Pro-Gay Marriage Is Pro-Woman

11 Responses to “Pro-Gay Marriage Is Pro-Woman”

1. TNVoluneer73 writes
   November 9th, 2009 2:12 pm

   You cannot be pro-homosexual marriage, you can be like me pro-civil union

   Marriage by definition is a union of a people of OPPOSITE GENDER. the definition is specific.

   mar⋅riage  /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij]

   the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

   The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
   Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

   civil union
   n. A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.

   The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
   Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

2. Gotta Wonder. writes
   November 9th, 2009 2:36 pm

   But it will cut down on the number of gay women marrying straight men. There’s the crux of the problem!

3. DADvocate writes
   November 9th, 2009 2:41 pm

   gays marrying straight women

   Has this been a problem since Rock Hudson died?

4. Johnsonville Brats writes
   November 9th, 2009 2:47 pm

   Every high school freshman composition student knows it’s meaningless to use a dictionary definition. Ten years from now, these definitions could be something very different.

5. Chris Sanders writes
   November 9th, 2009 3:04 pm

   Yes, it’s a problem. So to all you straight parents out there with straight children of marriageable age, it is in your interest for people who are gay to be out, healthy, and happy. Honestly, would you want your daughter married to Ted Haggard and have her go through something like that? If Pastor Ted and others grew up believing it’s all right to be gay (if that’s what you are), then they could have spared their spouses a lot of shame/heart ache/time in court, etc.

   To my fellow Christians I would say give up trying to turn gay people straight. It’s a lost cause. What could potentially happen is that your son or daughter might get involved with someone who thinks he or she has changed, but leads a double life. That’s dangerous for everyone involved.

   Unfortunately, the public policy positions of many in this state reinforce these very situations which come back to bite them.

6. not guilty writes
   November 9th, 2009 3:36 pm

   Good point regarding Ted Haggard. The suggestion that extending the definition of marriage to include same sex couples will somehow harm the traditional marriages of opposite sex couples has always puzzled me. A marriage is typically as strong or as weak as the participants in that marriage choose for it to be.

   I should think that for a gay man to marry the man he loves and feels physical attraction to and affection for would be preferable to that same man marrying a woman for show while seeking furtive mansex on the downlow. Am I missing something?

7. Jon writes
   November 9th, 2009 4:54 pm

   >Every high school freshman composition student knows it’s meaningless to use a dictionary definition.

   Ain’t that just like a durn liberal elitist, going on about yer high fallutin high school ejukashun. No Real ‘Merikan gives a hoot and hollar what you intelekshuals think, we no that the ‘Merikan Heritage Dikshonary speaks God’s law!

8. not guilty writes
   November 9th, 2009 7:05 pm

   Another thing. Some who believe the book of Genesis to be literally true regard Genesis 2:24 to be the institution of heterosexual marriage (never mind that neither Adam nor Eve had father or mother to leave in order to cleave to one another). By this logic, is Genesis 4:19 the institution of polygyny? (”And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.” KJV)

   The offspring of Adam and Eve who are named in Genesis are Cain, Abel and Seth. Adam also begat other sons and daughters, (Genesis 5:4,) whose names are not listed. Cain and his wife conceived a son, whom they named Enoch. (Genesis 4:17) Seth begat Enos (or Enosh, depending on translation) (Genesis 4:26 and 5:6)

   If Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all humans, then Cain and Seth must have impregnated their sister(s). (The text refers to Cain’s wife, but does not indicate Seth’s marital status. Cain’s wife could theoretically have conceived by both brothers.) Is this the institution of incest?

   Be careful where literalism takes us.

9. Davy writes
   November 9th, 2009 8:31 pm

   Ah, let’s see, since homos only make up about 10% of the population, aren’t both sides making this whole debate into a mountain when it should remain a mole hill?

   I mean if churches want to “marry” gays, then if the state wants to stop them, won’t that be a violation of their Constitutional right to practice their religion?

   Hell, let ‘em get married.

   If half the heteros can’t make it work after vowing to God and everyone that they will, won’t the same thing happen to the gays?

   And then, won’t the whole damn point become moot, like the whole marriage institution is among straight people now?

   I mean do people even give a rat’s patoot if the couple who lives next door to them are hitched or not?

10. kymber writes
    November 10th, 2009 1:27 pm

    Why are people that are not married in a church but married by a justice of the peace considered married? they too should be considered civil union. You can’t use the word for all “married” hetero people but put a ban on gays. If it is a Christian word, for a Christian sacrament then great! Stop all the others from using it too, not just gays. Make another word for everyone else.

11. kymber writes
    November 10th, 2009 1:41 pm

    Maybe they explain it the best… this aired yesterday.

    Oprah Listens Intently as Ellen + Portia Share Their Story

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxYQSat_fFo