POLITICS

A Gay Marriage Surge

Public support grows, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll.

By Arian Campo-Flores | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Dec 5, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Against-Ignorance @ 06/03/2009 10:17:55 PM

    JeremiahA. You say your what your kind does is not hate? I say you are a liar. I'd love to see you spout your pathetic drivel to my friends you've been regularly mocked, assaulted, and generally had to live in fear because of bigotry against gay people. The bigotry, yes its bigotry, your kind trades in, allows this behavior to flourish no matter what you may claim. Your little essay is nothing more than an exercise in cognitive dissonance. You know, where you say one thing, even though at gut level you believe something else? How can you strip people of their rights and then claim not to hate them? The truly sickening part? We can assume from your behavior that you claim some flavor of Christianity. This is how you show Jesus in the world, by transparent lies and self delusion? How dare you sir. No decent, genuinely moral person will be tricked into acquiescence by your false arguments and cheap sophistry.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/04/2009 10:32:38 AM

      Quit your whining and telling people how to display Jesus teachings when you yourself don't know what he actually taught.

      So let's see if Jesus taught that men should marry men and woman should marry woman.

      Matt.19
      [1] And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
      [2] And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
      [3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
      [4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
      [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
      [6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

      Nope! No mention of that by Jesus....so tell me sir where is it that Jeremiah lied? Your lie is easily exposed and your moral compass is broken if you think that homosexuality is a Godly trait!

      • Posted By: bndkllr2 @ 07/15/2009 4:17:37 PM

        bojack27, your argument doesn't make any sense. Jesus never said that people should send their kids to school either. What's your point? Yes, I believe that adam and eve and straight marriage WAS God's idea. But it wasn't God's ONLY idea. If God can create 43 different types of parrots, certainly HE can create more than one kind of person. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that sexual orientation is a choice and not a trait, since it is YOU who accuses us of being perverted.

  • Posted By: mmonroe @ 02/19/2009 9:57:12 PM

    If men were to be with men and women to be with women, how would babies come about? The human race would have became extinct long ago. That's why it's one man and one woman, they create babies. How would gay people adopt, if it were a world of 2 men together or two women together? Oh? A gay couple would need a man and woman to produce an offspring, just so they can adopt? And then what? Teach that child to be gay, until what? The whole human race is gay, then eventually all die off. If the world was one happy gay society, then abortion wouldn???t be an issue, eh?

    • Posted By: MommyMitzi @ 06/04/2009 1:31:22 PM

      No one, NO ONE, is saying ONLY gays should marry. Your argument is ridiculous. Or are you also saying that sterile couples should also not marry since they can't produce children? What about a woman who wants to get married late in life, after menopause? I guess they shouldn't get married either. Let's ban all marriages unless we know that they can produce children!

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 05/29/2009 3:36:16 PM

    IF 2 GAY PEOPLE CAN PRODUCE ONE CHILD BETWEEN THEM THEN THEY MUST MARRY

  • Posted By: JeremiahA @ 05/28/2009 12:42:57 PM

    Dennis Prager wrote a column on the apparent attempt to portray supporters of marriage as "haters." Sadly, those who wish to redefine marriage and take away a child's chance to have a father or a mother, and allow a child to be raised in the best environment for healthy emotional and phyical health, would rather use only hate speech and emotion than reasonable discussion.

    " It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."

    But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."

    Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.

    It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?

    These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.

    Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?"--Dennis Prager

  • Posted By: atruzite @ 05/13/2009 1:50:46 PM

    My parents raised me to believe that gay marriage, but as an adult I formed my own opinion. Denying the gay and lesbian community the right to marry is denying them a civil right. There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state and the only arguments people including politicans can make is based on religious ideals. 50 years ago this country wouldn't allow inter-racial marriage and how ignorant was that way of thinking. In the future we will look back and see how ignorant we were. Why do people care if gays get married? I don't and I fully support gay marriage.

  • Posted By: brydges @ 02/25/2009 12:04:40 PM

    Newsweek polls are a joke and always overstate the liberal agenda. They have Obama's transition rating at 72% when other polls show it much lower. With that said it is sad that support for gay marriage is still so low even in Newsweek.
    We should be promoting marriage and monagamy among the gay community. They are not going any where and by not including them gives them a free pass to act however they want

  • Posted By: jaymatsen @ 01/26/2009 11:06:18 AM

    Does "Land of the free" & "All men created equal" mean anything anymore? Not for me. I know my place in society now. Religion creates more feuds & wars than solve them. What is so wrong about two people (whom were so lucky to have found love in a world so full of hate) legally committing themselves to each other for life?? How does their happiness have anything to do with YOU? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

  • Posted By: agGag @ 01/16/2009 3:16:41 PM

    my comment is for bdsleepy:
    even if this misguided idea of yours that 'gay people sit on their computers and take polls like this one all day' were true... that's still NOT the methodology used in Newsweek surveys. Had you clicked on the 1st link in the 1st paragraph of the above story, you would have a) better informed yourself about the demographics of the people who responded to the poll; and b) you would have seen that this poll was conducted over the TELEPHONE with adults from randomly selected households. This wasn't an online poll. No ones responses were counted more than once. These research results are considered to be valid because the method used to conduct the survey followed the industry standard guidelines for empirical social research.

  • Posted By: bdsleepy @ 01/15/2009 1:49:52 AM

    Newsweek Poll shows growing support for gay marriage because gay people sit at their computers all day long on polls like this one and vote multiple times to make it appear that they have support. Well my friends, the great straight American poeple voted down your lifestyle. I used to think gay people were OK, quiet and minded thier own business. That is until you tell a gay person NO you cannot be openly gay in the military or you cannnot legealy get married. Now the other side of the Gay boy comes out. They talk about us bible crunchers and stupid religion and can even shove the bible up my butt!!! Now is this how a Gay person should be talking when they need my vote to get what they want? I would perfer a bible rather that a man up my butt, at least I know the bible is pure and clean. Freedom of religion is protected under the constitution so don't talk about religiion in these discussions, your lifestyle is not accepted in society. And the last thing I want to point out is the sign at the top of this article "Gayisthenewblack" If I were black, I would be offended by this statement. If a gay person wants children "STRAIGHTEN UP" and form a union with the opposite sex. It is not fair for children to be raised in an enviorment that is not accepted by law or the American people or even Religion.

  • Posted By: greatmidwest @ 01/02/2009 12:39:48 AM


    Under the next administration, the gay minority electoral block (of whom are mainly Democratic voters that could have easily led President-elect Obama to narrow victory during the Democratic Presidential Primaries) will be watching very closely starting the day Barack Obama is elected our nation's 44th President.

    From the moment the inovcational message is given by Pastor Rick Warren (who supported the very controversial Prop 8 which now hangs in the balance in California's Supreme Court) America's gay citizens will be more unified than ever before to see that their civil rights are no longer denied in these United States of America. The slogan of Barack Obama's presdential campaign , "Yes We can!", will hold even more meaning in the hearts and minds of gay voters all across America during the start of a new era in American politics. Gay Amercians will pursue with furvor that their Big 3 are addressed during the next adjournment of Congress and President Obama's first term of office:

    1) Congress will pass legislation that states, " An American citizen may marry any other individual regardless of race, color, creed or sex.", and thereby end the controversy regarding legalization of gay marriage in the USA.

    2) Congress will pass the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and legislation that states, " The US military may not discriminate based upon sexual orientation.", and thereby put an end to the, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" dilemma in our nation's military.

    3) Congress will pass legislation that states, " Sexual orientation may not be used as a resaon to deny an American adult the citizen the right to adopt a child.", and thereby put an end to the denial of adoption to Americans simply due to their sexual orientation.

    God Bless Amercia

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 01/03/2009 1:16:26 PM

      And you will have people like me and millions of others who will work tirelessly to stop your destructive gay agenda and halt all 3 of these initiatives in their tracks. Especially #3. Children given up for adoption should never end up in a gay home, Never.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/07/2009 8:04:58 PM

        "And you will have people like me and millions of others who will work tirelessly to stop your destructive gay agenda and halt all 3 of these initiatives in their tracks. Especially #3. Children given up for adoption should never end up in a gay home, Never. "

        Luckily the Courts do not listen to fools like you. They follow the Constitution, and your ultraconservative religious right-wingnut agenda will not stand the Constitutional test (or the common sense or sanity test either.) Actually children should never end up in hatemonger jimbo homes.

  • Posted By: usdefender @ 12/12/2008 12:28:15 AM

    America???s newspapers and media crack me up.! The people of California spoke twice and yet those who demand ???tolerance??? will stop at nothing to shove their ways down the throats of others. Meantime the media and those like newsWEAK magazine also fuel the fire of a few to burn those of the many. The loudest will get all the attention no matter if the truth is distorted, morals are laid aside or, even if someone does not have their facts straight but makes it sound good for those who want their view in the faces of those who believe otherwise. We as a majority of Americans will get what we deserve due to the fact that we are sitting blind and silent. Wake up fools! Blog on!

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/27/2008 2:14:28 PM

      "The people of California spoke twice and yet those who demand ???tolerance??? will stop at nothing to shove their ways down the throats of others. "

      The people of California do NOT get to decide about equal rights of others. The majority has no say in who gets equal and civil rights.

  • Posted By: kylee @ 12/12/2008 9:29:54 AM

    Gays and lesbians are immoral people and irresponsible, they are sexually deviated people who do not have rights.
    Marriage is only between one man and one woman, period. Homosexuality is against nature, religion, and everthing right and good. They are digusting people.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/27/2008 2:12:33 PM

      kylee,

      "Gays and lesbians are immoral people and irresponsible, they are sexually deviated people who do not have rights.
      Marriage is only between one man and one woman, period. Homosexuality is against nature, religion, and everthing right and good. They are digusting people."

      Soeone call kylee's mommy and tell her that kylee's diaper is overflowing into the internet. Also that they need to start educating kylee so that he/she stops spouting bullsh*t.

    • Posted By: jfranksocal @ 12/12/2008 3:54:55 PM

      It's pretty easy to sit in judgement of someone when you are not in their shoes, isn't it?

  • Posted By: Anne Osborne @ 12/19/2008 4:58:17 PM

    What is the first thing you do when you want to get married? You go to City Hall. A religious wedding ceremony cannot take place legally without that marriage certificate. That is why this is a civil rights issue and religion need not be involved. Currently no priest, rabbi etc. is forced to marry anyone, straight or gay, if he (or she for those religions that believe that women are spiritually equal to men) does not want to. Why "marriage" v. "civil union" or other such definition that each state may come up with? Because a variety of laws across our 50 states and territories include the word "marriage" in them and only "marriage", not "civil union", not "marriage and civil union". As such, only "marriage" is a legally-protected and recognized institution with all the rights that come with that institution. That word "marriage" has legal and very real implications with regards to insurance contracts, wills, Social Security payments for survivors, adoptions, etc. This is also why this is a civil rights issue: "civil union" is not the equal of "marriage".

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/13/2008 2:42:11 AM

    I've been talking with some people who oppose or have concerns about gay marriage and I'd like to share some of this. All these people are moral, tolerant, rational people that I love and respect and they have some interesting and important concerns. This post does not endorse one view or another on gay marriage, including my own. (So treat me and own with respect!) Take this as a challenge as to see what side has the more logical argument and sound policy and only respond if you wish to objectively consider some of these issues.

    How long do committed gay relationships tend to last and how does this compare with the length of straight marriages?

    What is affect on children being raised by gay couples?

    The schools may try to teach morality and endorse a political agenda (this has occurred in my grade schools), in particular in favor of gay marriage, which some parents and students do not support. How will these parents' right to raise their children be protected? How will the students be protected from bad grades and harassment?

    What is the financial impact of providing survivor benefits, etc. to gay people (I think this is an issue in some states but not others, such as California)? How would this be addressed if gay marriage was legalized?

    Some gay marriage battles are occurring in the courts and some view this as judicial activism. Is forbidding gay marriage actually unconstitutional? Justify your response using quotes from the Constitution, etc. (and not you world view).

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/13/2008 9:47:34 PM

      The "is forbidding gay marriage actually uncontitutional?" question is perhaps a bit vague and too open to responses based solely on opinion, so let me ask it this way. First let's note that married is a civil right protected by many state constitutions, including California. I and others who support gay marriage agree that in principle gay persons should equal rights with straight people. The question is whether such rights are explicitly protected by the Constitution or otherwise? Or are courts being activist? Is this issue up to the voters and legislature?

      The majority decision of "In re Marriage Cases" in California applies strict scrutiny on the basis that discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, like gender, race, and religion, is constitutionally suspect (paraphrased). Frequently in national and state laws and constitutions, discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex and national origin" are explicitly prohibited but sexual orientation is omitted. Moreover, the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of homosexuality. So it could seem that discrimination against gays being unconstitutional is solely a matter of opinion and the court was activist. (Note that the dissenting opinions believed the decision was judicial activism.)

      So can one explain such a court ruling by quoting the Constitution, laws, etc? Note that if someone can, the pro-gay-marriage people win the argument.

      • Posted By: spjon @ 12/19/2008 1:08:43 PM

        I'd just like to note that the Constitution does not mention anything homosexual at all including gay marriage. I'm sure it wasn't an issue in the days of the founding fathers, but the fact is that the Constitution does not strictly prohibit gay marriage either. I do think that this is the kind of thing where the Court needs to step in and tell people they're wrong. Just because the majority (as slim as it is) passes what I feel is an illegal law, does not mean that they are right. The majority can be wrong.

      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/13/2008 11:30:45 PM

        I really should have mentioned something very important. Since California has granted gay people all the rights and duties of marriage without calling it marriage, one could argue anti-gay-marriage is unconstitutional on the basis that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. This argument is used in the decision. Also, the application of "strict scrutiny" and comparing gay rights to race rights is questioned in the dissents. I haven't read the decision and dissents in detail and am not a lawyer, so I could be babbling nonsense. Just trying to get people (including myself) to look beyond our opinions to question whether judicial activism is taking place.

    • Posted By: zhidon @ 12/13/2008 2:16:28 PM

      Gays are as human as straights and therefore subject to the same lasting relationships and mistakes in choosing a partner as all the rest of humankink. I'm gay and have been in a relationship for ten years now. My partner is Chinese. If he were a woman the laws would have allowed us to marry and his citizenship would have been assured easily. But we had to go through years of legal uncertainty and mental torture while staying together. Other couples I know have been together longer and some shorter.

      One couple who have been together longer than us have been raising children thier relatives could not. They are liberal, happy, intelligent kids. And straight.

      Teaching gay marriage in school is a touchy subject. I believe it should be touched on because realistically it is a part of the world and our society. As mentioned above there are children from same sex couples who attend schools and if the teacher says that thier parents are imorale, what effect will that have on the other students in thier class and the treatment of them? On the other hand if the child is taught in school same sex couples are fine but parents are teaching the opposite, I see great confusion for the child. So my opinion is that it is taught like a tree in a field; it exists, some think the relationships are fine and some do not, and then leave it.

      I live in Ca. and my partner is protected by Ca. law. To do so we had to register as domestic partners.

      Is forbidding gay marriiage unconstitutional? When the constitution, federal and state, promises equal rights for all law abiding persons then in my simple opinion the answere would be yes it is unconstitutional. Let's look at this true example; a gay firefighter risks his life and health but cannot get married. A hetero arsonist gets imprisoned, gets divorced and gets married again all while serving time in prison and if he is on good behavior, will even be allowed to sleep with his wife while serving time. The same goes for gay police, doctors, lawyers, nurses and those who benefit society. They do not have the same rights as murderers, rapists, drug dealers, etc. Should the courts allow this inequality to exist when the constitution calls for equality?

  • Posted By: egranlund @ 12/17/2008 10:01:53 PM

    @bkrummel - That already existed. Gays being allowed to marry didn't affect the freedom of religions to speak out against gay marriage, or gay people in general. Parents in California also had the right to opt out of the teaching of gay marriage (or any other health topic) (CA law is different than Massachusetts).

    That all existed before prop 8 came along, where the people for it tried to muddy the water bringing in unrelated things that have happened that have no ground in California state law. If you look and see, you will notice that most of the ads for prop 8 were scare tactics (that's not to say that the no on 8 ads were any better).


    While gay marriage was legal, it just floated back to the background of every day life, even to me (I am gay), I was happy, I was equal, and when I found someone that Ioved I could get married, and treated the same as every one else. But I guess some people didn't like that, for whatever reason.



    I really don't mind if people have a religious view on the issue, but what I do mind, is if they let that determine their vote. There is a MAJOR difference between civil and religious marriage. Civil marriage is just a name for all of the rights that people who are married in the state, where religious marriage is whatever your church decides it is (including polygamy if they want). That is what I am most outraged against.

    To all of you people, who read the, "I am gay" part, and now have a warped view on what I'm saying, here is what I have to say to you. I just want to be treated the same, I did not choose to be gay, and I don't have an agenda to push. I'm not trying to force upon you the people who I am interested in, I am just want you to accept me, and treat me the same as everyone else, and if my life offends you in whichever way, you calling me a ***, or throwing scripture at me, isn't going to change the fact that I was born gay, it'll just make me feel like that less of a person, and I really don't understand that. I would never think of doing that to someone. Any of you that were behind this whole prop 8 thing will never realize what it feels like to turn on the tv, and watch people talk about how they hate you, read comments on line about how I am an abomination, and watch horrible ads that suggest that somehow a kid knowing that I like guys instead of girls will ruin society.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/18/2008 12:39:08 PM

      Excellent post! If such law exist in California, great! Then the religious folk really don't have much to complain about. I wasn't aware their was a distinction between religious and civil marriage; to me and probably others marriage is just marriage. (I figured right to marriage would include in the church ceremony.) This point needs to be articulated much more clearly. It would also undermine a lot of talk about supporting civil unions but not gay marriage, which is an attempt to separate civil and religious marriage. It also seems that this California law needs to be modeled in the other states, as unfortunately the religious groups have a lot of anecdotal evidence to support their claims that religious freedom would be infringed upon. Moreover, the gay rights activist harassing churches after Prop 8 passed adds fuel to their argument; I'm sure only a small group is involved, but they need to stop.

      Yea, the pro-Prop 8 ads were scare tactics. But many have personal concerns about gay marriage and are ignorant of the issue but are tolerant to gays. To get them to vote for Prop 8 you need scare tactics, feeding the concerns. To get them to vote against Prop 8 you need to address their concerns. Only a lame attempt at this was made. Samuel L. Jackson talking about injustice didn't address any concerns.

      I'm pleased to hear you don't mind the religious view on the issue. I don't let them decide my vote (I voted against Prop 8), but I still listen to their side, up until they start quoting the Bible. As I pointed out, some have concerns about gay marriage and these concerns need to be addressed. Your points address some of these concerns.

      Good luck on getting the right to marry!

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/16/2008 4:37:10 PM

    Some oppose gay marriage on the basis that their religious freedoms would be infringed upon. In particular, they fear that expressing anti-gay opinions would be regarded as hate speech or they would be forced to support gay marriage through their jobs despite being morally opposed to gay marriage (for instance, pastors being forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies and preach tolerance of homosexuals or else). Would it be possible to have a policy where gay marriage is permitted while protecting religious rights? Such a policy could be as follows:

    Gay marriage is recognized by the state and all the rights and privileges of marriage must be accessible to gay persons. However, religious freedoms and free speech is still protected under the Constitution. Provided their is a reasonable opportunity for gay persons to pursue their marriage rights, one can refuse to support gay marriage on moral and religious grounds. (For example, a church may refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies provided there are a number of churches that will perform gay marriage ceremonies.) One may express personal beliefs against homosexuality, provided they do not harass gay persons. While sexuality and current events may be discussed in schools, parents have the right to teach morality to their children and must be consulted on sexual education.

    Of course such a policy would have to be more carefully be written down. But why can't homosexuals pursue their lifestyles, religious people pursue their lifestyles, and no one harm or infringe upon anyone else's rights or lifestyle?

  • Posted By: Wise Man 1 @ 12/07/2008 11:11:03 AM

    It's really laughable that people of the same sex , or anyone for that matter, could feel that it is evan remotely "OK or normal" for same gender sexual relationships. It is a sickness of the mind to feel this way and those people need psychological as well as medical intervention. Society should stamp this immoral behavior out and the sooner the better!

    • Posted By: spjon @ 12/16/2008 4:12:53 PM

      Hey "Wise Man" if you're so wise then maybe instead of "stamping this behavior out" you should be looking for a cure for it...considering it's obviously a mentel disease. Good luck.

    • Posted By: mcgun @ 12/07/2008 11:17:41 AM

      Oh my...I have a prayer for these types....Dear God, please help these people see that gays are here and will be here for as long as there are humans on this Earth. These types of humans have become blinded by the truth and short in compassion and understanding. We love them for they cannot control their hetero ways....they keep practicing procreation and the result is another child born into the world who needs the love and compassion that this parent does not have.

  • Posted By: notogays @ 12/07/2008 10:19:13 AM

    The choice to be gay is not genetics or medical in nature, "NO" to a person who is gay to receive the same benefits as a man and woman! The voice of the majority has spoken - a loud and resounding ???NO!???
    A few say, "yes" does not mean a gay person has the right to the same rights as a man and woman. The US of A was and still founded on correct principles and morality.
    Go to another country if you want to practice your misguided and sick ways. The media is to grow up and stop being so anti-American. We are not going to be another SODOM and GOMORRA just because a few are so misguided. LEAVE the US of A!

    • Posted By: spjon @ 12/16/2008 3:58:37 PM

      Sorry to tell you but the person that needs to leave this country is you. The USA was certainly founded on good moral principles. It was also a nation founded by Christian men with Christian ideals, but I find it funny that the Constitution does not address gays at all...it would seem the founding fathers didn't think it important enough to talk about. The truth of the matter is that gay people deserve the same rights as hetero people and not less rights just because you find it personally disusting or because you believe the words that some man said that some God told him to write. If you live in the USA then you need to believe in the doctrine of equal rights and if you don't then you probably don't belong here. So, why don't YOU LEAVE, and go start your own homophobic (probably theocratical) country somewhere else.

  • Posted By: jinAZ @ 12/07/2008 10:24:41 AM

    I agree 100% with "FedupinCT". I am in an 11 year relationship with my partner of the same sex, and I've lost most of my own family because of it. But, this is MY life, and I am very happy with it. People should be able to choose to be with whomever they desiire. It is no body elses business!

    • Posted By: damonwv @ 12/07/2008 10:50:18 AM

      Then keep your business to yourselves. We dont want to hear about it, we dont want to read about it every day in the news. Tolerance is a double edged sword.. Who is wrong or right here ? Gays for being able to have special rights and push their agenda on others ? Or Others who hold strong to their moral beliefs, and oppose the gay agenda. Double edged sword.. seriously .. leave us alone, we leave you alone.

      • Posted By: spjon @ 12/16/2008 3:52:57 PM

        Ummm....you're wrong. Your argument was nothing if not completely flawed. The "gay agenda" as it were is to have the same rights as everyone else. Gays would leave us alone if we'd simply let them have what we do. Now tell me, who is really bothering who?

    • Posted By: notogays @ 12/07/2008 10:41:46 AM

      It is our buisness when you push your so called life-style on the rest of us and our children.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse