sure they do but they cant expect everyone to agree with them.including jehovah god.
Do you support gay marriage?
(from a U.S. citizen's perspective—because my opinion doesn't (and shouldn't) impact other nations)
No. But only because I do not believe government should be in the marriage business. I don't think they have any authority to give me permission to marry whomever I like, even if it is more than one person (not that I would, because my wife doesn't like to share her toys).
Since I am in favor of the federal government minding its own damned business and this issue directly addresses an instance of federal government interference in a private matter that is outside their constitutional boundaries, I am opposed to legislation one way or the other on this issue.
I am hard pressed to find a reason why one second should be wasted on a national debate of this issue at the federal level given the quagmire of current international relationships. If they can fix the crap we hired them for first, then I might feel differently about them stepping into shoes they were never meant to wear—yours and mine.
The federal government is our child, it was birthed from We the people, and it is becoming rebellious as a teenager. It is time for a trip behind the woodshed, because time-outs aren't working anymore.
Seriously people should be able to be happy and if people like me that have been brained washed and have a problem with the way others live it that person who looses out because he or she will never get to know the real person just see the Gay person. This is sad I try hard to over come my own feeling about Gay men because gay women do not bother me at all. No person should judge another person if that person hurts nobody else by their actions
No, and I do not support people marrying animals either! Basically, to me, marriage is a man and woman. Anything else is a civil union.
Anyone care to define the difference between a marriage and a civil union, to me, please?
LT - Semantics
It seems that way to me, too. An artificial distinction, to retain mental and discriminatory boundaries around personally-held world views.
I'm open to hear a couple of good (and wildly divergant) definitions, though.
This is my "issue" with the gay community. I say...hey, don't call it a marriage, call it a civil union but get 100% of what a marraige provides. This is the #1 most important thing. Then over the next 5 to 10 years as people are comfortable with it, replace the word civil union with marriage. Besides...that part of it will take care of itself.
Can you imagine talking to a co-worker about an upcoming "gay" wedding over the coming weekend, and saying "Yeah, the Mrs. and I have a Unioning to go to on Saturday". LOL
Or secondarily have the government drop the word "marriage" all together, and have all civil unions regardless of sex, and let churchs, justice of the peace, etc, call it marriage or whatever they so choose.
The wheel turns slowly. I'm all for your second solution.
And for the record, I've been invited to a gay "marriage" this Summer. Will I go? Damn right!
I've been to 4 gay weddings now. 3 at the Unitarian Church. 1 at the justice of the peace.
The mixing of the traditional role of bridesmaids and groomsmen were interesting. Refreshing really. Unique. Not sex roles of women only for the "bride" and men only for "groom", but in the gay wedding both men and women served as attendants. Pretty cool!