Since the Subaru threads continue...

[Lawn Guyland]

150% for it.

[hippie metal]

CT67_72...you cant just vote no, and NOT have something to say as to why. Must not have known poll was public. WHAT SAY YOU?!?!?!

[hoggie101]

Ok as I far as I see it marriage is a religious standpoint, correct? So now u mix government with religion that never works. But hey if they are gay then let them be just don't touch me. We all knew Caleb was gay.

How is Caleb the gay one if all his colthes are on?

[CumminsJeep]

Let em plow. who cares.

[ct67_72]

CT67_72...you cant just vote no, and NOT have something to say as to why. Must not have known poll was public. WHAT SAY YOU?!?!?!

I started a response but wasnt how I wanted to come across. I guess I dont have a problem with it per se. But I dont think that they should receive the same benefits a heterosexual couple would. I guess to me the idea of being married is to /start/have a family. When you are unable to do that on your own I dont think you deserve the same entitlements that I do.
I kind of float the line honestly. I have family and friends who are gay, and its fine. I have had the conversation and some of them feel the same way I do.
Other than that I could give a shit less if they were married.
I dont care enough that if it was passed I would be upset, I wouldnt think twice about it. But if you ask me, Ill say no.

[Zullock Holmes]

being gay is immoral and is a mental issue and all fags are going to hell. Not to mention it's fucking weird and creepy. I like hot lesbians though, they can carry on being hot and lickin' dat snatch.



Pot Stirred, Troll complete.


P.S. Before this is taken seriously and butthurt occers, I'm a libertarian. Go lookup our stance on this one. It's not my business or the government's to intrude on someones personal life. Let 'em get married, they can't reproduce... thank god.

[Pedro]

Whatever for me too. Like who you wanna like. Doesn't bother me if you're gay and wanna get married

[HeavyMetal]

Let em plow. who cares.

it aint illegal for em to plow

[TSISam]

i see that you are somewhat indifferent but this jumped out at me:

I guess to me the idea of being married is to /start/have a family. When you are unable to do that on your own I dont think you deserve the same entitlements that I do.

does the ability for a married woman to conceive with her husband define marriage here? what about straight couples who just can't get pregnant? i personally don't see a major difference between a straight or gay couple adopting because they can't conceive a child. no one should be punished for that, no matter what their sexual orientation.

and if people are going to get married with no intention of having children, would they then be treated differently in your definition? would those 2 people still be considered a "family"? this part i'm just generally curious about how you look at it.

[hippie metal]

i see that you are somewhat indifferent but this jumped out at me:



does the ability for a married woman to conceive with her husband define marriage here? what about straight couples who just can't get pregnant? i personally don't see a major difference between a straight or gay couple adopting because they can't conceive a child. no one should be punished for that, no matter what their sexual orientation.

and if people are going to get married with no intention of having children, would they then be treated differently in your definition? would those 2 people still be considered a "family"? this part i'm just generally curious about how you look at it.

FUCKING

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

FUCKING

X2


Sent from my pay phone in Chechnya

[Dirtyjeep92]

I say let em plow. BUT. When they do want a family,to bad. Adoption is not acceptable.

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

I started a response but wasnt how I wanted to come across. I guess I dont have a problem with it per se. But I dont think that they should receive the same benefits a heterosexual couple would. I guess to me the idea of being married is to /start/have a family. When you are unable to do that on your own I dont think you deserve the same entitlements that I do.
I kind of float the line honestly. I have family and friends who are gay, and its fine. I have had the conversation and some of them feel the same way I do.
Other than that I could give a shit less if they were married.
I dont care enough that if it was passed I would be upset, I wouldnt think twice about it. But if you ask me, Ill say no.

If you could "give a shit less if they were married", why do you have such a reasonably thought-out (however flawed it may be) opinion on the subject?

If a heterosexual couple loves each other and wishes to get married but not have children, by your logic they shouldn't "deserve the same entitlements" that you hypothetically "deserve". Why should hetero couples that don't want children not be entitled to these same "entitlements"? Why does it need to be a homosexual couple, and ONLY a homosexual couple, that can't have said entitlements?

Who cares if they want kids or not? How do you propose to enforce said "entitlements?" If you're going to try and say that homosexual couples aren't entitled to the same "entitlements" as you simply because they can't have childen, then you better be prepared to have a reason to deny said "entitlements" to hetero couples that are either incapable of reproducing or simply don't want to have kids. Your argument is pretty much invalid. Flame away, but my point is solid.

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

I say let em plow. BUT. When they do want a family,to bad. Adoption is not acceptable.

So you're saying a hetero couple that can't/won't have children of their own shouldn't be able to adopt? You've effectively stated that adoption should only be available to child-bearing "married" couples. That's one hell of a bold statement, bud.

[hippie metal]

i see that you are somewhat indifferent but this jumped out at me:



does the ability for a married woman to conceive with her husband define marriage here? what about straight couples who just can't get pregnant? i personally don't see a major difference between a straight or gay couple adopting because they can't conceive a child. no one should be punished for that, no matter what their sexual orientation.

and if people are going to get married with no intention of having children, would they then be treated differently in your definition? would those 2 people still be considered a "family"? this part i'm just generally curious about how you look at it.

If you could "give a shit less if they were married", why do you have such a reasonably thought-out (however flawed it may be) opinion on the subject?

If a heterosexual couple loves each other and wishes to get married but not have children, by your logic they shouldn't "deserve the same entitlements" that you hypothetically "deserve". Why should hetero couples that don't want children not be entitled to these same "entitlements"? Why does it need to be a homosexual couple, and ONLY a homosexual couple, that can't have said entitlements?

Who cares if they want kids or not? How do you propose to enforce said "entitlements?" If you're going to try and say that homosexual couples aren't entitled to the same "entitlements" as you simply because they can't have childen, then you better be prepared to have a reason to deny said "entitlements" to hetero couples that are either incapable of reproducing or simply don't want to have kids. Your argument is pretty much invalid. Flame away, but my point is solid.

So you're saying a hetero couple that can't/won't have children of their own shouldn't be able to adopt? You've effectively stated that adoption should only be available to child-bearing "married" couples. That's one hell of a bold statement, bud.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9n9iR7iJNE[/ame]