NOM Marriage Tour: Indianapolis, Indiana July 26, 2010

[Skulander1]

Whatever marriage discrimination amendment states want to pass, in the end this will be settled with SCOTUS. The population is still highly homophobic, which is why, in some backward states, repression of gays and lesbians work. But sooner or later, civil rights will be granted to all. You can run, but you can't hide, NOM. You can't hide forever from the highly discriminatory practices you are imposing on all of us: it will catch up to you eventually, and rather soon, from the look of it.

[PaulLeary]

Equality TODAY #NOH8

[jrdufour07]

XD what a joke

I'm glad I live in Canada where I can marry whomever I choose.

[Poochalot]

Marriage is a union of 2 people who love each other, it doesn't have to be a man and woman relationship. NOM is an obnoxious anti-gay hate group and they will go down in history as such. To those of you who are so convinced that gay marriages will bring about the end of the world please tell me how the marriage of Brad/George and Ellen/Portia affected your lives. What did they do by getting married that directly harmed you? Gay marriages have done nothing to my heterosexual marriage.

[raku217]

marriage is 1 man + 1 woman= 50% divorce rate! NOM is a farce. count your days bigots.

[abc1000001]

Thank you NOM. Keep the faith.

[harveylegs]

Old people...They say the darndest things!

[urbanh196398105]

@harveylegs :-) well it's also true that as people get older they tend to become more conservative. You would be surprised at the change that came over me when i hit my late 30s!

[MoneyIsSilver]

Wake up fake conservatives!!

Family Courts killed the institution of marriage over 30 years ago. WTF are you trying to save?

[raku217]

@MoneyIsSilver NOM could care less about marriage. If they cared they'd try to outlaw divorce. Instead they use "traditional marriage" as a scapegoat for homophobia and bigotry. when the courts vote NOM loses.

[urbanh196398105]

@sophiestications "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship."

How does it create kinship? It seems to me that marriage connects children with their Mom and their Dad in addition to connecting the husband and wife to one another in a lifelong commitment.

A contract is when you sign up for a credit card or something. Not nearly as romantic.

[ainefairygoddess]

YAY for Judge Vaughn Walker!!! You guys are on the wrong side of history! LGBT people will be living equally in USA! I will be able to live my adult years in a nation the treats me equally with all other people and there is nothing you bigots can do about it!!! You can hate all you want, but justice is and soon the law will be on my side!

[JohnTFolden]

"In an extraordinary court filing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked Friday that gay marriages be allowed to resume immediately in California..."

[kd1s]

Nice to see the Bigot Cavalcade still drawing those 'huge' crowds.

[Matchu80]

It's interesting that these people call themselves Republicans when they support 'direct democracy'. Seems like a bit of a conundrum.

Also, has anyone else noticed how unnattractive everyone who comes out for Nation for Marriage is?

[paulahare2]

MTN.ORG MINNEAPOLIS,MN. RAINBOW FLAG TV. SHOW Land of the free, Home of the Brave!!!! Not land of the some and those who agree with my religion!!!!!

[aznguymetal]

Yeah for gay marriage, Thank Jesus for gay marriage.

[dickyguapo]

Let the gay people of San Francisco vote on Maggie Gallagher's 'marriage'.

[ohconservativeme]

@dickyguapo

irrelevant, Gallaghers marriage does not violate the natural law. Same-sex marriage does.

[metta8888]

@ohconservativeme You are totally ignoring that homosexuality is not a choice any more than you choose to be left handed or right handed. And homosexuality can be found through out nature and therefore is part of natural law.

[ohconservativeme]

@metta8888

Im afraid your mistaken. Homosexuals and straights both have a choice on there sexuality. There is nothing stopping you from choosing your sexuality except your morals. As for the nature bit, its doesn't matter if there are a few confused animals, the natural law still tells us it takes a female and a male to make an offspring. (TBC)

[mrsalmon1984]

@ohconservativeme Did you choose to like women (I assume you are male)? I seriously doubt it. You were genetically predisposed to have an attraction to women. You know everyone is different right? You know that you preferences are not universal, just as some people prefer blondes or brunettes. You can not control what kick starts your libido. See BIOLOGY texts and peer-reviewed journals by actual scientists, and not religious bigots.

[mrsalmon1984]

@mrsalmon1984 Ugh... Typos :-( you=your

[ohconservativeme]

@mrsalmon1984

I do choose to like women, i could turn around and like men in a snap if it didn't go against everything i believe. Blah blah everyone is different stuff blah blah blah i do not disagree with that. Some people are sexually attracted to goats, should we legalize that? Biology tells us there is no gay gene. I'll bet those peer reviewed journals where from the 80's and 90's when they serious thought there was a gay gene. "religious bigots"--why do pro-ssm people resort to that??

[JohnTFolden]

@ohconservativeme If you feel as though you could be attracted to both sexes and are simply choosing the opposite sex then you are a) a bisexual in orientation, and b) missing out. lol I didn't choose my orientation. I, as most normal people, had attractions long before I knew how to put a label on them.

[urbanh196398105]

Exactly - and so what if homosexuals are drawn to attempt sexual union with members of their same sex? how does it then follow that we have to re-define marriage? That makes no sense. Marriage means husband and wife. If there is no husband, or no wife, there is no marriage. Homosexuals need to go make up their own word for homosexual relationships. To hear them tell it open relationships are the real McCoy anyway. So homosexuals, go do your thing and we'll do ours. Don't mess with marriage.

[JohnTFolden]

@urbanh196398105 Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. It's hardly being redefined, the gender discrimination is being removed. It's unconstitutional to deny this fundamental right to a subset of society and your suggestion of "equal but separate" is unAmerican. Luckily, you don't own "marriage".

Furthermore, don't attempt to stereotype. There are more "open" straight marriages in shear numbers than there will ever be among gay relationships.

[urbanh196398105]

@JohnTFolden "Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals."

Yeah - and the individuals are husband (male) and wife (female). This is why the "gender discrimination" is unavoidable. Does that make sense?

"Luckily, you don't own "marriage".

LOL - neither do you - that's the point. Don't dictate to me what marriage means. And don't tell me i don't have a right to vote on the legal definition of marriage. Because that's unAmerican.

[urbanh196398105]

@JohnTFolden "There are more "open" straight marriages in shear numbers than there will ever be among gay relationships."

A very carefully worded statement there John - good job.

But guess what? That's because 95% of the people are straight, as you well know. When gay sources say 75% of homosexual men go for open relationships if they last more than 10 years that is a problem with - not a benefit of - the relationship. A problem stemming from the incompleteness of homosexuality itself.

[JohnTFolden]

@urbanh196398105 Your statement has no logic whatsoever. About 60% of straight marriages end in divorce within the first 10 years. These people go on to remarry, sometimes many many times... and these figures don't even include all the failures of non-married straight relationships. A problem stemming from the incompleteness of heterosexuality itself, apparently.

[urbanh196398105]

@JohnTFolden Huh? These are men who MAINTAIN an open relationship:

When gay sources say 75% of homosexual men go for open relationships if they last more than 10 years that is a problem with - not a benefit of - the relationship.

And yes i think it is a problem with homosexuality itself, not that they are inherently bad people, but women tend to be less physical and more emotional. Man and woman complement and balance eachother. Homosexual relationships don't have that. Not the same.

[JohnTFolden]

@urbanh196398105 I don't participate in open relationships, however, if someone else wishes to do so, it's none of my or your business. Straight people do that, as well. Most straight people can't even make marriage work so it's very hypocritical to point at others and judge those as "failures"... Also, the ability to marry may very well help solidify those relationships. Commitment should be encouraged.

[urbanh196398105]

@JohnTFolden "Commitment should be encouraged."

But we don't see that happening in the gay community. You said yourself open relationship is fine with you. It IS my business when you tell me you are going to re-define what marriage means in the law because i have to live under that law and recognize homosexual relations - even open relationships - as the same thing as marriage. That is a lie it is not the same, and it sends a bad message to the next generation that fidelity is optional.

[JohnTFolden]

@urbanh196398105 Are you attempting to put words in my mouth?

There's nothing that ss couples are doing that straight couples aren't doing. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. You, also, have no idea what % of people would choose to get married nor how they would structure their relationship.

However, the fact is your personal morality can not be forced on others. That's unAmerican. You're not superior over anyone else in the eyes of the Constitution.

[urbanh196398105]

@JohnTFolden LOL - what are you talking about? Putting words in your mouth? I copied and pasted what you yourself posted! (??)

Now you say:

"There's nothing that ss couples are doing that straight couples aren't doing."

The point is there is something that straight couples are doing that ss couples aren't doing: BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. It's called merging sexually. And it is a key element of marriage.

You are the one trying to force your "morality" on me by homosexualizing marriage.

[JohnTFolden]

@urbanh196398105 You claimed "You said yourself open relationship is fine with you" which I never stated.

It's hilarious. Marriage equality won't effect you directly at all, however you would completely deny a fundamental right to others. Who's forcing what on whom here? Why do bigots act like they're being oppressed when they can't get away with oppressing others? LOL

You don't own marriage. Specific types of sexual behavior are not a requirement to gain a civil marriage license.

[urbanh196398105]

@JohnTFolden John, here are your words exactly:

" I don't participate in open relationships, however, if someone else wishes to do so, it's none of my or your business."

I take that to mean you don't care if they have an open relationship or not. Please correct me if i'm wrong in my interpretation.

One of the things marriage is about is FIDELITY. And this is ANOTHER thing that is simply not the same in the gay community.

Don't mess with our society's definition of marriage!

[JohnTFolden]

@urbanh196398105 It is EXACTLY as I stated. It is none of your business what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Are you really suggesting that the US Government should be in the business of legislating consenting sexual behavior among adults?

Also, your suggestion that straight couples always have closed relationships is hilarious, perhaps willfully, ignorant. It was straight people after all that invented the "key party". LOL

You're the one messing with the idea of marriage here.

[mrsalmon1984]

@ohconservativeme Brush up on biology. You are so full of it! You could change your sexual preferences in a snap?!? LOL... The crazy stuff people say in order to back their weak arguments. So you discredit peer review journals by date? They are still accepted, but I doubt you would actually spend the time to read one. The "gay gene" has only been "refuted" by BS "christian-based" scientists. You crack me up!

[urbanh196398105]

@mrsalmon1984 Wow - you mean homosexuality is genetic? I did not know that... Are you SURE ? LOL

[ohconservativeme]

@mrsalmon1984

Your implying that by choice i mean "change in a snap", which is naive. By "choose" i don't mean instantly. Of course it would take work for anybody. As for the gay gene, if you want i can send you a link to a website that tells the whole story of how the gay gene actually doesn't exist. And i guarantee you there is no "BS christian" stuff in, unless your afraid of the truth and would rather listen to what your liberal-arse college prof. spoon feeds you?

[JohnTFolden]

@ohconservativeme Procreation is not a deciding factor for marriage, relationships, etc... You immediately fail trying to bring that into a debate.

[ohconservativeme]

@JohnTFolden

would you admite its the main reason? Tell me how i fail by bring that in the debate?

[JohnTFolden]

@ohconservativeme It's a failing point because "fertility" is not a requirement of civil marriage. The state does not require either party entering into a marriage to prove they are capable of bearing children. Since this does not apply to heterosexual couples, it can not be used to discount gay couples getting married, either.

[urbanh196398105]

@ohconservativeme You are right on that fertility is a reason for marriage - nobody with any common sense who can think straight can say fertility is irrelevant. Even liberal state supreme courts, such as in Washington State, have cited procreation as a logical reason that marriage be defined as husband(male)-wife(female) couples. Explaining what should be no-brainer common sense to blind folk who dogmatically think homosexuality is "equal" to heterosexuality takes a lot of patience! :)

[JohnTFolden]

@urbanh196398105 It is a "reason" that some people get married, it is not a requirement to getting married. It's a huge difference and that should be no-brainer common sense.

So far, I've seen you try to redefine civil marriage twice now. You are suggesting that the law should be changed to govern the sexual behavior of married couples and now you are suggesting that the government should test for fertility. Interesting...

[urbanh196398105]

@JohnTFolden LOL - ok John. you're right - it wouldn't make much sense to test the fertility of 2 homosexual men who want to marry eachother. LOL Oh well, i guess we will just have to agree to disagree since we are not communicating too well here. at least we got a good laugh. i hope you will believe me when i say that i respect your right to make your own choices and speak your mind and i hope you will show the same respect to those who disagree with you on the definition of marriage.

[ohconservativeme]

@metta8888

And furthermore, animals also eat their young, eat their crap and have forceful sex with others of their kind, but some how same-sex sex is natural?Give me a break.

[JohnTFolden]

@ohconservativeme Another ignorant statement... Unlike homosexuality, "marriage" doesn't exist in nature. It is a man-made contract. However, I personally find this "exists in nature" argument to be pointless (on both sides). We're talking about common law in the US. It's unconstitutional to deny the contract of marriage from minorities. It's also sexual discrimination to limit a person's choices merely because of gender.