Do you support the legalization of homosexual "marriage"?

Posted by: NewLifeChristian

Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman, since the beginning when God created it. Are you willing to change that, or are you going to stand firm in defense of marriage?

  • Yes, I support homosexual "marriage".

  • No, I believe marriage is sacred and am willing to defend it.

55% 38 votes
45% 31 votes
  • Equal treatment by law according to the 14 amendment. I care more about the U.S constitution than the Bible.

  • All men (and women) are created equal. If one defines love as a romantic human connection of great magnitude, then we cannot deny that love exists between LGBT individuals. Therefore, if marriage is an institution whereby a number of individuals may express their love for one another, who, indeed, are we to get in the way of this? Freedom of expression, people.

  • It is something which we should get from our inner feeling. If we are attracted in that way, it is not our fault. God had created us. We are not responsible for it

  • Live and let live

  • yes it your decision no one should be able to toell you aren't allowed to marry someone you love

    Posted by: sethan
  • Biased poll is biased.

  • Yes, because people should have the ability to marry whoever they love. Who are we to judge a man or woman for loving the person of the same sex? I believe that biologically, men were meant to be with women, but if a man in this day and age were to love another man, who are we to tell them otherwise.

  • I believe that people should be who they want not because of realign. I Believe that if they want to be happy they should be not in sorrow because they have to marry a Woman/Man if they do not want to.

  • Marriage is a life-long commitment between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

  • Two things. First I don't believe the government has a place in "marriage". It's a religious institution. Second, if marriage is defined as between a man and woman, then why redefine it? Why not just call it something else when it's not between a man and woman?

  • Civil Unions, sure, have the federal government allow those, then transfer the power back to the states of the right to decide whether or not their people want them.

  • I don't have a problem with people being gay, but honestly, take the government out of marriage and make it a religious thing! If your religion doesn't accept gays, then too bad, so sad.

    Posted by: Jimbus
  • Marriage is the union of a MAN and a WOMAN. Anything that is not the union of a man and a woman is not marriage. I am okay with gay people, however I am NOT okay with the use of marriage as the "union of two people." It is one man, and one woman, nothing more, nothing less.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
NewLifeChristian says2016-02-15T14:59:14.2111943Z
@tajshar2k The funny thing is, the Bible and the Constitution go hand-in-hand. As a matter of fact, the Constitution honors the Christian Sabbath. You can find this reference in Article 1, Section 7, and Clause 2 which read: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,”. The Constitution was also signed in the "Year of our Lord". This is a direct reference to Christianity, which is found in Article 7, which reads: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, GO WASHINGTON–Presidt. And deputy from Virginia”.
tajshar2k says2016-02-15T15:02:29.3996455Z
This is simply a cherry-picked part of the constitution, and it barely has any impact on society. Just because the Bible is referenced in this verse, it doesn't mean it gives the government the right to discriminate against gays.
tajshar2k says2016-02-15T15:05:53.3085526Z
And it doesn't' change the fact that the 14 amendment is in violation when you don't give gays the right to marriage.
NewLifeChristian says2016-02-15T15:10:48.6523427Z
@tajshar2k "Discrimination against 'gays'"? Listen, that is barely an argument. The same "discrimination" argument could be used in favor of pedophilia-based "marriages", polygamy-based "marriages", zoophilia-based "marriages", etc.
tajshar2k says2016-02-15T15:16:12.4386447Z
What you are saying doesn't make sense. I don't care what polygamists do, I disagree with them, but I don't support banning it. Pedophila marriage is prohibited because you need to be at the age of consent. So, it's not discrimination. Zoophila marriage is impossible, because how would an animal agree to it? If gays are law abiding, are above the age of consent they should be allowed to be married.
Anonymous says2016-02-15T16:26:29.4019530Z
I just dislike how Gays flaunt about and praise who they are. Although, I do not have anything against them and I certainly don't hate them. But I do believe that marriage is between man and wife and not the opposite. Again, not a religion based opinion.
sakiusa says2016-02-15T16:47:44.4970631Z
I'm a huge proponent of gay marriage, I believe that human beings should chose to marry other humans regardless of their gender. I strongly believe the Government should stay out of the marriage issue. The more Government tries to dictate laws that constraint our freedoms the larger the Government bureaucracy becomes. I wonder if the Conservative Right realizes this. It's almost an oxymoron in my opinion, for both the Conservative Right and the Progressive Left. They only purport to support "liberty" when it's advocating one of their fundamental beliefs.
NewLifeChristian says2016-02-15T16:59:47.3067600Z
@tajshar2k Actually, animals can agree to a relationship. In fact, female dolphins expose their bellies before they mate, letting their partner know they are consenting (http://www.Debate.Org/debates/Gay-Marraige-Should-Be-Allowed./1/).
Texas14 says2016-02-15T17:31:17.3768583Z
@NewLifeChristian, 1. Marriage has always been changing. Marriage used to be about exchanging property, but it's not anymore and I don't see you complaining about that. 2. Why can't conservatives accept the live and let live principle? If it doesn't affect you, why does it matter if two men or two women get married?
NewLifeChristian says2016-02-15T17:51:46.1579647Z
@Texas14 First of all, marriage never changes. Believing marriage changes is a common misconception. The marriage statutes enacted by God are indefinite. Second, conservatives won't accept homosexual "marriage" because we respect the fact that public morality is important and is key in having a successful nation. We also respect the fact that our Founding Fathers would be utterly ashamed to see this negative change in our society.
mc9 says2016-02-15T19:44:47.2033139Z
Ok the thing is, no one is harmed by gay marriage. Also, biased poll
tajshar2k says2016-02-15T19:58:33.8217087Z
@Sciguy, It's a violation of the 14th ammendment.
Texas14 says2016-02-15T23:33:00.2661830Z
@NewLifeChristian, I don't believe in your God that "enacted" your definition of marriage. Neither do nearly a quarter of Americans by the way. So don't tell me that you have the right to force your definition of marriage on everyone. Secondly, you talk about morality as if there is such thing as objective morality. Do you really believe that?
gateboy6 says2016-02-16T00:12:18.6668042Z
@tajshar2k, gays would still have equal treatment, they can marry women, just like any other, normal man.
tajshar2k says2016-02-16T00:21:59.4283442Z
Except that's not your business on whom they marry or why they choose to do so.
NewLifeChristian says2016-02-16T22:01:44.0548657Z
@mc9 Actually, people are harmed by homosexual "marriage". For one, businesses might get in legal trouble for not performing homosexual weddings. This has actually happened before, believe it or not (see: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html). In addition, millions of religious individuals are impacted by homosexual "marriage" because their tax dollars will go to fund something that goes against their personal beliefs. Also, if I may add, once the government enacts homosexual "marriage" into law, it becomes its official and active promoter. The government's job is to promote the public good, not the public wrong. This will confuse people about homosexual "marriage".
Heterodox says2016-02-16T22:07:57.5368598Z
@NewLifeChristian See, this is the issue. There are two different "marriages" one is a religious institution the other is a legal contract. Those ministers that refuse to perform the "ceremony" should have every right to do so, most especially because it's their religion, but also, because they should not be handing out legal contracts.
NewLifeChristian says2016-02-16T22:29:20.3330828Z
@Texas14 Okay, I understand that you don't believe in the Christian God, but you need to understand that the United States was founded upon Christian values. It may not seem like that today; however, it was established on Christian values, originally. Also, I do believe in objective morality. God has established morality. If you read the Bible, you'll know that. By the way, if there are any other atheists out there reading this, I highly encourage you to take your time to read the Bible and stop listening to anti-Christian propaganda spewed by attention-seeking, liars like Christopher Hitchens.
NewLifeChristian says2016-02-16T22:32:50.9032326Z
@Heterodox Actually, I believe government should be kept in marriage. If they didn't regulate marriage, then the term could literally mean anything. The government's job is to defend the definition of marriage—established by the Bible—on a legal basis.
Heterodox says2016-02-16T22:40:49.1398982Z
@NewLifeChristian I disagree. People can enter into contracts, that's something the government can weigh in on, but religions can hold ceremonies and call those ceremonies whatever they want. I think there should be a clear separation of religion (marriage) and state (contracts).
komododragon8 says2016-02-16T22:45:22.7500521Z
NewlifeChristian: Sorry to break it to you but god doesn't exist. I normally don't tell people this but your trying to use the idea of god's existence to attack the rights of gay people. Nothing the bible says matters in the context of modern marriage laws.
tajshar2k says2016-02-16T22:46:57.4894594Z
I agree. Religion has no place in politics for a civilized country. Only in places like Saudi Arabia it's normal.
Texas14 says2016-02-17T00:48:24.4561820Z
@NewLifeChristian, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the founding fathers were deists. There are many founding father quotes where they attack religion, especially Christianity. Thomas Paine even said churches were man made inventions to enslave mankind. They also established the first official secular nation. They were very explicit that government and religion should be separate. That's why marriage laws can't be based in religious mumbo jumbo. Secondly, you attacked Christopher Hitchens by saying, " attention-seeking, liars like Christopher Hitchens." Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Hitchens. I prefer Dawkins, Harris and Jilette, however it is ad hominem to attack Hitchens in the way you did. How is he a bad faith liar?
Anonymous says2016-02-18T16:52:39.4224049Z
@komododragon8 Sorry to break it to you, but you're a piece of shit Atheist! I respect your opinion and I couldn't care less what you worship, even if you liked to fuck goats in your faith, but do keep your views on religion to yourself and do not shun or put down people because of your beliefs. You are not the keeper of rationality...
Anonymous says2016-02-18T16:56:32.6171841Z
If marraige is between a Man and Woman, and gays want to be married and can't because of that traditional idea I have something that can solve that problem. Lariage! A marriage for gays. This way, the liberals will go home and quit complaining and can stop wearing their hot pants and skinny jeans and the gays can get laried and have a grand ol' lariage! Problem solved, but wait.... They (liberals) want to twist and ruin the basic morals and traditions of modern society.
komododragon8 says2016-02-18T18:39:10.8126825Z
Sciguy: I am not putting someone down because they believe in god, I am stating that god does not exist and therefore his argument is invalid. If you read newlifechristian's argument you would know that he believes that gays should be denied a basic human right because god says so. The only logical counter argument to this is to inform him that the authority figure he is using to persecute gays does not exist and he has no better a claim than did the Aztecs when they cut out people's hearts because their god told them to.
NewLifeChristian says2016-02-18T22:25:23.7222969Z
@Texas14 Okay, first of all, I would like to apologize for criticizing Hitchens. That was a distasteful attack on my part considering he passed away a few years ago. Second, while it is true some of our nation's founding fathers were deists, there are various references to God throughout many of our nation's historical documents, indicating that our nation was indeed founded upon Christian values.
Heterodox says2016-02-20T17:05:11.6861176Z
@komododragon8 Your argument is based on the same amount of ridiculousness as whoever it was you were trying to argue against. Pretty sure "God Exists vs God Does Not Exist" ended in a draw a while ago, when neither side could prove their claim.
komododragon8 says2016-02-20T23:06:30.9829132Z
Heterodox: The only evidence for god comes from a 2000 year old book, a book which it's followers cant decide on whether or not it's supposed to be literal or figurative. Not only that, but many christians believe that god accepts gay marriage because they argue that the passages were "a product of the time" or some other BS. The point is, even if there is a god (which there probably isn't) many believe that he would be pro-gay marriage, therefore making any attempt to use him in a argument illogical.
Anonymous says2016-02-21T17:30:25.4327831Z
Komodo, he probably is not pro-gay. Who cares?
komododragon8 says2016-02-21T20:02:58.8050255Z
Heterodox: That doesn't change the fact that he probably doesn't exist and that many religious organizations don't agree with your interpretation of the bible. On top of that the US is a secular state with clear separation of church and state.
Heterodox says2016-02-22T19:59:56.2600299Z
@komododragon8 That God doesn't exist is not a fact, like I said previously that argument is a draw (neither side will likely ever win). I don't know that I have an interpretation of the bible (never read it completely), so I am not sure how any religious organization could agree or disagree. I do agree there should be a clear separation of church and state on this issue as well, I've said as much in my comment prior to my previous comment.
komododragon8 says2016-02-22T21:40:02.2433635Z
Heterodox: Did you even read my argument, I clearly state that it is a fact that god probably does not exist due to the incredibility of the source (you know saying that the earth was created in 7 days and that some women made from a man's rib was tricked by a talking snake to eat an intelligence apple). This incredibility means that anything it says needs to be taken with, not a grain, but a truckload of salt. The fact remains that the bible has absolutely no say when it comes to modern issues such as homosexuality. Marriage is a state -centered idea, the state gives you the benefits associated with marriage (legal and economic privileges) therefore the state must give equal access to marriage for both gay and straight couples. If you want a traditional marriage, than be prepared to pay a dowry, as well as have you options greatly limited based on caste, ethnicity, religion, as well as a huge host of other injustices which people seem to forget were a part of marriage at some time.
Heterodox says2016-02-22T22:00:03.6516133Z
@komododragon8 No, I didn't read your argument. I read the basis of your argument and concluded that if the basis was false then whatever built on that would also be false. I am not sure you understand what a fact is, it's something that is proven. There is no proof that the bible has no impact on things that happen today. Indeed, there is proof of just the opposite, that it does impact things that happen today.|| I disagree that marriage is a state idea, I believe it is a religious one. As far as the state is concerned it is simply a contract.
komododragon8 says2016-02-22T23:00:20.1519490Z
Heterodox: It is a fact that the concept of god in it's modern form comes from the bible, which priests use to spread it's message. It is also a fact that the earth was not created in 7 days, that snakes cannot talk, and that women did not come from some man's rib. It is a fact that there was no global flood at any point in the past million years. Also you made a straw man: I never said that the bible had no influence, I clearly state that the ideas and laws it presents should have no authority in our modern world. Lastly, marriage is most certainly a state contract. Sure some preist in a fancy outfit, holding a bible might tell two people to kiss, but when you get right down to the meat of the matter, the benefits that come with this bond, it is a state matter. The state gives you the rights, not the church.
Heterodox says2016-02-22T23:22:37.3264333Z
@komododragon8 I made no such straw man. " The fact remains that the bible has absolutely no say when it comes to modern issues..." is exactly what you said. That was not a fact, it was an opinion. You have updated it (your statement), in the most recent posting of yours prior to this posting of mine, using the word "should" instead of "fact" - Which is good, because it is just an opinion. || I am at least glad that we agree that there are two things at play and they should be separated. The contract (between the parties and the state) and the wedding ceremony/religious dogma that comes with it.
Heterodox says2016-02-22T23:28:23.6553133Z
@komododragon8 Oh and as to this newest "fact" you mention, "... The concept of god in it's modern form comes from the bible" I wouldn't necessarily agree with either, not all religions use "the bible" and not all ideas of god come from a book .
komododragon8 says2016-02-22T23:55:41.6278444Z
Heterodox: Here is an excerpt from the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" The constitution seems to be pretty clear about the bible having say in modern issues. When I use the word "say" I mean authority. My reason for discussing god's existence being linked to the bible is because I am limiting my argument to the US. If you want to expand the the rest of the world, the teachings of "god" are still linked to similarly flawed scripture and similarly fallible individuals.
Heterodox says2016-02-23T00:12:40.8246441Z
@komododragon8, If you believe modern issues are only issues of law (what congress is the creator of), you are ignoring a very large percentage of people (raising issues, debating issue, etc.).|| As for the rest of what you wrote. What are you trying to argue? Why are you even bringing god into this?
komododragon8 says2016-02-23T00:17:19.4789889Z
Heterodox: Separation of church and state is not just limited to laws, however since gay marriage is a argument based on laws (whether to ban it or not) the bible still has no authority in the matter. Next you were the one who brought up this argument when you said: "Your argument is based on the same amount of ridiculousness as whoever it was you were trying to argue against. Pretty sure "God Exists vs God Does Not Exist" ended in a draw a while ago, when neither side could prove their claim." I am simply showing you why the argument for god not existing is the most logical.
Heterodox says2016-02-23T00:30:38.2662701Z
@komododragon8 Oh, so I showed you that you were not making sense and you wanted to continue (not making sense), thanks for reminding me (You want to continue the God Exists vs God Doesn't Exist argument, I don't believe either so you can argue that with someone else). || You're not wrong, separation of church and state is about more than just laws. || When did I ever say the bible had any authority what so ever...On anything? Find me the quote, link it for me. Good luck. || Is it not illogical to claim god doesn't against (without proof)? That's quite a bit different than claiming there is no proof of god.
komododragon8 says2016-02-23T03:42:40.2828660Z
Heterodox: hey you were the one who started this, I was perfectly content skr#wing newlifechristian into the ground and leaving it at that. Remember, it was you who brought up the idea that the argument regarding god was somehow a draw, despite how I easily disproved those claims. Now do you want to continue what you started or keep on one of the tangents.
Heterodox says2016-02-23T14:46:09.3132332Z
@komododragon8 You haven't disproven my statement (that the argument is a draw). You may have tried, but you've failed...Completely. That you have tried, is in itself a bit astonishing, because it's a fairly agreed upon concept. || I don't know what your argument is and am pretty much not ever going to bother trying to figure it out, until it's no longer based on something that is in my book "silly". Regardless of whether or not I agree with it, If I don't agree with the logic you used to get there it won't matter.
komododragon8 says2016-02-23T23:11:39.1922370Z
Heterodox: I wouldn't exactly call pointing out many of the bibles inaccuracies failing. In fact almost the entire account of genesis has been thoroughly disproven, as have many parts of the bible such as the global flood. If you can't see that than I don't know what to say.
Heterodox says2016-02-25T00:21:02.2485411Z
@komododragon8 The bible is irrelevant to the argument you are trying to make, "that god does not exist".
komododragon8 says2016-02-25T00:56:54.2613195Z
Heterodox: The bible is considered the word of god by most christians. Go to every major order (excluding mormons) and they will tell you the same thing. The priests which spread Christianity use the bible during their sermons. God (the christian one) is what the bible says he is, theres no getting around it.
Heterodox says2016-02-25T03:47:09.2472355Z
@komododragon8 It's a straw man. The bible is not God. You cannot argue god does not exist by pointing at the bible. You seem stuck on that point now too. Not everyone who believes in god, recognizes any established religion or has even read the bible, let alone believes everything written in the bible. I would even wager that in the united states the majority (51%+) of people who identify themselves as Christian have never actually read the bible in its entirety.
komododragon8 says2016-02-25T05:34:40.0780155Z
Heterodox: The bible is at the center of christianity. Even if a christian has read the bible they still listen to sermons from pastors who read out of a bible. The bible is the main provider of scripture for christians and it has been for centuries. The passage which people use to oppose gay marriage comes from the bible. Here are a list of cites which confirm it's importance to christians: http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA168/why-is-it-important-for-me-to-study-the-bible ("The Bible, the only source of absolute divine authority, will inform you of God's mind and will for your life"), https://www.ptl.org/alive/whyscripture.php ("The Bible is the single most important book ever written.") As you can see, both of these christian sources clearly confirm the importance of the bible in understanding their god. There is no way getting around this.
Heterodox says2016-02-25T17:49:02.4317831Z
@komododragon8 So, you are changing your argument then?
komododragon8 says2016-02-25T21:33:16.7627571Z
Heterodox: No my argument stands, god (the one defined by the bible) has a lower chance of existing, relative to the chance that he does not exist.
Heterodox says2016-02-26T02:05:47.6264280Z
@komododragon8 Well, I am sure everyone who believes in a god not defined by the bible will rejoice that you believe their god has a higher chance of existing than the god defined in the bible.
komododragon8 says2016-02-26T03:09:32.1580904Z
Heterodox: The reference to "god defined by the bible" is to distinguish it from the god from the Quran and Torah, of which i have less knowledge on. Suffice it to say the god which christians claim will punish us for our acceptance of gay marriage probably doesn't exist due to the inaccuracy of the source.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.