Poll: Gay marriage

Will the issue of gay marriage affect your vote?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

Comments

  • Katrina

    Absolutely. Great interview by Maria Hinijosa tonight!

  • Alan

    I support gay marriage/equality.

  • Kevmicsul

    I would never support any candidate who felt that gay Americans do not deserve a legal marriage.  Not a Civil Union, not a Domestic Partnership but a legal marriage. 

  • Cindyschaller13

    Equality for all americans.  Gay marriage now, equal rights now.

  • Daylily

    I can not vote for anyone who discriminates against gays.

  • Cecilia

    It’s important to uphold traditional marriage, while respecting and loving everyone.

  • Jim

    Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Gay marriage is an oxymoron. 

  • Bill

    Marriage for all with all the benefits that come with it.

  • WeHaveMoreImportantIssues

    The country faces bigger challenges than gay marriage.  C’mon.  Just how many gay couples are there in this country waiting to tie the knot? 

  • Cecilia

    You’re right, Jim.

  • Who cares

    There are so many more issues WAYYY more important to me than this one!  Who cares!  This should have nothing to do with the federal government.  You wanna be gay?  Be gay then.  If it’s that important to be gay AND married … then move to a state that allows it!
    Perhaps the federal reserve can just print you a marriage certificate … they seem to have it down with all this artificial currency!

  • Cindyschaler13

    Federal equal rights for all Americans is long over due.  Segregation is Unamerican.

  • Kevin

    Yet. . .how many politicians keep raising the issue to inflame the ignorant?  It’s the new boogeyman.  “Elect me and those people will never be able to marry.”  More important issues?  Probably one of the most important if you’re a gay person. 

  • Anonymous

    Why are asking a question in a way that necessarily conflates the votes of those both in favor of, and opposed to, same sex marriage?

  • Pgagnon

    All should be able to get married and be happy

  • pezcadoazul

     According to the Bible:  Behold, this was the guilt of Sodom: she had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:49).  This makes me think Sodom was full of Republicans.  I will vote for the Democrat regardless of his/her views on gay marriage.  Don’t want to risk the wrath of God!

  • Cindyschaller13

    Federal equal rights for all.  You have the same attitude of those Americans who felt an American who wasn’t white should not have equality either.  I hope you can change your narrow minded view.  This is a Federal issue, not a state issue. Attutudes like yours would have had many state(s) residents keep their slaves too. 

  • Who cares

    The politicians don’t raise the issue … the press does … so they can portray the candidates on the right as insensitive.  I think gay people should be able to marry too.  They can screw up a perfectly good relationship with marriage just as a hetero couple can.  It’s not an issue for the federal government.  Get over it!

  • Cindyschaller13

    10%, & they should be given their American Right To Do So.

  • WeHaveMoreImportantIssues

    The media keeps asking the candidates.  It’s not like any of them outlawed it.  Uh, don’t think you can ‘outlaw’ something that was never legal, anyway.  It’s just not that important in the scheme of things when choosing a president.  It’s not about equality.  If they are discriminated vs for jobs and housing that’s about equality.  They can live together and lobby for marriage laws at a local level.  Let’s hear  the presidential candidates discuss national issues.

  • Mystudio4u

    I will not vote for someone opposed to gay marriage.

  • Craigwithac

    That would simply be YOUR opinnion

  • 13ken

    The public is more educated than before, so don’t think of playing lip service. If a candidate go on public record as in favor of this thought: he will surely loose my potential vote.

  • Sue

    The way you state your question us not very clear.  You must realize that.  I would not vote 
    for any candidate who was not for gay marriage.

  • Cindy

    Progress, you must be an old guy.  We’re moving ahead, not backwards.  Equal Federal Rights for all Americans.  Extend Marriage, don’t amend Marriage.  We need more love, not mean, narrow minded old guys like you.

  • Who cares

    Assumptions once again … name calling doesn’t ever solve a thing

  • Della1143

    I DON’T   BELEIVE IN SAME -  SEX  MARRIAGE,  IT IS AN ABOMINATION  TO GOD,  IT IS BETWEEN MAN  AND WOMAN!

  • Billy

    Omfg. Leftist media, knee-jerk liberals. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. States issue marriage licenses, not the Feds. And as stated above, the poll is very misleading in its options: botht those who are against and for gay marriage will say it will affect their vote.

  • Greg

    I fully support gay enduring relationships and if marriage is the most acceptable way to celebrate that, fine. Are there any efforts in this country like engaged encounter or marriage encounter for gay couples? If there are such efforts, they might make for a valuable future program.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BAWJKLGTMK5Y62EYSEUYKFUJ6I mixed

    Voting no to discrimination in the state of Minnesota.

  • Cindy

    Then don’t be gay and marry, digbat.  But keep your hateful abomination lingo to yourself.  Equality for all americans.  Feel free to hate all the Americans you like, you very angry individual, Della.  Enjoy your weekend!  Best Regards!

  • Yulethetool

    It is long over due that GLBT folks get to marry whom they love.  I am so proud that in New York State they can.

  • I CARE!

    Equal Rights!

  • Who cares

    We have equal rights in Vermont … according to you.  Get over it.
    If this were so important to the majority, then your man in office right now (the one who walks on water) and his house majority would have passed a federal law to recognize gay marriage 2 years ago.

  • Wake up Billy

    Marriage equality is an Ametican right.  If we allowed the states to vote on ending slavery, American would still have many slave residents in many states.  Do you understand??????

  • I care!

    BS!  Seperate but equal does not qualify.  MA voted for Gay Marriage rights under MItt, it means NOTHING.  We need equality in American.  Nice to know there are so much love out there.  It’s a much stronger force than hate.  Best Regards! 

  • I care!

    BS!  Seperate but equal does not qualify.  MA voted for Gay Marriage rights under MItt, it means NOTHING.  We need equality in American.  Nice to know there are so much love out there.  It’s a much stronger force than hate.  Best Regards! 

  • Mrmk9

    I am for less government in our bedrooms, our uterus, etc…

  • Mrmk9

    I am for less government in our bedrooms, our uterus, etc…

  • I care!

    Just Equality for All Americans. 

  • Who cares

    Yes, I understand completely.  Add yet another task for the federal government to oversee.  Add another czar.  Add another load to the federal bench.
    I agree that gay couples should be able to get married.  My gf is a reverend as a matter of fact, and has married more gay couples than straight.
    I think you make way too many assumptions!  That’s a serious problem in this country.  If you are not a “fashionable” liberal then you are painted as a racist homophobe.  That will get you in trouble some day.
    It’s simply not a very important issue to me on the federal level.  I understand plenty.

  • Mrmk9

    The key phrase is equal rights to ALL!!!

  • Citizen

    This is not a civil rights issue. This is a debate over what marriage means. Our society has become so morally insensitive that we cannot distinguish right from wrong, and in fact we make heroes out of persons who wish to destroy traditional morals and marriage. PBS glorifies them. We no longer admit the obvious, that man was made for woman (speaking in terms of the marriage commitment and the sexual union which, ideally should be exclusive to it). Homo sexual marriage is unnatural in the sense that it could never produce offspring without scientific intervention.  How sad for this nation. Is this what America is all about? Tearing down a central and once-sacred pillar of society, marriage (by definition between man and woman, making it into something completely different, a contract for self-gratification, apparently between any two individuals. I suppose next will come polygamy; how sad I am for my nation.

  • Mrmk9

    WTF… is this more of less government or more of simpleminded BS?

  • Kbdbdoo

    I find it disheartening to see how far this country has fallen; to make an unnatural scenario acceptable to the masses does not make it right.  You could make it totally legal but that doesn’t make it right.  I would go to any lengths to keep homosexuality illegal, certainly gay marriage.  GAY?  What’s up with that?  It’s queer.  Just as it was termed years ago, it still is.  Deal with it. To allow same sex partners to adopt children is the same as child endangerment.  For PBS and those entities like them, I would like to do away altogether with all funding.

  • David M

    Our military fights for equal rights for all US citizens every day around the world.  Whether we call the union of two men or two women marriage or civil unions, the GLBT community deserves this basic human right. Homosexuals have existed since the beginning of time and is natural.  Homosexuality may not be the prominent way of living, but it does exist. I will do everything in my power to educate and support the GLBT community for equal rights. 

  • Citizen

    There is discrimination against people on the basis of irrelevant factors like skin color, and then there is discrimination between people on probably the most obvious of physiological differences… male vs. female. We should not discriminate against; however, we lose our moral compass when we lose the ability to discriminate between people on the basis of how they behave, or when we refuse to acknowledge the obvious physiological facts of nature.

  • marco

    Tonight’s show was nothing less than a dream come true for LGBT political advocacy. Since promotion of the perversion of homosexuality harms society, I won’t be watching another episode soon and deepen my distrust of PBS and NPR programming as hopelessly mated to the Left.

  • Chuscocats

    If a candidate takes the position that gays of either sex aren’t entitled to a married life or the right to adoption.  I.e. gays are as entitled to a normal adult paired life as straights.  They are also entitled to raise children as long as they, like straights, can provide a safe and productive environment for said children.

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.burkholder3 Robert Burkholder

    Marriage is the union of one man and one woman-anything else is fantasy/or fraud-like Dr.kelly Hollowell said on WND some time ago “It’s dilution ,stupid!’ I  don’t care what “they” do or what “they” call it. But No State has ever given compelling State interest in forcing the rest of us to accept their  immorality. I will never accept any other definition of “marriage” and No nation Ever embraced immorality and continued as a power. 

  • marco

    Marriage is neither fundamentally a state nor a federal matter; it is, fundamentally, a natural matter: it is the nature of the human family, sexually differentiated, to form exclusive one-male-with-one-female permanent relationships for the natural task of procreation; and it so happens that human offspring need much more parenting than the offspring of many other animals, so the permanent union of husband and wife has fit that need as well as any human response to a human need ever has. It is a sign of the perversity of our age (read that, rebellion against Nature and Nature’s God) that such natural truths, known and submitted to universally for millennia are now judged bigoted by advocates of perversity. Anyone who cares about more than their immediate gratification should study the careful analysis “What Is Marriage?” http://bit.ly/taLRmm .

  • marco

    Yes! let all toasters and turkey basters of the world unite in kitschy matrimony! What a thoughtless statement: “all should be able to get married.” Brother and sister; son and mother; threesomes, foursomes, and more! Forget the hell about the kids that pop out a few months later. They don’t need a dad and a mom, just partners A, B, C, D, as many as the marital crew deems sufficient. Of course, it was the sperm and ovum of only one male and one female that begot the poor kid, but don’t let the fact so biology stand in the way of perverse ideas! We’re too liberated for that!

  • A Youth

    I am surprised and appalled at the anti-gay sentiment
    displayed in these comments. How exactly does “the perversion of
    homosexuality” endanger children, harm society, or even affect the lives
    of heterosexual people? It’s seems painfully obvious that your fears and disdain for homosexuality are ill-advised at best.

    How do/would married homosexuals truly affect your lives? As unexciting as it sounds, there is no reason to believe that a married homosexual couple would alter your life in any way, shape, or form. Why exactly do so many of you, the comment posters, believe that married same-sex couples would harm your society, and by extension, your country?

    Do you oppose homosexuality due solely to personal dogma or religious conviction? If so, please remember that there are many other Americans, besides those in the LGBT community, who do not hold your personal dogmas and convictions. So long as people who have differing convictions, sexual orientations, or religious beliefs do not commit a crime, what benefit do you gain from upholding laws which impinge on there inalienable rights? Why deny these people the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness to their fullest extents?

    - a lesbian youth who yearns for understanding, compassion for others, a better America, and a better world.

  • marco

    Because this episode wasn’t about what you need to know; it was about what the advocates of sexual perversity want you to approve.

  • A Youth

    I am surprised and appalled at the anti-gay sentiment
    displayed in these comments. How exactly does “the perversion of
    homosexuality” endanger children, harm society, or even affect the lives
    of heterosexual people? It’s seems painfully obvious that your fears and disdain for homosexuality are ill-advised at best.

    How
    do/would married homosexuals truly affect your lives? As unexciting as
    it sounds, there is no reason to believe that a married homosexual
    couple would alter your life in any way, shape, or form. Why exactly do
    so many of you, the comment posters, believe that married same-sex
    couples would harm your society, and by extension, your country?

    Do
    you oppose homosexuality due solely to personal dogma or religious
    conviction? If so, please remember that there are many other Americans,
    besides those in the LGBT community, who do not hold your personal
    dogmas and convictions. So long as people who have differing
    convictions, sexual orientations, or religious beliefs do not commit a
    crime, what benefit do you gain from upholding laws which impinge on
    there inalienable rights? Why deny these people the pursuit of life,
    liberty, and happiness to their fullest extents?

    - a lesbian youth who yearns for understanding, compassion for others, a better America, and a better world.

  • AYouth

    Yes, and your opinion would simply be your opinion.

    If we debate in that manner, where do you think we’ll get? Not far I suppose.

  • Ar9111

    any anti gay move will change my vote to a gay freindly future.

  • Elongfellow

    This is an issue of respecting people and the people they love.  It is an issue of fairness to GLBT people.

  • Jonemsee

    I would not vote for a person who does not support gay marriage

  • Who cares

    My point is agree to disagree and move on.  It’s not worth debating as far as I am concerned.  There are much bigger issues out there that affect far more people.  The world is not going to come to an end if gay partners get married or not.  This issue is brought forward by liberal media types simply to make political candidates on the left appear insensitive.  This has been obvious for years and some of us see through it.
    My opinion … and the opinion of many other,too, I am sure.

  • marco

    let’s try this thought experiment: how would the presence of counterfeit $1,000 bills affect your life? Because no one might immediately be harmed by a few hundred of them in every city, why should we seek to stop and prosecute all counterfeiting of currency? Or should we stop/prosecute only when say 5% of our currency is counterfeit? Maybe 10%? And how will you feel the effects of the counterfeiting even then? Real harms would result from such counterfeiting, but they probably won’t be perceived overnight or even within a few months, maybe a few years. (Really, the Feds’ quantitative easment program — printing new currency with nothing behind it buy the government’s ‘good faith and credit’ is almost indistinguishable from flooding the nation with counterfeit currency. And the result is inflation/the devaluing of the dollar. Those harmed directly are all of us of modest means who’ve played by the rules, have saved a nestegg for our later years, and see it, everyday, shrink because of our government’s immoral manipulation of currency.)You still may not see the point of counterfeiting the most important of all human institutions (probably because you don’t want to), but before you close your mind, read “What Is Marriage?” http://bit.ly/taLRmm .

    Among the harms are the denial to children of what Nature and Nature’s God has ordained each to have: a father and a mother.

    What is more important for adults than to fulfill their duty to the human family by ensuring its survival and thriving by sacrificing itself for the good of their offspring? Among the worst things any society can do is to normalize DENYING each child a loving mother and father. It is bad enough that given human failure many children do not have their parents in their lives daily; it is worse when a society chooses to enshrine, to valorize such denial of the most vulnerable among them.

    If you can’t see the present and the longterm harm from such rebellion against the natural order, you are blind.

  • Not a Presidential Issue

    A President can not impact the regulation of LGBT marriage outside of the very small world of the Federal workforce, with the exception of supporting a change to the Constitution.  Such a change is infeasible.  LGBT marriage is effectively regulated at the state level.  Why, then, would a voter base their views on something a President will not control? 

  • Dave Rask

    I’m a gay man (unmarried) but feel economic and environmental issues are more important for all of us. Just as the conservative power elite use issues like abortion, flag-burning, etc to garner votes that ultimately accomplish nothing other than to protect wealthy economic interests, so the same is true of the liberal wing: pretending to care about social issues such as gay marriage while the real intention is to protect the economic interests of the upper one percent.

  • Who cares

    Finally … someone who gets it!

  • jenny

    I will not vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage.

  • pezcadoazul

    You should study biology and history before writing about “natural truths, known and submitted to universally for millennia.”  A spelling lesson wouldn’t hurt either.

  • Carole

    Many issues are important to me but, I cannot imagine voting for someone who is opposed to gay marriage. Your poll question, however, could be answered “yes” whether the person supports gay marriage or is opposed to gay marriage.  I wish, therefore, that it had been worded differently.

  • Anonymous

    I really don’t want to sound condescending on this, on the other hand, people will be offended anyway.  So, here goes.

    It needs to be understood our country depends on natural reproduction.  If we were all a-sexual, then this really wouldn’t be an issue.  We could split and create clones of ourselves, all by a natural process of fission. 

    The whole point of Traditional Family Values is to insure that we are able to reproduce not only human beings, but children with the same values that made this country strong and great.  This means that men, simply, need to understand that no matter what the circumstances, they need to act as men act.  Women need to act as women act.  In order for that to happen, children need to be raised by a dedicated and committed man and woman bound by marriage.  The man needs to work, the woman can work until she has kids, but then, when she has kids, she stays home, raises the kids, makes a home, and morally supports her husband.  Children that are raised in this environment are generally more solidly grounded, are balanced between male and female relationships, and don’t seem to be confused or mistake something for what it isn’t. 

    I am a Christian male, and I say these things not because I sat behind a desk and got them from a book.  I’ve actually seen the difference between strong Christian homes that raise their kids in traditional family values – and kids who were raised in homes that had one parent or there were two “parental” figures, but there were no clear lines of proper behavior.  TFV kids aren’t confused.  They know who they are, and they don’t question as to whether they are males or females since it is clear by their physiology, that they are either male or female, and that they are fundamentally different. They grow up well balanced, and understand that males marry females, and that females have kids.  They understand that the male’s primary purpose is to provide for the home, and that the female’s primary purpose is to take care of the home, raise kids, and to provide moral support for her husband and kids.  It is also understood that there is a filial responsibility to engage in sexual activities, since marriage was created so that a man and a woman may participate in these activities without shame.  They are free in every way, within the boundaries of privacy, to participate in these activities.  As a normal part of the love relationship, they have kids.  It’s the circle of life.  And it’s worked since the beginning of Creation.

    Non-TFV kids don’t understand, many times, these differences.  And, often, due to a lack of moral behaviors in the home, these kids are abused, or forced to take a part in abusing another in the family.  This confuses sexual identity, and either males or females grow up not understanding that males are attracted to females (like everywhere else in nature), and often, because of their upbringing, find child-bearing and rearing undesirable.  So, they don’t understand parenthood, and don’t choose mates that will produce the best children to pass on their traditions to.  They choose mates that can provide them the most pleasure.  And, in the case of women, when that natural “child-bearing alarm” goes off, rather than having sex naturally, they find themselves going to the local sperm bank – or, even paying a willing woman to bear her a child.  In one case, a woman had a sex change to become a man marry another man who had a sex change to be a woman (crazy, I know).  Then, one of them wanted to have children.  So, the woman that changed himself into a man, changed himself back into a woman so that she could give birth – and became pregnant again.  It’s diabolically sick, if you ask me.  And, in California, to homosexual males hired a woman to be impregnated with one of their sperm cells, and she had a baby for them to raise.  I don’t believe that any woman would sell her own child in any circumstance, much less become pregnant as a single woman, then give the child away to homosexuals.  This is sickening.  It’s clear, this is an abuse of the reproductive system.  Homosexuality tends to stifle childbirth, and reduces the population.  If a country has no population to support it – it will die.

    Also, what seems to be missed is the FACT that heterosexual couples who are faithful to one another don’t contract STD’s or AIDS.  Homosexuals, due to the hopping around having unnatural sexual relations, not only contract STD’s and AIDS among themselves, but if they are bi-sexuals, they carry these diseases to their heterosexual friends and potential mates.  In a joke, this is known as the “gift that keeps on giving.”  In other words, it should be pretty doggone apparent that the homosexual exchange of foreign bodily fluids, is treated by the host as a disease that has to be killed, and this is why you have the body attacking itself – because of a foreign substance that doesn’t belong.  It must also be understood – that LIFE begets LIFE.  Did it OCCUR to anyone that male sperm in another male might just be interacting with the DNA in the other male, that it might just be TRYING to follow its instructions – and ends up killing the host body?  Hmmm… something to think about, ain’t it. And, yes, I get it, males a females hop around, too, and contract STD’s – that can be CURED.  AIDS cannot be cured.  Every time someone comes up with a cure, a different strain develops. 

    I know that the LGBT group doesn’t like to hear this stuff.  But, this is their error.  They refuse to listen to the truth, and even if it does make sense, rather than changing – they move on in the way of their error, and get clobbered with life ending diseases.  If you make an effort to try to save their lives by telling them what it can and HAS done to people, they refuse to hear it.  And, through their own selfishness, not only draw people into the lifestyle – but make them sick, full well knowing the consequences of their behavior. 

    I am compassionate to them.  And, no, I don’t think that they should just stop living life.  It should be understood that homosexuality is NOT widely accepted by the majority.  And, the majority should NOT be forced to accept it by the elite, powerful, or wealthy.  No.  I don’t think, either, that they should be mistreated, but the simple FACT is that homosexuality is immoral, and is contrary to human nature.  So, it is only NATURAL for heterosexuals to lash out against them, protect their children, and insure they are kept safe from these alien and immoral ideals.  And rightfully so.  The PARENT has the right to protect their kids from stuff that would bring harm to the child and the sanctity of the home.

    I personally believe that they should be kept somewhat separate.  They chose this lifestyle.  They can live together, without a problem.  They can open businesses, and have their personal lives.  That’s not the issue, here.  The issue is whether they have the right to influence others who reject their lifestyle, and whether they they should be raising children and marrying for the same marriage benefit that heterosexuals have.

    In my opinion, it’s resounding and emphatic “NO!” and if the marriage benefit becomes a coveted item as a tax deduction, and homosexuals are marrying JUST for that, and it becomes legal for them to marry and get it, then I would simply remove the motivation altogether.  Then NO ONE gets a tax benefit, NO ONE gets dependent tax benefits, and they pay taxes on their GROSS INCOMEnot their adjusted gross income.  If you take away the benefit, you take away the motivation, and there will be less marriages based on money.  The marriage benefit is for those who take part in normal relationships.  It’s not for just ANYBODY. 

       

  • NER

    If the ability to produce offspring defines a “natural” marriage, then I guess marriage between people past the age of child-bearing would be “unnatural.” Do you also believe married couples are obligated to produce children?

  • Kevin

    Have you ever heard of the Defense of Marriage Act?

  • marco

    To love another is to seek his/her highest good, period. How do sexual practices that damage the rectum, produce “Gay Bowel Syndrome,” as well as correlate strongly with shortened life (including causing a disproportionately high occurrence of extremely difficult to treat mouth/throat cancer) have the anything in hell to do with LOVE? I get how LUST does all these things, but true love does no harm. (And of course that rebukes as well any who harm another within marriage.)

    All this poppycock from Obama on down about not discriminating against people because of who they love is sophistry unbecoming any seriously thinking person.

  • Anonymous

    And as a tax preparer that loves to give benefits to those who need and deserve them, would take all the joy out of preparing taxes, because people would just end up paying taxes, rather than receiving a refund.  I would still prepare taxes, but I’m not really in the business of making someone pay more tax than what they should pay.

  • marco

    Dear Professor pezcadoazul   I’m ready for your biology & history lesson. Teach away!

  • marco

    Dear Professor pezcadoazul: and the spelling? I thought you’d appreciate the queer variation!

  • Who cares

    I’m not convinced that the question was meant to do anything more than stir the pot anyway.  The media is great like that.  Now they can report that 77% of the people polled said that the issue of gay marriage would affect their vote … and they would be reporting the results accurately.  At first glance, however, most people will see or hear that as 77% support gay marriage.  And who posted the question?  Consider the source. :)

  • guest

    I will NOT vote for anyone who is against gay marriage.  I am a straight, married female who believes in freedom for ALL.  A person or candidate who wants to limit another being’s right to happiness is indicative of a narrow-minded person, and I will not vote for any one who is narrow-minded nor who would oppress others with his/her own beliefs.

  • guest

    I will NOT vote for anyone who is against gay marriage.  I am a straight, married female who believes in freedom for ALL.  A person or candidate who wants to limit another being’s right to happiness is indicative of a narrow-minded person, and I will not vote for any one who is narrow-minded nor who would oppress others with his/her own beliefs.

  • pezcadoazul

    What?  Isn’t it the poor, under-educated Christians who vote Republican thinking they are voting for guns and against gays and abortion, never realizing that they are being manipulated by the conservative power elite to vote against their own economic interests?  I just don’t see people favoring both social tolerance and protection of the corporate interests that are destroying our country and the planet.  

  • pezcadoazul

    What?  Isn’t it the poor, under-educated Christians who vote Republican thinking they are voting for guns and against gays and abortion, never realizing that they are being manipulated by the conservative power elite to vote against their own economic interests?  I just don’t see people favoring both social tolerance and protection of the corporate interests that are destroying our country and the planet.  

  • new voter

    not only would i vote AGAINST any anti-gay bigot, i’ll actively work/contribute to bring them down.
    morons.

  • Brad

    Then who will you vote for?  DOMA was signed by a Democratic President (Clinton).  The Obama administration has enforced it.  I don’t need to say where Republicans stand on the issue. 

  • Russ300

    Anyone who is against equality for all is against the constitution. As long as a requirement of gay marriage does not require a particular church to marry someone, where is the problem? With a 50% divorce rate, the straight people have pretty much screwed up the meaning of marriage. Why not share the misery.

  • pezcadoazul

    For the biology, you might start with Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl.  It is a bit overstated but overall sound.  For the history, you might look at Hidden From History edited by Martin Duberman.   

  • Mike

    I will not support anyone voting FOR gay marriage. NO BAMA…..

  • RJAnderson6395

    I would not vote for any candidate that is not for gay marriage.  Why should this be an issue anymore?  States like Massachusetts and New York have legalized gay marriage and have we seen any disintegration in the fabric of society?  If we could get past this issue, maybe we could focus on other more important matters like fixing our economy and jobs.  

  • Jacksonvilleguy

    Benny… brother,
     
    GOD = LOVE…. not hate
     
    I’m praying for you. Seek professional help.
     
    Peace
     

  • Citizen

    No, a man and a wife are under no obligation to produce children or a certain number of children. My point was that homosexual couples cannot produce children at any age, unless a surrogate or a test tube is involved. Of course, men and women do have a natural biological clock, and some people are infertile. That does not negate the marriage vow. Rather, when they are old, most will look back on the children that their union has produced and the family life that they have shared. But it cannot be denied that only man and a woman, naturally speaking, will ever produce a child. This one man – one wife producing children scenario produces, naturally, a biological family which is strongly commited to each other. And then the family will continue through the generations, hopefully. It is the difference between man and woman which has allowed the commited nuclear family unit to come into existence, and the continuing family down through the generations. Families based in homosexual partnerships will lack the crucial glue of biological connectedness and biological generational connectedness, and they will lack the crucial different-gender union which makes biological connectedness possible. We can call other arrangements marriage, but marriage requires the interplay of different sexes which in the natural course of things could biologically create and connect a family.

  • Doc

    So, when the majority you speak of was against inter-racial relationships, was it wrong to allow them? When the majority thought woomen should not have the right to vote, was it wrong to allow them a vote? Are there any scientific studies to support your ideas, or are they all simply your opinions? It is easy to defend your views when you think you are part of the majority, but majority rules are not always right.

  • pezcadoazul

    Don’t worry.  You don’t sound condescending, just major league self richeous not to mention long winded.

  • Citizen

    With all due respect, I don’t think that Thomas Jefferson or any other founder advocated the ‘liberty’ of homosexual marriage. This is a modern, insupportable revision, reflecting our deteriorating values. Does the Constitution even mention marriage? If we say that we can define marriage in any way that is convenient for our sexual preference, that is a very slippery slope, which will degrade marriage and allow for polygamy, open marriage, etc. What we would be saying is that we are completely abandoning any attempt at moral judgement or sexual self-restraint.

  • Donnagrant365

    I’ll be voting for gay rights, all rights.

  • Donnagrant365

    I agree, confusing.

  • Donnagrant365

    I agree, confusing.

  • barbara

    why can’t we  call it gay unions/ civil unions? If people are hung up on the word marriage, then call it something else. Is it the language or the fundamental value of this issue the reason they would be against this civil union at all? That should be the real debate ? 

  • barbara

    why can’t we  call it gay unions/ civil unions? If people are hung up on the word marriage, then call it something else. Is it the language or the fundamental value of this issue the reason they would be against this civil union at all? That should be the real debate ? 

  • denice

    I will vote for the rights of all and work actively for gay rights. 

  • denice

    I will vote for the rights of all and work actively for gay rights. 

  • CatsofCairo

    The institution of marriage is a right that everyone should have access to, regardless of sexual orientation.  Legal protections and benefits are for everyone not just hetersexual couples.  Procreation is not a necessity for marriage.  Many hetersexual couples can not have children or have decided not to have children yet they are allowed to marry.  So, using the argument that marriage is only for a man and a woman  so they can procreate is unfounded, especially in this scientific age of advancements of fertility. 

  • Hummbeth2

    I read these comments and I wonder…..Does “Nature’s Law”, or “Traditional Family Values” also include abuse, especially very intimate abuses,as acceptable, in the “family”….or “churches”,especially of the Christian faith(the latest priest abuses)?…..Why is the GLBT of this nation being thrust forward when this issue is consistently re-appearing?…How can anyone” judge” in a national election?…You vote.. for a candidate who “hears” you, can “see” your needs, and all those who speak like you, with you…..The Candidates for this election could stop their unbecoming ,childish, name-calling “Hissy-Fits”, and their bullying voters into NOT paying attention to the REAL issues ..JOBS!!?, HOUSING!!?,our struggling VETERANS, especially those disabled and their families, THIS ECONOMY!!!, and realize how WHINY and NOISEY they make US look to the rest of the WORLD..!!!!!!!!!…..PUT A PLUG IN IT!!!!!!FOCUS!!!!!!!!AND BRING BACK OUR COUNTRY AS IT HAS BEEN LOOKED UP TO IN PAST…..THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Galligan646

    I strongly favor keeping the Defense of MArriage Actg.  Yo9ur program was a distorted view of this important issue. 

  • LAPLUMA3

    NEVER!!!!

  • Powe7801

    Marriage is, and has always been understood in the United States to be for the promotion of a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. Most people realize that polygamy doesn’t work. But some seem to think marriage, after hundreds of years with this very meaning, is suddenly, whatever they get some judge to say it is; or even, whatever they dream up. Accepting multiple definitions of marriage will mean that marriage will come to mean nothing. Next it will be polygamy, and then maybe child marriage. God help us!

  • Toddgauvin

    Marriage is one man and one woman period.Anyone who thinks differently will never get my vote.I think that gay people need some kind of civil union but marriage is not it. All you fags get back in the closet and stay out of our military.

  • Citizen

    If true marriage is abused, and sadly, it very often is, how much worse things will become when the very definition of marriage itself is abused and warped. There will be moral confusion and chaos on an unimaginable scale. For example, priests would probably do better in this area if they were allowed to take a wife to meet their legitimate sexual needs in straight marriage. It is the cases of homosexual abuse in the church we keep hearing about!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JKWYHRQTFQUKA4O4V2IS2BOOEU Torpedo

    As gay man, I have all the civil and federal responsibilities. I have to pay  high taxes but I don’t have my core civil rights. I think is abusive and disrespectful to all gay people. We are not second class citizen.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JKWYHRQTFQUKA4O4V2IS2BOOEU Torpedo

    So I should pay taxes to build the schools where your children study… why are have all those responsibilities but not my right …. if they want to exclude us, well, do not  make pay taxes to build parks and schools for straight people.

  • Citizen

    Law is based fundamentally in morality; it is not the case that if you make something legal, then it automatically becomes moral. If gay marriage is made legal, it will still never be moral. But people will think, oh, its legal, it must be moral. These are sad lies people will tell themselves until they almost believe it.

  • Sargilla

    I ask for equality and civil/human rights for everyone, mariage for the LGBT members same as is available to non-gay adults. It took over 72 years before women gained the right to vote on the national level, and longer than that before people of different races who loved each other could legally marry in all states. Discrimination and prejudice do not belong in an open and compassionate society and need to be defeated. Progress must come, in increments if necessary..

  • Spencerpl1

    Need to know is nothing but a libTARDED/demoRAT wannabe news and should NOT be on PBS and pbs should NOT get tax payers money to push their libtared gay agenda..

  • Anonymous

    Doc;
    What do inter-racial relationships have to do with LGBT? Lesbians, gays, and bi-sexuals are not born that way. The behavior is taught or encouraged when they are children. You don’t just wake up one day, and say, “I’m LGB.” Nope. It has to be taught by adults, friends, and family. It’s not natural to be a homosexual. Transgendered people need to make up their minds and be whatever sex they choose to be, and stick with it. If they’re more female than male, then they need the appendage removed. If more male than female, they should choose to be males. That’s my opinion.
    Under this light, LGB do not fit under the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement would apply to transgendered folks, because they simply can’t help who that they were born that way. LGB, on the other hand, have made a lifestyle CHOICE, and regardless of abuse, as there are many who were abused and still live normal lives as males and females, in traditional relationships. It’s simply a matter of looking at your physiology, and accepting yourself as God made you; male or female. If you weren’t born deformed, then there is no reason to be anything other than what you are.
    In summary, the contrast in civil rights between transgendered and diverse ethnic groups and LGB is that LGB folks have CHOSEN an immoral and perverted lifestyle, which used to be illegal for obvious reasons. Civil rights protects people that DON’T have a choice because they were born of a different color or they were deformed. These are things that cannot be changed.
    As for inter-racial relationships, that’s not the topic, but as far as I’m concerned, if a man is black and chooses to have a white woman for a wife and she wasn’t forced into the relationship, well so be it. If a white man wants to marry a black woman, fine and dandy; who cares? There is no Biblical restriction on these marriages. The Bible addresses proper behaviors – NOT race.

    ________________________________
    From: Disqus
    To: me_myself_andi46@yahoo.com
    Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:03 PM
    Subject: [needtoknow] Re: Poll: Gay marriage

    Disqus generic email template

    Doc (unregistered) wrote, in response to bennyblack1:
    So, when the majority you speak of was against inter-racial relationships, was it wrong to allow them? When the majority thought woomen should not have the right to vote, was it wrong to allow them a vote? Are there any scientific studies to support your ideas, or are they all simply your opinions? It is easy to defend your views when you think you are part of the majority, but majority rules are not always right.
    Link to comment

  • Anonymous

    No.  This gives rights to people who didn’t have to choose to be LGB.  I can understand Transgendered people fitting under this, if it was written for them (there’s probably some unwritten law that makes room for them, they can’t help it).  LGB folks are NOT a race, and their lifestyle is a CHOICE.  The lifestyle is not accepted for most Americans.  It is un Constitutional for a minority SPECIAL INTEREST group to force a MORAL MAJORITY to accept something they don’t want.  This why I say that if you want to choose to live that way, fine.  But, don’t impose it upon us.  Most of us don’t want to live that way, and we don’t want our kids to learn that it is an acceptable lifestyle.  Less than 1% of the population is LGB, and even less, transgendered. 

  • Anonymous

    No, it doesn’t include abuse.  But, the issue keeps appearing, because, we as Christians, understand that God doesn’t approve of homosexual behavior.  And the science that Doc asked for is plain as the nose on his face – how many heterosexuals are dying of STD’s and AIDS as compared to homosexuals?  

    Do I REALLY need to pull up the figures, or are you really that dumb?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_S46EMQQTGNONOQ5COVHGQ5AWIQ john

    Todd not all people who support gay marriage are gay and if they want to serve who they like to have sex with shoul not have anything to do with thier sevice.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sorry, but I’m the dead last person you need to talk to about disrespect and abuse, because you’re gonna get slammed.  it is YOU people that are abusive and disrespectful, and frankly, it is YOU people that abuse kids and turn them that way at a young age so that they are confused.  It is YOU that take advantage of children and people weaker and more vulnerable than you!  And it is YOU that force your ways upon us.  And remember, that pastors, monks, and priests that did this stuff were GAY.  Now, just because they were in that position doesn’t mean that what they did was right. 

    So, DON’T give me that crap. 

  • Greg

    i respond to bennyblack: i have been a christian believer for 65 years. the longer i live the less i believe that Christians or anyone else can “understand” what any g-d approves. i do know what i accept and i prefer folks who speak their own perspective without thinking they can interpret g-d no matter what text they quote.

  • pezcadoazul

    How do you defince morality?  I see nothing immoral about homosexuality, or responsible, safe, sane and consensual homosexual behavior.  On the other hand, unprotected, unsafe promiscuous heterosexual behavior that results in unwanted pregnancies and children living in squalor and poverty is immoral in my book.

  • Citizen

    I will not support any politician who is pro-gay marriage. This kind of comment, however, does nothing to illuminate the issue, does it? 

  • Citizen

    I will not support any politician who is pro-gay marriage. This kind of comment, however, does nothing to illuminate the issue, does it? 

  • Citizen

    Voting one’s convictions, even if they are not yours, is not narrow-minded, it is simply the process of democracy. Anytime I vote, I could be open to the charge of “imposing my views” on someone else. Isn’t that why gays and lesbians are going from state to state to change the law? To change the law and therefore “impose their views” on people who disagree?

  • Citizen

    Voting ones conscience is not narrow-minded; it is simply the democratic process. Any time I vote for or against a law, I am attempting to impose a view of how things should be.  Aren’t Gays and Lesbians going from state to state “attempting to impose their views”? ANY view will oppose someone elses view… therefore any law could be labelled narrow-minded and as limiting someones freedom in some way. Certainly, to be forced to accept homosexual union as marriage is offensive to me and a large segment of society.So you vote according to your conscience, and I wil vote according to mine.

  • Citizen

    The law should be able to descriminate between men and women, just as it discriminates between children and adults. Discrimination between involves moral judgement, it is not the same as discrimination against something.

  • Citizen

    The law should be able to descriminate between men and women, just as it discriminates between children and adults. Discrimination between involves moral judgement, it is not the same as discrimination against something.

  • jan

    About the higher moral path represented by the faithful….  An area pentecostal satellite church announced in the newspaper several months ago that they were building a $14,000,000 addition probably complete with nautilus equipment and all the other little luxurious amenities that the people who go to the major location enjoy, on either the same day or within a day or two that the local food banks announced they were running out of food. 

    Don’t give me that bunk about the higher morality that churches/the faithful represent.  You’re not as moral as you think.     

  • jan

    About the higher moral path represented by the faithful….  An area pentecostal satellite church announced in the newspaper several months ago that they were building a $14,000,000 addition probably complete with nautilus equipment and all the other little luxurious amenities that the people who go to the major location enjoy, on either the same day or within a day or two that the local food banks announced they were running out of food. 

    Don’t give me that bunk about the higher morality that churches/the faithful represent.  You’re not as moral as you think.     

  • Hopeful

    Gays should have all the rights that all Americans have. There should not be any question(s) about this. Why do we support this conservative & religious bigotry? I really do not understand how one could vote for political candidates that preach restrictions applied to gays. I had hoped that we moved past all this disgusting bigotry with the passage of the civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Tolerance and understanding is severely lacking in the most conservative & religious communities. Let people be!

  • Citizen

    It really depends upon your point of view, doesn’t it? Gays and lesbians seem to lack tolerance for religiously (spirtually) based views. Does this, then, mean they are anti-religious bigots and lack understanding?

  • marco

    Define “bigotry.” Explore “tolerance.” Is there anything one should not tolerate? On what basis do you distinguish the tolerable from the intolerable? Impulse? Feelings?

    You’re spouting so much superficial cant.

    And define “marriage.” Do you have any idea of the profundity of natural marriage, beyond repeating mindless slogans? Study http://bit.ly/taLRmm and then let’s talk.You presume that millennia of human experience (not to mention the facts of reproductive biology and the thriving of the human species through natural reproduction) has, with one snap of your fingers, transformed from wisdom to bigotry. How big is your Self, how small the world around you!About rights: Anything that is wrong can never be ‘a right,’ regardless of unjust legislation. Sodomitical relationships can never constitute marriage, period; and the efforts to redefine marriage are evil, period; some may originate in ignorance, but any who humble themselves to study the issue will know, perhaps contrary to their impulses and wishes, that redefining it is as impossible as squaring the circle or finding a new primary color in the spectrum. Reality is a given; wisdom adjusts to reality; insanity and self-centeredness demand reality change to fit their whims. It won’t, even if in the process of such sustained attacks on what has been given many others are casualties (read, the children denied a mother and a father).

  • marco

    Okay, so eat the spoiled meat, drink the rancid milk, swallow cyanide when you were reaching for 7-up: Discrimination and prejudice have no place in an open and compassionate society!

    Entrust the convicted sex offender with your toddler next time you want an evening out. Ignore the caution you sense as you approach a knot of young adults in the darkly-lighted area between you and your parked car. How dare you be prejudiced by your earlier experience of being mugged and sexually assaulted by a somewhat similarly-looking group of young males!

    As you blab: Discrimination and prejudice do not belong in an open and compassionate society and need to be defeated.

    Without discrimination and prejudice in some forms, you will die sick and young!!

  • CatsofCairo

    In response to Citizen:  I can see you are truly concerned that by allowing same-sexed couples to the legal right of marriage and all the legal protections it provides those committed gay and lesbian couples that somehow your way of life will be changed or threatened.  You will still able to have all the protections of the legal institution of marriage and the benefits.  Your life as you know it is not going to change.  Committed gay and lesbian couples are not interetested in polygamy; they want the right to protect their cherished relationship like you have been able to do under the protection of the law.  It is the law in your state that  provides  you the protection and legal rights of your marriage, not your particular choice of religion.  Your  choice of religion gives you the perspective that only heterosexual couples should marry and in this country because you can have religious freedom you can hold that view.  The law of the state should not be discriminatory and should afford all people the same legal protections for their committed  relationships. 

  • pezcadoazul

    Right, and church is the major foe of homosexuals so twisted souls run there for cover.  Let’s not forget Ted Haggard, George Rekers and their ilk claiming that love of God will turn you straight – while they are running around with male prostitutes.   I am suspicious of those who protest too much such as yourself.  Let’s not forget the University of Georgia Study that showed that the supposedly straight men with the most homophobic attitudes gave the strogest penile responses as measured by penile plethmography when viewing homosexual male porn.  Certainly anyone who believes that sexual orientation is a choice must be at least bisexual.  The rest of us know that we gradually became aware of who we are attracted to, we did not make a decision one day.  Most gay individuals as children believed they would grow up to be straight and on average spent 8 years resisting awareness of their same sex attractions before being able to accept them.  Time’s are a changing so stop criticizing what you don’t understand.

  • CatsofCairo

    In response to Citizen:  I can see you are truly concerned that by allowing same-sexed couples to the legal right of marriage and all the legal protections it provides those committed gay and lesbian couples that somehow your way of life will be changed or threatened.  You will still able to have all the protections of the legal institution of marriage and the benefits.  Your life as you know it is not going to change.  Committed gay and lesbian couples are not interetested in polygamy; they want the right to protect their cherished relationship like you have been able to do under the protection of the law.  It is the law in your state that  provides  you the protection and legal rights of your marriage, not your particular choice of religion.  Your  choice of religion gives you the perspective that only heterosexual couples should marry and in this country because you can have religious freedom you can hold that view.  The law of the state should not be discriminatory and should afford all people the same legal protections for their committed  relationships. 

  • CatsofCairo

    In response to Citizen:  I can see you are truly concerned that by allowing same-sexed couples to the legal right of marriage and all the legal protections it provides those committed gay and lesbian couples that somehow your way of life will be changed or threatened.  You will still able to have all the protections of the legal institution of marriage and the benefits.  Your life as you know it is not going to change.  Committed gay and lesbian couples are not interetested in polygamy; they want the right to protect their cherished relationship like you have been able to do under the protection of the law.  It is the law in your state that  provides  you the protection and legal rights of your marriage, not your particular choice of religion.  Your  choice of religion gives you the perspective that only heterosexual couples should marry and in this country because you can have religious freedom you can hold that view.  The law of the state should not be discriminatory and should afford all people the same legal protections for their committed  relationships. 

  • pezcadoazul

    Thomas Jefferson stressed that an educated public is necessary for democracy to work.   One’s conscience should be informed by facts, otherwise voting your conscience is the same as voting your prejudices.

  • CatsofCairo

    In response to Citizen:  I can see you are truly concerned that by allowing same-sexed couples to the legal right of marriage and all the legal protections it provides those committed gay and lesbian couples that somehow your way of life will be changed or threatened.  You will still able to have all the protections of the legal institution of marriage and the benefits.  Your life as you know it is not going to change.  Committed gay and lesbian couples are not interetested in polygamy; they want the right to protect their cherished relationship like you have been able to do under the protection of the law.  It is the law in your state that  provides  you the protection and legal rights of your marriage, not your particular choice of religion.  Your  choice of religion gives you the perspective that only heterosexual couples should marry and in this country because you can have religious freedom you can hold that view.  The law of the state should not be discriminatory and should afford all people the same legal protections for their committed  relationships. 

  • pezcadoazul

    For Citizen who seems to justify his prejudices with religion: Maybe he can answer these questions that were posted to Dr. Laura.  Educated people don’t necessarily believe the lies they imbibed at their mother’s knee.  Citizen, what would your views be had you been born in Iran or Afghanistan?

    Dear Dr. LauraThank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. Ihave learned a great deal from your show, and try to share thatknowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defendthe homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them thatLeviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the otherspecific laws and how to follow them.1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates apleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned inExodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fairprice for her?3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is inher period of menstrual cleanliness – Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male andfemale, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friendof mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Canyou clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligatedto kill him myself?6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is anabomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination thanhomosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if Ihave a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear readingglasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle roomhere?8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hairaround their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makesme unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting twodifferent crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearinggarments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyesterblend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it reallynecessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole towntogether to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them todeath at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep withtheir in-laws? (Lev.20:14)I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confidentyou can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word iseternal and unchanging.Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,Jack

  • Anonymous

    It is self-righteous to assume that a deviant behavior is all of a sudden OK with God, when it is pretty clear that it is not. That’s called, making yourself God. And that’s dangerous. Nobody died and left you to be God, to tell people that they MUST accept you. Furthermore, I’ve been among you, so I KNOW you. And I have rejected that kind of behavior. You don’t understand the word, “no.” And if you don’t get what you want willingly, you’ll TAKE it. So, don’t go getting all “you’re self-righteous” on me. You people are in the wrong.

    ________________________________
    From: Disqus
    To: me_myself_andi46@yahoo.com
    Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:16 PM
    Subject: [needtoknow] Re: Poll: Gay marriage

    Disqus generic email template

    pezcadoazul (unregistered) wrote, in response to bennyblack1:
    Don’t worry.  You don’t sound condescending, just major league self richeous not to mention long winded. Link to comment

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BVGE6UDI7XDHTCFRUSFUEVFVHI runi

    The issue of gay marriage does affect my vote.  Politicians (but not necessarily individuals) who support DOMA tend to be embedded in the 20th Century, and use this issue to deflect attention to problems that are crucial to us now.

  • Timfrugan

    It’s been evident for years that being gay is genetically influenced so that makes it a human rights issue.

  • Ashley

    Marriage between a man and woman is always been a sacred bond that has streched out for generations. To vote for gay marriage is basically mocking the “One” that created each and everyone of us. Remeber God created Adam and Eve at the beginning not Adam and Steve. If it was God’s plan for everyone to be gay we all wouldn’t be on this Earth. Human kind would just die out.

  • Richard Kennedy

    I can go along with gay and lesbian civil rights but since I am a born again Catholic I cannot go along with gay and lesbian marriage since that is against my religious beliefs. I know that their issues will get farther along than mine since it’s just human nature to do so but as long as they leave me alone I have no problems wirh it since I feel they need to keep to their own just like the death to race mixing people that will have the same type of opinions about this subject as I do.

  • Clark1077

    I don’t see that gays need any special help. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the natural way of life that was created. Mankind has done things that has caused people to not be normal. Gay people can not give birth to kids unless they have an opposite partner. The quality of mankind is going down hill. We now just ignore things that are not right. I feel sorry for homosexual people but to call them gay is real strange. I don’t think they should have any special rights either. Their strange behavior  keeps me away from homosexuals.

  • Ragfish

    Homosexuality has NOT been demostrated to be like race or gender. It is not genetic. Even if the inclination toward same sex attraction were genetic, this would not justify the special legal protections for LGBT persons. There are civil rights equally available to all Americans,regardless of their inclinations. As our culture declines into a moral relativism under the banner of diversity and tolerance, the foundation for our God given rights are eroded. As it says in our Declaration of Independence, that the why for our nation is to establish government in accord with the laws of nature and nature’s God.
      The God referred to by Thomas Jefferson, was the God of the Bible, not Allah nor Buddha. Our family law is Biblically informed. As our popular opinion degrades Scripture, we are sure to lose the rights protected by a Constitution, framed in a  unique, exceptional harmony between Reason (Scottish Common Sense) and revealed in the Bible.
       While our nation guarantees liberty, the consequences of free choices remain in effect. When our education convinces us to call evil good and good evil, the consequences quickly  occur due to violation of natural law. If these are insufficient to get us back to our senses, Providence will come into play, first by lifting the protection of our nation owing to common virtue, followed by natural disasters, political corruption and invasion and defeat by our enemies.

  • Citizen

    Since I am not a Jew, the New Testament informs me that I, as a Gentile believer in Christ, am not obligated to follow Jewish law. I am required to love God, love people and avoid known sin. I am a Christian. I am not, in the name of God’s love, required to believe the nonsense that sodomy = pure marriage. I am not required to believe that homosexuality is good. If fact, I am assured by no less a figure than the Apostle Paul that those who continue to practice homosexuality and other sins shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Perhaps you should read the New Testament sometimes, since you are so keen to follow the Scriptures.

  • Clayton

    You miss the point of the arguement on several points. The goal is not to make “everyone gay”. The only place I have heard this is from anti-gay marriage advocates. You also indicate that the primary role of marriage is procreation. I am a male who is preparing to marry my female fiance, but we have both decided to never have children. Should our marriage license be rejected then? And what of the couples who are physically unable to have children? Also, the same talking points about “mocking the ‘One’ “ have been made when discussing interracial marriage. Every arguement against gay marriage seems to involve the bible and “staying with tradition”. If this is the best defense that can be made, then the discussion should be over.

  • Pahynes

    I have been married for 55 years. And I support Gay marriage. Their marrying will not affect my marriage. And I think it is only fair to let these people marry.

  • Mark Dawson

    You should be ashamed to admit you’re catholic.

  • Mark Dawson

    Grow-up!

  • Mark Dawson

    Now read the rest of the bible you idoit.

  • Dps76

    your god sucks

  • Dps76

    your god sucks

  • Dps76

    your god is an ass

  • Dps76

    your god is an ass

  • Canoerjack

    How will my expressing my love for my same-sex partner through marriage do anything to anyone else’s marriage?  I just don’t get it.  Gays can be just as sanctimonious in marriage as any other two people.  If God is love and marriage is about love, then what’s the big deal.  It must be that those opposing same sex marriage just can’t get past their outdated stereotypes of gay and lesbian people. 
    I’ve been married, had children and now I have a homosexual relationship.  I see no difference in the emotions between this relationship and my heterosexual one.  We’re just people trying to get through life with the hand that was dealt to us.  I work.  I watch tv. I try to eat healthy.  I exercise.  I play with my pets.  What is so different about me that makes me so scary to so many folks out there?

  • Canoerjack

    How will my expressing my love for my same-sex partner through marriage do anything to anyone else’s marriage?  I just don’t get it.  Gays can be just as sanctimonious in marriage as any other two people.  If God is love and marriage is about love, then what’s the big deal.  It must be that those opposing same sex marriage just can’t get past their outdated stereotypes of gay and lesbian people. 
    I’ve been married, had children and now I have a homosexual relationship.  I see no difference in the emotions between this relationship and my heterosexual one.  We’re just people trying to get through life with the hand that was dealt to us.  I work.  I watch tv. I try to eat healthy.  I exercise.  I play with my pets.  What is so different about me that makes me so scary to so many folks out there?

  • Chaleny

    Lets just say that being gay is not genetic. Then someone please explain to me why would anyone in their right mind choose to be part of a group of people that are alienated,rediculed, discriminated, and threatened in every shape and form. Well, let me see one day, I woke up and said to myselft, I think I will be gay from now on and spend my time dealing with a society that will shun me, mock me,discriminate me, threaten my life. I understand that many people suffer in similar ways because of the color of their skin, religion,beliefs,gender,ethnicity ect. However, gay people come from every ethnic background and religion and gender and in all colors, we are your friends, neighbors, family members. All we want is to be, to be able to have a family of our own with the person we have fallen in love with just like every one else on this Earth.
     
    When I was born a girl, my family was not thrilled but they loved me
    When people saw I had white skin and light eyes, they thought I was arrogant and conceited until they got to know me. 
    When I told people I was Mexican they thought I was a lazy until they saw my hard work. 
    When told people I was a Lesbian, well I’m still waiting… 

  • Merick Chaffee

    The groups still using this issue to divide the public and gain control of our politics, are completely unaware of the biological facts of human nature, that sexual orientation comes in all types. None of  this can be used to prejudice people against different groups without severe repercussions.

  • Anonymous

    Oh!  An educated person.  Nice to meet you.

  • Anonymous

    Again, you people use the Old Testment. The New Testament starts with Matthew, and is in the latter portion of the Bible. Many of the Old Testament laws are obsolete.  The laws that have NOT changed have been transferred to the New Testament, as well a few new ones.  First, in the United States, slavery is illegal (whether it’s prostitution or regardless if it’s in a different state, nation, or country).  And for Christians, slavery is against God’s law.  And when the New Testament makes reference to “slaves and masters,” (Ephesians 5, 6), it’s making reference to employees and employers, stating that employees do their BEST work with respect to their employers as if they were the Lord, and the employers were REQUIRED to treat employees fairly and equitably, and to pay promised wages ON TIME. 

    We do not kill people for choosing a particular lifestyle – if they are not a danger to the rest of society, and if it is not illegal.  We have a legal system that, if necessary, issues the death penalty for heinous crimes.

    While Jews are Kosher, Christians are not, so the laws of eating are of none effect. People could not approach the alter of God unless they were pure in heart and whole in body (in the Old Testament).  In the New Testament, Jesus released us of that requirement, so you don’t need 20/20 vision – you don’t offer sacrifices, you’re not a priest of the Lord, and you’re not living in the Old Testament. 

    As for haircuts, we live in the New Testament, the old law doesn’t apply. 

    The law of crops was probably written to insure maximum production of crops, but we live in the New Testament now, and in the USA.  Plant your crops how you want. 

    As for stoning people, the clergy doesn’t get people together to hold a stoning trial any more.  We have the legal system, here in the United States.  Again, stoning doesn’t apply, today.  We don’t just “punish people for their sins” today.  We might banish them from the church, but not take the law into our own hands.  That’s for the judge, jury, witnesses, and lawyers to determine.

    FYI:  God has not changed.  That’s the issue.  Jesus reminded the Pharisees that many things that were not allowed before (ie, divorce) were allowed because of “the flesh.” God hasn’t changed.  He still will judge us by His standards of behavior (it is why we have a Bible, to tell us what those standards are).  What changed was the law – to adapt to the changing behaviors of Mankind.  Jesus came and died on the cross to save us from the letter of the law, and to give us the freedom to CHOOSE to be righteous.  He also told us that none of the basic law and the word of the prophets would pass away until His Second Coming.  That means that the core moral law that is the center piece for ALL laws (the Ten Commandments) is STILL in effect.  Paul the Apostle states that we are of NO EXCUSE being that we are WELL informed of what is good and evil (Galations chapter 5 and 6).  It is OUR responsibility to do good, and to avoid evil.  If we mess up, the blood of Christ (if you believe in Christ), covers your sin if you acknowledge it and turn from it.  Then, you continue to choose to do good. 

  • pezcadoazul

    When is the last time you looked in the Bible?  seems like some many had many wives.   God didn’t plan for everyone to be gay just like he didn’t plan for everyone to be idiots.  If we were all idiots there would be no computers for the likes of you to use to post your drivel. 

  • Dps76

    i will vote against anyone who is homophobic. i once was very homophobic, before i came out. the ones that scream the loudest are the ones you have to watch out for wanting to climb into your closet. boo!

  • pezcadoazul

    Go read the constitution.  My copy does not mention nature’s god.  Further, LGBTs  are not seeking special rights, they are merely seeking to have the basic human rights that our constitution guarantees for all citizens.  They should be afforded these rights because they are citizens not because they are gay.

  • cliff

    I will vote against anyone who does not support full marriage equality. This may include President Obama, who is still “evolving” on this issue…

  • Citizen

    I will vote for anyone who does not have the guts to stand up against the shameless ‘reinvention’ of marriage.

  • Citizen

    AGAINST  LOL

  • Anonymous

    “Homophobic” is not the right word. 
    I think “smart enough” to know the difference between right and wrong.

  • Anonymous

    pez;
       So, where does your copy of the Constitution say that 1% of the population gets to tell the other 99% what and what not to accept?  Hmmm….I don’t think you’ll find that anywhere in there. What I’m telling you is, that we don’t really mind – or really even CARE that you are gay.  It’s just that we don’t need to know that you are gay.  If I had kids, I certainly wouldn’t want them around you, and the government cannot tell me that I have to let you in my home and accept your lifestyle.  You are entitled to life that lifestyle, and we don’t have a problem with that.  But, you have no business pushing it upon us like we don’t know what the difference between right and wrong is.  Homosexuality is unnatural, and dangerous. We know that, and we don’t have to allow it to bring harm to us.

  • Anonymous

    pez;
       So, where does your copy of the Constitution say that 1% of the population gets to tell the other 99% what and what not to accept?  Hmmm….I don’t think you’ll find that anywhere in there. What I’m telling you is, that we don’t really mind – or really even CARE that you are gay.  It’s just that we don’t need to know that you are gay.  If I had kids, I certainly wouldn’t want them around you, and the government cannot tell me that I have to let you in my home and accept your lifestyle.  You are entitled to life that lifestyle, and we don’t have a problem with that.  But, you have no business pushing it upon us like we don’t know what the difference between right and wrong is.  Homosexuality is unnatural, and dangerous. We know that, and we don’t have to allow it to bring harm to us.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, and Pez;
        The mention of God is referenced in the Declaration of Independence, as “Creator.” 

  • Anonymous

    Oh, and Pez;
        The mention of God is referenced in the Declaration of Independence, as “Creator.” 

  • Anonymous

    Clayton;
       There have been several valid defenses made.  Population.  Gays can’t have children naturally without paying someone to be a surrogate.  Eventually, you run out of surrogates and hosts.  No community or nation can survive without reproduction. 
        The same argument for abortion can be made for homosexuality.  Abortion kills children.  Homosexuality insures that children are never born.  So, in the future, less people, less armies.  Less armies, you get overtaken by your enemies.  So, what good is homosexuality if you cannot survive by reproduction? 
         The act of homosexuality causes STD’s and AIDS, while faithful male and female couples (married or not), don’t contract diseases.  This should be a BIG hint that the behavior is wrong.
         Homosexuals are responsible for many children who are violated that are changed forever by that violation.  It changes their paths of life, and creates in them confusion. 
         Innocent mothers who contract AIDS from their bi-sexual husbands will pass that AIDS on to their unborn kids, who will probably die of the disease before age 10.  This, is double homicide on the husband.  It is a capital crime. 
          Homosexuals will have sexual relations without telling their  partners that they have AIDS.  For what reason, I don’t know.  But, the law states that if you don’t tell your sexual partner that you have the disease before sex, and your partner contracts it from that act and dies, then YOU are guilty of murder.
          There’s a whole BUNCH of valid arguments. 
           We aren’t “homophobes.”  We understand that the behavior is DEADLY and LIFE ALTERING.

  • Citizen

    Just in the interests of full disclosure… from the Declaration of Independence … the founders saw fit to reference Nature’s God as the Creator, and the natural laws which He gives… Guess they were a bunch of religious bigots too… allowed their religious prejudices to influence their thinking… how terrible!

    When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    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.

    Take Our Declaration of Independence Quiz and Test Your Knowledge of America’s Great Freedom Document

  • Anonymous

    No, it has NOT been evident for years.  Just last year, there was another study done that stated that homosexuality is NOT innate.  Therefore, it is not naturally occuring at birth.  There is no such thing as a “gay gene.”  It has been noted though, that if you pump men up with estrogen for the rest of their lives, that they’ll become women just before they die.  But, they’re sterile, and had been for quite a while prior to death.  So,IF THERE WAS A GAY GENE, it could not propogate itself.  And, once the DNA has combined with the DNA of the woman, the strand is automatically “patched” to ward out imperfections through the natural matching process within the womb (multi-dividing).  There are BILLIONS of DNA combinations, so the probability of a male or female being born gay or lesbian are less than remote.  But, GAYS DETEST WOMEN, and bi-sexuals do not produce gay and lesbian children at conception.  They have male and female children, like everyone else.  The big difference in whether a child is straight or not, is in how they are taught by what they see, what is allowed, and what and how the parents say and do.  They don’t have to be LGB.  They can choose. This is why it’s not a human rights issue. 

    It’s like buying a house that can’t be insured because it’s in a flood zone.  If a flood comes and takes your house away, or irreparably damages it inside and out, you aren’t covered.  You lose your house. 

  • Anonymous

    The problem is this, Catsol:  Gay and Lesbian couples are unprofitable.  They cannot reproduce.  Reproduction = Survival.  Sterility = Extinction.  So, be gay and lesbian if you want.  I really don’t care.  But, it is a dangerous lifestyle, and you shouldn’t ask for benefits to support it.  And all you really want to do is adopt normal kids and teach them immorality so that they won’t know the difference when they are grown.  This is a dangerous prescription for sterility and extinction.  Oh, and did I mention AIDS?   oh, seems that I did. 
     

  • Anonymous

    Pez, so are you learning anything?  You’re getting quite an education here.  It seems that it’s not us that needs the education. 

  • Anonymous

    Remember, Pez, Ted Haggard was a GAY man (one of YOU).  And when he was found out, the church turned its back on him.  And George Rokers – everyone knows that was about money.  The guy settled without going to court.  The priests, monks, and other pastors that were found guilty – one of YOU.  So, what pot is calling the kettle black?  Just because they served in these positions doesn’t make what they did right.  This is where you have to deduce that there’s always one bad apple in the bunch.  If you remove the bad apple, the rest of the bushel will be fine.  But you don’t throw away the bushel and keep the bad apple. 

  • Anonymous

    Clayton;
       Well, nature finds a way.  That’s YOUR decision.  You’re married to a member of the opposite sex, and you make decisions that are best for you and your family.  And if  you decided not to have kids, that’s not my decision. 
        But, you were DESIGNED as man and wife to reproduce.  So, unless you got clipped, and she got her tubes tied – you’re inevitably going to have kids.  I hope you’re ready to be a father and mother when that time comes!

  • Shannonrog

    This is a civil rights issue. Denying marriage to one group of people, for any reason, is prejuduced and wrong.

  • rustysmom

    I will only vote for someone who is open to gay marriage.

  • Lionhawk2

    I believe that everybody should have the right to marry whom they wish as long as all the spouses in that marriage be consenting adults, unfortunately none of the candidates running in ether of the 2 parties ether believes in the right of consenting adults to marry or doesn’t have the political courage to stand up for the rights of individuals to marry whom they want. I would hope that in the future, that a politician would have the political courage to publicly support not only same sex marriage but also poly marriage (having multiple spouses) as long as those involved are consenting adults, then it should be none of our business who people choose to marry

  • RSR

    Unfotunately, I believe it is called control. As long as a group of individuals can limit the rights of another group of individuals then it makes them feel more powerful.

    If someone proposed taking away marriage for everyone and all the rights that married people get, oh what an uproar that would be, and that person would be so blown-up in today’s media.

  • RSR

    Unfotunately, I believe it is called control. As long as a group of individuals can limit the rights of another group of individuals then it makes them feel more powerful.

    If someone proposed taking away marriage for everyone and all the rights that married people get, oh what an uproar that would be, and that person would be so blown-up in today’s media.

  • RSR

    Unfotunately, I believe it is called control. As long as a group of individuals can limit the rights of another group of individuals then it makes them feel more powerful.

    If someone proposed taking away marriage for everyone and all the rights that married people get, oh what an uproar that would be, and that person would be so blown-up in today’s media.

  • Jarrps9771

    Don’t you think a poll like this should ask people HOW it will affect their vote? I won’t vote for someone who opposes my gay marriage, while someone else will oppose the candidate who supports my marriage. Big difference!

  • The Doormat

    I’d vote for obama. If for no other reason, to make sure any progress made without the aid of the federal government isn’t reversed by some head-in-the-sand republican. And it might help that he will have nothing to lose in his second stint.

  • Max

    We need to continue to make a distinction between civil and religious marriage.  Gays are not asking faith communities to be forced to marry us.  What we want is to be able to go to city hall and get the same license that straight couples do.  For those of us who feel the need for additional religious sanction, there are plenty of churches and temples that will invite us into their midst and bless our marriages.  There is no need for such panic among conservatives.  Sheesh!

  • Calvin

    A few decades from now, I’m convinced America will reflect and feel remorse for their gay prejudice. This follows the same pattern, historically, of our country’s tendency to mistreat a group and then later offer reparations: Native Americans, women, African-Americans, etc… Also, one would imagine the opposition would stop citing biblical references as means of justification…

  • Janice

    The arguments against women’s right to vote are amazingly similar to those used against gay marriage.  Voting equality for women didn’t destroy the fabric of our nation and neither wil gays and lesbians gaining marriage equality. 

  • Katherine

    I believe everyone should have the right to marry.
    At one time interracial marriage was condemned. At one time both women and African Americans were refused the right to vote. Since then these have been recognized as discrimination.
    I believe denying a couple the opportunity to marry is yet another form of discrimination.
    Many say that same-sex marriage will harm heterosexual marriage. To this I ask, how?
    What I do see is denying partners of same-sex marriages access to health care, death benefits, and in at least one state the right foster those children in need.
    We need to begin to respect people regardless of their race, creed, or sexual orientation.
    So, any candidate that makes statements concerning same-sex marriage (deny these individuals the opportunity to marry) will not get my vote.

  • Cicegirl

    i would never vote for someone who was against cival rights of any kind

  • mike

    Don’t brain wash my grandchildren. We do have a God given right,  Gods saids man and woman. not man and man or woman and woman. The wrong have the rights.Were have our rights gone. Because everyone is doing it means it’s unsinful ?  God will Judge? I believe in god and the bible and I feel my right are not being heard..  Civil rights and god given rights, are not the same keep it in the closet,stop the brainwashing!

  • Citizen

    What is so absurd here is that real marriage requires 2 different sexes. It is their biological difference and their complimentary nature which makes a true biological family possible. You know, one which consists of a mother and a father and sometimes children. Speaking of children, it can easily be seen that having both a mother and a father is very important. Having a real biological relationship is important. Who are we to say to a child, no, you won’t live with a mother or no, you won’t have the benefit of a father. It is only in the last couple of decades that this kind of revision/downgrading of marriage was even considered. I am sure that at the time of the Revolution, some would have liked to do away with slavery. Some might have wanted to give women more rights. But no one was calling for marriage to be redefined. Marriage, one man and one woman for life is the ideal. If you want the homosexual partnership, then call it that, because it lacks the biological difference which defines true marriage.

  • Anonymous

    Remember that a satellite pentecostal church makes a couple billion a month. It is a BUSINESS. All businesses run on MONEY, which pays the
    EMPLOYEES who don’t work for free. So, if they want to buy a building equipped with exercise equipment, so what? The local food banks are supported by the communities, anyhow. So, what does a business have to do with that?

  • willow

    I will not vote for anyone totally opposed to gay marirage. I will vote vote for a candiate who believes  that at present time, it shoud be a state decision. This is not the ideal process, but it is being done. just wish it would be speeded up!! 

  • Anonymous

    Jacksonvilleguy:
    God does not approve of specific BEHAVIORS.
    Don’t pray for me.
    And I’m not the one that needs professional help, here. I don’t agree with you because I’m crazy. I don’t agree with you because I’m educated.
    So, get an education. Or did you miss that class in high school about STD’s and AIDS?
    Peace out

  • amy

    I will vote against gay marriage.

  • William Brock

    I would never vote for a candidate that opposes equal rights for ALL it’s citizens, and Obama in 2012 will definitely have my vote.

  • Citizen

    I will never vote for any politician who is stupid enough to destroy marriage or pretend that sodomy is a basic human right that is protected by the constitution. I will not consent to the brainwashing of this generation by the repeating of the lie that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable behavior. It is immoral, unnatural, and destructive of the family. Why is the polling question phrased so vaguely?Why not ask directly whether a politician’s support of gay marriage would make you more or less likely to vote for them? Afraid of the answer?

  • Anonymous

    Excuse me. People don’t know what I mean when I don’t use good English. What I meant to say is, people aren’t crazy because they don’t agree with you. People don’t agree with you because they are entitled to their opinions, and they have different points of view. They are not necessarily valid. However, the debating points that I brought up were all valid, and are based upon an educated opinion from experience.

  • Anonymous

    Katherine:  NEWS FLASH!!!  African-Americans have had the right to vote since Lincoln.  Civil Rights guarantees that no one will stop them from it.  Sadly, though, most do not.

  • Anonymous

    NEWS FLASH!!!  Women have the right to vote since the 1920′s.  Not an issue.

  • Anonymous

    No, Calvin.  When you have a conviction that you know is right, and are educated with the correct information, you stand by it.  We all, as American Citizens, have a duty to understand the differences between right and wrong behaviors.  There is a difference between stereotype prejudice, and moral discrimination. 

  • Anonymous

    Sterotype prejudice is saying that something is true for all people of a certain race or ethnicity.  Moral discrimination is knowing the difference between right and wrong, and choosing what is right, and protecting yourself and your family from wrong. 

  • Anonymous

    Sterotype prejudice is saying that something is true for all people of a certain race or ethnicity.  Moral discrimination is knowing the difference between right and wrong, and choosing what is right, and protecting yourself and your family from wrong. 

  • Jim

    It is about the same rights for everyone.  We are all God’s children regardless of race, color and sexual orientation.

  • Lionhawk2

    well this is not just a civil rights issue but also a religious freedom issue.  D.O.M.A prevents those of us who are ordained from preforming an important life cycle ceremony. How dare the government tell me, as a minister, who I can and cannot marry. as long as they are of legal age, then it is not anybodies business accept for the people who are getting married and there minister, priest, Islamic cleric and or Rabbi who has been asked to and agree to officiate at one of the most important ceremonies to commemorate a decision to love and to spend the rest of their lives together. Any minister, priest, rabbi, and Islamic cleric can always refuse to officiate any marriage ceremony that they don’t field comfortable marring.  Civil Unions is not an acceptable alternative to marriage especially when there are Ministers, Rabbi’s, and even priest/priestesses who are more then willing to officiate at these weddings. Civil Unions should be for those who ether cannot find a member of the clergy to marry them or for the non religious who prefer a more secular union. until the restrictions on which consenting adults I can and cannot marry is thrown out, I decided not to preform any marriages.

  • Lionhawk2

    I wish I could vote for Obama, but I no longer trust him to look after my interests. although I will not vote for most of the candidates in the republic party, but I am voting for Ron Paul in the primaries, if for nothing else, it will force Obama to campaign on the left and since there is no candidate who supports the right of consenting adults to marry whom they chose, ether for religious grounds or lack of political courage, I have to look at other issues as well. I do not like Ron Paul’s view on the economy and I do believe that in the case of the racial remarks of his newsletter was ether at best he showed extreme poor judgement and at worse is a racist, I have no illusions about him. but he is a libertarian and libertarians in general support consenting adults right to marry whom they choose, and they are horrified by the serious erosion of our civil liberties that have happen under both the Bush and Obama administrations, they also want to stop these stupid wars that we are in and to bring our troops home from around the world. I am not saying that I endorse Ron Paul for president, I am just endorsing him for the republican nomination.

  • Lionhawk2

    I wish I could vote for Obama, but I no longer trust him to look after my interests. although I will not vote for most of the candidates in the republic party, but I am voting for Ron Paul in the primaries, if for nothing else, it will force Obama to campaign on the left and since there is no candidate who supports the right of consenting adults to marry whom they chose, ether for religious grounds or lack of political courage, I have to look at other issues as well. I do not like Ron Paul’s view on the economy and I do believe that in the case of the racial remarks of his newsletter was ether at best he showed extreme poor judgement and at worse is a racist, I have no illusions about him. but he is a libertarian and libertarians in general support consenting adults right to marry whom they choose, and they are horrified by the serious erosion of our civil liberties that have happen under both the Bush and Obama administrations, they also want to stop these stupid wars that we are in and to bring our troops home from around the world. I am not saying that I endorse Ron Paul for president, I am just endorsing him for the republican nomination.

  • citizen

    As far as I know, MLK was a Christian Baptist minister who marched for desegregation in the South. He opposed the Vietnam war. He fought for the rights of underpaid garbage workers in Memphis. His views were based on his Christian (Biblical) world view and his personal experience of segregation. Since, as far as I know, he never gave a sermon or wrote a letter from jail supporting gay rights, it is strange and disingenuous that Need To Know would juxtapose his likeness with the gay rights issue on your website and use the day honoring him to associate him with a cause he never espoused.   

  • Meredith830

    I am a Christian who is for gay marriage and equal rights in general. If a candidate is blatantly against these equal rights, I will not vote for him or her. Allowing gay people to marry does not do anything to threaten heterosexual marriage and it will not create more gay relationships. It may, however,  allow more people to live an honest life. Gay parents won’t necessarily have gay children just as straight parents will not necessarily have straight children. I do not understand the irrational fears held by so many. These fears are not based on truth or science and are simply harmfu and hurtful. Jesus hung out with those on the fringe, told us to not cast stone, told us to care and love all.  As for the argument that it is a man and a woman’s union that nees to take place to be parents, that just doesn’t hold water. I am straight but could not have children so I adopted. Fertility in a relationship is not what makes you a parent or a family. There are plenty of children out there with heterosexual parents who are being raised by others (straight and gay) because the biological parents were not capable of the task. If you are someone who has issues with homosexuality based on your religious beliefs, I encourage you to see “For the Bible Tells Me So.”

  • amy

    Native Americans were pushed off their lands and killed, women were refused the right to vote and at times imprisoned for fighting for that right, African-Americans were enslaved, abused, segregated; I don’t see how you can compare.  I think it is outrageous to compare denial of the right to wed with being murdered or imprisoned or enslaved. 

  • Acovalt

    I am most concerned that gay civil unions, with full rights of marriage, be recognized by the state, as a matter of basic civil rights.

  • pezcadoazul

    Citizen, can you quote one verse from the Bible that indicates that any of its authors had the concept of homosexuality – that is homosexual orientation as opposed to homosexual behavior which was viewed as a sin or crime which could be committed by anyone?

  • pezcadoazul

    Army, in response to the rise of the Abrahamic religions (primarily Christianity and Islam) gays have been persecuted for the past 2000 years by a variety of means including imprisonment and execution.  The Nazi’s  castrated gays to prevent them from contributing to the gene pool but also imprisoned or executed them for fear that they would convert the German youth.  In Germany and the US, up to the 1970′s at least gays were sometimes involunarily committed to mental institutions or submitted to brain surgery aimed at stopping their same-sex behavior.   Don’t criticize what you don’t understand.

  • pezcadoazul

    You are free to believe what you believe but we have a secular democracy, not a theocracy.   I see no evidence that the god you reference is anything more than a human creation that is presented in a variety of contradictory ways in the collection of human writings selected for inclusion in various versions of the Bible (e.g., Vulgate, King James,Coptic…) each of which differs in what writings are included and how the original texts are translated.  Anyone who wants to force his view of God and what he believes is right or wrong based on his belief of what his God wants is an enemy of the State as envisioned by our founding fathers.

  • Anonymous

    Jim;
        You don’t know your Bible very well.  From one side, you are correct, that we are all ultimately the children of God.  However, as we grow, live our lives, and make our choices, Jesus specifically stated that there were two groups of people:  the sheep and the goats.  The sheep are the ones that listen to the words of God and adhere.  The goats are those who have rejected Christ and the words of God.  The sheep, Jesus makes clear, are the children of God.  The goats are not. 
        God, our Father, our Creator, has created us for specific reasons.  We are all different and unique in a gazillion ways.  However, one thing that He has emphasized is the clear division between male and female, and that those of the same sex must not interact sexually.  God is a God of Order, and He hates confusion.  Homosexuality causes confusion among the sexes, because it frustrates the Divine Order (otherwise known as Nature), and the Divine Purposes of Mankind on earth.
        Furthermore, Jim, there are more scriptures than just one that make this clear.  If you knew your Bible, English, and interpreted it within its context (rather than using a private interpretation), you would understand this.  God is CLEAR about sexual orientation.  If you were created a man, you can be nothing other than a man.  If you were created a woman, you can be nothing other than a woman, and your character must be consistent with those roles, as outlined in Romans, Galations, I Corinthians, and Ephesians (the New Testament). 
     

  • Anonymous

    pez;
       Again, you miss the point.  The divine order of things has nothing to do with whether it is a theocracy or a democracy.  It’s a fact.  Men are MEN, women are WOMEN.  Period.
       With the very FEW exceptions, there is no in-between. 
       We aren’t forcing you to accept our views.  However, we are wanting you to accept the TRUTH – that homosexuality is a deadly and life-altering lifestyle.  There is no argument for that, because the evidence that supports this truth is staring you right in the face – aside of that theological issue.  You may consider the Bible circumstantial in nature, and circular reasoning, and can ignore it if you want to, but for God’s sake, don’t ignore the EVIDENCE.
     

  • http://www.procurandomilionarios.com/ Relacionamento Milionário

    i am disagree on gay marriage. i know that they have the right to choose the person that they want to be with for the rest of  their lives. but man is for a woman and vice versa. it is a big sin if they will marry the person who has a same gender with them.

  • Donaldo

     You can’t legislate your religious beliefs.  Remember we have a first amendment that protects us and a 4th that guarantees us due process.

  • Gayrights

     Whether it’s a sin or not is irrelevant.  We have a 1st Amendment protecting us from laws based on religion and a 4th Amendment guaranteeing us due process.  Marriage in the eyes of the state is nothing but a civil union for all.  The marriage aspect is a religion thing and since we can practice whatever religion we choose including those that condone homosexual marriage, the state can’t constitutionally deny gay marriage.  A popular vote can’t override constitutional rights, you’d need to ratify a constitutional ammendment.

  • Ken

    We do not even have the right to make decisions about gay marriage ,To start with gay means happy not perverted sex between men with men or women with women.The bible is plain about this .We are to love all people hoping to win them to the Lord Jesus Christ.The bible also is plain that homosexuals are an obamanation to God meaning he hates their sin .To those who turn away from sin and the wickedness of homosexuality God will surely forgive.Remember you must repent and turn from it..God instuted marriage between man and women…Period !  You will never say you are a Christian and believe in perverted marriage….they are QUEERS    God hates  homosexual sin and can not bless it because  it is an obimanition    AMEN.!

  • Ken

    How can you say you are Christ like [Christian ] and say that men can link up with men and women with women .Lord have mercy ,Please read the bible ,it is plain that God hates sin.He hates perverse living and He even said that homosexuals are an obimination .not just a sin but it is something worthy of death to those who commit this sin

  • Ken

    I will not vote for any pervert that supports fag marrage ,,by the way ,,there is no such thing as gay marriage..Go crawl back under a rock that you come from ..I believe in civial rights,,yes sir,but gay ,perverted sex is not a civial right issue.You do have the right to marry a man if you are a woman or you do have the right to marry a woman if you are a man.all else are perverts !

  • Ken

    I will not vote for any man that supports perverted sex [ gay marriage ]

  • Ke

    No one is stopping men and women from marring ,,only perverts [ gays ]

  • pete

    No one is homophobic ! we just don’t like to see Gods law perverted by homos

  • are you surprised?

    The problem with the bible is wording. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” everyone thinks they are without sin!!! Especially the religious.

    And you can’t argue with the ignorant. When a person uses “obamanation” [sic. See comment by Ken 07/04/2012] to express abomination. When people are barely literate, it is easy to brainwash them with fairytales and myths.

  • Al

    Keep your bible and your other fairy tale books out of my life and I will not fornicate with my boyfriend in your bedroom.  Fair enough?  Now as far as my rights as an American step off and spend your energy stopping divorce which is the breaking of a sacred vow taken before your God.  That should keep you busy for a long long time so that I may live my life as I choose. Al