and I bet he will.

The gay community gets slammed for being promiscious.....and then when they want to devote their love and lives to one partner....they are not permitted to.

They have a right, to be there when their partner is sick. To have access to the doctors, nurses and be fully involved in their care. Why? because they love them with all their heart and they have chosen each other to be life partners.

The shoes of a gay person, must be one painfully tight fit, with some in society so willing to throw rocks and stones and trying to prevent them from loving and caring about another individual.

I think we have far more problems then two people truly falling in love and caring about each other.

I have two friends who are partners and I could only wish, that everyone, could have the same, loving, devoted, loyal and caring relationship that these two wonderful people share.


Well Said

I am not a lesbian but in my opinion if you are attracted to someone, whether its your sex or not, and you want to marry that person I don't see anything wrong with it. (I wouldint do it but still)

"Marriage" used to be a religious term. Now it's a legal term. Don't hate the gays for trying to "ruin the sanctity of marriage" - hate the government for involving themselves in marriage long, long ago.

Gay people don't want to ruin the word, or invade your churches, or corrupt your nation. They want to be treated equally. A man and woman of any denomination get "married"; to forbid a man and a man or woman and woman from getting "married" is not equal treatment. THAT is the problem - inequality.

Maybe we should let all of-age, consenting adults get married, and the churches can think of a new word, a new ceremony, a new blessing. After all, it's the government who ruined the word and sanctity "marriage", not the gays. Punish the government by excluding them from something (if they can't tax you on it, it will drive them nuts), and while you're at it exclude anyone who's not a member of your church.

Hi, so I am straight.. and I have no problem with it at all... im sorry but you can't help who you fall in love with you know.

The problem is all these "christians", that is the problem. What about people who have a relegious belief that allows gay marriage. The christians won't allow them to practice their beliefs. It has to be their way or NO WAY. That is what turns me off about christianity. Other belief systems allow for a variety of beliefs. With christianity it is all or nothing. You either believe our way or you should just be dead. That is what burns me I thought America was a FREE country. People came here because they could not practice their beliefs freeley in England and other countries. Now it is the same here.

You want to make it a homosexual issue. But I'm sorry. I can't.. I am not talking about a disease either . . . The topic here is MARRIAGE.

You want to make it a homosexual issue. But I'm sorry. I can't.. I am not talking about a disease either . . . The topic here is MARRIAGE.

And how marriage currently discriminates against homosexuals.

I really never have understood why straight couples feel so threatened by gay couples. If you get married in a church but do not get the state paperwork completed properly, you are not married in the eyes of the law. There is no requirement for a marriage to be blessed by a church, therefore it makes no sense that the state won't allow it.

How does it hurt me for my gay neighbors to marry? All it does is allow for right of survivorship when it comes to property and certain other next of kin rights. If your argument is because it will "harm" children - that make no sense. They can live together without the benefit of marriage without me being able to stop it. I would much rather my child observe people who commit to one another and build a life (straight or gay) rather than have them see partners as temporary.

And how marriage currently discriminates against homosexuals.
Marriage is not what is discriminating . . . It's political ideology. We need to NOT use marriage as a political weapon for anything that is convenient that may also be listed as discriminating. What if we did everything like THAT? The Kentucky Derby discriminates against the cattle industry. Yet the cattle industry is probably being bought-off by big ranchers, feedlots, the beef industry, McDonald's, Burger King, etc. Yet, no one wants to join together as a team and fight them for what they are doing when they discriminate against cows. Like for instance, how many cows do you see running in the event; which is well established as “The Kentucky Derby?” . . . NONE! Do you know why? . . . It's because the Kentucky Derby is NOT for cows; it's for horses!! Now, that doesn't mean that you can't run Elsie if she wants to run. Just don't be calling Elsie's race a horse race . . . Call it a Political Horse Race, A Bovine Run, or something else . . . Set aside a special day for cows to race, etc.; but you can destroy Horse-Racing by calling a cow-race a horse-race. It doesn't mean that the KDP (Kentucky Derby People) hate you. Furthermore, there is no use in practicing some kind Webster's Dictionary ignominy, just because you have the money, power, and political resources to do it. BTW, just in case you might want to equate this to Bull-Sh** then you are probably right . . . Thus, is the attack on the institution of marriage . . . All a bunch of BS . . . I don't mind telling you.

Fine. Don't let them marry.

But like I said in the other thread--then take away ALL of the privileges that come with marriage, since having those privileges (which, by the way, are provided by the state) discriminates against those who can not marry their chosen partner.

In other words--fine, don't let Bessy run the Kentucky Derby--but then don't act surprised when horseflesh starts showing up on menus because they lose their privileged status as protected from that since THEY are used for transportation and shows, not for eating.

I was married to my wife for 31-Glorious Years. I found her laying face down on the floor in my bathroom; dead from a massive heart attack. If ONLY we would have been homosexuals then I would not have to be living every, every, everyday in hell here in this God-forsaking hell-hole called the United States of America!!! Because I am normal; I do NOT belong to any of those “special groups” and right now I wish that I could blow up the Federal Government. I wish that I could wipe Sacramento off the map, along with Sears, Wells Fargo, City Hall in San Francisco (BTW, where is Dan White when we really need him the most?) . . . And even Circuit City!!! You see, there is no one in Washington who finds it very rewarding to protect me from a Society and Government that sucks! I have no “special dictionary” of political words to grant me special privileges, like gay, closet, and hate. Am I phobic? . . . I am Federal-phobic! I am DEFINITELY afraid of your government. What will their dictionary say of the word, “Marriage” when their just-like-them-attorneys (free of charge) get through with it? Your guess is as good as mine. But for sure, “Marriage’ is about to become “ill-defined”. Now, do I hate anyone? Well, I told you the people who I can’t stand, because of what they did to me, due to the loss of my spouse. Are you telling me that ALL OF THEM are homosexualistic? I know what you are going to say . . . “Well, it’s you own fault! You shouldn’t have married someone who was going to someday die!” Do you know what? You are right.


You dishonor your wife's memory with this tirade -

Then don't act surprised when horseflesh starts showing up on menus...

I don’t know where you have been, but that so-called “horseflesh”; that you speak of; as well as unborn calves, and probably even cuts of canine have been showing up in potted meat, and little-boy wieners, since your great-grandmothers were legally single. That is what we have the United States Department of Agriculture, Meat Inspection Department for . . . To PROTECT US!! Unfortunately, for your grandparents, and all of those legally married loved ones before them; there will not be enough “protection” for their marriage to wind up being anything more than some kind of meaningless “political authoritative sanction”. For future generations, the term, “Marriage” will be simply worthless. That is why we need to protect the institution now, as it is. Someday we may not have it any more. What then? . . . Acupuncture? . . . Hmmmmm? . . . Wait a minute . . . That might be the answer. Don’t call it Marriage at all; since it is not marriage at all. Just call it “Unionized Acupuncture”. Let our spendthrift Congress, throw some U. S. dollars at it; and then put it to a vote. Find a plan, and stick to it!! (NPI)

Wait--so your definition of marriage isn't "two people who love each other and commit to each other, for the rest of their lives, through good times and bad, through sickness and health, for richer for poorer"?

What IS your definition of marriage then? I think, frankly, that my great-grandparents would be HONORED to have more people who truly honor what marriage IS join their ranks, regardless of sexual preference. I think what has them turning in their graves are the number of people who marry and divorce for stupid reasons.

You dishonor your wife's memory with this tirade -
__________________
This is purely my opinion

In other words, just admit that I am right; and it's your opinion that I am right. That's not just my opinion . . . It's common sense.

Isn't marriage an institution that is currently experiencing a 50% failure rate the way it is?

You dishonor your wife's memory with this tirade -
__________________
This is purely my opinion

In other words, just admit that I am right; and it's your opinion that I am right. That's not just my opinion . . . It's common sense.


Sorry, but I don't think you are right - I don't think it's common sense for you to post that you want to blow up more than a few buildings and people because of the loss of your wife - I still don't know what that has to do with gay marriage.

Quite frankly, I think that's a sign of mental instability to say nothing of the poor judgment involved in posting it on a public board.

Lots of people on this Board have grief in their personal lives - I don't see them posting rants.

"I really believe that all gays want is a civil union. A civil union guarantees them legal rights in inheritance, health care, privacy issues, financial situations." Then let's call it "Choogalagga" or something. But let's NOT call it MARRIAGE. However, that is NOT what they want. They want to ruin the meaning of the word; thus, the word, itself. THAT is exactly what they want. They are one of the most powerful political groups ever in our glorious history. They know that eventually they will be able to get everything that they ask for. What are they going to ask for next? Don't think that the political scabs are not just sitting back licking their chops right now for all the wealth in power that awates them. There is more money in homosexual politics than Mobile/Exxon can pump out of the ground! . . . Don't think it's not!! Ha! The things that they are claiming that they are right now NOT entitled to dates back to whenever . . . Who cares??? . . . But not now. They get exactly what they want as a couple of whatever they want to choose next as a handle. In fact, I would hate to be the governing body that would dare go against them as what they are right now. I mean, would you want to face Je$$ie Jack$on in a Court-of-Law? You gotta be kidding . . . :eek:



What qualifies you to speak for "they." What THEY want; what THEY run and so forth -

Odd choice of opponents with Jessie Jackson - you have a racial issues, too?

Addressing your earlier post which is something about a trust fund and Attorneys working you over - why don't you post the specifics of that and give everybody a fair shot at trying to understand.

Or better yet, move the explanation to the legal board -

I will add that my late husband set up a trust and nobody's working me over or taking advantage of me -

[QUOTE=Wondergirl]Wills are contested by family members, and a gay partner very possibly will lose in court.QUOTE]



Sorry, but Wills are contested every day by straights, gays, parents, children, spouses. Some win and some lose - there is no "very possibly" in any category and gays are not at a disadvantage in a Will contest.

If the Will is properly and appropriately written, executed and filed and kept up to date anyone can contest but the Will will prevail.

And marriage most definitely does NOT give anyone the right to make medical decisions for another person - you can get info, you can assist the person with decisions but if they cannot not longer participate in those discussions you do not have the right to make the decisions.

If you want to have or give that right you MUST execute and file the appropriate documents - a living Will, a DNR, whatever makes you (and your partner) comfortable.

Does anyone remember Terri Shiavo who may - or may not - have made her wishes clear but never put it in writing and then her parents attempted to make the decision in place of her husband and the fight was on? Put it in writing, folks, put it in writing. Give the right to make medical decisions to your partner, your neighbor, your parent - but put your intentions and orders in writing and file it!

I've been there. At the lowest, most desolate, lonely, distraught point of your life you could be standing there saying, "But I'm the spouse. I have the right ..." and you could very well be wrong.

Odd choice of opponents with Jessie Jackson - you have a racial issues, too?

Odds are you are the one who is somewhat "racially confused". I do have an issue with Jesse Jackson's ideology of the meaning of the word "Reverend" that he insists on politically, rather tax-freely, attaching to the front of his name. With all due respect for Mr. Jackson as a man; not much as a politcian; I address him as Mr. Jackson. Why? . . . Since you are making such a mysterious issue about his race or race, in general; what do you call him?

Marriage is not what is discriminating . . . It’s political ideology. We need to NOT use marriage as a political weapon for anything that is convenient that may also be listed as discriminating. What if we did everything like THAT? The Kentucky Derby discriminates against the cattle industry. Yet the cattle industry is probably being bought-off by big ranchers, feedlots, the beef industry, McDonald’s, Burger King, etc. Yet, no one wants to join together as a team and fight them for what they are doing when they discriminate against cows. Like for instance, how many cows do you see running in the event; which is well established as “The Kentucky Derby?” . . . NONE! Do you know why? . . . It’s because the Kentucky Derby is NOT for cows; it’s for horses!! Now, that doesn’t mean that you can’t run Elsie if she wants to run. Just don’t be calling Elsie’s race a horse race . . . Call it a Political Horse Race, A Bovine Run, or something else . . . Set aside a special day for cows to race, etc.; but you can destroy Horse-Racing by calling a cow-race a horse-race. It doesn’t mean that the KDP (Kentucky Derby People) hate you. Furthermore, there is no use in practicing some kind Webster’s Dictionary ignominy, just because you have the money, power, and political resources to do it. BTW, just in case you might want to equate this to Bull-Sh** then you are probably right . . . Thus, is the attack on the institution of marriage . . . All a bunch of BS . . . I don't mind telling you.


Let's use this Kentucky Derby analogy and look at it a different way.

Let's say the straight couples are the ones currently in the traditional Kentucky Derby racing thoroughbreds.

Now let's suppose that gay couples also want to run a race, and they also want to call it the Kentucky Derby but use bovines. It will run the same length and have the same regulations except that the participants are different. It is obvious to everyone that this race is not the same as the other race, but it allows the participants to race and reap the benefits like the traditionalists.

The original race is not impeded by this second race. The two enhance each other by allowing each type of participant to race and has the side effect of spreading good sportsmanship to everyone.

The only problem with the analogy is that the Kentucky Derby is most likely a corporately owned entity and there would be copyright infringement issues. However, since married couples are not a collective and do not own the rights to the word marriage - that does work.

Marriage is neither an ownee nor an owner. Marriage, by definition; can ONLY take place when a man marries a woman. Sex is NOT marriage. This might be where all the confusion is erupting from. It might be that the various definitions of "sex" and "sexual acts" are over-shadowing the institution of marriage; thus, opening up a whole, wide-array of the meaning of marriage. It is true that "honeymoon" may lead to this kind of thinking. I am happy for that, myself. What about the Wedding Cake? . . . Could you see what kind of fiasco could be created if the "sex" part of marriage was not taken so seriously but instead the Wedding Cake region would be so stressed? I mean that could lead to questions like, "Why can't we have German Chocolate Cake?" . . . Or, what makes the Hetero-Bakerismic Couples think that they can control the icing on the cake and the Homo-Bakerismic Couples have to eat the Wedding Cake withOUT any icing? It's not fair! What exactly is a Wedding Cake, anyway? They are not the ONLY ones who can have Hetero-Cup-Cakes . . . We should be served "Gay-Fond-do!" . . . In other words, just remove the "sex part" from the marriage and it's not worth mentioning redefining the meaning of the word; MARRIAGE. As far as complaing about something that married couples should keep in mind . . . Both the male and the female must have a Social Security Number, or they can not reap the same benefits on the Standard Form 1040 Income Tax Return. The IRS is not concerned about your certificate of marriage. The IRS is more concerened about the number they are calling you!!! . . . AND the two numbers that the Social Security Department has assigned to the two citizens filing the joint tax return. That is the new government that took over when we were caught "blinking". THAT is much more significant than the bouquet of flowers for the "best whatever . . . man???" ...

If you're willing to pay back all the tax breaks you got when you were married in the name of fairness and keeping the word "marriage" to its original definition, well, then I'll accept your argument, Sam.

Otherwise--you're just grossed out by the idea that two people can love each other, regardless of gender, in the way that is usually only thought of as heterosexual.

Words get redefined all the time. Pull out an OED sometime and just look at the original definitions of words. One of my favorites is the word "nunnery". You think of that as a convent, right? I mean, how could anyone mistake it as something else! And a convent is a HOLY place!

Well, when Hamlet tells Ophelia to "Get thee to a nunnery", he's telling her to go to a whorehouse.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

Why do word definitions HAVE to stay the same? I mean, look at the word "cool". Even 50 years ago, "cool" meant "not quite cold, not quite warm". Now it means all sorts of things, from "okay" to "that's really neat" to "calm and collected".

How DARE those people in the last 50 years change the meaning of the word! I mean, that just puts forest streams and light breezes into SHAME! It ruins the sanctity of a refrigerator --and omg, what about coolers? Are they just "okay" now?

The definition argument holds no water for me. Words mean what society thinks they mean, no more, no less.

[F]Marriage is neither an ownee nor an owner. Marriage, by definition; can ONLY take place when a man marries a woman. Sex is NOT marriage. This might be where all the confusion is erupting from. It might be that the various definitions of "sex" and "sexual acts" are over-shadowing the institution of marriage; thus, opening up a whole, wide-array of the meaning of marriage. It is true that "honeymoon" may lead to this kind of thinking. I am happy for that, myself. What about the Wedding Cake? . . . Could you see what kind of fiasco could be created if the "sex" part of marriage was not taken so seriously but instead the Wedding Cake region would be so stressed? I mean that could lead to questions like, "Why can't we have German Chocolate Cake?" . . . Or, what makes the Hetero-Bakerismic Couples think that they can control the icing on the cake and the Homo-Bakerismic Couples have to eat the Wedding Cake withOUT any icing? It's not fair! What exactly is a Wedding Cake, anyway? They are not the ONLY ones who can have Hetero-Cup-Cakes . . . We should be served "Gay-Fond-do!" . . . In other words, just remove the "sex part" from the marriage and it's not worth mentioning redefining the meaning of the word; MARRIAGE. As far as complaing about something that married couples should keep in mind . . . Both the male and the female must have a Social Security Number, or they can not reap the same benefits on the Standard Form 1040 Income Tax Return. The IRS is not concerned about your certificate of marriage. The IRS is more concerened about the number they are calling you!!! . . . AND the two numbers that the Social Security Department has assigned to the two citizens filing the joint tax return. That is the new government that took over when we were caught "blinking". THAT is much more significant than the bouquet of flowers for the "best whatever . . . man???" ...



Actually the legal definition of marriage is: a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally. Forms of marriage include: monogamy, polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, same-sex, pragmatic (arranged), romantic and forced.

What are you talking about as far as IRS is concerned? Are you saying that I can legally file a joint return with another person, not my legal husband, as long as we list both SS numbers? How do you propose handling the "check the box if you are married filing jointly" question and the fact that lying is a Federal crime ?

Here's part of the IRS Reg: "You may only file a joint return if you are married at the end of the tax year (December 31) and both of you agree to file and sign a joint return.1 The box you check on your return is “Married filing jointly.” Same-sex couples and domestic partners cannot file joint returns. You qualify as married even if you are separated as long as there is no final decree terminating your marital status."

You are giving very strange, totally incorrect and also very illegal advice - I am beginning to get the feeling that those people you wish you could bomb or kill may be following the same Laws you prefer to ignore.

I have no idea what your sex equals marriage equals chocolate cake rant is about - there are marriages without sex for a variety of reasons. Does that make them invalid or non-existent marriages? Was that your point?

A lot of people say that nothing can stand between two lovers. People are (supposedly ) created equal, so what right do we have to judge others? I thought when we ended slavery, it was supposed to the end of judging others because they are different. I am straight, but why should straight people be against same-sex marriage? It hardly affects straight people, I think. So why not live and let live?