racaille -

No, that study did not say that, as far as I've heard. It was more about the proclivity of closeted homosexuals lashing out against what they perceive as abnormal feelings. That means that closeting these feelings can lead to homophobia, not that homophobes are all closet homosexuals. Don't go getting the two backwards.

For the headline of this article, I'd suggest something more appropriate. Something like: "Bigots seek to reaffirm to the nation that they are total @!$%#s," or, "Most organizations with Marriage or Family in their names are more concerned with sex than Marriage or Family." You know, something that's actually descriptive of the situation.

Seriously, these guys are just @!$%#s.

Has gay marriage been passed in any state by the vote of the people or has it always been done in the state legislature? That's not a statement, it's a question.

@workin hard, a few other things were not happening by popular vote every time it came up: abolition of slavery, women's voting, and integrated schools. You want to go back to the days when even posting on this site with an opinion would have gotten you a nice beating by your husband? As to your question, Vermont did it by legislature, then people put it to a vote and upheld it by a pretty solid margin.

Has gay marriage been passed in any state by the vote of the people or has it always been done in the state legislature? That's not a statement, it's a question.

That's a rhetorical question, one to which you already know the answer; no, no state has passed a voter referendum approving gay marriage ... yet. Just wait, it will happen.

How can you expect a fair vote on a majority deciding what rights a minority should have?

I'm sure glad those ladies before me didn't give up when they were told they would not be able to vote. It took years, but it happened.

And, rac, don't forget J. Edgar Hoover.

Yep, Supreme Court, I am looking at you. Sooner or later the justices will have to get involved with this mess. I have felt the sting of discrimination and I could not dole it out to another person, no matter my stance on an issue. There has to be some semblance of fairness.

workin hard, I don't think human rights should be left up to majority vote. As long as there is no detriment to society, I believe if Susie can marry Sam, then Steve should be able to marry Sam, too. It's what America is all about, freedom and equality.

racaille, no, lesbians are much nicer than the head of NOM.

No workin, the gay marriage issue has never been voted on and achieved success in granting equal rights to all citizens. Then again, it is unconsitutional to put civil liberties of the minority up for a popular vote, so it really doesn't matter anyway.

Workin Hard,

It's a moot question. Here's why...

We are a Republic and shouldn't be voting on civil rights, period.

Since SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a civil right over 14 times, why are we putting it up to a vote?

We're a Republic, so there is not question of state's rights here, or majority rule here. SCOTUS, starting in Loving v Virginia ruled that marriage was a civil right. On top of that, the legislation banning gay marriage doesn't pass strict scrutiny and has a religious basis (1st Amendment). On top of that, you can claim gender discrimination in contractual law (Civil Rights Act of 1964). On top of that we have an implied right to privacy in the 9th and 4th Amendments. On top of that we have equal protection under the law (14th Amendment).

Those are civil rights issues, and as a Republic we don't vote on civil rights. And don't give me that 10th Amendment crap, the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states, effectively making the 10th all but null and void

Joey

Please provide a reference for the people's vote, I can't find it.

Thanks for the info.

Gay marriage to me is such a fringe issue, and doesn't affect the majority. It seems to serve as a distraction from the real concrete financial issues and policy that is guiding this country deeper into debt. I blame both parties for pandering to the emotional issues to secure votes with little or no regard for what is in the best interest of this country.

To me, fixing the gay marriage issue is simple. Civil Unions for everyone. Marriage is a church issue. Letting Gay and Straight people get a civil union recognized by the state puts everyone on the same playing field. Take that civil union to a church and request a religious marriage. If the church will not perform this for the Gay community, then look for a church that will.

By putting everyone in the Civil Union group it creates a 100% fairness for all, while separating church and state.

cdahl- Stop that logic...making sense has no place on newsvine.

We all realize that within a generation same sex marriage will be the law of the land. Equal treatment is the promise of America.

All challenges to same sex marriage are purely religious (often disguised as "tradition"). Religious views must never trump civil rights if we are truly a republic.

CDahl,

To me, fixing the gay marriage issue is simple. Civil Unions for everyone

Potato, patoto. Marriage isn't religious or spiritual, it's contractual and legal. Ergo, marriages for everyone. When you take that marriage into a church, it becomes Holy Matrimony. That's why many couples are married, without ever having stepped foot in a church.

So, we already have your plan in place, we just don't allow everyone to participate.

Just another way to sneek into main stream America. And why is it that gay activist scream bigot because we choose to say it is wrong. Do you have to agree with averyone not to be considered a bigot?

I'm as conservative as they come, but the topic of gay-marriage is really a non-issue for me. I'm ashamed that something so insignificant would be such a hot-topic in our political landscape. IMO, the argument is dominated by a small minority on the right & left who have extremely conflicting moral beliefs regarding the definition of marriage. However the vast majority of us probably don't care and would never allow a candidate's beliefs on the issue to influence our votes in any significant way.

Bottom line: gay people getting married has zero affect on me, my wife or my family. Given the choice, I'd actually prefer they have the right, but none of what's happened the last few days affects my view on Obama one way or the other. I disliked him yesterday morning when I woke up, and I feel just as strongly this morning. But to all the gay-haters who think this is somehow an attack on morals or marriage, just suck it up. Eventually gay people will have their marriages recognized all over the country, so you're just going to have to learn how to deal with it without feeling like it dillutes the meaning of your life.

How selfish that some people deny to others what they claim for themselves, even though it would cost them nothing to give it.

working hard, my bad. I had the wrong state and circumstances. It was new hampshire, and it came up for repeal in the state legislature, which is controlled by the republicans (they control about 74% of the state house's voting power), and they asked the people, who responded 64% in favor of keeping it legal. They never went to an official public vote because the margin was so high they said it would be a waste of the state's money and time. The final tally was 211-116. New Hampshire's government structure is very odd. lol

Sarah,

To me, it doesn't change the point. Change the word from Marriage to Civil Union. Keep it fair and legally binding for everyone and put them on the same playing field. It appears to me that the people having problems with Gay Marriage come from the religious section, and are fighting for Man/Woman only marriages. I don't really see the same people fighting against Civil Unions.

Once the Civil Union (for everyone) is done at the state level, take the next step and achieve "Holy Matrimony". If the church doesn't allow it for X-couple situations, then find a different church and take the fight there.

But meanwhile, the politicians can leave me out of that argument, and get back to fixing the economy.

James,

And why is it that gay activist scream bigot because we choose to say it is wrong. Do you have to agree with averyone not to be considered a bigot?

No, disagreement doesn't make you a bigot. GZ's post underneath yours is a perfect example of NOT being a bigot.

There's a difference between not liking gay marriage, so YOU personally don't get gay married, and not liking gay marriage, so you don't allow ANYONE to participate in it. And when you hold on to that belief, and actively stop other people from doing something, even though you can't come up with one good, legal argument why your belief is right, or they shouldn't do it... THAT is a bigot.

What makes a bigot, is illogical justifications, hateful commentary, and the denial of equal rights in the face of not one possible, rational argument.

CDAhL,

To me, it doesn't change the point. Change the word from Marriage to Civil Union.

Why? That takes more legal effort then just allowing equal protection.

It appears to me that the people having problems with Gay Marriage come from the religious section, and are fighting for Man/Woman only marriages. I don't really see the same people fighting against Civil Unions.

It doesn't matter if it comes from a "religious" place. Are we going to bow down to zealots everytime they get their spiritual panties in a bunch? Their religion has no standing, and marriage isn't even religious!

These are OUR laws. We have equal protection and freedom FROM religion, too.

You may be willing to compromise those two, essential tenents of our Constitution, I am not.

Sarah-3043284

I LOVED YOUR POST #1.12!! Hitting the head on that nail. Civil rights are not issues for the state to decide, they are constitutional issues.

There have never been laws in any democracy/Republic in the history of the world which legalized same sex marriage. The exception might have been Sodom and Gomorrah, but we will never know because they were obilterated from the face of the planet. Obama has found a way to unite all Christians and muslims against him, and I say Hooray to that notion.

markerdown76

The 'majority of American people' do believe in traditional values. But you know what value is more traditionally American? A relentless pursuit of equality. It's only a matter of time before this gets to the Supreme Court. And like every time before, the court will rule in favor of equality — all Americans will be equal under the law. Remember when whites couldn't marry blacks? To even suggest that law now would sound insane. One day it will be that way for gays too.

As a straight man (which shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it does), raised in a red state (ALSO shouldn't matter, but it does) I stand with my fellow GAY Americans. This is only a matter of time and we all know it. Hopefully recent events will speed things along.

clark--10 countries have already legalized same sex marriage. Numerous other ones have civil unions. You better read up on the news.

Also, re-read the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they didn't extend hospitality to travelers. Gays are NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.

Every church that supports these draconian laws to ban Equal Marriage should loose their tax exempt status and also they should be required to pay back taxes back to the point of their church founding or 1776 whichever is earlier.

Jesus Christ does not promote Theocracy. So these Fundies who are pushing a Theocracy will find their throne empty. The man they expect to rule will not.

Its shameful that the Fundamentalist Reconstructionist Dominionist want to cram their religion down everyone's throat and that includes shoving their religion onto we Christians also.

The Fundamentalist Church needs to loose tax exempt status now. That will stop this draconian move across our country cold!

And thats my opinion

Elections are more fun than bread and circus, and cost about the same to put on.

I fully support Americans' rights to freedom of religion, until they start using that religion as an excuse to oppress others' rights. Guess its time to start oppressing Christians again to remind them of their place in this world.

There have never been laws in any democracy/Republic in the history of the world which legalized same sex marriage.

There has only been one Constitutional Amendment that limited freedom in the history of the U.S. That was prohibition. How'd that work out?

It isn't the governments job, or the job of our legal system to define marriage. It's their job to guarentee freedoms and rights to human beings...

WE don't use gay relationships as an issue in politics, the right does. We advocate for NOT using them, NOT caring, NOT legislating based on sexual orientation. As in treating them the same as straight people.

In order to stop us from doing that. In order to stop us from repealing laws that SPECIFICALLY make an issue out of being gay or not, the right uses they're Bibles, morals, and religions. When, quite clearly, in our nation, those things have no standing.

It was the right that legislated homosexuality. DADT, DOMA, sodomy laws... It is the right that's fighting to keep legislating homosexuality. They need to stop using it as a political issue, and we will then cease to say anything about their methods and how they go about using them or defending them.

Oh @markerdown,

Once more, putting the civil liberties of the minority to a popular vote is UNCONSTITUIONAL.

Additionally, I don't care if the majority of Americans believe the devil is manifested inside homosexual men. It absolutely does NOT matter what your religion says about me, my family or my friends. What matters is that you have the right to practice your religion peacefully. You don't have the right to make your religious doctrine law. This also applies to muslims living in the United States--they have the right to practice Islam, but not the right to enforce their viewpoints on others.

This is not a "War on Religion" or a "War on Marriage" as people would have you believe. This is a quest for equal rights, equal opportunity and equal treatment for everyone as outlined by the Constitution of the United States of America.

And I have yet to hear a valid legal argument for denying American citizens rights. Can anyone help with that?

I would just like to add... Is it no wonder that the Fundamentalist Church wants to get rid of the IRS!!! They know full well that sooner or later their draconian activities will bring out the wraith of the people and the people will demand their Tax Exemption status ended. This is also why they put Supreme Court Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts their puppet on the bench so that they can ensure they remain in control for quite some time. The Fundamentalist Reconstructionist back Republican'ts so that the Republican'ts will block any effort to tax the fundamentalist church or make a constitutional amendment allowing for back taxing the fundamentalist church.

Shameful Theocracy!

And thats my Opinion.

Why are these groups wasting so much time and energy yelling at the wind? Any "laws" they get enacted in various states will simply be overturned by the Supreme Court as they are blatantly unconstitutional.

Talk about a waste of taxpayer funds!

Cakes,

And I have yet to hear a valid legal argument for denying American citizens rights. Can anyone help with that?

No. No one can help with that. BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE.

These people are on the wrong side of history. A generation from now they will be viewed much the same way that view those turning water canons and attack dogs on the civil rights protestors of the 1960s. Those who are leading the charge to prevent marriage equality are the George Wallace's of today. Remember in the 1960s most people felt that interracial marriage was morally wrong, disgusting, and should be illegal. Preachers railed against it from the pulpit and pronounced it a threat to traditional (white) marriage. Sound familiar? I have never understood the argument that gay marriage would some how be a threat to heterosexual marriage. Allowing two of my friends who are gay and in a loving, committed relationship to marry is going to damage my and my wife's marriage how? If one of the anti-gay, bigots screaming about this issue could LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY answer this question then MAYBE I would listen to what they say. Until then, I'll just consider their rants and protests to be the collective ravings of the insanity of the right, that is fading away and will soon be gone. Just remember the more danger they are in, the louder the noise they'll make, and the more they will protest. In the end, no one will care about THEIR ideas about marriage. They will be irrelevant and just an embarrassing memory to the nation.

Anyone but 'O' in 2012! Let's put a Christian back in office!

/palmface

have you ever even READ the Constitution?

Why? That takes more legal effort then just allowing equal protection.

You're kidding right? You know the vast amount of legal effort we're going through right now? How is changing a word in a legal document harder than oh 20 years of fights between courts and legislatures and referendum?

It's called compromise.

We are a Republic and shouldn't be voting on civil rights, period.

Except apparently the rules of our Republic say if enough people care about an issue we can vote on it, so yes absolutely we should.

Doobie,

Marriage IS spiritual,

Then how are so many people married without ever having stepped foot in a church?

when people make this statement "I'm looking for my soulmate" is a more accurate and NONlegal but spiritual.

Does every person looking for someone make this statement? Or just those who are ALREADY spiritual? No one ever uses that term without having deep religious conviction behind it? Ever?

Why do you think it is called homo SEXual

Because it refers to sexuality???

I'm just curious as to the percentage of homosexuals that come from dysfunctional families or from families where there was ISSUES in familial relationships with either or both parent. I would bet that it would be quite eye opening.

It probably would be for you. But then you would just try to discredit it, with claims of "gay agenda" and "liberal media".

I believe it was in the late 80s or early 90s that a prominent (don't know his name, we were told about in a class I was taking)non religious non christian New York psychiatrist made the state ment that homosecuals aren't born but created and that the homosexuals themselves started the LIE that they were born that way.

Now that's what I call credible.

It's amazing how people have made a living out of dictating how other people should live. Isn't this the type of oppression we left England to avoid?

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, its clearly opinion based. How on Earth are we able to make laws based purely on opinion?

But then again, 50 years ago, we had separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks. Eventually we will have one drinking fountain for marriage.

markerdown76

I love it. You people claim to be the most tolerant until, that is, you don't get your way. Then everyone 'must be' a homophobe or a racist, or whatever the flavor of the week is with you.

Not tolerating and marginalizing a specific group of people is - by definition - bigotry.

Comment With-drawn it was too mean.

Doobie Stoned (how appropriate your name) marriage is a LEGAL arrangement made under CIVIL authority. If you CHOOSE to make it a religious even as well, that is YOUR freedom to do so. However, in this nation we have something called the Separation of Church and State (the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution, Article VI Paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli (1797)) etc. Also, your only evidence is some psychiatrist that you cannot remember his name from the 1980s or 1990s? That's some impressive evidence to support YOUR argument. Many people get married for other reasons than to procreate. Should we ban two people in their 70s from getting married? Or what if one of the partners is biologically incapable of procreating? Should those couples have their right to marriage denied them? Is this the best argument that the anti-equality crowd can come up with to justify its bigotry? Sadly, I think it is.

I'm just curious as to the percentage of homosexuals that come from dysfunctional families or from families where there was ISSUES in familial relationships with either or both parent. I would bet that it would be quite eye opening.

it's probably about the same as the percentage of heterosexuals that come from broken homes. In reality, it may be slightly higher, but that's only because homosexuals are demonized in our society and thus a family raising a homosexual child might face additional social pressures that parents of heterosexual children do not.

People are born gay, that's a fact, deal with it.

Marriage IS spiritual, when people make this statement "I'm looking for my soul mate" is a more accurate and NONlegal but spiritual. it is a LOVE NOT physical lust between two people. Why do you think it is called homoSEXual because it is about SEX and NOT about procreating to bare children and make a FAMILY and one life together.

wow, this paragraph is a dud.

First, what Sarah meant is that marriage is, by it's nature and history, NOT a strictly religious entity. That is, the church did not invent marriage, it existed LONG before the Christian church and will do so long after Christianity is viewed in the same way as Greek and Roman mythology. Sure, someone looking for the "soul mate" has some "spiritual" involvement in the base sense, but not in the sense of organized religion.

Second, "homosexuals" are called "homosexuals" because "homo" is the Greek root for same/equal, just as "heterosexuals" are called "hetero" as it is the greek root for different. It has NOTHING to do with sex, just linguistic morphology.

From someone with a name like "Doobie McStoned" I would have expected better...

JustRad,

You're kidding right? You know the vast amount of legal effort we're going through right now? How is changing a word in a legal document harder than oh 20 years of fights between courts and legislatures and referendum?

Wrong. There's NOTHING, written in our Constitution that says ANYTHING about gays or marriage. All we have to do is stop upholding DOMA (A federal statute, we went out of our way to write, just to go out of our way to make a big deal about gays). That's it. And then just apply the rest of our laws, equally. Done.

All of this "hard work" is the result of people continuing to fight for going out of our way to make gay bad. Instead of just not fighting anymore.

It's called compromise.

It's called, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Except apparently the rules of our Republic say if enough people care about an issue we can vote on it, so yes absolutely we should.

ksdj/gkjas'pdgjpasdjgopjasd'pjasdkl;fjk;assldfk;asdflkasdf;lk[ksda;lgtk'sdlg

Sorry, that was my forehead hitting the keyboard. Really, where is that said in the Constitution? You know the supreme law of our land? That document. Please, cite me where it says that. And then explain how we would have rid ourselves of segregation if we all felt that way.

Cakes

I'll take a shot at that. Defining marriage as "one man, one woman" may not discriminate against gay people (the key word being people) because a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman. It is their sexual preference that is in question, not their rights as a person. They have a unique sexual preference that is in question.

Does each person's unique situation have constitutional protection? Does bigotry have constitutional protection? Does racism have constitutional protection? Do religious beliefs have constitutional protection?

Grover, can you explain to me why the Constitution does not contain the words, "God, Jesus, Christianity, Bible, Trinity, "etc.? Why does the First Amendment prohibit the establishment of any religion? Why does Article VI Paragraph 1 prohibit any religious test to be required of anyone running for public office? Why does the Treaty of Tripoli in Article 11 specifically state, "The government of the United States is NOT a Christian government" (emphasis mine), and this treaty was signed in 1797 by President John Adams and was ratified unanimously by the Senate. Many of the members of the Senate at the time of ratification were also members at the Constitutional Convention and signed the Constitution? The answer is they didn't want religion playing a role in government, and it is only religious arguments that that anti-gay bigots can come up with to justify marriage inequality. I don't care if the President is a Christian or not (President Obama IS a Christian, however); I want a President who will govern effectively and abide by the Constitution. And yes, I have read the Constitution, many times. I also took many classes in college about the Constitution. My question is have YOU ever read it?

SO i'm trying to recap--- the president is only allowed to voice support for interests group in non-election years..check (what about non-incumbents)

allowing gay marriage is going to destroy traditional marriage (so the success rate will somehow drop below 50% for straight couples) ...check (marriage is already pretty screwed)

Christians, particularly in the South where slavery, racial discrimination and other civil rights abuses thrived, should be the moral compass for America .. check (really?)

Doobie, just out of curiosity - when a gay man (or woman) FINDS their soulmate (of the same sex) - what do you propose they do? Because believe it or not, they fall in love just like straights do. Should they just deny their feelings and live lonely, solitary lives, or - worse - marry someone of the opposite sex, making everyone involved miserable, just because people like you don't approve of their soulmate?

Republicans desire to be more Muslim as they continue to be concerned about your sexual organs and where they go. This, of course is only matched by the Democratic desire to ignore the economy.

But still, Republicans, please stop reaching down my pants. It is clear you don't know how to do it.

Wrong. There's NOTHING, written in our laws, except for DOMA, which say ANYTHING about gays or marriage. All we have to do is stop upholding DOMA. That's it. And then just apply the rest of our laws, equally. Done.

And we all see how easy that has been.

It's called, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Since you're the Constitutional expert, you tell me where in the Constitution it says we can't switch one word to another word?

Better yet, explain to me why, if the religious people get all their panties in a twist over the word marriage, the rest of the civilized human beings don't just call it something else, give it all the same things and let the religious people have the word they treasure so much with no legal meaning whatsoever?

Sorry, that was my forehead hitting the keyboard. Really, where is that said in the Constitution? You know the supreme law of our land? That document. Please, cite me where it says that. And then explain how we would have rid ourselves of segregation if we all felt that way.

Without my head hitting the keyboard, I am disappoint.

You know I'm not talking about the Constitution, I'm talking about the referendum laws. Or are you suggesting that we should do away with state referendum laws? Show me where in the Constitution it says only the federal government is qualified to judge on matters of civil rights?

WorkingHard,

That's what they use to say about interracial marriage. That denying two people of different races the right to marry was okay, because they had the right to marry someone of the SAME race.

So, you agree with that?

Furthermore, how do you answer these questions...

1. Marriage is part of contract law, so how is it okay to deny to legal, consenting adults, with informed capacity to enter into a personal contract, based on one of their genders?

2. Since SCOTUS has ruled over 14 times, that marriage is a civil right, and civil rights are granted equally to all Americans, what is your reason that passes strict scrutiny, for denying that right to gay people?

I seriously can't beleive this is still an issue. I can't beleive a single American is stupid enough to wage a war against gay marriage.

In 20 years, when "Gay Marriage Foes" are equivalent to the KKK, I will look back on this and laugh, and be proud to say I stood on the right side.

'Gay Marriage Foes' are people who have no lives, so have time to waste on topics like who someone else sleeps with. That's even worse than wasting time posting on Newsvine.

DOMA was Mr. Clinton's baby, but I'm not sure he enjoyed the delivery.

workin hard--

I really, really, really hope you are just trolling, but in case you are indeed serious, let's take a look at this:

Defining marriage as "one man, one woman" DOES indeed discriminate against gay people. Sexual orientation is a protected class in almost every state in the union. This means we protect these people, like any minority group, against hate crimes, and discrimination in the workplace and housing markets among other crimes. How is this any different? When we will not allow these people to successfully apply for a marriage license to the person that they choose to be with, then we are discriminating against them. And saying that they could marry a man/woman who also happens to be gay is a ludicrous suggestion. That's like saying that a black man could just as easily find love with a black woman--why should he have the rights to marry a white woman?

Our civil liberties ARE protected by the Constitution (the 14th Amendment), and marriage IS a civil liberty (according to SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia), so I don't understand why this is still an argument. Stop trying to use your religious doctrine and hate speech to deny citizens what is due to them.

JustRad,

And we all see how easy that has been.

No, it hasn't been easy. Either was the civil rights movement. But let's put the blame where it lays. It hasn't been easy, because people are actively fighting to continue to make a big deal out of someone's personal sexuality.

It isn't equal protection that's difficult here. We already have that all laid out and done.

Since you're the Constitutional expert, you tell me where in the Constitution it says we can't switch one word to another word?

It doesn't say that.

The point is, we don't have to, and shouldn't have to switch anything. Marriage is legal and contractual, ONLY. Any religion or ceremony involved has nothing to do with it. Our laws get applied equally.

Marriage = Law

Law = Equal Application

Ergo...

Marriage = Equal Application.

Logic, 101.

Better yet, explain to me why, if the religious people get all their panties in a twist over the word marriage, the rest of the civilized human beings don't just call it something else, give it all the same things and let the religious people have the word they treasure so much with no legal meaning whatsoever?

Oh, for the same reason we place law ABOVE religion. Regardless of your religion, you are STILL subject to the 14th Amendment. Until you can show how two legal, consenting adults, with informed capacity, entering into a contractual property agreement, infringes on someone's freedom to practice their religion, you got nothing. You can practice your religion all you want, however, that right stops when you start infringing on the rights of others.

What's next? Who's next? We don't tip toe around their delicate sensibilities. If they want a religious country, move to a Theocrasy. Otherwise, keep your religions in your hearts and churches.

You know I'm not talking about the Constitution, I'm talking about the referendum laws. Or are you suggesting that we should do away with state referendum laws? Show me where in the Constitution it says only the federal government is qualified to judge on matters of civil rights?

14th Amendment. Supremacy Clause. Necessary and Proper Clause.

Grover, can you explain to me why the Constitution does not contain the words, "God, Jesus, Christianity, Bible, Trinity, "etc.?

@ Vince-545056 in post #1.50

My comment about reading the Constitution was directed to Markerdown76 who claimed "Lets put a christian back in the white house."

He was basically calling for a "religious litmus test" for the white house, which I, and apparently you vehemently disagree with. Basically everything you said in #1.50 I 100% agree with. Sorry if you misconstrued my comment.

Ahh America. Where the minority groups have all the power with the use of one little word "Discrimination". My mindset does not work in the world with which I live so I better change it to suit my needs over everyone else that is the majority. I am so tired of this crap day in and day out. I believe this country is suffering major issues that are not related to gay marriage. Watch the right hand over here while the left robs you blind. The first lesson of magic, distraction. Just what the government wants.

This is an historic event and a gutsy decision. It may very well cost him the election, but I'm proud of him and stand by him.

In the future, when this is all behind us, he will go down in history as an innovator who fought to bring America into the 21st century. In spite of what many believe, the decision to free to slaves was not a popular one, either; that decision cost Lincoln his life and regardless of his motivations, he did the right thing.

I am proud of our President (and by the way, I'm not gay, but I know what's right).

Everyone in support of the gay marriage referendum immediately assumes there is a tight correlation between civil rights (valid arguments of race, creed and color) and sexual preference. The fact is that there is NO link between the legislation used to give civil rights to those of color and race and those who choose to have sexual relations with the same sex and potentially marry each other.

The only link is based on the claim that a right is denied. How are rights afforded? Do we give a special interest group rights because suddenly they claim that everyone else has them?

If we give homosexuals the right to marry one another in each state, do you really think this will be the last special interest group that makes a claim? The list is long and winding here. There are lobbyists for polygamists, the obese, transgenders, vertically challenged, incarcerated, willful amputees....

cdahl - see posts #1.14 and #1.23

This sums up the position that the majority would take and preserves the traditional views on matrimony. I believe that President Obama needlessly stepped into a cow-pie and that his previous position about civil union for the LGBT community was appropriate.

Riley,

Congratulations, you're the winner! The first poster to start with the strawman arugments!

How are rights afforded?

By humanity, to those with legal capacity under the law. They can be limited only through tests of strict scrutiny.

Here are the answers to every disingenuous argument against gay marriage...

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.

The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.

The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that they're related, and still want to marry, and I'll say go for it.

The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves. I don't like Jackie Chan movies, I don't want them in my face, does that mean NO ONE gets to watch them?

The it's unnatural argument: So are a lot of things you don't argue against. Like babies with health issues surviving. That's not supposed to happen according to "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" either. Nor is marriage about procreation. Look at all the couples who don't want/have kids, and all the single people who do.

(WE ALL KNEW THAT WAS COMING, AT SOME POINT.)

@cdahl

To me, fixing the gay marriage issue is simple. Civil Unions for everyone.

You think the outcry against same-sex "marriage" is loud? Just try changing the wording on the government issued license to read "Civil Union" instead of "Marriage". Hope you have good ear protection.

I guess you are unaware of the numerous instances where "civil unions" for the homosexual community was shot down because, and I quote, "it is too similar to marriage".

When it comes to this issue, the ability to compromise has long since passed, mainly due to the actions of those those that seek to protect "marriage" from the gays. Even though it would not offer all the same State benifits and protections and none of the Federal, in places, Hawaii for one example, where the LBGT community capitulated on the use of the word "marriage" the compromise term "Civil Union" was summarily shot down as well because it was too much like a "marriage".

NC's Proposition 1 also excludes "Civil Unions" along with "Marriage".

You see, it is not as much that they don't want one of their "traditions" "defiled" as much as it is they do not want the LGBT community to be in the same category as them. Anything that puts LGBT individuals on the same level is anathema to them.

They are not trying to protect marriage from homosexuals, they are trying to protect the world and more importantly themselves from "the gay". "Marriage" just happens to be the current battle field. The war itself is about sexuality.

The battle of "DADT" was won. But the war still wages. If Romney becomes President, he has already promised to engage in the battle of "DADT" once again.

Smaller government that keeps its nose out of people lives, two standards they carry into battle, yet they wage a war on sexuality. Morality is just a codename for the true motivation, superiority.

Sarah must be a worrier princess :)

agree with everything you say, smearing the religious campaign and disguising it as a law is pathetic..

the sooner people understand that gays are paying taxes so they can get marriage benefit the better, also not everyone is christian, or they are against it...

ruling in favor of any majority will be the ultimate downfall in this country

Sarah, with the exception of your abhorration of Jackie Chan movies (even Rush Hour?), thank you. That was incredibly well argued. Now if only people would start listening to logic and reason.

It is astonishing how much time and money Republicans are willing to spend trying to hurt a minority group by taking away their rights. These are American taxpayers that have done nothing to them, they work and live their lives, yet Republicans are proactively trying to harm them.

And I have yet to hear a valid legal argument for denying American citizens rights. Can anyone help with that?

cakes127, this was posted a while back on another thread about the same-sex marriage issue. I can't take credit for it as much as I'd like to, but this is why you WON'T hear any valid legal arguments coming from the right. It was a response to a poster who was spouting the same tired, emotional straw-man talking points that all people against marriage equality keep trotting out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You refuse to acknowledge the logical, valid arguments and default to an overly emotional reaction based on your personal religious code. This is how the argument always goes....

Conservative makes statement that gay marriage is not in the constitution, focusing on the legal aspect.

Liberal points to previous cases that have set precedent to change laws based on civil rights. Liberal points to previous cases of majority oppression over minority, as proof that tyranny of the majority is not a valid argument to maintain oppression. Liberals point to similarities in previous civil rights issues. Liberals make strong, valid, logical arguments that support the need for change.

Conservatives ignore ALL points, change subject to an emotional based reaction. They argue that marriage is a religious institution.

Liberals point out historical facts that marriage predates religion as has existed as a social institution far before religious institutions hijacked it. (Ancient Babylon: Code of Hammurabi - no religious context for marriage)

Conservatives ignore historical facts and change subject once again. They become more emotional and argue a moral stance, stating personal feelings on the matter.

Liberals point out that "morals" are subjective and unique to each individual. They go on to point out the separation of church and state, and that any religiously based morals have no place in legislation. Furthermore, they point out the hypocrisy of wanting "smaller government" and no government interference with their church, but these same people want more government and more government interference to support the conservative agenda.

Conservatives ignore these logical arguments and start to go down the extremely emotional strawman argument path. At this point they begin to focus on homosexuality and not marriage. First they claim that it is unnatural.

Liberals respond with evidence that it occurs in nature, thus it is natural to mammals.

Conservatives ignore and continue down their path, usually the "choice" and "lifestyle" argument comes in at this point.

Liberals point to scientific evidence that attraction is based on chemical release in your brain, which you have no control over.

Conservatives ignore and move lower, comparing to bestiality, pedophilia and furniture-love.

Liberals point to the "consent" clause in our laws, being that one person in that union can not give consent.

Conservatives go back to quoting Biblical passages, typically starting in Leviticus.

Liberals point to every other Leviticus law that we no longer follow, like forbidding shellfish and stoning people.

Conservatives say that Leviticus is Old Testament and that is why we no longer follow those laws.

Liberals ask why they brought up Leviticus in regards to homosexuals if they no longer follow those laws.

Conservatives change the subject.

Did I miss anything?

When Republicans justify their hatred against gays with the Bible, when they quote scripture as a basis for discriminating against a minority, when they use religion to harm those that are not religious, they are legislating religion.

Husband (to wife): "I'm going to do something to save our marriage!"

Wife: "So you're going to stop cheating, drinking, and hitting me and go to therapy?"

Husband: "What? Heck no! I'm going to vote against gay marriage!"

No, it hasn't been easy. Either was the civil rights movement. But let's put the blame where it lays. It hasn't been easy, because people are actively fighting to continue to make a big deal out of someone's personal sexuality.

OR we could not look to lay blame and instead try to work towards pragmatic solutions and compromises. I doubt gay marriage would be legal for another 20 years if we just continue the same tactics and call each other an evil destroying the foundation of America and 14th century superstitious bigots on opposing sides of the issue when we don't win.

It doesn't say that.

The point is, we don't have to, and shouldn't have to switch anything. Marriage is legal and contractual, ONLY. Any religion or ceremony involved has nothing to do with it. Our laws get applied equally.

Marriage = Law

Law = Equal Application

Ergo...

Marriage = Equal Application.

Logic, 101.

In essence then your argument is "we don't have to therefore we shouldn't." We're not going to agree then because my position is "lets see if we can reach some common ground that both sides are willing to live with"

Furthermore, since I believe in the separation of church and state, I'm not really comfortable with the state and religion defining the union between two people as the same concept. I think that would only create further confusion and I'd prefer if all legal terms and concepts had names that didn't also have religious importance.

And if you don't think we "don't tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities" we tiptoe around EVERYONE'S delicate sensibilities and have a long history of doing so.

I'll concede the Constitutional argument point. If the Supreme Court wants to go after the law so be it.

The simple matter of the fact is the ninth circuit ruling on CA prop 8 also gives an indication on the expected ruling for Washington State, if the vote to over turn gay marriage in WA should occur the US court if appeals for the ninth circuit which over turned pro 8 and also has jurisdiction over WA has provide precedence to over turn the vote in that state.

They stated, religious and reproductive grounds were not valid arguments to prevent marriage equality, and the defense failed to show any detrimental effects to marriage if gay marriage were allowed. Children brought up by same sex parents sowed no detrimental effects. In fact they pointed out preventing same sex marriage did not prevent same sex parenting.

Krestow, that sounds logical. Washington State is so beautiful I think there's a great revenue opportunity for turning it into a gay wedding destination. That may sound silly but I see dollars for Washington State!!!

cdahl

The issue is that those on the right want to REMOVE rights and benefits from civil unions. They just did this in NC. All civil unions, both homosexual AND heterosexual, not have ZERO rights and benefits in NC... all because of the burning hatred Republicans have towards homosexuals.

Think about that. Republicans actually removed the rights of straight, heterosexual couples in NC, as part of their broad attack against homosexuals. That is NOT equality... that is tyranny and oppression by a hateful GOP.

Homosexuality genetic?

Most of the genetic claims began with a paid for study at UCSD in the early 90's. The study was reported (basically pituitary gland in homosexual males smaller than hetero) widely, then quickly refuted due to the large sample of homosexual men having had AIDS (which shrinks the pituitary). The study made news, the refutation did not. You must research who paid for the study before you can make an assessment.

Environment?

If you want to talk about environmental factors you must open up the door to a dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about; The relationship between child molestation/abuse and the percentage of those children who are homosexual adults.

Role of Government (Not a legal argument, I don't pretend to be a lawyer)

Bottom line is this; what should government support or put its stamp of approval on? The most basic/important/foundational unit of government is the family, then it should go down in relevance and authority from there.

1) Family; Father-Mother-Children

2) Extended family

3) Community

4) County

5) State

6) Federal Government: In charge of protection from foreign invaders, and allowing for equal opportunity (enforce justice, not mandate equality)

My point: If government supports/puts its stamp of approval upon something other than the most basic/important/foundational unit of government, the family, we're done!

If you don't believe me, ask yourself this one simple question: What is at the root of a majority of our country's social ills? If you say anything but the breakdown of the family unit I mentioned above, you are not paying attention.

I am NOT saying governent should ban same sex couples or even weigh in on the subject, I'm just saying that I do not believe it should put its stamp of approval on something other than the obvious biological/traditional defintion of marriage and family.

Unhappy,

Again, I wrote the original, ergo copying and pasting isn't plagarism. Please provide any evidence to the contrary...

Rad,

OR we could not look to lay blame and instead try to work towards pragmatic solutions and compromises. I doubt gay marriage would be legal for another 20 years if we just continue the same tactics and call each other an evil destroying the foundation of America and 14th century superstitious bigots on opposing sides of the issue when we don't win.

Cop out. That's what good people, who realize there is no legal, logical, or rational argument to continue an injustice say, because they don't have the energy to fight.

No worries, other's of us do. I'd hate to live in such an apathetic country. Change and progress would never occurr.

In essence then your argument is "we don't have to therefore we shouldn't." We're not going to agree then because my position is "lets see if we can reach some common ground that both sides are willing to live with"

My argument isn't that. My argument is, we have a Constitutionally protected right by lieu of being HUMANS to equal protection and freedom from religion. It's a right that needs to be defended and fought for. Even if you aren't willing to.

Furthermore, since I believe in the separation of church and state, I'm not really comfortable with the state and religion defining the union between two people as the same concept. I think that would only create further confusion and I'd prefer if all legal terms and concepts had names that didn't also have religious importance.

Great, then you're for raising the ban on gay marriage.

And if you don't think we "don't tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities" we tiptoe around EVERYONE'S delicate sensibilities and have a long history of doing so.

The only thing I tip toe around is sh**, not bullsh**, just sh**.

Sarah and cakes -

The twelfth amendment restricts people from voting for President and Vice President.

The sixteenth amendment increases the government’s power to tax us.

The eighteenth amendment prohibited citizens’ drinking alcohol.

The twenty-second amendment restricts the rights for someone to run for President.

But none of these prevent the passage of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as “one man and one woman.” If the people want such an amendment they will get it.

Sarah-3043284

Riley,

Congratulations, you're the winner! The first poster to start with the strawman arugments!

How are rights afforded?

By humanity, to those with legal capacity under the law. They can be limited only through tests of strict scrutiny.

Here are the answers to every disingenuous argument against gay marriage...

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.

Current Utah Law (Article 3) states that ”polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.” But according to Article 3, you can hold whatever religious beliefs you want. Utah will never prosecute you for your religious beliefs.

That’s been the conundrum for Utah lawmakers… until now. “We have to change the laws to match the beliefs of our citizens and a man having more than one wife, just makes sense!”, said Utah Speaker of the house, Blake Smith (D).

Over the years, authorities have looked the other way with regard to polygamous behavior and have instead focused on any abuse of children, kidnapping or any other domestic abuse.

The amount of life insurance needed to cover multiple families can be staggering, and in order to be properly insured, all “spouses” need coverage in order to provide funds in the event of their deaths. Marty Levy, an independent life insurance broker in Los Angeles, says it is important for people with large families to set up life insurance trusts that will be administered responsibly in the event of their death.

Coverage could be purchased through one very large policy or several policies. While it is not impossible, it is very difficult to add "spiritual wives" as beneficiaries to life insurance policies, adds Levy. To do so, you must demonstrate that the women have an "insurable interest" in the policyholder. "It's tough to underwrite, but it can be done.

Some polygamists rely heavily on emergency rooms and social service programs to take the place of health insurance. "They will seek help from different welfare programs," Llewellyn says. "A lot of them will accept that resource because it doesn't cost them anything."

When Republicans justify their hatred against gays with the Bible, when they quote scripture as a basis for discriminating against a minority, when they use religion to harm those that are not religious, they are legislating religion.

Unfortunately, this is happening all too often, and has throughout history. Religious conservatives have repeatedly abused their faith to uphold laws that dehumanize and marginalize anyone they feel threatened by. The Bible has been used to enforce slavery and keep women and minorities from having equal rights. Gay rights are no different in the aspect that once again, the religious right is afraid and confused into thinking we live in a theocracy, where religion and politics can safely mingle. They cherry pick which parts of the Constitution and Bible they want to abide by, and blatantly ignore anything that might inconveniently prove them hypocrites. Gays will have equal rights one day--but as history has proven time and again, it will take years. But once equal rights have been attained, we'll look back on this time and be ashamed of everyone who once opposed them. Just as it's hard to imagine now that there was once a time when holding slaves or beating women was acceptable and common-place (in fact--sanctioned by the Bible and law), there will be a time when we find it hard to imagine that there were actually bigoted people who twisted the words and meaning of their own religion to harm other people. Religious conservatives can claim all they want that we are trying to destroy their religion--when in fact they are the ones who are destroying it by polluting it with politics. RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT DO NOT MIX. REPEAT: DO. NOT. MIX. If you want to keep Christianity intact--keep it out of our laws.

burning hatred Republicans have towards homosexuals.

African Americans voted for it two to one. With according to demographics 20 percent of North Carolina being African American that translates to what 12 or 13 percent of the state as a whole who is both black and opposed to gay marriage?

So without them no way it would have passed and which way did they vote last time? It's not a Democrat/Republican issue. It's a religious/secular issue or even a North/South issue since I don't think any of the Republicans I know in the Northeast are against gay marriage. If they are they tend to be non-aggressive and focus on other issues.

Sarah said: "Since SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a civil right over 14 times, why are we putting it up to a vote?" Sarah, please provide for us the SCOTUS ruling(s) where their decision(s) made it a civil right for 2 same sex persons to marry or multiple, more than 2, persons to marry.

Riley,

Sounds like the problem is with Polygamy then, not gay marriage. How is any of that applicable to the marriage of two people of the same gender? You just made my case, as to why legalizing gay marriage (which has none of those consequences you spoke of) WON'T lead to accross the board polygamy. It's those consequences, and the lack of them in gay marriage, that makes the polygamy argument a strawman.

3Thirty,

There are a lot of specific details not laid out by SCOTUS. It doesn't matter, when you apply the law equally, you don't have to list ever itty, bitty, thing. You automatically know it applies to humans with legal capacity.

Mario,

Our Constitution set us up as a Republic. That means no majority vote in anyway, (not even a Constitutional Amendment) is held in regards to civil rights.

Unhappy,

I'm still waiting. Where did I plagerize that from? Who wrote it? Who did I copy and paste it from?

Hey all, I signed up cause I needed to add my 2 cents worth.

My story started where many of you were, gay people were foreign to me, "they" were nothing I knew and I considered them abhorrent and sick. What an arrogant fool I turned out to be.

My son is a marine he is in his late 20s and 4 months ago told me he was gay, that rocked my world that threw me for a six and my wife smiled and took it all in. I struggled prayed cursed yelled and all I looked like was the world's biggest ass.

I then got to meet his partner and my grandson, I lived in a world that prevented my own son feeling like I could meet his son. Like the President I evolved on the issue unlike him I had to do it rather quickly. My son and his partner are good men who are raising a wonderful little boy. My boy's partner works hard looks after my grandson and managed catch more fish than me (I am yet to forgive him for that) and fixed my truck (again showed me up, but I forgave him for that). Most of all the guy is respectful to me, my wife and my son.

Now I want you who are against gay marriage to tell me why my son should not be allowed to marry his partner why his partner and my grandson should not be allowed the benefits and privileges that go with my son being a marine. My son fights for you yet you wont fight for him.

I was an ignorant fool like some of you but I had my eyes opened, yes gay marriage will effect me and my family, it will extend our family.

Marines, I am touched by your story... Thank you to your son for serving his country, even though he isn't granted the same rights as the very people he protects. That is true courage.

Cop out. That's what good people, who realize there is no legal, logical, or rational argument to continue an injustice say, because they don't have the energy to fight.

No worries, other's of us do. I'd hate to live in such an apathetic country. Change and progress would never occurr.

Wow. So you're moving to personal attacks then? Because you're doing so much on the internet right that you feel you can lecture others on what they should be doing?

What should I do? Should I call Billy Graham and Rosie O'Donnell and ask them to sit down and hash out an agreement with me as the moderator? How far do you think I'll get on that, I'm willing to bet neither of them return my phone call.

Compromise doesn't prevent change. If people didn't compromise we'd have collapsed as a nation in 10 years.

My argument isn't that. My argument is, we have a Constitutionally protected right by lieu of being HUMANS to equal protection and freedom from religion. It's a right that needs to be defended and fought for. Even if you aren't willing to.

That may be your argument in general, but on that specific point you specifically said

The point is, we don't have to,

There's a lot of things we don't "have" to do. But it might help to look at some of those things and work to find solutions with others.

Great, then you're for raising the ban on gay marriage.

1) Way to ignore the rest of the paragraph

2) Clap Clap Clap for you. Was there a time I said I wasn't? My personal opinion on it wasn't relevant so I didn't bring it up, but I'm in favor of any solution that assures equal rights for both people. Where we differ is that I see more than one possibility.

The only thing I tip toe around is sh**, not bullsh**, just sh**.

You don't hold office. You're not responsible for any of the various different appeasements we've made over the last 200 years to various different groups. But the government is, and the government has. You're really didn't think I meant you personally, come on.

Riley,

"How are rights afforded?
By humanity, to those with legal capacity under the law. They can be limited only through tests of strict scrutiny"

I do not doubt that may become true in the future many are promoting . But for now, our founding fathers saw fit to to proclaim that those rights were afforded to us "By our Creator". Just sayin, cause our resident legal scholar neglected to point that out.

Sarah, it's plagarizing. On an earlier article you admitted that it was plagarizing because you said that the arguments are still valid, to which I replied that I got tired of answering the same argument over and over again. THE WORDING IS EXACTLY THE SAME. YOU COULDN'T EVEN CHANGE THE WORDING OR ADD SOMETHING NEW? The fact remains, is that you are an attention hog. No wonder comments are over the thousand mark already. Half of these posts are just copying and pasting all done by the liberals. Nobody wants to respond on this site because it is the same argument over and over. And so many liberals can't answer the questions given to them by conservatives. You know how I know? That's when the name-calling starts.

( What's next? Will we see another list by "Dr. Laura")

Let's bring back the "Flag Burning" amendment. Boy, those were productive years in congress.

Sarah (#1.55)

You make a good point on race. I'll think about that.

For your questions, I'll answer the first one with another question. From a legal standpoint, you have a point. My question is then, "If two can enter into such a contract, why not 3 or more?" And if there is no limit to this, then there really is no marriage in this country because a marriage of many people (in my opinion) has no meaning. Certainly, spousal rights would have no meaning when it comes to insuring your spouse from your work insurance, etc. One man, one woman has a foundation (historically, biologically). Two of the same sex does not.

Your second question, I offer this. The Supreme Court may have defined marriage (several times) as a right but I don't know that it has distinguished same-sex marriage in those terms. Homosexual people (one male, one female) have not been declined the ability to marry. Do you have a source that shows the SC specifically declaring the special circumstance of same-sex couples having the right to marriage? I suspect this will before them soon but I don't know of a decision to date that clarifies this.

Then they came ...

Theologian Martin Niemoller predicted what will happen then when he wrote:

First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/10/2055146/saunders-who-will-amendment-backers.html#storylink=cpy

Unhappy-1583758 and Workin_hard

Feel free to read my post a few posts up then come back to me and answer the question I posed. I am interested. I have re-posted the question below. Lets not make this pie in the sky stuff, lets not dilute this with impersonal statements. Lets talk about people lets talk about my family and my boy.

I'm quoting my self here:

"Now I want you who are against gay marriage to tell me why my son should not be allowed to marry his partner why his partner and my grandson should not be allowed the benefits and privileges that go with my son being a marine. My son fights for you yet you wont fight for him."

Also I never thought I would be doing this, but I'm a Republican and Mr Obama has my vote.

Marines-Pa

Thank you for your story. Every time I hear about a previously close-minded person coming to the realization that they were wrong, it restores my faith in humanity... if even by a small amount.

My son fights for you yet you wont fight for him.

This is, by far, the most telling statement, and bears repeating.

I was once Republican, and moderate as of late, but the tipping point came not but a few months ago... when I watched the GOP debate and witnessed a large Republican crowd "boo" and mock a soldier on live television, simply because he was gay. This man was on the other side of the world, fighting for ME, for YOU, for EVERYONE. He was putting his life on the line, willing to die for ME, and YOU, and EVERYONE. He was willing to give his life for OUR freedom... and THAT is how Republicans treat him. THAT is how Republicans thank him for his sacrifice. They boo'ed and mocked him, in front of the entire country. It literally made me sick to my stomach.

So thank your son, for us. Thank him for his sacrifice. And know that there are people here, straight people like me, who will fight for his rights... just as he fights for ours.

Marines - Pa

----RIGHT ON!

I joined in the army in 1994 (coming from a rural coal mining town) and was pretty homophobic at the time. I met three gay men when I was in service and two lesbian women. Every one of them good, decent, upstanding people who held great values, worked hard and just wanted the same freedoms that every other American deserves.

WHY DON'T WE GET TO THE HEART OF THIS DEBATE RIGHT HERE - if someone is against gay marriage is it because of religon, laws, rights, majority opinions, culture wars, gender wars, your personal perception of what a man or woman 'should be,' or are you against it because the thought of two guys screwing each other in the backside, joining the PTA and being different from you makes you sick?

No matter what you say, it's the latter. Believe me, it's the latter. Any argument you have, it is the latter. Don't pull the bible out, don't talk about 'sacred' anything - they are just people that are different from you, they're sexual method seems gross and you don't like it. That's it. Get over it. Two guys having butt sex is not an attack on christianity. It's not an attack on 'traditional' values (they were doing it 3000 years ago), it's just two guys getting it on. The only thing getting attacked is one guy's anus and HE DOESN'T MIND. And if he doesn't mind, what business is it of yours. There have been homosexuals across all of recorded history, they exist and if YOU can't deal with that, ask yourself how healthy YOUR perception of the world is. Ask yourself if your fascist perspective (everyone needs to be like me or else) of the world is making it any better? And if those two people want a legal union recognized by the state, I say good for them, recognize it and cheer them on for finding someone and having the gall to try and build a life with them.

The people who are really destroying our country are politicians, defense contractors, entitlement program supporters, bankers and the like. Greed will destroy this country, not anal sex and lisps.

Unhappy,

I've yet to see ANY original commentary from you--or any logical response to "liberal questions". In fact, most of your posts are just repeats from another article where we called you out to give logical answers to our questions (and you failed). You're doing the EXACT same thing that you accuse others of doing.

Straight up now, break it down for me:

1. Give me ONE logical reason why gays should not have the same rights as everyone else. (I say logical as in: DON'T USE THE BIBLE--we're not a theocracy)

Ready? Go.

The fact remains, is that you are an attention hog...

And so many liberals can't answer the questions given to them by conservatives. You know how I know? That's when the name-calling starts.

Once again--you contradict your own words. Here's your opportunity to vindicate yourself. Logic is the only way out of the pit you've dug.

Hey Sarah,

This is a subject that I have a hard time with. I have conservative, christian values and wish to instill those in my boys. However, aren't christians supposed to be charitible, loving, tolerant of others? The bible speaks of homosexuallity and very specifically, how God feels about it. However, I don't remember where God says for christians to condem others for it. Love they neighbor.............!! Judge not!!!

Yes, I am aware if the church and state arguments and laws, but we are all made up of our belief systems, whatever those are, so there will never be a world where one does not get "involved" in the other. However, being blinded by it is another story!

I started by saying that I struggle with this and I do, because I just can't bring any understanding to it. Two men together is not a pleasant thought or sight for me. To me, men parts were made for women parts and procreation. Now having said that, I am trying my best to be less judgemental about this. I just have come to the concluison that it is my right to be a christian with conservative values and it is NOT anyone's right to discriminate against me for that. So then, who am I do discriminate against another, who is doing no harm, and deny them their same rights to live freely in this country? Just my thought on this.

Jemma,

"First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist."

Of the 100 million murdered by regimes in the 20th century, 90% were murdered by communists, so exactly who is the they that you are speaking of? And by the way, of that 90%, 20% were Jews killed under Russion regimes.

It never ceases to amaze me how people always asssume the most evil regime was right wing fascists under Hitler; 10+ million murdered. Yet erect statues and praise the most heinous of murderers on the left, Moa, Che Rivera, Polpot, Lennin; 90 million and thats conservative.

Unhappy,

Let's start with the definition of plagery...

plagiarism (n)

bing.com

pla·gia·rism
[ pláyjə rìzzəm ]

stealing somebody's work or idea: the process of copying another person's idea or written work and claiming it as original

something plagiarized: a piece of written work or an idea that somebody has copied and claimed as his or her own

Now, please quote me, including article and post, where I admitted plagerizing something.

IF I WROTE THE ORIGINAL I CAN COPY IT AS MANY TIMES AS I NEED TO. IS THAT REALLY SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? IT ISN'T PLAGERY IF I WROTE THE ORIGINAL.

And, again, they aren't arguments. THEY'RE DEFENSES TO ARGUMENTS.

I post them, in defense, when someone brings up one of those arguments, i.e. Riley with the polygamy.

SO, EITHER PROVE THAT I DIDN'T WRITE THE ORIGINAL, OR CONTINUING TO SHOW THE WORLD YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PLAGERY, A VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT, IS.

Sarah, You are an original, but I forgot what I was supposed to remember to call you....next time around!!!

"Marriage IS spiritual,"

"Then how are so many people married without ever having stepped foot in a church?"

Sarah, where is it written anywhere, that to be spiritual, one HAD to belong to a church? I gather by your thinking, God, or the spirit, will only have anything to do with you if you go to a church? Being spiritual has nothing to do with church, people CAN believe in God, BE spiritual and not belong to any church. Did you ever hear the old saying, we each have a spirit? And that spirit came from who/where? So, if one is in touch with, and lives by what that spirit tells them, wouldn't that make them "spiritual"? I know many people who are very spiritual, and never have belonged to a church in their lives.

Just loving Sarah's posts here! Do you have a fan club and where do I sign up?

Onto the topic at hand:

Please tell me why my marriage is threatened if gays are allowed the same rights and privileges as my husband and I to be married? Seriously - how is my marriage threatened? Am I less married if gay marriage comes to be?

Also - for those who think gays chose to be gay, not born gay:

My cousin has three children, one of whom is gay. I watched this girl grow up, and I cannot recall a time when she did not seem to comfortable in her role within a traditional Catholic household acting like a sweet little girl like her sister playing with dolls instead of a sports-loving tomboy. She recently came out as a lesbian. She was always gay from birth, and you'll never convince me otherwise. (BTW I'm not saying every tomboy or sports-loving woman is gay any more than if every little girl who plays with dolls and a Betty Crocker Easy Bake Oven grows up to be heterosexual).

TXHorseman,

I hear you loud and clear, its good to hear someone who has been on the same thought process. I understand your Christian values and I also applaud you being brave enough to stand with for those values but also brave enough to recognize the other-side of the argument.

C NJ Mom

Great post and I have become a quick fan of Miss Sarah also.

I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree but no one has bothered to answer my question above, making me come to the conclusion that the opposers feel safer to discuss faceless "facts" but can't argue when confronted with real life stories and people.

Preceded by None: It's because I am tired of reposting all my views all over again. Unlike you liberals, all of my views are newly written, ( I don't copy and paste) which is why it takes some time to rewrite them..

But I'll break it down for you,

One- they are not a minority. Gays occur in every race, so therefore they are not required to have special privledges.

Second- They are still allowed to marry, just not to each other. It would be the same if a brother and sister got married. Both are adults, but the ramifications to the moral structure of society would be prevalent.

Third- Gays aren't happy with the idea of civil unions. They want recognition for their lifestyle in order to make it more "normal". It isn't normal, in fact it was once considered a mental disorder by DSM history of mental disorders. Would you say that those people who have the other disorders are also normal? No.

This enough for you? I could provide more.

TX,

I think you nailed it on the head. Your post is the very definition of what it means to live in a secular country.

Workin Hard,

"If two can enter into such a contract, why not 3 or more?" And if there is no limit to this, then there really is no marriage in this country because a marriage of many people (in my opinion) has no meaning. Certainly, spousal rights would have no meaning when it comes to insuring your spouse from your work insurance, etc. One man, one woman has a foundation (historically, biologically). Two of the same sex does not.

Because, unlike gay marriage, the consequences involved in legalizing polygamy, across the board, put a huge onus on our legal system. We would have to rewrite tax law, insurance law, probate law, family law, yada, yada, yada. The burden is big enough, and the number of those effected are small enough, that the reason passes strict scrutiny.

Polygamy also has a long history, of ACTUAL abuse. It's similar to how the state can tell us we can't beat our children, but the Bible says "spare the rod" and whatever.

Your second question, I offer this. The Supreme Court may have defined marriage (several times) as a right but I don't know that it has distinguished same-sex marriage in those terms. Homosexual people (one male, one female) have not been declined the ability to marry. Do you have a source that shows the SC specifically declaring the special circumstance of same-sex couples having the right to marriage? I suspect this will before them soon but I don't know of a decision to date that clarifies this

They don't have to. We have equal protection. That means that, as long as you are a human being, with recognized legal capacity, a civil right (which they've ruled marriage is) is a civil right. The whole point of equal protection, is that you DON'T make exceptions.

JD,

And this is a cut and dry issue. Either you're on the side of equal protection and civil rights, or you aren't. We don't compromise on those things. Ever. Compromise is for economic issues, funding, public policy, legislation...

Not, for civil rights. You do a disservice to every person, whoever died in the name of fighting for those rights, when you presume to compromise on them.

It's weak, and it's easy to see through. You don't like hearing that, then stop playing games. Either ignore the issue, and let those of us willing to fight (by the way don't assume to know what I do or don't do) for our fellow citizens, fight with us, or fight against us.

Your half as**d attempt to compromise helps no one and nothing.

Read Marine's post, and then ask him to compromise.

@marines-pa Thank you for sharing your story...it brought tears to my eyes. Thank your son for his service...mine also serve and I know you are proud of him. Someday we will move beyond this nonsense and maybe our confidence in humanity will be restored. As a Christ-follower-not a fan- I am appalled by the outcry from the religious right (which are neither). The fundamentalists are making it impossible for those who disagree with their politics to actually get to know God...I no longer feel comfortable among my brethren and do not participate with organized religion. They have twisted the meaning so completely! Jesus Himself had His strongest words for the religious right of the time-the Pharisees. He called them hypocrits and vipers and whitewashed tombs because of all the laws they tried to lay on the ppl yet they were above it all. (Matthew) Jesus has asked us to LOVE one another, not HATE one another. BTW, there are only 6 admonitions in the Bible about homosexuality and 5 of those are in the Old Testament and the Law and all have interesting scholarly debate but there are hundreds of admonitions to heterosexuals about loving each other....which do you think is more important? Bottom line though is that Holy Matrimony is a church thing and as such could be kept in the church, but marriage has rights attached and it is blatantly unfair in a SECULAR government-which ours still is- to deny those rights to someone based on religious criteria.

This election is going to be so very important....VOTE!

TX,

LOL, was it something about "Pinko-(something with an M)-Sl*t". I know we shortened it to PMS.

OnlyinAmerica,

Where is it written that one must be spiritual, religious, or both, to get married? That's the point.

CNJ and Marine,

Thank you, and I will send you friend requests.

Marines and TXHorseman,

I came from a Christian/conservative family, and I wish they had been more loving and accepting like you. It was their intolerance for the sins of others (while they were guilty of many a sin themselves), for hating some of my best friends (and even disowning a cousin) for a perceived mortal sin. I never felt that behavior was anything Jesus approved of, and it never made me comfortable in church--which is why I became an atheist (that, too, got me disowned).

I can't tell you how much I respect your decency while still staying true to your faith. I wish more Christians could be like you... (or even just people in general--I know there's a few hateful zealots on my side of the fence, too). I think you have every right to instill your beliefs in your children, just as anyone else has that right. Doing it with love and tolerance as you are doing is more likely to make the message meaningful and valuable--I know the way my parents raised me drove me screaming for the hills.

Cheers to you!

If we ALL have spirit within us, why then do gays not have the same rights that everyone does? We aren't suppose to be their judges, we are suppose to be the judge of ourself.

TXHorseman

Two men together is not a pleasant thought or sight for me.

And THAT is the crux of the issue. People find the idea of same-sex couple to be unpleasant, and thus they seek to reduce that behavior through laws that limit the freedom and rights of those individuals.

However, you went on to say...

I just have come to the concluison that it is my right to be a christian with conservative values and it is NOT anyone's right to discriminate against me for that. So then, who am I do discriminate against another, who is doing no harm, and deny them their same rights to live freely in this country? Just my thought on this.

Thank you. THAT is exactly what I want to hear.

No one is forcing you to accept it, no one is forcing you to watch it, no one is forcing you to like it... that is your freedom. But we, as a society, need to afford equal rights to EVERYONE or else the majority might come for your rights next.

What is so shocking to me is the willingness of conservatives to sacrifice human rights by majority opinion. What happens when they are no longer the majority? What happens when another religion out-numbers and begins to out-vote them? How will they feel when their rights are suddenly stripped away because another religion because more popular?

We can not allow a religion, or popular vote, to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals... or else we set a precedent wherein this same thing can be turned around and used on all of us.

This is not only about protecting the rights of homosexuals, but protecting the rights of everyone. This is also setting the precedent to protect Christian rights from other religions, regardless of popular vote.

Unhappy-1583758

Your view is a little flawed my friend. My son is not attracted to women, never was never will be. He is attracted to the man he has a son with and the man he is committed to. He want to marry his partner so his partner and his son can get the same benefits other married couples are privileged to get but more so they can cement their commitment. These are not special rights hey I thought like you nut I recognized. I was an ass and a fool.

So again, he fights for you to be able to spout your views how about returning the respect he deserves from you and my family deserves.

One- they are not a minority. Gays occur in every race, so therefore they are not required to have special privledges.

Second- They are still allowed to marry, just not to each other. It would be the same if a brother and sister got married. Both are adults, but the ramifications to the moral structure of society would be prevalent.

Third- Gays aren't happy with the idea of civil unions. They want recognition for their lifestyle in order to make it more "normal". It isn't normal, in fact it was once considered a mental disorder by DSM history of mental disorders. Would you say that those people who have the other disorders are also normal? No.

WAIT, I said logical! None of those are logical.

1. Since when does minority simply apply to races? That is absurd. Besides, they aren't asking for "special" privileges or rights--just the same rights guaranteed by law to everyone else.

2. I can tell you're not being logical when you compare homosexuality to incest, but how about I turn the tables on you: YOU DON'T LIKE GAY MARRIAGE? DON'T GET GAY MARRIED. Same logic as you just attempted. You're operating under the notion that being gay is a choice, and gay people could just choose to be perfectly happy getting married to someone of the opposite sex if they just "changed their minds". I'd really love it if you could provide some evidence that being gay is a choice.

3. First, define "normal". Anyone who you approve of? Anyone who fits YOUR standards? I didn't realize you were so vastly powerful. By the way, your DSM manual is sadly out of date, nobody uses it anymore--your argument here just makes me embarrassed for you. Even if they did, by that "logic", are you saying anyone with any type of "disease" or "disorder" shouldn't get married? Interesting.

So, no... I'm not happy with that, but I'm not surprised either. Keep trying.

Sarah:

To your post regarding "how are rights afforded?" You stated "By humanity, to those with legal capacity under the law" I would agree to a certain extent it is by humanity, but it is not to those with legal capacity under the law, it is 'by' those with legal capacity under the law 'to' those 'without' legal capacity under the law. And that is precisely what has been taking place and those with the legal capacity under the law are choosing not to grant a right to marry to just any 'ole' body who petitions to do so.

As to the deeper point of how are rights afforded, and don't be so quick to respond, take a minute to think about it, where did the concept of a human being's fundamental "rights" start, as to say "of which cave did this concept spring up from"?

Oh sure Sarah, just leave me out. What a PMS!!! Not sure where we were with that! We have agreed on two things in a row now!! Is that actually possible?

I am not sure of many things, but one thing I am certain of and that is that this hate in America has to stop. Whether we decide to hate gays, christians, blacks, latinos, germans, chinese, athiests, .....................you fill in the blank. We are headed for a cliff and no one group has the answers!!!!

Remember our history and Salem.........???? We are today doing the same things from many different directions.........!!

JD,

I'm going to assume this is directed at me despite the fact that it's incorrect seeing as there are no other people with names close to it.

And this is a cut and dry issue. Either you're on the side of equal protection and civil rights, or you aren't. We don't compromise on those things. Ever. Compromise is for economic issues, funding, public policy, legislation...

Not, for civil rights. You do a disservice to every person, whoever died in the name of fighting for those rights, when you presume to compromise on them.

Way to equate a semantic issue with a systematic campaign to deny people rights.

It's weak, and it's easy to see through. You don't like hearing that, then stop playing games. Either ignore the issue, and let those of us willing to fight (by the way don't assume to know what I do or don't do) for our fellow citizens, fight with us, or fight against us.

Funny cuz isn't that exactly what you did to me? Assuming that I did nothing? Why is it okay for you to do so but not for me?

Your half as**d attempt to compromise helps no one and nothing.

Your closed minded insistence on seeing things only one way helps no one either.

Read Marine's post, and then ask him to compromise.

And? What's more important, the rights or the word? I don't believe it's right what happened to him, but I don't believe at the current pace and attitude Americans have he'll see any change until his son's children are adults.

As an unrelated point:

Here's a sobering thought, there is now a very real possibility the US Constitution could be amended to prohibit gay marriage. If that happens its very possible the language of the 14th Amendment could be struck out or changed. Out of curiosity since you're the most vocal one on quoting law here, what would your argument be then? *Note this has nothing to do with the argument on hand, I'm just wondering what you would do in such a hypothetical situation*

It's unfortunate you feel the need to keep attacking me. If I've said something untoward towards you in frustration or excitement I apologize.

now that the majority in NC has spoken, the minority will post....

opinions are like A$$holes, everyone has one.......

American,

If you're trying to get me to debate whether there is a creator, who has endowed us with these rights or our very humanity, it won't work.

Quite simply, I don't know. What I do know, is a human, is a human, is a human. If one is a human, with legal capacity, and recognized informed consent, under the law (i.e. not insane, or a child), they are afforded those rights. Sometimes, and for some rights, the informed consent and legal capacity isn't even necessary, just the humanity.

So. That's all I got on that. I know a human when I see one. I know a legal adult with informed capacity when I see one. That's all I need.

JD,

Way to equate a semantic issue with a systematic campaign to deny people rights.

I don't know if you got what I was trying to say. Compromise is necessary for a productive society, but there are some areas of life, where compromise is not only NOT necessary, but detrimental. Civil rights, is one of those areas.

Funny cuz isn't that exactly what you did to me? Assuming that I did nothing? Why is it okay for you to do so but not for me?

Not at all. You offered me your opinion on this. I told you what I thought of that opinion. I have no idea what you do in your personal life, I only know what you post. And that's what I thought of what you posted.

Your closed minded insistence on seeing things only one way helps no one either

Where have I ever said people aren't entitled to not like gay people. They can believe, pray, protest, gripe, bitc*, scream, post, spout off, stew, hate, cry, mourn, shout, and piss. That is their right, and I would be close minded if I was forcing them to give up their belief that gay equals bad.

I'm not. I'm forcing them to admitt that gay equals bad is merely their belief and they have no right forcing that belief into our laws, without just cause, which none of them seem capable of illustrating.

If that makes me close minded about discriminatory laws, well I'll take it.

Here's a sobering thought, there is now a very real possibility the US Constitution could be amended to prohibit gay marriage. If that happens its very possible the language of the 14th Amendment could be struck out or changed. Out of curiosity since you're the most vocal one on quoting law here, what would your argument be then?

File an immediate law suit, take it to SCOTUS and check the sh** out of it. For this to happen, we would literally have to desecrate the Constitution and overturn 200 years of precedent, as well as reshape the entire body of our government.

If I've said something untoward towards you in frustration or excitement I apologize.

Same goes. As you can see, I have quite a few pots in the fire right now.

Sarah

I'm at work and don't have a ton of time for this. I've read some of your answers but I'll just ask my question straight out. Your answer on polygamy (#1.107) does not pass "strict scrutiny" because what it says is that civil rights can be denied because it costs too much. Religious and personal bias aside, what is the strictly Constitutional argument against (if there is one) 3 men being married? My basic practical concern (from the legal standpoint alone) is that same-sex marriage opens the "flood gates" to all types of marriage, including polygamy. Is there a constitutional argument to prevent (among other changes to the definition of marriage) polygamy?

TX,

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. Congratulations!!!

SOOOOOO JUST JOKING!!!! WOW, EXCUSE MY ARROGANCE!

I love when I agree with conservatives, it gives me hope for this country.

Your view is a little flawed my friend. My son is not attracted to women, never was never will be. He is attracted to the man he has a son with and the man he is committed to. He want to marry his partner so his partner and his son can get the same benefits other married couples are privileged to get but more so they can cement their commitment. These are not special rights hey I thought like you nut I recognized. I was an ass and a fool.

So again, he fights for you to be able to spout your views how about returning the respect he deserves from you and my family deserves.

Marines-Pa: I just finished reading your story. I didn't even give a view yet, so what view are you talking about? Maybe you should refrain from speaking and just listen? But then again, you are an ass and fool?

It's nice that your son helps his country. Just like I am glad that members of my family also did the same thing for me? They also happen to agree with me. Do you discredit their service, because their views do not correspond with your son's? Does that mean that your son has more right than them? No. It means that for serving his country, he got paid for his services.

A gay life is not more valuable than a straight one, so why do liberals keep bringing this up as a point of reference? Smacks of special treatment, doesn't it? The fact that he was in the military doesn't matter.

So what I see in your story is a man who has a partner and a partner who has a son. In which case you can read my above posts for the reason why I am not for gay marriage. I don't keep my points on file, so I won't rewrite them (above) again.

Working Hard,

It doesn't open the flood gates to anything.

Adults with informed consent and legal capacity (because we're all equal, ergo to have full civil rights tha's all you need). Limited to two people (because the onus on the state outweighs the benefit to a very small minority, and also due to a history of abuse issues).

Done.

See my post above, in response to Riley. It explains why this isn't a "slippery slope" issue.

NOT Born Gay: Homosexuality Caused By Emotional Trauma in Early Childhood
Gay feelings come from emotional trauma early in life - this trauma can come in the form of being rejected by a parent, neglect, and overbearing parent, abandonment by a parent, and NEED NOT BE strictly physical or sexual abuse.
Some people on this forum are more concerned with posts that may sound offensive to them than with the loss of life by suicide.

Homosexuals are NOT minorities but human beings who have same-sex feelings due to emotional trauma and suffering early in life and in need of healing and help and love from others. Please don't ignore the emotional trauma in their lives and tell them they are just fine - that is ignorant at best and completely insensitive and mean-spirited at worst.

Unhappy-1583758

Your disrespect to me has been noted.

I wont argue with someone who is trapped in their views, have a good day and I also thank your family for their service. My son does not want more rights just the same. As do I.

Marines PA: ...I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree but no one has bothered to answer my question above, making me come to the conclusion that the opposers feel safer to discuss faceless "facts" but can't argue when confronted with real life stories and people...

And you probably won't because the opponents arguing against gay marriage on this thread only address the generalities, not specifics. They do not have the personal experience - if they did ever come face-to-face with a loved one or friend admitting their homosexuality, they probably would run screaming out of the room, covering their ears going "La, La, La, La! I can't hear you!" Don't confuse these folks with the facts.

My question from my previous post will not be addressed either.

Tod, you're missing the point. It's easy to ignore an injustice when it doesn't apply to you, but by ignoring the injustice, sooner or later, you could be the next target. Freedom should be for everyone, not just the religious right.

Working Hard,

If you really want to understand why this won't lead to polygamy read posts, 1.82, and then the first paragraph of 1.86.

But then again, you are an ass and fool?

Wow, really? What did you just say earlier about people who have to resort to name-calling? I think you should also be very ashamed for your lack of respect. Flagging your comment and blocking you. Hateful, irrational people are a waste of precious time and have no room in this debate (or country, in my opinion). PEACE.

Time to swing the pendulum back. Go on the offensive and secure the institution of marriage as defined as between a man and a woman. We've taken the high road long enough. Having a difference of opinion does not mean you are a bigot or a homophobe. Those that would charge that don't deserve the courtesy of a response.

@Unhappy-1583758

You're probably right that Sarah is not the first person to think of those particular ideas. Even if she's directly copy-pasting, at least she has something intelligent to contribute to the discussion, which is more than can be said for your weak attempt to change the subject into an argument about what does or does not constitute plagiarism. Take your own advice and stop posting on this site if you have nothing further to offer.

PS in answer to your Post script: Nobody's losing money over it, so who, other than you, gives a rodent's rectum? Answer: NO ONE.

I'm straight, white, married, and LDS. So's my wife. We both agree that Prop 8 is wrong and have taken a LOT of grief from narrow-minded know-nothings like you for having an opinion that differs from most of our peers. Make a reasonable, logical argument as to why DOMA is a good idea if you have one, or go away. Better, more intelligent people than you or I have tried and still have nothing to show for it but a giant pile of prejudice and fail.

Sarah,

I love when I agree with conservatives, it gives me hope for this country.

You are still a Goober!!!!

PS to Unhappy

the view I was referring to and I am copy pasting ;):

"Second- They are still allowed to marry, just not to each other." that is a flawed view. THats noot equality that is a flawed argument.

Back to the calves for me. Thank you all for an eye opening debate.

I'll comment on new stories as they come to hand, I think we might have marines-ma on as well she is chomping at the bit so to speak!

I really wish all of you people referring to the Constitution and Rights would actually read it rather than throwing out what you think it says. There is no mention of the definition of marriage in the Constitution and as such, it becomes a states’ rights issue by Amendment 10. Also, there are no civil rights granted in the Constitution. The only thing close is the abolition of slavery and voting rights. The “Civil Rights Act” is a law passed by the US Congress, not a part of the Constitution. Each state has the right to establish laws not specifically covered in the US Constitution. And for those who say it can’t be voted on, Amendment 10 grants the right to do so “to the States respectively, or to the people.” There are no defined rights in the Constitution, only protections against the deprivation of rights, the right of life, liberty and property without due process.

No one has a constitutionally protected “freedom FROM religion”. The first amendment restricts CONGRESS, not the people, from creating, restricting or establishing any religion and prohibiting the freedom to exercise it. It is Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And for those stating they support freedom of religion until…there is no “until” in the Constitution.

There are 38 states with laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting “same sex marriages” and only one has had a challenge held up, California, by a federal judge. I expect SCOTUS to uphold the law because it is a states right issue voted on by the people and does not violate one single article of the US constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Changing the status of marriage to civil union is wonderful, but it does nothing to solve on of the most major problems with accepting same sex marriage.

The current social security pool, which is going bankrupt as it is, was built with an expectation that a certain percentage of the population would be covered by their spouse, and not by their own contributions to the Social Security fund. If we allow all same sex unions to collect benefits based on their significant others contributions to SS, the blend will be further thrown off and contribute to an even quicker bankruptcy of the fund.

The only reasonable solution is to abolish marriage from a legal point of view completely. Eliminate the ridiculous benefit of married filing jointly getting a tax cut, since plenty of people still manage to raise kids with two working parents (full time) anyhow, and let everyone plan for their own retirement if they wont be covered by SS. If someone wants to get married, let them go to a Church / Synagogue / Mosque, and let politics stop at the bedroom thresh hold.

Obama - the "Divider and Chief" - he is the sole reason folks are speaking out.

A true leader realizes they need to work with people to get things done not simply decree something and step back to watch the food fight.

True, et. al,

Oh puh-lease!!! You know what, here's a little something for you to put in your fake LGBT pipe and smoke, why gay people are gay, what makes them gay, the science the psychology, really is moot. This is a legal question. as in law. If you can't make a legal case to support your position, all your fake, LGBT stems from abuse, nonsense means nothing. You still don't have a case.

Look at me, I've resorted to typing in bold face!

blablahblah constitution blahblahblah gay rights blahblahblah. I wonder how many times those words can be used in one arguement........

Marriage has been under attack ever since people started believeing they needed to get a divorce just because they were mad at their spouse for buying the wrong kind of bread, or snoreing, or burning the pancakes. Gay marriage is just one more hit for marriage and society. Eventually, our society will have taken all the hits it can and will crumble. Just remember, when that happens, that there WERE people who stood up for whats right and tried to keep that from happening.

Quote the constitution all you want, sometimes its ok to use your GOD given common sense....no need to always fall back on the crutch of "because the constitution says so" Do you pro-homosexuals know any other tune? Or do you always let someone else tell you what to think.

workinhard said

"Does each person's unique situation have constitutional protection? Does bigotry have constitutional protection? Does racism have constitutional protection? Do religious beliefs have constitutional protection?"

The answer to every one of these example is YES. THey are all covered under freedom of speech and freedom of religion - First Amendment

I have never seen in print, the fact that homosexual males are born with testicles and eventually produce sperm which are intended to fertilize eggs in human females. and female homosexuals are born with vagainas, ovaries that produce eggs which nature intended to be fertilized and produce babies.

Nature made these people with the equipment to produce babies but it is in their minds that the mistakes are happening that instead of opposite sex attraction, there is same sex attraction. Contrary to what some people say, there is no consensus of opinion as to what causes homosexuality. However the people are born to be normal heterosexuals. It is the brain that has been changed to change behavior not the sex organs!

Think about that. Male homosexuals are not born eunichs. They have testicles and sperm and can and do father children. Female homosexuals do have ovaries and do produce eggs and have a monthly menstrual cycle, just as heterosexual women do. Therefore the hormone secretions in homosexual men and women work just as they do in heterosexuals. It is the brains that are affected. There is the key. However as these people do exist and should have rights, their rights should run as homosexual rights not heterosexual rights. Give them their civil unions but as they cannot control their sexual tendencies, they should not be allowed to take over heterosexual customs, rights and history!

I don't know if you got what I was trying to say. Compromise is necessary for a productive society, but there are some areas of life, where compromise is not only NOT necessary, but detrimental. Civil rights, is one of those areas.

I don't know if you got what I was trying to say. Changing a word in a series of legal documents is not a civil rights issue. Rather is it an attempt to prevent future issues by removing any grounds that a special interest group can use to claim against it. Since the people who hide behind religion to mask their personal hatreds will sadly never take the higher road and make the rest of the church going folk look bad. I truly and honestly believe it would be best to remove marriage as an institution. I don' think doing it the other way around would work. Too many people argue too many different things about what marriage has meant and when whether or not it's relevant to today. I think the concept of a legal union between two consenting adults for inheritance, property rights, power of attorney, tax purposes and other rights is something so important and fundamental to human society that it needs to be categorized as something that can in no way be tied to human superstition, mysticism, ceremony, or religion.

We've seen this happen numerous times. Blacks can't marry whites, wives can't divorce husbands unless he beats her or cheats on her while husbands can divorce wives for whatever reason, people within 9 degrees of relation with each other can have their marriage annulled, man can marry 5 wives. And you know what it will happen again. I don' know what the next issue will be but there's going to be some fight over marriage next century, the century after, and 1000 years from now.

And the arguments will be exactly the same "we can't do that because it's in the Bible/the Quran/whatever holy book people are reading in the future." Wouldn't it be nice if we could take that argument away? It's really annoying and they aren't going to stop unless you take away their ammunition.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

But I'd like to feel like it would be a step in the right direction. Obviously you disagree, but don't insinuate I'm apathetic or a coward like below:

That's what good people, who realize there is no legal, logical, or rational argument to continue an injustice say, because they don't have the energy to fight.

No worries, other's of us do. I'd hate to live in such an apathetic country. Change and progress would never occurr.

Believe me if I lived in the South I'd be protesting against this. And if they tried to implement it in the Northeast I would lobby my congressmen against it.

File an immediate law suit, take it to SCOTUS and check the sh** out of it. For this to happen, we would literally have to desecrate the Constitution and overturn 200 years of precedent, as well as reshape the entire body of our government.

But would that work? I don't think there's a legal precedent for removing US Constitutional Amendments other than other Constitutional amendments. Nice course of action though.

Andy,

Turn off the Mike Huckabee. The 10th Amendment was written before the Bill of Rights was applied to State Law. Back then, it was only binding to Federal Law.

Then, we passed a little something called the 14th Amendment, or the incorporation amendment, which incorporated the first nine amendments to the states.

There hasn't even been a 10th Amendment issue before SCOTUS since the '60's when they used YOUR VERY ARGUMENT, to defend segregation. Pssst, they lost.

The 1st Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See the bold part. That right there, is your freedom from religion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/03.html

Are you honestly saying that the U.S. Government can force someone to be religious? Because if you AREN'T saying that, then by default, we are free FROM religion. This can also be covered through our right to privacy.

From above...

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

Like I said, turn off the Huckabee.

Do you pro-homosexuals know any other tune? Or do you always let someone else tell you what to think.

Do you "anti-homosexuals" know any other tune besides the Bible, or do you always let someone else tell you what to think?

First off, I am more than just my sexual orientation. I am a husband, father and son more than anything. If I were to list all of the things that I would use to describe me, my sexual orientation would be pretty low on my list.

Secondly, I have quite a few gay friends and if any or all of them would like to get married, I really wish that they could. That is something that everyone should have the opportunity to do. However, there are polygamists out there that would like to practice that also. Why are LGBT given all of the attention? If we want to really change the marriage laws, we need to fix the whole problem instead of giving one group preferential treatment at a time.

I like the idea of giving ALL participants the title of civil union in the eyes of the government. Marriage is a church institution. The church does not make the laws in the country, the governments do. BUT, if we are going to change the way that we treat personal relationships, there are a few more things that need to go along with it. Mostly, the government needs to do away with all of the "tax penalties" that go along with marriage. I feel for the gay/lesbian couples that cannot be recognized in a civil union, but the tax penalties that come along with getting married today are what keep some people from doing it. Level the playing field, give the current married people some incentive and let them have some "skin in the game", and see how public opinion will turn for this.

Lastly, for everyone who still wants to get married in a church, let their church give them their marriage. I don't go to church and could care less if I had a civil union instead. For people who won't settle for anything less than a marriage, their church can give them that.

@Marines There are just so many ppl who absolutely do not see their circular arguments are just their own justification for their fear and loathing. That is why it is so important for those of us who have a change of heart or finally see the truth to be open and insistent on equality. I used to feel like President Obama that civil union would be fine, but the right does not want civil unions...they don't want compromise, they want it THEIR WAY! I am quite tired of being told I am a second class citizen or unAmerican because I believe in fairness and equality. Just keep being a Dad and you are a blessing to your son and his family.

@Sarah

you go girl! I am so very impressed with your mad skills!

Dictionary,

Ever heard of hermaphrodites? Or infertililty? What do you suppose nature "intended" for those people (if in fact-nature "intended" anything for anyone--that's a human personification of a process that simply responds to environment)? Things aren't so black and white as you would like to presume.

Also, last I checked, no one was trying to "overcome" heterosexual anything... what are you talking about?

Unhappy, you know how stupid you sound with that argument? If being a non-minority means you are not afforded special consideration under the law then how, in the olden days of racism, did the Whites have more power then the Blacks? If Whites were in the majority, and majorities are not given special privileges then they should have wielded less power then the Blacks. Blacks were a minority and should have been given special privileges according to your argument. I know your first retort is going to be "that was then, this is now" but the same theory applies.

The next thing is that you definition of "minority" is completely biased and actually fundamentally incorrect. A minority is a small group of something in a larger whole of other things. This definition does not change because there can be multiple minorities formed in different groups of things. Two apple trees in a field of orange trees is a minority. Two apple trees in a field of pineapple trees is still a minority.

To me it just looks like you are trying to twist words, ideology, and arguments around your own personally fear/hatred/whatever of Gays just like all bigots do. There is no logical reason why Gays should be treated like second class human beings other then "the Bible commands it".

That argument will not stand in a properly functioning court of law no matter how conservative it is. You bring this issue to the supreme court and they are going to bitch slap you down and deem that all of these anti-gay laws are unconstitutional. You cannot deny rights or civil privileges to a group of Americans just because of the way they live their lives. The court does not care if you think the definition of Marriage should be this or that because it does not matter in the eyes of the law.

Marriage is a civil contract, it always has been. You cannot get married legally without a license in this country. That requirement takes marriage firmly out of the hands of religion and therefore the definition of what is and what is not a marriage is not up to religion to decide, it is a matter of secular state law. The problem is that religion is not abiding by the constitution and is corrupting our political system. Church and state are to remain separate in all of the three dimensions; it does not matter how religions a senator or legislator is, they must keep their personal views to themselves and not let them affect their decisions.

To do otherwise means that we live in a theocracy where religion dictates the law and not morals (the logical kind not religion's twisted conception of morals), ethics, and logic. Personal religious views should never be used to determine the equality laws for a minority and neither should popular vote. What NC did with their amendment was unconstitutional.

Quote the constitution all you want, sometimes its ok to use your GOD given common sense....no need to always fall back on the crutch of "because the constitution says so" Do you pro-homosexuals know any other tune?

When the question is a legal one, then yes, I fall back on the Constitution. That's what we do in a secular society.

Sorry.

JRAD,

At least I got your name right.

We've seen this happen numerous times. Blacks can't marry whites, wives can't divorce husbands unless he beats her or cheats on her while husbands can divorce wives for whatever reason, people within 9 degrees of relation with each other can have their marriage annulled, man can marry 5 wives. And you know what it will happen again. I don' know what the next issue will be but there's going to be some fight over marriage next century, the century after, and 1000 years from now

And yet, the just outcome, has always eventually been arrived at.

"The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - MLK Jr.

My point is, would that have been true, if they're weren't those willing to NOT compromise? If you don't feel that fighting is the right way to go about this, that's fine, but then allow those who are willing to do so, do so.

Not a single one of those rights you mentioned in the paragraph I quoted were won, through compromise, semantics changing, or tip toeing around the issue.

Sarah now says: "There are a lot of specific details not laid out by SCOTUS. It doesn't matter, when you apply the law equally, you don't have to list ever itty, bitty, thing. You automatically know it applies to humans with legal capacity." Sarah, what a load of BS. The Justices are well aware of the ongoing propaganda campaign to change the definition of marriage and allow men to marry men and women to marry women. If they intended that to be true they would have made that clear in at least one of those decisions, therefore at this time it is NOT a constitutional right. So your original statement is a lie or very misleading at best.

And yet, the just outcome, has always eventually been arrived at.

"The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - MLK Jr.

My point is, would that have been true, if they're weren't those willing to NOT compromise?

Yes but

"Wouldn't it be nice if we could think of a way to save some F***ing time" - JustRad

And thank you. Most people call me just "Rad." Get it? I'll let myself out.

dictionary72

I have never seen in print, the fact that homosexual males are born with testicles and eventually produce sperm which are intended to fertilize eggs in human females. and female homosexuals are born with vagainas, ovaries that produce eggs which nature intended to be fertilized and produce babies....etc.

Oh, please! I was born with extra vertebrae in my back, but you won't see me swinging from trees! Nature makes mistakes, y'know!

I'll ask my questions again: How will legalizing gay marriage endanger my 16 year old marriage to my husband? Am I less married if gay marriage was legalized?

Just like the millions and millions of christians, I have been married and divorced multiple times. Unlike christians, I'm simply not a hippocrate nor a bigot although I do have to say that tolerance for the extremists is finding the end of a fuse every time I listen to them rant about how they hate women that have pride in themselves or people that simply do not choose to be extremists. They even turn on fellow christians that do not follow their extremist views. Freedom of choice is something God gave us, not the nutcases.

I'll ask my questions again: How will legalizing gay marriage endanger my 16 year old marriage to my husband? Am I less married if gay marriage was legalized?

Don't you watch Stephen Colbert? Apparently your husband will immediately run off with a hot young man and the key to your marriage's strength is the tears of unwed homosexuals.

Wouldn't surprise me if some people really believed that >.>

Precededbynone-

Yes. Here it is. Marriage inherently cannot be an outdated institution as it is the foundation of our complex society.

Marriage is what allowed for humans in general to be able to build a foundation, a community, and quite simply an operating organization of people. Marriage ensures that we will continue to have an ongoing population. The family is the foundation of success as it acts as a support structure to ensure people are given the necessary tools to succeed in life, whether that be the knowledge to obtain food or, in present likeness, the principles and drive to survive in corporate America.

Already in this debate, we have people all for getting rid of marriage all together, in favor of allowing homosexuals to have the same rights heterosexuals have in this aspect. How long before this voice is the majority? Marriage is defined by "one man, woman", by allowing homosexual marriage, our socitey might as well do away with marriage at all, as this vastly changes the definition of what marriage is. And. in doing so, the infrastructure of our socitey disappears.

That is my (short) answer. Now where is the answer to my question?

Rad,

"Wouldn't it be nice if we could think of a way to save some F***ing time" - JustRad

Touche. It would be.

3Thirty,

Watch out!!! There's a gay, Mexican hiding in your closet, ready to force you into a hybrid car, drive you to Planned Parenthood, where a Muslim doctor is going to make you have an abortion, and then clean the mess up with a Bible.

AND, they're going to take away all your flag pins and tri-corn hats.

Your paranoia is showing.

Goodness, I go to a couple meetings, and have some lunch and look what I've missed!

Mario69, you bring up a very good point about amendments that restrict behavior in the United States. I would like to point out that the only one that restricted personal property and behavior was repealed. But that's neither here nor there, since the main issue that we're talking about is civil liberties, which, since you've clearly read the Constitution, you'll know protects those liberties for ALL citizens.

I appreciate the posts that are actually trying to work toward understanding. Working Hard, I respect you for asking questions and for making sure that the issues can be defending to the letter of the law. While I really don't have a stance on polygamy, and in my opinion, as long as all parties were consenting adults, it wouldn't affect me, the issue with those situations are like someone mentioned above-- there are more than a few problems with estates, insurance, health care and other such needs that would need to be sorted out. Frankly, I'm not sure if that is something that could or would ever happen, but you may be right, it may be a question that needs to be answered some day. However, same-sex marriage is not trying to "redefine" marriage, it's trying to be inclusive. That's not a crime against America-- That's what America is.

One last thing, Marines, thank you so much for your beautiful post. That gives me so much hope. And TX, it's so nice to hear you make that distinction! I wish you could teach everyone that same understanding.

The government provides all kinds of benefits and responsibilities to a variety collaborative entities and partnerships. Business, for example are granted privileges and mandated with regulations based on how their collaborations are defined.

Fortunately for the United States, the government does not typical use words loaded with religious meaningto refer to most of those collaborations or partnerships.

In the case of the marriage argument it seems unfortunate that the United States and its states have chosen to use the word "marriage" -- a word loaded with religious connotations -- to define how tax, insurance and other benefits and obligations -- basically business factors -- are to be administered to people who've entered into a long-term, collaborative agreement.

If some religions see gay marriage as a sin, that, it seems to me, is their perogative. How we administer tax, insurance and other benefits and obligations to partners who choose to enter into long-term, legal relationships seems to, to me, to be a separate issue.

For example, I believe that Catholics believe that divorce may not, in God's eyes, end a marriage. Is that correct?

For our government's tax purposes, I'm fairly sure that a divorce may indeed LEGALLY (not necessarily religiously) end the relationship however.

Given much the current argument, I'd think that many religions would be demanding that divorced folks should still be taxed as being married, since, God may seem to see those folks as being married. But, as a nation, we seem comfortable with ending the money-realated factors of marriage when a divorce occurs.

Perhaps it's possible for us to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."

Might it clarify things if we could use a word other than "marriage" to define the legal, government, recognized contract between to life partners? Those partners would be granted the health care and tax benefits -- regardless of the sexual preference (none of government's business?) of these folks. Isn't this consistent with the "freedom" mantra of the fiscal right wing?

Then the religious partnership could still be call their partnerships a "marriage." The various religions could worry about whether they accept or reject heterosexual or homosexual partners into their institutions.

And the government could be concerned with equal administration of financial benefits and obligations, based on a legally-binding partnership agreement between two people -- regardless of what those folks do in the bedroom (which, again, seems to be none of the government's business, to me).

Seems like everybody want to "kinda say" what is going on so let me be the first (that I can see) to clearly state WHY there is this push by the GLBT group to get "same sex marriage" and are not happy with the compromised idea of "civil unions". This is because if they can associate a marriage to two men (or two women) as being "the same" as a marriage between a man and a woman then, by definition, they are able to state there is nothing "wrong" with same sex marriage.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Gay (or lesbian) is an unnatural attribute and, also by definition, is impossible for two gays (or lesbians) to procreate. Any society entirely based on gay or lesbian could not survive therefore it is not natural - period. The argument that it IS a natural act has just been proven wrong because it CANNOT be natural if doing this entirely as a society the population would die off.

So now we have THAT out of the way let me followup by saying although many conservatives agree it is not "natural" we DO love our fellow man and fellow woman as taught in the New Testament. Jesus teaches us to love our neighbor whether the neighbor is gay, a smoker, or some other negative attribute. That a neighbor is gay (or smokes) does not mean we do not have them as friends and in fact quite the opposite. I have several friends that are gay and although I don't support their lifestyle, and their lifestyle is unnatural, they keep their lifestyle to themselves and we still are great friends.

However, back to my initial point. Why don't gays (and lesbians) want civil unions? Because that would (correctly) be a legal union but does not approve of this lifestyle in the eyes of god and the fellow citizens. Don't put a "gay couple" in the same category as my marriage of 34 years to my wife. Marriage is between a man and a woman and always has been. You want to be recognized legally and in the eyes of state law then I am certainly okay with a civil union. But gays and lesbians don't WANT legal recognition-they want to be equally compared to a typical and accepted "marriage" of a man and a woman. This will never be. There CANNOT be a marriage between two men and two women. We can LEGALLY have a "union" between two men and two women but not a "marriage".

Sarah

I'm not convinced but thanks for the info. I'm sure abolishing slavery had some severe financial challenges for the nation but we seemed to figure them out as it was the right thing to do so it got done. All the arguments that support 2 men getting married support 3 men getting married. Gay marriage has no connection with the number 2, especially from a legal/constitutional standpoint. Traditional marriage does.

Marriage inherently cannot be an outdated institution as it is the foundation of our complex society.

Marriage is what allowed for humans in general to be able to build a foundation, a community, and quite simply an operating organization of people. Marriage ensures that we will continue to have an ongoing population. The family is the foundation of success as it acts as a support structure to ensure people are given the necessary tools to succeed in life, whether that be the knowledge to obtain food or, in present likeness, the principles and drive to survive in corporate America.

When you can back up any of the statements you made with anything resembling a fact, I'll get around to responding. In the meantime, all I can do is laugh.

Precededbynone-

OK, if you dont agree, then tell me why? Saying you dont agree isnt an argument, only a statement of having no idea WhY you dont agree. The purpose of marriage is to provide stability. Stable families create a stable community......yes, divorce rates are high....but that is just proof to point of why marriage and society cannot take this drastic hit.

ProBuisness,

Plessy v. Ferguson and the whole concept of "separate but equal" was overturned in the 1950's. I'm sure you can understand, even when others can't (yep, I'm talking to you 3thirty3), that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, it applies to all states and all citizens. This means that "civil unions" are NOT sufficent for gay unions because they are NOT the same.

Quite frankly, gay couples ARE the same as you and your wife of 35 years. Except they don't get the same rights you do, because people keep trying to tell them they are "unnatural". Come up with a legal argument that can stand some ground, and maybe I'll start taking you more seriously.

Gay marriage is just one more hit for marriage and society. Eventually, our society will have taken all the hits it can and will crumble.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.

Just remember, when that happens, that there WERE people who stood up for whats right and tried to keep that from happening.

I hope you realize that this is the EXACT same sort of thing the KKK used to say regarding segregation and interracial marriage. I'm still waiting for proof that those are destroying the country...

Quote the constitution all you want, sometimes its ok to use your GOD given common sense....no need to always fall back on the crutch of "because the constitution says so" Do you pro-homosexuals know any other tune? Or do you always let someone else tell you what to think.

I don't have to quote anything to tell you you're prejudiced and wrong. You have every right to that prejudice -- we are all free to think what we think and believe what we believe -- but you're still wrong. Why are you wrong? Because you want to deny others equal standing under the law for no other reason than you don't like how they conduct their personal lives, despite the fact that what they do in the privacy of their own homes has ZERO effect on you personally. Don't agree with my reasoning? Then prove me wrong.

Working Hard,

All the arguments that support 2 men getting married support 3 men getting married. Gay marriage has no connection with the number 2, especially from a legal/constitutional standpoint. Traditional marriage does.

But you haven't shown how that is so??? If that's true, why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to polygamy? What is it about the gender of the people entering into the contract that causes it to lead to polygamy (because that would be the only difference)? What would be the difference? If straight marriage doesn't why would gay marriage?

ProBus,

Nothing can be further from the truth. Gay (or lesbian) is an unnatural attribute and, also by definition, is impossible for two gays (or lesbians) to procreate.

It's also unnatural for humans to live to be 90, or babies to be born via c-section, or people to fly through the air, across entire continents in a matter of hours. And the actual process of pro-creation is possible for gay people. It's always NOT always possible for straight people.

So?????

But gays and lesbians don't WANT legal recognition-they want to be equally compared to a typical and accepted "marriage" of a man and a woman.

Yes, they do, and why shouldn't they be?

And, by the way, the "eyes of your God" don't mean jack-all in this discussion.

working hard

Religious and personal bias aside, what is the strictly Constitutional argument against (if there is one) 3 men being married? My basic practical concern (from the legal standpoint alone) is that same-sex marriage opens the "flood gates" to all types of marriage, including polygamy.

And this is why your team is consistently losing the court battles in this debate... because the "slippery slope" argument does not hold up.

Saying that you are against one thing, because it "might" lead to something else, even though there is no proof it will lead to that other thing, is a VERY weak argument. You must first provide valid, legitimate evidence that action B (polygamy) is a direct result of action A (gay marriage). There is no correlating evidence of this, and thus your argument loses traction.

Pro-homosexual supporters always want a non-bibilical reason for why gay marriage shouldnt be allowed, and we give them, but can none of you come up with a reason for why it SHOULD be allowed, except for "we want to be equal"! Show me some reasons why this is a good idea, instead of the same ole "its unlawful not to" arguement, and maybe I will listen. You want reason not from the Bible? I want reasons not from the constitution.

Additionally, most major religions frown on homosexuality and they have been around far longer than the constitution. What makes you believe the US constitution, formed a few hundred years ago, is wiser and more correct than religious views-not only Christianity- that have lasted far longer?

Lola,

I never said I didn't agree--I said nothing that YOU said can be validated by fact.

Marriage is the foundation of our complex society

Says who? You could take anything and say that. Democracy is the foundation of our complex society. Government is the foundation of our complex society. Computers are the foundation of our complex society. You could make a pretty strong argument for any of those--but they are not facts--it's rhetoric. Are you saying anyone who doesn't get married, including heterosexuals, falls outside the bounds of what you call "society"? There are PLENTY of people who don't get married and lead happy, productive lives and contribute to society. Also, in your initial statement you said

marriage cannot be an outdated institution

WHO said it's an "outdated institution"? Certainly not me--I do not believe that. Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe that anyone-regardless of sexual orientation--should be able to experience it if they are in love and choose to make that type of commitment. I think marriage is beautiful--I just don't understand why homosexuals getting married makes it any less beautiful to you. That's what you've yet to prove.

Lots of things contribute to a stable community. Education, wealth, low crime rates, good leadership. I'm curious as to where it's been proven that marriage is the foundation of anything... Or where your argument is even going... clearly you're against gay people getting married, but have yet to come up with a logical reason. How, exactly, will letting gay people get married destroy the institution of marriage?

Marriage is, among other things, a means of identifying one's primary next of kin. Being the primary anything implies that it is a role held by a single person.

Legally recognized polygamy would require a huge overhaul of all marriage laws in ways that allowing same sex marriage would not. How many spouses would an employer be required to extend benefits to? How many spouses can be claimed as dependents for taxation? Which spouse gets final say on medical matters in the absence of a living will or medical directive? How are assets divided upon the death of one spouse?

Adapting current marriage licenses and laws to allow same sex partners doesn't require much legislative effort. It would be more of a clerical effort, because all that would really need to be done is replacing the gendered words "husband" and "wife" with the genderless word "spouse". The rights and responsibilities, the sharing of employer benefits, none of that really changes with same sex marriage. All those things would have to be changed, and massively at that, if we were to recognize polygamous marriages.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't legally recognize polygamous marriages. It only means that same sex marriage is NOT the slippery slope to polygamy that politicians like to pretend it is. The logistical barriers to permitting polygamous marriages are not a legitimate reason to bar same sex couples from marrying. Incremental improvements are better than no improvement at all.

cakes127, if all marriages were considered civil unions in the eyes of the law and governement, that would be equal for everyone. Let each individual church decide what a marriage is. Let the government decide how to tax you and any other business decisions be based on a civil union. Start warming up to the idea, that is where this is heading...

Marines, I applaud and thank you for your posts. It heartens me to see someone who can look deep into their hearts and expand their love and tolerance. I wish you and your family the best in everything to come and hope that your son's family will get everything they deserve. I also am in the military( Army) and wish to thank a brother in arms for his love and sacrifice to this Country. And I will continue to fight for His Rights. Thank You again

-SPC Mark S. Quick

I'm off for the day. Indie, I cede the floor to you, Cakes, and Preceeded!

I keep reading all these "facts" about the "purpose of marriage." It's been stated that the purpose of marriage is procreation, lola says it's stability... So I went ahead and looked up requirements for a marriage license in my home state of Iowa (a state which proudly supports same-sex unions and where I will be making my marriage vows next year).

You don't have to be an Iowa resident, but you do need picture ID. If you've been married before, you need to provide a date of divorce or death (if it was within sixty days you need a divorce decree). You may not marry your cousin, and there is a $35 fee along with a 3 day waiting period.

That's it. No testing to ensure that I (or my fiance) is infertile. No vows that we will pro-create or provide stability. Technically, we don't even have to promise to stay together. See, divorce is legal in all fifty states, which, in my opinion is entirely more detrimental than having two men marry and be happy.

So, legally, where do you have the right to say what the "purpose" of ANYONE'S marriage (but your own) is?

none of you come up with a reason for why it SHOULD be allowed, except for "we want to be equal"!

Um... why should we come up with a reason for everyone having equal rights? I think YOU need to come up with a reason why some people should be marginalized or denied their rights!!!

And why are a lot of the pro gay/lesbian marriage people so against polygamy. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? If there is nothing wrong with two men or two women getting married, how can you say that a combination of 3 or more is wrong? That is, of course, as long as all parties go into it with a mutual understanding. Marriage laws are the debate. Why are we letting one group drive all of the changes?

lola007,

I say this with all the niceties I can muster:

ARE YOU FLIPPING INSANE?!?

I don't care what your Bible says. The Bible has not, is not, and will never be the law of this country. You may follow the laws put forth by your religious ideology, but that doesn't mean I have to. I, being a citizen of the United States of America, am bound to uphold the Constitution, because it IS the law of our land. Get out of here with those ridculous statements. "Find an argument not based on the Constitution." You're just mad it's on our side.

I'm not against polygamy. If the union(s) are consenting and loving, so be it! The majority of the world's cultures have at one point practiced polygamy--you could even make the argument that it's more "natural" than monogamy, but I don't care what's considered "natural" or not in this case. It's about what's right.

I myself would never be able to handle polygamy, nor would most people (I'd imagine), I'm quite monogamous thank you, but I know people who are polyamorous and it works for them, and it's not hurting anyone, so who cares? What we're saying is: homosexuals getting married won't lead to polygamy any more than heterosexual marriage has (as Sarah so succinctly put it above!)

Precededbynone-

Fair enough. I will expand.

I realize no one said it is outdated...yet. However, as I stated, marriage is currently "one man,one woman" as a basic definition, yes? Allowing it to be changed, even as far as allowing homosexuals to be included, drastically changes the meaning. What is the purpose of "marriage", if at any whim it can be changed to include whoever is feeling left out? How long before someone decides they want to marry their (legal aged) child, and feel it is their right to have the same legalities as homosexuals now share? How long before marraige is, basically, obsolete?

And as far as marriage as a foundation, all you have to do is look around you. You need written out proof that grass is green? When marriage falls appart, as so often happens, look at the chaos it causes, especially if there are children involved. Ive known many children of divorced families to grow up fine, but just as many end up as pregnant teens and drug users, because of their parents divorce. Marriage brings stability.

And you can argue that homosexual marriage will bring stability, but re-read my first paragraph again....

ProBusiness

Nothing can be further from the truth. Gay (or lesbian) is an unnatural attribute and, also by definition, is impossible for two gays (or lesbians) to procreate. Any society entirely based on gay or lesbian could not survive therefore it is not natural - period. The argument that it IS a natural act has just been proven wrong because it CANNOT be natural if doing this entirely as a society the population would die off.

The litmus test for defining what is "natural" has NEVER been to apply that behavior to every person in society, and assess the results. Variations occur in nature to establish balance. These variations are considered natural.

Furthermore, your fantasy world of everyone turning gay would NEVER come to fruition, is not a possibility, and has nothing to do with gay marriage. You are desperately trying to twist the conversation into something it is not.

So now we have THAT out of the way let me followup by saying although many conservatives agree it is not "natural" we DO love our fellow man and fellow woman as taught in the New Testament.

Your religion has no bearing on the rules of this country. THIS is why your team will fail, because religious arguments do not hold up in court. Just because you think your religion gives you the right to oppress other people, does not make it so.

Why don't gays (and lesbians) want civil unions? Because that would (correctly) be a legal union but does not approve of this lifestyle in the eyes of god and the fellow citizens.

First, civil unions do NOT afford the same rights and benefits as marriage... NC just proved that. They removed rights and benefits from civil unions, including heterosexual unions.

Second, your "god" has no bearing on marriage or our laws... you are thinking of "holy matrimony", NOT marriage. Educate yourself.

Don't put a "gay couple" in the same category as my marriage of 34 years to my wife.

The legal document that attributes property rights and asset distribution between you and your wife (I feel sorry for her), is the same category as gay couples seeking property rights and asset distribution.

Just because you have an overly pathetic superiority complex regarding a legal document granted by the government does not give you the right to limit other people from obtaining this same legal document.

What's wrong? Your self esteem is so low that you need to embrace a superiority complex in the realm of marriage. You feel so insignificant that you need to claim a word over other people? How incredibly pathetic your life must be. I would feel sorry for you if I wasn't too busy laughing at your self esteem issues.

But gays and lesbians don't WANT legal recognition-they want to be equally compared to a typical and accepted "marriage" of a man and a woman.

"Typical and accepted" is relative to the person. You do not view it as typical or accepted, I do... why is your opinion more important than mine? If anything, your opinion means less because it is based on your apparent self esteem issues, and the pathetic need to feel superior over a separate group of people. My opinion is based in logic, yours in a fairy tale that holds no legal standing in our laws.

Regardless of what you may believe, your marriage is not special... you are not a special snowflake... and it does not matter how many times you look at yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that you are better than homosexuals, you are not. So take your self esteem issues somewhere else.

Children don't have the ability to signed legally binding contracts. You won't be able to marry a child for the same reason you can't open a line of credit for a child or sell a child a car. Allowing same sex marriage won't do a thing to change existing contract law.

I'm off for the day. Indie, I cede the floor to you, Cakes, and Preceeded!

Ahhhh... Sarah. We are going to miss you.

It's exhausting having to deal with illogical, ignorant morons. They have not even started the "man on dog" cries yet.

Unimpressed,

I don't care about polygamy at all. Not one bit. If you wanted four wives (or husbands) I wouldn't care, as long as they were all consenting adults. The problem comes with our probate laws, insurance laws and property laws. It would be an incredible mess to try and sort out. NOT like the issue of same-sex marriage.

Cakes-

Do I sound mad? Im not. Only curious why the only reasoning you have behind gay marriage is equality. I have plenty of reasons to be against it, regardless of if you agree. But your ONLY arguement is equality? Nothing about making the US a better place, or what married homosexuals will add to society, in counter to my arguement that it is detremental to society?

I say-its bad for our society. So you counter with-Equality! I say-marriage is too important to change. You say- Equality! The arguement-is not natural has come up, You go with- Equality! Is that the only arguement you can muster?

Also....did I mention the Bible? I dont recall doing it......many religions are against homosexual practices, you do realize

"one man,one woman" as a basic definition, yes?

No. Not unless you live in North Carolina.

Allowing it to be changed, even as far as allowing homosexuals to be included, drastically changes the meaning.

HOW DOES IT CHANGE THE MEANING? That's the crux of the issue here, Lola. So far you've defined marriage as "stability". How will having homosexuals getting married in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM affect the stability of other marriages?

How long before someone decides they want to marry their (legal aged) child, and feel it is their right to have the same legalities as homosexuals now share?

Please stop using the homosexuality/incest comparison. It just makes you look foolish. Why hasn't heterosexual marriage set that precedent?

And as far as marriage as a foundation, all you have to do is look around you.

I'm lookin' around honey, and I see lots of people who aren't married, and they are NOT in a state of chaos! I see LOTS of @!$%# besides marriage that contributes to a stable society. I'll tell you another story about chaos: My parents staying in a miserable marriage for 20 years for the "sake of the children" and then I'll tell you about the chaos that MARRIAGE CAUSED. After they got divorced this last year, they get along better than ever, and so does my family. You must not be very secure in your marriage (if you are married) if you think two gays somewhere getting married are going to upend your world.

You know what brings stability? Love. Happiness. Education. Money. Lots of things, besides marriage, possibly including marriage, BUT marriage is no guarantee of ANY kind of stability, as millions of unhappy souls will tell you, especially my (now happily divorced). Sheesh.

But your ONLY arguement is equality?

AGAIN, I ASK--HOW IS EQUALITY NOT A GOOD ENOUGH ARGUMENT FOR YOU? We are all guaranteed the same rights--YOU NEED TO COME UP WITH A VALID REASON TO DENY OTHERS RIGHTS.

ProcededByNone,

Then why aren't we going for a solution that will make everyone happy instead of caving to one group? Polygamists are going to be the next ones on this bandwagon and each and every argument that the gay/lesbian groups use on here for their cause can then be transferred to the polygamists. I don't care who marries who. I am not, however, going to support one group but not another when they use the same reasons for wanting a change. That type of hypocrisy gets no sympathy from me. I say totally revamp marriage laws, not cave to the whims of an individual interest group.

Indie-

You cant handle expressing your opinions or having an open discussion without insulting those who disagree with you?

Finally, space to reply.....

Hi Sarah, I see you are plagiarizing yourself again today.... :) (sarc of course)

@UnHappy - I'm going to respond "Sarah style" (props to you Sarah & sorry, I probably won't do as good a job, but I'll try)

One- they are not a minority. Gays occur in every race, so therefore they are not required to have special privledges.

This is basic Webster's Dictionary:

Minority: the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole

Majority: a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total

Percentage of GLBT Americans - this percentage will be lower than the actual total as some people do not always get counted : 3.5% or almost 9 million people

Link: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/04/9million.html

(I included all "labels," such as gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender - these are labels because first and foremost we are talking about human beings)

So, UnHappy - 3.5% of the United States population is labeled GLBT, leaving a whopping 96.5% of the US population as the "heterosexual" MAJORITY.

Therefore, being gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans-gender in the US makes you a MINORITY.

Privileges: A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.

I'm living in 2012 and it seems that ONLY the majority (heterosexual) has the right to "marriage." Civil Unions are exactly that, states that allow same sex couples to be legally bound, write the law as a "civil union," not a marriage - so what special privilege is the GLBT community asking for? They are asking for what every heterosexual married couple gets when they marry.

Second- They are still allowed to marry, just not to each other. It would be the same if a brother and sister got married. Both are adults, but the ramifications to the moral structure of society would be prevalent.

You lost me at "ramifications......etc."

You say "moral" structure of society..... "moral" can be defined as: the goodness or badness of human character.

A person's "character" is defined as - the distinctive nature of something. I, for example am very outgoing, I know people who are shy, those attributes are part of our "character." You say they can still marry...would you marry someone that you had NO INTEREST IN?

Two people of the same same sex getting married has nothing to do with a brother and sister getting married. Marriage between siblings is outlawed because of possible genetic problems if they reproduced - if you really believe the Adam & Eve theory....their children would have had to have sex.

Two married men can adopt or have a surrogate if they want children. Two women may go to a sperm bank. Let's take the sperm bank. I'm assuming that you believe it to be OK if a heterosexual couple goes to a sperm bank to conceive a child, but you would not want a lesbian couple to do the same. What about a single heterosexual female? What does it matter as long as the child will be loved by at least one parent? What about a women like myself, heterosexual, married, NO children by choice? - my tax dollars support YOUR children and I don't like that because you speak the language of INTOLERANCE.

Who, EXACTLY is the spokesperson for the "moral structure of society?"

It would HAVE to be a LIVING person because there are many different ways to look at a situation - but I do not know the Ambassador of Moral Structure, do you?

Third- Gays aren't happy with the idea of civil unions. They want recognition for their lifestyle in order to make it more "normal". It isn't normal, in fact it was once considered a mental disorder by DSM history of mental disorders. Would you say that those people who have the other disorders are also normal? No.

Wow - you are familiar with the DSM, that's interesting, I do think you plagiarized that from someone yesterday though. So you are using an outdated DSM to say that the GLBT community is "not normal." Do you believe that a woman suffering "hysteria," as defined by the MEDICAL community (years ago), as "a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and "a tendency to cause trouble," should go to her doctor and be masturbated to orgasm? That was the OLD treatment for the above symptoms and about as relevant as using a completely outdated DSM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria

What is your definition of "marriage?" You state: '"Gays aren't happy with the idea of civil unions. They want recognition for their lifestyle in order to make it more "normal".'

My definition of marriage is two-fold: 1) it is a commitment of love for one another 2) it gives joint tax returns, health insurance for both spouses, recognition of the spouse as THE SPOUSE (hospital visits & decisions, etc)...This is MY take, it is different for everyone and I am OK with that - live and let live....

This enough for you? I could provide more.

You provided nothing. If your argument is that two women or two men cannot make a baby by themselves, well, neither can a women who had chemotherapy or other medical conditions. If you are worried about other people's "morals," you may want to look closer at yours. You have hate in your heart for people that you don't know, I may not be religious but I know that that is the definition of a bigot.

I also know that being gay or in the GLBT community is NORMAL, people are born attracted to the same sex, people are born attracted to the opposite, some are born with male and female sexual organs, some are born into the wrong body - if you knew anything about the biochemistry of a pregnancy you may overcome your bigotry - or you may not. If I hated people I didn't even know, I would be pretty UnHappy myself.

Answer this UnHappy, please: How do you feel about a legal male marrying a legal female (both adults, non-related). What if one or both had sexual re-assignment surgery. I am a heterosexual woman (born that way - just as gay people are born that way as well), I am married, but if I were not, I could legally marry Chaz Bono (a legal male). Is that OK with you? What if I said that HE was born a she? He is a HE now UnHappy, and his happiness is inspirational.

Last chance for the day, since I still have work to do.

To me it just looks like you are trying to twist words, ideology, and arguments around your own personally fear/hatred/whatever of Gays just like all bigots do. There is no logical reason why Gays should be treated like second class human beings other then "the Bible commands it".

Geowill: First of all, you keep bringing up the bible and in my points I did not mention it. So where is your bias coming from? Is that the only talking point you have? Because if it is, then don't speak. In which case, I can't answer your talking points, because you don't have any. This is just another example of what I see on this site as "cut and paste". It's like all the liberals are doing it, even if it doesn't apply to the conversation. Second, don't tell me about minorities, because I am one. I understand the basis of being discriminated against. Don't talk about Blacks and Whites because more often than not, there are more white gay people than there are black. So you really can't compare the two. They are not the same. Gay people can still have sex, go for abortions, etc. So get over it.

Your disrespect to me has been noted. I wont argue with someone who is trapped in their views, have a good day and I also thank your family for their service. My son does not want more rights just the same. As do I.

Marines PA: Your disrespect to me has also been noted. That is why I used your "own words". I wish you and your son well and thank him for his service to our country.

lola

What was insulting?

Here is a reason for why we should allow Gay marriage:

equality.

One simple little word that most of you seem to not know the definition of. Equality means everyone being equal no matter what stupid reason you can drum up. Arabs are equal to Americans, Gays are equal to Straights, Whites are Equal to Blacks, and Men are equal to Women. If you disagree with any of these statements you do not know how to properly define equality.

Your own religious beliefs cannot overrule our constitution. Your own religious beliefs cannot be used to deny rights to another person. Marriage is a civil union not a religious one. States and the Government only recognize civil unions not religious marriages. If you get married without a marriage license your marriage will not be recognized as valid by the state. This means marriage is not a religious institution.

Civil rights should never be a states rights issues, the President is dead wrong. Civil rights should never be a majority vote issues, Christie is dead wrong. It is a shame that Martian Luther King Jr. died for nothing because it would see that the idea of civil equality is all but dead in many people's opinion.

Unhappy, I do not cut and paste; I only do so with quotes from an article. Your attempt to defame my post fails with that. Secondly the entire reason we are having this discussion is because of a religious ideology. It does not matter if you say your reason is religiously founded or not because the idea started there, it is the root of where "gays are bad" comes from. It the root cause of this discrimination.

It does not matter what they can do it is what homosexuals cannot do. If straights can get civil marriages but homosexuals can't then that is inequality. If Homosexuals cannot get the tax benefits of being married but straights can then that is inequality. Stop advocating for creating a second class citizenry and then we can have a proper discussion. And seeing as you are a minority I would have thought you would understand the plight that homosexuals are now facing.

"But your ONLY argument is equality?"

THAT'S THE ONLY ARGUMENT I NEED, LOLA.

The United States is founded on the principles of protecting the freedoms of it's citizens. ALL of it's citizens. That means the black ones, the white ones, the religious ones, the atheists, the straights and the gays. And that means you (listen close here) HAVE NO LEGAL ARGUMENT TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS. Yes, because of equality. No, I don't care if you think it's bad for our society or marriage is too important to change. Want to know why? Those are beliefs you hold. Those are beliefs you CANNOT foist on others. Want to know why? Because the Constitution won't let you.

You may not be mad, Lola, but you're certainly firing me up. Go take a civics class and then we'll talk.

Preceded-

I ask only because having ONE reason seems awfully narrow-minded.

And I will agree, you point about unhappy marriages is fairly valid. However, did they seek counceling? Did they TRY to impove their marriage, our did they just accept it was failed and "put up" with eachother for your sake? Its not my business, dont answer. My only point there is that most people dont TRY to improve their marriage, and let it fall appart instead of attemting anything that would help it.

But it does only help my position, actually. Like I said before, marriage has taken so SO many hits already, and our society is reeling from it. How many more can it take?

Yes, people can live and function without being married, but those people are not who Im talking about, and does nothing to disproove that marriage is a necessary social structure. Not everyone wants to be married, but most who are not are searching for someone....case in point, 100s of online dating sites.

cakes127,

I have all that I can handle with one wife. =)

With that statement, I am not gay or lesbian either. None of these proposed changes mean a thing to me. BUT, the gay/lesbian community wants changes to be made to the current laws. I really don't care. I DO care, however, that if we are going to make changes we be fair. And that does not mean that maybe someday we straighten out the other laws that you mentioned and give the polygamists what they want too. I believe that everyone saw the 2 foot high or so healthcare bill that Obama signed. If they can enact that into law without even reading it, I think that they can come up with some standards for polygamist marriages. For you to say "give me mine, I don't care about theirs" makes me, and a lot of people like me, not care about your plight. Like I said earlier, make everything a civil union, get rid of the "tax penalties" that gays and lesbians in over 40 states don't need to worry about, and see where this goes. It can happen. For those of you who can't accept this because it means that a gay/lesbian marriage will never be accepted as "normal", I am sorry. I have a feeling that it will become collateral damage...

To add to my post since the damn timer ran out, I wonder if you lived through the 50's. did you just bend over backwards and accept that you had the sit at the back of the bus? That you had to use separate drinking fountains and that you were considered less American then Whites?

There are many levels to this discussion. The first and foremost is equality. The second is the unconstitutional behavior that many with similar disposition to you are committing. They are placing God's laws, because there is no logical reason for banning Gay marriage, before the laws of this nation. God's laws do not overrule our laws and our laws do not come from God nor religion; they come from logic.

Marriage ceased being a religious institution the moment that you were required by state law to obtain a marriage license. At that point in time religion lost their claim that only they could determine what the definition of marriage is. A marriage is a civil union. Gays are allowed to have civil unions ergo they can have marriages. If someone cannot deal with that fine bu they have no place to keep Gays from having marriages. Their opinions are not more important then someone elses. Their opinions do not allow them to deny others their rights.

That is the very core of this argument, people using their religion to deny other people their rights.

ya know, obama's latest idiotic act and the video showing animal abuse, chiefly, the hog farm in wyoming, my sympathies lean toward the hog farm for the simple reason that it makes more sense to investigate this than it would listening to any more of obama's latest "causes". for obama, its a act of desparation to try and get re-elected in november. this other story about the hog farm in wyoming deals with deeply emotionally scarred individuals who are abusing animals because they are able to relieve some type of dysfunction in their life. in both these cases, an answer needs to be sought. for obama, no reelection. for the hog farmers in wyoming, a psychiatrist, a hefty fine, community duty and jail time, also paying for the vet's care of the hogs they hurt. and no, obama does not need to invite them to the white house for a beer to talk this over.

Indie-

I was referring to your response to probusiness, I believe. No need to be disrespectful just because his views arent your own

Cakes-

In the name of equality, lets destroy our society. Seems a little extreeme....

Yes, I do realize that you dont agree with me about the conquences (thought they are not only MY opinion of what will happen), but lets say, for arguements sake, that you can see your way to considering my opinion. Is equality in marriage-for one group- not freedom (they are obviously free), not free speach (OBVIOUSLY have that) but the simple fight for being included into one institution, worth it?

I love how everyone takes my comments and instead of arguing the point throw in their illogical "reasoning" as to how they believe they can discredit my comments.

So let me try again for those who might not have the mental capacity to develop a valid argument.

1) gay and lesbian acts are not natural. Natural means what is accepted as allowing a species to evolve and sustain its standing in the animal kingdom. Aren't all of you liberals SOOOO firm in your belief of evolution? If that is the case can a species survive if the "natural" attribute of the species was same sex relationships? Sorry, by definition it CANNOT be natural because "natural" means that the species follows that attribute completely. If a species relied SOLELY on same sex relationships it would die off. If a species dies off it becomes extinct. If a species becomes extinct it does not survive. If a species does not survive then it did not have a sustainable and natural attribute. So same sex relationships are unnatural. For a species to survive it requires a male and a female to procreate. That doesn't mean gays or lesbians are disliked or not valued members of our society, and quite the contrary, but simply means their relationship is unnatural and to try and defend a same sex "marriage" as natural is simply a failed process to begin with. It CANNOT be natural so the argument is void before it is started.

So now that I have clarified that AGAIN then the argument against same sex marriage. Marriage started out as a religious term and recognition of a man and a woman who "become one" and start their own family. How? By natural procreation. A man and a woman are required to procreate. So why did governments get involved in designating and acknowledging marriage? Because governments require population increases in order for a country, society, and economy to grow. And also they know (or USED to know) that children out of wedlock unfortunately start out life in a more difficult scenario so government INCENTIVIZED marriage by giving married individuals tax breaks, different benefits, etc. There USED to be a time when marriage was considered a POSITIVE attribute and encouraged by government.

So marriage was NOT initially for the purposes of a "party" it was a legal and religious recognition as to what is desired by government for the moral growth of the city/state. So to identify same sex marriage as "equal" to a traditional marriage between a man and a woman nullifies the value of the term "marriage" and makes it insignificant. But of course THAT is actually the desire of the liberals to remove any moral fiber and attributes of a nation. No god. No morals. No honor. No self-reliance. No respect. The liberals want an "anything goes" nation and same sex marriage is just another step.

Workin Hard - How about you put that brain thingy to working harder?

For instance, your equation of 2 women getting married or 2 men getting married to automatically include polygamy. Firstly, I don't have a problem with legalized polygamy. I think it would actually be a benefit in many cases, especially where the women have little legal recourse when the man kicks them out, because the courts won't recognize any obligations and cannot do anything about a marriage that was not official.

But, that aside, why couldn't we limit the number to 2? It's just as arbitrary as saying one man - one woman. Why not one man - two women, or two man - one woman? I mean, that's pretty traditional, moreso than one man - one woman, if you want to believe the biblical accounts. Or if not. There's plenty of evidence in history for this. Actual history. But even the Bible supports this notion of one man - many wives/concubines or even one woman - many men. Yup, nowhere in that wretched book does it actually say that people can only marry once. That was later doctrine. You should know that.

Now as for the legality of it, there is an argument that supports limiting the number of people involved to 2. It has to do with inheritance. And that's an interest of the government, which would give a legal standing to close it. Of course, if that legality were worked out, there should be no problem for polygamous marriage. Which, in my opinion, shouldn't be a problem anyway. You could have polyamorous, polygynous, or polyandrous relationships legalized, the children recognized by courts, and the whole mess of peeping into people's windows would be settled.

@ProBusiness

I will sum up why you are wrong in less than three sentences. You stated:

gay and lesbian acts are not natural. Natural means what is accepted as allowing a species to evolve and sustain its standing in the animal kingdom.

One sentence: Why when a predator is taken away, do humans have to come in a cull (kill) a herd or reintroduce the predator (I'm thinking of deer and wolves): there is not enough space, food, etc. to let any species reproduce without a predator or stop-gap measure and humans have no predator, yet unchecked "Duggar style," we would all starve.

Pro if your morals come from God and not logic there is something wrong with you. Everyone of "God's morals" can be reached via a logical argument:

Should murder be legal? Would you liked to be killed by someone, no. Therefore you should not kill others.

Should you be allowed to steal from others? You would like to have your stuff stolen from you, no. Therefore you should not steal.

Should you have an affair? Would you feel good about yourself if your husband/wife told you they cheated on you, no. Therefore you should not cheat on them.

See, no God involved. If a moral cannot be reached via a logical argument it is a moral that should not be followed. There is no logical argument that supports anti-homosexuality. You can try and twist evolution and any other scientific theories as much as you want but in the natural world homosexuality exists. If you can compare the animal kingdom to our own as a reason for why homosexuality is unnatural the opposite must then also be true. The problem with that argument is that homosexuality is not unnatural because it is highly prevalent in nature as are bisexuality and asexuality.

Just because the sex act does not result in a baby does not mean it is not natural. Sex is not meant to only be for procreation it is also meant to be used as a status monitor, a sign of physical health, as well as for stress relief. It is also used to determine leaders and alphas in the animal kingdom as well as to show friendship.

Only in the religious sector of the human world does sex equate out to procreational uses only. If anything that idea is what is unnatural.

Unimpressed,

I think my husband-to-be would agree with you! =)

You make some very valid points. I'm certainly not arguing against polygamy, and I would be willing to see changes made to make polygamist life more manageable.

And before everyone gets upset about this viewpoint (that I'm pretty sure that Unimpressed and I might agree on), just because same-sex and polygamus marriages become legal does not mean they are not mandatory.

Sarah, I just wanted to thank you. And commend you. Your reasoned, rational and patient arguments are a real joy to read. Would that more people in this country were as informed, aspassionate and as erudite as you. Many thanks.

Probusiness

Kudos on the well thought out arguement :)

Black Kettle: What!?!? Did that somehow make sense to you when you typed it? I simply say that a society based on same sex relationships cannot survive and somehow you bring in predators, deers, and wolves? You forgot Bigfoot and the Lochness Monster.

If you want to use wolves in your example then, okay, I can do that. If wolves decided to adhere to a same sex relationship and male wolves only spent time with males wolves and female wolves only spent time with female wolves then the species would die off. If the wolf species died off they would become extinct. If they became extinct due to their actions then their actions MUST have been unnatural since it did not allow the species to survive. Therefore same sex relationships are unnatural.

So what next: Do you want to talk about bears and bald eagles next?

lola007,

Ok, for the sake of argument, please, explain to me how these consequences will come about if same sex marriage were to become legal in the United States. Please, note how my 'extreme' views on this matter will be our downfall--please note that your argument cannot be based in your opinion (and for the sake of my mental health, not religious texts either, since you've already stated there are other reasonings at play here. Please, in a clear and concise message, state to me how it is legal and justified for you to take away the civil liberties of citizens of the United States.

Geowil - awesome post! Keep me in mind when they start talking babies....I'm married, hetero, got cancer, couldn't have one now if I wanted too...that should make me in the "gay" pile that so many are using - I cannot procreate. If anyone bothered to look it up, too many children are born as it is, many are given up, many suffer abuse by their own parents. As far as I can see, the only people who deserve children are those who consider them a privilege, I know my gay friends (who are parents) do, I know those who cannot have their own but adopt do- both consider the child a privilege and not a twisted view of a "natural" God given right.

Probusiness,

Once more, making same sex marriage legal is not the same thing as making it mandatory. No 24 year old gay man is going to come to your house with a gun, demand you divorce your wife and carry you off in to the night. I can promise you that straight people will remain straight, even if Bob and Tom can get hitched.

Aldo, repeatedly stating that same-sex relationships are "unnatural" isn't making you sound any more informed. Homosexuality is rooted in brain chemistry. Brain chemistry is biological. Biology is... see where I'm going here?

There are a million arguments like these, but ultimately they don't matter. Want to know why? Because they aren't valid legal arguments. And since marriage is a legal entity this shouldn't even be a question anymore.

Cakes127, thanks for the rational and respectful debate. I think that the hotheads on both sides get all of the attention on this issue but the calm and rational ones will find the fix. I consider you one of the later.

Good evening All!

Geowil: You are absolutely incorrect in your analysis. Morals do not HAVE to be spiritually related (although historically religion WAS/IS used as a way to "explain" morals). Morals are what come naturally and accepted by society and the ability to sustain a growing species.

Humans have determined and realized that a community requires a common cause and integration with society. Of course killing another human being does not benefit the community so it is harshly penalized. A person molests a child, rapes a person, or assaults another individual they are harshly penalized. These are obvious and not part of the discussion.

The discussion is "morals". What does that mean? Dictionary definition: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong". THIS is what we are talking about. What is right and wrong. Same sex by definition is "not natural" therefore it is wrong. That doesn't mean we call it a crime. It's just not accepted as being "acceptable". Smoking is not "acceptable" but we don't make it a crime (although many liberals don't hesitate to call THAT wrong!!). Those things that do not benefit society we do not condone. We don't condone same sex relationships. We don't condone smoking. We don't condone texting while driving. We don't condone drinking too much at a party. We don't condone sexual relations with multiple partners that we do not have strong feeling for. But none of those are a crime and many who partake in these actions are very good friends of mine. But that doesn't mean as a society we say it is "okay" because it is not.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If a man wants to be legally recognized in a "union" with another man I have no problem with that at all. I don't SUPPORT that action but they are entitled to be recognized legally. But what we CANNOT do is give legitimacy to that relationship and say it is "okay" by giving it equal treatment as a marriage between a man and a woman. It is not so should state it to be.

Cakes-

Not being able to use the word marriage to describe their union would take away nothing from the gay community, seeing as how they do not have it in the first place.

Sometimes, in our history, we have made laws to protect and encourage our society to expand. Agree? If not, Ill give examples

Occasionally, these laws have prohibited things that are determental to our society. Agree?

Seperately, as an example, smoking is legal. HOwever, there is nothing about smoking that is helpful to our society as whole. In fact, in terms of medical issues, it is a very large detrement. Agree? But it is legal, because it would be taking away a persons rights to not allow it (in the most basic of reasoning), even thought it is HARMEFUL to our society. Can you honestly tell me that, as a society, we are better off-and not worse-because of this fact? Why, then, do we let it continue? Because it is a protected right. ANd you dont think thats ridiculous? As a society, we should want things that make us STRONGER, not lesser.

But our country is ever a selfish one. Gay marriage is a selfish desire. They want it because they dont have it, without considering the conquences of the action.

Which I have discussed, but here we are again. And as I have stated....how long before the definition of marriage is so changed that it is obsolete? How does it affect heterosexual marriages? By making them less important, giving them a lesser role in society. Not just heterosexual marriage, but all marriages, because it will have been shown that if a group of people who believe they are being looked down on decides they want to ALSO be allowed to marry, all they need to is make a fuss. You believe it will stop at homosexual marriages? Really? If you do, then I can understand your intense dislike of my arguement. HOwever, I believe if you really think about it, you will find that you DONT believe it will stop there. And society will crumble. Moreso.

Marriage laws were made, as has been said perviously by probusiness, to encourage the growth and strenght of the country. Homosexual marriage does not support this, so why SHOULD they be given the same encouragement?

lola

Again, what was disrespectful? ProBusiness stated:

Don't put a "gay couple" in the same category as my marriage of 34 years to my wife.

This is evidence of an extreme lack of self esteem, and the need to feel superior towards another group of people.

Is stating the truth disrespectful? Should I instead treat him like a child, and pretend that his obvious self esteem issues and superiority complex do not play into his position?

Unimpressed, it was a pleasure talking with you. Hopefully we will meet again. Good day!

Cakes: Once again you are not staying on topic so let me try this (AGAIN!!). That same sex marriage is allowed has no bearing on whether someone comes to my house with a gun (as you so illogically state) my point is the intended purpose is to remove the historical importance of the marriage itself and try to legitimize a same sex marriage as the same.

That is like allowing a person who drives by a college to be given a college degree. But by this person traditionally not deserving of a degree then the degree has less meaning to those that earned it. A person given a degree like that does NOT have to come to my house with a gun (as you illogically state) in order to cheapen or lessen the legitimacy of others who have earned that degree.

So the point (AGAIN!!) is that marriage is a religious AND legal term. If two men (or women) want to be recognized as "legal" in the eyes of the law I am fine with that but to try and state that same sex marriage is "natural" and should be called "marriage" cheapens the value of the term marriage itself.

And lastly, your comments that homosexuality is "normal" is such an illogical comment by itself. Of COURSE it is biological. But so is an albino squirrel. So is a three legged calf. But that doesn't mean that it can survive and procreate. So if EVERY squirrel was albino then the squirrel species would probably not survive. If EVERY calf was born with three legs then the species would probably not survive. If EVERY man was homosexual then the species would not survive. The ONLY way the human species can survive is if HETEROSEXUAL relationships exist. The homosexual human (like everyone else) will die off without procreating but the HETEROSEXUAL relationships are REQUIRED for the species to continue. Therefore (AGAIN!!) same sex relationships are unnatural and cannot survive if the ENTIRE species followed that attribute. What part of that is just so DIFFICULT to understand?!?!?

Gays have never really presented a compelling state interest in federal recognition of gay marriage, but that won't stop people like Sarah from ranting their personal opinions in a shouting match with themselves, thinking they win strictly because they were the loudest. Giving gay couples tax breaks benefits the gay couples not the state. Gays couples are not without benefits. Civil unions, which are recognized in a few states, give gay couples state benefits on taxes and in other areas, similar to marriage. Prior to love, people married for benefits (I.E dowry, strengthening of families)so isn't marriage for benefits regression instead of progression?

Doma is all of about a page long and has two sections:

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

Section two says that states don't have to recognize gay marriages performed in different states. The question becomes, why should gay marriages be recognized?

Inherent to heterosexual marriage is procreation. In the absence of heterosexual means, gays cannot procreate. We could argue adoption, but heterosexual couples generally adopt when they can't procreate, what excuse do people who, a majority of the time, have fully functioning reproductive systems have for not using them correctly? To me, this is forced. Yes, heterosexual couples use condoms, but in the absence of condoms can homosexuals still make babies through homosexual sex? Can sperm fertilize an anus, or an inanimate object, devoid of sperm, a vagina? Arguably, every human being is heterosexual – made for the opposite sex – which makes homosexuality a kind of sexual identity disorder. This is akin to gender identity disorder. How did that work out for transsexuals? Oh yeah, that's right. You can mutilate your genitals, but can't change your biological sex. Likewise, you can have sex, with same sex, but can't change the purpose of sex or the sex you were created for.

Many wish to bring up Loving vs Virginia and think interracial marriages were about love. Interacial marriage prohibition was about race, not love. Prohibition of interracial marriages was from the belief in the superiority of the white race. It had nothing to do with sexual orientation. The courts struck down this ban from the belief that one man and one woman should be allowed to be married, regardless of the differing shade of melanin refereed to as skin color. This is the reason the elderly and infertile are allowed to marry as long as they are man and woman. Anatamy works the same regardless of skin color, not gender. More to the point, when was the last time marriage was federally recognized soley on the basis of emotional bonding? A man and his dog might have a strong emotional bonding, because dogs are a man's best friend, but the federal government don't call it a marriage. A girl might have an emotional bonding to her diamond, a marriage this does not make.

Homosexuality isn't believed to be a lesser sexual orientation, it's considered a deviant, abnormal, one. Sex isn't mainly for pleasure, the purpose of sex is producing children. While many sexual encounters are pleasurable, even in the absence of pleasure – cases of rape, incest, vaginal dryness – pregnancy can still result from sex. To say gays should be allowed to marry argues that federal definition of marriage should be changed to accommodate sexual orientation. Should the federal definition of marriage be changed over sexual orientation? Before you answer remember that pedophilia and bestiality are also a sexual orientations. Therefore, the pedophiles can argue as the gays do that they should have marriage as well, or at least legal standings. People don't realize that civil unions are also discriminatory and often exclude heterosexuals, multiple people, and family relatives. It is logically disingenuous to assume that pedophiles won't argue from crooked motives, or that gays argue from entirely clean, rational, ones.

A big problem in the U.S right now is that all gay marriages are really redefined civil unions. Gay marriages aren't federally recognized. What does gay marriage do for society besides sooth the screaming conscious of a minority of sexual deviants determined to have their perversion viewed as normal. Have gays ever conclusively proved that homosexuality is natural? I don't think the post-mortem brains of aids victims proves anything. Levay even said that there was no gay gene. Is the sexual behavior of animals justifiable in humans and, if so, by what standard? Some animals have harems, should human males also battle for dominance and keep multiple wives by brute strength? So monkeys and dolphins display homosexual behavior? Should humans also fling feces and hump everything that moves?

Marriage isn't based on love, so Gay proponents love to beg the question by assuming that all gays who marry will do so only for love, that everyone they love will want to marry them, or that they can marry the person they love if that person is already married. How love is intrinsically tied to marriage itself beats me. The reasons for marriage are varied. More to the point, marriage is institutionalized in society as a legal contract, but to say that marriage is only a civil contract overlooks the subtle nuances of what constitutes a marriage. Marriage is about comitment, but once again gay marriage begs the question by assuming gays automatically have staying power once married.

The main areas that the law touches marriage are the ceromony itself and divorce. Long after the marriage ceromony -- legal aspect of marriage is over -- people still have to live with each other. Some have argued that marriage isn't spiritual, but I would say that a marriage is as spiritual as the people involved; a piece of paper isn't what entirely constitutes a marriage, human beings are. Human beings do have an intrinsic spirituality about them. Failing to acknowledge this is apathetic atheistic, bias rooted in denial of existence. While marriage is a legally binding contract, and the ceremony as well as benefits of marriage have a traditional background, the burden of proof is still on the gays.

Indie

He didnt not make the statement to make himself superior, only to state that a gay union is in no way the same as his marriage, a statement I would agree with. So will you, if you think about it a min. Nothing in his post was demeaning, but your response was very much so.

Itiswhat

Well said!

ProBusiness - seriously - did you skip Roman History, did you skip the way other species, who are as intelligent (sometimes, I think much more intelligent) operate? If a population is down (in a species) heterosexual sex will take place for the species, yet homosexual sex will resume when the species is in balance.... there are 7 billion people on this earth (I picked a easy read website for you):

Cornell University professor David Pimentel's research shows that about 2 billion people is the number the planet can sustainably support, if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (which is less than the average American).

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/faq

I realize that other people don't matter to everyone BUT you must have HEARD about the MASSIVE FAMINES in Africa and other places. Our oceans are turning acidic and will not provide fish in as little as 50 years from now. Asia, depends on fish for protein in their diet, as do other coastal peoples.... you won't listen to me, so I'm not going to waste my time on arguing sustainability.... but many other cultures embrace a bisexual view, with children being born out of necessity not because someone forgot the Pill that day or because God wants them too.

There are too many people taking up too many resources on this planet. I DO NOT MEAN THAT A GAY COUPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE A CHILD - but if more people, gay, straight, purple either adopted or didn't have a child our earth would be better for all.

Why do you think certain viruses are now springing up? It's the earth's way of balancing - I DO NOT MEAN HIV/AIDS -overpopulation leads to things that we humans "thought" we solved.... but the rise in Tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria, polio & whooping cough are making a comeback.....why.... too many people, too little resources... look it up yourself...& I'm talking about Western Countries with these old/new problems, not Africa or Asia.

ProBusiness

gay and lesbian acts are not natural. Natural means what is accepted as allowing a species to evolve and sustain its standing in the animal kingdom. Aren't all of you liberals SOOOO firm in your belief of evolution? If that is the case can a species survive if the "natural" attribute of the species was same sex relationships?

Considering homosexuality has been well documented in the animal kingdom... occurring in nature... that completely eliminates your entire theory. As the norm, according to your line of thinking, in the animal kingdom, is heterosexual activity as well as homosexual activity. Most likely this is to buffer growth potential.

And again, "normal" has NEVER been described as something that every single member of a certain group exhibits.

Is it "normal" to have sex with hundreds of partners? Is it "normal" to have sex with just one partner? Is it "normal" not to have sex? Is it "normal" to have sex with obese people? Is it "normal" to have sex with a different race?

By your definition, every single sex act would be considered "not normal" because not every single person participates in every single act.

Is oral sex abnormal because if every single person only had oral sex, then the species would die off? According to you, yes. Now go try to tell a straight man that he can no longer receive oral sex... let me know how that works out for you.

Marriage started out as a religious term and recognition of a man and a woman who "become one" and start their own family

WRONG

Marriage started out as a social convention and was later stolen (or adopted) by religion. One of the first documented laws regarding marriage came from the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylon (BEFORE Christianity). It was described as a social convention, NOT religious institution.

You obviously suffer from an extreme lack of education. Or you just like to make up facts and hope that no one calls you out on your LIES.

Finally, change your name. You are NOT "pro business". Look up the amount of money same-sex marriage brought to NY businesses when it was legalized. Marriage is a mulch-billion dollar industry. Same-sex laws increase the consumer base for businesses in the marriage industry, which increases revenue. Your attempt to stop same-sex marriage is a direct attempt to stop potential customers to businesses in the marriage industry. Those customers represent money, revenue, profits for these businesses. Your actions directly limit these profit centers.

You are NOT "pro business"... you are anti-business with your blatant attempt to stop potential customers and revenue from businesses across the country.

Giving gay couples tax breaks benefits the gay couples not the state.

Whatever your name was...... I don't have any children, yet I am a heterosexual & married - I want to stop paying property tax that funds your little brat going to school -sounds fair to me, why do I have to pay school tax if I'm not using it?

If there were an IQ test before one could have a child - I believe there would be a problem, but since any idiot with a Bible can procreate, we are overrun with children living in conditions that I wouldn't put my dog in.

I may be showing my arse with that comment but at least I'm not inflicting injustice on 3.5% or 9 million people in the US! Maybe in should be EQUALITY for those who are not BIGOTS!

probusiness, you have no logical argument, the majority of individuals aren't gay and won't marry someone of the same sex, the minority who are gay and marry a member of the same sex will have exactly zero effect on evolution.

just another strawman argument by someone that thinks what other people do is "yucky" and thinks they have to stop people from doing yucky things.

and you obviously love government intervention into personal affairs

and survival of the human species is in NO way going to be threatened by gay marriage. in fact it is far more likely to be destroyed by heterosexual marriages that breed like the duggars

just think if everyone bred like the duggars in two generation we would have 600 billion people, a sure recipe for extinction

If you are conservative, you believe in less government intrusion in our lives. Period.

If you are conservative and support gay-marriage bans, you are an ideological hypocrite. Period.

Sincerely, a conservative North Carolinian who voted AGAINST Amendment 1

@ProBusiness -

With regards to your argument above (Homosexuality is not natural and does not support the survival of the species) -----

First - I'm not a liberal. I am an educated combat veteran and fiscal conservative, key word, 'educated.'

Your statement is that homosexuality is not natural and does not support the survival of a species. There is a concept in biology called, 'Kin Selection,' that completely discredits that argument. Here's how it works. You and your brother are born. At a minimum, you will share at least 25% of the same genes between each other and your brother will share roughly half of those genes with your offspring. This is the genetic relationship between Uncles/Aunts and Nephews/Nieces (of blood relation). Evolution is all about the propogation of genes into the next generation. The more genes you get into the next generation, the more successful you are in evolutionary terms. So think of it like this, if you have six children it is evolutionarily better for your brother to not have children (which would compete for resources - remember, we didn't develop in the current environment, resources were once VERY limited). He could make it so that a greater percentage of his genes reach teh next generation simply by seeing to it that you children are cared for, fed, protected and provided with adequate resources. Hence - Kin selection.

My opinion is that homosexuality is a perfectly natural result of evolution facilitated through natural selection and the competition for genes to make it to the next generation. Only now, in current times, is this hard to see because resources are not as limited (in the US at least).

Notice that most of the people who argue against gay marriage use religious arguments? Religon is all about the protection and distribution of resources, establishment of status and social norms. The problem with gay marriage isn't that people are gay (based on these arguments) it is (for the people who make these arguments) that once they are married and adopting children they will no longer serve in that secondary support role to people who have children.....in short, for you people, it's fine to be gay, you just don't want them to have the same civil rights and property rights that you have because it will give them protections over the resources they have gathered (it's ok - you evolved that way).

lola

You and him have created an emotional bond to a piece of paper, backed by the government, which deals primarily with property rights and asset allocation. You have allowed your emotions to turn this legal contract into an emotional symbol, that you feel sets you apart from those who do not possess this same document. In essence, you feel that this piece of paper makes you feel superior to those who do not have it.

This obviously stems from a lack of self esteem, as your desire to maintain a superior position based on the possession of a simple legal document drives you to restrict the availability of this contract to certain groups of people.

I'm sorry your self esteem issues don't allow you to see this piece of paper for what it truly is... a personal business contract between two parties, establishing property rights and asset allocation. Anything more is simply an emotional symbol created in your own mind.

Please help me understand. Why should a "free" government care about a couple's sexual habits?

In a time when people want the government to decrease its monitoring of education and business, I struggle to understand why some might want the government to grant privileges (and assign responsibilities) based on what the government predicts might happen in the bedroom.

Perhaps we should let the government grant tax and insurance opportunities to people who enter a legally binding, long-term contract with each other. This, regardless of what happens (or what does not happen) in the bedroom.

Then let churches decide what is a sin and what is not a sin.

It might help if we call the government's recognition of partnerships something other than "marriage" -- for all people. Let the churches decide whether or not they want to bless certain types of partnerships and call those partnerships marriages.

I believe the government -- especially a government that champions freedom -- should not be in the business of monitoring or speculating about sexual behaviors of couples who make a legal commitment to each other. If that is not over regulation, what is?

Janstince

I never said there was a constitutional argument against polygamy, I never even said I was opposed to it. I asked if there was such an argument. Sarah presented one, I disagreed with it. It just turns out that when you talk about civil liberties and constitutional rights, polygamy comes along with it. As does protection for the lady that married a building in Seattle or the other lady that married herself.

By the way, name calling goes nowhere in an adult discussion.

lola,

I appreciate you taking the time to more fully explain your opinion to me. And I'm trying to understand it, but failing considerably.

First of all, not using the term marriage IS detrimental to gay families because it doesn't provide them financial, insurance or legal protection in our society. That is detrimental to those families. It is unbelievable torture to not be able to make medical decisions for your partner of 27 years because your "civil union" doesn't allow for those kinds of rights. And no, I'm not speaking from experience here, but from an experience of one of my family members.

You stated that there were laws in place to promote protection and expansion-- As ProBusiness pointed out, that is where the majority of our modern day tax breaks came from. Are you also refering to policies such as the Homestead Act? Because I highly doubt that you want to bring Native American relations in to this debate, could you clarify this point?

You are absolutely correct, the most famous of these being Prohibition, also known as the 18th amendment, which was passed in 1919 and repealed less than 15 years later with the 21st Amendment. Do you remember why Prohibition was so unpopular? "It made the US a nation of hypocrites and undermined its respect for the rule of law." A quote from Wikipedia, but an excellent quote nonetheless. It undermined the respect for the rule of law, because it limited the freedoms of United States citizens.

You also brought up smoking. The fact that you brought it up makes me infer that you not only think homosexuality is a choice, but you think it is like a disease. Is this true? Regardless, I could give a crap about smoking. It's a personal choice, a personal fredom and something that I wouldn't do if you paid me. And yeah, it's bad for you, but if you tried to take away someone's right to choose, you better believe I would be one of the ones advocating for Big Tobacco. See, I believe that laws that allow citizens to make their own decisions make us stronger, and when the government tries to intervene and tell me that I can't have a G&T or a smoke or that I can't marry another woman, that makes us hypocrites. And a lesser nation.

You say that gay marriage advocates are selfish. How do you believe I am being selfish with my quest for equality? How is equal treatment under the law selfish? And what are these consequences that you keep bringing up? The downfall of our society? Honey, society has never been great. There will always be poverty, children being abused, religious zealots who try to manipulate the weak and corruption in our streets. How in the world is allowing those who love each other the opportunity to build a home, a family and a support structure going to change these things? Is it going to make it better? Probably not. Is it going to make it worse? Probably not.

And the last part of your argument is what I've heard a million times. Slippery slope! And I'll say again what I've said before. As long as the ones entering in to the marriage contract are CONSENTING ADULTS (read: no children, no pets, no inanimate objects), then I really don't care. Three wives? Sure. Four Husbands? Go for it. One wife, one husband? Awesome! It doesn't matter to me or my relationship. Just stop trying to make the slippery slope happen. It's invalid.

All I'm getting from this your argument is YOUR selfishness lola. You have a world view, and if the rest of us don't see it your way, well that's too darn bad. That's the way we should live.

And before you start, I'm not saying you shouldn't hold these beliefs. Believe what you want. Go to your grave screaming about the gays being the downfall of society, and I wouldn't bat an eye. We live in America, so you are free to do as you wish. But because we live in America, so do I, which means that if I want to marry a woman, I shouldn't be called selfish, a pervert or an abomination. I should be able to get in line with everyone else, pay my fee and live happily ever after.

Not one of your arguments, by the way, overrides the Constitution of the United States. Which demands all citizens are afforded the same civil liberties. Which demands equality. That's right. Equality. None of your arguments can trump that. Because when it comes right down to it, you are not better than me, and I am not better than you. We're the same. And if we're the same, we should have the same rights. Period.

I ask only because having ONE reason seems awfully narrow-minded.

I don't know what your hang ups are with the Constitution, but it's a pretty f-ing BIG reason. Equality. For all. Period. YOU need a reason to take away rights--WE don't need a reason to defend everyone having them. Even if it is one reason (although we have, in fact, presented many), it's still one more reason than you have yet to give me for denying others their rights.

And I will agree, you point about unhappy marriages is fairly valid. However, did they seek counceling? Did they TRY to impove their marriage, our did they just accept it was failed and "put up" with eachother for your sake? Its not my business, dont answer. My only point there is that most people dont TRY to improve their marriage, and let it fall appart instead of attemting anything that would help it.

You're right, it's none of your business, so you shouldn't have asked, but since I initially shared I'll continue to share. YES. They did go to counseling. Christian counseling. It didn't work. Happy now?

But it does only help my position, actually. Like I said before, marriage has taken so SO many hits already, and our society is reeling from it. How many more can it take?

You've still yet to prove how homosexuals getting married is a "hit" on marriage, so... I won't even address that.

Yes, people can live and function without being married, but those people are not who Im talking about, and does nothing to disproove that marriage is a necessary social structure. Not everyone wants to be married, but most who are not are searching for someone....case in point, 100s of online dating sites.

I'm not arguing that marriage is not a fundamental part of society, or something that thousands strive for, even if they can't find it. All I want you to prove is how homosexuals getting married is detrimental to marriage.

@cakes127:

"Plessy v. Ferguson and the whole concept of "separate but equal" was overturned in the 1950's. I'm sure you can understand, even when others can't (yep, I'm talking to you 3thirty3), that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, it applies to all states and all citizens. This means that "civil unions" are NOT sufficent for gay unions because they are NOT the same." This is true, but in the cases that involve marriage they only address race not gender.

Loving v. VA: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....(This means bearing children and Chuck and Larry or Sue and Jane can't do that).. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Don't see any reference to same gender marriage. That's why this whole debate is raging on. At the moment it is still under the 10th Amendment - States Rights and 31 of 32 states that have voted on a state constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one women and have passed them overwhelmingly.

@Sarah-3043284

"3Thirty,

Watch out!!! There's a gay, Mexican hiding in your closet, ready to force you into a hybrid car, drive you to Planned Parenthood, where a Muslim doctor is going to make you have an abortion, and then clean the mess up with a Bible.

AND, they're going to take away all your flag pins and tri-corn hats.

Your paranoia is showing."

WTF are you talking about. I don't know who you're responding to. My post had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. I was merely pointing out that this issue has NOT been decided by the Supreme Court and all of your references to SCOTUS cases are NOT directly relevant to this issue.

Sarah -

I want to join your fan club, too!! Many thanks to you for your support! I love you ;)

Marine-Pa -

THANK YOU, kind sir, for your heart-warming post about your son and family. I wish I could shake your hand and that of your son, too. I agree with other posters that said that hearing someone that was closed-minded change their own opinion and become so accepting and loving restores some of my faith in humanity (not ALL, but some! lol). I myself am a 30yr old gay man, and after hearing and reading so many truly hateful, spiteful, bigoted comments directed at gays, I would never choose to enlist in the military to defend the very people that hate me. Your son is SO BRAVE for that and many other reasons. He sounds like a great guy, and I pray that I will one day meet and fall in love with someone just as wonderful as he is!

To everyone on this vine that supports gay marriage - THANK YOU, as well. I am truly grateful and humbled.

To everyone on this vine that opposes gays/gay marriage/equal rights - I wish you could walk in our shoes for one day, and feel the heartache and oppression and revulsion that is constantly directed at us because we are attracted to the same gender. Sometimes, it takes putting things into perspective to truly open your eyes. I fear that many of you are so hateful and closed-minded, that you will never know how it feels to be in this position until one day people in this country target you and come after your civil rights as human beings. I can tell you one thing for sure: NEVER IN MY 30 YEARS DID I EVER MAKE THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO BE GAY. In this society, gays are treated like social terrorists. No one would ever choose that. All we want is EQUAL rights, and to be left alone. Quit coming after us and our God-given human rights simply because you cannot get over your own bigotry. If people like Marine-Pa can change their rigid views, you can too. Open your eyes. Then open your hearts.

And for all of you so-called "Christians" that oppose our very existence: YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES. Jesus himself was/is a LIBERAL, and loves everyone. Nothing you or I could ever do or be will change his love for us. All we have to do is accept him into our lives and our hearts and we are saved by the Grace of God! Stop using the Bible as a weapon of intolerance, and start using it as a tool to teach more people about the glory of God. Here's a hint: if your church ever starts preaching hate, intolerance, or bigotry, THEY ARE NOT TRUE CHRISTIANS, nor are they worthy of that name. That's when it is time to leave. I am a Christian, but I do not practice religion - it is divisive and intolerant. I have my own personal relationship with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and that is all I will ever need.

kat wrote:

I am proud of our President

Don't be. He decided that he could benefit politically from this. There's nothing more to it than that. I'm happy however that he has finally joined me on the right side of this, but he's been AWOL far too long.

whoknow,

Probusiness also ignoring the fact that in a highly social species like our, sex is not just for reproduction. Having non-reproductive sex is no more unnatural than using our mouths for talking instead of just using them for eating. In a social species, sex is also to promote group bonding and to reduce intra-sex competition and violence.

In bonobo chimps, females who have sexually bonded with each other are more likely to share food and defend each other's offspring from attack. They are more likely to cooperate instead of compete with each other. The net result is that more of their offspring survive to adulthood than the offspring of females who do not engage in sex with other females.

"Naturally" childless couples are also beneficial to a species that produces completely helpless infants like we do; they are natural adoptive parents.

NCC wrote:

Jesus himself was/is a LIBERAL

.... and a Republican until the mid-1950s, when he changed to.... Democrat? Seriously, leave that WWJB stuff to the ditzes.

Pro I am going to state this as simply as possible. I had to take ten minutes to try and boil down these arguments to their most basic understanding so that I can get the point across to you.

Morals are personal, what your morals are may not be what someone elses morals are. You may think that Gay Marriage is ruining the country while maybe your child, if you have one, or your neighbor could care less if men or women are porking each other.

Your personal morals cannot be the basis of laws that affect multiple people. That is the simple statement I was alluding to. It really is that simple, you cannot force someone not to have a Gay Marriage just because you personally are against it. This is why majority does not rule in this country when it comes to rights. Rights effect everyone and no one person that is not a justice on the supreme court should have the power to determine someone elses Rights.

Rights are not a states issue, they are not a federal issue, they are not a popular vote issue, they are an American issue, a Human issue. If we cannot be civil to each other in just trying to find our bliss then we as a country are dead and buried.

Gay and marriage is like apples and oranges , they have nothing to do with each other !

1) gay and lesbian acts are not natural. Natural means what is accepted as allowing a species to evolve and sustain its standing in the animal kingdom. Aren't all of you liberals SOOOO firm in your belief of evolution? If that is the case can a species survive if the "natural" attribute of the species was same sex relationships? Sorry, by definition it CANNOT be natural because "natural" means that the species follows that attribute completely. If a species relied SOLELY on same sex relationships it would die off. If a species dies off it becomes extinct. If a species becomes extinct it does not survive. If a species does not survive then it did not have a sustainable and natural attribute. So same sex relationships are unnatural. For a species to survive it requires a male and a female to procreate. That doesn't mean gays or lesbians are disliked or not valued members of our society, and quite the contrary, but simply means their relationship is unnatural and to try and defend a same sex "marriage" as natural is simply a failed process to begin with. It CANNOT be natural so the argument is void before it is started.

I held of getting involved with you for as long as I could, but as an Anthropologist, I really cannot let this one slide.

Being homosexual is in fact natural, and has, in fact, encouraged the passage of one's genes. Back in the day, but not so very long ago, humans lived in much smaller societies (and in many ways these scenarios are still true in some cultures today). Children were not just a product of the mother and father, but were often raised by other family members. Life expectancy was short, an if a parent died off, often a sibling--especially an "unattached", likely gay sibling with no direct offspring of their and thus more time on their hands, own would step in and help raise the child. And guess what--as an uncle/aunt of that child, that child still carries 25% of their genes, which is a pretty large percentage in the grand scheme. They are still ensuring their genetic survival.

Gay men probably also served another purpose back in the days of hunter gather societies. When the men went off hunting, who would YOU trust to help protect the women while you were gone? The hetero male, who would go behind your back and sleep with any woman given half a chance, or........? You guessed it! The gay guy who doesn't pose a threat. INDISPENSABLE.

Not to mention the acts of homosexuality that are rampant in the animal kingdom. Ever seen bonobos? Google them . Look for "GG rubbing". Get back to me.

Will you please drop the "natural" argument now?

I apologize for my temper - where I said that I may be showing my arse BUT this discussion has been conducted among adults (as far as I can tell), yet I read DAILY about a gay youth committing suicide OR being bullied OR killed - we can all argue, but when children are involved - and they are - we are not helping them. As a society, we should be able to say "It's OK to be gay, or lesbian or bisexual or trans-gender." Heterosexuals need to do more, homosexuals need to do more, those who work in schools, coaches, etc...churches, need to do more and to support the true feelings of these children - biochemistry has proven that a PERSON is BORN gay, take a step back and think, would someone CHOSE to be gay, knowing that they may face hatred, bigotry and violence because it IS committed against our gay youth everyday? Of course not - and that is why some have no where to turn where they will feel accepted for how they where BORN.

We (as a country, as a people, as humans) have lost many GLBT youth (& adults) to death. What have we lost when we treat people that way? We may have lost the next Nobel Peace winner, or the doctor who cures cancer or perhaps, but just as importantly, we have lost a potential friend, sister, brother, son, daughter, mother, father - loving parent... I know we are losing someone and one is one too many.

So our arguments that we think are amongst ourselves, they are not. I'm proud to stand by my GLBT friends and family - some of you may not be proud, but please be accepting, they could be your child.

I do apologize for my one comment (showing my arse), I stand by the rest.

I'm not even sure if ProBusiness is still hanging around, but he posted something earlier that I didn't have a chance to respond to.

It's funny, because both your first and last points tie in to what I was trying to say. You say I was being illogical when I spoke of man coming in to your house with a gun. You're absolutely right. I was being completely irrational. However, the basis of your argument, (i.e., if we allow gay marriage EVERYONE would become gay) is also just as irrational. That was my whole point. There is no one forcing you in to a gay relationship. There is no one forcing you to encourage gay relationships. Heck, you can even still hate gay relationships. But you cannot force your views on them, and that means your views on marriage.

I find your college degree allegory here a little confusing as well. How is a gay relationship like "driving by a college"? If two people, a man and a woman, meet, date, fall in love, their next step is to get married (usually). Why in the world would you expect this to be different for gay people? Because they're "unnatural?" My point here (AGAIN!) is that it's just NOT ok to use your world views to deny people their civil rights. Also, this is funny to me because so many commencement speakers (usually celebrities) are given honorary degrees--does that cheapen your college education? It should, according to your analogy. As should Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage, and the skyrocketing divorce rate. Why is it gay people who worry you so much?

Additionally my marriage to another woman doesn't cheapen anything about you and your family unless you let it. Stop letting it.

Have I made my point yet, ProBusiness? If not, let me make it explicit: Your views are yours, and I'm sure you think they are great. I think mine are pretty awesome too. The difference is, I'm not trying to force you to live my world view, I'm asking you to stop trying to force me to live yours.

Sorry Lola1827356 & WhoKnow! Just saw your posts--they must have posted right as I was typing out my little rant. Didn't mean to reiterate what you've already said regarding bonobos and 25% genetics and all... I think you guys actually said it better! (But then again, maybe if they hear it once it will sink in--here's hoping...)

Ha! Preceded, I do that ALL the time, except normally it's you, Sarah or Indie that make me think "why didn't I say it like that?" Excellent arguments, nonetheless.

Janstince - No, that study did not say that, as far as I've heard. It was more about the proclivity of closeted homosexuals lashing out against what they perceive as abnormal feelings. That means that closeting these feelings can lead to homophobia, not that homophobes are all closet homosexuals.

There's a previous study that found a very strong correlation between homophobia and homosexual arousal. Granted it was a small study performed in a conservative state, but it was very simple and elegant:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.

Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

I can't say n=29 is the best study, BUT life experience has led me to - if doth protest too much??? So far that has been true for me, but there are the protesters who cling to religious beliefs and they are usually very tolerant, homophobic & back that up with sermons, etc.

Both studies point out what I refer to as the "elementary school boy" effect that you see on playgrounds across the world. When a little boy has a crush on a little girl, how does he act? Taunts her, teases her, pulls her hair, etc. Takes it out with aggression, because he doesn't understand or know how to handle his feelings.

Not scientific--but my little analogy. Makes sense to me, anyway. Men who are gay but aren't able to express and/or are raised in a culture that teaches him it is repulsive, he is going to take it out with aggression.

It's one thing to not agree with or approve of gay people. That's your right. But when you have take it to the level of aggression--when it consumes you--when you act upon and hurt others... then as BKSC says... you "doth protest too much".

The government and society don not care very much about sexual activities conducted in private. They do care about marriage as an intsitution protecting and supporting society. The lable "Defense of Marriage" is at least a fair descriptor.

Once again, do you have any proof that marriage is, as you claim, the "institution protecting and supporting society?" Any sort of legal standing to be claiming these things for all Americans? Do you need to swear an oath to protect and support society when you apply for YOUR marriage license? Could you please point to the legal precedents which support your claims?

Y'know what I've seen here the past few days? I've seen ignorant people swinging the bible around like they took all their life lessons from it, as though they lived the life that Jesus wants them to live. Yet in truth, all they've done is tried to excuse themselves for their cude, evil behavior by pointing at their bible. They took up the Bible because it represented their beliefs, because they agreed with it, not the other way around.

This leads me to believe that if people were to put the book down and actually look in the mirror, without having their holy book to shield them from the monster they are, they'd only see the demons and devils they say exist in the Hell waiting for anyone that doesn't join their "Saved Club". You Christians, you are not the good, loving people that you try to make yourselves out as. You're ignorant, beastly masses that simply have to hate something for the sake of hate itself. In fact, you've gone against the very teachings of your savior, and you're doing it in his name.

That is why I feel reaffirmed in saying that I hate you. I hate you, Christians. I hate the way you slap your book in people's faces, when it's just an excuse to be a terrible human being without having to take accountability for your actions and your own vindictive beliefs. I hate the way you try to brainwash the weak, with 12 step programs and missionaries that give food to the hungry only if you cuddle up with their cross. I hate the way that you've made hatred and death such a greatly accepted thing, yet our own natural sexuality is shunned and evil, even though it's the very reason our species has been able to continue on and evolve.

I hate you for making the words of a few old senile men with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder the "Law of the Gods". But what I most hate you is how you've tried to destroy all love, all families, that don't fit in with your perfect view of a Christian Utopia. You want evil? You want the Devil? You wanna see the face of Satan? Look in the mirror. Your Devil is said to be a destructive force that spreads hatred and fear, yet that's all you and your ilk do. Oh sure, I'll be blasted by posts telling me how I'm wrong, and how all these "moral majority" folks are right, but you know what? I don't care.

I hate you.

@3thirty3,

I apologize, I thought I had a posted a response to your earlier comment, but apparently I was mistaken.

I would, however like to point out that your argument may be valid semantically, the 14th Amendment protects the civil liberties of all citizens of the United States. This invalidates your 10th Amendment argument because it is UNconstitutional for to make and enforce laws that infringe on these rights and liberties. That includes this new statute in North Carolina, and it includes all these unconstitutional votes that everyone is crying for. Our constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority, with just cause.

Furthermore, SCOTUS has used the 14th Amendment to decide Brown v. Board (separate is not equal), Reed v. Reed (discrimination due to sex is unconstitutional) and Loving v. Virginia (in which marriage was ruled a civil right). You're correct, none of these decisions specifically endorse same-sex marriage, the spirit of the law shows that there is a clear precedent for equality in marriage.

ThaMonkeh--

While I find it hard not to relate to your sentiments, I think you should read this post by TX Horseman:

"Hey Sarah,

This is a subject that I have a hard time with. I have conservative, christian values and wish to instill those in my boys. However, aren't christians supposed to be charitible, loving, tolerant of others? The bible speaks of homosexuallity and very specifically, how God feels about it. However, I don't remember where God says for christians to condem others for it. Love they neighbor.............!! Judge not!!!

Yes, I am aware if the church and state arguments and laws, but we are all made up of our belief systems, whatever those are, so there will never be a world where one does not get "involved" in the other. However, being blinded by it is another story!

I started by saying that I struggle with this and I do, because I just can't bring any understanding to it. Two men together is not a pleasant thought or sight for me. To me, men parts were made for women parts and procreation. Now having said that, I am trying my best to be less judgemental about this. I just have come to the concluison that it is my right to be a christian with conservative values and it is NOT anyone's right to discriminate against me for that. So then, who am I do discriminate against another, who is doing no harm, and deny them their same rights to live freely in this country? Just my thought on this."

It's so easy to assume that ALL people who believe in God are one way, just like it's easy for others to assume because "he's gay he MUST" be like that. That's no how humanity works. However, just like I've said to everyone today, you're allowed to think, feel, and speak what you want.

TXHorseman (#1.99)

I too have Christian values and do not want to be judgemental of gay people. The key is that the homosexual act is to be discouraged per Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 but the person is not to be judged as wicked or bad. We are all sinners and the sin of the homosexual act may or may not be as bad as our sins but no sin is to be encouraged. I vote my conscience. If there is something on the ballot that I disagree with, I vote it down. That is no different than atheists that votes their beliefs. Christians can not stand down at the ballot box because we are told our beliefs are not valid because they are based on religion. Others vote their morality, we should too. Democracy.

cakes -

You are frothing again. Chill some.

I know they're out there, Cakes. The problem is, there are too few of them, and the ones that lead are the hate-filled one more bent on being religious politicians than decent human beings. For all those that are tolerant and loving, great. You're awesome. You bring the Buddy Jesus to life. But you're not the one seated in power, you're not the "face" of your religion. It's the intolerant ones that are more like they say Satan is, the ones screaming hellfire and brimstone, and sadly, the majority flock to them and cling to their golden standard, since they're incapable of critical thinking, or in confronting their own evils.

I started by saying that I struggle with this and I do, because I just can't bring any understanding to it. Two men together is not a pleasant thought or sight for me.

you know something? its not my idea of fun either, but that is my personal hangup. just because I can't see myself doing it, and get an "ick" factor if I try to imagine myself in such a situation has nothing at all to do with the rights of consenting adults to choose what they want to do with themselves. ITS NONE OF MY BUSINESS, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, ITS NONE OF THE CHURCHES BUSINESS, AND ITS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS TO TELL CONSENTING ADULTS WHO THEY CAN OR CAN'T MARRY

you have the right to believe that it is wrong, you have the right to try to convince others that it is wrong by persuasion, not by force of mob rule law, you don't have the right to stop it just because you think "god said so"

Working Hard -

Well, name-calling makes me feel better, regardless of how you feel. See, I don't get it, I really don't. You claim to want to have an "adult conversation," yet your objective is to continue denying rights to people. So, you wish to escape even a minimum of backlash for your position. Well, let me know how that works out for you, bigot.

Meanwhile, your argument about the building, or a person marrying their self? Wow, I mean, just, wow. That is probably the dumbest argument I've heard on this so far, and I've heard a lot of whoppers. You get people talking about marrying their pets all the time on this, but really? I mean, a building? Tell me this: how the @!$%# can a building give consent? It can't communicate (it can, but not in that way). Believe me, I work in and on buildings, and I have yet to hear one ask for my hand in marriage, or anything else. Marrying a building? That's your best argument?

Oh, no, it's not, you talked about some woman marrying herself. You see, it's not a marriage unless it's at least 2 people, both giving consent. The reason is because marriage is a contractual obligation, and you cannot have a contractual obligation with just one person. There is no transfer of property, no exchange of promises, etc. if it's only between one person. Because there is no BETWEEN in one person, insane people excluded.

So, in essence, I laugh at you and your pitiful arguments. As to your admonishment against name-calling? Why don't you try being less of a hateful bigot, and I'll stop calling you one, 'kay?

3Thirty,

It was a statement about the baseless paranoia that shows up in your posts.

WorkingHard,

You never answered my question...

All the arguments that support 2 men getting married support 3 men getting married. Gay marriage has no connection with the number 2, especially from a legal/constitutional standpoint. Traditional marriage does.

But you haven't shown how that is so??? If that's true, why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to polygamy? What is it about the gender of the people entering into the contract that causes it to lead to polygamy (because that would be the only difference)? What would be the difference? If straight marriage doesn't why would gay marriage?

Sarah

"Straight" marriage is associated with the number two because there is one man, one woman, which equals two. Straight marriage could conceivably extend beyond that but biologically and historically, it is founded in the number two. It takes one man and one woman to make a baby and extend the existance of the human race. Can it extend to polygamy, sure and it has. You can make laws that limit marriage to one man, one woman and that is the case today. Very few have challenged those laws as they relate to "straight" marriage.

When you say a gay couple has the civil right to be married, I say, fine, but you have neither a biological nor historical foundation to limit the number 2. The arguments for polygamy and gay marriage are founded on the same principles. Civil liberties, concenting adults.

I'm still don't understand why the government is involved in marriage at all. It has been reduced to a simple legal contract at this point. They can't regulate love and they can't regulate sex. When it is just a cold-hearted legal document, it doesn't even seem worth it to involve the state. Why are they involved? Money? How romantic . . . .

workin hard - When you say a gay couple has the civil right to be married, I say, fine, but you have neither a biological nor historical foundation to limit the number 2.

That's a rather dumb argument. Marriage is a legal contract primarily about property and kinship rights, and gay couples have the exact same concerns in that area as straight couples do. And history is no justification for perpetuating the 2nd-class citizenship of gays.

It takes one man and one woman to make a baby and extend the existance of the human race.

Since marriage is neither necessary or required for procreation, you don't seem to have much of a point. Once we start denying marriage to childless and infertile couples, then you can try that argument.

I'm still don't understand why the government is involved in marriage at all. It has been reduced to a simple legal contract at this point.

That's what it's always been - just a legal contract. That you think that's a problem is rather amusing, since it's always been just a legal contract.

Workin Hard,

First, you contradicted yourself. You admitted that STRAIGHT marriage has led to polygamy. However, was it the legal contract of marriage that led to polygamy, or was it religious dogma? Marriage per se, didn't lead to anything, religion did. At least the polygamy you're speaking of.

The only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage is the gender of one of the parties, ergo, logically, if gay marriage is going to lead to polygamy, it must be because of that one partner's gender. So what is it, about changing the gender of that person, that leads to polygamy?

Also, historically, marriage hasn't simply been between two people, one man, one woman. It's been between, as you pointed out, one man and many woman. One woman and many men. One man, and another man's female ward. One man and one woman, only of the same race. The only thing that all of those have in common, is that they were all contractual partnerships.

The pro-creation issue, is a non-issue. Unless, of course, you're willing to ban anyone from being married unless they pass a fertility test? And then, of course, you would have to force them to have children. That's the only scenario where not allowing gay marriage because of pro-creation would be logical.

Finally, we don't ban things and base laws on "what might happen". If we did, we could justifiably, outlaw everything. We might walk outside and get ran over by a truck, therefore I ban all driving???

workin hard - I too have Christian values and do not want to be judgemental of gay people. The key is that the homosexual act is to be discouraged per Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

In other words you're a follower of Paul, not Jesus. And you seem to think that denying gays the legal right to marry will somehow magically prevent them from having sex.

Gay couples are capable of having children. They just aren't capable of having children by accident.

@Lola,

Gay couples can't produce children. A woman, with a homosexual orientation, is capable of reproducing a child using heterosexual means. Furthermore, no pregnancy is an accident, it happens by design. Women who have unexpected pregnancies lost the game of reproductive roullete they foolishly played.

@Black and kettle,

A fatal flaw in the logic of homosexuality is this desire to brush the biological aspects of sex under the rug in favor of pleasure. In the absence of sexual pleasure, pregnancy can still occur, and people can still be
emotionally damage, although by your logic rape and incest victims enjoy sexual assault. Gametes invalidate homosexuality. There is no purpose in having either sperm or egg other than reproduction. The
main ideas of homosexuality are rooted in psyche, heterosexuality is rooted in biology. If nature regulated sexual activity, it would stand to reason that homosexuals would be born infertile or impotent rather then having a fully functioning reproductive system. Overpopulation is a myth began in the 18^th century by
Thomas Malthus. More to the point, the Darwinian, survival of the fittest nonsense normally seems to quit when self preservation is involved. If you believe in overpopulation, would you give up your life to save the planet? Why are people in Africa such a disposable commodity? Isn't it the job of the better off to help the needy or are we reverting back to Margaret singer's old superiority of the white race? Also, who says I have children?

@Indie

Considering that infanticide, harems, and genocide has also been documented in the animal kingdom, can we able to cherry pick between behaviors? Should we have sex for any reason under the sun as the bonobos do? You're correct, norm represents a majority of what a certain group exhibits. We can
extrapolate that if 98% of the population is heterosexual, and about 2% is homosexual, that heterosexuality can be considered the normal sexual behavior of the population. Your assumption is flawed. First, you're assuming that anyone can have sex with 100 people or that your average person knows 100 people to have sex with. Second, heterosexual behavior is normal. The question of whether it's morally
right is a side issue. Partner? Are human relationships business transactions? Sex is a commodity which requires time and opportunity.

It's perfectly normal to avoid sex if you don't plan on reproducing, just as it is normal to avoid smoking if you don't want smoking related effects. You're begging the question by assuming oral sex is inherent to every sexual encounter, that every person is OK with giving or receiving oral sex, and that all heterosexual males receive oral sex. The assumption that marriage isn't spiritual is false. It is instituted in society as a legal contract, but the entirety of a marriage is as spiritual as the individuals involved. The concept of
marriage, and the beliefs involved are spiritual. To argue materialistically that marriage is entirely legal violates the metaphysical aspects of marriage such as love, sex, and children. Porn is also a multi-billion dollar industry that causes erectile dysfunction, and has been linked to child molestation and sexual
assault. Just because something stimulates the economy doesn't make it good for the people.

@Larry36

The question is why should the government recognize a couple's sexual habits? If you agree that sexual behavior shouldn't be restricted by the government, are you alright with yourself, or someone you know, being sexually assaulted or molested? Perhaps the federal government should stop locking up rapist or pedophiles, that would certainly liberate a lot of people. The churches don't decide what's a sin, they reflect the biblical view of sin. It might help if homosexuals stop trying to hijack the title to try and normalize abnormal sexual behavior. “Every law is an infraction of liberty” – Jeremy benthem. How do you validate that prohibitions of homosexuality are based on speculation?

@Lola

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the pleasure from sex has little baring on the biological function of
sex. While eating is natural, not everything you eat is beneficial to you. Pleasure is mainly psychological and subjective, so is sexual preference. Don't believe me, try becoming aroused at halitosis or gross obesity. While there may be some who these things arousing, this has to do with them. Can you please note one socially sexual activity that causes bonding? It mainly causes competition and frustration. Group bonding? Are we a bunch of swingers? Homosexual activist love to point out the bonobo, don't they realize that bonobos will rub genitals irregardless. More to the point, how is the sexual behavior of animals directly transferable to humans? To argue that homosexual relationships among chimps has the net effect of giving another chimp a better chance begs the question by assuming that chimps think about sex like humans do, or that one bonobo reproductive system is less sufficient than another.

@Geowil

If morality is relative then why do we have laws? The whole point in having a law is to enact a standard for everyone. Moral or ethical restrictions are the basis of the penal code. Laws aren't relative, they work the same way for everyone. People have the free will to act in accordance with right, or do the wrong thing trying to beat the system. Actually, loud sex is really annoying; especially from neighbors. What is there to substantiate there are no negative consequences for their actions? Why can't personal morals effect multiple people when certain laws are a reflection of what people feel are socially agreed upon rights and wrongs? Does the bill of rights ring a bell? The disingenuous use of the word force is appealing. Actually, no one is forced to marry any other person, modern marriages happen by choice. The states are granted rights not given to congress, per the constitution, so they can regulate behaviors.

@PrecededbyNone

Where has homosexuality ever been conclusively proven as natural, by science, and where does homosexuality promote the propagation of one's genes? The anus? How are children not the product of the father and mother? Was their embryo developed by another female besides their biological mother? Environment plays a role mainly after delivery. Wait, how are heterosexual males going behind anyone's back if they're all out hunting? When was the last time gay males actively defended anything, most of them are too busy hiding in the closet? Are you really expecting me to believe that gay males are going to protect nything. "Oh hey girl, this primal shelter is so last ice age..." You're right. Gay males wouldn't be after the females, cause they would be too busy trying to get with each other.

@Black Kettle

Why is it ok to be gay, bisexual, or transgendered? Homosexuals never proved their deviance was natural,and there is no such thing as transgendered. No matter what you do to your genitals, you can't change your biological sex. When did biochemistry prove that homosexuality is natural. The postmortem brains of dead gay males doesn't prove homosexuality. At best, it's believed to be the product of the environment, and possibly biology. Dude, arguing that no one would ever choose a course of actions because of consequences is invalidated by death row. Certainly, no one would ever choose to commit a crime knowing they would end up on death row. No, they may not have wanted death row, but the consequences were about the only thing they didn't think of as they were doing their dirt. We lost a lot of victims to STD's spread by homosexuals as well.

ItIsWhat!t!s - We lost a lot of victims to STD's spread by homosexuals as well.

So your brilliant plan to reduce STDs is to deny gays the institutional support for monogamy we call marriage?

Very well thought out.

@Shrekk

That's on the assumption that marriage ensures monogamy or that gays are exclusively monogamous. Statistically, it has been shown that gay males are less monogamous, in a relationship, then their heterosexual counterparts.

ItIsWhat!t!s - Statistically, it has been shown that gay males are less monogamous, in a relationship, then their heterosexual counterparts.

I wonder if that's because bigots like you won't let gays marry?

I also suspect you got your "statistics" from a hate group like NARTH.

ItisWhatItIs,

Regulating behaviors is not the job of any Government in a free society where those behaviors are not breaking the law. If you steal something you are breaking the law. Having homosexual sex is not breaking any constitutional law. Behavior "modification" on the level you are talking about is strictly a religious idea. No where in any law is it stated that having sex with the same sex is either illegal, puts oneself at risk, nor puts others at risk or in any danger as to prove that the act should be declared no legal.

Religious ideology and by extension religious morality has no bearing on our laws. You can argue that until you are blue in the face but our laws, when they are wholly constitutional, are secular in nature. The Government can create no law that breaches on a religion's rights while no religion can influence the laws of our country; basic and fundamental definition of separation of church and state that you should have learned in your senior year Government class. All of these anti-gay laws are being pushed for by religious organizations like NOM or FFA. These amendments, laws, and bills are religious in nature and are a breach of separation of church and state and are therefore unconstitutional.

What you believe personally cannot be used to create laws that affect another person's or group of people's rights and access to privileges. You cannot be denied a civil union because you are Gay, you cannot be denied a civil marriage because you are Gay. Above almost all other laws we, as Americans, have the right to pursue happiness and to freedoms and liberty. What you are advocating is majority rules where the majority declare that because of the way someone is born they are to be less free then someone who is born differently.

Let's turn the discussion around. Say that Gays were the majority and that they wanted to take away our right, as straight people, to marry the opposite sex. Put aside for the moment that realistically it is impossible and just play along. Understanding is the first way to rid oneself of ignorance and the easiest way to attain understanding is to be placed or to consider being placed into a similar position.

You cannot tell me that you would just say "Yeah I agree with that, they are the majority after all..." I know for a fact that most of the anti-gay people here would probably be protesting (at the very least) or maybe even renouncing their citizenship if that ever happened.

53% of American's do not agree with your opinion. However the reason the votes always go the other way is because your side is much more polarized because your side believes that it is personally under attack. This is not a Right/Left issue it is a too religious vs normal religious issue. Normal people do not care what someone does in their own homes. They do not care if the kiss in public. The only people offended by what Gays do are the people that have made it their personal mission and outlook that religion should rule everyone's lives.

The constitution grants us two things regarding this absurd notion. First that we have a freedom of religion which include freedom to choose to not follow a religion. The second is separate of church and state. Aside from the other points mentioned above these two are the overriding flaws to your side's argument. No American can force a religion or a religious view on another American that does not want to have that view and no law in American can be solely based upon a religions view.

One of your side's favorite argument is that if religion is meaningless to law then murder should be legal. This is failed logic. The constitution gives every human, not just American, a base levels of non-alienable rights as a human being. To kill someone is a violating of those rights. The law against killing someone is not based the ten commandments, it is based upon those specific rights given to all people as are many of our other laws based upon such constructs.

Other laws, equality laws for example, are born out of necessity because certain cultures of Americans just will not accept someone that their view as abnormal and must be forced to. Black's civil rights, Women's rights, and interracial marriage rights are some examples of this.

Like it or not within the next decade Gay rights will be a thing of the past and Gay marriage is going to be legalized. The only thing religious organizations can do is stall. Eventually the Supreme Court will rule that any laws breaching upon a citizen's right to a civil union (including marriage) is unconstitutional and all of these state laws will be repealed.

Oh and AIDS is spread by all demographics, not just homosexuals. Sorry but you swallowed that lie hook, line, and sinker.

...uh, blacks are anti-gay marriage....by about 80%

If mixed racial marriage was based on popular vote, they would still be illegal in most of these backwards states.

Minority civil rights can never be determined by majority vote.

Yes YES!!! Oppressing others rights! Fap fap fap fap

The Jews can be next. After all a significant number conspiracy theorists believe that some Jews are in power in high places of american government, and they're taking the USA down a path of end times destruction. Solution? I've heard a couple of these paranoid people say "we have to get rid of the jews, get them out of America before it's too late.

vttova

If the majority doesn't/shouldn't decide our laws, who should? Special interest? Lobbyists? I realize that lobbyists DO decide our laws, I'm just asking who you think should.

I think ultimately, carefully-selected judges should, since they are in a position for life and don't need to pander to be elected. They don't take things lightly. The Supreme Court is rightfully the last word on things. There's balance. People are fickle, and frankly, stupid sometimes. Huge numbers of people in this country vote without even knowing who they are voting for. The pick a President, and then ALL the local candidates they just randomly pull levers because they didn't take the time to even know what they intend to do.

Carefully selected by what criteria?

We are watching the death of America as the land of the free. How small and insecure people must be that whether or not I can marry my fiancé of 8 years is so threatening to them that they form an organisation devoted to denying us a right.

Sorry, Keck--latest polls say even Blacks are 50/50 at this point.

But, how ironic, that a group that has struggled for equal rights wouldn't want them for everyone.

Hey Jamies8 if gay is a choice then you're admitting that you have gay thoughts but choose to like women. Interesting. I personally do not have gay thoughts about men. How does that make you feel?

These efforts in support of marriage are going to succeed best in states with large black populations.

Has the NAACP noticed that yet?

James, when did you choose your sexuality?

James8n wrote:

"Hey stupid we are not talking about a race of people. Gay is not a race, it's a choice........"

Good point James8. Did you know that Jewish isn't a race either, but a choice.

Maybe we should start passing laws to regulate the conduct of Jewish people?

For starters, we could make them register as Jews with their local police, and wear a Star of David on their clothes so we can easily identify them......

Mario69 ..what?

Its ironic how blacks are actually christian...you had the land and they had the bible, now they have the land and you have the bible, then enslaved them. and yes...the bible endorses slavery...

if any group i would expect to be less religious it would be the black community

workin hard asks some interesting questions. I've narrowed it down to her first - "Has gay marriage been passed in any state by the vote of the people or has it always been done in the state legislature? That's not a statement, it's a question."

My answer is simple. It isn't up to a vote of the people. Tell me, any of you that are married, was a vote taken by the people of your state on your right to marry the person you love? I know that didn't happen when I got married. Why should it be up to people that have no interest nor business in anyone's marriage? Again, simple answer. It isn't. Just because a bunch of people (christians mainly who can't think for themselves. Yes, small case c on purpose.) got all up in arms over what some people perceived to be the destruction of straight marriage now good people are being treated worse than second class citizens. We have friends that are gay. Friends that aren't married but living together. Friends who are divorced and remarried to others. Friends who've had children out of wedlock. Guess what. None of them have had any effect on our marriage. That's right. No effect and I don't know of anyone who've had their marriage destroyed or affected in any way by gay marriage or unions. Guess that blows that story out of the water. Truth is, it won't do anything to straight marriage at all. So get over it.

Its ironic how blacks are actually christian...you had the land and they had the bible, now they have the land and you have the bible, then enslaved them. and yes...the bible endorses slavery...if any group i would expect to be less religious it would be the black community

Sockurmouth: The bible was written by slaves. All of Moses' family were slaves. They were slaves to Egypt. This is not new. In the New Testament, the people were slaves to Rome. The trouble is, most liberals think that the people who wrote the bible were the slave owners. That's why they keep bringing up the point about selling your daughter into slavery for example. Again, not true. That is why you often hear God say to the people- marry, have children; do not dwindle away. I will provide for you, etc...

The bible was written by slaves.

The entire Bible, written by slaves, eh? You are SOME historian, bud.

Even *if* just a portion of that was true, do you have any concept of how many times the Bible was rewritten, deliberately edited and changed to fit the agenda of those in power?

Remember back in the days before they had photocopiers and printing presses, the Bible was copied word for word, letter by letter, BY THE HANDS OF MEN. Do you trust your fellow men to translate and dictate the exact meaning and every nuance of the Bible? Have you ever played the game "telephone"? Now try playing that game over CENTURIES, and mix in corruption and laziness, and tell me if the Bible now resembles ANYTHING that it was originally intended to be.

Bart Conner

Sorry, Keck--latest polls say even Blacks are 50/50 at this point.

50/50 of how many black people polled? 100, 200, 500, 1,000?

James8 - then allow me to ask you this: WHEN DID YOU DECIDE TO BECOME STRAIGHT?

NOT Born Gay: Homosexuality Caused by Emotional Trauma:
"Like many who struggle with same-sex attractions, the early years of my life were filled with pain and confusion. When I was 8 years old my parents divorced. This single event was the turning point. For the next 12 years my life would be marked by rejection, estrangement, isolation, abuse, insecurity, and fear....What I did not realize for the first half of my life was that my struggle with same-sex attraction WAS BORN OUT OF A LEGITIMATE HUNGER FOR LOVE, AFFIRMATION, IDENTITY, AND SECURITY."
D. Berryessa, ex-gay.

It's insane that we have to pay attention to this small minority in this fashion over something so overblown. It makes no sense to me why they continue to try and force their viewpoint that being gay is normal and legitimate. It is not normal, it goes against the natural order and they know it, they wouldn't try so hard to force legitimacy in the matter otherwise. Why do we need to keep paying attention to these freaks? Go do your thing in the closet, please! I don't care what they do, just keep it out of my face, it offends me. Funny how they do that too, they get all pissed when we don't like what they do, but they see fit to advertise their choice in flagrant terms that we all have to tolerate whether it offends us or not. It is two faced and hypocritical.

Yeah, I'm just going to laugh at anyone professing to be "ex-gay." Seriously, those are some of the WORST people you could go to for an opinion on this. The whole "ex-gay community" is definitely in need of some enlightenment with regards to sexuality. Particularly to the fact that we don't know exactly what causes sexuality to form in the first place. I attribute anything they say to their desire to not be who they are naturally. And that's a really tough position to put your brain in. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, as they say, and has a tendency to futher corrupt the logical processing of other, seemingly unrelated areas. But enough about that, especially since that's the limit of my understanding at this point.

Phil - your post is so full of stupid, oh where do I begin?

It's insane that we have to pay attention to this small minority in this fashion over something so overblown.

Reminds me of, "Oh, those damn negroes and their incessant whining. Why won't they just quit being so darned uppity?"

It makes no sense to me why they continue to try and force their viewpoint that being gay is normal and legitimate. It is not normal, it goes against the natural order and they know it, they wouldn't try so hard to force legitimacy in the matter otherwise.

Well, let's see. I don't think being religious is normal. So, let's go ahead and pass some legislation against it. It's not natural, after all, to believe in some all-powerful monster being that possesses control over everything, and still live your life as if your actions matter.

But speaking of "natural order," why don't we take a look? Let's see, we could go the bonobo route, and have sex all the time for conflict resolution, dominance, and just plain old pleasure. But then we'd all be bisexual, too. Okay, how about lions? So, if I marry a woman who has kids from a previous marriage, I should kill them so that my pride is made up only of my genetic line, right? How about we go back to harems, like gorillas. Or, we could engage in rape more often, like chimpanzees. I know, penguins. The men stay and take care of the babies, while the women go off and do the fishing. Oh, wait, all these occasionally have homosexual relationships, too. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to which "natural order" we are supposed to follow?

Why do we need to keep paying attention to these freaks? Go do your thing in the closet, please! I don't care what they do, just keep it out of my face, it offends me.

Why don't you go do your bigotry in the closet and keep it out of the face of decent people? You offend me, therefore I win, right?

Funny how they do that too, they get all pissed when we don't like what they do, but they see fit to advertise their choice in flagrant terms that we all have to tolerate whether it offends us or not. It is two faced and hypocritical.

Oh, NOES!!111!!1elevnty!!11! They're not that pissed that you don't like what they do. It's the fact that, you know, legal discrimination seems okay to you in order to keep from seeing something "icky." And, for the record, nobody can tell you what to say or not say (exceptions being state secrets and inciting violence). Even then, there is no prior restraint. So, yeah, nobody's going to prosecute you for being a bigotted piece of garbage, like you are. See that? I just called you a bad name. Why don't you go run to mommy and whine about it.

Seriously, you're equating losing your freedom of speech to their lack of rights regarding all the legal rammifications that marriage bestows. Not only that, but YOU AREN'T IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH! That's our First @!$%#ING Amendment in our Constitution. No @!$%#ing way that thing is going to be overturned. So, in essence, you're equating losing your privilege of being a bigot in a bigotted majority that thinks it's okay to torture gay people to them not having rights that every other person enjoys, specifically the right to marry and share job benefits, power of attorney, medical decisions, etc. You're in actuality arguing AGAINST freedom of speech because you don't like the decent human beings calling out your hipocrasy, ignorance, and stupidity.

Way to go. I'd give you a cookie, but I think you've had too much sugar and it's time for your nap.

True LGBT get a new handle because you are anything but and anyone that considers themselves "ex-gay" is not worthy of listening to because they are obviously sexually repressed.

Phil "natural order" does not dictate our laws not should religion do so either. Please get your head out of God's ass so you can see the forest for the trees.

next thing you know, someone is going to want to marry their horse!

"True LGBT get a new handle because you are anything but and anyone that considers themselves "ex-gay" is not worthy of listening to because they are obviously sexually repressed."

Interesting, but not surprising. No argument, just your are invalidated because "I" say so.

Well, if you want to marry your horse, good luck getting legal, informed, enthusiastic consent.

Jackass.

Kelson21

So your answer to my original question is "no"?

For starters, we could make them register as Jews with their local police, and wear a Star of David on their clothes so we can easily identify them......

yeah, and we can make gays wear pink triangles...

hmmm, when did something similar last happen????

Jolly,

The Supreme court. They have to be impartial and not be warped by any religious BS and the SCOTUS is the only institution I can think of that at least has a track record of being marginally fair when it comes to civil rights. They already have stricken down some of these no-Gay laws in recent years.

Bob: You are aware that legalizing gay marriage is not the same as making it mandatory, right?

There will be plenty of straight people around to help pump up world population to 8 billion within the next few years. They won't even need test tubes to do it. This law will not suddenly and dramatically change the sexual orientation of otherwise straight people.

Using your definition of "procreation" as the reason for marriage, a 46 year old woman who has gone through menopause also should not have the right to marry, nor should a woman in her 20s who was diagnosed with cervical cancer and had to have a hysterectomy.

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. I have an aunt and uncle who are married, both are very interested in pursuing their professional goals and have no interest in having children getting in the way of that. Therefore, they do not procreate, yet they are married. It was never stated that they wanted to procreate when they got married. Marriage is a legal contract binding two persons and their assets together. That is all it is, and as it is a legal issue, all people deserve equal treatment under the law.

So then, Just Bob, are you in support of Social Services taking children out of single parent household? Because if children NEED a Mother and a Father, then there is a lot of work to do. And can you answer a question for me? If gay parents can't have children, then where are all these gay KIDS coming from? In my opinion, if you stop want to having gay kids, then straight people should probably stop procreating.

Just Bob: please post research that indicates children need and mother and father as opposed to two loving parents regardless of gender. I don't know if you watch South Park, you likely feel it is tied to Satan so perhaps not, but there is an excellent episode in which the teacher, Mr/Mrs. Garrison wants to prove that two men can't care for a child so he assigns two of the boys to care for an egg while the rest of the class pairs up in boy/girl groups. The two boys do just as well at taking care of the egg.

I realize that is not a valid supporting argument, as it comes from a scripted TV show and is anecdotal; however, it is more evidence than your "Children NEED a Mother and a Father". I can capitalize words too "Children NEED a Father and Father, Mother and Mother, or a Mother and Father" so nah :P

So Bob - you're opposed to divorce when there are children involved? I mean, even if the father ( or mother ) beats the kids senseless because they hate the spouse it's better then 2 loving gay guys raising them right?

My parents were not inclined to think as my aunt and uncle, and therefore i was born. However, had they thought like my aunt and uncle I would not be here to have any feelings regarding their decision. Your argument is a pointless one, as you seem to feel that all people must behave in one way. People do not behave in one way.

Sorry, Bob--there are two million gay parents raising children--most often children that their straight parents didn't want and abandoned.

I would trust my kids to be raised by two gay men more so than I would trust them to be raised by bigots.

So what are you Cakes ? A Sadducee or a Pharisee ?

Your thinking is leading OUR Nation down the immoral road to ruin.

No one here can state that life is not complicated. But each of us will have meet OUR Maker individually. He'll decide the fate of each one of us. I object to actions that lead us down the wrong path.

Am I perfect ? NO. But it is my hope that I'm headed down the right path. I hope for Mercy. JMJ

Randomguy, and that is the difference between the Saved and the Damned.

Which one will you be ? JMJ

So funny, Bob. If Christ came today, he'd look at members of organized religions, especially the judgmental born-againers and call them Pharasees!

And they, of course, would crucify him.

Christ describes the right path VERY clearly— LOVE THEY NEIGHBOR. That's right. LOVE

Why does everyone else have to march down the path YOU choose, Bob? If it is between man and his maker, exactly why is Bob getting involved?

If there were muslim groups in this country successfully implementing sharia law state-to-state, I can guarantee you would be up in arms. But it's okay as long as CHRISTIANS implement THEIR religious code into secular law? Holy beans...

Morals have been eroding in this country for a long time. It is the liberal agenda to chase out religion and morals. Even though is well know that homosexual is an unatural act in itself otherwise humans would not exist period. Until man evolves to get pregnant up has anus and drops a baby out then it is still male and female that are the norm.

Bart if you know the bible you would know that Christ was also vengeful of unrepentent sinners...why else did God strike so many dead?

B Conner, what are you talking about ? Love does NOT mean rubberstamping perversion.

Your logic is twisted and selfserving at best.

You thinking does not make you a lover; it make you a liberal.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.........until you Libs. JMJ

Bob: I resent the implication that my aunt and uncle are damned because of their personal choice. Regardless, as this country shall make no laws respecting the establishment of any religion even their damned status (Which I strongly oppose as a truth, but will argue as though it were for your sake) should have no bearing on how they or anyone else is treated in this country. Any spiritual issues will be handled by God as God sees fit, not as we see fit.

As for which i will be. If I am to be damned for what i believe in then I will be damned. I put the foundations of this country and the personal liberty of all it's citizens above the exclusion of bigotry. As for my relationship to God, it is irrelevant in the public discourse as it is between myself and God. Let's not go all Scarlet Letter in here.

As for the "unnatural" nature of homosexuality. Can anyone explain to me why it consistently occurs within the human race at about 10% of the population? The argument of "homosexual is an unatural act in itself otherwise humans would not exist period" again follows the fallacy that all people must act in one way. If 10% are homosexual, that leaves 90% to procreate, subtracting those who are also infertile of course. Therefore the race can continue even as homosexuality is a part of it.

ConstitutionT,

You believe what the hell you want. Your thinking would have OUR Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

Besides, I fought for OUR Country, so that we could have freedom of speech, freedom of thought.

Someone has to counter all the immoral garbage that you Libs peddle.

About time you stopped thumping the Constitution, ain't it ?

Morals have been eroding in this country for a long time. It is the liberal agenda to chase out religion and morals. Even though is well know that homosexual is an unatural act in itself otherwise humans would not exist period. Until man evolves to get pregnant up has anus and drops a baby out then it is still male and female that are the norm.

Bart if you know the bible you would know that Christ was also vengeful of unrepentent sinners...why else did God strike so many dead?

It is well known that homosexuals exist and are as natural heterosexuals. If all of mankind was created by God, then no human is "unnatural." If you want to argue that homosexuality is a sin, go for it. It may be the sin of a homosexual, but there is nothing particularly "special" about that sin compared to any sin you commit. According to your own beliefs, there is no one who is sinless except Jesus. That includes YOU. So, perhaps you should brush up on your own religion and what your own "savior" said about judging, throwing stones, and removing planks from your eye before you start worrying about what other people are doing.

Last I saw, not one of the 10 commandments mentions "homosexuality," whereas homosexuality is called an abomination just like eating shellfish is an abomination. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality or condemned it, only Paul did such a thing, and he, of course, was not Jesus.

And, by the way, this nation is governed SECULARLY. Do you understand that? That means that our laws are not based on the bible (or should not be). The moment you accept laws based on the bible is the moment you give other religions permission to legislate THEIR versions of "morality." You either support separation of church and state or you work hard to create a theocracy. Just remember if you support a theocracy, in the future when Christians are a minority and they are subjected to the laws of some other religion, they will only be reaping what they have sown.

Oh but you don't believe that, I'm sure. You just keep beating the bible against people instead of loving them. Keep trying to dethrone your own God by passing judgment on people who are no better or worse than you. Keep comparing yourself to your own God in action and, if your God exists, you will pay dearly for it.