Same-sex marriage

Yes, if two men or two women are happy together and want to be married I have no bother stopping them .

I see no reason why not.

Roloman4 wrote:This is frightening.

No it's not, it's just another idiot. You act like Bachman will come into power any time soon.

^ Just another republican idiot. ^

Yes, to gay marriage.

dena wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:This is frightening.

No it's not, it's just another idiot. You act like Bachman will come into power any time soon.

She's dangerously close to winning the Republican nomination.

Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

ahlycotc wrote:Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

I didn't see a point in adding a maybe option at the time, no I do, due to the wording of the question.

Here is what I meant to ask, are you in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage?

Roloman4 wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

I didn't see a point in adding a maybe option at the time, no I do, due to the wording of the question.

Here is what I meant to ask, are you in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage?

No. It's not something I would fight for or encourage because I'm against the idea of homosexuality. I don't have a problem with states legalizing gay marriage though.

Roloman4 wrote:

dena wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:This is frightening.

No it's not, it's just another idiot. You act like Bachman will come into power any time soon.

She's dangerously close to winning the Republican nomination.

No she's not?

There is no front runner for the GOP, plus the election is like... 14-15 months away, no way you can say she's "dangerously close" to anything.

dena wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:

dena wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:This is frightening.

No it's not, it's just another idiot. You act like Bachman will come into power any time soon.

She's dangerously close to winning the Republican nomination.

No she's not?

There is no front runner for the GOP, plus the election is like... 14-15 months away, no way you can say she's "dangerously close" to anything.

Dangerously close was an exaggeration... She still has chances and has been gaining support in quite a few key states.

I don't like Newt Gingrich either.

It's too early to say, and things change very quickly in the last 6 months to a pres election (see 2008) but I think Obama has this, the GOP is too fractured and the candidates are idiots.

Fuck what the people want, gay marriage harms no-one, therefore it should be allowed.

ahlycotc wrote:Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

What about if the majority of the population feel that interracial law shouldn't be allowed? Or that a particular religion should be oppressed?

Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Are you also against marriage for infertile couples?

Yeah, doesn't affect me so I'm not bothered. Just gotta except it I guess.

Yes, although i never hear of lesbians kicking up a fuss over the issue, for that matter i've never heard of a lesbian marriage, maybe i'm just young and inexperienced.

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Who said they are against it?

Really, what an ignorant comment.

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Are you also against marriage for infertile couples?

Der fuck?

Roloman4 wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Who said they are against it?

Really, what an ignorant comment.

They refuse to use their reproductive organs for what they are for. Pretty much couldn't be more against new life.

CollieBuddz wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Are you also against marriage for infertile couples?

Der fuck?

If that's your point then you're also against marriage for couples which can't have children because they are infertile. Pretty simple.

They are doing a good thing then, controlling the population, i say celebrate it even harder!!

hell yes.

CollieBuddz wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Who said they are against it?

Really, what an ignorant comment.

They refuse to use their reproductive organs for what they are for. Pretty much couldn't be more against new life.

So you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they wouldn't be able to produce offspring with their partners?

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Are you also against marriage for infertile couples?

Der fuck?

If that's your point then you're also against marriage for couples which can't have children because they are infertile. Pretty simple.

You've missed my point by a long shot.

A couple not having a baby because their sperm swims backwards or something is nowhere near the same as a couple not having a baby because they won't stick it in the right hole.

Seriously, how could you even make that connection?

JMB_94 wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Who said they are against it?

Really, what an ignorant comment.

They refuse to use their reproductive organs for what they are for. Pretty much couldn't be more against new life.

So you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they wouldn't be able to produce offspring with their partners?

In a way yes. It's not my whole reason, because I still think heterosexuals who choose not to have a baby should be able to get married.

I just think we shouldn't celebrate people who deliberately go against human's design.

Let's be honest, homosexuals are just being rebels because they want attention. It's why they change their voice and wear ridiculous clothing.

CollieBuddz wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Are you also against marriage for infertile couples?

Der fuck?

If that's your point then you're also against marriage for couples which can't have children because they are infertile. Pretty simple.

You've missed my point by a long shot.

A couple not having a baby because their sperm swims backwards or something is nowhere near the same as a couple not having a baby because they won't stick it in the right hole.

Seriously, how could you even make that connection?

So where do you stand on heterosexual couples who don't want kids?
EDIT: Just seen your reply to Rolo.

CollieBuddz wrote:

JMB_94 wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Who said they are against it?

Really, what an ignorant comment.

They refuse to use their reproductive organs for what they are for. Pretty much couldn't be more against new life.

So you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they wouldn't be able to produce offspring with their partners?

In a way yes. It's not my whole reason, because I still think heterosexuals who choose not to have a baby should be able to get married.

I just think we shouldn't celebrate people who deliberately go against human's design.

Let's be honest, homosexuals are just being rebels because they want attention. It's why they change their voice and wear ridiculous clothing.

Homosexuality is a genetic mutation, it's not a choice. They're not doing it as a protest against nature or whatever.

Ryans on the wind up..

CollieBuddz wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Are you also against marriage for infertile couples?

Der fuck?

If that's your point then you're also against marriage for couples which can't have children because they are infertile. Pretty simple.

You've missed my point by a long shot.

A couple not having a baby because their sperm swims backwards or something is nowhere near the same as a couple not having a baby because they won't stick it in the right hole.

Seriously, how could you even make that connection?

Because people don't choose to be gay. It's exactly the same thing.

Sean wrote:Ryans on the wind up..

I thought that.