Do you do find gay marriage repulsive?

[nclib]

No/Yes.

just wondering how many people who support gay marriage find it repulsive...

[Jake]

Gay "marriage" is repulisive, yes.

[Platypus]

why thnk you, Jake

I don't support necessarily the use of the word 'marriage', but that wasn't your point.

[King]

No/Yes.  I don't find the concept of gay marriage repulsive, I just think the ceremony is a little creepy.

[Jake]

why thnk you, Jake

I don't support necessarily the use of the word 'marriage', but that wasn't your point.

The "marriage" part was the repulsive part.  Civil Unions are perfectly ok.  No slight intended Hugh

[Platypus]

*grumble* I find that very hard to believe, but alright.

[A18]

Yes, anything and everything gay is repulsive.

[Jake]

Yes, anything and everything gay is repulsive.

to quote you earlier:

f**ck off

I rest my case

[A18]

It's hard to rest a case that has not yet been started.

[dazzleman]

I believe that the term, and institution, of marriage should be reserved for a union of a man and a woman.

I don't find gay relationships repulsive, per se, but I don't think that the term marriage should be applied to them.  I could go along with extending some of the benefits to them that our laws automatically confer upon married couples, but I would stop there.  I don't think we should change the definition of marriage from what it has been for so long.

[Moooooo]

Im not the biggest fan of gay marriage, but  I could care less if they get married or not.

[King]

f**ck off

I rest my case

F**ck on, my brother.  F**CK ON!

[Jake]

What does f**ck off imply any.  To masturbate maybe.  I never understood that one.

[Rob]

What does f**ck off imply any.  To masturbate maybe.  I never understood that one.

F**k off, asshole. Don't go analyzing our obscenities

[Nym90]

It doesn't repulse me, and I support legalized gay marriage, at least as long as there is legalized heterosexual marriage. Ideally, I would support government issuing only civil unions for everybody, with the concept of marriage being left to the churches (since that seems to be a major reason why people oppose gay marriage, the fact that the word marriage implies a religious and not just a civil union). But if marriage licenses will be issued by the state, it doesn't make sense to me to use a different name for a heterosexual union and a homosexual one.

But, as long as the two are completely legally equal in every way, shape, and form, when it comes right down to it I personally don't care what it's called.

The reality is, however, that marriage is not a religious institution anymore; the government uses the word marriage, and doesn't require any kind of a religious tie to the marriage at all; in retrospect, this was probably a mistake, but be that as it may, it seems kind of silly to use different terminologies for the different kind of unions in an official capacity. If people want to use different terms in private, of course, that's their choice.

Regarding the redefining argument, the definition has already been changed in the past (allowing interracial marriages, the people themselves being allowed to choose who to marry rather than their parents arranging it for them, etc.). So the argument really doesn't make sense to me unless it is used in a religious context, because the legal definition of marriage has changed before, and there weren't negative consequences from it as far as I can see.

[Beet]

I have to admit it is a bit repulsive to my repressed little self, but I would not care of it was legal.

[Lunar]

I'm not as comfortable with the concept of homosexual sex as I am with heterosexual sex, but I don't find two gays getting a contract from the government as repulsive.

I do find banning whatever one finds as repulsive to be repulsive though.

[Richard]

Yes/Yes

Marriage is for a man and a woman, by definition.  That is what the word means.  The word doesn't mean two people loving each other.  The word doesn't mean two people in a long term relationship.  It means a man and a woman joined together.

I agree with history.  The Greeks ONLY had man-woman marriage.  There is not a single case in history that I'm aware of where marriage was redefined to include any sex.

That said, I don't think the government should be in the business of regulating marriages.

[The Duke]

It is not morally repulsive.  However, since I am on the other side of the debate, the concept f it being enacted is repulsive to me because I believe defeat is shameful and repulsive.  If it were enacted, it means my side has lost, and this repulses me.

But I don't find homosexualty, gay relationships, or the non-binding ceremonies for show that happen all around the country repulsive.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Who the hell voted No/No?

[The Duke]

Who the hell voted No/No?

I did.

[Bono]

It is not morally repulsive.  However, since I am on the other side of the debate, the concept f it being enacted is repulsive to me because I believe defeat is shameful and repulsive.  If it were enacted, it means my side has lost, and this repulses me.

But I don't find homosexualty, gay relationships, or the non-binding ceremonies for show that happen all around the country repulsive.

The neo-con mentality.
It's not about who's right, it's about who's left.

[The Duke]

It is not morally repulsive.  However, since I am on the other side of the debate, the concept f it being enacted is repulsive to me because I believe defeat is shameful and repulsive.  If it were enacted, it means my side has lost, and this repulses me.

But I don't find homosexualty, gay relationships, or the non-binding ceremonies for show that happen all around the country repulsive.

The neo-con mentality.
It's not about who's right, it's about who's left.

Actually, our mentality is that we know we're right and we're going to make damn sure we're the ones who are left.

Might does not make right, but might does not make wrong either.  Thus, he who is right must ensure he has might as well, or else wrong might have might, and might win, and thats just plain wrong.  You get me, right?

[Gabu]

It is not morally repulsive.  However, since I am on the other side of the debate, the concept f it being enacted is repulsive to me because I believe defeat is shameful and repulsive.  If it were enacted, it means my side has lost, and this repulses me.

But I don't find homosexualty, gay relationships, or the non-binding ceremonies for show that happen all around the country repulsive.

Er, so you're against gay marriage because the Republican Party is?  And you'd be for it if the Republican Party wasn't?

I'm not sure I follow... if you're in favor of gay marriage, it would seem to me that you're not on the other side of the debate.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, me too.

Let's ban banning things one finds to be repulsive, so we can then find ourselves to be repulsive.