What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
144 Comments
- kinseyincanada, on 05/28/2009, -9/+29seriously why do you people hate the idea of to men or two women getting married? Its just marriage if they love each other then why the hell cant they get married? I see absolutely no reason why two people who love each other cant get married and have the same rights of a straight couple?
- SSPink, on 05/28/2009, -4/+14They can't. Plenty of gay couples have been married in religious ceremonies, the fight is about whether or not the government legally recognizes marriage contracts between gay couples.
Try to keep up. - deweyhewson, on 05/28/2009, -0/+814th Amendment. Go read it.
- KyleGoetz, on 05/28/2009, -1/+9"very tired of hearing small minority trying to make itself conspicuous. what 's wrong if we citizenswant marriage to be traditional white and white. the resst shoud hae all thebenefits but for goodness sake lay off the white people. It is not normal to be black. be physically impaired ---- etc etc. Leave us alone already. Nudniks!"
Sounds very familiar...
Also, I'm SO SORRY that people treated with injustice won't shut up and just accept their lot in life. How much of an imposition it must be upon you to have to deal with this clamor! It surely is worse than being told you cannot marry the one you love! - yaminohikari, on 05/28/2009, -1/+9If I think it's annoying for two Hispanics to converse in Spanish on a Los Angeles bus, should I bring the issue to Sacramento and try to make Spanish conversation illegal by proposing an English-only policy?
More importantly, it's your fault for bringing up the mental image of fudge-packing. No one is forcing you to watch (or even think about) private gay anal sex, unlike me sitting through a lengthy Spanish dialogue in public. Your question just reinforces my belief that homophobes are the real closet perverts. - SSPink, on 05/28/2009, -0/+7I see, your problem is that the government uses the word "marriage", which you feel has a religious connotation. You would prefer that we used a more neutral term for all legal unions, such as "civil union".
I can certainly support that. - arbulus, on 05/28/2009, -0/+7@chaim67
Let me ask you: why does it matter to you? Is your marriage going to be ruined because two men can marry? Is the fact that a gay couple can legally wed detrimental to your life? Are you in some way injured by it? If you are not gay, and you live your life according to your beliefs and values, enter into a heterosexual marriage, have children, go to church, do everything you feel is right, then what is the problem? As long as YOU aren't violating your own values, why does it matter what other people do? - SSPink, on 05/28/2009, -8/+14"But some top gay-rights groups call the action potentially ill-timed."
When is the right time to fight for civil rights? Later? I'll never forget when Martin Luther King Jr. said "I have seen the mountain top... and it's too high, we'll try to climb it later." - KyleGoetz, on 05/28/2009, -3/+9I take it you didn't major in any science.
Why anyone would choose to be persecuted so is beyond me. Care to enlighten us? I mean, why would Matthew Shepard choose to have himself dragged to death? For a little man kiss? Give me a break. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard - SoulGrub, on 05/28/2009, -1/+7People say this all the time but it's a stupid idea that will invite the mother of all backlashes. It will only give the conservatives enormous amounts of political ammo and power.
- gordigor, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6I think you are pretending you can write coherent sentences.
- arbulus, on 05/28/2009, -7/+13I really wish people would understand that we have a new civil rights movement on our hands. The bans on same sex marriage are no different from the bans in the past on interracial marriage. And for all of you people who want to talk about "morality," churches preached hate and discrimination against blacks just as much as anyone else.
Oppressing a segment of the population, no matter how small a minority they may seem, is NEVER acceptable under any circumstances. Human rights aren't a matter of popular opinion or ballot measures. - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5Some don't think that it should go to the US Supreme Court knowing there is a chance it could easily go against gay marriage and then the concept is pretty much sunk. Instead they would favor returning to the ballot box where there is time to implement a PR campaign to persuade voters to consider legalizing gay marriage.
- GlassAgate, on 05/28/2009, -2/+7Didn't it take a Constitutional amendment for women to be able to vote?
- Suricou, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5Good luck finding any ancient opposition to slavery, too.
- brandita, on 05/28/2009, -4/+9I don't believe the government should be in the business of discrimination or in what we chose to do in our private lives. I believe strongly in separation of church and state. The government should extend the right to marry to all. It doesn't mean that every church has to perform gay marriages just gives those who want to the right to.
- eMximeR, on 05/28/2009, -16/+20I for one oppose gay marriage because I don't want MY children to catch "the gay". If we allow two men to be married and raise children, it's obvious gayness will run rampant and god will hate America. Jesus would hate fags too.
/s - kinseyincanada, on 05/28/2009, -2/+6your point? i completely disagree on Obamas stance on gay marriage.
- mithrasinvictus, on 05/28/2009, -1/+5Then do it in church and keep the government out of it and get a civil union if you want the tax benefits as well.
- skeeter112375, on 05/28/2009, -4/+8If gays can't marry, straights should lose the right to divorce. Could you imagine, straight men everywhere would stop proposing because they lose their 'out'. Divorce is just breaking a 'promise' to 'God' anyway, so any truly religious or 'right' person would be for banning divorce. So come on people, let's take away straight peoples human right to divorce! And it is about religion, sadly enough, when it should be about peoples rights.
- pingveno, on 05/28/2009, -2/+6Well, it looks like I'll have to tell all of my atheist friends that their marriage is a no go...
- Taiyoryu, on 05/28/2009, -1/+4That's all well and good for legalese, but in colloquial speech everyone is going to refer to it as marriage whether it was performed with the blessing of an organized religion or not, since that's what they already do.
- sg1fan, on 05/29/2009, -0/+3Several issues with your argument. Homosexuality is between 2 consenting adults. The other perversions you keep attempting to equate with it, involves one person abusing another. Please move on and fix the broken record.
- mrsteveman1, on 05/28/2009, -1/+4Kings views on gay marriage are irrelevant
- ShingoEX, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3By imposing religion into law, you're not only crossing the line that separates church and state, but you're infringing on freedom of religion.
So much for equality. - mrsteveman1, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3Why are we leaving "marriage" to religion? Why do they get to define and control it?
- Suricou, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3No US court ruling, legislation or proposed legislation has ever required churches to perform gay marriage against their beliefs. If one ever did, I doubt it would withstand challenge in court.
- SRSco, on 05/28/2009, -1/+4These comments are horrible.
- Suricou, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2I think you just broke my mind. What... is that supposed to be an argument? I can read the words, I can understand their individual meanings, but they just don't fit together.
There is no opposition to slavery today? You sound like you are living in some sort of exagerated parody of the deep south.
Then you argue that homosexuality is immoral because they can't get married... but they can't get married because it's immoral... you can't base your argument on it's own conclusion, that's cheating! Besides, once more you are just turning to tradition - sixty years ago I could have argued that if interracial relationships were moral, there would be interracial marriage. It just doesn't work like that. - neo991lb, on 05/28/2009, -1/+3I am noticing a trend.
Pro-gay and coherent- Major digg up.
Pro-gay and rubbish- Minor digg up.
Not pro-gay and coherent- Minor to major digg down.
Not pro-gay and rubbish- Major digg down.
Bringing the Bible into it- Dugg down by everyone and possibly reported as offensive. - OneFreespirit, on 05/28/2009, -1/+3Then heterosexuality would be a choice too. Get your head out of your ass.
- imautobot, on 05/31/2009, -0/+2Interesting argument. If the government could legislate morality no one would be free. The morality you speak of is the one you keep. What's moral to you is not moral to others. And since you use religion as the basis of that morality you are doubly fail. Or did you forget the separation of church and state? It is not the government's responsibility to use a religious compass when determining the fate of this nation. It's in the Declaration of Independence. Remember? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do you suppose that denying someone who is equal to you (as defined by the law) and has unalienable rights the right to marry is equal to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Actually it seems like obstruction of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Don't cram your moral code on me, your doctrine has been interpreted hundreds of different ways, and one Christian's moral code will not always coincide with another. Why do you think there isn't just one Christian denomination? Because you can't agree on anything. - SoulGrub, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2It'll never succeed because you can't touch traditional marriages without 50 million conservatives heads exploding. Also, I'm pretty sure that plenty of the non-religious would like to be recognized by society as being officially married.
- yaminohikari, on 05/28/2009, -1/+3Proposition 22 (2000): 61% support
Proposition 8 (2008): 52% support (-9% over 8 years)
I love how you bigots feel so comfortable with your short-term victory. Enjoy it while it lasts, because we will sodomize the same four words up your constipated ass once same-sex marriage is legalized by voters. And if you are so confident that the people will speak the same way consistently throughout the ages, then you should not mind us taking the issue back to the ballot. You are only fooling yourself by thinking you've won the war. - Taiyoryu, on 05/28/2009, -1/+3I still don't get how religions (or governments) can dictate who is allowed to partake in a private contract.
- Yuusharo, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2"gay marriage can not be found as serious and legitimate in any pre-modern text"
This isn't the best example, but slavery was considered serious and legitimate in many pre-modern texts. It doesn't mean it makes it right.
Marriage by the Roman Catholic church has only been defined as between "one man and on woman" for about 400 years. To the early Christians, Europeans, and even as far as the Ancient Greeks and Romans, marriage was a private matter settled between two consenting adults with no church or government involvement. What you did was your own business and no one else's. - mrsteveman1, on 05/28/2009, -1/+3I'm curious which long and deeply rooted tradition you are thinking of. The one where one family trades their daughter for a sack of rice and a mule? Or the one where a slave is forced into marriage to carry on the family name?
- kinseyincanada, on 05/28/2009, -2/+4Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual or legal union of individuals that creates kinship between the two. I understand the religious side of it, if you dont want to have same-sex marriages in churches thats ok, but in under the law there is absolutely no reason no to make it legal. History changes, if we didnt evolve our beliefs we would still be living in caves.
As for this ***** incest argument you brought up, i just assumes people reading it would use common sense and realise i was talking about two consenting adults not in the same family. - Willtheway, on 05/28/2009, -5/+7Well I hate to break it to you, but this is about morality. Churches did not preach hate and discrimination against blacks, you are not making up lies to make Christians sound like bigots when they are the most loving people on the planet. Why don't you scream bigotry towards muslims when they believe Jews and Infadels should be murdered.
- MrColdheart, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2Looking at the history of marriage there used to be child weddings,polygamy and arranged marriages of peasants and slaves because royalty owned the land and the people plus religious marriages to animals and inanimate objects.
But what really makes you an ignorant bastard is the fact that we've already had past cultures that practiced gay marriage. - GlassAgate, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2But I'm sure that every state, including all of the ones in the south,
would have gladly given voting rights to African Americans.
/s - JoeMondo, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2US law has nothing to with such history.
Same sex marraage is quite legitimate. - kaidovak, on 05/28/2009, -2/+4Perhaps I should reword it. Why the hell does the government have the right to recognize and thereby endorse any marriage at all? Would that not be promoting establishment of religion?
Marriage has its place in society and all, but it seems more effort is being put into debating who can and can't be "legally" married than legislating real issues. - applebyter, on 05/30/2009, -0/+2I dare someone against SSM to debate me on this one simple question that I have: How exactly does SSM marriage effect your life? You're not going to drop dead. You're still going to live the life that you have been living since the day you were born. Interracial marriage didn't do anything to that generation when it was passed. Hhhmmm...I've still yet to hear a reasonable debate on how it will effect other's lives. I don't know...maybe they are afraid of growing an extra head or something. I can't wait to see the documentary "Outrage". I think people will be shocked...the straight community that is...although I don't see why they would be other than finding out thier fave politician is gay. Not to mention certain politicians who have been busted lately have sex with other men in the men's bathroom.
- kinseyincanada, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2@skinturtle
Are you ***** serious? - GlassAgate, on 05/28/2009, -1/+2Wasn't there strong opposition to this amendment? A good
chunk of 'the people' didn't want women to vote. Should
we have not listened to them? - mrsteveman1, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1It would be unconstitutional to make a law, at any level of government, to ban divorce on the basis that it is a sin. It would get tossed out at the first challenge.
- boomchockalocka, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1I am glad to hear you are on our side and I thank you. I also understand your point, but as long as it isn't thrust in the face of everyone, I have found most write it off as just a fringe problem requiring nothing more than the invisible click of a Constitutional button labeled true or false.
Many have read his speech, few have read it twice, fewer still are left unprotected by it. He clarified that day what was left unclear by the founding fathers, putting the period at the end of the sentence.
Again, I am truly sorry to have wasted anyone's screen space or index finger strength, but perhaps I got a few people to read or refresh themselves of one of the most important speeches ever given. - MrColdheart, on 05/30/2009, -0/+1Wow, for a second I almost responded point for point to your psycho babble.
I think people that keep associating gay marriage to pedophilia have issues and should seek professional help -
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is