Prop 8

[museksk8r]

Sorry, so what's next? Should you expand that "love" to accept one man and two women, or two men and one woman marriage, and so on and on?! Why only one man and one woman?! It's endless, but it's simply wrong! It's a confused, twisted love that this video is asking for.

I can accept gays and respect them, but to ask to legally validate that is totally wrong. It's against nature. If nature is the God we are talking about, yes, it's against God.

"Against nature"? Gee, you make it sound like homosexuals are subhuman, as if we are less than heterosexuals, or you make it sound like humans are going to want to marry goats or monkeys next. The way I see it, your reaction to this video shows that in reality you do not accept or respect gay people. So you "accept and respect" us, but we shouldn't be able to declare our love if we wish to or have the same rights as you? Hmmm. For you to claim that consenting and devoted gay love between 2 committed adults is "confused" and "twisted" is a tremendous insult!

[decker]

What museksk8er said.

Also, I don't care what deity anybody worships, what holy book they believe, etc. In my country (the US), our Constitution says we each have a right to decide those things for ourselves. What we don't have is the right to decide for others.

Don't believe in gay marriage? Fine. Prop 8 nor any other law would force you to enter into one or mandate that your church perform ceremonies. Only to mind your own business where other people's private relationships are concerned.

Susan

[psycho]

Sorry, so what's next? Should you expand that "love" to accept one man and two women, or two men and one woman marriage, and so on and on?! Why only one man and one woman?! It's endless, but it's simply wrong! It's a confused, twisted love that this video is asking for.

I can accept gays and respect them, but to ask to legally validate that is totally wrong. It's against nature. If nature is the God we are talking about, yes, it's against God.

Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, I suggest you open a biology book and learn all about what is against nature and what isn't. You will be very surprised.

[Joesitz]

Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, I suggest you open a biology book and learn all about what is against nature and what isn't. You will be very surprised.

To read a biology book especially on certain scientific topics would be going against the laws of a supreme being. That is if you believe in supreme beings.

[psycho]

To read a biology book especially on certain scientific topics would be going against the laws of a supreme being. That is if you believe in supreme beings.

No, you're absolutely right. Let's just all collectively fester in a cesspool of ignorance...

[jennylovskt]

I believe the state should just eliminate the term "marriage". Leave "marriage" for ministers, rabbis, etc. Let all unions that the state conducts be called "civil unions", whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Not "husband and wife", or "wife and wife", or "husband and husband", but just "partner and partner". This way the reasonable conservative won't feel like "marriage" is getting redefined, yet everyone would be treated equal.

Isn't this similar to the deregulation in the financial market? It won't work. It might stimulate the society for a while, but sooner or later, it will cause trouble. JMO.

[Ptichka]

I guess I do not really see a "problem" that this might cause. Massachusetts was the first state in the country to allow gay marriage, and yet we have the lowest divorce rate in the country! In fact, traditionally "marriage" has really been a contract between a groom and the bride's father, a largely financial transaction that society had a stock in.

Your arguments are really religion-based, and I therefore do not think much constructive can come out of discussing them - you have your beliefs, I have mine. The only reason, frankly, that I support civil unions over marriage is that it's less contentious, and I do not see this as enough of a civil rights issue to create any more strife in our society.

As long as nobody is forcing me to marry anyone, male or otherwise, I'm fine with it.

[antmanb]

I can accept gays and respect them, but to ask to legally validate that is totally wrong. It's against nature. If nature is the God we are talking about, yes, it's against God.

I'm sorry but there is not a single "accepting" or "repsectful" thing about gays in your post. You accept them but they shouldn't be legally valid? I'd rather you not pay guilty lip service with the first pointless phrase in your post.

Ant

[Joesitz]

I'm sorry but there is not a single "accepting" or "repsectful" thing about gays in your post. You accept them but they shouldn't be legally valid? I'd rather you not pay guilty lip service with the first pointless phrase in your post.Ant

I believe the basis for anti gay rhetoric is FAITH not FACT. As Oscar Hammerstein II said in South Pacific, "You've got to be taught" because bias is not inherent.

[Bennett]

I hope that gay marriage becomes legal in many countries.

I have a friend who is thinking of moving to another country because he has better rights as a gay over there. I am sure that he would be happy there; but I still think it such a big decision to make. He has to leave his own family back home, for example. I also feel that he may be able to earn more back home as he's currently receiving really high income here. Although the quality of life with one's partner is one of the most important elements in life, I feel that he has to sacrifice really a lot in other areas in life.
Another close friend of mine would like to bring his boyfriend to the US to marry so that his boyfriend could work in the US. But this is not gonna happen at least for a while. They are still pretty young so that they have time though.

Psychologically speaking, marriage is often seen as a goal of the dating phase and a start of new family life. Without that defining moment, I would feel a bit less stable and more anxious. I also guess that the lack of legal rights/obligations and of economic advantages in taxes could affect the stability of the commitment.

I know he was vague about this issue during the campaign; but is Obama against gay marriage?

[dorispulaski]

It was kind of hard to tell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

He said he was for civil unions with all the legal benefits of marriage.

[jennylovskt]

Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, I suggest you open a biology book and learn all about what is against nature and what isn't. You will be very surprised.

Sorry, you are not the only one who knows biology.

What is about 5% of those from biological reasons for being gays (those are the gays that I respect. Of course, no one, even themselves sometimes, know what is real. So it's better to respect them all but not emphasize and encourage it.) has been enlarged by all the irresposible behaviors to make it looks like the base is over 30%. I am worried about the next and next, next generations. It's for sure that we are going to have more and more "gays" in the generations to come if we continue to emphasize it. Those are not the gays from biological reasons, but from confusion and twist of emotions, from disappointments and rejects by the other sex, from the educations in the growing up period.... I truly believe that there are a large number of gays who are not biological gays. You know what? The natural reproductive process will be less and less in this way, and that is against nature which I am talking about.

And "to mind your own business" sort of thinking about it is an irresposible way about the moral issues, which is similar to deregulation in the financial system.

I stated my true believes and thinkings, like you all having been doing. If my way has offended you all, I am sorry.

[Wrlmy]

What a convenient theory. That definitely solves overpopulation problem. Seriously, it is known fact that sexual orientation/identity is biological. "Confusion and twist of emotions" may lead to bi-curious pursuasion, if that is what you are worried about, but I firmly believe it cannot fully change anyone's sexual orientation. Those who "become" gay in response to exposure to gay culture might as well be biological gays who happened to be raised in a heteronormative society.

[museksk8r]

What a convenient theory. That definitely solves overpopulation problem. Seriously, it is known fact that sexual orientation/identity is biological. "Confusion and twist of emotions" may lead to bi-curious pursuasion, if that is what you are worried about, but I firmly believe it cannot fully change anyone's sexual orientation. Those who "become" gay in response to exposure to gay culture might as well be biological gays who happened to be raised in a heteronormative society.

You speak the truth!

[jennylovskt]

Those who "become" gay in response to exposure to gay culture might as well be biological gays who happened to be raised in a heteronormative society.

That is only your theory, or I should say "only a theory" on this topic. In the process of exposing to gay culture, I believe that boys are much more vulnerable than girls as in many psychological and genetic fields.