Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
fairplay wrote on Dec 1, 2009 12:49 PM:
Hypethetically, this country is based on Freedom. Are we not free to love and commit to whom we choose? The only problem I can see, is if we are forced to choose a same sex mate, which is not the case.
dadochipper wrote on Nov 18, 2009 10:39 AM:
I dont have a problem with legally recognizing the union of gay couples. I do have a problem with the term marriage as it relates to a religious blessing of the union. Religions that believe homosexuality is wrong are allowed that belief, whether we agree with it or not. Civil unions - yes; religious marriage - no (if that church does nt support it).
dannygs wrote on Nov 10, 2009 2:14 PM:
as an observer of human behavior, I find it curious that there is a line of trucks outside the adult book store most times you drive by. no, there isn't a big sale - Moonpenny, these are the 46% that you are so concerned about: married guys in the video booths receiving pleasure through the glory holes. as with Larry Craig, I wouldn't call these guys gay - they're just the 46% you mention that are in between.
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 1:49 PM:
LOCAL LADY, There are plenty of other countries that you can live in...don't let the door hit you on the way out..
Eastsider wrote on Nov 10, 2009 12:07 PM:
Dear World,
Please pull the plug on this one. In the future, it would be nice if everyone was allowed only one comment. Maybe people would think a bit rather than just taking a mental dump at the readerships' expense.
Please pull the plug on this one. In the future, it would be nice if everyone was allowed only one comment. Maybe people would think a bit rather than just taking a mental dump at the readerships' expense.
Local Lady wrote on Nov 10, 2009 10:48 AM:
I am not gay but I have many many gay friends and they are bigger people than all you ignorant biggots. Who says they are looking to get married to be validated in your eyes? They could give two hoots about you and your conservative agendas. And the last time I checked They are HUMAN too! They live, love, work, bleed, dream, laugh and cry just like the rest of us. The decision to deny them marriage is just as bad as racism. It's bigotry and ignorance in its purest form. I am disappointed in this country.
m00npenny wrote on Nov 10, 2009 10:19 AM:
DannyGS: Kinsey's findings have been criticized for sampling limitations and the general unreliability of personal communication in this sphere of human activity. His claims of
50% of the population is “exclusively” heterosexual throughout the adult life and 4% of the population are “exclusively” homosexual their entire adult life. That leaves 46% to chance? Are you serious? That leaves 46% of the population literally unaccounted for, who are so confused about their own sexuality that they don’t fit a pre determined category as laid out by Kinsey? BAH! His research was flawed. He was nothing more than a zoologist with nymphomaniac tendencies. His research has been disputed for decades now. Find something a bit more recent and accurate. And don’t even bring up Freud.
50% of the population is “exclusively” heterosexual throughout the adult life and 4% of the population are “exclusively” homosexual their entire adult life. That leaves 46% to chance? Are you serious? That leaves 46% of the population literally unaccounted for, who are so confused about their own sexuality that they don’t fit a pre determined category as laid out by Kinsey? BAH! His research was flawed. He was nothing more than a zoologist with nymphomaniac tendencies. His research has been disputed for decades now. Find something a bit more recent and accurate. And don’t even bring up Freud.
2009 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 7:20 PM:
To Nogod. If Zeus and Aphrodite didn't approve of gay marriage then I am pretty sure the ancient Greeks would not have approved of it either..
amadeus wrote on Nov 9, 2009 9:17 AM:
no god and danny gs, you are my local heroes. I too am doubtful that the easterbunny is omnipotent.
dannygs wrote on Nov 8, 2009 10:13 PM:
moonpenny, that is an impossible task. the ex-gay movement is a scam that preys upon confused and weak people and exploits them. Ted Haggard is a prime example of this, as well as Larry Craig. You're either gay or straight. Kinsey's research indicated that there is a spectrum- that is where bisexuality exists. Then there are the straights that dabbled in the gay (those crazy college years!) or the gays that dabbled in the straight (oh those confused years!).. but ultimately, you are or you aren't, or you're just festive and can go with whomever... but "ex-gay" doesn't exist.
NoGod - you are correct with your statement about Santa.
CBLifer - every version of the bible has the stories about homosexual love: Jonathan & David and Ruth & Naomi are my two favorites. Go read! & God Bless You!
NoGod - you are correct with your statement about Santa.
CBLifer - every version of the bible has the stories about homosexual love: Jonathan & David and Ruth & Naomi are my two favorites. Go read! & God Bless You!
m00npenny wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:47 PM:
I challenge any of you left wing nuts to show to everyone, just one Gay/Lesbian advocacy group, legal representation or just the Little Boys in Dresses Committee, that "support" those Gay brothers and sisters, who have decided they are not gay anymore, and they need the Gay Community's support to help them back through their transition to straight life. If someone is struggling with their gayness just as ones do with their straightness, I want to see where the Gay support comes in for those people. Or is it only for the “Politically Gay Correct?” You won’t find it. If you’re not gay, or if you don’t think you are gay anymore, you’re on the curb with yesterday’s trash. So there’s your task left wing nuts, show us with a groups name or url. Prove they give a d*** about anyone but themselves!
NoGod wrote on Nov 7, 2009 2:32 PM:
I'll be glad when the gray haired bigots and their offspring die off.There is no God. Sorry to say, yes it's true.. Oh it is you say? Ok then.. Say this outloud.
"I don't approve of gay marriage because Zeus and Aphrodite don't approve of it"
What's that you say? That's just crazy talk? No, that's what people used to say before the new fictitious characters stolen from dozens of other religions were invented. So, stop and think for a second how INSANE you sound each time you utter something about your silly make believe god..You might as well be praying to Santa.
"I don't approve of gay marriage because Zeus and Aphrodite don't approve of it"
What's that you say? That's just crazy talk? No, that's what people used to say before the new fictitious characters stolen from dozens of other religions were invented. So, stop and think for a second how INSANE you sound each time you utter something about your silly make believe god..You might as well be praying to Santa.
rianza wrote on Nov 7, 2009 12:32 PM:
Dear Justice For All.
I don't recall ever complaining about Obama specifically. I do, however, recall taking you to task, as I take issue with people being opinionated rather than informed. And I do take issue with this entire administration and the whole of Congress - both Republican and Democrat - destroying the dollar and basically bankrupting the U.S. With the exception of you and a few others I don't many folks anticipated that Obama would be so dedicated to moving us to the Euro. But hey! Keep watching TV - everything's greeeatt!!!
I don't recall ever complaining about Obama specifically. I do, however, recall taking you to task, as I take issue with people being opinionated rather than informed. And I do take issue with this entire administration and the whole of Congress - both Republican and Democrat - destroying the dollar and basically bankrupting the U.S. With the exception of you and a few others I don't many folks anticipated that Obama would be so dedicated to moving us to the Euro. But hey! Keep watching TV - everything's greeeatt!!!
Leigh wrote on Nov 6, 2009 11:27 AM:
Moonpenny, gay couples are just like any other couple. Some of them want to get married, and some don't. I have gay friends who do want to marry.
CB Lifer wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:30 AM:
It amazes my how so many of you pick out one thing from an entire paragraph to rant and rave about. I am not quite sure where you get your Bible information DANNYGS, but apparantly the interpretations are a bit out of whack from what I have learned. Again, I feel it's pick a bit here and make an issue of it. The gay/lesbian people I know, are ok with my beliefs. Thats all I care about, and some day, the little book of hocus pocus says "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord". See ya there.
Keen wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:50 AM:
The thing I notice most about right-winged weirdos is that they have a problem sticking their noses into things that are none of their business. If you aren't gay, this has absolutely NO baring on you what-so-ever. I hope minorities invade your church this Sunday and tell you all how to think and live your lives.
That is, if you even really go to church.
I suspect most of uproar is over the fact that a lot of these people have repressed homosexual tendencies that they're afraid to act on. Why else would there be so many people involved with something that is none of their business?
That is, if you even really go to church.
I suspect most of uproar is over the fact that a lot of these people have repressed homosexual tendencies that they're afraid to act on. Why else would there be so many people involved with something that is none of their business?
somethoughts wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:34 AM:
Mark Smith
Nambla and same sex marriage hold no favor with me but the issue and difference between nambla and same sex marriage is consent. Children do not have the mental and emotional capacity for legal consent.
Nambla and same sex marriage hold no favor with me but the issue and difference between nambla and same sex marriage is consent. Children do not have the mental and emotional capacity for legal consent.
somethoughts wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:11 AM:
For those who feel that God would not approve of same sex marriage, you should remember that the same God gave free will. That means the right to choose the wrong thing as well as the right thing. Jesus did not force his will on others. If these marriages are wrong, God will address it, just as he will address your judgement of others.
Justice for All wrote on Nov 5, 2009 11:18 PM:
Rianza, does that mean that you'll stop complaining about President Obama; considering that the majority of Americans have spoken?
fawkina wrote on Nov 5, 2009 6:07 PM:
Wow, I still have yet to read any argument of the anti-gay crowd that has any validity. Your religion has no say in American politics, so that is invalid. It's funny how you don't want to hear any of the "gay agenda" yet you are shoving your religion down people's throats.
Secondly, the only people gay marriage affects are gay people who want to get married. When you invalidate someone's loving marriage they get affected in a negative way which is extremely hurtful.
Your knee-jerk reactions are all in your head. Look how many of the world's most prosperous countries have had legal gay marriage for years, and has it destroyed their society and desecrated their idea of "family"? I think not. Get a clue, bigots.
Secondly, the only people gay marriage affects are gay people who want to get married. When you invalidate someone's loving marriage they get affected in a negative way which is extremely hurtful.
Your knee-jerk reactions are all in your head. Look how many of the world's most prosperous countries have had legal gay marriage for years, and has it destroyed their society and desecrated their idea of "family"? I think not. Get a clue, bigots.
dannygs wrote on Nov 5, 2009 3:56 PM:
the majority hasn't spoken - the mormon church has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to sponsor campaigns to mislead people who aren't wise enough to know better.
it's all good - talk to anyone under 35 and you will be informed that this is a non-issue. they are the future - and ignorance and the old ways y'all are so desperate to hang on to will be dead with you.
good riddance
it's all good - talk to anyone under 35 and you will be informed that this is a non-issue. they are the future - and ignorance and the old ways y'all are so desperate to hang on to will be dead with you.
good riddance
rianza wrote on Nov 5, 2009 3:04 PM:
This issue is becoming tedious. The entire nation has spoken and the majority don't feel that a gay couple who have managed to secure an adopted child with no say in the matter, constitutes a legitimate "family."
Personally, I could care less - it's just more money for the lawyers - but if the people have spoken, then pleeeease, accept the result and resume living your lives.
Personally, I could care less - it's just more money for the lawyers - but if the people have spoken, then pleeeease, accept the result and resume living your lives.
Joe Black wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:41 PM:
AMADEUS:
I think it's quite telling that you chose the name Amadeus. In Latin, it means "God's love".
I guess perhaps subconsciously, you really do believe we are not alone.
I think it's quite telling that you chose the name Amadeus. In Latin, it means "God's love".
I guess perhaps subconsciously, you really do believe we are not alone.
amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:32 PM:
rez, you completely missed the point. you religous nuts claim homosexual marriage desecrates marriage. I was merely pointing out that DIVORCE desecrates marriage, so lets OULAW divorce. Also let's make cheating illegal. Stripjoints and magazines should be illegal too, as well as porn, because THEY deserate the sanctity of marriage. what else...? thinking naughty thoughts about your wife's sister or best friend desecrates marriage so let'soutlaw free thinking too. and as for animal homosexuality, your god must have made some terrible mistakes because ANIMALS wern't given free choice...
Mark Smith wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:28 PM:
No Job,
That's pretty damn funny, I'll meet you over there maybe we can stir up those that don't want to be blown up in an LNG explosion. Aught to be a hoot.
That's pretty damn funny, I'll meet you over there maybe we can stir up those that don't want to be blown up in an LNG explosion. Aught to be a hoot.
amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:19 PM:
yes, remember when blacks too were a vocal minority and tried to voice THEIR right to vote? shame on them huh? and as for that book of hocus pocus, there would have to BE a hell to freeze over before i dumbed down enough to believe in the easter bunny.
NB_Rez wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:41 PM:
JOE BLACK makes a very good point. There are many behaviors in the animal world that would be considered heiness in human society, so I don’t buy that as an excuse. I also don’t buy divorce rates between heterosexual couples as an excuse. Show me the statistics on divorce rates for homosexuals. They are hardly comparable considering gay marriage is only allowed in a few states. For me, the bottom line is that anal intercourse between two men is disgusting and vile and whether I’m religious or not, under no circumstances are you going to convince me that it’s normal human behavior. The same holds true for two women for that matter. Gays and lesbians are a vocal minority and are intent on pushing their ideology onto mainstream society without any regard to anyone else’s personal beliefs. I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own homes, but I’m tired of being made to feel like there is something wrong with me for not accepting deviant sexual behavior as the norm.
NOJOB wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:31 PM:
This has turned into some sort of Gay and Lesbian forum. YUCK!
All of us heterosexuals are going over to the LNG article to complain about that.
All of us heterosexuals are going over to the LNG article to complain about that.
joe black wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:23 PM:
Please don't attempt to justify homosexuality in humans by saying that it's common in the animal kingdom. Animals have been known to eat their young and I hope you don’t also support that for humans.
We are not animals - or at least not me.
I believe in the little book of hocus pocus and someday so will you.
But by then it'll be too late.
We are not animals - or at least not me.
I believe in the little book of hocus pocus and someday so will you.
But by then it'll be too late.
The Brutal Truth wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:15 AM:
GARY,
Way to validate two people's love & commitment to each other by comparing it to a person's love for an animal or belongings.
Way to validate two people's love & commitment to each other by comparing it to a person's love for an animal or belongings.
amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 9:12 AM:
science v theology...not natural ? homosexuality? I dare you linear thinkers to actually do some simple research and tell ME just how many species of animals, non human, "god's creatures" there are that participate in homosexual activity...regularly and without the protest of their heterosexual counterparts. Are you saying that the almighty 'god " got it wrong too? the very "god" you are relying on to make your decisions and form "your" (and I use that phrase loosely) opinions? make up your minds...AFTER you actually read something other than the buy-bull, or the Rush limbaugh newsletter etc...
dannygs wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:20 AM:
Christianists need to understand that they can't use their cute little book to control everyone else. not everyone believes in your hocus pocus. and if you're using Leviticus to quote that Homosexuality is bad, then make sure you adhere to the other restrictions listed there - this includes no shrimp and no clothing from mixed materials.
as for procreation - what you're saying then is that anyone over (45ish) or with infertility issues can't be married. or at the time a woman goes through menopause then her 45(ish) year old husband can trade her in for a 20 year old?
put your cute little book away, open a science book and perhaps you'll find that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is extremely common. sounds pretty natural to me! sounds like the only thing holding us up from equality for all of our citizens with one (supposed to be charitable) group holding another down, is hanging on to antiquated beliefs and an extreme desire for their perceived world to not change.
as for procreation - what you're saying then is that anyone over (45ish) or with infertility issues can't be married. or at the time a woman goes through menopause then her 45(ish) year old husband can trade her in for a 20 year old?
put your cute little book away, open a science book and perhaps you'll find that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is extremely common. sounds pretty natural to me! sounds like the only thing holding us up from equality for all of our citizens with one (supposed to be charitable) group holding another down, is hanging on to antiquated beliefs and an extreme desire for their perceived world to not change.
BALASHARK wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:57 PM:
gay marriages are not in the 'natural' order of things. same sex marriages can not naturally produce off spring (not to say they cant be good parents) this is NOT in the human scheme of things... defintly a NO vote here.. always.
m00npenny wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:08 PM:
Leigh: Now let me tell you what the gay couples I know say. They don’t like all of this drama being played out in each state. They don’t want to be associated with all those “little boys in dresses”. Marriage isn’t needed to validate anything. They’re a committed couple, with all of their legal affairs are in order. Each has power of attorney and a few other legal docs to make things smooth if one has to make decisions for the other.
But that’s not the agenda here is it. It’s not about "oh but what if I get sick”. This is about taking something from one group, something that is important to one group, and forcing it to be shared. The word Marriage is what is at stake here; this is the mission and motivator of the “little boys in dresses, because truly committed Gay couples could care less.
But that’s not the agenda here is it. It’s not about "oh but what if I get sick”. This is about taking something from one group, something that is important to one group, and forcing it to be shared. The word Marriage is what is at stake here; this is the mission and motivator of the “little boys in dresses, because truly committed Gay couples could care less.
Just An Observer wrote on Nov 4, 2009 5:02 PM:
Hello Leigh, please let me define the terms I use.
Marriage = A civil union
Holy Matrimony = Theological union
No need to nullify anyone's marriage exists in this situation and with these definitions. You can marry your pet goat until someone stares at it too long if you want...LOL! I'm for more freedom, not less.
Marriage = A civil union
Holy Matrimony = Theological union
No need to nullify anyone's marriage exists in this situation and with these definitions. You can marry your pet goat until someone stares at it too long if you want...LOL! I'm for more freedom, not less.
Gary wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:35 PM:
Next will come marrying your dog, cat, horse, motorcycle, etc.etc. etc.
CB Lifer wrote on Nov 4, 2009 3:50 PM:
One more simple statement. I am a Christian, and have had several friends and to this day still do, that are gay. I love them very much, they are great people. It is not my job to judge them or anyone else. If they know my "Christian" opinion, and they all do, that doesn't mean we can't still care about one another. They know that I believe their lifestyle is wrong, and it's left at that. There's no need for me to cram it down their throat. I can tell you where it says it's wrong in the Bible. But it also says that the greatest gift God gives us, is love. Unconditional. With that said, I still believe gay marriage is wrong.
mark Smith wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:57 PM:
Jess B,
You obviously are not reading or using the rules set forth. You are using your views and current laws to justify others being excluded, nambla etc.
That is where your thinking is flawed. There are laws on the books saying marriage is between man and woman. There are laws that say certain ages aren't able to enter contracts etc.
You want to ignore one because it is right for you but you quote the other one because it is wrong. Why is that?
It's simple, because you are on the other side of the fence, plain and simple.
If on the other hand you want to be reasonable and fair then you have to eliminate your own though processes as they pertain to nambla and polygamy. The majority think that is wrong as we do gay marriage, but to allow one you have to concede the others are in the exact same position as you and deserve equal treatment.
You obviously are not reading or using the rules set forth. You are using your views and current laws to justify others being excluded, nambla etc.
That is where your thinking is flawed. There are laws on the books saying marriage is between man and woman. There are laws that say certain ages aren't able to enter contracts etc.
You want to ignore one because it is right for you but you quote the other one because it is wrong. Why is that?
It's simple, because you are on the other side of the fence, plain and simple.
If on the other hand you want to be reasonable and fair then you have to eliminate your own though processes as they pertain to nambla and polygamy. The majority think that is wrong as we do gay marriage, but to allow one you have to concede the others are in the exact same position as you and deserve equal treatment.
Leigh wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:24 PM:
Just an Observer, if I follow your line of thinking, then no couple in Oregon (or the country) should be allowed to marry. They should all be civil unions. That's definitely a valid argument. However, that would mean dissolving millions of current marriages. I can't see that happening any time in the near future. But I agree with your statement about equal rights for all people. In America, we have little thing called separation of church and state. I am a Republican (gasp!). I believe in God and consider myself a Christian, but no religion has the right to impose laws on our country or state. Not allowing gays and lesbians to marry is discrimination. But that's just my opinion. Obviously I'm in the minority. :-)
Just An Observer wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:58 AM:
There is a difference between a civil union called marriage and a religous-based covenant called Holy Matrimony. We don't need churches telling society what is legal in the civil sphere and we don't need the civil sphere telling what "matrimonies" those churches, temples or shrines can sanction.
A government of the people, by the people and for the people is for ALL the people. Government neutrality in regards to gay marriage, polygamy, group marriage or any other domestic partnership contract is part of having a truly free society in my opinion. All the government should do is register these relationships and thus allow the body of law known as family law to be in place.
A government of the people, by the people and for the people is for ALL the people. Government neutrality in regards to gay marriage, polygamy, group marriage or any other domestic partnership contract is part of having a truly free society in my opinion. All the government should do is register these relationships and thus allow the body of law known as family law to be in place.
Leigh wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:34 AM:
People choose to get married because it is the ultimate commitment you can make to someone you love. I've lived with a partner and been married to him, there is a big difference. Gay couples just want to be allowed to make that same commitment. Homophobia is based on fear, ignorance, and prejudice. I challenge those of you who are afraid of the gay lifestyle to actually get to know gay and lesbian couples. And who says a state sanctioned marriage has to be between a man and woman only? Just because that's the way it's always been done? We used to enslave black people and deny women the vote as well. Those of you who oppose gay marriage based on religious views need to realize this is a state sanctioned marriage, not a religious one.
dannygs wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:54 AM:
Dan Milburn hit the nail on the head - what a brilliant solution. For me its all about the taxes, health insurance, inheritance laws, and visiting a sick partner in the hospital. If those four issues were guaranteed, then I'd say to leave marriage to the straights. They're doing a real good job with it, btw - yay Divorce!
those that want to equate a committed homosexual relationship to an arrangement with two other people or with a dog, I'd say you're missing the point. You're not understanding that what this involves is two people who love one another unconditionally and want to declare that and be together for the rest of their lives and in doing so have the protections guaranteed as an American. Its about love. It's not about sex or validation of a perversion.
as for the Christianists wanting to quote the bible or their faith, I hope you're not wearing mixed material for clothing, eating shrimp, and make sure you pay no attention to the hot love Naomi & Ruth shared and the intense love Jonathon and David shared in the bible.
those that want to equate a committed homosexual relationship to an arrangement with two other people or with a dog, I'd say you're missing the point. You're not understanding that what this involves is two people who love one another unconditionally and want to declare that and be together for the rest of their lives and in doing so have the protections guaranteed as an American. Its about love. It's not about sex or validation of a perversion.
as for the Christianists wanting to quote the bible or their faith, I hope you're not wearing mixed material for clothing, eating shrimp, and make sure you pay no attention to the hot love Naomi & Ruth shared and the intense love Jonathon and David shared in the bible.
WOW wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:29 AM:
I am pretty surprised Oregon even has this amendment. I doubt it will be repealed now. I am a Christian and I don't know how I would believe without my basic beliefs. I have family members who are gay/lesbian. But I think marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman. Gay marriage defeats the purpose of the family. The family is the basic unit of our society and it is being attacked. I am supportive of the present amendment and won't support its change. And I won't leave religion out of it because it's not something I can just simply remove from how I think or act.
Jess B. wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:25 AM:
Mark,
Secondly, Children cannot enter into marriage contracts, therefore the slippery slope fallacy of NAMBLA you bring up is invalid. Also, pedophilia has a victim, and comparing two consenting adults marrying to a child being abused is a false comparison and yet another logical fallacy on your part.
Lastly, as far as polygamy goes, the slippery slope argument is in use here and the comparisons are not entirely correct. It would make just as much sense to state, "If we let men and women marry, what is to stop men from marring many women?". It is a different issue that is entirely unconnected. Government recognized marriage has been around for awhile now and polygamy is still not recognized.
(The previous paragraph can also apply to the marriage to animals concept.)
Secondly, Children cannot enter into marriage contracts, therefore the slippery slope fallacy of NAMBLA you bring up is invalid. Also, pedophilia has a victim, and comparing two consenting adults marrying to a child being abused is a false comparison and yet another logical fallacy on your part.
Lastly, as far as polygamy goes, the slippery slope argument is in use here and the comparisons are not entirely correct. It would make just as much sense to state, "If we let men and women marry, what is to stop men from marring many women?". It is a different issue that is entirely unconnected. Government recognized marriage has been around for awhile now and polygamy is still not recognized.
(The previous paragraph can also apply to the marriage to animals concept.)
Jess B. wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:23 AM:
Mark,
First, I said that you can keep religious marriage. I did not say that civil ceremonies cannot be called marriage. If that is so, there would be many secular people out there who are not actually "married".
The Maine vote is bigotry at it's best, or rather worst. Why? Because the law protected ANY individual (including religious and government officials) from having to perform a same-sex marriage. This means the there was no impeding on anyone's rights religious or otherwise. But, the vote was still to deny two ADULTS the ability to enter into a contract like every other ADULT couple can.
First, I said that you can keep religious marriage. I did not say that civil ceremonies cannot be called marriage. If that is so, there would be many secular people out there who are not actually "married".
The Maine vote is bigotry at it's best, or rather worst. Why? Because the law protected ANY individual (including religious and government officials) from having to perform a same-sex marriage. This means the there was no impeding on anyone's rights religious or otherwise. But, the vote was still to deny two ADULTS the ability to enter into a contract like every other ADULT couple can.
loventhecoast wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:52 AM:
I think that MARK SMITH posed a qood question:
How about a guy and 2 consenting women getting married, if they love each other they should be able to get married.
Why do you have to be married? I have a domestic partner (opposite sex) and we live together without a piece of paper and our love is just as strong as a married couple. I am not against gay rights -i feel that we love who we love. But you cant change the laws just to fit your needs - or you have to change other laws for everyone else... like Mark stated.
Just love each other and be happy that you have found the one to return your love.
How about a guy and 2 consenting women getting married, if they love each other they should be able to get married.
Why do you have to be married? I have a domestic partner (opposite sex) and we live together without a piece of paper and our love is just as strong as a married couple. I am not against gay rights -i feel that we love who we love. But you cant change the laws just to fit your needs - or you have to change other laws for everyone else... like Mark stated.
Just love each other and be happy that you have found the one to return your love.
CB Lifer wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:52 AM:
LEIGH - I don't care how people judge me. I am still able to voice MY opinion in the USA....so far. I personally believe it is wrong, I believe we all live by our own choices. I choose to believe in God, and I choose to believe gay, alternate lifestyle, what ever you choose to call it, is wrong. I can love and care about the people, but not the "sin" if you will. YOU are entitled to your opinion, and you have chosen to judge me on mine. I will stand on my own morals, and always vote no. God made man & woman. period. you vote yes, and we'll balance out. It is after all supposed to be majority.
Mark Smith wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:22 AM:
Uh Oh, Maine voted to repeal state law that would have allowed gay marriage. It's the 31st state to have lost on this initiative when put to a popular vote.
Maybe as Jess said they should stop trying to get married and have civil unions that many more people would support. Marriage is a function of church and religion to the majority of people.
Maybe as Jess said they should stop trying to get married and have civil unions that many more people would support. Marriage is a function of church and religion to the majority of people.
Mark Smith wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:05 AM:
Jess B.
If it is a civil rights issue and an issue of a civil ceremony why must it be condoned as marriage. They want the word marriage, end of story.
And what do you say of polygamy or NAMBLA?
Can you or anyone here answer how either of these is different OTHER than a moral view of the issue which obviously isn't acceptable doesn't count.
For any Gay person reading this that wants marriage why should you have rights that 2 women and 1 man don't? Or a man/woman and a child?
Give me a valid and defensible position and I will vote for you.
If it is a civil rights issue and an issue of a civil ceremony why must it be condoned as marriage. They want the word marriage, end of story.
And what do you say of polygamy or NAMBLA?
Can you or anyone here answer how either of these is different OTHER than a moral view of the issue which obviously isn't acceptable doesn't count.
For any Gay person reading this that wants marriage why should you have rights that 2 women and 1 man don't? Or a man/woman and a child?
Give me a valid and defensible position and I will vote for you.
Justice for All wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:57 AM:
If this discussion was happening in the 1960s, most of those commenting would be arguing that separate but equal was right. What don't you get about our constitution entitling ALL people to equal protection under the law.
When all is said and done, history will view those of you who are fighting against Gay Marriage the same as those who fought against Civil Rights. Is that really the side you want to be on?
When all is said and done, history will view those of you who are fighting against Gay Marriage the same as those who fought against Civil Rights. Is that really the side you want to be on?
dan milburn wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:27 AM:
Do you want to keep arguing about it or do you want a solution? The simple solution is change the tax laws so that everybody pays a fair share. Skip the nonsense and make all deductions be for better defined dependents. If Bill and Homer want to live together let them decide which one is dependent on the other - or not. Same way for women. It's a money and insurance issue. Leave sex out of it. Insurance policies can be written in any form. This argument will never find a solution until you eliminate all unneccessary opinions.
BorderView wrote on Nov 3, 2009 11:35 PM:
Whats next?
Dogs and cats living together?
Pigs and sheep hanging out behind the barn?
No thank you.
A deviant filthy lifestyle belongs on some other planet.
Dogs and cats living together?
Pigs and sheep hanging out behind the barn?
No thank you.
A deviant filthy lifestyle belongs on some other planet.
ocnlvr83 wrote on Nov 3, 2009 10:38 PM:
2009-Religious indignation and prejudice is the reason I don't believe in religion. I appreciate your opinion, and though I don't support, you're entitled to talk smoke out of your rear end, because you have the right to do so.
Eastsider wrote on Nov 3, 2009 10:14 PM:
NAMBLA? Little kids? Kind of a latent post, don't you think? Is it always about sex with you?
Jess B. wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:12 PM:
Wow, most of you are missing the mark here.
This IS a civil rights issue as it is about the rights of citizens to sign their names to a legal contract that is recognized by the government.
Two consenting adults (rules out children and animals here)can and should be able to enter into a legal contract. This contract just happens to have the word "marriage" associated with it.
Nobody is asking for religious marriage rights here. You and your church can keep that all to yourselves. There are many secular people who choose to do a "civil" ceremony only. This is what they want the ability to do.
Your religion or it's books (and the morals that you pull from it) give you no right to pass laws infringing the rights of others. If you disagree, think of how you would feel if your religion was not the majority and someone was passing laws against your rights based on their religion and it's books. (See Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sharia Law as references to why this is a bad idea.)
This IS a civil rights issue as it is about the rights of citizens to sign their names to a legal contract that is recognized by the government.
Two consenting adults (rules out children and animals here)can and should be able to enter into a legal contract. This contract just happens to have the word "marriage" associated with it.
Nobody is asking for religious marriage rights here. You and your church can keep that all to yourselves. There are many secular people who choose to do a "civil" ceremony only. This is what they want the ability to do.
Your religion or it's books (and the morals that you pull from it) give you no right to pass laws infringing the rights of others. If you disagree, think of how you would feel if your religion was not the majority and someone was passing laws against your rights based on their religion and it's books. (See Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sharia Law as references to why this is a bad idea.)
Hiram1999 wrote on Nov 3, 2009 7:22 PM:
This bill is discriminatory! 3 loving committed people should be allowed to marry. Even more, if a man love his sheep, he should be allowed to wed his sheep. Obviously, we should have societal norms, and the definition of marriage should be left to the people. The definition of marriage should always be one man, one woman. Period...
dannygs wrote on Nov 3, 2009 5:06 PM:
comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is impossible: homosexuality leaves no victims, pedophilia leaves a victim. the difference between two consenting adults and one adult inflicting their will upon a child who can not make such a choice.
amadeus wrote on Nov 3, 2009 4:54 PM:
i can see the clear divide. those who evolved and those who didn't, the last time we made a philosophical jump in our intellects. married men and women adopt children ...so do gay "couples". how does the word "marriage" diminish the heterosexual marriage because of a gay couple getting married? Lets look at the divorce rate of straight marriages...doesn’t THAT diminish the value of marriage? Doesn’t infidelity desecrate the sanctity of marriage? Maybe we should outlaw that too. don't the partners and children of ALL families deserve to share health insurance that is provided to "married partners"? doesn't a person deserve to visit or be visited by their loved ones while in the hospital or any other situation reserved for you god fearing right winged hypocrites? Evolve please, or stop reproducing.
Mark Smith wrote on Nov 3, 2009 4:49 PM:
Eastsider, freedom doesn't mean freedom to legitimize a sexual orientation or proclivity.
Should there be freedoms for NAMBLA? Or how about young kids?
It's a choice to love underage children, should we accept that as a society or just THIS particular item?
Should there be freedoms for NAMBLA? Or how about young kids?
It's a choice to love underage children, should we accept that as a society or just THIS particular item?
dannygs wrote on Nov 3, 2009 4:20 PM:
Moonpenny: at what age did you make the decision to be straight? was it a hard one? I don't think people choose to be gay.
tsunami wrote on Nov 3, 2009 4:17 PM:
if they want to get married they should be able to procreate. the last i checked, irregardless of all new found medical inventions, it still takes a man and woman. no matter how much they'd like to, they cant and never will.
Mark Smith wrote on Nov 3, 2009 4:05 PM:
So I ask this hypothetical what if two guys want to get married, they are like brothers and want the insurance benefits as well as financial benefit of being married, but they are straight. Should this be okay too? Or two women in the same situation.
When the lines are crossed they are crossed.
How about a guy and 2 consenting women getting married, if they love each other they should be able to get married.
When the lines are crossed they are crossed.
How about a guy and 2 consenting women getting married, if they love each other they should be able to get married.
m00npenny wrote on Nov 3, 2009 4:01 PM:
I believe you have the right to exist, to live in peace without violence. You have the right to have families and grow within society, to grow within your community. You do not have the right to the word "Marriage". Find another word to describe your union. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I won’t acknowledge same sex marriage. I will not support, endorse or agree to it. This is not a civil rights issue either. Your cause is your choice. A gay lifestyle is your choice. Why must you demand and insist that society "validate" your choice? If you want to get married, you have the right to do that already, as man and wife. You made your choice.
Also I want to know why your agenda does not include any assistance or literature for those who have lived a gay lifestyle and now question it. Do you offer counseling for those who want to transition back to a heterosexuality lifestyle? Will you will help someone if they are gay and want to transition to say, transgender? Of course you do.
Why not heterosexuality?
Also I want to know why your agenda does not include any assistance or literature for those who have lived a gay lifestyle and now question it. Do you offer counseling for those who want to transition back to a heterosexuality lifestyle? Will you will help someone if they are gay and want to transition to say, transgender? Of course you do.
Why not heterosexuality?
Leigh wrote on Nov 3, 2009 3:47 PM:
CB Lifer, just because you think "it's wrong" doesn't mean you should dictate how others live their lives. How does a gay couple getting married hurt or affect you? It doesn't. Get over youself. Would you want everyone judging you according to a set of morals different from you own? I am not gay, but I am living in the 21st century. If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry. Live and let live...
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 3, 2009 3:37 PM:
Steve, I like your choice of words (alternate life style) don't you mean GAY! Do you think the children would suffer because of a gay marriage?
dannygs wrote on Nov 3, 2009 2:09 PM:
Hiliux, I somewhat agree with you, if it weren't for the 1000 benefits that come with having your union recognized by the government.
hiluix wrote on Nov 3, 2009 1:56 PM:
The government should not be sanctioning marriage in any way shape or form irregardless of who is doing it , its none of the governments business who marries who .
dannygs wrote on Nov 3, 2009 1:55 PM:
this all about civil protections that are afforded to citizens of America - has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a choice.
Good Luck B.R.O. with this - I say move it up to 2010, let's get the show on the road! (and we don't want the crazies to make the '12 election all about how the gays are overtaking the churches)
Good Luck B.R.O. with this - I say move it up to 2010, let's get the show on the road! (and we don't want the crazies to make the '12 election all about how the gays are overtaking the churches)
The Brutal Truth wrote on Nov 3, 2009 1:26 PM:
First off, let's be honest about what this is--special rights.
Currently, a gay person has the exact same rights as I, a hetero person, has: The right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Ok, so now that we have that out of the way, I will say I AM NOT opposed to gay marriage. I think you should be able to marry whomever you choose.
Don't give me any of that moral high ground garbage about the ruining the sanctity of marriage and all that, because for a lot of folks marriage is a joke anyway, what with rampant infidelity and divorce.
Anyway.....I do have to say this article will be a fun way to bring out the bigots!
Currently, a gay person has the exact same rights as I, a hetero person, has: The right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Ok, so now that we have that out of the way, I will say I AM NOT opposed to gay marriage. I think you should be able to marry whomever you choose.
Don't give me any of that moral high ground garbage about the ruining the sanctity of marriage and all that, because for a lot of folks marriage is a joke anyway, what with rampant infidelity and divorce.
Anyway.....I do have to say this article will be a fun way to bring out the bigots!
Steve Pickering wrote on Nov 3, 2009 1:23 PM:
No secret here. I m open about being Gay Tolerant (I have family who live an alternate life style), but I am adamant about Same Sex Marriage. So are the voters of Oregon. It isn’t marriage, it is a lifestyle protected by law, but unacceptable as a sacrament or legal status. I say NO! I am also Anti Abortion and unashamedly so. Stop trying to run rough shod over the majority.
2009 wrote on Nov 3, 2009 1:12 PM:
I voted no for it last time and will continue to do so. OCNLVR83, Marriage itself is based on religious principles.
amadeus wrote on Nov 3, 2009 1:09 PM:
I am not at all suprised by the homophobia that abounds rampantly in this area. I am glad you were not able to influence the outcome of the civil rights movement, although this area still has a reputation for being bigotted against ethnic minorities. What are ya all afraid of? your OWN sexuality? afraid of your own gay tendencies and can only avoid them by not acknowledging gays as equals? I can't wait till your kind are all extinct...
CB Lifer wrote on Nov 3, 2009 1:01 PM:
Whats wrong with "religious principles"? At least they are principles. What about moral principles? Look around, the more morals and religion taken away and left out of society, the worse it gets. Can't anyone see that? No consequences for actions. The more "loose morals" and demands on "NO religion" the worse it's gonna get. So my vote is and always will be NO!!!
JessMessner wrote on Nov 3, 2009 1:00 PM:
I must not have read this carefully. Front page lead and it did not say how many dogs were at the rally. Was there 11 people and a dog? Anyone that still has not questioned biased reporting isn't looking objectively.The liberal agenda is being fed to us constantly.
The LNG plant hasn't a prayer according to what we read but people will have common sense enough to formalize gay marriage?
The LNG plant hasn't a prayer according to what we read but people will have common sense enough to formalize gay marriage?
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:19 PM:
Same sex marriages are just plain sick. I hope the Oregon voters "DO NOT" overturn this law.. You people "DO NOT" deserve the same rights as a man-woman couple.....
CB Lifer wrote on Nov 3, 2009 11:24 AM:
I disagree, will always disagree, and always vote NO on "gay nuptuals". We the people vote against it, the government thinks they can dictate to us, and the gay activists figure they can wear us down by nagging. I believe it's wrong, and stand on what I believe. Do I hate them? Absolutely not. I believe that I should not be forced to support, or be a part of what I believe is wrong behavior. Just like I do not support or want to be a part of legalized Marajuana, or abortions for example. And that is my opinion, and so far, in this country, (for who knows how much longer) I can still state my opinion even if others disagree.
ocnlvr83 wrote on Nov 3, 2009 11:12 AM:
I think if the country would just get over antiquated thought processes, this would not be an issue. What the heck does the world have against same-sex marriage besides religious principles? Nothing, that's what. Open your hearts and minds, and see there is nothing wrong with equal rights. They love one another just the same as any hetero couple, and want the same rights.
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines