Which, unfortunately, many people seem to have forgotten about.

1. I feel that it is okay and absolutely NOT wrong. Why would it be wrong that two people with the same gender fall in love? Everyone should be able to be loved, aside from their sex.

2. No, I would respect them the same way even if they WEREN'T gay. I don't see what the problem is.

3. It should be legal. What's wrong with marrying with someone that you love? Just because you're the same sex, doesn't mean anything. Everyone should be loved, even if they're with someone of the same gender.

1. I find homosexuality to be morally wrong and an abomination and a sin in God's eyes.

2. I wouldn't like the fact that they are gay, but God teaches us to love the sinner and hate the sin. They are human beings. No matter who they are or what they do, they are our neighbors and we should love them regardless.

3. Homosexual marriage should not be legal. The real definition of marriage is the holy union between a man and a woman.

I don't judge who should be married and who can't based on WHO they love. But in the Bible it is a sin and I am a Christian so I'm going with what God says but I'm not going to judge the person because God asks us to love the sinner not the sin they committ.

The problem is that a lot of Americans don't abide by God's rules.

But the problem we are facing is that we have three branches...

The executive[Bushy. WOO!]
The Legislative[Law Makers]
The Judicial[Judges]

The third branch is taking on the responsibility of the second by creating these free passes for homosexual couples.

So, considering we're fighting a battle over a constitutional right by abusing the Constitution once again by allowing the jurisdiction of the federal courts to be more wide spread.

This is just an article I found online.
LINK HERE

But Doesn't the Constitution Provide for Limiting the Jurisdiction of the Courts?

The U. S. Constitution declares:

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions , and under such regulations as the Congress shall make ." (Article 3.2.2, emphasis added)

Some Constitutional devotees have relied on this clause to indicate all Congress has to do is pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But this is not what it says. As Dr. Skousen explains:

"This provision was not designed to give Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but simply to make decisions on many topics conclusive after a hearing in the lower courts. It was the purpose of the Founders to protect the Supreme Court from being submerged by a mountain of trivial cases when it should be concentrating its attention on matters of national importance." ( The Making of America, p. 612. See quotes from the Founders on pages 612-613 to support this position)

"As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written constitution' and 'the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.) Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury , 'would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.'

1. I'm completely ok with it and support it.
2. I wouldn't mind at all.
3. Of course.

The only reason marriage should ever be debated in the courts is if they're discussing the legal aspects of it. What many people fail to realize is that marriage is actually divided into two parts. You have your legal marriage where you and your partner go down to the courts and file for a marriage certificate, go through the process, and you're married.

Then you have a religious marriage where you and your partner go to your choice of church and ask to be married under whatever God or Gods you worship and believe in.

Two separate events. People just happen to do both at roughly the same time nowadays.

First of all, where the f**k did you get that definition??
Secondly, go jump off a bridge you little piece of shit.

I hope you have a daughter one day and a straight man rapes her.

The founding fathers lived in a time where homosexuals were less than humans. We have moved past that era, so why can't our constitution keep up with us?

Is America really arguing over terminology in the constitution? Over the literal meaning of 'man and woman'? Ridiculous.

1. How do you feel about it? Is it okay? Is it wrong?
I know some homosexual people and they seem normal to me. I don't really understand why other people are so against it, besides religious morality. Some people who are against homosexuality are hypocrites. Just look at the incident with a certain Catholic Church where the priests molested young boys and men (I will cite this, if deemed necessary).

2. What if you knew someone for years... and then you find out that they were gay/lesbian... would that change the way you feel about them? Would you still respect them?
I will not change the way I feel about them, unless I like-like them. If I do like-like them, I would try to move on and find a straight guy to fall for. If anything, it would be meaningful if the person who comes out of the closet told me first or something. To know that s/he would trust me enough to tell me shows courage and friendship. I'm a pretty accepting and open-minded person when it comes to sexuality. I will still respect them, but if they hurt someone else that I care about, I might lost some respect for him/her. It really depends on the situation, but in most cases I will respect them.

3. Should it be legal for them to marry?
I believe that it should be legal. People who generally oppose it are the ones that believe that marriage is sanctioned for heterosexual couples due to procreation. Procreation is a religious idea, and I am definitely not religious. Also, the arguments that are used to prohibit same-sex marriages are based on religious morality. Technically that breaks the First Amendment of freedom of religion because some religions allow same-sex unions. Religion should not be the basis for marriage, especially since marriage should be based on "love." What about heterosexual couples who decide NOT to have children? Should they have their marriage licenses taken away because they don't believe in procreation?

Also, same-sex civil unions are allowed in some states, but once that couple crosses state borders, legislation changes. It's almost as if the same-sex civil union doesn't matter, as same-sex unions would still be barred.


I'm currently writing a 10-page essay about same-sex marriages, so yea I could go on and on about question number 3.

Eh, I'm too lazy to bring in Plato's Symposium Aristophanes into this, as it will get too philosophical.

I think that homosexuality is completely normal. I am glad to see that there a lot of people on here that are open to it. America has really started to be more open minded when it comes to sexuality, it's quite fascinating. Sexuality is an interesting topic.

If I found out that one of my friends were gay it certainly wouldn't change the way i feel about them. A lot of these posts say "as long as they don't like me then i'm fine." About that, how is that not the same as someone of the opposite sex liking you? So you're friend of the same sex likes you, you don't like them, how is that any different from a friend of the opposite sex liking you when you don't like them? I personally don't really see any difference.



What makes you think that men and women friends wouldn't do the same thing? That is very stereotypical! Marriage is generally taken as a serious thing, not as fraud, regardless of what combo of genders are to be married. marriage/divorce isn't that cheap, so i doubt it would be that big of a problem. I don't believe that many people's opinions will change unless the overall view of the homosexual community is changed. Homosexuality really isn't a choice in my opinion, because really, who would choose to be reject by most people?

Most would agree that they would want racism to end.. discrimination in any form is contributing to the ignorance that prevents any prejudice to die down. So if you want a certain type of discrimination to end you should be open to wanting all discrimination to end.

Lets all open up ours minds...

fags suck.