it’s actually to keep government from becoming too powerful in our lives. they aren’t even looking out for the majority. it’s all about power. but there isn’t a right to gay marriage in any case.

I don’t think you read my post…Gay people can and do have children.<<

some do. so are you saying that the purpose of the family is not for the protection and raising of children? you walked into that one.

First, we are only a form of democracy, this country is not actually a pure democracy, it is a Republic (you know– by the people, for the people, or Rome for example). We are not a pure democracy for a number of reasons…

One of the largest being minority rights…..there is a reason that the phrase majority rule, minority rights applies to our form of government. If we let people vote on a minority’s rights…then we are not protecting that minority. As a minority they often do not have the numbers to represent themselves in a vote. LBGT people are a minority.

We elect people, and have courts, because that is a check on the democratic process to protect minority rights……

so, california bob, if this country was a pure democracy, then I would agree with you, but it’s not.

“the purpose of marriage is the protection and raising of children. it holds parents responsible. otherwise there would be no need for marriage.”

I don’t think you read my post…Gay people can and do have children.

Also, I think you should start protesting all marriage between straight people that either do not want to have children, or those that cannot have children. Right? No point in those people being married, and yet they do. . .

whatever you do in your life, never try to understand someone else’s viewpoint. you’ll go a long way.

‘protesting the sentiments’? the voters are protesting Your sentiments.

‘unfair democratic process’? the issue was put to a vote. the people decided the issue. that’s unfair? not in a democracy.

the purpose of marriage is the protection and raising of children. it holds parents responsible. otherwise there would be no need for marriage.

“it shows contempt for responsible people who believe in family as the basic unit of society. why would gays need it? to legitimize gayness? that’s the only reason i see.”

“Responsible” people. . .who exactly would that be? Because, frankly, if you think that the only responsible people are those that are straight people that believe in the “family as the basic unit of society” then you are sadly mistaken. I’ve seen many of these people who are very irresponsible, either by leaving their families, leaving their children for others to raise(grandparents), etc. But, more importantly, why wouldn’t gay people be “responsible”? Perhaps we too belive that the family is the basic unit of society, and we want our families legally recognized and protected.
Many gay people (including myself) want and have children. . .so your comment
“it isn’t even a religious thing, necessarily. it’s the fact that people who are raising their own children deserve to have a status that excludes unions in which the couple think that marriage is about romantic love.”
implies that straight couples who don’t have children should be stripped of their marriage rights and status, and applied only to those who have children. including gay people. Marriage is not based on child bearing, not for anyone…this is a bad argument, but if you want to use it…look at what it really means.

If you are a thinking person who doesn’t want to
“see gay people denied rights or disrespected,” then you would see that you are denying rights to gay people, especially those who want or have children. And you are disrespecting us by thinking that we have drastically different values than you, or that we are irresponsible members of society. We pay taxes. . . why can’t we have the same rights and privileges you have under the law?

i’m not gay and i don’t want to see gay people denied rights or disrespected. i don’t believe that for the voters to deny marriage that is recognized by the state is to do either.

marriage has always been for the purpose of committing the parents to seeing to the well-being of the children. it may be surrounded by all types of romantic notions, but that isn’t it.

why some gay people feel it is so important for them to have is very hard to understand. i think the real reason is they want to claim a type of social equality with the rest of society.

i don’t think that’s a good thing to do. it shows contempt for responsible people who believe in family as the basic unit of society. why would gays need it? to legitimize gayness? that’s the only reason i see.

it isn’t even a religious thing, necessarily. it’s the fact that people who are raising their own children deserve to have a status that excludes unions in which the couple think that marriage is about romantic love.

so the traditional marriage is much more important to society than a gay marriage, because it is really the foundation of society.

Then, you whipped out another spit-related ad hominem on me, for pointing out the asininity of your statement.

I recommend counseling. Or maybe mouthwash.

… I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

TGC, isn’t that the same attitude that the protesters have? To many, what the yes on 8 vote did involved more distasteful bodily products than spit.