Comments:Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Huzzah :) --Resplendent (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. I'm a Christian, but America should not be a theocracy. This is a good step. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.109.1.48 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 April 2009
I'm not happy with the decision. If we are going to allow people of the same sex marry each other, then we might as well allow people to marry animals, polygamy, daughter and father, son and mother, and then simply declare ourselves as a nation without dignity. This, by the way, is a step toward the immoral future the Obama socialist are preparing for us. Wait a little longer, gays and gay marriage will be promoted in public schools, crimes on gays will be "hate crimes", affirmative action will be granted to gays, many pages on history books will discuss how gays "struggled" to get their rights, and being gay will be the "cool" thing to do. That doesn't sound good. We have to be less hypocritical. Marriage never applied to same-sex couple, and that's a fact that no matter how a legislature votes can be turned down. I hope they do something like they did in California because this country going nuts. --71.190.95.22 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Cut the hyperbole! This is not a slippery slope towards the end of Jebusland as you know it. Homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom, so it's perfectly natural that it be present among humans. Accepting that, allowing people who are 'wired that way' to live lives much like us heterosexuals, is perfectly reasonable, and rational. In a lot of ways, yes, they have had to fight for their rights, and been oppressed. America comes out quite well when you look at that on a global scale. At least they don't hang them like they supposedly do in Iran.
- And, as you should learn before you decide to go 'queer bashing' that crimes against gays are "hate crimes" if solely committed because they are gay. It's a big world out there, and oranges are not the only fruit. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that you actually believe that there's a logical comparison in your argument of "same sex = animal marrying" indicates that you're going nuts, moreso than this country. Have you talked to your psychiatrist lately? 68.2.80.250 23:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only ones who are "nuts" are those who pass such bans in the face of "all men are created equal" and other such equality clauses present in nearly every single state Constitution. How such contradictory language can exist in the same document is baffling to me, and goes against everything the country was founded on. --Resplendent (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic!
Let's hope california (of all states) is next to pull it's head out.
About TIME! I'm a Christan btw.--KDP3 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- not alowing gays to suffer the same a hetrosexuals is inhumane and moraly wrong, why cant i have a life partner in name and on paper? oh wait now i can btw.--weirdjrc (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)