Home Depot’s Support for Gay Marriage Sparks Boycott
Home Depot Chairman Frank Blake told shareholders earlier this month that his company would continue to support gay marriage activists and activities. Since that time several high profile events supporting gay pride have seen corporate sanctioned Home Depot participants appear in parades and other public activities.
Last weekend, Home Depot sponsored the Southern Maine Pride event in Portland. During the opening ceremony, emcee Khris Francis thanked the company for their support of gay men. On June 11, over one dozen employees wearing Home Depot gear marched in the Boston Pride parade.
The home improvement company has drawn sharp criticism from groups who are opposed to gay marriage. The American Family Association (AFA) has organized a boycott of Home Depot to fight what it calls, “the company’s assault on the sanctity of marriage as only between one man and one woman.”
Earlier this month the AFA delivered 474,161 petition signatures to Home Depot chairman Frank Blake at the company’s annual shareholders meeting in Atlanta.
Home Depot public relations representatives were contacted for an official response to the organizations boycott efforts and responded via email saying, “The Home Depot is committed to respecting and recognizing the diversity of all people and fostering an inclusive environment for all.”
Short URL: http://www.winchester.daily-monitor.com/?p=7122
Posted by 
What business do they have promoting a fringe effort like gay marriage?
I say sign the petition here: http://action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147496231
and hit them where it hurts by shopping at Lowe’s
Oh here we go, now starts the parade of homophobes.
First of all as a corporation they have every right and in fact a duty to promote civil rights, which is what this all boils down to. So get off your high horse and move into the 21st century!
Oh really? This is not a case of modern man becoming so advanced that homosexuality should be recognized as an acceptable behavior. In fact the fall of every great nation was accompanied by a broad acceptance of immoral behavior as acceptable. So stop trying to push your agenda on people who don’t buy it, and we in turn will buy our home improvement products from Lowe’s or True Value Hardware stores.
You are correct. And those who take offense have the right to take their money elsewhere. What about the civil rights of Chrisian to excercise freedom of speech and protect our childrenfrom being taught how to have homosexualy relations in the school? Why is it the hoosexual activist only see tolerance and one direction? That is hypocracy!
Where and when did schools start teaching children how to have sexual relations of any kind? I really do not recall that class. They might learn about it from other kids at school, but pretty sure there isn’t a Homosexuality Education 101 course. Your statement makes no sense “Why is it that homosexual activists only see tolerance and one direction?” So they should see the other side of tolerance, which is intolerance? And isn’t the point of supporting something, ANYthing for that matter, to move in one direction?
Well maybe you were asleep during Family Life Education.
So if homosexuality is OK then Family Life Education becomes, your family could look like Mommy and Daddy, or Mommy and Mommy, or Daddy and Daddy, and they are all the same, good safe choices you can make on how your family will look when you grow up.
Yeah right.
It’s an activists position to make the perverse look normal and it the beginning of the end of every great nation. Home Depot just wants to help the cause.
I’ll shop at Lowe’s
Your rights end where my rights begin. Remember that.
So then you are ok with Chick-Fil-A supporting the protection of marriage act making mariage between one man and one woman? Just wondering. Afterall, they are supporting our rights to our religous beliefs.
Yep. And I will never shop at Home Depot again.
“A fringe effort”?
The polling now says more than 50% of Americans believe this is right. That number goes up every year. Even if you think this is wrong, which is your right to believe I respectfully concede, it’s not a fringe effort.
Polling? I don’t base my opinion on polls run by entities whose sole agenda is the legitimacy of perversion. If you like to put your finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing be my guest. I don’t believe in moral relativism and your polls don’t ask the right questions. When people are confronted with the fact that queer life will have to be portrayed to children in every public forum as not only acceptable but beautiful they won”t be so quick to legitimize it.
I think that is a bit extreme. You make it sound like they will have homosexuality shoved in their face by some man in a sparkly gstring. And for the record, there are plenty of parents who are perfectly fine with their children growing up knowing it is okay for two men or two women to love each other and build a strong, lasting relationship just like any two straight people.
That makes two of us. I hate Lowe’s but I will never give home Depot another dime of my money after this.
I feel that both groups should boycott home depot. For one the owner of home depot is the same owner of the falcons. (saints fan) Second I think it is sad that this company would take the risk of hurting its employees for a pr stunt. One million dollars to the lawyers is like one of us dropping 10 dollars in the collection plate on sunday. They are trying to exploit the gay community to increase sales. Most public companies are a majority of share holders and if 1 million will bring the stock up in a down economy the gay community just got caught up in a huge pr scheme. I feel politics and religious beliefs should be left out of buisness. Especially in such a politically correct society we live in, we cannot fart without someone getting offended and calling the media. People grow up and see the real picture it is all about driving up profits in corporate america. Nothing is ever done without something in return.
Both groups? Why would homosexuals boycott Home Depot? Home Depot is giving them a leg up in legitimizing same sex marriage. They should be promoting them six ways to Sunday for becoming a corporate sponsor of their effort. It really a statement and one I hope everyone would take not of.
I hope Home Depot goes the way of Hechinger and FAILS. I don’t plan to shop at a store that has decided they will support the demise of America.
Why not just stay out of it ? Home Depot should remain neutral..respect the personal feelings of all people and be what Home Depot what supposed to be. A place where all folks can come and get the items and supplies we all need to make our homes and communties a better place. Both gay and straight people have a desire to do this and would likely see that we all have a whole lot more in common than some differences. Bones
While Lowe’s is championing the hate parade, Home Depot are standing up for human rights for all people. The backwoods closet cases at the American Family Association now have a bigoted DIY store all to themselves.
Lowe’s is doing nothing of the sort. Home Depot is championing crimes against nature, which is exactly what homosexuality is.
Thanks for the information. I’ll start shopping at Lowes!
No doubt. What is it with these people and their homo agendas? If Home Depot wants to engage in activism they will pay the price, but only if people know what’s going on. Thanks for the article.
Thanks for the information! I’ll start shopping at Home Depot more often!
i will buy from lowes not homo depot,also with JOE GIBBS being the fine christian man he said he is hes taking BLOOD MONEY from this company,this is wrong and one day he will answer to god just like everyone else,
It’s interesing to me that anyone promoting the accetance of homesexuality as a societal norm will point explicitly to it becoming increasingly more socially acceptable….as if society as a whole is becoming more enlightened. Actually, society as a whole is becoming increasingly more reprobate and openly defiant towards God….authourity in general is challenged at every turn in our “modern” world. Home Depot, as does every person that has lived, have the opportunity to make moral choices as to what it will and will not do, promote, support or boycott. This is just another sad case indicating the direction of our nation away from morality….and sanity….and a reflection, to some degree, of the “world” in it’s movement toward the same. We are becoming, as the bible correctly forecasted, increasingly more violent, reprobate, disobedient and defiant. God help those who, christian or not, are implicit in the advance and acceptance of any sin.
I find it funny how people believe jumping ship from Home Depot and running to Lowes is their saving grace. Lowes and Home Depot share the same philanthropic diversity ideal’s; Home Depot is just more vocal about it. So to all the homophob bigots out there – Thanks for your support to diversity and equality.
I don’t know why you call us “homophobes”.
We’re not afraid of homosexuality, we’re AGAINST it!
I will exercise my right to vote with my money. I usually spend about $10,000 a year at Home Depot. Not any more. I will shop at Lowe’s. It is that simple!
It’s embarrassing that in the year 2012 there are still bigots who think they can push their beliefs onto others. Two people in love hurt NO ONE and NO ONE has the right to deny them the benefits others get to enjoy. There is no good argument against gay marriage and it’s pathetic how people use religion or ignorance to attempt to suppress love. I will exercise my rights in not only continuing to fight for gay rights but I will also throw my thousands of dollars to Home Depot.
One nice thing about it, when I shop at Home Depot I’ll know there won’t be any knuckle dragging, neanderthal, redneck bigots shopping there.
What’s embarrassing is gay activists who want to pretend their perverted lifestyle “hurts no one.” Does polygamy hurt anyone if they are all consenting adults? It is not recognized by our society, in fact it is outlawed.
The hurt to society is the destruction of any moral compass that will inevitably lead to the death of our society. Homosexuals have all the rights other citizens have. Marriage is not a right.
Go push your gay agenda at someone who is interested in it.
I’ll shop at Lowe’s
The funny thing I find is bigots keep saying things like homosexuality hurts society yet they fail over and over to explain how, exactly, this happens.
What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is no one else’s business and it doesn’t harm a thing. What two consenting adults do has no affect on me, my life or anything else with me. It’s not like two gays getting married is going to destroy my marriage or my life. It wasn’t too long ago the exact same arguments against gays were used against mixed race couples and we survived that. But then, I’m sure most of these ignorant bigots are probably against that as well.
Destruction of any moral compass? Tell me, who gets to decide what this moral compass is? The government? Individuals such as random commentators on news articles? And how is this any more immoral than anything else we approve of in society? I have to ask again, how does two people in love harm a thing?
Marriage is a privilege and a right. Two people who have committed their lives to each other deserve the same benefits everyone else gets to enjoy. I’ve heard too many stories of a gay couple who have been together for many years not being allowed to make decisions on the health or property of their partners because of moronic bigots who think they know what’s right for everyone else.
People should be ashamed of themselves for thinking they know what is best for everyone else.
One final note: I have no problem with polygamy being legal as long as it’s between consenting adults. See, that’s the thing, these bigots don’t understand the word “consenting.”
What? You support polygamy? What are you a closet Romney gay supporter? HA!
What an ignorant position to try to defend. How about consenting animals?
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Trying to align it with the civil rights struggles for equality among races is as offensive as it is silly. You can’t choose your race, people choose to be gay and they need to live with those decisions.
It’s more like drug addiction than a civil rights issue.
Nice deflection tactics but how about we stick to the topic. Besides, asking about animals is once AGAIN overlooking the issue of consent. Animals, other than humans, cannot give consent.
“Closet Romney gay supporter.?” I’m not sure exactly what that is but I’m not closeted about anything, I’m voting for Obama, you know, the guy who supports gay rights and I support them as well. I’m not a narrow minded, nosy body ignoramus. I don’t want to deny others their rights to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Especially when it doesn’t affect me or anyone else.
Gay rights is a civil rights issue. We are talking about people being treated fairly and equally and the exact same arguments used against inter-racial marriage are the ones used against gay marriage.. Allowing gays to marry harms no one. What two CONSENTING adults do affects nor harms no one.
To compare gays to a drug addiction is ignorance at it’s purest. Wow.
Again, I will ask, what harm does allowing two people in love to marry? You have all said it corrupts society but fail to explain how, exactly, it does that.
Can anyone please answer that one simple question. Please! What harm comes from two consenting adults in love enjoying the same benefits as everyone else?
Alright I’ll take on that task. It’s fairly straight forward, but it requires an open-mind. The logic is both compelling and monolithic.
Many arguments around this issue are confused between the personal, private purposes of marriage and the public purpose of the institution of marriage. Since this discussion is revolving around the law, let’s look at the public aspect of marriage. In particular its purpose in society.
The public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another to create and preserve the family unit which is the foundation of civil society that allows it to grow and continue as new members are added. You can squirm about to try to escape this fact but case law that has been used in cohabitation disputes is clear as to the public purpose of marriage. That’s what marriage is designed to do: to attach to the biological mother the man who is the father of her child. And the marriage institution has social and legal norms of sexual exclusivity and permanence attached to it. Those are key features of marriage.
Does that mean you have to have children to be married? No, but marriage provides the societal framework to maintain the continuity of the family unit given the possibility of procreation within a normal marriage. A society cannot exist without a population made up of married couples because every society requires the fundamental building blocks; people.
If you look at same-sex couples, both at what they say and their behavior, neither permanence nor sexual exclusivity plays the same significant role. This is not to say that a homosexual relationship cannot be exclusive or monogamous, it simply means if there is no progeny in the formula it’s easier to walk away. If you’re in a union that’s intrinsically not procreative, sexual exclusivity is not as important.
Once you start thinking like that, you’ll see that reasons offered as to why same-sex couples should be “allowed” to get married are private purposes that have nothing to do with public reasons and the law.
Most of the time the only reason offered is nothing more than how it will make them feel. It’s not the business of law to make people feel a certain way.
Redefining marriage will require the redefinition of parenthood, and the meaning of parenthood, removing biology as the basis for parenthood and replacing it with legal constructs.
That is why marriage is so important.
Thank you Jamal for your civil comment however I will, of course, disagree with you.
First, you seem to imply that if gay marriage is allowed straight married society will suffer. That is hardly the case. Straight people will still be allowed to get married. Straight people will still be allowed to have children. Just as many straight people will be married if gay marriage is allowed or not.
Nothing at all changes between straight partners and their marriages if gays are allowed to marry. The only change would be allowing gays to marry who they want. That’s it.
Secondly, it also seems that you are implying the sole reason for people to marry is having kids. That would leave sterile straight couples out as well as people who decide they never want kids. I would not be allowed to marry because I’ve made the choice never to have children. Older people wouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Sorry, I believe the number one reason for two people to marry is love. Having children is a secondary reason. If it was the other way around, which actually could explain the high divorce rate, there would be a lot of parents in relationships that have no loving bonds between partners because they married to have kids first. Love should come first, then kids.
Thirdly, to say gays don’t have the same priority with permanence and exclusivity is simply incorrect. Do you even know any gay couples? And if you really want to look at issues such as permanence and exclusivity in marriage, why is it straight marriages suffer an approximate 50% divorce rate?
Still, this does not address my question. Allowing gays to get married does not affect your marriage, or your desire to marry. You can still get married if gays are allowed to marry. Nothing changes for the straights. Nothing.
So again I will ask, how does allowing gays to marry harm a thing?
It legitimizes crimes against nature. Period.
Well I have to assume that you skimmed what I wrote or it simply doesn’t agree with you. I say that because I answered your questions clearly. Your sporadic leaps outside of your attempts to sound logical make me wonder if I should reply…but I will anyway.
First you have failed to address that there are two aspects to this problem. One that is the private aspect which would encompass religious and other forms of covenant commitments that deal with the loving aspect of a marriage that you consistently attempt to drag into the realm of the law. The Second is the public aspect which is manifested in the law.
The law has nothing to do with love. It is not supposed to and it never will. So when people like you attempt to switch the conversation and address “a loving relationship” with the law, your logic is flawed and fails.
This whole argument is about people who choose (yes it is clearly a choice, otherwise you will be in a pointless argument with Darwin) to live a homosexual lifestyle wanting to be seen on equal footing with normal hetero relationships. With choices come consequences.
Again, Right Winger, you’re basically saying the same thing. You’re just saying gay marriage is bad, but you’re not explaining how it harms anything. How is it a crime against nature? How is two people in love harming a thing?
Nature intends for the sustainment of species. The only way for that to happen is for a male and a female to mate. Anything else is against nature. Homosexual relations cannot cause reproduction.
Right Winger, nothing changes if gays are allowed to marry. If they are not allowed to get married, they still will not engage in relationships with the opposite sex. If they are allowed to get married, nothing changes for straight people. Straight people will still get married and they’ll still have kids meaning humanity will still perpetuate itself. Absolutely nothing changes in the world if gays are allowed to marry, except gays have the same rights as others.
If you want to talk about nature, many, many animals engage in homosexual activity. It’s not exclusive to humans.
Jamal, you just wrote a whole bunch of stuff without really saying a thing and I did address your concerns. Perhaps it is you who did not read what I wrote. You still, and I dare say this applies to everyone here, have yet to explain how gays getting married harms a thing. Like I told Right Winger, nothing changes for straight people. Nothing changes at all in this world except for gays having the same rights as others.
Not allowing gays to get married will not make gays go away. It will not make gays love the opposite sex. All that is done is denying people the rights, both moral and legal, that everyone else enjoys. Allowing gays to get married changes nothing for straight people. Straight people will still be allowed to get married and they will still enjoy their 50% divorce rate. Straight people will still have kids. The world’s population will still continue to grow.
Allowing gays to get married changes nothing for anyone else. Not allowing them only oppresses people, people who want to love who they want to and YES, it is natural, not a choice. I do not choose the person I fall in love with. Do you? You can control that emotion? If you say yes, I have to question if you’re natural.
Now again I will ask, what harm comes from allowing gays to get married? This question remains unanswered.
It is obviously a choice. If it is not then it is genetic and if it is genetic than the errant mutation would have been left in a tiny puddle of the gene pool because gay couples do not result in progeny. Therefore the mutation would not have survived past the first manifestation.
You just choose to ignore the facts to create your own fantasy land reality.
But you can choose to do so just as gay people choose to thumb their nose at natural law.
If gays are allowed to marry, then that legitimizes their perversion against nature’s intent. Homosexuality is a choice by people who are unwilling to form relationships with the opposite sex. There is no use in nature for homosexuality. Homosexuals do not beget homosexuals because homosexual relationships cannot reproduce. Nature intends it that way. Anything else is an abomination. Homosexuality is wrong. It is not and never should be a legitimate lifestyle choice. AIDS was a gift from nature to erradicate the homosexual perversion, but the perverts that couldn’t decide which side they were on spread it to the perverted portion of the heterosexual population.
Oh would you all give it a rest. Just don’t shop at home depot if you are against it for crying out loud.
Chuck, when people stop trying to deny people the rights they deserve I’ll be quiet. I suppose you thought women should have been quiet when they wanted equal rights? Did you think blacks should have been quiet when they wanted equal rights too?
Jamal, why do men have mammary glands? Shouldn’t that have been left in a tiny puddle of the gene pool too? Traits can be carried over from one generation to the next that have nothing to do with reproduction.
But that does not matter. This isn’t about evolution nor if homosexuality is a choice or not. Try to stay on topic. My question, which still remains unanswered, is how does allowing gays to marry harm anyone or anything?
Ha ha that is too funny! I came in on this thread late. So Mark, you’re saying queers are like men’s nipples or a vestigial tail? Ha that is hilarious. Best laugh I’ve had in a long time from a self proclaimed evolutionary expert.
Right Winger, I did not see your response when I commented last. I’m not sure why, but I’ll respond to your argument now.
I have actually addressed everything you’ve brought up but I’ll go over it again. First of all, it is not a choice. You make it seem like a man wakes up one day and decides, “I think I’ll date a man today.” Tell me something, can you make the choice of who you love? If you wanted to, could you choose to love another member of your sex? No? Why not? You say homosexuality is a choice so why can’t you choose to love someone of your own sex?
Homosexuality is not a choice. I’m straight and I support gay rights but I cannot just choose to love another man. Sorry, it does not work that way.
As for the gist of your argument, you seem to think that because gays can’t reproduce they are committing crimes against nature. Is that the same for sterile couples? If a straight couple marries but are unable to produce kids are they committing crimes against nature?
What about elderly people?
Your argument holds no water, Right Winger. And your concept about AIDS being a gay disease is simply an argument from ignorance. Look up how the disease began and you’ll be amazed.
BTW, AIDS has been around for about 30 years and there are still plenty of gay people. Nature must not be very effective in controlling what you consider to be a perversion. What a shame, for you, that they are on the cusp of a cure.
BUT….if everything you said was true, which it isn’t, how does that change your life? How does that change anyone’s life? Even if it was wrong for gays to get married because they can’t have kids, which is a ridiculous notion, how does that harm anyone else?
So again, you, like everyone else, fail to explain how gay marriage harms a thing.
Mark,
You look up how AIDS was spread. By immoral behavior, starting with the homosexuals and then expanded by the bi-sexuals.
Your argument about sterile heterosexual couples holds no water. Sterility is a PHYSICAL problem. Homosexuals, whether sterile or not, CAN’T EVER REPRODUCE, PERIOD. Therefore, homosexuality is a MENTAL problem.
Gay marriage should never be allowed. Live together, die together, that’s fine. No way should it ever be legalized.
Right Winger, saying gay marriage should never be allowed or arguing from ignorance about what homosexuality is still fails to explain how it would harm anything. I’m sorry you think AIDS is a gay disease. I’m sorry you don’t understand the many reasons for sterility and how your argument against gay marriage compares to sterility. As it is, I can’t discuss this issue with you if you fail to understand basic, simple comparisons or how disease is not the byproduct of a lifestyle. You would need a better education for that.
You say gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they can’t have kids. I then applied your “argument” to sterile couples. The reason why they are sterile is a moot point. But you don’t get that.
As it is, you still fail to explain how two men or two women getting marriage would bring harm to you or anyone else. Simply put, you just don’t like it and that’s fine. There are lots of things in this world we don’t like and we don’t have to. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong nor does that mean there should be laws against it.
So if you have no good argument for why gay marriage should be illegal, just say so. Repeating ourselves is not constructive, especially when I’ve pointed over and over you have no argument as to how gay marriage hurts anything. None.
So again, I have to ask. How does gay marriage harm anything?
There have been people who present the problem that genderless marriage presents Mark, you just aren’t interested in the truth.
Genderless marriage presents a problem for society because it requires the redefinition of the family (which is a goal of gay activists). When marriage is unhinged from natural and moral law it requires the elimination of terms like husband, wife, father, mother, grandmother, grandfather, etc in legal documents that protect family rights and family relationships. By allowing genderless marriage the terms of the family are changed to legal ease like guardian 1 and guardian 2. While this may seem ilk semantics what it does is destroy the family unit which is the foundation of society. That is the harm. Clearly. So you can stop parroting your little tagline.
Societies cannot exist without families that produce new members and gay families created in labs are pathetic attempts of morally and naturally bankrupt unions to try to seem normal.
I’m not sure what you mean by the term “genderless.” Last time I checked gay people had genders.
While the wordage used for the legal specifications may have to be altered to include gay people it still does not affect anyone’s marriage nor does it do any harm to anyone’s family. You act like because they have to change legal wordings straight people can no longer get married and families will no longer exist. The fact of the matter is, they can change the legal specifications to INCLUDE gay people with out EXCLUDING straights.
Gays being allowed to marry still does not change anything for straights. Nothing. There still will be just as many moms and dads and families.
So once again, you, like everyone else, cannot prove gay marriage harms a thing. Simply making baseless, false claims is meaningless. It is you who is not interested in the truth.
Wow delusional and dense…
Genderless marriage means there is no gender language included in the legal document you so desperately want changed to allow gays to appear normal.
Why is it so important to you for gays to be able to get legally married? How does it harm/help your marriage?
Carl, I’m delusional? So if two men get married that totally ruins your marriage? Really? I know gay couples who have married in other states and you know what? It hasn’t changed a thing about my straight marriage nor my family nor my life. It’s sad and pathetic you will define your marriage on someone else’s.
For this reason, I canceled my HD credit card. We only shop at Lowes now. People have the right to make whatever moral/immoral choices they wish, but I do not have to financially support them.
Lots of uneducated idiots are posting to this news article. Being against homosexual marriage does not make somebody a homophobe. We are not afraid of gay people, we simply do not support the lifestyle.
God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman….it is not man’s place to change it, no matter what his position in government is.
Andy, if you read your bible, specifically the stories of David or Solomon, they both had many wives and concubines. So what was this about god defining marriage between one man and ONE woman?
It isn’t anyone’s place to deny people the right to happiness. Two gay men or women getting married does not change a thing in your life. However, you sticking your nose in their business changes theirs.
Homophobe does not mean someone is afraid of gays. It has taken a cultural meaning of not liking gays. Just like the term “reckless” doesn’t mean a safe driver, “homophobe” does not mean afraid of gays.
Right Winger: It doesn’t affect my marriage one bit. However, I know several gay people and I’m friends with several. I have one set of friends who are lesbians and they have been legally married in another state. They are people, no different than anyone else. They go to work, they pay bills, they have concerns and issues….you wouldn’t even know they were lesbian unless the subject came up. They are very giving and caring and spend a lot of time doing charitable work. They even go to church! They have chosen to be together because they care about each other. They are wanting to spend their lives together, doing everything together. They will grow old and the sad thing is, after spending their life together, entrusting the other with everything they have to offer, sharing things they wouldn’t share with anyone else….if one of them becomes sick to the point of incapacitation, the other will have no legal right to make decisions for her. If she has no family….guess who makes the legal decisions for her? The state. How is that fair?
So no, gay rights doesn’t affect my marriage but it does affect people I care about.
It’s called a “Power of Attorney” and anyone can get that set up.
Homosexuality is not normal. It is ABnormal. period.
You say period as if this is the end of your statements yet you keep coming back with arguments that are easily deconstructed. Marriage is more than just the rights someone has to make decisions for someone else as I’ve indicated over and over yet you seem to act like you’re not paying attention.
What is normal? Is inter-racial marriage “normal?” Is marriage even “normal?” LOVE, be it gay or straight, is something that is perfectly natural and even occurs in many, many species of animals, including humans. AGAIN, regardless of your opinion if it’s normal or not it still does not harm a thing. You have failed continually to prove this otherwise but instead keep spouting continual nonsensical drivel fueled by hate and ignorance. Why don’t you just admit it and say you simply don’t like it? Which is fine, you don’t have to like it and I highly recommend you don’t ever consider entering into a gay relationship.
Wow as much as you post about gays I expect you to be singing “It’s raining men,” before too long. HAHA
I already did say I didn’t like it. You just don’t like my answer. If gays want to be able to take care of each other and make decisions, it’s called a “Power of Attorney”. That’s all they need to do. Unmarried people do that all the time.
No Right Winger, all you’ve done is proven your ignorance and hatred. Straight people can use power of attorney as well, so why should they be allowed to get married? There is no good reason to deny gays the right to marry. None. You’ve failed over and over to present one good, valid reason.
And all you’ve proven is your perversion towards unnatural acts. I’d rather be hated for my beliefs than burn for my perversions.
Pervert apologists like to play games like this but the reality is that they have been duped by the media.
The government has no business in whether or not two people are in a loving relationship. I know plenty of couples that can’t stand to be in the same room together that are legally married. The governments only dog in the fight for recognizing marriage is establishing lineage and paternity. It’s simple but the easily swayed by gay activists in the media have been made to pay no attention to the reality of case law. No they want to make it about”loving couples”.
Just stop, you make yourself look ignorant to those that are not intellectually bankrupt.
The government has no business in determining if a couple is a loving couple. It’s all about the legal ramifications that marriage presents to society and those are tied to lineage and paternity.
So go fish.
And your whining about “What about couples that don’t have children” is itself as childish as it is stupid. It’s about the potential which is not required for NORMAL couples but which is obviously absent in gay couples.
Exactly! They are not interested in tolerance. They want acceptance and you cannot make people accept their perverted lifestyle.
Tolerate, you betcha. They have the constitutional right to do anything that is not illegal but their goal is to establish their lifestyle as equal and normal and it is simply not. It’s wrong by God’s law, it’s wrong by natural law, it just wrong but hey have a great time just don’t try to paint a happy picture like it’s an acceptable choice for anyone to make.
They call it “Holy Matrimony” for a reason, and that is because marriage in the Bible is between a man and a woman. The Bible is also quite clear on homosexuality
I’ve got no problem with gay or lesbian people. My wife and I have gone to the same hairdresser for the last 15 years and love him like family. He’s been to our parties and we share a common interest in classic cars. Where we disagree is with respect to the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. We cannot violate spiritual convictions and remain faithful to our Lord. It is truely a spiritual dilema that requires much prayer. Nevertheless, we as a couple can still see value in all people regardless of their background or sexual orientation. We can disagree on issues and still respect and care for one another.
I guess what you are saying is love the sinner, but hate the sin. That statement is true, in my opinion, so when it comes to marriage, yes it is truly defined as between one man and one woman, period. Thanks for allowing me to post my comment. I`ve been happily married for going on 40 years, but the last 5 years with poor leadership in Washington, has hurt our hard earned Income, grandchildren, etc. This country is worst I`ve seen in 60 years,so whether you are Gay or not, we all need to pray for our country daily(AMEN)!!
I have not supported Home Depot in over 2 years as a result of the position they have taken to be involved in the culture war. It is my belief that they should be neutral on such issues to avoid offending customers of differing beliefs. This is not profitable for them as a business nor our society.