Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized

  • 97 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for black_cat19
black_cat19

8212

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 black_cat19
Member since 2006 • 8212 Posts

[QUOTE="Locke562"][QUOTE="spoofnutz"]

The sooner the old farts in power die of old age, the sooner we can progress.

spoofnutz

There will be newer old farts to take their place. Besides, Old Fart is a mindset.

...but their sons and daughters will have less and less influence...

Yeah, keep telling yourself that...

:P

Avatar image for TheFlush
TheFlush

5965

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#52 TheFlush
Member since 2002 • 5965 Posts
Do you nay-sayers really think you'd even notice if homosexuals get married? Is it that your food doesn't taste good anymore if they get married or something? It's a proven concept in lots of countries already, why wouldn't it work in the states as well? Why shouldn't a homosexual couple deserve the same social security and benefits as a heterosexual couple? Is their relationship less worthy or something? And about procreation, I always thought that a marriage was a bond between two people, procreation can start before or after it or not at all. There isn't a contract that says you should pro-create. Homosexual couples can start a family just as well as a heterosexual, maybe not in the conventional ways, but does that matter? A family is a family to me. Whether it's through adoption or a surrogate mother.
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#53 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman. That means that neither Mormons (who want to marry multiple times) nor people of the same sex can be legally married. So, with that being the predicament, we either need to change the definition of marriage or come up with a new word to use. Changing the definition of marriage probably won't work, so why not use "civil unions" or something like that? Gays, Lesbians, Mormons, etc., can all be together under the term "civil unions" and those who want marriage to remain between a man and woman can be happy. remmbermytitans
Why should same-sex couples have to settle for a second-rate marriage? Giving civil unions, even if they are equal, is basically saying that the government likes same-sex couples less than straight couples. People should just get over the use of one single word, and give equality to all. You can get married without any religious involvement whatsoever. So do those who don't get married in a church need a different word as well?
Avatar image for remmbermytitans
remmbermytitans

7214

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#54 remmbermytitans
Member since 2005 • 7214 Posts
[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman. That means that neither Mormons (who want to marry multiple times) nor people of the same sex can be legally married. So, with that being the predicament, we either need to change the definition of marriage or come up with a new word to use. Changing the definition of marriage probably won't work, so why not use "civil unions" or something like that? Gays, Lesbians, Mormons, etc., can all be together under the term "civil unions" and those who want marriage to remain between a man and woman can be happy. Bourbons3
Why should same-sex couples have to settle for a second-rate marriage? Giving civil unions, even if they are equal, is basically saying that the government likes same-sex couples less than straight couples. People should just get over the use of one single word, and give equality to all. You can get married without any religious involvement whatsoever. So do those who don't get married in a church need a different word as well?

Marriage has traditionally been associated with the union of one man and one woman. And although I have no problem with gays and lesbians, I think that traditional marriage should stay as one man and one woman. But hey, that's why we have a republic in this country, the PEOPLE should decide and not politicians.
Avatar image for Locke562
Locke562

7673

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 Locke562
Member since 2004 • 7673 Posts

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman. That means that neither Mormons (who want to marry multiple times) nor people of the same sex can be legally married. So, with that being the predicament, we either need to change the definition of marriage or come up with a new word to use. Changing the definition of marriage probably won't work, so why not use "civil unions" or something like that? Gays, Lesbians, Mormons, etc., can all be together under the term "civil unions" and those who want marriage to remain between a man and woman can be happy. remmbermytitans
Why should same-sex couples have to settle for a second-rate marriage? Giving civil unions, even if they are equal, is basically saying that the government likes same-sex couples less than straight couples. People should just get over the use of one single word, and give equality to all. You can get married without any religious involvement whatsoever. So do those who don't get married in a church need a different word as well?

Marriage has traditionally been associated with the union of one man and one woman. And although I have no problem with gays and lesbians, I think that traditional marriage should stay as one man and one woman. But hey, that's why we have a republic in this country, the PEOPLE should decide and not politicians.

How far back is traditional? If you go back far enough Polygamy was the norm in many cultures.

Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#56 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman. That means that neither Mormons (who want to marry multiple times) nor people of the same sex can be legally married. So, with that being the predicament, we either need to change the definition of marriage or come up with a new word to use. Changing the definition of marriage probably won't work, so why not use "civil unions" or something like that? Gays, Lesbians, Mormons, etc., can all be together under the term "civil unions" and those who want marriage to remain between a man and woman can be happy. remmbermytitans
Why should same-sex couples have to settle for a second-rate marriage? Giving civil unions, even if they are equal, is basically saying that the government likes same-sex couples less than straight couples. People should just get over the use of one single word, and give equality to all. You can get married without any religious involvement whatsoever. So do those who don't get married in a church need a different word as well?

Marriage has traditionally been associated with the union of one man and one woman. And although I have no problem with gays and lesbians, I think that traditional marriage should stay as one man and one woman. But hey, that's why we have a republic in this country, the PEOPLE should decide and not politicians.

Traditionally marriage was traditionally between one white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black man. I'm sure a lot of people in 1967 thought it should have stayed that way. Just because a majority of people hold an opinion, it doesn't mean its the right one. A tyranny of the majority is a bad thing. And it doesn't justify unfair or unjust treatment.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman. That means that neither Mormons (who want to marry multiple times) nor people of the same sex can be legally married. So, with that being the predicament, we either need to change the definition of marriage or come up with a new word to use. Changing the definition of marriage probably won't work, so why not use "civil unions" or something like that? Gays, Lesbians, Mormons, etc., can all be together under the term "civil unions" and those who want marriage to remain between a man and woman can be happy. remmbermytitans
Why should same-sex couples have to settle for a second-rate marriage? Giving civil unions, even if they are equal, is basically saying that the government likes same-sex couples less than straight couples. People should just get over the use of one single word, and give equality to all. You can get married without any religious involvement whatsoever. So do those who don't get married in a church need a different word as well?

Marriage has traditionally been associated with the union of one man and one woman. And although I have no problem with gays and lesbians, I think that traditional marriage should stay as one man and one woman. But hey, that's why we have a republic in this country, the PEOPLE should decide and not politicians.

Why should the people decide? I think that our founding fathers would much rather have the politicians decide. That is the way our political system was intended to operate, and that is the way it usually does operate.
Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#58 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts
It's a shame we're even arguing about this in this day and age. When will we learn to just leave people alone? What right does the government have to tell you who you can and cannot marry?
Avatar image for lonewolf604
lonewolf604

8748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 lonewolf604
Member since 2007 • 8748 Posts
It's a shame we're even arguing about this in this day and age. When will we learn to just leave people alone? What right does the government have to tell you who you can and cannot marry?Ninja-Hippo
God :roll:
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#60 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]It's a shame we're even arguing about this in this day and age. When will we learn to just leave people alone? What right does the government have to tell you who you can and cannot marry?lonewolf604
God :roll:

What about him?
Avatar image for Famiking
Famiking

4879

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 Famiking
Member since 2009 • 4879 Posts
I'm FOR the referendum - if we let the politicians decide it will only show one side of national spectrum - that of the rich power-corrupt politicians. If it's a true democracy and not an oligarchy, there would be referendum. But I'd say if it involves a civil rights issue, then the vote should be 60% for the anti-civil rights for the law to be enacted.
Avatar image for TreyoftheDead
TreyoftheDead

7982

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#62 TreyoftheDead
Member since 2007 • 7982 Posts

Honestly, this is an non-issue to me...or well, it should be.

Why are people still on about this? Does it hurt you that gays are getting married? Of course it doesn't, you just don't agree with it, so you think it should be illegal. Anyone who doesn't see anything wrong with that is mental...

Avatar image for tofu-lion91
tofu-lion91

13496

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 tofu-lion91
Member since 2008 • 13496 Posts
I'm for gay marriage. Didn't read any of your first post TC :P
Avatar image for LongZhiZi
LongZhiZi

2453

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 LongZhiZi
Member since 2009 • 2453 Posts
I'm 100% opposed to legalizing gay marriage. I'm 100% in support of ending the idea of a "legal" marriage. Get the government out of the issue- problem solved.
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#65 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
[QUOTE="LongZhiZi"]I'm 100% opposed to legalizing gay marriage. I'm 100% in support of ending the idea of a "legal" marriage. Get the government out of the issue- problem solved.

But marriage isn't an exclusively religious act.
Avatar image for aliblabla2007
aliblabla2007

16756

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#66 aliblabla2007
Member since 2007 • 16756 Posts

"Man and Woman" is only one definition.

My definition would be a "between two consenting adults". So yes, I don't care if two guys want to get it on in bed. It won't affect me in the least.

Avatar image for remmbermytitans
remmbermytitans

7214

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#67 remmbermytitans
Member since 2005 • 7214 Posts

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"] Why should same-sex couples have to settle for a second-rate marriage? Giving civil unions, even if they are equal, is basically saying that the government likes same-sex couples less than straight couples. People should just get over the use of one single word, and give equality to all. You can get married without any religious involvement whatsoever. So do those who don't get married in a church need a different word as well?Locke562

Marriage has traditionally been associated with the union of one man and one woman. And although I have no problem with gays and lesbians, I think that traditional marriage should stay as one man and one woman. But hey, that's why we have a republic in this country, the PEOPLE should decide and not politicians.

How far back is traditional? If you go back far enough Polygamy was the norm in many cultures.

Since people started practicing the tradition of marriage. If you are talking about polygamy where people had sex simply to reproduce, that's not marriage. Marriage has always been the union of ONE man and ONE woman. And yes, for a while it WAS the norm for a white man to marry a white woman or a black man to marry a black woman. But even then marriage was between ONE man and ONE woman.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
And yes, for a while it WAS the norm for a white man to marry a white woman or a black man to marry a black woman. But even then marriage was between ONE man and ONE woman.remmbermytitans
Back then marriage was exclusively between one WHITE man and one WHITE woman, or between one BLACK man and one BLACK woman. It was more than simply the "norm". Many states stressed "racial integrity" and it was a felony to engage in an interracial marriage.
Avatar image for Ring_of_fire
Ring_of_fire

15880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 Ring_of_fire
Member since 2003 • 15880 Posts
[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"] Marriage has traditionally been associated with the union of one man and one woman. And although I have no problem with gays and lesbians, I think that traditional marriage should stay as one man and one woman. But hey, that's why we have a republic in this country, the PEOPLE should decide and not politicians. remmbermytitans

How far back is traditional? If you go back far enough Polygamy was the norm in many cultures.

Since people started practicing the tradition of marriage. If you are talking about polygamy where people had sex simply to reproduce, that's not marriage. Marriage has always been the union of ONE man and ONE woman. And yes, for a while it WAS the norm for a white man to marry a white woman or a black man to marry a black woman. But even then marriage was between ONE man and ONE woman.

Not only the norm, but the law. Tradition, like any other excuse to not allow same sex marriage, is a poor reason not to allow it
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#70 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
Hooray for people who don't know how American law works. *Goes back to his law books*
Avatar image for Hellsing2o2
Hellsing2o2

3504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 Hellsing2o2
Member since 2004 • 3504 Posts

[QUOTE="Twig978"][QUOTE="-AlbertC"]

the purpose of sex is to pro create. People with the same gender cannot pro create :|

-FlyLo-

So your saying that people must get married to have sex? And marriage is not made just for sex or the creation of children. People dont use sex just for the creation of children. Marriage also includes a relationship between two people.

But wouldn't you want to carry on your family legacy?

No.

Avatar image for RenegadePatriot
RenegadePatriot

20815

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 RenegadePatriot
Member since 2007 • 20815 Posts
I do not think that it should be legalized, marriage is between a man and a woman.
Avatar image for Hellsing2o2
Hellsing2o2

3504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 Hellsing2o2
Member since 2004 • 3504 Posts

I still don't know why people want to get married anyway. Marrage sucks, just ask every single person in my family.

Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#74 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
I do not think that it should be legalized, marriage is between a man and a woman. RenegadePatriot
And why can't the definition of marriage be altered?
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#75 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
I do not think that it should be legalized, marriage is between a man and a woman. RenegadePatriot
Let me guess, it's wrong to redefine marriage. Except when you're redefining it to allow interracial marriage.
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#76 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="RenegadePatriot"]I do not think that it should be legalized, marriage is between a man and a woman. Funky_Llama
Let me guess, it's wrong to redefine marriage. Except when you're redefining it to allow interracial marriage.

Race is a protected class. Homosexuality isn't.
Avatar image for Theokhoth
Theokhoth

36799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 Theokhoth
Member since 2008 • 36799 Posts

You were fine until you referred to marriage as a right.

Avatar image for Hellsing2o2
Hellsing2o2

3504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 Hellsing2o2
Member since 2004 • 3504 Posts

[QUOTE="lonewolf604"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]It's a shame we're even arguing about this in this day and age. When will we learn to just leave people alone? What right does the government have to tell you who you can and cannot marry?Funky_Llama
God :roll:

What about him?

He's used as an excuse.

Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#79 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="RenegadePatriot"]I do not think that it should be legalized, marriage is between a man and a woman. Vandalvideo
Let me guess, it's wrong to redefine marriage. Except when you're redefining it to allow interracial marriage.

Race is a protected class. Homosexuality isn't.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Change it to a protected class, then 5 minutes later redefine marriage.
Avatar image for Silenthps
Silenthps

7302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#80 Silenthps
Member since 2006 • 7302 Posts
When will people learn, gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue? and calling it that is a disgrace to the real civil rights issues of the past.
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#81 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Bourbons3"] That doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Change it to a protected class, then 5 minutes later redefine marriage.

It can't be made a protected class. It doesn't match the guideilnes for being a protected class in the first place. -Justice Kennedy. Ibid; Lawrence v. Texas.
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#82 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
When will people learn, gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue? and calling it that is a disgrace to the real civil rights issues of the past.Silenthps
Why isn't it. You don't consider marriage equality a right?
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#83 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Bourbons3"] Why isn't it. You don't consider marriage equality a right?

Because, the equal protection clause is based on a set number of classes which sexuality isn't a part of. Due process is usually the clause you would place marriage under, but homosexuality cannot be placed under it.
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#85 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Bourbons3"] Why cant the number of classes be expanded?

Because the concept of classes themselves is based on hundreds of years of stare decisis that has thousands of cases of civil rights pending on the very important bright line rules which accompany classes. You can't just hapazardly go about changing classes and expanding the definition of it. You would turn civil rights on its head and all kinds of extraneous classes taht would seriously jeopordize the stability of society. It doesn't work like that. You want to have federal protection of homosexuality? Get an ammendment.
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#86 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"] Why cant the number of classes be expanded?

Because the concept of classes themselves is based on hundreds of years of stare decisis that has thousands of cases of civil rights pending on the very important bright line rules which accompany classes. You can't just hapazardly go about changing classes and expanding the definition of it. You would turn civil rights on its head and all kinds of extraneous classes taht would seriously jeopordize the stability of society. It doesn't work like that. You want to have federal protection of homosexuality? Get an ammendment.

An amendment. OK, good. *paperwork*
Avatar image for deactivated-59506133570df
deactivated-59506133570df

10348

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#87 deactivated-59506133570df
Member since 2007 • 10348 Posts

Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman. That means that neither Mormons (who want to marry multiple times) nor people of the same sex can be legally married. So, with that being the predicament, we either need to change the definition of marriage or come up with a new word to use. Changing the definition of marriage probably won't work, so why not use "civil unions" or something like that? Gays, Lesbians, Mormons, etc., can all be together under the term "civil unions" and those who want marriage to remain between a man and woman can be happy. remmbermytitans

I'm not a mormon, but I know a little bit about them (thanks to missionaries who came to my house). They do not want to legalize polygamy, the reason polygamy was in the church was when they were relocated many men died and left their (only one per man) wives as widows. They believed it's wrong for a woman to live with a man unless they are married so that is why they began polygamy. Other than that I agree with you. And for the record I'm a member of the Methodist church.

Avatar image for darkguy_101
darkguy_101

744

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 darkguy_101
Member since 2008 • 744 Posts

I agree, let lesbians marry.. as long as it is public

Edziscs

*sigh*

Sometimes i just want to punch people on the face.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#89 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="RenegadePatriot"]I do not think that it should be legalized, marriage is between a man and a woman. Vandalvideo
Let me guess, it's wrong to redefine marriage. Except when you're redefining it to allow interracial marriage.

Race is a protected class. Homosexuality isn't.

So?
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#90 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
So?Funky_Llama
So race was a constitutional imperative, homosexuality is not.
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#91 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]So?Vandalvideo
So race was a constitutional imperative, homosexuality is not.

Again... so? I couldn't give a crap about whether homosexuality is legally protected.
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#92 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
Again... so? I couldn't give a crap about whether homosexuality is legally protected.Funky_Llama
I was merely explaining why it was important in one case and not so much in anotherl
Avatar image for KH-mixerX
KH-mixerX

5702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#93 KH-mixerX
Member since 2007 • 5702 Posts

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Who says homosexuals can't be happy without marriage?

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
Who says homosexuals can't be happy without marriage?KH-mixerX
How about all the homosexuals that protest for same-sex marriage?
Avatar image for clembo1990
clembo1990

9976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 clembo1990
Member since 2005 • 9976 Posts
Legalise gay marriage and marrijuana and we'll have a nation of gay people with financial stability in a relationship and people who get all "deep" instead of drinking too much and starting a fight like a good citizen should!
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#96 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Who says homosexuals can't be happy without marriage?

KH-mixerX
So why do straight couples need it?