[Darth-Apple]

So where do you stand on the issue of homosexuality in America? Do you support the idea of laws against it entering the American constitution, or are you generally for pro-choice for Americans today?

The subject has certainly become a very hot debate lately, and many concerns, both morally and politically, have come into play. Personally, I feel that there are some significant arguments on both sides of the issue. What is your opinion on the subject?

[Acko]

Well I don't think the Constitution is this document that it is imperative to stick to, and issues like this provide no exception. However, I refuse to support laws against homosexuality entering the Constitution.

[zoldos]

So where do you stand on the issue of homosexuality in America? Do you support the idea of laws against it entering the American constitution, or are you generally for pro-choice for Americans today?

The subject has certainly become a very hot debate lately, and many concerns, both morally and politically, have come into play. Personally, I feel that there are some significant arguments on both sides of the issue. What is your opinion on the subject?

Seeing as I'm pretty sure homosexuality is hereditary and not a "choice", I don't think the government should have any say in it at all. It's no one's business but those involved...

[zingaling]

Nope.

Constitutional amendments are not the appropriate place for moral arguments, and as far as I can tell all anti-equality arguments eventually come down to a moral (and usually religious) stance.

Further, the trend has always been to use amendments to expand the rights of citizens, rather than restricting them.

[DreekLass]

Well since I, myself, am a homosexual, I want everyone to be able to have the same rights. Homosexuality doesn't effect anybody who is not a homosexual, as far as laws go. So why stick your nose in and tell people, who will fight for the country, what they can and can't do as far as something as simple as love goes? it is completely out of order.

[Sabs]

Well since I, myself, am a homosexual, I want everyone to be able to have the same rights. Homosexuality doesn't effect anybody who is not a homosexual, as far as laws go. So why stick your nose in and tell people, who will fight for the country, what they can and can't do as far as something as simple as love goes? it is completely out of order.

I'm not but yeah this shouldn't even be a debate. I can understand sometimes if people are uncomfortable around them but they shouldn't let that affect how they treat others. Luckily, homosexuality is more accepted these days though.

[TRUE LIBERTY]

No, I dont want any such laws added to the Constitution. I dont even want government in marriage for any reason. No tax breaks or benefits of any kind. As much as I would prefer the word marriage stay with straight couples and gays pick another word for there union government should not decide this. Let society choose when churches and private businesses pick who they choose to give marriages and unions to when government is no longer involved. The only reason any of this is a debate is for the free stuff government gives out. Over night this would end with no government involvement on who people choose to be with.

[Darth-Apple]

No, I dont want any such laws added to the Constitution. I dont even want government in marriage for any reason. No tax breaks or benefits of any kind. As much as I would prefer the word marriage stay with straight couples and gays pick another word for there union government should not decide this. Let society choose when churches and private businesses pick who they choose to give marriages and unions to when government is no longer involved. The only reason any of this is a debate is for the free stuff government gives out. Over night this would end with no government involvement on who people choose to be with.

Well said.

I guess my feeling is that it is alright to have a personal opinion regarding your views of marriage and homosexuality, but it's not really the government's job to try to force a moral viewpoint on people.

[TRUE LIBERTY]

No, I dont want any such laws added to the Constitution. I dont even want government in marriage for any reason. No tax breaks or benefits of any kind. As much as I would prefer the word marriage stay with straight couples and gays pick another word for there union government should not decide this. Let society choose when churches and private businesses pick who they choose to give marriages and unions to when government is no longer involved. The only reason any of this is a debate is for the free stuff government gives out. Over night this would end with no government involvement on who people choose to be with.

Well said.

I guess my feeling is that it is alright to have a personal opinion regarding your views of marriage and homosexuality, but it's not really the government's job to try to force a moral viewpoint on people.

Exactly. You want people more angry and divided then ever, things screwed up more, people poorer, health care worse, less freedom, less money then ask for government to help you.

[Warwick]

I'm not American, so I don't really care either way. Gays should be allowed to get legally married, but not in Church though, cause it would go against Christianity.

[Darth-Apple]

America is a pretty prominently protestant country, so marriages aren't really managed by the churches. Most churches that hold more tightly to biblical teachings don't approve of homosexuality, but a lot of denominations have changed their views on that issue.

[Gmdykfuiygh66476]

No, I dont want any such laws added to the Constitution. I dont even want government in marriage for any reason. No tax breaks or benefits of any kind. As much as I would prefer the word marriage stay with straight couples and gays pick another word for there union government should not decide this. Let society choose when churches and private businesses pick who they choose to give marriages and unions to when government is no longer involved. The only reason any of this is a debate is for the free stuff government gives out. Over night this would end with no government involvement on who people choose to be with.

I couldn't possibly agree more. It's absolutely none of the government's business who gets married and who doesn't.

[SpookyZalost]

honestly I think the founding fathers would balk at this idea. as odd as their ideals were their main goal was a nation where people could be free to be themselves without oppression... sadly I think we've kinda crapped all over that idea with slavery, racism, sexism, and all the other isms that go with it.

true equality is impossible without some kind of agreement on what is and is not okay and that's going to come with a lot of resentment from cultural groups who disagree and or who have long standing traditions which go against the personal freedoms of the various groups being oppressed.

for example I grew up christian, left Christianity as I got older and while I heavily disagreed with what the local church thought about women way back when I still went to avoid issues with the community, peer pressure being a powerful thing and the mob being dangerous to rile up.

I want to state for the record that I am completely against oppression of any kind against any group without good reason, and I don't mean social or economic reasons.

for example I'd be heavily biased against anyone who's a member of ISIS but if homosexuals want to go past simply dating then that's their business and it's no business of ours to tell them what they can and cannot do.

nobody has the right to tell someone else that they can or cannot do something simply because they act, think, feel, or look different than the visual and or economic majority, it's just not right.

furthermore I want you to think about what kinds of people actually wrote the constitution.

Benjamin franklin was an eccentric, nudist, recreational drug user with polygamist tendencies.
today he would be beaten up, his home vandalized, and himself forced into exile by a society that would deem him unclean.
however without his brilliance and helping hand in so many things america would not be what it is today.

and that's just ONE example, there's more but I won't go into it.

[tc4me]

The only thing that is annoying is that everything should be adjusted, stupid, and makes unnecessary costs, everyone should do what he / she wants, but not rebuild the whole world now, for example, Tollettes for gays, own for lesbians, and straight genders ..., pedestrian samples should now be a woman instead of a man, protection routes not only for mother with child, but also father with child, etc

[Darvince]

It's strange seeing this and seeing how much the consensus has changed in the less than seven years between the first post and the present. Amending the constitution to make gay marriage permanently unconstitutional, to me at least, seems like a fringe idea that absolutely no one cares or talks about anymore. It's as if since the sky didn't fall after gay marriage was legalized in the USA, that it didn't actually matter to prevent it from happening in the first place.

tc4me: I think you are confused about what terms are used here. Currently in English, we use sexualities and genders separately, so "male" is not a sexuality, nor is "lesbian" a gender. The genders recognized by everyone are man and woman, and those are the bathrooms we have. Every man of every sexuality uses a men's bathroom, and every woman of every sexuality uses a women's bathroom; gay and lesbian has nothing to do with the bathroom debate. The bathroom debate is about whether people who have changed their gender should be required to use the bathroom of the gender they were born as, or whether they can use the bathroom of their current gender.

I am also confused by the terms you have used, though, what is a "protection route"?

[tc4me]

It's strange seeing this and seeing how much the consensus has changed in the less than seven years between the first post and the present. Amending the constitution to make gay marriage permanently unconstitutional, to me at least, seems like a fringe idea that absolutely no one cares or talks about anymore. It's as if since the sky didn't fall after gay marriage was legalized in the USA, that it didn't actually matter to prevent it from happening in the first place.

tc4me: I think you are confused about what terms are used here. Currently in English, we use sexualities and genders separately, so "male" is not a sexuality, nor is "lesbian" a gender. The genders recognized by everyone are man and woman, and those are the bathrooms we have. Every man of every sexuality uses a men's bathroom, and every woman of every sexuality uses a women's bathroom; gay and lesbian has nothing to do with the bathroom debate. The bathroom debate is about whether people who have changed their gender should be required to use the bathroom of the gender they were born as, or whether they can use the bathroom of their current gender.

I am also confused by the terms you have used, though, what is a "protection route"?

Unfortunately, my English is too bad to deepen this topic further, when I use google translator, something completely wrong comes out as in the first post. So sorry but that makes no sense for me to continue writing here in the topic. Sexuality gay men marriage, protection path .. is translated incorrectly :-(

[Darvince]

Ah, sad. I did not know you translated your posts here. I guess the confusion is all Google's fault then.

[tc4me]

Yes, unfortunately it translates completely wrong, I come from Austria, near Vienna, I had English and Italian at school, which I had been doing for a long time, which is strange, I understand English very well, only when I want to write something do I feel the words , then I use online translators and they are really weak