E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
David Handschuh / Pool / Getty Images file
Couple Ray Durand (L) and his partner Dale Shields kiss while having their picture taken after their wedding ceremony at the Manhattan City Clerk's office on the first day that New York State's Marriage Equality Act went into effect on July 24, 2011 in New York City.
One year after New York lawmakers voted to make same-sex marriage legal in the state, opponents of gay marriage are pledging to unseat the Republicans whose support was key to the law's passage, saying they want to send a message to other legislators that there are “consequences” to their votes.
The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage, says it is funneling $2 million into the state to oust three state senators who voted to support the legislation. All three, Sens. Roy McDonald, Stephen Saland and Mark Grisanti, are facing primary challenges. A fourth GOP senator, Jim Alesi, already has said he won’t seek a ninth term due to local opposition over his pro-gay marriage stance.
Alesi, 64, and his three fellow GOP senators joined 29 Democrats on June 24, 2011, to give the bill a 33-29 victory. Though Alesi told msnbc.com he was sad to leave office, he said the vote on gay marriage was "irrevocable" and decried the actions of NOM as "purely revenge" and "blind hatred."
"The focal point of running against good candidates (his three fellow GOP senators) ... is nothing more than a bag of rocks that they’re carrying around and they’ll have to carry them for a long, long time because marriage isn’t going anywhere, it’s here,” he said.
Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, doesn't shy away from the fact his group is hoping to intimidate wavering lawmakers into opposing gay marriage.
“The message is clear, that supporting same-sex marriage is a losing issue, not a winning issue,” Brown told msnbc.com. “You could lose your career over supporting same-sex marriage.”
He also doesn't buy the argument that gay marriage is a settled issue in New York, even though a May 2012 poll by Quinnipac University found the state's voters support same-sex marriage 54 to 37 percent.
"If we don’t get a vote this year, we’re going to work to get one next year. We’re not going away," Brown said. "I think it’s just wishful thinking to say that once you have same-sex marriage the fight’s over. It’s not."
Toward that end, NOM has spent $400,000 on issue ads, billboards, automated calls and direct mail as well as made direct donations through its New York PAC. It is planning to spend another $1.6 million to try to unseat McDonald, Saland and Grisanti as a result of their gay marriage votes.
Both McDonald and Saland face opponents strongly opposed to gay marriage, and their contests could turn on the issue. Grisanti also has faced criticism for his marriage vote, but his Republican opponent, Kevin Stocker, won't say where he stands on the issue. Instead, Stocker argues the issue should have been put before voters, not enacted by the legislature, according to capitoltonight.com's "State of Politics" blog.
“NOM is trying to use the choke point of a Republican primary to punish people who voted … the other way,” said Bruce Gyory, a political consultant in New York who supports gay marriage but did not work on the issue for either side. “NOM’s strategy is to try to take advantage of the more conservative factor … that exists in Republican primaries and use that as an example to say to legislators in other states, ‘Don’t you dare vote for this because you’ll lose.'"
But Gyory, an adjunct professor of political science at Albany-SUNY, believes that if the New York lawmakers can escape their primaries, their support for gay marriage could work to their advantage.
Mike Groll / AP
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, center, hands pens to legislators after signing into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, at the Capitol in Albany, N.Y., on Friday, June 24, 2011. Behind Cuomo, from left, are Assemblyman Matthew Titone, Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, Lt. Gov. Robert Duffy, Sen. Thomas Duane and Sen. Jim Alesi.
"If you put it up to a general election test in these areas it would probably play to the benefit of these legislators rather than to their political detriment.”
Alesi said NOM and the money it is pouring into the state was not a factor in his decision not to seek re-election. He said they were “nowhere on the radar” in Rochester except for a billboard they put up in a remote part of his district. He also denied that a controversial local lawsuit over a personal injury factored into his decision. What it came down to, Alesi said, is that he had a strong Republican challenger, and had determined a bloody primary wouldn’t be worth ultimately losing a Republican-held seat to a Democrat.
“As much as I could easily have won in the general election, I thought it would be very difficult to get through a primary … where I’d have to challenge my own party,” Alesi said.
He said some of his supporters encouraged him to leave the Republican Party so his marriage vote wouldn't be such a factor, but he didn't want to do it.
Hans Pennink / AP file
Sen. Roy J. McDonald, R- Stillwater, left, talks with his Chief of Staff Patrick E. Poleto during a session of the New York State Senate at the Capitol in Albany, N.Y., Tuesday, June 14, 2011.
“I thought also that it was very important if I were going to run for re-election that I would do it as a Republican because I was a Republican when I voted for marriage equality, and at the time, I said that I think it’s important for other legislatures and other states to know that Republicans can vote for things like marriage equality," he said, noting that he had said from early on, "Republicans can vote for this and go on with their political lives.”
To that end, The New York Times reported that billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer will give $1 million to begin a “super PAC” called American Unity PAC with several other Republicans. It will provide support to Republican candidates who favor same-sex marriage. Singer helped amass some $250,000 for each of the Republican New York state senators after NOM announced its efforts.
The New York primaries are in June and in September, and it remains to be seen how the three lawmakers will fare. But Alesi said he is fine with how everything turned out after his marriage vote, even though it is largely responsible for the end of his senate career
"I took the greatest vote I could have taken ... I firmly and truly believe in equality," he said, remembering that at the time of the vote he told himself, "If this is what the price is, it’s fine with me, because I can’t imagine having the opportunity to do anything this historic and this personally fulfilling again ever in my career ... I am leaving very peacefully."
Leave a Comment:
So much for freedom of choice...
This is why I hate PACs...they hijack the democratic process by punishing incumbents who don't "toe their line", especially when they actually try to do their job and serve the public good. This is what Citizens United has given us.
What really surprises me...is how any Christian, any Conservative, any Republican, any thinking Adult Human could still believe that a Politician has a soul or belief system...except how best to line their pockets and get re-elected so they can line their pockets some more...why are you getting mad at a snake for being a snake
I mean, I understand how Liberals and Democrats can still be that easily fooled, that is how you become a Liberal and a Democrat (lol)
Any American who ever wants to be reliably represented, regardless of your "leaning", need to vote "third party"...If you vote for a Rep or Dem, you deserve what you get, just another Politician
I wonder if they had "the talk" with favored son Dick Cheney?
I for one am glad that this here Conservative Pac is getting after these Anti-Family Anti-Christian Anti-American Hooligan's post haste!!! These kind of UnHoly Urchin's do not belong in the Republican Party what so ever, if they want to play this sort of Sick Evil Homosexual Mumbo Jumbo? Let them go over there and join up with Barack (If I had a son) Obama AMERICA'S very First so-called Homosexual President as reported by that Far-left Liberal Rag-mag Newsweek!!!!! I say Kudos Three Cheers for this here The National Organization for Marriage organization, GOOD too see that someone is looking out for Good Decent Christian American Patriots for a change!!!!
Phineaques - Very clever. Voting third party is a republican ploy to fool the "independent" liberals to damage chances for Obama to be reelected, as those that vote 3rd party always take away votes from the party they agree the most. The repubs never wonder about voting 3rd party because they are unwavering in their virulent hatred for the Black man in office and will vote a piece of dog poop if it had an "R" stamped on it. Libs, if you want more T baggers and corporate shills in office vote 3rd party.
“You could lose your career over supporting same-sex marriage.”
Our founding fathers would be appalled by this. Not because they would have supported gay marriage, but because politics WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A CAREER!
Also, the only reason to oppose gay marriage is because you think god doesn't approve. Which means you are putting religion into government. Separation of church and state exists for a very good reason. I wish today's "public servants" were as wise as the ones who wrote our constitution.
@us101
Really?? Obama is going to win in a landslide...Romney is an empty suit, RNC appointee...and all true conservatives know it...he couldn't win if no Dem voted...and I wouldn't even hope for a LibDem leaning Independant to not vote the party line...this is about the Future of America and a real Democracy
This Third Party wasted vote crap, is the two party propaganda designed to maintain the "Two Party Substitue for Democracy"
"You don't get the government you vote for, you get the government you deserve."
What I honestly hope is that Romney finishes in Third Place...because as soon as the Indpendent middle of America realises their is an realistic option to DNC and RNC, both "parties" will be watching America prosper from the sidelines
"If we don’t get a vote this year, we’re going to work to get one next year. We’re not going away..." - Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage (NOM)
Guess what, Bigot Brown.... neither are we. Us gay people outnumber you by far. Add those that love and support us and we can outlast you into eternity. You might have a big chunk of pocket change but you are buying Hate- we are lobbying for Love. Now go crawl back under your slimy rock.
Thank you, Republican Senators who voted in support of our Cause!! Never let the haters convince you that you did the wrong thing!
US
The last time a Democrat had significant third party losses was in 1968, but Nixon still had 55% of the vote.
Clinton got in twice because the third party took far more votes from the Republican than Clinton
This year in the senate race in Maine, a third party appears to have taken so many votes from an extreme liberal democrat that the third party candide that the third party will win.
Mr PheaNiques. Trump running as the third party is your only Hope. Ron Paul's following is just too small.
Gotta love THE GOP and Citizens United. Now, its not just about buying their way into office, its also about 'preventing' equal and civil rights. After the Supreme Court declares any law against same sex marriage unconstitutional, these same GOP will be the ones saying "We always supported Gay Marriage". How can anyone vote GOP? Can the even read between the lines here?
@MickeyD.-3181068
Let's get one thing straight here MickeyD: YOU may believe that homosexuality is immoral and that is your right, but to say "Anti-Family" and "Anti-American" is completely ludicrous as most Americans support gay marriage and it has been shown over and over again that children in same-sex marriages get the same family bonds that children in male-female marriages.
Oh, and by the way, YOUR Bible does not actually say ANYWHERE that homosexuality is immoral or wrong.
Get your facts straight and stop being a messanger of hate... I wonder what Jesus would say about your behavior?
I refuse to believe that these two (or three with trump) choices is the best America can produce...somewhere in America their is a Sleeping Giant...maybe a Farve or Jordan, maybe a "Movie Star"...oh crap, i owe an apology to us101...If "snookie" ran, she could split the Dem vote...
I'm not counting Paul out yet, and I don't expect him to win, if he ran...the best i can hope for is a proof of concept...for a Third Party run @ 2016...Nobody is going to bet Obama, his voters are already in the bag
If god created those that are gay and is not happy about it, then why did he do it? Free choice? Just like the free choice of people born with birth defects, no arms, legs, or in the case of Conservatives no brains.
BTW, why does god hate amputees? Never has he healed a single one.
"I for one am glad that this here Conservative Pac is getting after these Anti-Family Anti-Christian Anti-American Hooligan's post haste!!!"
1. How is allowing people to marry and be a family anti family?
2. What does being a Christian have to do with it? Its a constitutional issue Ever heard the term "equal rights for all" do you think EVERYONE is Christian or just that everyone needs to believe in the same GOD you do?
3. How is giving a group of people equality in America Anti-American?
It seems to me that it is you and your lke that are anti-american.
"The last time a Democrat had significant third party losses was in 1968, but Nixon still had 55% of the vote."
WRONG!!! In 1968 Nixon got less than 45% of the popular vote.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1968
PULL THEIR 510(c)(3) STATUS ! ! !
These groups are *religious* arms and want tax exempt status.
And find out the religious organizations supporting them and pull their status, freeze their bank accounts and seize their property.
They a doing criminal acts just like drug dealers [exception for the pharmas - /sarcasm] which the above penalties apply.
Our primary process is the root of all political evil in this country. If all candidates simply ran in a general election, we might get politicians that actually represent us, but having to pander to party extremes drives out moderates and gives us crap to choose from in the general election.
Term limits and open primaries are the only possible fixes to the problem of career politicians and money buying elections.
To bad they don't find mariage important enough to save it from divorce.
I know it's not right for me to judge their actions.
You can't have liberals without conservatives. You can't have hot without cold. Think of the conservatives as adults and the liberals as unruly teens with a lot of angst that oppose anything that has been established for centuries.
"I think it’s just wishful thinking to say that once you have same-sex marriage the fight’s over. It’s not."
Absolutely correct! Republicans have worked for 40 years to weaken or destroy Planned Parenthood, Latino civil rights, black civil rights and they have succeeded. The hate groups are stronger today thanks to them. With the help of the SCOTUS, they will do the same thing to this law.
Here they go again, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Where will they direct their hate after the Supreme Court has it's say?
I have debated against same sex relationships and when i voice my opinion 5o gays attack it. They gang up on comments against their view. Claims continue to be made tHAT THE MAJORITY IS IN FAVOR OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE. THIS IS A LIE and an attempt by the media to convince us all it is true. One poster here who is gay claims gays outnumber straight people, another lie,
Since gays can't reproduce on their own and they have a 20 year shorter lifespan than straight folks at some point there won't be enough left to have a car wash.
All republicans should write in Ron Paul. I am going to start a national campaign just for that
MickeyD @ 1.3
"I say Kudos Three Cheers for this here The National Organization for Marriage organization, GOOD too see that someone is looking out for Good Decent Christian American Patriots for a change!!!!"
Yeah, the KKK & John Birch Society just don't have the kind of political clout they used to...
Come on independents, vote your conviction! How on on earth could you vote for obama or his pitiful washed out, pseudo-conservative clone?
I voted against mccain/obama, I will vote against obama/romney.
Discrimination against gays and lesbians is one of the last bastions of bigotry left in the United States.
Gay marriage doesn't, hasn't, and won't affect heterosexual marriages.
Gay people have been around since mankind has existed.
Lastly, no one speaks for God on gay marriage except God.
Its amazing to me considering 90% of registered Republicans are homosexuals anyway. Right Mr.Pheaniques? Maybe those Pacs should use the money to convert them. "Republicans" "The Vassoline Party".
I don't know what all the fuss is about same sex marriage.
I have been married for years, and me and the wife always have the same sex.
Besides, shouldn't government be smaller, and less intrusive into people's personal lives?
Avenger- your comment contradicted itself..... straight couples have gay kids. Don't you know that or are we going to have to explain something to you that you should have learned behind the barn from your cousins years ago...
Brought to you by a follower of
LibertarianRepublican politician Ron Paul. Too funny!@ the Banker
it's hard to know for sure...This Gay thing...has one purpose...Keep the American Voter tied to the party that supports their view point....and sadly we are still falling for it
@OMV
Ron may wear an R, but he isn't owned by them...he might be the only Man in DC that isn't owned by his party...and There is nothing and no one that the RNC and DNC fears more than Ron Paul
He, He. The Banker
You should have added the word "CLOSETED" These righteous are just plan out of touch... A do nothing congress with Mitch McConnell, (Talk about closeted) dead set on destroying a elected president... And I'll have to say the rightest have been doing a great job at obstructionism... Yet President Obama is still hanging in there...
I say vote every republicans out this November and see how congress works then...
DirtyDog, you're right. Things established for centuries should not be challenged. Slavery, children working long hours in dire conditions, no women's vote - let's being back all those things.
If Liberals are unruly teens, then Conservatives are old, out of touch people yelling at you to get off their lawn.
When ever the question of how is a gay marriage going to destroy straight marriage all that happens is that the bible thumpers jump up on the table and wave their bibles while chanting scriptures. Well, wakeup call. Not everybody is Christian and those of us who are not don't care what your bible says. Not only don't we care we're not the least bit interested. Marriage is and always will be a civil contract and who are you to decide who has the right to make a contract with another person combining their lives together. As long as the couple are of legal age and are free to make the contract that's all that should count. If you don't want to make a contract with another person of the same sex then you shouldn't no one is forcing you too. Don't give me the crap about how marriage is to produce children because not every couple who marries has or even wants children. What next are those marriages going to be declared invalid because of lack of children.
Dear Mr. Sanders; I was wondering exactly what happened to you to cause your brain damage. "PAC's hijack the democratic process"?!?! PAC's ARE the democratic process. They are grass roots organizations that take back the will of the people when liberal &/or greedy politicians try to hijack it to be politically correct. Check out the Tea party movements (emphasis on the plural) which came into being primarily to stop Obamacare. It's a similar sentiment behind the entire "Gay" (I hate the miss-use of that word) marriage question. Americans are primarily moral people who believe that Homosexuality is a spiritual malady and, as such, should not be accepted or considered equal any more that prostitution, pedophilia or bestiality. Right and wrong may seem like antiquated concepts to people like you, but to the majority of Americans, they are as relevant today as they always have been. PAC's came into existance to replace that which is "fashionable" with that which is right.
Losing my love for a Country who embraces circus freaks and illegal aliens. Have no respect for Politicians like in New York State that Benedict Arnold their own Party. Nice to see their is big money willing to take up the challenge. How else to you think anything will change unless you throw money at it. That is THE AMERICAN WAY isn't it? More than 1%'ers in this wonderful Land. There's 2%, 3%, 4%, all the way down to those with nothing. Just pick your favorite percent and make a Tee Shirt. Politics in this Country is a scam. Just ask Congress, if you can wake them up.
You are right but your analogy is way off from the truth. Think of the conservatives as Fascists who want corporate control over every aspect of government and people's lives , and liberals as people who want to improve the quality of the lives of all Americans not just a wealthy few.
Greg, I agree with you to a point, however when SCOTUS make it legal for any and everyone to pump unlimited, anon donations to PACS, then I have a huge problem with that. Now it is strictly whomever has the most money will buy their way into the election or cause. Just look at the agenda of the Koch Bros? They have infiltrated every state in the country trying to get laws passed that strictly benefit the Koch's so they can be even more filthy rich.
Greg, the problem with your theory is that almost every poll out there now shows the MAJORITY think gay marriage is ok. So now the MINORITY is trying to use their money to get THEIR way even though they are the minority. This ridiculous group needs to show me exactly HOW gay marriage attacks a traditional marriage and family. If you are gay, you are never going to marry the opposite sex, so that is a non-starter. Many gay couples are adopting children out of foster homes which now MAKES a family. How does that affect a traditional marriage?
If this group is successful, the state needs to put it on the ballot and show these biggots the door. Hope the group spends millions of dollars only to see it wasted.
I fully support gay marraige, so long as both chicks are extremely hot.
The single most "honestly" Religious Christian (Catholic) I have ever known is a post-Op transgender...she has a shrine in her bedroom, and silently prays for 30 minutes(and gets pissed if she is disturbed) or more every night, she drives for an hour to attend church (mass)...and as I am an Atheist, I think she is praying for me most of the time...and as little as I respect about organized religion, the one thing that I do, is the concept of forgiveness at the heart of all forms of Christianity...This battle is being staged by politicians on both sides for the benefit of both
The only real battle is between Conservative and Liberals, if the Gay community hadn't hitched their wagon to the Democratic Party, It would be the Liberals fighthing against their equal rights
Dirty Dog your argument is useless, and completely avoids the natural law of evolution. After all, the laws of sharia have been around far longer than our constitution; are you saying that women should be kept in burkhas just because it's been the tradition for thousands of years?
Another word for tradition could be stagnation, and we all know that stagnant water is unhealthy, and possibly fatal. When I hear of these far right groups saying that gay marriage should be denied, I think that all the folks who claim to be Christian Americans are neither. America is based in personal liberty, and when you deny a specific group their personal liberty, just because it's something you, personally disagree with, then you are indulging in un-American behavior, which in turn, would cause you to be labled as a NOT good American. When you claim God will punish them, you are speaking out your a$$, because you weren't there when He created the world, so you don't KNOW, all you have to go on are the words of men claiming they received it from God. I can make that same claim right now, and make up a whole bunch of rules, but it doesn't make up for the fact that if this is what God wants, then He has the ability to come and tell us all that this is what He wants, and not give His info to just one person. I've learned to never believe anything I hear, and half of what I see...
Just one observation here:
If this isn't the biggest, most blatant lie I have ever seen, I don't know what it is. Anyone, who has any ethical construct, any critical thinking skills, and any ability to discern reality would clearly see that it has been, and always has been the GOP who has fought any change, any progressivism, and any alteration from the status quo. Hence the term "conservative" (One who wishes to conserve the status quo, and/or return to the ways of the past.)
Make no mistake, this is about a group of religious zealots trying to dictate to everyone else, what is, and should be morally, ethically, and individually a choice. That's right. A group of so-called conservatives trying to take a choice away from someone. If anyone has the "angst" it is the right-wing, conservative, religious fanatics who abhor and despise anything that is remotely different from them. This is clear. It is the tea-bagger, right-wing, John Birch types who want to tell everyone what to do, where to do it, not to drink 17 oz drinks, where not to smoke, prohibit women's reproductive and health-care rights, and make the rich even more wealthier on the backs of the working man and woman.
Who the hell gave these people the right to decide for ANYONE else what is right or wrong? Does not that very bible they love to wave around say that we all have FREE WILL, and that it is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility to live up to OUR OWN sense of ethics?
This isn't the Stalinist Soviet Union, but those right wing nutjobs sure want to make it that way. With them in charge. A vote for anything other than a candidate that wants a citizen to be able to choose for themselves, is a vote for a dictatorial police state.
As an independent it would take a tremendous third party candidate that came from nowhere to sweep it at this point, I am not thrilled with Obama and I despise Romney but in the end I will vote Obama over Romney any day.
Voting someone out for this social issue is about as dumb as most evangelicals seem to be so I guess that shouldn't surprise me. Guess what morons Christians, we are NOT and have NEVER been a Christian nation. We are a secular nation with freedom of to choose to worship or not. There is no place for your jerks of social conservative theocrats in our system, it is completely unconstitutional and I am tired of you idiots telling everyone else what to do. Anyone deluded enough to believe in God I guess I shouldn't expect any real intellect from.
"Lastly, no one speaks for God on gay marriage except God."
Sorry Eric God has spoken abouth the immorality of homosexuality. READ your Bible. God has told us that this is considered an abomination. Just because people refuse to read the Bible and learn what it is trying to instruct you on doesn't mean it isn't there and hasn't been addressed. Man seems to do a pretty good job of avoiding God's laws for us, and the immorality that is shown on this planet is an example of our depravity. Man has decided he knows what is best and it is usually for his self-serving purposes. We have justfied immoral behaviour and now have tha audacity to call it "normal" so sad.
Mike, there is no God, religion is a tool for governments to control nitwits like you. Men wrote a book of fairytales that they wanted and believed and you fools still follow that crap, sorry we are NOT a Christian nation and you have NO right to EVER make laws based on that delusion garbage.
Religion was invented when the first con artist met the first fool...Mark Twain. He got that right.
Ron Paul and Republicans go hand in hand along with their insane economic policies. Eliminate the EPA indeed! Ron Paul is old enough to know better, but still pretends that the free market gives a damn about pollution.
Ron Paul and Republicans: a flock of crackpots flocking together.
Not true, you say? Well, shall we discuss evolution, religion, or climate change?
Ron Paul signed the Norquist pact, hate to break it to Paulbots but he is as owned by corporate America as any of them.
I second the motion to revoke NOM's 501 Status.
Then NOM should be back taxed by 1000% for each year they were under 501.
I stopped going to church because of all the Hatred being preached. Sad thinking that little children are listening to hate filled speech.
Shameful
And this is just my opinion.
Unfortunately money gives them the right to do anything they want. If the Republicans want to turn themselves into the 'anti-progress' party...LET THEM! They will lose and lose big eventually. So what if Romney wins, that will just prove how weak and powerless they are....just as weak and powerless as our "president gas man" we have been living with for 100 years or more. The elite don't change. They spin, manipulate. There is a science of manipulation called propaganda/politics. Sorry to say most of what we hear from politicians is just that...Propaganda. Why do you people keep believing in it?????
I am not Repub or Demo. I am an American.
Until we change the way we finance elections, until we cap the amount of money that a person can spend on an election campaign, (money does NOT equal free speech) it wont matter if we have two or three or even ten parties our political system will be a joke. "Citizens United" must be overturned!!
To blame this on citizens united is only a half truth. That decision did grant corps. the same rights as unions have enjoyed for years(IE the right to enter into the political arena the same as a private citizen)because they are, as are the unions made up of citizens. So you get vast moneys being poured into politics now from business interest now by both the unions and corps. Where as before it was only the unions that could funnel that kind of money into politics.
But fear not due to a SCOTUS decision handed down this week all that is going to change. The SCOTUS decision was that unions could not use dues from members for political purposes agains the wishes of the union member. The same decision will have to be applied to corps and their share holders as well. Now how all this will work out to ensure that dues or portions of a corps profit dose not go to causes against the belief of the union member or share holder is going to be interesting to see.
I can't wait for the IRS to squash these churches like bugs with taxes for their recent flagrant violation of federal tax laws on their exempt status. They are not allowed to get involved with policy or politics.
Oh I forgot the biggest propaganda of all is RELIGION. Sorry...God did NOT write the bible, a bunch of religious politicians did.
MkeAtlanta
God said very very little and he said nothing about gay people.
Those were LEvite Rabbis who did that...
You are not normal, you are simply average..it is not the same thing
Ed,
Actually that is the only irrational reason to disagree with gay marriage. In my opinion, a marriage between a man and women is more difficult, financially, then a same sex marriage. 9 times out of 10 a heterosexual marriage results in children. Children are the reason why couples get tax breaks. Due to the unconventional nature of a homosexual relationship it would be very easy for two males, or two females to get married simply for the tax breaks. People in the military do this all of the time. If you are married you get paid more in the military.
Anyway just wanted to point out how the taxpayer will "get the shaft" on this one.
Jan sorry to hear you views on God, just proves my point about man thinking he knows better. You also seemed to be confused that religion is started by the government to control people. Really when and where did that happen. All these people posting that this is a secular government and want to keep religion out, but you say government actually controls religion. Hmmmmm?
"The only real battle is between Conservative and Liberals, if the Gay community hadn't hitched their wagon to the Democratic Party, It would be the Liberals fighthing against their equal rights"
Except that they hitched their wagon to the Democratic party because liberals have been long time supporters of the gay rights agenda. So basically you are presenting a chicken/egg scenario. No one flipped a coin, people saw the ways in which the political parties were going on this issue, and made their choice. The divide has merely gotten larger as time has passed. The same is true of most issues that separate Dems and Reps.
Also Ron Paul is one of the most marginalized members of Congress there is. Nobody fears him. He's constantly being used by the party he's aligned himself with, as are his supporters.
To the republicans who voted for gay marriage I applaud you for not bowing to party line like so many others.
Mister Alesi would just like to give special thanks to someone so willing to vote with their conscious even knowing that you could not get re-elected. That takes a special kind of person. I say kudos to you and may you retirement be wonderful.
Capt you have never said truer words I don't know a single rep that even likes him but I love his foreign policies but a little iffy on the domestic ones. I and all the other liberals I know have voted for him many a time.
I said Mike that was the original intent of Religion, our fore fathers saw this and saw the devastation that religion caused in Europe with their wars and fights so they allowed everyone to choose. You Mike are the fool and I am sorry that you know nothing of history or the constitution. God never entered the federal language until McCarthy in the fifties. Churches will have their tax exempt status removed for their recent theocratic attempts to control policy and I can't wait until you jerks are paying for the things you have done. Evil horrible human beings that have no respect for life. You want to be controlled by religion go move to Iran, see how that works out for you, otherwise keep your opinions about gay marriage to yourself. You have no right to make laws based on your religious beliefs.
Yes marriage is a public contract between consenting adults, but it is a slippery slope. If you say it dosen't matter what two people want to enter into such a contract than why can't 3,4 or 5. If all are conscenting adults who is to say it's wrong? Marriage had always traditionally been defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is fact. That is history. Just because you might call the grass blue dosen't make it so.
The problem comes when we devalue the family by saying that everything is equavalent. I can say a $20 bill is equavalent to a $1 bill. It is the same size, same color, smells the same. But a $20 bill is still worth more. It is not equavalient. I was raised in a single parent home. That was my family, but that family was not equavalient to the traditional families that surrounded me. Therefore in my mind a single parent home is not equavalient to a home with both a mother and father. I can say all I want that my family was just as good as any other, but that dosen't make it true. I had many struggles that would not have been there if I had been raised in a 2 parent home. That is fact.
I don't really have a problem with 2 gay people living together, loving each other, etc. But to call that relationship equavalient, and insisting it be defined as a marriage is the same as calling the grass blue when it is green. It is what it is. The government should stay out of redefining a term, just because some people think it is inconveniently defined.
Franklytrue,
The Bible was written by man no doubt but faith tells me it was God inspired. I have no proof otherwise, and yes I have no proof to support either. That is why it is called FAITH! "Those who believe no proof is necessary, those who do not, no explanation will suffice"
it is about time that people start voting their principals; the move to oust any elected official that the people are not happy with is long past due, whether it be gay rights, immigration, voter registration, or any other issue; the people have a right and a responsibility to organize and go after any politicos they believe does not represent their interests, that goes for both sides, it is about time that people take a look at what their elected Representatives are doing.
saxon, what kind of principal allows you to hate another human being so much? What gives you the right to tell people how to live? I think all religion should be completely banned in this country, we could stop fighting about stupid garbage social issues and start focusing on fixing the real problems.
Jan,
Re-read your post and you did not mention "original intent" or any of the other witty retorts and the name calling you included in your rebuttal. Calling me a "fool" only proves your inability to debate and think rationally. Your posts are irrelevant at that point.
MikeAtlanta,
The only thing that inspired the King James version of the bible was James.
Everyone knows that when you tell someone a story, and they tell it to someone else, the story begins to change. After 30 or 40 people the story is completely different. I would suggest that the Bible as we know it today is nothing like the writings of Jews in 8000 BC.
Now look at today. The Creflo Dollars of the world will tell you that God enjoys seeing his children show their wealth. GLIDE will tell you that homosexuality and Christianity go hand in hand.
Who knows what your ancestors will believe in 1000 years? Good Saints Miley and Bieber?
The annointed holy ones.....like Paul Ryan, who was just bashed by the catholic church for creating the Ryan plan that opposes everything the church professes about helping the poor. Holy boy Paul Ryan who met with othe repubs to take the country down...14-15 republicans secretly met to pledge to vote against every bill that would help the economy recover. They pledged this saying they wanted him to be a one term president. They pledged to take the economy down just to destroy the presidents plans for recovery. Bin Laden wrote down the same plan and executed 911 to take the economy down to destroy the nation. These repubs, Ryan, Cantor, DeMint, and Gingrich pledged to act like the Taliban, to act like the insurgents do,(their own actual words) to prevent President Obama from a second term. Acting like the supreme terrorist of all time Bin Laden. Traitors. Deliberately sabotaging the recovery. Ref Richard draper new book. So holy boy Paul Ryan and holy roller repubs want to save the country by opposing gays and at the same time pledge to take the country down.......Eisenhower warned us about future repubs " wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible"
I am sick of hearing government this government that. The government is your collective voice. If you don't believe this to be true it is your fault for not speaking up to your peers.
The ignorance is bliss blame the government attitude is pathetic.
Communism fell because special people $ didn't play by the same rules, I fear capitalism will meet the same fate.
Pick a party.
Michelle from the woods, go back to your woods, your entire argument is completely irrational. Marriage is a legal term not a religious one and that means religion has no place in making its policy. 1300 species of animals have had noted homosexual activity. Stop hating and start accepting that you don't have the right to tell people what to do.
Mike you are arguing based on a 2000 year old work of fiction that you have "faith" in and expect the rest of society to adhere to your "faith". You have no argument to speak of, just hatred.
@Jan and others; don't expose Ron Paul for the fraud that he is, we want them to write him in.
Ron Paul write-in campain 2012!
Jan,
Please tell me where and what I have said that is hateful? As far as my faith, that book has lasted for over 2000 years and no one not even your narrow mind can prove that God and all his Glory are a work of fiction. So your attempts to brand me as hateful are lame and typical. You can't disprove God and people's faith in him, so attack them.
You calling homosexuals immoral is based on a religious belief, you bash them and you are bigoted towards them. That is hateful. You can't prove your God but I can prove my evolution-who wins?
Is it really possible that religious people are so self centered and narcissistic that they don't see how their hateful words towards anyone that doesn't believe what they do or fall in line with their religion is hurtful? I guess maybe it is, and that makes them sad and pathetic.
Mike: "I have no proof otherwise, and yes I have no proof to support either. That is why it is called FAITH!"
And that's great. But you need to remember that it is YOUR faith, and others who differ are equally deserving of respect, becuase after all there can't be any LESS proof for their beliefs than yours. And that is why faith cannot be allowed to make laws that affect others.
Homosexuality is like Marijuana smoking. Both have been going on since time immemorial. No matter how many try to condemn them, stop them, and make them illegal, people will still continue to find a way to do so. The obvious solution is to accept it, allow it, make it legal, and profit it by it all the way around whether one agrees with it or not. It is going to happen either way and is just a matter of time so it may as well be now.
There is a reason I get hateful with Christians who started bashing gays, because they need to see what it feels like to be on the other end of it.
Avenger Said:
Lets address this lie by lie...
Yes you will be attacked when you attack liberty and freedom. I make no apologies for that.
You have no evidence that the majority are not for gay rights now, all scientific polls support that they are. I am sure you can find a poll on some homophobic website that they took that shows otherwise, but the methodology of that 'poll' will lend it no credibility (IE If I poll a KKK rally about Blacks having rights I bet they will say no too and your opinion about Gays is no different than theirs is about Blacks--you just wear a different 'hood')
The poster you referred to did not claim there are more Gay people than straight, he said there are more gay people than there are gay-hating homophobes like you...and there are...You are a tiny extremist sliver group, and you are dying off fast.
The comment about Gays living 20 years shorter is not true, you are quoting bastardized conclusions from an Epidemiological study done in the late 80s and 90s this was at the height of the AIDs epidemic when those with it did not survive very long. Advances in treatment have greatly improved longevity of People With Aids. In addition the study admitted it was much harder to find participants outside of the larger urban centers where AIDs was not nearly as prevalent. And that people living in large cities also had shorter lifespans than those in the overall population. So the study used people in a general urban populace that lived about 4 year less on average, then took a subset of that population that was at the time experiencing an epidemic. Life expectancy for People With Aids has soared since then. People diagnosed with Aids (Not just Gay) can now expect to live lives that are only about 10% shorter than the general population. (an average of 49..yes 49 years MORE if under treatment--Compare that to Cancer rates or almost any other debilitating disease) A more recent study found that People WIth AIDS who began treatment when their cell counts were above 500 could expect to live lives just as long as those without Aids And Gay people Back when the study you cited was done, life expectancy for People Diagnosed with Aids was just a few years. So to cite a study that was limited in scope, lacked an overall solid methodology and is now 30+ Years old that you have twisted the conclusions of is the real lie. And those who conducted the study you cited have many times said how they abhor your types twisted use of it to attack gays. Reading obits in gay newspapers is hardly scientific study. Not one of his studies has ever been subjected too peer review or published in any respected journal. He mostly publishes in a so-called Journal that charges the author to publish their work (And for under $30 a page they will publish any crap you send them )
Another study that was done (And it was not a real study) by Paul Cameron (See I know where you get your lies) has been totally discredited and he was thrown out of the APA for it. He was also thrown out of the ASA and th Canadian version of the APA. The "Family Research Institute" is hardly a research institute and hardly a credible source for unbiased information. THey have been classified as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_life_exectancy_survival_1667_14989.shtml
So you can kiss my gay....uh...rear
HAPPY GAY PRIDE DAY TO ALL
Ed-NavDoc...I see your analogy.
But being gay will not give you the munchies...there lies the difference!
Jock,
I thank you for your post, it is important to respect others, but it seems that when I spoke on my behalf I was attacked, labled a bigot, hateful, and a fool. So it appears that if my thoughts or the thoughts of many others who do not support same sex marriage are voiced we are labled and attacked. That is why we have so many unresolved issues, civility in addressing issues is gone. Also where do many of the laws we have today come from? Faith has played a part in shaping our morals, mores and ethics. Those in turn have been the basis for laws, to pretend otherwise is not true
Commonsense Ed post 1.5:
Read Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22-24, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6: 9-10. Most people clearly think God doesn't approve of gay marriage. All laws reflect the morality of the lawmakers. Judeo-Christian morality has been the underpinnings of all Western Civilization's laws. Gay marriage reflects a militant atheistic, secularist and utilitarian view of morality. Why should militant atheits, secularists and utilitarians (a Religion) force their view of morality on me through the laws of the government? In a democracy the morality of the majority should eventually win in terms of what kind of laws are created and enforced. Even without Religion there are other reasons to oppose gay marriage. Read http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage
Agree. They never agreed that gay marriage was Constitutional.
They can't prove that homosexuality is not an evolutionary change in some to deal with population control, there is no rational reason that I have ever heard against gay marriage.
The problem with your behalf is that its YOURS, you have no right to dictate policy based on your faith Mike. You are hateful, you are a bigot and you hide behind your bible to justify those things. Stop trying to play the martyr, you aren't the ones being oppressed, gay people are the ones that are being victimized.
Shalom again, that is an unconstitutional argument in itself. The bible does not play a part in interpretation of the constitution, if it did you people would have won the right to force it on kids in schools.
Franklytrue, got to agree with you there. Good one! LOL
Doesn't anyone find it odd that the same religious conservative Nazis are the same ones who refuse to outlaw prostitution in those "little houses out on the range?" Sorry but be the person you are born to be. Not the one some religious conservative Nazi says you must be. But it does make a lot of sense that liar conservatives today would promote a lifetime lie like pretending you aren't what you were born to be.
Jan-21270
Why do you have the right dictate policy based on your militant atheistic, secularist and utilitarian view of morality?
If gay marriage was constitutional, you would not have to go to court to get it determined to be Constitutional. It looks like the majority of US Supreme Court justices will decide this issue--with the current make-up of the court it looks more promising for the opponents of gay marriage.
I have heard a lot of good rational reasons against gay marriage. Read http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
Yes and no. The Judeo-Christian sense of morality played a large part of in the creation of our Constitution and the Bible is probably the biggest factor in developing a sense of Judeo-Christian morality in our society past, present and future.
Jan-21270-Marriage was a religious ordinance LONG before it was ever a legal, government licensed entity. Governments came along much later to regulate it.
No the founding fathers were not Christians they were dietists, and if you don't understand history or the constitution, you should not be making these sort of stupid claims.
You can't dictate morality, nor should you be able to, your rights end where mine begins. The constitution was written based on individual liberty and rights, not the bible.
Theocracy has no place in government and I really hope that all of this interference has you all paying huge in taxes. Why should the vatican be allowed to dictate our laws? Less than a third of the people of this nation are Catholic.
You are right the supreme court will decide but don't count on judge Kennedy being biased enough to make it illegal. I still have some faith in him as opposed to Alito and Thomas.
Michelle and our government does not use religion to make policy....sorry you are so wrong on that. Every time a Christian has tried it the supreme court has knocked them down.
Shalom that Catholic argument views homosexuality as an affliction, that has been debunked by science, try again.
And my militant atheist ways views are that everyone should have equal rights under the law and that is the foundation of the constitution. Every civil rights issue has had people like you and Michelle arguing your Christian views, from black people voting to women voting, and in the end freedom overrules your oppressive religion.
Jan- It is not automatically "HATE" to disagree with someones opinion or world view. I have many gay friends and have been told several times when friends came out that I was one of the most "surprisingly accepting" people they encountered. It is sad when you instist on calling disagreement hate. If that is true than you hate all of us that disagree with your opinion. Is that true?
No, I hate that you feel the need to oppress your friends. I hate that religion has manipulated people into monsters but as people no.
Gay people have learned to accept hatred and bigotry as a part of their life, do you really think it doesn't hurt your friends when you call them immoral and say they shouldn't be allowed to be a family? Some will fight others will accept, I choose to fight for them and against this religious nonsense that has overtaken our nation lately. Because it isn't right, like it wasn't right to oppress women or blacks.
I am a straight woman who thinks that homophobia is the last "accepted" form of oppression. I think its sad that there is any oppression that is accepted.
I will also add that what gives YOU the right to tell other people how to live? What gives you the right to dictate your religion to your friends? What gives you the right to tell your own friends that they should be oppressed and accept it? You are not their friend, you are simply another person who they have accepted hatred from.
Jan-21270
Where in my posts did I ever say the founding fathers were Christians. If I never said you are making stuff up. It is a big false statement to say the Founding Fathers were Deists--some were, but by no means all. See http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html. I will say that most of the founding Fathers sense of morality was based on the Judeo-Christian sense of morality or what is morally right and what is morally wrong.
Once you have a law that all society has to abide by, someone is dictating morality to the rest of society. Any law reflects the morality the lawmaker. Laws by their very nature nature dictate morality to some degree. If society didn't want to dictate morality there would be no laws, but if there were no laws there would be no society. So once a law is created and enforced, somebody's sense of morality is being dictated to the rest of society--that is true whether or not that law reflects my sense of morality or your sense of morality.
What interference? Be specific please.
Why should militant atheists, secularists and utilitarians be allowed to dictate our laws?
As if Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan aren't biased
and neither do I hate gay people. I just don't believe that calling the grass blue makes it so. And I don't believe that calling a union between two same sex people a marriage makes it one either. No hate, no oppression, just a difference of opinion
Michelle, that is not how you would treat a friend and that is a horrible analogy. It isn't how you define marriage, but what gives you the right to define it?
Shalom, of course they are biased to the left and the other four are biased to the right, that is why they call Kennedy the swing vote. All votes should be swing votes, they should check their politics at the door. However Alito and Thomas are clearly unable to make a decision based on constitution, they never get past their politics.
Listening to you Michelle is like listening to a racist say "I'm not a racist but I don't think they should have civil rights." Yes that does make you a racist, and you are a homophobic bible banging woman who is clearly passive aggressive.
Jan-21270
Read paragraphs 2357 - 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. You can find it on-line at http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm under the Vocation to Chastity. That is what the Catholic Church teaches about the origin of homosexual desires. I am not sure what you mean by affliction because the English version does not use that word in the Catechism.
How come we don't let felons vote, persons under 21 drink alcohol, force children to go to school against their will, enforce curfews, have a draft, legalize consensual pedophile sex, have speed limits that law enforcement officers don't have to abide by, allow polygamy, etc. Are you for bringing down the laws against all those things?
MikeAtlanta--
I appreciate that you are making efforts to maintain a civil tone, unlike so many others on both sides, but I disagree with much of what you say.
You wrote--The Bible was written by man no doubt but faith tells me it was God inspired. I have no proof otherwise, and yes I have no proof to support either. That is why it is called FAITH! "Those who believe no proof is necessary, those who do not, no explanation will suffice"
'no explanation will suffice' HA! This is something you can say because YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION beyond some gut feeling you have as a result of being raised in an environment that filled you with prejudice against different people since kindergarten and before. More importantly, you claim not to need proof for your position on gay marriage, but WE ALWAYS NEED PROOF. Your logic allows people to be thrown into jail--or burned at the stake--without evidence.
You're right. The bible is the basis for many of our laws and ethical standards. But the ones that gave rise to democracy are mostly from pagan roman and greek philosophers. But the best dude in the Bible--Jesus--was good because he taught us to be merciful and tolerant. He wasn't good because everything the bible says must be respected--he was good because his words made sense in a very rational way (most of the time). Basically, we always need to back up our rules with reasons, examples and PROOF. That quality is the basis for democracy and whatever good parts civilization has to offer. We cannot allow ourselves to create a society where absolute doctrines remain unquestioned and where people can be denied basic rights "because the bible said so". Not every command in the bible is right. It says we can keep slaves for crying out loud and if you say that we can interpret that part differently, well, we can interpret other parts differently can't we?
Jan-21270
Why do you have the right to define marriage any more than Michelle?
Read their opinions. Why you might not agree with their conclusion, they provide reasons that they feel are grounded in the Constitution. Same with Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. Even though I may not agree with their conclusion or the reasons given by them in their opinion, I would not say that they are not providing reasons for their opinion that they don't feel are grounded in the Constitution.
What gives YOU (Jan) the right to tell other people how to live?
What give you the right to dictate you militant atheistic, secularist and utilitarian view of morality to your friends?
What gives you the right to tell Christians that they should be oppressed and accept it?
Michelle, based on Jan's comments she is full of hatred against any one who opposes her views of morality. Hate is bad for the soul. We need to love our enemies. We should seek redemption for the people who hate us because that is what God wants for us. We should seek redemption for our own souls because we are sinners. No sin is greater than God's mercy. This is the same God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and who loves us all beyond all human understanding. He can and will intercede for us during the trials and tribulations of our life. Human suffering is a part of our existence, but with the love of God we can endure it.
Finally, something good that occurs. In New York State, the gay marriage law would never have been passed had the people gotten a chance to vote on it.
Because of 4 Republicans who had their votes BOUGHT.......
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/nyregion/4-republicans-who-voted-for-gay-marriage-set-to-receive-aid.html?_r=1
Nobody got a chance to vote on this bill so save your speech" as in the people has spoken". I remember thinking these people sold us out for money. They did not represent the people like they should have. I have said before, I would not vote for these any of these people, but especially you Sen. Stephen Saland of Poughkeepsie, since I happen to be in your district. I hope you kiss your job goodbye.
I hate to say that Sen. Mark Grisanti of Buffalo also vote yes to that bill. Living in Buffalo for 20 years, made me a Buffalonian and I am ashamed that such a man would even represent our district. My parents still live there. They hope he loses his job as well.
What is sad is that our politicians are not doing their jobs representing americans. So in return they are getting what is coming to them, and that is not to be voted for again. We need people who represent whay we want, not what you think is best.
God is not the ONLY reason for opposing gay marriage. I am pro family, I see that the ideal family structure is one man, one woman, and kids who have specific roles in life. Proper family structure leads to better home environment. It may not be the case for everyone, but it is ideal.
Also Church and state is only a figment of imaganation. It doesnt appear anywhere in any of our documents of history. Only mis interpretation and wishful thinking.
Shalom, calling grass blue doesn't make it so, I was just stating fact about Michelle. What gives me the right? Because my views aren't intent on oppressing people. My views gives freedom where freedom should be. Your views are based on a bible that is a piece of garbage fiction.
There is a religion that seems to be popular right now that advocates torturing children as a means of control. Spare the rod, spoil the child...accept kids are dying in that religion. Just because your bible says it doesn't make it right. Because I don't think anyone would view torture and murder of children moral.
Fortunately for the rest of the nation that the supreme court has never accepted anything less than freedom of religion, which is where separation of church and state comes from. You are a hateful horrible human being intent on infringing on the rights of others. Does that make you feel good about yourself? Its a rare thing to see a Christian with moral foundation these days.
Lets see Kim Kardashian 72 day marriage for millions of dollars is acceptable as a good foundation for marriage but two people who love each other and intend to spend their lives together is not? Idiots.
What did that religion tell them to do? Leave her outside naked, hose her down every once in a while...whip her regularly with tubes, and starve her to death. NICE YOU RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE THE BEST!
Sick freaks.
From the news itself: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1379368
4 Republicans are:Sen. Mark Grisanti, Sen. Stephen Saland, Sen. James Alesi and Sen. Roy McDonald - DO NOT VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do not tell people who not to vote for you freak moron. I will never vote for a sicko republican Christian again who advocates torture and murdering children.
Fortunately, gays can't reproduce without being hypocrites.
Got to love citizens united don't you Unhappy, the democrats can buy elections too you know..hahahahaha something tells me Bloomberg has plenty of money to spread around New York.
JAN: YOU MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Stop calling people names, since you seem to be the one who likes to call people freaks. Look at yourself in the mirror first. You are angry, hurtful, racist, ignorant, annoying, etc. Did you really have to take up 4 posts to say absolutely NOTHING!!!!!!
GO SPEW YOUR HATE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Really.... Is that why you deny christians their right to speak? Just another hypocrite who thinks the law doesn't apply to them. If freedom of religion is granted by the US Constitution, then why are you trying to control it?
Shalom,
Gay marriage is a different argument from those completely separate things you mentioned. What you are telling us is that you view homosexuality as a crime. In other words, loving someone for who they are, rather than what's between their legs, is indistinguishable to a crime for you.
Also, no one has the right to DICTATE anything. Maybe our laws have been based on religious commands in the past, but many of us realize that this world requires rational thinking in order to find the most positive, or least negative result. It is wrong to deny the right of marriage to gay people because homosexuality in itself is not visibly harmful to anyone. Sexual abuse, on the other hand, is clearly harmful.
I am not a militant atheist utilitarian. I believe that homosexuals are real people and they deserve to be treated with no less respect than anyone else. There is NOTHING UTILITARIAN about doing your best to help your friends and colleagues who have grown up being discriminated against and feeling like they can't even look forward to marriage in their future. There is NOTHING MILITANT about trying to resolve this issue through the democratic process--if anything it's the republicans and their NRA that is militant is a very literal sense. I don't have to be an atheist to see to think for myself instead of relying on what others have told me since I was born. You write coherently, but your underlying rationale makes too many leaps and quite obviously buys into 'catechisms' rather than real-life experiences. My advice: spend some time with gays but for heaven's sake don't bring the matter up with them.
Unhappy, you are they hypocrite, the Koch brothers have been buying votes and elections all over this country and you don't care. Suddenly it swings towards a liberal issue and now you are morally offended. Please, but if you are going to go by one tenant of the bible, don't you have to accept them all and since obviously torturing children is in there, according to one religion, you must believe that. You are the one telling people how to vote, not me.
You are just a sick freak like the rest of the Christians trying to control peoples lives.
I don't think hating the theocratic swerve of the far right wing is racist, its called having two brain cells to ping together and believing everyone is equal.
Absolutely true. That is why NY has democrats running the state. All those people in NYC can't hold down jobs and make the rest of the state pay for it. The just keep taxing the rest of the state which is why our taxes are so high. Funny how even with all their money for NYC, they still can't pay unemployment to keep up with the cost of living.
Now at least we know where the money went.
You really can't stop can you? More name-calling comes from the left that everyone seems to ignore. And yet you have the nerve to tell christians that we are the hateful ones? Don't make me laugh, again!
motegaze
I'll be happy to provide some supernatural events that occurred that can't be explained by natural reasons why they occurred for solid reasons (beyond the shadow of a doubt) that explain the existence of God or the supernatural.
Read MT 16: 13 - 20. If God is good, wouldn’t He make sure that humans can be confident that they can know what human actions He says are morally right and what human actions He says are morally wrong? Jesus founded the Catholic Church by appointing Peter as Her head. Jesus also sent the Holy Spirit to protect Her from teaching error. Jesus told Peter whatever you hold bound on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you hold loose on earth shall be held loose in heaven. When the Church exercises her Magisterial Teaching Authority through official Church documents on Faith and Morals humans can be confident that these are God’s pronouncements about what human actions are morally right and what human actions are morally wrong. If you disagree, where does your moral authority come from? Also, as proof, it was also predicted about 2,000 years ago that the Catholic Church would survive until Jesus Second Coming. What other hierarchal human institution has survived that long—and predicted it would be so? Given these two facts, what are the odds that the Catholic Church surviving as it has is just a “coincidence” or the reason it survived is because one set of humans is more successful at “pulling the wool” over the rest of humanity?
That is a practicing Catholic's reasoning on why members of the Catholic Church believe that homosexual acts are immoral. One has to assume that most practicing (a person who is a member of a church or synagogue and goes to Mass or Service every Saturday or Sunday) Christians or Jews believe that homosexual ACTIVITY is immoral, but persons with a same sex desire must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity on part of the Faithful. In other words Christians are required to love the sinner (which is all of us), but not accept the sin as being moral. Persons with a same sex desire who live a celibate life are not sinning and should be greatly admired by the Christian. Persons with a same sex desire who do not live a celibate life should be loved by the Christian and have his or her compassion.
Now, presuming that God is all-powerful and all-knowing that means he knows what is best for humanity. We think it is pretty clear that through the ages God has revealed to humans that He regards homosexual acts by humans as immoral. By legalizing gay marriage Christians believe that we are saying to God that our society believes that sodomy is as as sacred as the procreative act that creates humans. Many adherents to Judeo-Chirstianity think that is blasphemy. Judeo-Christian sense of morality for over 2,000 years has never deemed gay marriage as sacred for that reason. We don't be believe that God has changed His mind on this issue. Therefore, adherents of traditional Judeo-Christian marriage do not believe that gay marriage should be legal. These adherents believe that if gay marriage is legalized we, as a society, would be telling God His laws don't matter. God, being all-powerful, could inflict misery upon us like he did the ancient Jewish societies when they rejected God's vision of morality. This is the best explanation I can give why adherents of traditional Judeo-Christian morality believe that gay marriage should not be legalized.
Just because science hasn't yet to explain something doesn't mean that it won't be Shalom, another leap. Catholics used to murder anyone that said the world wasn't flat...
There you go Unhappy, economic issues that I am guessing we might find some common ground. I am a fiscal conservative and liberal socially, which makes me somewhere in the middle. I just don't believe in dictating that two consenting adults of the same sex shouldn't be able to be married, at least in civil ceremonies so they can enjoy the same perks that everyone else does. Gay marriage is one of those issues that republicans use to manipulate people to vote for them, do you really think the amoral congress cares about it? Not a chance, they know you do so they will say what you want to hear and that goes for both parties.
Mike, I admire your faith and more should follow suit, but please tell me the number of subjects that the Bible says are abominations??? How many times does it say someone should be killed? Why only pick out the gay issue and forget the others? As a man of faith, can you explain why (other than the moral/bible issue) you think gay marriage is an attack on traditional family? They will never marry the opposite sex, so no affect. They often adopt foster kids, so the affect is beginning a family.
There are many other sins and abominations that are totally ignored (or at least don't become political), yet you and others focus on the Gay issue more than any other.
Motegaze,
Thank you for your post. If we cannot discuss civily than we are truly lost. I do disagree with your assertion we always need proof. In matters of faith proof is what you see and make of it. I see proof of God watching the sun rise and set, I see God when a baby laughs. These are incredible displays of what God has created, in my opinion. Science can explain these but my faith leads me to believe this wasn't just a "cosmic accident".
Additionally we want to always think of the Bible in our terms and not the terms as when it was written. Do know that in Biblical times people sold themselves into slavery to cover debt they could no longer pay? I agree that the Bible's lack of condemnation for the practice itself is glaring, but the Bible did tlak about the way a slave should be treated. The Bible also condemned the practice of stealing or kidnapping people and selling them into slavery. Read, 1 Timothy 1:8-10.
So to interpret the Bible we must read and understand the Bible, and what it is trying to teach us. Reading the Bible as a whole and not picking and choosing what we want to interpret and how. The Bible is our instruction manual, if we skip steps we will mess something up.
"Sorry Eric God has spoken abouth the immorality of homosexuality. READ your Bible. God has told us that this is considered an abomination. Just because people refuse to read the Bible and learn what it is trying to instruct you on doesn't mean it isn't there and hasn't been addressed. Man seems to do a pretty good job of avoiding God's laws for us, and the immorality that is shown on this planet is an example of our depravity. Man has decided he knows what is best and it is usually for his self-serving purposes. We have justfied immoral behaviour and now have tha audacity to call it "normal" so sad."
Sorry MikeAtlanta, but God has spoken abouth the immorality of eating shellfish. READ your Bible. God has told us that this is considered an abomination. Just because people refuse to read the Bible and learn what it is trying to instruct you on doesn't mean it isn't there and hasn't been addressed. Man seems to do a pretty good job of avoiding God's laws for us, and the immorality that is shown on this planet is an example of our depravity. Man has decided he knows what is best and it is usually for his self-serving purposes. We have justfied immoral behaviour and now have tha audacity to call it "normal" so sad.
I can play that card too.
Well played mario
Shalom,
I get it. That does explain why some christians and some jews feel that 'homosexual activity' is immoral. Let me paraphrase you: the church says it's wrong, so it's wrong.
Some of the people employed in the church are pedophiles. The church is not infallible. Right after Jesus appoints Peter, he calls him Satan in the very next line. My authority for questioning Christian doctrines and seemingly moral commands comes from the knowledge that I have gained from real experiences. But if I wanted to point to tolerant passages in the New Testament, I could do that as well. If I were Buddhist I could point to some Sutra, etcetera. Christianity is one point of view among many, and in our democracy we need to determine what is best using all viewpoints, so long as they are diplomatic about it.
Actually Jan, that comment goes both way. Democrats know that voting for gay marriage will guarantee the votes which is why they do it. But as you can see from the polls, there were more people against gay marriage than for it. The ONLY way it could pass was to BUY VOTES. If it had been left up to the people. as in each district taking a vote, it NEVER would have passed. If every one was for gay marriage, why the need to promise those Rep. Senators money? Their votes were bought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I did say it goes for both parties unhappy, its the system and citizens united has taken a previous problem and put it on steroids...buying out legislatures for your own purposes. This time it swung in favor of democrats but get used to it because until the supreme court overturns it, we are no longer a real democracy. David Koch has admitted he has been buying them out of conservative issues, they don't have to hide it anymore.
Mario: You should actually read the bible before making a stupid comment like that. It was not well played at all. Try Acts 10: 9-16
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
motegaze post #1.116
Where in my posts did I ever advocate that homosexuality should be a crime? Be specific. I don't think gay marriage should be legal, but I never said homosexuality should be a crime.
Once you have a law that all society has to abide by, someone is dictating morality to the rest of society. Any law reflects the morality the lawmaker. Laws by their very nature nature dictate morality to some degree. If society didn't want to dictate morality there would be no laws, but if there were no laws there would be no society. So once a law is created and enforced, somebody's sense of morality is being dictated to the rest of society--that is true whether or not that law reflects my sense of morality or your sense of morality. So lawmakers have the right to dictate morality. That is almost a definition of a lawmaker--one who dictates morality.
I do too.
Not utilitarian, but it is MILITANT if you want to FORCE me to accept gay marriage against my religious belief. It is MILITANT of ME to FORCE you not to accept it even though it is against your belief that gay marriage should be equal to heterosexual marriage.
If you go through the Democratic process and you are trying to persuade people to vote your way you may or may not be militant. The Republicans are being militant when they force Senators out who believe gay marriage should be legal. The Democrats are being militant when they force Senators out who are against gay marriage. I want a resolution through the Democratic process just as you do--we just want different outcomes.
I think for myself as well--and much of what was told by others since I was born I agree with because I believe it makes rational sense.
Thanks.
Can you provide some specific examples of the "leaps" I have made so I can address them? If the "catechism" speaks Truth and is correct why shouldn't I use it as a source. Is there a better one that you know of?
I actually do spend a fair amount of time with gay people. I don't bring it up--unless they do.
And the fact is just because Buffet and Bloomberg haven't been as prolific about buying legislative votes doesn't mean that it won't be happening...so we all end up unhappy.
Wives fan,
Thank you for your kind words regarding my faith. You too are picking and choosing. The Old Testament did call for death as a penalty for many "abominations" but with the life and death of Jesus Christ those old penalties were done away with. Christ's death was payment for those sins. Christ came to fulfill prophecy and pay the penalty for man's sins. This is what my faith teaches me and that is what I try to live by.
My disapproval of same sex marriage is based on my faith and how sin is defined. It is the same faith finds many of man's sins, my sins included, as wrong. Stealing, lying, cheating, self-indulgence, these are issues facing man and the decline of civilization. These have always been at the heart of moral and ethical discussions. Same sex marriage is just at the forefront now because it has become a political football and hot button issue for politicians.
Shalom, forcing you into a gay marriage against your religious belief would be militant, not allowing others who do not share your beliefs to live their lives to do as they wish.
Outside influences need to be illuminated from the election process. It starts with a law that is already in place. Politicians are not allowed to take money from overseas. That's the way it should be. After all we would not want Chinese government from donating a billion dollars to a candidate would we? The next thing is PAC and Super PACS. The laws that created them allow money to be donated in many cases anonymously or through a series of untraceable shell companies or organizations. It would be far too easy for a foreign government to use that path into our system. It also allows the extremely wealthy to buy a politician and their votes. Even Sheldon Adelson said it should be illegal but since it is not he was going to do it. The only money that is donated to a candidate should come from people that legally live in America. Not companies, trade groups, unions, any type of organization, PACs and Super PACS. That should be illegal. The current law limits individuals to a $2500 dollars donation but run your cash through a PAC, Super PAC or organization you can donate millions or tens of millions of dollars covered by the false illusion that the candidate doesn't really control the money. That is pure BS. It skews the government in favor of the rich. The fewer voters with any true input to the process of electing a person is a threat to true democracy. After illuminating organizational cash is to have a law that states that if a individual can't vote for a candidate they can't donate money to that candidate. You live in New York say like the Koch Brothers you should not be able to donate money for a politician running for a position in Wisconsin. Only people that actually live in Wisconsin should be able to fund a election in Wisconsin. Don't get upset righties. The same goes for Hollywood liberals that live in California their money should not go to a candidate that they can't vote for either. That should go all the way down to local elections. To sum it up only individual persons legally in America should be able to donate up to $2500 for a candidate and only if they can vote for that candidate.
MikeAtlanta
I see God in newborn babies too. I used to be homophobic, and had a twisting in my gut when I thought about homosexuality. When I actually saw a gay couple kiss however, I was shocked. It was like being hit by a bolt of lightning. How could people love one another so purely despite everything? I expected a sense of revulsion, but instead I was overwhelmed with wonder--though not in a voyeuristic sense.
I often turn to the bible. To me, the best messages are about tolerance and protecting the innocent from needless wrongdoing.
Every argument comes back to the bible, sin and what your faith tells you, not everyone shares those beliefs, nor do we accept them as truth. The constitution guarantees us the freedom from you.
Jan-21270
Why would forcing me to accept gay marriage as the equal to heterosexual marriage, even though it is against my belief, not be militant?
I am not forcing you to accept it, I am saying that your opinion is not constitutionally relevant. You are free to hate, you are not free to force your religious beliefs on others because you don't like it.
Agree that politics isn't supposed to be a career. We should have term limits (at least limits on consecutive terms) for the Representatives and Senators, just as we now have for the President.
Disagree that the "only" reason to disapprove is because the Christian God disapproves. There are non-Christian cultures that also treat homosexuality as taboo/forbidden. Therefore, religion (specifically Christianity) is not the only reason to oppose homosexual marriage. It is a question of whether the behavior is deemed immoral or not by the society. For Christians, the moral belief and religious belief are intertwined, making it a convenient target for pro-homosexual activists.
Also disagree with you on the "separation of church and state" issue, for the same reason. In addition, the founding fathers stated that "religion and morality" were necessary for good government and a healthy society. One of the more specific examples of this is in Pres. George Washington's Farewell Address (emphasis added):
The founders actually believed that good government required supporting and promoting religion and morality. The "separation of church and state" (this phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution, by the way, it is an oft-abused and out-of-context phrase lifted from a letter to a church from Thomas Jefferson) refers specifically to fear of implementation of a "Church of England" in the United States. That is the reason behind, and the meaning of, the "establishment clause" in the 1st amendment. If you look through the historical records, you'll find the founders engaged in numerous examples of U.S. government support and promotion of religion--one of the most notable examples, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, states:
As noted by Gerard V. Bradley in Religious Liberty in the American Republic about the Ordinance:
You'll have to go through the records manually, since it doesn't appear to be available online yet, but Senate Report 376, from the 32nd Congress, Session I, should prove a very interesting read for you.
The bible does not deserve any more respect than anyone else's arguments. It may have some things to say, but it is treated as an exclusive source.
In fact I think that the bible has no special place in determining public affairs when we live in a cosmopolitan democracy filled with people of many different religions and ethnic histories, each as valid as the next. By no special place, I mean that it should not be excluded, but that each group needs to recognize the validity of the next. True Christianity is democratic, tolerant. Ecclesiastical, fundamentalist, literalist Christianity has lost touch with reality.
What you don't seem to get is that freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. We have lasted nearly 250 years partly because we allow people to live as they choose and worship, or not worship as they choose. Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson on this issue and that tragic things he saw in Europe that caused them to make sure that people had that freedom. Catholics are historically they have some major humanitarian problems, try to deny it but its fact.
I can't force you to accept people for who they are, I can't force you to love people. I can say that legally, you can't force people not marry because of your religious belief.
Speaking from an independent view, I wish these troublemaker republicans who dare to think for themselves would break away and start their own party. They can be fiscally conservative but keep politics out of our personal lives. Until that day, I will not vote republican. I prefer that my politician be allowed to do for us, instead of having to follow party rules (or whatever Norquist decides).
Cultures used to believe slavery was acceptable, all human rights issues have been fought on. The only people that have never had to fight for their rights in this country is white men. This is just one more issue that has to be fought for.
Shalom wrote
Why would forcing me to accept gay marriage as the equal to heterosexual marriage, even though it is against my belief, not be militant?
You don't have to accept it in your thoughts. The most we can do is change the law so that straight couples and gay couples are treated with equal respect in public settings. We're not going to break your door down. However, if you continue to deny a basic right to people who deserve it, then that makes you a party to oppression and persecution based on sexual orientation. That is a problem for your own conscience, not for us.
Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a democrat." Dems are too diverse to fall in line, while conservatives go lock-step after a single issue.
D'ja ever notice that incumbat politicians get booted out of office for not being conservative enough, but...
... I cannot think of a single politician who's ever gotten un-elected for not being liberal enough.
Oh please...classic strawman argument. Enjoying your logical fallacies? NOBODY that I've ever heard of has defended or approved of Kardashian's immoral sham of a marriage.
Her sham marriage had zero to do with religion or moral values. If anything, it serves as an example of why we need MORE religion and morality promoted in the country instead of trying to tear down traditional moral values and religion in general (and Christianity in specific). That's the exact opposite of what you were trying to claim.
Nobody has to accept gay marriage. Just look the other way, because it affects you, only if you let it. Most New York voters don't have a problem with it. Your "straight marriage" isn't hurt by gay marriage. Your straight marriage is adversely affected by divorce, and affairs with somebody by you, or your spouse. Fifty percent of straight marriages end up in divorce. That's a great batting average in baseball, but it's a pathetic one in something so many people hold so dear to their hearts. I don't want to see two gay people making out in public, because nobody needs to be making out in public. I'm not a prude, but I'm old enough to realise that some things should be done in private. I've repeatedly seen examples proving that those who are "seriously offended" by these things, often lean that way, but don't want anybody to know it. Whether you admit it or not, you've seen this as well. As for those of us who are voyers, or exhibitionists, they have clubs, and businesses that cater to you. Find the one that suits you best, and go for it. As for Super PACS being a grass-roots thing, It's about allowing the rich to flood political races with a message that the politicians themselves don't dare put forth. Every day the rich get more control, and the average American is pushed down farther. President Obama's first campaign was a trye grass-roots movement. Millions of Americans donated money to get him into the White House. Now a small minority is trying to appear as the patron saints to the "common decency of America". If they win, we lose.
And your Christian values are not mine, and constitutionally you cannot force them on me or anyone else so Jim stop trying.
Cheers to the people who haven't been swearing constantly in this dialogue. I saw so many wonderful arguments made by people who were at the same time so slanderous that their own positions were damaged.
Jan--I think you're 150% correct.
You know.. it IS possible to be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative. There would be ALOT more republicans if saving money and spending it wisely was the chief party mantra instead of "BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE"
Last post.
If Kim Kardashian can get married, if criminals and pedophiles and the worst that humanity has to offer can get married AND have children, then denying that same right to people who have done absolutely no harm to others is wrong.
Why should anyone read the bible? Religion is born of ancient superstitions and a fear of death. It has changed drastically over time until it has become a perfectly circular argument that neither requires proof nor provides any. Religion's history is brutal and ugly. It is intolerant. We would be well rid of it.
You got that right Mike, I swing right economically but these social conservatives scare me, I can't in good conscious vote republican. I know they will decimate our rights, its very sad.
I think we need a party that advocates fiscal responsibility, stop the wars, stop spending money we don't have and make America a better place.
motegaze
A better paraphrase would be "God has revealed to humanity what He says what human actions are morally good and what human actions are morally wrong through the Jewish people and recorded by the Divinely Inspired writers of the Old Testament and the Magisterial Teaching Authority (the Magisterium) of the Catholic Church. These documents and teachings have always said homosexual acts are immoral."
All people employed by the Catholic Church, or any Church for that matter, sin. That doesn't change Church teaching that engaging in pedophilia is a grave sin. Also, The John Jay study of Catholic church sexual abuse scandal found out: 80% of the victims were male and 75% of those victims were post pubescent--past puberty so in most cases this would not be considered pedophilia. In most cases this would be considered forced gay sex. The study is not saying that all priests with homosexual tendencies commit abuse-it may even be that only a very small percentage of homosexually attracted Priests committed abuse. It does say that that most abuse of minors in the Catholic Church was committed by Priests with gay tendencies and that may be one area to focus on to find the solution to the problem. To do otherwise is to not focus on reality because of political correctness--which may lead to more future victims of sexual abuse.
From the AP: “The overwhelming majority of the victims were adolescents. That means very few guilty priests were pedophiles, a term mental health professionals reserve for those who target pre-pubescent children.”
That was MT 16: 23. MT 16: 18-19 is where Peter was appointed. Once appointed into office, Popes still sin. Pope John Paul II and I believe the current Pope go to confession once a week. Don't confuse that with the Church's Teaching, Jesus never took away the Catholic Church's teaching authority on Faith and Morals He bestowed on Her in MT 16: 18-19.
Don't confuse authority with reasons. When you authority to do something someone has given you the power to do something. Your questioning doesn't arise from any authority bestowed on you, but on your own reasoning. Using your reasoning is a good thing if it is for the purpose of seeking Truth or how God sees the actions of man. Catholics believe that Jesus gave the Catholic Church the authority to determine what human actions are morally right as determined by God and what human actions are morally wrong as determined by God based on MT 16: 13 - 20. It is also important to note that because God decrees that gay marriage and/or homosexual acts are morally wrong, then your belief and the experiences that caused you to believe that homosexual acts are morally right are still contrary to God's laws.
You could, but that is why I look to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church's pronouncement on Faith and Morals as to what is morally right and what is morally wrong rather than just Scripture.
You could, but basis of morality has to be the underpinnings of our laws. Having Judeo-Christian values as the underpinnings of a country's laws is the main identifier of a society or country that is classified as Western Civilization--although I will concede that Japan post WWII is an exception.
I agree to a point. Our laws should reflect the morality of the citizenry. Citizens of the United States have adhered to traditional Judeo-Christian morality which says gay marriage is not the equal of a heterosexual marriage.
Shalom its still an argument based on religion, I don't think it will or should get past the supreme court. I don't see Kennedy buying that, if they uphold prop 8 it will be a first and a very disturbing trend.
The fallacy is that you think that the entire country adheres to that morality, not even Christians adhere to most of their own tenants. Japan post ww2 was designed after our own constitution.
The only argument I can see in that is that it would be the federal government overturning the states rights on a voted on issue. I don't see how you can use any kind of Christian morality argument to cover this.
Hmmm...
Since nowhere in my posts did I "try to force Christian values on you," I'll take it that you have no substantive response to what I actually said and are again engaging in logical fallacies and hyperbole.
motegaze post 1.141:
I want laws that reflect my sense of morality--which happens to be the traditional Judeo-Christian sense of morality. Everyone should want laws that reflect his or her sense of morality. Your statement that:
is your moral position. I don't agree with it and you obviously don't agree with my moral positions. As such, we need to elect lawmakers that reflect our moral positions so the laws that created and enforced reflect our moral positions.
Because you are trying to force your religion on the rest of the nation. You are saying our laws should be determined by your moral code, and you can use all the talk about cultures in the past you want but historically terrible things have been done in all kinds of cultures. That isn't going to pass the supreme court.
I'd like some clarification on your argument. Many people associate being "socially liberal" with socialist/communist policies and big government that are a huge financial drain, which would prevent you from being fiscally conservative. Please explain how you think someone could be "fiscally conservative" AND "socially liberal."
Really do we really want to get into the morality of Catholics? Do you know their history? They have committed some of the worst atrocities known to man, in the name of your religion. If you really adhere to your religion does that mean you would have participated in the atrocities because they told you to?
Socially liberal means that you believe that people should be free to do as they choose. Fiscally conservative means you think a smaller leaner more effective government is a smarter path. Its not that hard Jim, try thinking. You want a small government that controls our bedrooms, that is not a smaller government.
Jan-21270 post 1.142
The Majority of the current US Supreme Court will probably force people not to marry because my religious belief is reflected in the laws of this land--your opinion and my opinion what the law states doesn't matter. Many states say gay people can't legally marry because the majority of the lawmakers religious belief is reflected in the law that prohibits gay marriage.
Calif. same-sex marriage foe now endorses unions
Excerpts:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The chief witness who testified in favor of California's gay marriage ban during a landmark trial on the measure's constitutionality reluctantly came out in favor of gay and lesbian unions on Friday, saying he now thinks "that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over."
In an opinion piece published in The New York Times (http://nyti.ms/Lo6a6V ), Institute for American Values president David Blankenhorn partly attributed his change of heart to a recognition that years of opposing same-sex unions had done nothing to strengthen the institution of marriage among heterosexuals.
"I had also hoped that debating gay marriage might help to lead heterosexual America to a broader and more positive recommitment to marriage as an institution. But it hasn't happened," Blankenhorn wrote. "If fighting gay marriage was going to help marriage over all, I think we'd have seen some signs of it by now."
Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who spearheaded the lawsuit challenging the voter-approved ban on behalf of two same-sex couples that led to Blankenhorn's testimony, applauded his former adversary's conversion on the issue.
"While it can be difficult as a public figure to change course, I applaud him for taking a courageous and principled stand. His experience wrestling with the issue of marriage equality and coming out on the right side of history will be an inspiration to millions of fair-minded Americans who are in the same place," Griffin said.
An appeals court affirmed the trial judge's conclusion that the ban was unconstitutional. Proposition 8's sponsors said this month that they plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
During two days of testimony, he repeatedly stated that the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished, social institution of marriage based on the moral imperative of maximizing opportunities for allowing children to know both their biological parents.
But he became combative and jumbled during an exhaustive cross-examination, eventually allowing that permitting gay couples to wed was consistent with the American values of equality and fairness.
In his New York Times commentary, Blankenhorn wrote that while he still thinks children benefit from knowing both their biological parents, he has concluded that it is just as important for same-sex couples to be treated equally under the law.
"I don't believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over," he said.
Another factor in his endorsement of same-sex marriage, Blankenhorn said, was what he termed "an underlying anti-gay animus" among "much of the opposition to gay marriage."
"As I look at what our society needs most today, I have no stomach for what we often too glibly call 'culture wars.' Especially on this issue, I'm more interested in conciliation than in further fighting," he said.
http://www.wset.com/story/18858433/same-sex-marriage-foe-now-endorses-gay-nuptials
Shalom, overturning states might work, it has not in the past on these issues. They have typically denounced any kind of religious motives and not allowed states to do that. Its up in the air, Kennedy will likely be the deciding factor on it.
LOL. The magisterium. THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Motegaze post #1.145
Ever hear of the "slippery slope"? In Sweden a pastor, preaching from the pulpit against homosexuality, was arrested because he broke a law against "ethnic intimidation". http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/swedish-pastor-faces-jail-for-preaching-against-homosexuality/ Read what happened to a preacher in Canada for preaching (not in the pulpit) against homosexual acts: http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/12/pastor-found-guilty-of-hate-crime.html http://www.christianpost.com/news/case-against-homosexuality-is-sin-preacher-dropped-45208/ Chances are, if gay marriage passes, those publicly against gay marriage will have their door broken down and arrested for committing hate speech. Society will be oppressing those people against gay marriage.
Who determined that it is basic human right that two gay people can legally marry? If it was you, I don't agree and you have no authority to confer that right.
Everyone should be treated with respect in a public setting, but that is far different than having the legal right to marry.
First of all, I'm sure that Mike is capable of clarifying his own post. I didn't ask for YOUR interpretation of what he meant, nor was I going to PRESUME what he meant, so I asked HIM to clarify what HE meant by the term. Your interpretation does not automatically equate to the authoritative definition of "socially liberal," nor did I overlook YOUR interpretation as a possible meaning. As I already noted, many people claiming to be socially liberal are the same ones pressing for bigger and bigger government and more government spending for one cause or another.
Second of all, your last line once again jumps into strawman hyperbole and irrelevancy. Before telling other people to think, perhaps you should develop some critical thinking skills yourself?
Mark O Pierce post 1.148
What if I own rental property that people lease out for weddings and receptions but I think gay marriage is immoral? Will I be forced to rent the property out for a gay wedding if a gay marriage law passes? Will ministers be forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies even if they think gay marriage is immoral if a gay marriage law passes? If not, please provide reasons why believe that a pro-gay marriage law won't require either of those things?
Jan-21270 post 1.160
Jan, you are saying our laws should be determined by your moral code. Why is your moral code superior to my moral code? I have no idea why you are so confident that the majority on the US Supreme Court will find that Prop 8, passed by the majority of voters in California, will be deemed unconstitutional. You think they will thwart the will of the people of California on this issue?
Faulty logic and irrelevant argument for the change of position. The opposition movement wasn't based on a desire to strengthen the institution of marriage among heterosexuals, nor was it geared to do anything about doing so. The opposition was, and remains, based on an objection to the abandonment of traditional moral values.
I noted the story says he "partly attributed" the change to that reason, so what was the rest?
Shalom,
the problem is that you are just incapable of understanding (I have read pretty much every reply you have made on this thread). Personal beliefs are personal. What you personally believe to be true cannot be used to create laws. If enough people believe that Christianity is nothing but a pile of trouble for the country then we should be able to outlaw it. That is the equivalent to what you are saying our legal system is like; which is bollox anyway.
So, let's first examine the Constitution. This document goes to extremes to make these two points about our country:
1. That no religion shall be the dominant religion. Any and all religions, where practices against the law are not operated on, shall be protected.
This is guaranteed by the First Amendment. An American can practice Christianity, Wika, Islam, Judaism, Satanism, or any other kind of religion including Atheism so long as the practices of that religion that are unlawful are not held (human sacrifices in the case of Satanism just as an example).
2. That church and state shall be separate, non-influencing entities. Religious institutions shall not be taxed by the Government (state) and in return the religious institutions shall take no part in political debates, the judicial process, or any process of Government.
Separation of Church and State prohibits any state office from favoring any religion and prevents the state from taxing churches while it explicitly states that churches are to have no influence on politics. The reason prayer is outlawed in public schools is that they are run by the state and this allowing it to be done breaks this constitutional decree.
Another area you have some comprehension issues in was the fact that we were not founded as a Christian country, not in the way that many people have been brainwashed into believing by their parents and pastors. America was mean to be a secular nation where religion did not influence the laws nor politics but was the basis for how we lived and only the basis. Giving to the needy, helping our fellow countrymen, living virtuous and free lives, where everyone was equal.
Now a counter argument to some of the points could be "but the FFs were Christians" or "our laws are based on morals" but they are all incorrectly used. Some of the Founding Fathers may have been Christians but they had become disillusioned by the corruption and persecution they had faced back in England. The whole reason they fled to America was because the Church in Great Britain was out of control and know-toed to know one.
Another one would be that the Founding Fathers accepted slavery. This is very true, they did. However they put into place mechanism that could be used to give other peoples rights. They had the foresight to see that in the future slavery may not be tolerated or that other things that were true then would not be true in the future.
Secondly our laws are based off of the constitution while yes, is based loosely off of Judo-Christian ideology however only to a point and that point is very often skated over by people like you. Only the ten commandments were used as the basis of the underpinnings of the Constitution and only the true teachings of Christ, the golden rule kind of stuff, that were born out of Jesus' studies of philosophers like Socrates and Plato. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal. Some were not used, adultery is not a crime for example.
Another thing I have noticed that I find truly vexes people like yourself is the fact that all of our laws that you claim come from Christian morals can be reached through logical arguments:
You you like it if someone tried to kill you? No, so you should not try to kill others. Do you like it when someone steals from you? Obviously not, so you should not steal from others.
Even morals that are not laws can be reached by these conclusions. Morals are not divine, they are not even born out of religion. The original morals came from philosophers that asked these very same questions can came up with these very same answers. Socrates and Plato are the true fathers of Christianity; they caused the spark that ignited Jesus' flame.
Now let's move on to homosexuality. For one anyone claiming that being gay is a Sin is a heretic and the reason for this is that no where in the New Testament does it say that homosexuality is a sin. All of the scripture that supports this statement comes from the Old Testament and using that is the same as declaring you are a Muslim as fart as the Church is concerned.
Religious beliefs are personal beliefs. Personal beliefs cannot be used to determine any kind of law in this country. Courts are supposed to be impartial with no assumptions going into any proceedings. Now there are many judges that do not adhere to this but there are many that do, including the Supreme Court in most cases.
On top of this is the compounding issue that civil rights are not up for a vote of the majority. We do not vote on civil rights because no other citizen can tell someone else what their rights are; this power is reserved for public officials who are given that power: the courts and the police. The only place your rights can be voided at is in a court room. The reason for this is impartiality. If we voted on civil rights women would still be the slaves that Christian religion of old wanted them to be by law, Blacks would still be treated as lesser people, inter-racial marriage would be against the law still. This is why Prop 8 and all other bills/laws like it will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court if they uphold their impartiality. There is no constitutional basis for denying someone their rights based on religion; marriage is a constitutional right via the 14th Amendment.
There are somethings that we as a country are not mature enough to vote on and civil rights in one of those. The reason we are not mature enough is because of people like yourself that cling onto the teachings of Man as if they were the teachings of God. Jesus was not divine and the Church sure is not either (from the lowliest priest all the way to the top); all are mortals.
You would vote based on the belief that what "God" says is how things should be and the Founding Fathers knew that this would be a problem and so that is why we are a representative republic and not a true democracy.
Common Sense Ed post 1.153
You don't think that the choice of spending Eternity in Hell where there is endless suffering and misery or spending Eternity in Heaven where "eye has not seen and ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love Him" has changed human behavior for the good of society overall--even if it isn't true (I think it very much is true and eternity is a long time)?
Stalin, Mao, Ghenghis Khan, Hitler, Attila the Hun, Pol Pot, Amin, Hirohito, Lenin all killed more in the name of nationalism than all the Wars over Religion combined. And that is not even including the Romans and other Ancient civilizations who fought and killed for the same reason--personal wealth and power.
Shalom: " If not, please provide reasons why believe that a pro-gay marriage law won't require either of those things?"
Because most of the laws explicitly say so, and because those things have nothing to do with the civil contract, which is what this is all about. We are talking about signing the marriage licsence here, not the various tiruals that people often place around it.
Your post began well enough, but then began to derail when you went into your second point. Prayer not being allowed in public schools is not a Constitutional decree, it is the result of a misguided decision by the Supreme Court in the 1960s which ignores the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment (similar to their atrocious decision regarding the use of "eminent domain" in the early 2000s that ignored the meaning of "public use" in the 4th amendment). Subsequent decisions have been swinging back the other way, toward the founders' actual sentiment toward religion in the public square.
I suggest you read my previous post in this thread regarding the founders, religious liberty, and the relation of government and religion. It includes references to documents that might interest you.
Jim, people can still pray in school, and any syudent who has ever taken a test knows that. what is correctly outlawed is the state sanction of prayer through organized prayer in public schools.
Hitler killed millions of Jews. Religion again. Stalin and the inquisition were both wrong. Belief in religion doesn't make anyone good or bad. Faulty reasoning Shalom.
; Marriage is a union between a man and a woman; code of Hanarubbi 900 B.C., a marriage is between a man and a woman first book of Moses, 1000 b.c., if persons of the same sex chose to live together, so what, that is their right; but it is not a marriage.
The Christian bigots are out in full force today, trying their best to destroy the U.S.A. Their hatred knows no bounds.
This is NOT a Christian nation, it is a secular nation. Our Founding Fathers set it up that way to prevent Christians from passing laws based on the most evil book ever written - the Bible, the Greatest Lie ever told.
Geowil post 1.173
True, only the personal beliefs of the lawmaker can be used to create laws.
True, but conversely if enough people believe that Judeo-Christianity morality should be the basis for our laws then they will be in a Democracy.
I don't believe the Constitution says that. If I am wrong, please tell me where in the Constiyution it says EXACTLY that.
I don't believe the Constitution says that. If I am wrong, please tell me where in the Constiyution it says EXACTLY that.
I don't believe the Constitution says that. If I am wrong, please tell me where in the Constiyution it says EXACTLY that.
Separation of Church and State is not EXPLICITLY in the Constitution. Please tell me where to find in the Constitution that prohibits any state office from favoring any religion. The First Amendment says: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; That is different than prohibiting any state office from favoring any religion.
You really need some source documents to support this position if you want to have some credibility. Can you provide some web-links? Here is weblink that presents an opposing view: http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding
I believe the answer to the question how Christian were our nation's founders to be quite complicated and complex. I don't think it was meant to be a secular nation based on the readings I have read that i respect--nor do I think the founders were as Christian as many Christians think they were.
Please provide proof that Jesus studied Socrates and Plato. Be specific. Jesus said he was God. God is all-powerful and all-knowing. Jesus rose from the dead. Why rational reason would Jesus have to study Plato and Socrates?
Vexes? What posting have I made that reflects I am vexed? Answer these questions without invoking Religion: Consensual pedophilia by definition is not physically hurting anyone. Why should that be illegal? Taxing is a moral issue because it distributes wealth. Why should the rich be forced to give to the poor? My mother had Alzheimers and was nothing but a burden to society at the end of her life. Why shouldn't she have been murdered for the sake of society? Why shouldn't we murder all the mentally handicapped and the lame who can't do any work that benefits society? It is an undisputed scientific fact that all human life can trace his or her origin back to fertilization. Why does the human life in a mother's womb have no right to live in the United States or why does a mother have the legal right to kill the human life in her womb? Why do all those human embryos created during the IVF process have no legal right to be born? Is it right to kill someone in the name of Religion, to protect one's family or one's country? Why or why not? Why should the death penalty be allowed? Why shouldn't the death penalty be allowed? Why should jihad be legal in this country? Why should jihad be illegal in this country?
See post 1.83. Read Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6: 9-10. Catholic Church teaches that the Old Testament and the new Testament are both Divinely Inspired and equally relevant.
Why not? Once you have a law that all society has to abide by, someone is dictating morality or their personal beliefs to the rest of society. Any law reflects the morality or the personal beliefs of the lawmaker. Laws by their very nature nature dictate morality or the personal belief of the lawmaker to some degree. If society didn't want to dictate morality there would be no laws, but if there were no laws there would be no society. So once a law is created and enforced, somebody's sense of morality or personal belief is being dictated to the rest of society--that is true whether or not that law reflects my sense of morality or personal belief or your sense of morality or personal belief.
Wasn't the Civil Rights Act voted on majority of the lawmakers in Congress and signed by President Johnson. Don't all lawmakers establish laws that create civil rights? Don't those laws have to be passed by a majority vote? Don't courts have to rule on laws that supposedly confer civil rights on people and weren't those laws passed by a majority of lawmakers? Don't police enforce laws that supposedly give civil rights to certain classes of people that were passed by a majority of lawmakers?
Are you saying only the opponents of Prop 8 are impartial? If you are, you are pathetic. There is nothing in the US Constitution that explicitly prohibits states from deeming gay marriage unlawful (even the 14th Amendment) if the lawmakers think that gay marriage would be harmful to society in their state. Therefore, anyone who thinks the US Constitution says gay marriage is unconstitutional is partial to gay marriage. Why is that an incorrect statement? if gay marriage is found constitutional, why wouldn't laws against polygamy between consenting adults be deemed unconstitutional?
Really. What is the basis for that statement. Even if you believe that you need a law to get your way. Please cite the law, and be as specific as possible, who or what office gets to determine what issues that we as as a nation are not mature enough to vote on? As far as I know there is no law that is going help you out on Prop 8.
How did he rise from the dead and the only other person who also rose from the dead did so because Jesus commanded him to do so? One thing is for sure, once we both of us die we will find out if Jesus is Divine.
Please provide your source that the Founding Fathers knew this would be problem. Be specific as possible. Representative republic or not my vote as a citizen counts as much as yours. A lawmakers vote counts much more than mine.
jock59801 post 1.177
We have conferred many legal rights that are exclusive to people who are married. Courts will be interpreting what rights apply and don't apply to gay marriage, but do to heterosexual marriage. My suspicion is there will be a lot of court cases if laws prohibiting gay marriage are found unconstitutional under the US Constitution
Common Sense Ed post 1.178
Did Hitler kill Jews for Religious reasons or for wealth power for him and for the citizens of Germany. Did Stalin kill in the name of Religion? Did Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Genghis Khan? Attila? Far more people have been slaughtered in name of Nationalism and the pursuit of wealth and power than in the name of Religion.
No, it is INCORRECTLY outlawed. Forcing you to pray in violation of your religion would be wrong, but that wasn't the case. Having those who do not wish to pray respect those who wish to pray by being silent during that time presents no constitutional issue.
I'd think the fact that Congress opens its sessions with prayer is enough to contradict the silly notion that prayer in the public square is somehow unconstitutional...but that never seems to make a difference to the rabid leftists. See Senate Report 376, 32nd Congress, Session I, or try reading Religious Liberty in the American Republic.
Hitler blamed Jews for the ills of the world, he didn't kill them because a religion told him to do so--so your statement is both incorrect and irrelevant. Stalin didn't kill millions for religious reasons, he did it for secular power reasons, and he has no connection to the Inquisition. Again, irrelevant.
The Inquisition was militant extremist religious fanatics given free reign. Hardly an example of the overwhelmingly positive contributions that religion in general provides to society.
As for whether "belief in religion" makes one good or bad, it's a non-sequitur...that religion exists isn't in debate, therefore disbelief in religion would make one an idiot. Now, if you instead meant that belief in a particular religion doesn't make one good or bad, then I'd have to argue that it depends on the religion's teachings--for example, Satanism certainly tends to be associated with bad rather than good.
Shalom,
The First Amendment states that we shall have freedom of Religion. You cannot have freedom of religion if you have one dominant religion because most of the big ones claim the others are falsehoods. To have freedom of religion you have to accept any and all religions equally.
A study of history. The founding fathers fled from Britain to escape the oppression of the Church. It makes no sense that they would do this and then found a nation upon that very same religion they were fleeing from. Religion was not the basis for this country; personal freedom and liberty was.
Here are some links as well in case history is not enough proof for you:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
Jesus never claimed to be born of God, not directly. That was attributed to him after the fact during the ratification of the Bible in around 325 AD. Before that time Jesus was considered to be a mortal.
Here are some links:
http://www.virtuescience.com/golden-rule.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-golden-rule.htm
http://ecotopia.org/socrates-rise-rational-self-consciousness/
Jesus also did not rise from the dead, that would be impossible. It is hear-say that he was resurrected, no one saw him actually rise from his coffin only that it was empty after several days. A more likely scenario is grave robbers or maybe some other fanatics with nefarious purposes in mind. The Resurrection is a fairy tail.
The golden rule is well founded in philosophical origins. Jesus did not want to create a religion as religions are viewed by us in Modern times. He wanted to create a philosophical way of living your life. Christianity can be translated into this etymology: As Christ Did. Christianity was never meant to be about living as God tells you but living as Christ though civilized humans ought to. Many of Christ's teachings have parallels with MLK; be non-aggressive even in the face of aggression, forgive those that have wronged you, love everyone equally and not cast hate at individuals, treat others as you wish to be treated.
Again, this does not matter. Either the NT is the scripture that the Church follows or the OT is. They are not compatible with each other and the Church is just building circular fallacies to justify their own religious agendas.
Lawmakers and not citizens. That is the difference. Lawmakers almost implicitly means judges except when talking about Congress. It is not the citizens place to be deciding any of the laws of this country, it is up tot he judges and justices. We are a pseudo-dictatorship combined with a pseudo-democracy. We have certain democratic powers but we also have certain dictatorial powers as well. Elections are clearly democratic but investing the power to determine the course of the country in only a few hands is clearly a dictatorial purview. We allow the Supreme Court to determine if laws created by other courts and by Congress are constitutional yet they answer to now one and are not publicly appointed via vote but rather via the President.
We are not a democracy but we are not a dictatorship either. It is a very smart design because pure forms of both are always doomed to failure because you either allow the common man too much power where they do not have the intelligence nor impartiality to make those decisions or you give them too little power and they become oppressed and eventually will over throw said Government.
See above statement.
If you think that denying someone equal status in society based on a religion is not immature then I think you have proven my point. There is no reason, not one reason, that justifies not treating everyone equally if they have not earned that dishonor.
It vexes because some religious people cannot understand how morals that they have been programmed to believe are religious can also come from rational arguments not born of any faith.
I can do so easily since I am an Atheist.
Age of consent. If a person is too young to legally consent to sexual acts then the perpetrator is breaking the law. And you are also wrong there are physical and emotional scars caused by pedophilia. Children who are victims of sexual assault usually grown up with many various physiological conditions; for prosperity, a physiological conditions are health issues that can both be caused from physical illness as well as psychological illnesses like PTSD.
Because it is for the betterment of our society. The rich gain much more money from a wealthy middle class then from a middle class where poverty is common. Money flows up through the economy to the rich, not trickle down.
Because it would have voided her constitutional right to life unless she herself made the choice to end her life.
See above.
A fetus is not alive in a human sense, it is a parasite feeding off of a host; the mother. Birth is the ultimate decider; you are not legally alive until you are born. There is some wiggle room for viable deliveries. If the fetus can be delivered and remain alive after the umbilical chord has been cut then abortions should be outlawed except for situations where the mother will die if they do not abort and the mother or legal counsel for the mother if she is incapacitated consents to it.
If a fetus cannot be delivered successfully then it is not a baby, not legally a human.
See above.
In the name of religion no. Religion is a personal structure. If you kill others in it's name you are forcing your religion on to those you just killed. The same goes with the fanatical practitioners of Islam that want to wipe out all non-believers. You have the legal right to defend yourself or your family from life threatening situations though, it is part of the law.
The death penalty in it's essence is legal. A court has decided that the individual in question has committed enough crimes that it is evident that they cannot be reformed and so are sentenced to death. The problem is that the standards for the evidence supporting a DR conviction are the same as for any other crime. This has lead to a large number of innocent people being murdered. DR evidence should be held at a much higher standard.
How would jihad become legal? Who is advocating for this? A Jihad is a religious war against non-believers. This violates the first amendments rights of those who are killed in such an event and as such it cannot be come legal. No law in our society, man made or religious, has the right to override the Constitution.
Geowil post 1.186
First Amendment doesn't say that. See post 1.181 for what the First Amendment EXACTLY states.
The freedom to practice one's Religion is why many came to the United States. Where they were they couldn't practice their or were discriminated against because of their Religion. Traditional Judeo-Christian morality was the basis for our country's and Western Civilization's laws.
He did rise from the dead and it would not be impossible for him if he is all-powerful and not subject to the laws of nature. He most certainly is.
It is one thing to go from hear-say to fairy tale. Those are big differences. Lots of lawyers looking at the evidence have reached a conclusion different than yours: http://www.gracelawandsonship.com/dtf-141.asp
What authority do you have to make such a statement. jesus was God. He wanted to teach us how to live so that we could experience the love and goodness of God that goes beyond all human understanding. He will intercede in the trials and tribulations of your life if you ask him No sin is greater than God's Mercy. He doesn't teach us a philosophy of life, but gives us meaning to our life--to spend Eternity in Heaven where eye has not seen nor ear has not heard for those who Love Him.
What authority do you have to make such a statement? The Catholic Church certainly feels they are compatible. Why does the Catholic not have the authority to make such a statement, but you do?
I never said citizens in the post you commented on. However, if lawmakers give the power to make laws via referendums the majority of citizens who vote on that issue create law or approve of the language that became law. For the record, you provided no source that says the Founding Fathers set up the system of government that you described because the Founding Fathers knew I, and I assuming other citizens, would vote based on the belief that what "God" says is how things should be and that would be a problem.
Then you think human beings alive in a mother's womb should not be treated differently than human beings alive outside their mother's womb?
Who determines when a person is too young? Don't all humans develop differently at different paces? Who develops these standards? Why should you force the standards you like on me if I don't agree with your standards?
Says who? How do you determine that? Why should I be forced to agree to the standard you like?
There are many economists who would disagree with you. Why should I be forced to agree with your opinion?
Where does it say in the Constitution that she has a constitutional right to life any more than the human life in a mother's womb? Is it really life if all she is doing is laying in a bed and eating through a tube? That's not a life in many's people opinion. Therefore, many people (not me) would say the state has the right to euthanize her.
Almost all scientists would agree that a live human fetus in a mother's womb is a living organism and is classified as a living homosapien just like you and me. If that isn't alive in a human sense then what "sense" is it alive?
Because the origin of all human life can be traced back to his or her moment of fertilization who gave you the authority, legal or morally, to determine that you are not legally alive until you are born and you are not legally alive at the moment of fertilization? From a purely scientific basis you are equally alive whether in the womb or outside it so legally why do you have the right to make such a distinction?
Why do you have the legal authority to decide when a human being can be "legally killed"? Who gave you that authority? What is the rationale for when it is legal or not legal? If the mother wants to legally kill the baby because she doesn't want the child why should she not have the right to kill the baby outside her womb or even after the point in time that you arbitrarily picked when the baby is inside her womb? If all humans have a right to life why don't all humans have that right to life from moment of conception to natural death?
But if you kill human beings in mothers wombs are not you forcing your moral code on those you just killed?
I didn't ask you if it was legal or not. I asked you to explain through logic arguments and not Religious morality WHY the death penalty should be legal or not legal. You have not done so.
Doesn't the first Amendment grant every citizen the Free Exercise of Religion? Why can't people who believe in jihad as part of their Religion have the right to exercise that aspect of their Religion? The people who die because of a jihad are dead. I fail to see how their first amendment right is violated, but their right to life is violated.
Wow...so much wrong in that post, but I'll pull this one piece out because it deserves attention. "Lawmaker" in no way "almost implicitly" means judges. In the United States, "lawmaker" explicitly refers to the legislature, as it is the legislators who MAKE the laws--NOT judges. Judges review, interpret, and apply the laws in the court system. Legislators can alter or clarify laws if they take issue with how judges are interpreting and applying them.
I also noted in your discussion about the history of the country's founding that you failed to cite anything FROM the very people you were discussing--the founders. The founders had quite a bit to say on the subject, although it doesn't really support your viewpoint. For that reason, I doubt the accuracy, veracity, and applicability of anything the websites which you cited might have to say on the matter. Why don't you try reading the words of the founders instead of revisionist twaddle?
Geowil post 1.186
Nonsense. See http://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html. The Apostles didn't consider Jesus to be a mere mortal. 11 of the 12 were tortured and died a gruesome death--that many humans would not rationally do that for a mere mortal.
Confusing isnt it well you have to start somewhere so lets start with the Constitution and the separation of church and state. to start with you must define marriage, is it religious or is it a matter of state? well what is it where did it start? there are different views on that, if its religious then state can have no say, if its state then religion can have no preference so figure that out,that is step one. if you are going to have separation of state and religion then you have to have separation of religion and state no politician can run the church any more then a minister can run the government, so we have stepping on toes here make up your mind where this stands as state or religion, settle that issue first. to me marriage is both. and that opens up a whole new area where non believers are dictating to believers, form your own opinion. people who live openly in sin are obviously non believers and are forcing their lifestyle on believers thus violating their faith, and in fact mocking it, but that is only true if marriage is religious, if not then it should not matter. so again what is marriage? is it as the bible defines or not. the next thing is the polls that have been taken if in fact they are correct then there should be no problem with putting the issue to a vote and passing the gay marriage proposal so why not put it on the ballot they say they have the votes so they should not be afraid of losing,unless those that sponsor the bill do not exist, so lets vote on it may the best side win. I no longer care I know where I stand and when it comes down to it, that is all that matters, but choose wisley it might make a big difference in the long run if you believe in eternity its not for everybody only those that are disciplined enough to pas the trials and tribulations.
So you think it's OK to disproportionately violate a person's constitutional right to own and accumulate wealth simply because that person has done a better job of it than most and it is for the betterment of society? But in reading the rest of your post, you then proceed to complain about theoretically violating the constitutional rights of individuals that are a burden to society--even though doing so would be "for the betterment of society"...so only the rights of the poor and downtrodden are sacrosanct to you? Fascinating insight.
As for your economic assertions, another strawman argument. Society does better with a wealthy middle class than an economy in which poverty is rampant (although you didn't postulate how "rich" one could be in a society where poverty is rampant). In neither case does it relate to your claim that money flows upward to the "rich" and not downward from the "rich." In any case, there is far more validity to the "trickle down" theory than to your claim. The "poor" are not historically known for creating either jobs or wealth (and they don't know how to make the money they DO have work for them, thus the reason they are "poor"). Investment from the "rich" creates businesses and jobs, which in turn provides sources of income to everyone. Do the rich get richer? Duh...they know how to make money work for them, so of course they do. That doesn't mean you can't start off poor and become rich--plenty of people have done so.
Minan59
#1.40
Some of us want less government control over our lives and our business. Some of us want more government control over our lives and our business. Some of you want the government to force me to accept those that have sexual feelings for the same gender. Some of you want the government to force me not to discriminate against those that are a different race, nationality or creed or even religion. Some of us want the government to take a huge interest in how we treat our environment, keep a close eye on the food we buy at the store, regulate certain institutions and want people to get their "fair share.
Liberals want more government to assure that people get what they think is a fair deal and Fascist wanted more government control as well. Conservatives want a government "small enough to drown in a bathtub".. A large number of you liberals seem to get upset being called names, especially when you think those names don't fit. Are you going to continue to demonstrate your hypocrisy or are you going to try and correct that problem?
Shalom,
Watch (or read) the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown and then also follow that up with your own research on sites such as this that present the real truth:
http://www.livescience.com/2410-council-nicea-changed-world.html
At the time that the Council of Nicea was held Jesus' divinity was in question. Not everyone believed that he was the son of God just a mortal man who had perverse leadership abilities. After the council the quest of Jesus' divinity was without question among those that had doubts. Read between the lines, his divinity was decided when it was written into the Bible.
I also said that Jesus himself never stated that he was the Son of God only that others attributed that to him. If you had read what I said and applied a bit of what you know you would have deduced that I was in fact talking about the Apostates.
I stand by what I said about the resurrection, there is no way it happened. Where his body went to will have to remain what of the greatest mysteries of Christianity but he certainly did not vaporize into the ethereal realm.
The American Medical Association, or AMA, as well as those that crafted our laws based on the AMA's suggestions. From an objective point of view a fetus is not a legal human. From an emotional point of view maybe it is, to the parents it most definitely is but we are talking about law not biological imperatives. Just because one person thinks that abortion should be illegal does not mean that it should. Again we are talking about beliefs. The idea that life starts at conception is a belief, there is no way to prove it. This is because we have no objective means of measuring the soul, instead we have to rely on whether or not a fetus can survive out of the womb and disconnected from the mother. If the fetus cannot survive then it is not legally a person.
Your next retort may be about how homicides involving pregnant women generate a double count of murder. This is because the fetus was not killed at the behest of the mother, abortions are done with the mother's consent while if a fetus dies as the result of a murder it is against the mother's wishes as the death of the fetus was the result of her death; that makes it a complicated, but logical, murder by association because most certainly the mother did not want to die.
And not scientifically not all life is equal. Technically fetuses are alive but it is not human life. Like I said, it is akin to parasitic symbiosis; the fetus feeds off of the Mother's body through the umbilical chord until it is strong enough to live on it's own outside of the body.
A parasite is not a person so why should a fetus be considered as such? They operate under the same mechanism and principles.
Again, this is because of the AMA. This group of professionals claims to know more about the inner workings of the human body then religious people do (sarcasm intended). What you are talking about is not life but the soul. As I stated in the preceding paragraph we cannot measure the soul so we rely on other means of definition of human life.
The bit in the middle about killing born babies is where you start clutching at straws. Once a baby is born it is legally a person and therefor killing it is illegal in the United States. There is no physical difference between a nearly term baby before and after it is born the only difference is the legality.
It is also not arbitrarily picked. At 22 weeks babies (they are called babies then because they can be delivered successfully) will survive at a rate of 1 out of 2; 50% chance. This is the American Medical Associations accepted cut off for abortions outside of medical emergencies because of the success rate.
No because legally they are not people and since they are not legally people the constitution does not apply to them thus they have no freedom of religion. On that note:
So we agree that the first Amendment grants freedom of religion, good.
I will play devil's advocate on this. Let's take a different look at this. What if Jesus had an illness that made him appear to be dead by the pathetic medical standards of those times? Maybe he fell into a coma? Since they did not know what comas were they assumed that he had been resurrected? Has anyone pursued this angle?
Alright I will give you this one because I used subtext and assumed you would be able to read it; obviously a mistake on my part. The death penalty is legal because a judge has the power to strip you of your rights based on your crime and the ruling from a jury. Note that while a jury is made up of regular people there are usually 12 members on a jury panel. The system is set up to be as impartial as possible but it does not always work.
Anyway, if a judge deems you to have committed crimes from which you have no possibility to be reformed or if you have shown that you do not regret the crimes committed (usually murder) then they can strip you of your right to life. But this is only possible in a court room, no one outside of one has the power to do this for any reason if you are a legally living human being (again throw back to your abortion argument).
Your personal rights end where someone elses begins. That is how the system works. We have a right not to be killed by others, we have a right not to be discriminated against, we have the right to say what we want to (but no constitutional right to be protected by what we say brings about), we have a right to not live in fear of other people.
A Jihad violates one or more of those rights if it is actually carried out. Again, you have to be a living human by legal definition for these rights to apply. The legal definition of life is birth.
That is up to the law makers of the various countries. In Switzerland the legal age of consent is 14. You can legally have sex with a 14 year old in that country. It does not matter how mature you are we are talking about legality. Most laws apply to everyone equally. It does not matter if you live in America and are 15 but have the maturity of a much older person; by law you are still under age.
Again we are talking about laws, not standards nor beliefs. Laws are created by professionals who have done the due diligence into the various topics concerned with the laws and have rendered a verdict. Beliefs are whatever you want them to be and they do not have to have an grounding any reality.
You seem to have a problem separating out what a law is and what a belief is and how the two interact. Unless the law considers abortion to be illegal they are not illegal. Just because your personal belief says they are immoral does not make them legally wrong if they are legal.
It also works the other way, if abortions are illegal in a state then they are illegal regardless of anyone's opinions. If you do not like the law drum up enough support to change it.
Laws are laws and what the law dictates is legal is what the law abides by. The law states you are not a person until birth so that is the definition of life that the law uses and only that definition.
It is not illegal to be Gay but it is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are Gay. Just because some people think it is the other way around does not mean that is how the law works for them.
Beliefs on the other hand are what you personally believe. Religious morals are also beliefs. Not everyone shares those beliefs but if they break the law by killing someone they still go to jail even if they personally believe there is nothing wrong with killing someone else.
@Jim
Jim you have to read to the end of the sentence:
At your second post, disproportionately? Disproportionately to what? The rich pay more in taxes because they are rich. Wow, a novel idea would not you say? If you make more money you are taxed more because you have more; how is that too hard to understand? A guy who makes $100 and pays 20% taxes on that $100 pays $25. A guy who makes $100,000 and pays 20% in taxes pays $25,000. That is equally proportionate and why we need a flat tax on both income and capital gains for everyone.
@D Buck
First of all someone elses marriage does not change your own. Because two guys get married, or two ladies, does that cheapen your own marriage or make it worthless? No.
Secondly marriage is not owned by any religion nor was it created by them. Marriage has been around for nearly forever since the rise of Modern Man some several thousand years ago. In the modern era marriage is controlled by the state. You must have a marriage license in order to get married and have it recognized by state Governments. Marriages preformed by churches without a license are technically invalid as far as the state and federal Government is concerned.
"Jim5769", said:
The opposition was, and remains, based on an objection to the abandonment of traditional moral values.
I noted the story says he "partly attributed" the change to that reason, so what was the rest?
-------------------------
Jim, for the answer to that question of yours, why don't you ask him yourself, or ask a source closer to the person or the ultra-conservative organization he belonged to. Have you even checked on that website, "Institute for American Values"?
And in a multicultural, multi-ethnic nation of myriad religious beliefs, possessing variants of family structures, diverse and differing career paths with their millions of different life stories, whose 'traditional moral values' are we talking about here?
Have you even read the academic definitions of "morals," versus, say, "ethical behavior," or the anthropological definitions of 'culture,' or 'tradition'? Beliefs are not the same as 'values.' And, whose traditions are you referring to?
According to the article, as far as Blankenhorn was concerned, that was apparently HIS primary reason for reversing his opposition to gay marriage, that he could NOT prove that the existence and spread of gay marriage in the U.S. would reduce the strength of heterosexual ones. And from the sound of it, he LOST the debate after he also admitted that opposing gay marriage wasn't a reflection of a, "fair and equal" imposition of his organization's judgement and exclusionary solutions that they politically proposed and promoted upon the rest of the nation that they apparently perceived didn't reflect their narrow, right-wing beliefs.
"Jim5769" said:
"There are non-Christian cultures that also treat homosexuality as taboo/forbidden."
---------------------
Jim, I invite you to take courses on cultural anthropology and sociology. There are cultures and their religious beliefs in the U.S. -- although there are not a lot of them, but they do exist -- that find the expression of either male-feminine or homosexual behavior among some of their members perfectly acceptable in the context of which it exists as to how the nature of their homosexuality either serves or is a perceived reflection of their spiritual strength or spiritual purity.
To assume that society doesn't have to tolerate seemingly homosexual or "feminine" behavior in sex role reversals or their variants, are informal fallacies that reflect the prejudices of those that assume that their "traditional moral values" as you put it, are somehow superior to the ethical judgments of others that exist in other cultures within in this case, in the U.S.
And what is your point of arbitrarily identifying the fallacies of others that you perceive are left-leaning? Your prejudices are showing Jim, and its not winning you any friends from what I see on your scoreboards for each one of your comments on the NewsVine that discuss this particular subject.
And if you want to argue about 'fallacies,' go for it ...I studied them when I delved into philosophy, finance and law as minor subjects as I was majoring in communications engineering. Whether you realize it or not, you're guilty of exercising equivocation fallacies in several of your posts that reveal your projection biases.
So Jim, I'll leave you with a saying my late grandfather, a farmer, once taught me when I was a child: "You can't attract pollinators with vinegar, but give them something more enticing and they'll flock to your side of the fence."
Get this quote:
Make no mistake, this is about a group of religious zealots trying to dictate to everyone else, what is, and should be morally, ethically, and individually a choice. That's right. A group of so-called conservatives trying to take a choice away from someone. If anyone has the "angst" it is the right-wing, conservative, religious fanatics who abhor and despise anything that is remotely different from them. This is clear. It is the tea-bagger, right-wing, John Birch types who want to tell everyone what to do, where to do it, not to drink 17 oz drinks, where not to smoke, prohibit women's reproductive and health-care rights, and make the rich even more wealthier on the backs of the working man and woman.
Ok and why are those bigoted gays restricting pedophiles, and bestiality people? This is hypocrisy! A group so eloquently arguing for their 'rights' has no business imposing their 'morals' on someone like these other groups!
I think we need to strike down ALL morally based laws, yes, that will be wonderful! After all, moral laws are antique, out of touch, against personal freedom and so horrible that we just can't live with them any more.
Just wait another 50 years or so, and we probably will see this happen, along with a host of criminal law going with it, all in the name of 'civil rights', with it's proponents crying 'bigot' and '........phobe' the whole way!
Have you noticed that many social 'steps forward' have had a concurrent, equal or greater negative impact that all in the country have to pay the piper for?
Let's start with the basic civil rights involved here, and by now I'm hoping we all know that we don't vote on civil rights.
Loving v Virginia, which is applicable because the defense used by the state is the same used to justify the anti-equality case, and PSSST IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER...
Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...
On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass gender discrimination in contract law.
Question #1-
So, if you can, please give me that LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, the court needed in Lawrence, which would enable the government to limit, at least the 14th, 4th and 9th Amendment rights of an entire group of people?
Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law, it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religous sacrement or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.
This is why the STATE issues the lisence, not the church. Why the court oversees divorces, not the church. And, why tons of people are married everyday, without stepping foot in a church. On top of that marriage comes with over 1000 benefits for those who enter into the contract.
That being said...
Question # 2 -
Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?
Question #3-
AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?
NONE of the bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, or inanimate objects arguments WILL EVER WORK, logically or legally, until you can answer those questions.
My final question...
How have any of you been harmed by a gay marriage?
Your post presumes that marriage is a civil right, and however logically you have thought it through it falls apart because of this, Sarah.
Marriage is not a civil right. It is denied to many people, not just gay people. Parents can't marry their children, siblings may not marry, groups of unrelated adults can't all marry each other. And the rationale for precluding these people from marrying is the same one that precludes gay people from marrying. That rationale is that society is simply unwilling to extend marriage rights to them. It is a society's right to do this. Our society prefers to keep marriage narrowly defined. Society expresses itself in this regard with how it votes, and gay marriage has yet to win a single popular vote in any election in which it has appeared on a ballot.
Paul,
You've provided nothing, but circular logic.
Well, it's not so much as my post "presuming" as it is SCOTUS ruling. You seem to struggle with reading comprehension, so I'll make it a bit simpler. There was a case called Loving v Virginia, where SCOTUS said this...
Now, we can apply this case to gay marriage, because the people who lost this case used the same defense as those who oppose gay marriage. If the defense didn't hold water then, why does it hold water now?
Also, the legal issues surrounding marriage, per se, include privacy and equal protection. Both of which are guarenteed, civil rights.
Second, your "slippery slope" is a slippery fallacy. In order for gay marriage to lead to any of those things, or to be on par with any of the relationships you mentioned, i.e. incest/beastiality, you have to answer this question...
Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?
So perhaps you should re-read my original post, and then, instead of merely repeating the position you have, actually answer the questions and prove your point.
Phil,
Please stop intentionally making yourself look stupid. If no consent can be given it is an illegal union/relationship. For example teenagers (under the age of consent) having sex is technically statutory rape, the girl cannot give consent because she is not of age yet. There have been cases where parents have had boyfriends arrested and charged with rape.
As for bestiality, animals cannot talk they cannot consent. I am continually amazed that people will just parrot what they are told without even thinking about it. Five seconds of critical analyzation of the slippery slope argument is all that is needed to find that it is pure BS.
I have provided a line of reasoning that all your proffering and puffery has yet to refute or overcome.
Marriage in our society is narrowly defined. That is the way the society wants it. If marriage was a civil right, it would be available to everyone; even the other excluded populations I mentioned besides gay people. This is not the case, so you obviously have an erroneous opinion of what exactly constitutes a civil right.
The republican party has become one sick puppy! Rip yourselves apart. I love it!
Geowil
Phil,
Please stop intentionally making yourself look stupid. If no consent can be given it is an illegal union/relationship. For example teenagers (under the age of consent) having sex is technically statutory rape, the girl cannot give consent because she is not of age yet. There have been cases where parents have had boyfriends arrested and charged with rape.
As for bestiality, animals cannot talk they cannot consent. I am continually amazed that people will just parrot what they are told without even thinking about it. Five seconds of critical analyzation of the slippery slope argument is all that is needed to find that it is pure BS.
You don't answer the question at all and make yourself look stupid in the process yourself.
People who think they are 'right' like the gays, will find any means at their disposal to justify their way into acceptance, just as the gays have. You cannot deny that, period, it is part of human nature to do so. I know for a fact that NAMBLA has already tried your method of acceptance, it is only a matter of time before they resurface. You can deny that all you want as well, but once the beast is unleashed, it rarely can be stopped, (just like gays). Remember Rome? Pedophiles were common, under age prostitution of male and female was common. Who are you to deny this? Of course you may say its 'bad' now, but this society seems to think that the ways of the old Roman society are good for everyone, which included pedophiles, and will more than likely every other form of sexual deviance available to the human imagination.
You seem to claim moral and mental superiority, but that is a figment of your own imagination.
You gays can argue all day long about consent all day long, but it is really just a smokescreen. Using animals to justify your position merely reduces you to their level as well.
The end goal of all this is to make your sex feel good, it has nothing to do with all the other garbage that is shoveled.
Eventually, people we all truly don't like will use the same smokescreens and gay BS to justify making their sex organs feel good in any manner they chose, just as the gay community has.
Paul, as Sarah pointed out, marriage has been ruled a "basic civil right" by the Supreme Court, and their word on this trumps yours. Furthermore, they have applied that finding in at least 14 cases since the Loving ruling -- and those cases did not involve interracial marriage, so please don't bring up the tired-but-often-attempted rebuttal that Loving was about interracial marriage, not gay marriage, so it cannot possibly apply. The underlying arguments are the same, and several federal judges (that means "more than one") have already found that the Loving ruling does apply to gay marriage, also. Again: their word trumps yours. It's called "applying the law" or "applying precedent," Paul, and is often used in judicial matters.
The problem is that civil rights (like marriage) cannot be put to a vote, since we are not a country of majority rule: the tyranny of the majority cannot deny rights to the minority. When such things are put to a vote, and laws like Prop H8 and the NC amendment/law get enacted, they are properly challenged through the federal courts and properly found to be unconstitutional -- which they are. If "society" were allowed to "express itself" by voting, interracial marriage would still be illegal, women would not be allowed, and slavery would still be legal -- just to cite a few examples.
And I have just provided irrefutable proof that overcomes your bloviating and bumptiousness.
YOU obviously have an erroneous opinion of what exactly constitutes a civil right, as well as our system of laws and government.
I'm not gay but I'm dying to hear this bizarre comment explained. I only hear homophobes referencing bestiality which makes me wonder if, since they think about it so much, are they the ones sexually assaulting animals especially as you say consent is a smokescreen. Come to think of that, if you have that attitude you must be in support of Priests and other people raping children who can't consent, heck even raping women who refuse to consent because you religious zealots think women must submit to a man and if he rapes her it's all her fault for making you want to rape her. . . ya know, since consent is just a smokescreen and meaningless and stuff
Straight people engage in the same sex acts that gay people engage in all the time. BTW sex between consenting adults who know how and desire to please their partners don't need to talk about sex to make it feel good, we know how to actually make it feel good. I feel bad for your wife if you don't know how to have sex in a meaningful and enjoyable way (or, maybe, because you think consent is a smokescreen, it's not enjoyable because your wife doesn't really want you mounting her like livestock)
Why are homophobes so obsessed with how gay people have sex anyway?
There is nothing slippery slope about this. It is critical thinking. So now your basing consent off of if someone can or can not talk ? How do you know that my dog doesnt want to marry me ? I could easily say a bark is good enough confirmation. Also since we are on this supposed slippery slope, what about people who can not speak at all ? Maybe someone who was born with no vocal cords, and is paralyzed and can not move their body. Or perhaps someone who is mentally handicapped and maybe cant speak or write.. Will you deny them the right to marry also because they lack the same ability as you and I ?
Why cant I marry my dauther ? Because of incest genetic issues ? What if I get fixed and cant have children , would you deny me the right to marry ? Who are you to judge >?
On a side note i never would, but im showing your alls bigotry
To Paul-2314271 @#1.198 - I actually address the entirety of your premise here, in a conversation that lasts until the end of that thread (the rest of which really begins here), and in which you gave me (perhaps merely by way of oversight) the last word. I see no utility in re-typing on a subject I already addressed, not only to my satisfaction, but to what appeared to be a rhetorical victory.
The broad answer, from my perspective, is yes--we should allow the groups you mention to get married, while we can continue to oppose marriage to minors or to animals by way of functional, rather than moral, definitions of personhood. I see no reason why even my moral code--let alone yours-- should serve as the basis for civil law.
Phil it is not about what anyone thinks, it is about what is legal. What you think does not mean what you think is what is legal. Someone can think it is okay to murder people but that does not excuse them from the law.
The same goes for bestiality and pedophiles. There will never be a point in our history where either are socially accepted. The whole thing with homosexuals is because they have the right to be married just like us heterosexuals do. It is in the 14th Amendment. No law in our country can override the constitution without first being screened by the Supreme Court. This is because for any law that contradicts the constitution to be constitutional the current article of any amendment of the constitution must first be found unconstitutional and therefor able to be overruled.
I have not problem with Gays marrying. I am not so insecure as to believe that Gay marriage will in any way lessen the meaning of my future marriage.
@Mark,
What you personally say about what your dog thinks does not mean jack**** to the law. Your dog does not have the means to consent.
As for incest, it is legal as long as it is consensual. If your daughter is of age and wants to marry you you are within legal grounds to do so. You may have a hard time explaining it to your wife and your friends and neighbors but that can be worked out.
Also Mark (timer ran out),
Even if you cannot speak humans can write or nod in answer to questions written or stated.
Not necessarily. The key component is that consent or assent can be definitively expressed.
Then again, as disgusting as I find bestiality, as morally reprehensible as I find it, I don't hold that bestiality should be illegal. Cases where an animal is physically forced to engage in acts could be prosecuted under existing animal cruelty laws; cases where an animal is violated, or even consensually engaged in sexual acts, by a person other than the owner can be prosecuted under property law. Cases where the owner of an animal engages in sensual acts with an animal that is, to all appearances, offering non-verbal assent may be disgusting, but I think that cops and courts have better things to do than worry about it. After all, we don't ask consent of the dog that sniffs out bombs, or the cow we kill and carve into steaks; I think relying on current law to ferret out true cases of animal abuse represent the end of what we need to be concerned with as regards horse-@!$%#ers. Frankly, I feel the same way about necrophilia--that is, if no family member or spouse is exercising sovereignty over the body of the deceased to press a legitimate civil suit, I'm happy just thinking of the person who @!$%#s a corpse as being a deeply disturbed individual engaged in a profoundly unhealthy act; it does not really advance the moral cause of his correction to make him a criminal by legislating against his activities on the basis of morality, and even if it did (unlikely, but I'll take anything as given arguendo), I do not hold law to be the ideal instrument for advancing moral causes.
That said, marriage to a dog or a corpse is easily prevented because neither is empowered, legally, to enter into contracts. To allow such would not only change the meaning of marriage, but of contracts themselves, and even of personhood or citizenship.
Doesn't matter. Your dog can't marry you for the same reason (s)he can't apply for a job, vote, buy a car, etc. (S)He is not a legally recognized entity. Oh, and no thumbs. I grant you, that's more a practical distinction than a legal one; I'm sure if someone cut, say, your wife's thumbs off (or your girlfriend, or husband, or boyfriend, or whatever; I don't know what you do with yourself), she'd still be legally eligible to enter into contracts.
Maybe. Do we have any way of reliably inferring consent? And when you say "mentally handicapped," are we talking about someone who actually falls below legal definitions of competence and accountability?
Generally speaking, while I morally oppose incestuous marriage, I do not legally oppose it, provided that both (or all; I also support legalizing plural marriage) parties are over the age of consent. That said, marrying your daughter, even if she's of age, strikes me as (arguably) an inherently coercive situation because of the power dynamics involved with parent-child relations. In that sense, though, such a thing could be prevented by way of extant laws regarding child abuse and sexual harassment.
Then again, if, say, a daughter or son remains single in order to take care of an ailing parent, I'm not sure that household oughtn't to receive some sort of domestic partner benefits. Perhaps ANY household should be eligible for such benefits, and the whole notion of "marriage" can be left to communities, as a social or spiritual ritual; cases of abuse, neglect, or coercion can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis via the channels noted above.
Greg-3655136, Jan-21270, you're each suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Not quite true. In todays society people would think that a man who marries , haves sex and kids with a 14, 15 year old girl would be classified as pedophilia. Im sure most on here would agree to that, but I will quickly interject you are wrong. You can drop the pedophilia label because a person who desires someone in their teens is not a pedophile. Pedophile is the desire to be with PRE pubescent kids. I cant say this enough , Pedophilia is the desire of kids who are PRE pubescent. Im talking ages 5 - 12 ish.
Also if you know history of America, and the rest of the world for that matter, girls got married and had kids young. In our history through the pre industrial post industrial era the father had the right to say when and who their daughters could marry. Women of our past did have kids when they were of physical age ( post puberty) This age would vary, but some girls would be fully developed in their young teens. That was normal back then. No one considered it sickening that some 20, 30 year old male wanted to marry their teen daughter. In other countries marriages are done at very young ages, pre teen girls. I always point out a popular figure of the past, Muhammad of the Koran marrying a 9 year old girl Aisha .
Well Definition of Marriage Act tells us that Same sex marriage is not legal. So we change laws even though the Majority of the public doesnt want it changed. So now that laws are being changed to make something that was illegal , now legal, then we need to look at the desire of those out there who do wish to fulfill their desires as well namely bestiality, and close kinship .
Now from a Biblical view , I am opposed to bestiality, close kin marrying, and same sex, but I am trying to show how bigoted people can be trying to change the majority view of marriage to appease the few percent of the world. If you are trying to change my view on how I see same sex marriage, then I need to show you the need to change your view to those who do want to marry their close kin and animals.
Mark,
There are many places in the world where the age of consent is much lower then here in the States. In Spain, for example, the age of consent is 13. In ancient times there was no such thing as consent either, that is a modern day legal vehicle and I also never stated that those two were never acceptable I stated that they will never be accepted socially in our times, in the Modern era and beyond. Nice dodge at the pedophilia thing though.
As for the last bit of your post DOMA was recently found unconstitutional by a lower court and it will be likely shoveled up the the Supreme Court.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html
There is also a different Homosexuals are humans not animals, though technically all humans are also animals. Point is though that we consider ourselves a higher form of being then animals. You final argument is one of false equivalences and "slippery slopes" used all of the time to the detriment of your sides own arguments. Animals are not Humans, they are not legally recognized as an entity that can consent to a sexual relationship. As I told Phil what you say about the animal or what the kid says about it does not matter. A 14 year old girl could want to marry a 25 year old guy but the law states she cannot legally enter that contract because she cannot consent to it until she is 18.
What people say does not matter, what matters are the laws. If they laws states that something cannot be done for a specific reason that has to do with the age of a person then no matter what that person says, until they are the specified age what they want to do cannot be done legally.
damn edit timers,
I am not trying to change your view. That is not the point of any of my posts. What I am attempting to do is to find a way to allow you to accept that allow Gays to marry does not:
1. Cheapen traditional Marriage
2. Open the flood gates to the true sexual deviants of society
3. Will not change anything in the day to day lives of Straight people
You are free to hate Gays all you want but you should not be supporting laws that suppress them because of your hate or dislike of them or what they do. I do not like the fact that there are some Christians that openly want to discriminate against others but I do not think there should be laws against limiting free speech to prevent it from happening.
It is their right to say what they think however it is not their right to be creating/supporting laws based on those feelings that affect the objects of their vitriol (WBC is who I am targeting here) that cause those people to lose some of their rights.
Isnt this a contradiction ? Which is it ? I dont care what some science book deems me as. I am a Human being, I was created different from animals. There is a distinction between me and animals, and yet many similarities. Out of all the things same and different , I have always been, and always will be human just as my ancestors before me, and those to come after me. My entire line came from humans, and will continue on to be humans.
And what I am saying is, is what is wrong now legally , and socially was not in our past. People did do it. Famous couple was Lorreta lynn at the age of 13 I believe marrying Doo little lynn who was 22 or 23 at the time. Perfectly acceptable for the time.
Why are you assuming I HATE gays. I dont at all. I work with them, I interact with them. I have been flirted at by them and have thanked them and never did anything hateful toward them. To assume I HATE is the issue so many people try to label on us who dont oppose gay anything, but instead stand for PRO marriage, in favor of the normal of Man and Woman who can have kids if they wish. Man and woman who are designed to compliment each other in their roles. You cant do that with same sex anything. SO i dont oppose them at all, I just favor what was intended.
Hey people, I found these articles in two website newspapers. one of them from a gay newspaper ( go fiqure) Tell me what you think? This is an excerpt from myself and ErinNJ. She believes that homosexuality was never Illegal here in the United States But I just showed her that there are two states that have homosexuality as illegal. Read for yourself.
ErinNJ
Still riding the pathetic train, I see. And you're getting more pathetic with every post.
And you just cant admit that your wrong.
www.newser.com
Posted Apr 13, 2011 2:20 PM CDT |Updated Apr 17, 2011 10:22 AM CDT
According to the Texas state penal code, "homosexual conduct" is still a criminal offense—even though the Supreme Court deemed the state's anti-sodomy law unconstitutional eight years ago.
Texas penal code 21.06 Sexual devient behavior or homosexual conduct is still an criminal offense in the STATE OF TEXAS!!
§ 21.06. Homosexual Conduct (Texas)
(a) A person commits an offense if he enganges in deviate sexual intercourse with another
individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C
misdemeanor.
More proof of states that have homosexuality as ILLEGAL
www.querty.com
“Homosexual conduct is illegal in NC (even after Lawrence V Texas). We arrest 250 homosexuals each year in Mecklenburg alone. Unlike prostitution, even suggesting homosexual sex is a criminal offense in NC”
Full story here: #ixzz1yw7Ov6GH
“Homosexual conduct is illegal in NC (even after Lawrence V Texas). We arrest 250 homosexuals each year in Mecklenburg alone for either a ‘crime against nature’ or ‘solicitation of a crime against nature’. Unlike prostitution (exchanging money), even suggesting homosexual sex is a criminal offense in NC. If we were all that ‘progressive’ would we be arresting 250 homosexuals a year? Setting up sting operations to de-infest areas where they congregate? Point is, if you want to delude yourself that homosexual conduct is ‘ok’ go ahead. The law, the police and the DA however have a different view.” —North Carolina city commissioner Bill James, who was caught on tape remarking “Your son was a homo?” to a colleague during a domestic partnerships debate, in an email written to a Charlotte resident. If you thought he’d opt to apologize for these comments, he won’t be:
“I think that if you’re someone who is homosexual and you believe that you are born that way and have every right to engage in that behavior, I think the offensive thing, I would surmise, is not the word ‘infest’ or ‘de-infest’ but the fact that the police are actually doing the sting operations,” he tells Q Notes when asked to explain his comments. “We can parse words — what phrase should I have used? But the central question for most people is not what particular term got used but whether the action was occurring. Was I accurate in saying there are these sting operations going on and those sting operations — whatever term you want to use — target homosexual men? That is why the county took and spent significant amounts of money to rework the park to take out certain landscaping things to prevent, once the sting operations cleared them out, prevent them from re-congregating — or re-infesting if you use my original term. … When someone trots out Lawrence v. Texas, I trot out the arrest statistics. I say if Lawrence v. Texas is the law of the land, why are there all these arrests? And that ends the discussion usually.”
Full story here: #ixzz1yw7dTFVz
Newser) – According to the Texas state penal code, "homosexual conduct" is still a criminal offense—even though the Supreme Court deemed the state's anti-sodomy law unconstitutional eight years ago. Though the state stopped enforcing the law after the Supreme Court's decision, it's still on the books—and will likely remain so, even though a pair of bills introduced in the Texas House recently would finally remove it. The problem? The legislature's Republican supermajority might never allow the bills to come to a vote, Mother Jones reports. In their party platform last year, the Republicans made it clear they wanted homosexuality to remain outlawed.
Though the Supreme Court ruled the statute unconstitutional in 2003, a full act of the legislature is still necessary to repeal the law. Normally, Texas is "pretty good" at doing that, says one judge. But a 2009 omnibus bill that formally repealed more than three dozen unconstitutional bills did not include the anti-sodomy law, and multiple efforts to repeal the law, launched by Democrats, have made no headway. Politicians including the governor have publicly declared support for the sodomy ban. This year, Democrats finally managed to snag a committee hearing on the bills, but one of the sponsoring representatives fears they will stall there: "The prospects don't look good."
You said this yourself and qoute:
ErinNJ
it was never illegal to be homosexual in the United States. Ever.
Dated 25 June 2012 @ 9:59 P.M.
Just comes to show you that you dont have to have a college degree to admit that your wrong!
Thenight,
Erin mean federal laws. State laws can be created by any Tom, Dick, and Hersal so there are obviously going to be some very screwed up laws to be found. Federal laws are what we are discussing here though, federal laws apply to the entire country while state laws only apply to certain states.
@Marm
I thought I was quoting someone else who does seem to hate or at least greatly dislike Gays. But as I have said before, you cannot hate the sin without hating the sinner. Many would like to deny this but they logically cannot. You cannot hate something without also hating the place it originates from. The place it originates from is responsible from creating that which is hated against, it is what created it. If you hate the creation you have to hate the creator.
If you do not personally dislike Gays that is fine as well. That being the case it should not matter one way or the other to you if they are allowed to be married.
Also, in response to the can't have kids part, that is why we have adoption and IVF; for couples that cannot have kids, both homosexual and heterosexual.
Geowil, I mean any laws, federal or state. There has never been any law anywhere in the US against someone being a homosexual. There have been laws stating that sodomy between persons of the same sex was illegal, and there were laws in some states that said that sodomy between ANY persons was illegal (whether same-sex or opposite-sex). Many states have not yet repealed such laws -- apparently North Carolina is one of them -- and they keep arresting people for violating such laws because their law enforcement officials are ignorant of the fact that the laws are unenforceable due to the Supreme Court's decision in 2003 that ruled ALL sodomy laws are unconstitutional.
Thenight seems to think (although I know that's a contradiction in terms) that because many states outlawed homosexual conduct, that means that being a homosexual was illegal, which is not true.
However, the bottom line is that homosexuality has never been illegal in any state in the US. Ever.
Why would I have any need to hate the person ? I hate all sin, I hate that I sin. I hate that i feel the saturation of sin, in a sin fallen world. Its not my place to judge a person and know their mind, only God can do that. I judge no one, but I do have every right to believe that Homosexuality is a sin just as much as lying, or stealing, murder is ect ect .
Im not too sure if this hold true, because someone can buy a gun, shoot and kill somebody. Should I hate the Gun maker, the person who sold the gun, the person who used the gun, or the gun itself , or the act of murder ?
Once again your going back to the hate thing. I hate no person, I dislike the sinful nature of homosexuality. I could care less if someone is gay, but the actions of the gay lifestyle I dislike, just as gays would dislike my hetero lifestyle.
It get horribly tiresome to keep hearing people label anyone who opposes gay marriage as "Gay Haters". I am sure some people with this opinion do Hate homosexuals, but you do not know my heart. Hate is a serious emotion. I know when I hate. I have definately "hated" certain people from time to time in my life. I hate anyone who mistreats my children. I hate seeing people abuse their children. I hate bullies.
But just because I don't think changing the defination of a long standing social/religious institution you say I hate. You can not read my heart, my mind nor my emotions. Truly can't someone just have a different opinion and/or world view without being called hateful?
Not really, since those are the same arguments that bigots tried to use to justify keeping interracial marriage illegal in the 1960s, and they didn't make any sense at that time, either.
Hate is a very strong word associated with very specific feelings. Intollerant maybe (I can see that logic) but you can not say some one "hates" someone or something unless you know their inner feelings. It is not a word to be thrown around. It offends me very much when someone says I hate someone I have no ill feelings toward. I didn't hate my sister when she got into drugs as a teenager. Quite the opposite, but I did not approve of her choices and behavior. With your logic that would mean I hated her because I didn't approve of her lifestyle.
Denying rights to a group of people simply because you don't agree with their sexual orientation is nothing more than hate.
You don't like being called a hater? Stop being one.
From a pantheistic view, and that of a practitioner of Nichiren Buddhism, I am opposed to bestiality and incest, but not to same-sex relations. Here's the thing though--as I point out in #1.211 (to which you've not yet responded), I hold none of them to be legally regulable in and of themselves, because my moral code is no more relevant in matters of civil law than in yours.
We are granted free exercise of religion. I submit that if any moral distinctions are codified into law, then we do not have that free exercise.
Both are true. Sharks are not perch, and perch are not sharks, but both are fish. Sharks defer to other sharks in ways that they do not defer to perch, primarily because social contracts only bind animals of the same essential type; the lion recognizes no contract with the gazelle, but there are clearly codes to be obeyed between lions.
Animals are different from one another (though, as a pantheist, I obviously wouldn't suggest that these distinctions have anything to do with being "created"). There are distinctions between a wolf and an elephant, or between a chimp and a flatworm, and yet many similarities.
And since "what was intended" is a subjective judgment, I'd say that the state has no business engaging with such distinctions.
Indeed, provided that the rest of us are not constrained by your notion of sin.
Unless you can think of a way in which homosexuals are infringing on your right to pursue your heterosexual lifestyle as you see fit, you kind of have to admit that your last sentence makes a compelling case FOR legalizing same-sex marriage.
What you need to understand is that for those of us who don't believe in deity or in the Platonic notion of an individuated soul, the individual is not separate from the totality of his or her actions, though the totality could be regarded or judged separately from any given action. Thus one cannot love me and hate what I do, as I am what I do, or at least the sum total of what I have done, and most particularly whatever I did most recently.
I make my case from a Traditional marriage point of view. Its not that I am opposed to somebody else and their rights, its about the intention and purpose of marriage. One man and one woman united to become one flesh. Two opposite Sex whose roles compliment each other. I stand by my view on Pro Marriage, Pro Life, Pro Family.
The "intention and purpose of marriage" is whatever the people involved in that marriage want them to be. My husband and I had our own purpose and intentions for our marriage, while yours are probably different (if you're married). There is no ONE "intention and purpose of marriage" for everyone.
There's the intention and purpose of marriage from a civic point of view, and the intention and purpose of marriage from a social, spiritual, and/or emotional point of view. In primitive tribes and/or in theocracies, these spheres are likely as not to be somewhat integrated. In modern industrial/post-industrial civilization, they are not; more importantly, in pluralistic societies with free exercise of religion, they are certainly separate functions. The social, spiritual, and emotional intention and purpose of MY marriage (I've been married for almost 16 years) is quite different from that of yours; both transcend what the state sanctions in the matter of marriage, which is simply a contract regarding consolidation of properties, and the rights and privileges that attend that consolidation.
Anything beyond such a contract is, or should be, far beyond the state's circumscribed right to execute.
Not within the purview of the state to recognize or regulate.
I Should try to explain why marriage is to remain traditional since nothing in this country is traditional anymore. Its just something to be used and exploited to ones own benefit, like Christmas, it's just something to be made a profit off of. But I guess that is what its all about, profit and not a civil right.
Thoses who think that their judgement of others will earn a final say on how people are treated will have their JUDGEMENT someday...
and find out that God was NOT AMUSED
now if only the Republicans who aren't of the mindset that the Fundamentalist/Catholic church should be able to control our secular laws would finally understand what these religious zealots stand for (and that once the zealots are done with the gays, they'll be focusing on laws that will put the lives of everyone else in the control of fundamentalist churches) would show up to the pols for these primaries to show they are not amused. . .
who is to say that God would support Gay Marriage? A Political mindset who would pass any law to get re-elected? Who is to say that Republicans ONLY are against Gay mariage? I know quite a few people from both sides of the aisle who are against it. I can argue the point that certain people have certain beliefs and live by them, certain people were raised to believe in strong morals, certain people look down on the same people as outcasts, well there it is, certain people who support gay marriage have their strong beliefs, and certain people who dont support it..have theirs. Why does this gay marriage law hold those who are against it as outcasts? This is America, where anyone can vote for who they want and for what they want, and you have to accept that. not everyone will ever agree on everything, thats just how it is, and i for one will not loose sleep over it. I could care less for democrat or republican Political garbage when it comes to .." he/she voted this way and it will be doomsday if they dont change their vote" We vote and accept the outcome..we dont riot in the street and cause property damage or threaten people over it...well most of the time anyway. If i was to believe Political Analysts from Fox News or MSNBC, or CNN..then they already made my mind up by their bias's..thankfully i dont believe in any of their garbage. I think for myself. Others should try it sometime.
Mickey D. You are a poster child for the dangers of ingesting too many lead paint chips as a child.
G-d's views on gay marriage belong in church and the opinions of that church should be used to determine who gets married in that church. G-d's views on gay marriage have no place in secular government/civil law. If G-d has a problem with all those things he finds an abomination, he certainly has the power to punish everyone who chooses to disregard his views. Why these Christians who supposedly have so much faith in G-d don't trust him to handle all these objectionable people and their damned behaviors himself is beyond me
God's been rather busy the last 2000 years or so, so he delegated the right to judge others down to each individual Christrian so they can keep an eye on each other to make sure everyone toes the line.
Fire and brimstone may be for the afterlife, but it is every true believing Christian's duty to ensure the unorthadox suffer like hell in the here and now.
"Thoses"? Really?! Maybe Rhode Island needs to focus more on the fundamentals in public schools!
Regardless, God had no problem with people speaking up on his behalf back in the day. However, He had great issue with the people who didn't follow his laws, debasing themselves like the people in Sodom & Gomorrah.
The irony is that American culture has other brands of "religious zealots" out there banging their drums and demanding conformity; politically correct hacks who shove their "religion" down non PC folks throats, legislating gay marriage and worship of "Mother Earth" under the guise of "global warming".
But you're so blind that you don't see yourself as part of the problem, despite being as "bad" as the vocal Christians whom you despise. I always find it odd that liberals somehow see themselves as "morally superior"!
Oh that's right I remember now, Jesus said love our enemies just make sure to hate the gays and defenitely make sure they can't get married. It's all coming back to me now.
Talk about a double standard! According to SAICS, it's OK for liberals to make non PC people suffer through higher utility rates, high gas prices, and government welfare for PC corporations Solyndra. Environmentalists keep complaining that US vehicle emissions are too high, coal is too dirty, and oil to harmful for the environment to drill. Yet "developing countries" like China and India have no pollution controls...
Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder Nymkosis! Did I personally condemn gays? No. But neither did Jesus condone sinners and their behavior, including homosexuals. No where in the Bible did Jesus say or imply that "gay is OK". But then again Jesus did say that God hated ALL sin, and that no sin was worse than the other. When Jesus said "love your enemies", he didn't say "love the sin that they commit" too.
You know, RI Mom, John Ford, and the rest of you overzealous religious nut jobs... You all are compete and total idiots. When you die, if you actually manage to get to Heaven, God is going to look you in the eye, and tell you that you had neither the right to invoke His name to tell others what to do, nor the ability to speak for Him. St. Peter won't even let you in, because he will be telling you that you didn't have to work that hard. All you had to do was be nice to your fellow human beings, and live YOUR life the right way. Not tell everyone else how to live theirs.
Religion is the single greatest cause of fanaticism in human history.
How many millions have died in God's name because of people like you?
Oh, and if you really want to see it like the rest of us do, imagine a person talking to some invisible, magical man who lives in the sky, and begging for mystical intercession. That's what you look like to the rest of us sane people.
The only glaring problem with this statement is that the majority of American laws are based on Judea/Christian principles derived from the Bible! So why don't we scrap our system of laws and start over with a purely secular set of mores? If you think about it the proposal at length, we could toss out all kinds of silly "religious" laws like the death penalty, sodomy, polygamy, incest, sex & marriage between cousins, underage sex with minors, boy/man & girl/woman "love", swearing on the Bible when you testify under oath in court, the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem since God and patriotism are not politically correct, etc. But according to your logic, the state could not force church clergy to marry gays either, despite the "infringement upon the couple's civil rights"!
True statement. But the fact that the politically correct movement and environmentalism are becoming a new de facto religion cannot be ignored. It's also a simple fact that anyone who knows the Bible cannot be content to simply "be nice to other people and live your life the way you see fit". What is "right" is rather subjective, depending upon who you ask. Millions of "good" people will go to the "land down under" after Judgment Day, not according to a religion, but according the to "owner's manual for humans". Diss the Bible at your own risk...
RI MOM wrote...."and find out that God was not AMUSED"....May I clarify...when god(she) created the world and now this nonsense of gay bashing and judgement goes on.......correct..god(she) will not be amused!
I'll dis it. It's a bunch of Bronze Age Fairy tales written by old men who didn't even know where the sun went at night. As such, it has no place determining our laws.
John, you protest too much. You have been fooled by the biggest LIE of our world. There is a god. We can't and never should become your little country of YOUR own personal 'god'. He does not exist and does not care. One of the deluded I'm afraid.
Do you think the more you post, the more we will BELIEVE your personal brainwashing. NOPE!
They also have rivers that double as open sewers and cities where gas masks are required to walk to your car after work. Similar to the conditions in our country a century ago, before bodies of water began bursting into flames. Even people like you were forced to acknowledge the damage we were doing to our environment. Your contention now is that we should emulate the developing world and regress a hundred years? Stewards of the Earth indeed,
@JohnFord - care to provide the quote of mine where I said that?
Zealots like JohnFord have absolutely no problem telling (actually, demanding) 'others' how to conduct their lives....but do you notice how they all squeal like little pigs when these 'others' tell them how wrong they are and to take their opinions and shove them and just mind their own business?
Epic hypocrisy!
@JohnFord - we have loads of laws that have nothing to do with anything found in "Judeo-Christian" law and please stop using the BS line re: Judeo-Christian law when the Judeo part is routinely ignored by you Christians who insist on using the phrase to lobby for your biblical law being imposed on non-adherents.
JohnFord is also incapable of a rational arguement without setting up a straw man arguement, which he can attribute to his opposition, and then proceed to knock down.
The primary reason for his actons is that there is no rational arguement for allowing him, and those like him, to make someone else's life here on earth a living hell just because they believe it should be.
Strawman argument. That isn't what he was suggesting at all, and you know that.
Pot, meet kettle.
lol, right, "pot meet kettle" for pointing out exactly what JohnFord did with SAICS arguement?
JohnFord still owes SAICS the quote where SAICS said the things that JohnFord made up.
Oh, right, JohnFord can't provide the quote, because he made it up so he could knock it down.
Gotta love how some people just can't handle the truth.
I wish the media would start describing these people for what they are..."social conservatives"...
This is just politicians being politicians, regardless of their campaing promises, if 50.0001% of their voters are in favor of something, their "position" will magically "evolve"
Saland is my State senator and even though I never vote Republican I will vote for him this cycle. I'm gong to get offf this board and notify him via his website in a minute.
"Dumb bigots" seems more accurate.
So concerned about what other people are doing in their bedrooms. Some people need to get a life of their own, and quit trying to impose their beliefs on other people. They should concern themselves about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
If the Republican Part continues on their current path of driving out everyone except old, white haired, white guys and old, blue haired white women, they will become a footnote in history -- much like the Whig Party of the 19th century.
Yeah. I wonder if NOM is going after the Cheneys next. Who says all of the dinosaurs are extinct?
NOM will be going after pregnancy outside of marriage, divorce and adoption next. As far as these zealots are concerned, children must be raised in "intact biological families". That means if there's a pregnancy outside of marriage, the parents must marry each other and raise the child/ren together. That means they think adoption is a bad thing and I'm guessing the only reason they'd support a divorce is if the couple can't procreate together so the fertile one will be able to request divorce on grounds of infertility to marry another with whom they can have kids biologically
Yeah, didn't Dick Cheney's daughter just marry her girlfriend?
Nice, to see the way the kids toe the company line. Not!
HEY BUB! Us old white haired, white guys and old, blue haired white women are the one's who BUILT this country in to the Biggest Best Stongest most Prosperous Nation on earth and rightly don't forget it!!!!!!!
Really MickeyD!?? Check your history books old man. White folks mostly sat at the edge and watched others build our country. From the slaves in the south to the Chinese and Irish laborers, white folks mostly manipulated, stole and lied to get what they could from others. Sorry, sad but true. Now you are sad because you are no longer a majority and in a few years the white folks will be a minority. I say good riddance to bad people!
"HEY BUB! Us old white haired, white guys and old, blue haired white women are the one's who BUILT this country in to the Biggest Best Stongest most Prosperous Nation on earth and rightly don't forget it!!!!!!!"
WOW so you're over 200 years old! AMAZING!
Actually Mickey, it was the old white haired, white guys and old, blue haired white women along with Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and everyone else who built this great country. Not the old white haired, white racist bigots like yourself who did not contribute because you were too busy hating everyone who was not just like you.
"HEY BUB! Us old white haired, white guys and old, blue haired white women are the one's who BUILT this country in to the Biggest Best Stongest most Prosperous Nation on earth and rightly don't forget i"
Hey BUB --- I AM one of those old, whit haired white guys too and we are only a small part of the many people who built this nation. None of it was accomplished by hatred and exclusion.
@RonMan60 So you are saying white folks are bad people?
Isn't that as bigotted and racist? Pot calling the kettle black there.
Micky D,well if you think the old white haired and blue haired white folks built this country then I guess it is no surprise that you are trying to destroy it
Ron and Eric, you're Da Man! Amazing these old white guys are still around spreading their hatred while hiding their white pointy hats in their closets.
"Hey honey, big cross burning tonite over gay marriage. Did my white sheet come back from the dry cleaners yet?"
so much opinion...so sure are the sides
politics as usual
America dies
when the votes are counted we'll know what most have said
"Isn't that as bigotted and racist? Pot calling the kettle black there."
No -- it's a statement of fact. The only demographic where Republicans have a solid majority is among ole white people.
Dang....confused here...been listening to that song saying"We built this city on Rock and Roll"...so it wasn't Rock and Roll that built this city....?
It is sad in this country that was started to get away from religious persecution, that now they have to persecute another group just to take more money away from people to run a compaign to persecute that group! We are gay and we pay taxes. These same taxes enable other married couples to take deductions for being married. Our taxes support schools and other things that we rarely get to use. We only want the same rights our taxes pay for. It is between two legal-age consenting adults, not between children, or animals, or objects. The only difference is that of gender. This country is being overrun by the same type of people that ran off the pilgrims... Makes one think doesn't it. If they succeed in throwing our rights away... Who will they go after next? They have already started on women... Who next blacks? Jews? We are tired of spending our lives worrying that if something happens to one of a relationship what will happen when our mate is thrown into court by the other's family? Any will can be contested? If the judge is religious or anti-gay then who will he give the estate too?? I worry about that constantly. We live in the south and I know that if I died certain members of my family would go after anything of value they could get. My mate, who has worked with me for years, would lose a lot if not all... The house, the cars... It wouldn't be fair but down here it wouldn't surprise anyone...
You have the same rights as every American, you do not deserve special rights just because you live a self chosen deivent life. America is a doomed country, it started dying on the first day that the murdering of babies became legal, then after that the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. There really is no turning back the clock now, God has turned his back on this country. The story of sodom and gomorah is in the works, except now it is a country that will be destroyed not just two cities. I really do not care if you believe in the Bible it will not change a thing. If you will only open your eyes and see what is happening in America you will see that this country is being destroyed from without and within. The storing of guns and food will not help you. I used to ask God for mercy on America but now i do not, I only say Your will be done.
Right now, Jerry, it is we heterosexuals who have "special" rights, since we can marry the consenting adults of our choosing, which right is denied to homosexuals. And when gay marriage is found to be constitutional, EVERY adult -- whether heterosexual, homosexual, or somewhere in between -- will have the right to marry ANY OTHER consenting adult of his/her choosing, regardless of gender. That will also apply to bigots like you, Jerry, not just to homosexuals.
When did you choose the heterosexual "lifestyle," Jerry?
BTW, God and the bible do not make our laws; we are a secular nation.
This country is run by big money. To quote one comedian (who was addressing Congress on his show) "hurry back to your offices on Capitol Hill....the lobbyists waiting there for you aren't going to just blow themselves!"
I agree about the big money. After Obama came out in favor of gay marriage, he went to California and raise 1.2 million dollars at gay friendly events in a single 24 hours. Isn't that terrible, using money to influence his opinion.
Arnold, if you're just throwing rocks at Obama on this issue, then you're really missing the big picture.
arnold-295866 and how many billions, yes billions is the other Party(yours is suppose) raising to fuel their revenge, hatred of legally elected politicians/President? You do understand that the cause of revenge and hatred is an unstable mind that the participant has yet not recognized in themselves/ self denial is such a banal state, don't you agree? Life is life, with all its ups and downs. Learn to accommodate life. This world is not just about you. You may not realize it, now, but you have more in common with Muslim terrorists than any other religion/ people, on this earth. Competition?
On a more logical note, if you take as gospel from scientists that the cause of people being gay is due to chemical imbalances in the brain caused from your pharmaceutical companies poisoning the food chain then your philosophy in life just fell off the cliff. You are the cause.
Being gay is because your are born gay. Chemical imbalance? These children are born to straight people.
Yer kiddin', rite?
I mean, every social conservative knows that gay children are born as result of a union between two gay parents.
That's why they oppose gay marriage......
arnold-295866
Let's ignore that the mormon church poured MILLIONS into California for prop 8. They should have had their 501(3)(c) pulled immediately. You also mean that after Citizens United came into being, Obama played by the same rules the GOP put together?
Most of the people who rally against gays secretly buy anal lube by 55 gal. drum. Our two party system is broken and dividing OUR nation. Divide and conquer works a whole lot better than the gun or sword.
The annal lube is free, no purchase necessary, straight from the "White House".
Our system if broken because religion has entered the system and has gotten away with making what equates to religious laws, and the recent SCOTUS decision on political money and making a unreligious decision that states that the corporation is a citizen that votes, which means, the citizens of this great nation are squat. Too many justices with the God complex who are being bought.
Wow, four Republicans with integrity, that must just about exhaust the entire party's ration.
well the one who decided not to run in his district primary because he knows NOM is gunning for him is just making sure his vote on the matter is overturned while he can claim integrity. That IMO doesn't really show integrity or conviction
I believe it shows nothing BUT integrity to say that you're not interested in damaging your Party (as MUCH as I would have loved to see that happen!) and lose to a Dem when a segment of your own Party has made you a traget over one...ONE...vote. If they'll through you over the cliff for one vote they're not worried about anything but Politics and these men had ALL of their Constituents in mind when they voted FOR American Familes and not against them!
He without sin may cast the first stone!
In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"
Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
Yeah I'm sure all you so called Christians that claim you are acting on behalf of God on gay marriage are really following his teachings. ESPECIALLY the roman catholic church!
so you think turning the GOP into the party that puts religious fundamentalism ahead of all else, to the point that the Tea Party is saying there should be no discussion or disagreement about anything because on all issues everyone must capitulate to their every whim isn't damaging the GOP (let alone the country)?
I used to think anti-gay marriage was about church membership: gay couples don't produce children, and are counter-productive to expanding congregation size. Of course that's not true (adoptions, assisted pregnancy). I'm not aware of any "acts of God" destroying gay couples.
Since any family is a FAMILY, and since gay marriage is good for the economy (weddings and receptions COST), I'm just baffled by the continued opposition by homophobes. Are they afraid that the availability of gay marriage will cause their family/congregation members to "choose" to be gay and leave the fold? Are they cognizant of the hordes of closeted members who will feel emboldened to come out?
For God's Sake, why can't people just live a life of love and acceptance?
What do you call Aids, and it is because of the devient life of homosexuals married to a woman that spread this homosexual disease to the straight population, that and the sorry medical workers who did not do their jobs by screening the blood properly.
HIV/AIDS was brought into this country by heterosexuals, Jerry, and today more than 85% of all new cases worldwide are among heterosexuals. In fact, the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS occurs among lesbian women.
Someday, all who support NOM will have to answer to their God. The money they're spending, in fighting civil rights for others, goes against all the teachings of their Jesus.
They're just another group who use their Bibles as weapons only.
Wow, here we go again with the typical liberal crap.."if you don't believe what we tell you to, you're not only wrong, you're hateful". How did you all get so damned smart that you can dictate definitively what's right and what's wrong ob an issue that has debated for centuries?
spider, anyone whom you may label as stating "liberal crap" is just a foot behind you so-called enlightened ones who promote your conservative crap of anti-everything hate-mongering. You set the tone and it's your model that is being followed.
spider, be fair. The conservatives are just as big pieces of lying crap as the liberals are. As a socially moderate/fiscally conservative Independent I would say there is not one single politician that does not lie, or at the very least spin like crazy, every time he or she speaks. The conservative line is that if you don't believe what we tell you, you're not only wrong, you're destroying America and will burn in hell.
Nobody is really making it about what's "right" or "wrong." If you and your wife want to do freaky things on your kitchen counter, it's not a matter of whether it's right or wrong. It's a matter of whether you should have the right, as consenting adults, to make that choice on your own.
THAT'S what this is about. If you think gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same gender. Simple! It's when you try to start denying others the right based on your own personal opinions of morality or "rightness" that it becomes problematic, and THAT is what people are fighting.
Hey spider, did you bother to read this article - it seems to me it's the religious right that is consistently pulling what you call "the typical liberal crap" and gunning for anyone who doesn't believe what the religious orthodoxy tells everyone to believe and do. If your problem with someone's differences is at the point you insist they not have the same rights as everyone else and require they be treated as second class citizens solely because they not only don't share your personal views, they refuse to live by them, that's bigotry and hate plain and simple. I don't give a fiddler's fart if the "good Christians" have a moral objection to homosexuality and think SSM is gross and that the "gay lifestyle" damns someone to hell. I do care when those people decide to use civil law which is secular law, not religious law, to promote their specific religious dogma. The irony that these are the same groups of people complaining about sharia law when they are trying to force a fundamentalist Christian version of that here in the US is rich.
spider
gay marriage has been debated for centuries?
spider,spider,spider...as usual, you're throwing rocks from inside a glass house.
It appears very clear that NOM is the group that is convinced that not only do they have a perfect grasp of right and wrong, but they're willing to force it on others. Can we say "American Taliban"?
@3rdviewfromleft... I'm pretty sure that Jesus didn't endorse homosexuality. And if it's wrong in the eyes of God, those who practice it will be accountable for it. But it's not incumbent upon those who dislike it to stamp it out. In fact, I guess it's been around as long as prostitution. How's it going trying to stop that?
easy spider, if you are spouting an ideology of legislating the private behavior of another human being you are both wrong and hateful as that kind of thinking goes against everything that being American is supposed to mean. And when you do it at a time when our government has so many far more important issues that affect everyone to attend to but aren't because they have to appease the religious nut bags you should just be ashamed of yourself do you honestly think hating the gays takes president over jobs, infrastructure and education? come on people a little perspective is all we are really asking.
spider........... gay marriage has been debated for centuries? Don't get too smart ,spider, but sheep and goats have been around since the beginning of time.
@spider-737231
"Wow, here we go again with the typical Conservative crap.."if you don't believe what we tell you to, you're not only wrong, you're Unchristian, Anti_American, Anti-Family". How did you all get so damned smart that you can dictate definitively what's right and what's wrong on an issue that has debated for centuries?
Did you see what I did there? LOL Man that was too easy.
Seriously what makes you any different or sooo much smarter?
Silly Hypocrite
I am just wondering, when did this country go from being ruled by the majority, ie. majority of the people vote yes or no at the polls, and gets overturned. We are being ruled by the politically correct.
I don't give a damn whether or not two people of the same sex want to get married to each other. Unfortunately, and if you look at the statistics, most people are NOT in favor of Gay Marriage.
As was pointed out in a post above, people in both parties are against Gay Marriage. I too personally know die hard Democrats, who are bible thumpers to the extreme who are against gay marriage. So to say it is just the GOP, is ludicris. The GOP is just more vocal and stand up for what they believe. California's Prop 8 was passed by 52% of the votes, you going to tell me that only Republicans voted for Prop 8? I dont htink so.
For those of you who like to tout the separation of church and state, you all need to read up on the history of this country and why the fisrt settlers moved here in the first place.
Ya sorry conservatives I also have to blow back on that "it is both side who do this" I am not pushing my religious/spiritual beliefs on anyone. The right to choice is from political decisions not religious ones. If you disagree politically then try to go out and get folks to vote for your policy. But if your side were to lose then go away and lick your wounds like every other defeated person.
Spidey still lives in a cave, that is why he is not afraid to throw rocks.
TEA1959, we have NEVER been a majority rule country. Since you don't even know that much, the rest of your post is worthless. You are the one that needs to review your history lessons.
@pj
Since when? A Politician is voted in by the majority of the people, a supreme court decisions made by the majorty of the justices, President gets the majority of electoral votes from the majority of voters, Propositions get passed by the majority of votes. So since when have we not been a majority rule? And I need to review history? ROFLMAO
pj
tea's Majority comment was re guarding elections and voting ie prop 8
Like most teabaggers you don't seem to understand why we have a bill of rights. And you seem to prefer an ochlocracy or even better a theocracy.
Tea it may be true that some dems are bible thumpers but they are not the folks that are targeting these indivual lawmakers. Or did you not read the article? and as far as why people came here in the first place was so that they could pusue their religiuos beliefs with out prosecution. The Founding Fathers(150 years later) decided to seperate church and state
Wait, tea, I'm confused. Wasn't this article about how a law was passed by a majority, and now a hate group is funneling money in from out of state to undo that majority vote? What was your point again? Your myopia is hilariously ironic.
Romneyismynightmare
Actually you are pushing your religious views off on everyone. We were doing just fine until people like you got activist judges to prohibit the rest of us from practising our religion freely and openly as guaranteed in the constitution.
You want to kiss democracy and your personal freedom goodbye? Vote Republican.
Communism puts up an iron curtain or wall around the country, treats protesters like terrorists, gives the state run media daily talking points and spends nothing on social programs or infrastructure while most of it's wealth is spent on the military. Communism micromanages it's citizens lives, telling them what to think, what they can read and even what god they can worship. Communism allows industry to pollute at will, to pay the workers just barely enough to survive, to force them to work in unsafe conditions and prohibits their right to form unions.
Conservatism puts up fences around our country, treats protesters like terrorists, gives Fox news daily talking points, dismantles social programs and spends nothing on infrastructure while giving trillions to weapons contractors and the Pentagon. Conservatism wants to micromanage your life, telling you who you can marry, who you can have sex with, which movies they approve of and even which god you can worship. Conservatism allows industry to pollute at will, pay the workers just barely enough to survive, and to force them to work in unsafe conditions while prohibiting the workers rights to form unions.
ty bodydouble. been saying that for years but no one wants to do anything constructive to fight it until they try to TAKE your rights away and supplant them with their religious beliefs. Guess I must be a 60 yr old nonconforming grannie that they want to do away with.
What? Thought GOP were the job creators who'd give construction workers jobs building their big wall around America's border. They are a bunch of homophobes though. You'd think the GOP'd be ok for gay marriage, just so the gays would be equally miserable as all the married heterosexuals.
My take on same sex marriage: you do no have to like the idea of homosexuality, but you should like the idea of equality for everyone in America, no matter what their sexual preferance happens to be. If the GOP is all about smaller govt, they need to stfu about micromanaging social issues pronto snappy.
NOM, the hatred of the KKK directed at yet another minority. Why do people think that keeping others down (oppressed) makes them happier? I would like just one person to logically explain how allowing gays to marry, directly damages or endangers their marriage...anyone?
Because a lot of us feel it is not normal, It makes a mockery out of Marriage between a man and a woman to us? We also do not want our children growing up thinking that this is a normal thing for people, That anyone who is gender confused can do.
Homosexuality is an anomaly in the human Geno that occurs in a small number of individuals physically and is promoted in that person psychologically that something is wrong and they do not know how to combat it, It could be a strong form of dyslexia to Child abuse being the Cause, There is treatment, But it is a long an argouse and expensive path to recovery.
US citizen: Being left-handed is also an "anomaly. Do you propose that everyone be forced to use their right hand, and be punished if they use their left?
@USCITIZEN fine, your more than welcome to your opinion but in America we do not legislate our opinions on others. Unless Gay's marrying results in straight married people beginning to spontaneously combust you have no legal argument against it and will just have to learn to live with it. For example, i think the majority of modern republicans are backwards thinking, bigoted, religious fundamentalists and the greatest threat that western civilization has ever faced but im not out in the streets pointing out how much the god they claim to love would hate them if he A. existed and B. knew them.
Red
We are talking about an Action that effects others socially, There is not much of a impact on other people if you are a lefty? For example why not let three people Marry each other? Because of the Impact on children and others Socially.
Yes we saw your treatment, the freakazoid beating the pillow with a baseball bat while pretending it was his mother, obviously that didn't work because I could tell the man was still GAY. And you are 100% wrong about child abuse being the cause, I know people that were horribly abused as a child and are as straight as you CLAIM to be (I say claim because I think the reason most of you wingnuts cling so tightly to religion is because there is some turmoil inside of you, perhaps you are gay and wont accept it as is the case with Ted Haggard and Rick Santorum, or just pure evil and you are hiding the fact behind a cloak of religion, as with Michelle Bachman and C peter Wagner), and I know many gay people who were never abused at all and are completely gay.
So are you claiming that Dick Cheney and his wife abused Mary Cheney as a child? You mean the vice president that YOU voted for was a child abuser?
@Red_Vespa....not only that, poor US citizen doesn't want his children exposed to left-handed people. This argument from folks like that are exhausting & counter-productive, these are apparently all people who chose to be straight. <ugh!>
US Citizen-
I get that you think it makes a "mockery" of your marriage. But only if YOU see less value in your relationship. I asked for a logical explanation of how gay marriage damages your marriage. You haven't presented any case yet!
@US citizen
Your 'feelings' do not justify laws against gay marriage. It can also be argued that with a divorce rate ~50% that heteros have already made a mockery of marriage. However, marriage is no more than a civil contract between two consenting adults. Nothing more. What you do with your marriage is what makes a difference.
Being gay is not a psychological disorder. It stopped being labeled as such back in the 70's and no one has produce any recent research that would justify characterizing homosexuality as a psychological disorder.
BD
Sounds like you may have hostility issues? First off I am not a Republican or am I a Christian, Abuse does not have be physical it can be mental, or environmental I only stated this as one cause or a Contribution to Homosexuality, It could be a huge spectrum of factors?
But as far as being normal it is not and it effects the heterosexual community adversely.
@US citizen
How so? I'm hetero and I haven't suffered adversely.
US citizen-701707 There is treatment, But it is a long an argouse and expensive path to recovery.
Hey US they abolished the mental institutions that used those draconian methods years ago, or is that what the basement is for?
FYI Our son is left handed, why do you ask? As a youngster he was right handed but decided to touch the hot manifold of his fathers motorcycle with his right hand and was horribly burned. He is very much straight and well married with children, but he does not impose his religious beliefs on others. He also believes in CHOICE.
"We are talking about an Action that effects others socially, There is not much of a impact on other people if you are a lefty? For example why not let three people Marry each other? Because of the Impact on children and others Socially."
So what is that "Impact" of which you speak? How would that impact any children or Society?
Other than it would make you mad if they had the same rights as you?
[Deleted]
US Citizen I'm sure your hate of Homosexuals keeps you warm at night but it has NO PLACE in Legislation that affects anyone else's life. Your opinion is JUST that, yours, and you have no standing to force it on anyone else.
Pray tell what horrible social consequences will befall us when Same Sex Marriages become legally and morally accepted by the Nation? How many Hetro marriages will collapse? How many Straight children will turn Gay simply because it's legal for them to marry the Adult of their choice? How many neighborhoods will decline? How many jobs will be lost? How many schools will close? WHAT is so horrible about people marrying who they love?
Your thinking that Homosexuality is treatable shows how little you know! There is no, and has never been, any "cure"! Just hate driven torture designed to make the subject say whatever the Torturer wants to hear. They can then crow "SEE! I cured this freak, now send me all of your Queers (don't forget the big check) so I can heal them!" when in actuality all they did was get the subject to lie to end the torment.
The only people affected by anyone else's relationship are nosey people. Guess what? Stop being nosey and you will not be affected
Because a lot of us feel it is not normal, It makes a mockery out of Marriage
Weill -- if that's what you believe then I suggest you don't marry a gay person. End of story.
Re@son@ble in MD
And no one has produced any recent research characterizing homosexuality as normal either.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx
Rick, poor ignorant troll.
I have the perfect solution to the gay marriage issue. My solution involves no new taxes, no regulations, no new government agencies, and no government oversight at all. It seems to me that “small” government” Republicans should be all for it if, in fact, they want small government. So here is my solution --- If you’re opposed to gay marriage --- DO NOT marry a gay person.
Seems like a sensible plan...just one question...can I still marry a gay female??
Yes you can. Good luck finding one that will marry you.
Also, good luck in pulling any joy out of said marriage.
How about the government gets out of the marriage business all together. Why should the government have the right to license any relationship. No government licenses my relationship with my children, how is the relationship with my husband any different. Take away special legal perks for all couples (i.e. no tax breaks, no automatic property rights, etc.) If you want to give those rights to any other person...see a lawyer and write it up. Does that solve your hate problem?
Let sanctioning marriage be left up to religious leaders, just like we have done with other religious ordinances, like baptisms, confession,etc. It is just an old fashioned, out of date moral code anyway right!?
Michelle, don't they have history books in the woods? It would seem not.
Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years, so marriage was a civil matter long before religion got involved. It is far more than just a "moral code;" it is a contract between two people. In this secular nation, legal marriage is just that: a civil contract. THAT is why the government regulates marriage.
Well in the history I believe in God married Adam and Eve (long before the existance of ANY government) If you do not believe in the Bible (many people don't any I am perfectly OK with that) when humans primarily lived in small familial tribes around the inhabited world...tribal cheifs who were often the spiritual leaders of the tribes performed their own marriage ceremonies in pegan rituals, not government sanctioned ceremonies. There were no governments. So your assertion that government licensed marriages pre-date civil marriage is unfounded.
Once you have a tribal chief, Michelle, you have a government. So your example in #11.5 actually illustrates, rather than refuting, the notion that marriage is a civic function.
I think if all couples had to shoulder the staggering expense of hiring an attorney to secure basic property rights, or even hospital visitation, medical decision-making rights, burial rights, and so on, we'd see a simplification of the attendant laws (which are currently prohibitively complex). Not a bad thing, in the long run, but we'd be looking at a generation or two of bureaucratic hell.
I'd say that, as a compromise, rather than taking marriage away from the state, we should have domestic partnership contracts available through the state that would be available to any consenting adults, in any number or configuration, who wished to build households together, with rights comparable to what currently exists in the marital contract. We'd take the name "marriage" entirely out of the state's hands, and leave it to communities, families, and faith organizations. Any domestic partnership could be a marriage, if the participants want it that way and live among people amenable to such, but legally speaking, there would be no distinction between marriage and non-marriages.
It's not an ideal condition, and I don't see why any of the committed gay couples I know couldn't simply be granted what my wife and I already enjoy--marriage. But if there's one thing I learned growing up as an older sibling and a gifted child, it's that sometimes you just have to give a little to make those who haven't yet, and may never, catch up with you to shut the hell up and let you get on with your work. :)
Michelle, it's been proven that marriage existed long before anyone believed in the bible; it is factual, while the bible and its events are not. So YOUR assertion that MY assertion is unfounded is bull@!$%#; all of the available evidence points to what I have said, while your claims are unproven.
In fact, religion did not involve itself itself in marriage until around the mid-1500s. Ancient Greeks and Romans, for example, only used a contract to formalize marriages -- no "tribal chiefs" or "pagan rituals" (BTW, please note correct spelling) involved.
OK I will conceed that I am too stupid and "uneducated" to understand everyone elses enlightened state. I will tell my masters degree holding husband, my 2 genius children (confirmed by IQ tests and scores of 33 and 34 on their ACT's, who are now studying Engineering Physics and Electrical Engineering) that we are too stupid to understand this subject. I will crawl back into my woods now.
p.s. I wish people would stop name calling and putting other people down just because they have differences of opinions. Especially since STUPID or hateful is never something anyone who actually knows my family calls us. "Freaky genius family" is far more common.
Well, Michelle, if you want to make this a pissing contest about who is better educated, I have two bachelor's and two master's degrees, while two of my three children scored at least 2200 on their SATs; one is now in veterinary school, while the other is working on a master's degree in Romance languages. My third child is still in high school, with a GPA of 4.1. All three of my children have IQs at or near 150.
My husband is Japanese, with the equivalent of a master's degree.
BTW, for all your purported "education," your spelling is atrocious, and your knowledge of history is pathetic at best -- maybe you are living proof that having an education and being educated are two different things.
And yet people can have all the education in the world and still have no logic and reasoning , or wisdom. People are better speakers than others, people can be more persuasive than others.
What amazes me are the people who are so highly educated that they never really sit back and logically think about things. Its all text book training ( book smarts ) , being trained to believe in one view and that is the main stream world view on everything, and any opposition to that is rejected because there is only one way to think.
i dont have a degree in anything, I did go to college, but I got tired of conflict between me and the professors who all they did was teach their main stream dogma in all my classes. A person can have all the education that want and still have not one lick of rational sense.
Maybe I'm reading different posts than are you, Michelle, because I didn't see anyone call you stupid. Now, would you care to address any of the arguments laid out, or are you going to use these perceived offenses as a reason not to clarify or defend your views?
If you'd like it narrowed down point by point:
As if you would recognize logic, reasoning, or wisdom.
Ditto "rational sense".
I would.
This can be true; it depends both on the area or subject of formal study and the area or subject in which logic and reasoning is being assessed.
Then again, we are talking about marriage. Any marriage entered into solely on the basis of logic and reasoning is doomed to fail as surely as is the one entered into solely on the basis of unbridled passion.
I don't have a degree in anything, either, and for not dissimilar reasons . . . though, for me, "mainstream dogma" was most notable for its "conservative" (for lack of a better word) capitulation to axiom.
You seem to decry your opponents as spouting "main stream dogma." If you know of a place where an ontologically nihilistic, pantheist Nichiren Buddhist actor-playwright-trainer-acrobat-martial-artist is the norm, I'm all ears. I imagine you'd be surprised what some of my political positions are.
For me, the logic and reasoning is pretty simple. My own marriage is founded on my love for my wife; it is composed of the acts of devotion--and forbearance--I perform for her daily. Many friends and colleagues in same-sex relationships can say the same, and I see no reason they should not enjoy the same legal and financial benefits we do, at the same cost (that is to say, a the cost of a marriage license, not of expensive attorney fees).
What is your position on that? And with what reason and logic do you justify that position?
You cannot be debated if you will not respond to the questions posed to you. You might do well, at this point, to convince me that such isn't precisely your design.
If your rational sense can offer a viewpoint different
Thelyamhound ,
There are two views in this world, one with a World view, a view that has no god in it, and everything is based on Natural law and no absolute authority to be accountable to. The other view would be through a Biblical point of view, where the God of the Bible is exactly who he says he is.
I would have to base my logic and reason off of a Biblical View since I do believe in God.
Matthew 19
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
I dont have animosity against anyone in what they believe, but I do believe in pro marriage, pro family, Pro life. We all have different views.
I believe in marriage, family, and I am pro-choice, so I believe in life, too -- neither the bible nor belief in God is required to believe in those things.
I don't have animosity against anyone for what s/he believes, but I do have animosity against those who try to use Christianity, or any other religion, to justify hatred and bigotry. In the first place, I do not believe that the bible or any other religion teaches people to hate, and in the second place, neither the bible nor any other religious text or deity has anything to do with the governance of this country and its laws.
I dont know why you think that the bible has any type of hate in it , or bigotry. Give me an example where it shows any type of hate speech, and I will be more then happy to help you understand it all. Its the people who give it a bad name. Just like guns, guns are not bad, but people who use then are that use them in bad ways.
This isnt true at all. The bible plays a big role in everything about our country and its laws. Our father were believers in God, they all sat down and logically and rationally thought out a government system with Godly principals as influence. Most of our founding fathers were christians.
Actually, there are considerably more views than that; as a pantheist and a Buddhist, I believe neither in [G/g]od(s) nor that everything is based on Natural Law (indeed, I reject any posit that there is such a thing as Natural Law, aside from the law of Myoho, cause and effect).
Well and good. But since we have a doctrine of free exercise, the law cannot hold me to moral dictates that arise specifically or solely from subjective metaphysical views, except insofar as those dictates dovetail with empirically demonstrable civic interests.
I'm inclined to believe you, if only because I have no definitive proof to the contrary. You seem willing, however, to violate our enumerated right to moral self-determination (without which there is no "free exercise of religion" in any real sense). You empower the law to make distinctions that it is not strictly empowered to make.
Given that I've been married for almost 16 years, I think we can say that I, too, am pro-marriage. In fact, I'm so pro-marriage that I would be more than happy to share the institution with others whose relations are functionally indistinguishable from those between my wife and myself.
But when the law recognizes one view over another, they are no longer free and equal under the banner of state.
No one has actually come out and said I was "stupid" but it has been clear in several responses that that is the opinion. The condescending tone is plain. They have said I was hateful, uneducated, don't read my history books, etc. I wasn't trying to get into a "pissing contest" with anyone. Just trying to make some of you understand that I am not uneducated nor unintelligent, yet I have a right to my own opinion. I have my own reasons (some religious, some merely thought out and logical) as to why I feel the way I do.
I do not oppose the concept of domestic partnerships in the slightest. I would not have a problem if every couple had to formally in some legal way declare property rights, medical rights, etc. to their significant other. Legal Zoom has such contracts easily accessable. I just don't agree with the concept of redefining marriage. I have gay friends and family members. I want to see them happy, whatever that means for them, but that does not mean I have to agree to their redefination of marriage.
I am just very frustraited at continually being attacked, name called, and put down because my opinion is not politically correct. I have not put any of the other commenters down, called them hateful, or made fun of their religion or lack there of. Why can't others have this discussion without that tone?
Use the 2 mil. to help feed the hungry and stop judging others.
Feed the hungry? These people don't care one hoot for people. They are simply filling up their lives with hateful intolerance. Besides, the executive director wouldn't have a job if he hadn't created this group to constantly throw mud at good ethical people.
How about use the money to promote marriage and keep the divorce rate down? Our 51% divorce rate ensures that the lawyers will always have a job. Then again, if NOM can think and act logically, they'll be excommunicated from the christian taliban.
Bravo, Leo. I'm a Christian and that's exactly what I think Jesus would want done with the 2 million; not use it to beat on gay people. There is so much more good that can be done in the world with that money and energy. If fundamentalist Christians would spend half their energy on feeding poor children and helping the sick or invalid, then the world would be a better place.
Oh. And for any gays out there, please know that there are Christians out there that support you and we vote too! We're just not as vocal. My husband and I are in our mid/late 30s and everyone of my age group at our church Bible study also believes either that we should support gay marriage or just thinks the church should stay out of it.
Fundamentalists quote Leviticus verses to state their hate case. However, they then go and pull up a chair to the shrimp buffet when every Christian that has really read the Bible knows that eating shellfish is also an abomination noted in Leviticus. I don't see that on the Republican agenda.
I also find it absolutely hysterical that the most vocal opponent of gay marriage that I've ever known was our former church pastor that had to leave because he slept with every woman he could get while his wife had cancer. Yep...he was a real model of Godly marriage.
Ya but if you feed these "scum" they will survive untill election day and might not vote republican. The GOP could not have that happen
"purely revenge" and "blind hatred."
that pretty well sums up the entire GOP platform
So glad the pro gay marriage supporters never act in "purely revenge" and "blind hatred" when the give millions of dollars to defeat those homophobic, narrow minded, brainless, cruel, deceitful, hypocritical, decisive and evil politicians that support traditional marriage. They would never act that way. They are above such things.
You'd do well to stop referring to "traditional marriage." If you're talking about the concept of one man and one woman marrying for reasons of romance/love, and entering into the union by their own free will at a time of their mutual choosing, that may have been the definition of marriage in your lifetime, but it is by no means the definition of marriage throughout human history. Marriage as it largely exists in the US today has only been the order of business since about the 18th century at best.
Dowries, multiple wives, arranged marriages, political contracts, property transfer rights... now THAT'S traditional marriage... and for a considerably longer period of time than what you're referring to. So yeah, the definition evolves and grows all the time. You should, too.
@Arnold - "traditional" marriage between a man and a woman isn't being threatened by SSM, it's threatened by heterosexuals who have an awfully high divorce rate.
Those who donate or otherwise support the cause to allow SSM aren't doing it because of our "hate" for the views of those against SSM or to punish those people, they do it because they recognize that the 14th amendment mandating equal protections under the law (civil law) means that what we think of the personal lives of others has no place in determining if they have the same rights as us because we must all have the same rights. The people who think SSM is a heinous sin are more than welcome to refrain from engaging in sexual or romantic relationships with people of the same sex, and they can belong to churches that refuse to marry gay couples and refuse to give gay people any religious rites/sacraments based on that church's religious dogma. Nobody supporting SSM is trying to ban religious or civil marriage between heterosexuals 0 that would be an act you could consider to be punitive action by those supporting the rights of gays to marry their chosen partner the way straight people can marry their chosen partner. I guess the recognition of that is inconvenient for you.
So Arnold, do I understand you correctly that you're saying that if someone is intent on persecuting you, you should just lay down and take it and not use the very same weapons on them that they are using on you? Is that what you do?
While I loathe Obama's constant fund-raising, to do anything else under the current system is to concede defeat. The same in this situation. The intolerable injustice is that while the SCOTUS and Scalia demonstrate total contempt for Obama and liberals, they have basically put the US up for sale to the highest bidder. And the purchase price doesn't even go to the citizenry to whom the republic belongs. It goes to the rich and corporations who are using lawyers to steal our country.
Hey Arnie, my grandmother was married off at age 2, widowed at 19. How is that for traditional marriage for you?
Dextor, your post seems very hateful. You lump an entire group into one catagory. Being from the left shouldn't you be above that?
hey chuck
the shoe seems to fit.....your party has purged all voices of reason and compromise and adopted a hard line stance on every issue
so wear it with pride as your party will be defeated this fall
There IS a difference. Those who favor same-sex marriage are not trying to deny rights to others. That's a better cause then discrimination.
I'm a conservative. I'm for less intrusion by the government into people's rights, especially those of licensed handgun carrying all-white, Christian golf club members
So are you saying that you're against the Gov being involved in marriage at all? Are you saying you support the right of Homosexual couples to legally marry? I'm a bit confused...sorry.
We owe $16 trillion and we're arguing about whether two gay guys can get married?
We owe 16 trillion dollars because the republicans have decided to destroy the federal government by refusing to raise taxes to fund the necessary programs the federal government should be running for the good of its citizens.
Right on Ronman. That is right! the deficit is all beacuase of republican policy. They would never ever believe you though. And it would get worse under Romney
"We owe $16 trillion and we're arguing about whether two gay guys can get married?
Well -- when you can't solve REAL problems you make up problems and talk about them. It's an election cycle and in another month or so Republicans will be talking about flag burning and prayer in schools also -- a couple of other non issues.
Surprisingly, ctviking, most grownups (even politicians) can multitask. Debating the legalization of gay marriage doesn't mean everything else goes unaddressed, you know.
"I think it’s just wishful thinking to say that once you have same-sex marriage the fight’s over. It’s not."
This is incorrect. A federal appeals court has ruled in Prop 8 that once given, you cannot take rights away from a group. This will be appealed to SCOTUS, but it is pretty much over.
Unfortunately, with the current political make-up of the Supreme Court, there is absolutely no guarantee that the Constitutional concept of "equal under the law" will prevail. The right-wing of the Supreme Court have their mind made up even before listening to the opposing sides. After all, it is this group that made a decision to allow corporations to openly buy elections and, thereby, our form of government.
GW Bush wanted a long lasting legacy so he gave us Alito and Roberts. I hope I'm young enough to out live these 2.
Gee, does this mean that Conservatives don't consider the slavery fight over either, and can we still go back to those good ole' days that made this nation great?
Oh, wait......that's what tax cuts for the wealthy and the shrinking middle class are all about.
Carry on!
Your statement reflects complete ignorance of the fight for civil rights for African Americans and all Americans in general. No doubt you are equally as ignorant about who pays what in taxes or how much money I earn that the government is entitiled to take to fund Solindra. Typical democrat.
In New York State, it isn't wishful thinking, it is reality and the people at NOM know it. They're just milking this issue to raise money (money is the whole reason these groups have latched onto gays, now that anti-black and anti-Jewish rhetoric is no longer acceptable). Repealing gay marriage in NYS would require that both the Senate and Assembly approve such legislation and that the governor sign it. Even if they could intimidate the Republicans in the Senate to overturn same-sex marriage, the Assembly (which has supported same-sex marriage legislation for years) will not vote to do so. And, since the Governor used his political capital to get same-sex marriage legalized, he would never sign such legislation. Unlike other states, there's no easy mechanism for a referendum.
So, NOM, the game really IS over. Why don't your pack up your marbles and go back to your own state?
Those anti-gay republicans will answer to GOD ALL MIGHTY. A consistent 10% of all mammals and birds are homosexual since they first appeared on this Earth. GOD ALL MIGHTY created them as a means of population control. For any believer to fail to see the scientific evidence is doomed to a blind eternity. Science and God can co-exist because God programmed everything.
Well Jack, could you cite the 10% figure? That seems to be the number used by those who are gay or have a gay agenda. On the other hand people with an anti gay agenda use the 2.8 TO 3% number and usually say it is a choice. I personally believe it is a combination of both. Most likely 3% are born gay and any percentage above that is a life style choice. I am not religious and am greatly offended because the left/liberals always lump anyone against gay marriage into the religious right movement.
I am also offended by the blatent manipulation of the pro-gay side. Wanda Sykes did a commercial where some teenage boys were talking and one kid called something gay. Totally not a sexual reference but he used the word to mean bad. Wanda comes up, makes fun of him and says something along the lines of making fun of people jurts and that stealing the word Gay to make it mean bad is insulting to Gay people. And not to steal the word. I thought gay meant happy and was already stolen by the homosexual community. I find that hypocritical to say the least.
And the manipulation continues because the left has turned it into a rights issue. It's not, it's about the word marriage and by usurping the term marriage they force society to view a gay union exactly as a hetro union. The two unions are not the same. OBVIOUSLY. That said, both unions should get the same protect under the law. But please, just because you think people should eat more spinach doesn't mean you should tell everyone it's now broccoli. I accept gay unions, I support equal rights under the law, I don't accept usurping a term that has been in use for thousands of years and already has a meaning, just to further a social agenda.
And in regards to the title of this article, we live in a representative republic. The people you vote for are supposed to represent your views. If they don't then they SHOULD be removied from office. I, unlike this group of Republicans, most gays, most anti-abortionist, most pro-lifers don't vote on a single issue. I think it is stupid to vote for someone who will economically destroy your country but make sure you can marry your same sex partner. Somethings are more important than a single social issue.
Thank you CHUCK!!!!! Very well said.
Sure, Chuck and Michelle, civil rights are unimportant -- until YOUR rights are denied.
That comes from Kinsey, and refers to the percentage of individuals who self-reported having had a significant number of homosexual experiences. My guess is that this number is higher than the number of true homosexuals, who may reside closer to the 3-6% that gets tossed around, provided that we limit our definition of homosexual to those individuals who lack significant heterosexual desire and so engage primarily or exclusively in homosexual behavior.
The remainder are bisexual, or bisexually responsive; said responsiveness is surely not a choice, but any given sexual act surely is.
That said, I think the 10% figure is very, very low if we're measuring folks who have had one or more homosexual experience(s), and new research seems to confirm that.
Perhaps because the non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage are so subjective and convoluted that they might as well be religious.
If the distinction is founded on something as arbitrary as gender or as subjective as moral views, frankly, the state has no place in making said distinction. That said, as a compromise, I'm happy to offer that perhaps NO union should be called a marriage by the state--that ALL marriages (same-sex, opposite-sex, groups larger than two) be called domestic partnerships and civil unions, and that "marriage" will be conferred by our communities, families, and faith organizations (as such groups are the only ones I hold capable and qualified to make social and moral distinctions on my behalf).
Maybe any one, single social issue, but we live in a social sphere whether we like it or not; the economy is simply the construct that helps us navigate the exchange of goods and services within that construct. It's the fiction we erect between organisms and the resources they require. Who we're allowed to have sex with, who we build households with, what we smoke on a Friday night . . . these "mere social issues" represent a base right to the pursuit of happiness; they are, in fact, the only reason I much give a damn how much money I make, how much I pay in taxes, and so on.
to vote for anyone that backs Gays is to say GODs word is a lie- Yes even Obama who thinks he can serve God and man as he said he now backs same sex marriage- it is a sin always will be a sin and will be judged on judgement day for all who said it is Ok to sin that way- may God have Mercy on your souls in Hell as that is where your headed unless you change----AMERICA STAND UP FOR GOD AND HIS WORD- or lose all in the end--------------I STAND UP FOR GOD- HIS WORD IS TRUTH- pray for the Gays- pray for the Blined people that back them-stani is moving this movment don't fool yourself-
Men created the bible gwartha2. God did not dictate it. Science alone can prove GOD without relying on this well written but false book. In the 21st century we will soon reach a majority of people who reject the bible but maintain a universal knowledge of GOD. GOD exists because when livings creature die their bodies are flushed with endorphins which makes their death a beautiful thing. This sort of evidence is the best evidence for GOD. Let us put an end to the spouting of biblical nonsense.
gwarth2 please go play in your sand box. This conversation is for adults.
to vote for someone who backs gay marriage is to vote for freedom and equal rights.
Here's a clue for you - we run this country by the constitution, not the bible. You should read it someday!
Unless, of course, if God doesn't actually exist. Then I guess your entire argument is meaningless. Now gwarth, before you go all conversionist on me, I do believe that God exists and that Jesus is the form in which God reveals Himself to His people. But think about this...
True Christianity believes in a personal relationship between an individual and Jesus. I would suggest that Jesus would NOT support any of the activities to oppose gay marriage taken in His name. Let's say Steve and Bill are a gay couple and are in love. They want to commit to each other and be married. Our all-knowing, intrusive, fascist state says they cannot be married because they are of the same gender. Does that mean that Steve and Bill will stop loving each other - NO. Does that mean that Steve and Bill will stop cohabitating - NO. Does that mean that Steve and Bill will stop having sex - NO.
I don't think Jesus opposes gay marriage because opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with the disposition of the heart. Marriage is the outward manifestation of a lifelong committment between two people. Christ cares only about the committment, not the outward signs. If Christ opposes homosexual acts then He will oppose them whether the couple is married or not. If Christ does not oppose homosexual acts, then engaging in them will not offend Christ whether the couple is married or not.
Ultimately though, you are not responsible for the disposition of Steve's or Bill's souls; they are. If they are wrong and Christ abhors gay marriage, then they will have to deal with that when the time comes. You will not. If they are right and Christ finds value in consensual love in all its forms, then may they live joyously forever in the kingdom of God.
I think that even IF Christ opposes homosexual relationships, He would find the opposition to civil gay marriage foolish as it does nothing to change people's hearts. Keeping gay people from getting married doesn't change the essence of their emotional relationship, it just punishes them for being "different". As you suggest, I will continue to pray for "the gays" just as I will continue to pray for those who hate them in Christ's name.
Gwarth allow me to say it right out, what you consider to be the word of god is a lie and anyone who is willing to open there eyes knows this. It is impossible to disprove the existence of god and i won't attempt to but when it comes to the new testament or what you call the "word of god" was written in 325 ad at a political meeting known as the council of Nicea. this was the meeting where a group of religious leaders got together and decided which stories were religious cannon and which would be denounced as lies. this was done at the order of emperor constantine as a measure to cement his political power. prior to that date over 300 years after his death, no one had ever claimed jesus was the son of god or anything else more than human. furthermore there was once an entire sect of christianity who worshipped mary equally to jesus and had an all female priesthood and advocated equality and the giving of knowledge to the masses. Big surprise they were outvoted by the other predominantly male land owning aristocratic clergy and all of a sudden mary becomes a whore and the clergy are pretty much the only literate westerners for the next 1200 years give or take.
gwarth2
Save it. You're beliefs are not "HIGHER" than the secular laws of the United States of America. Keep on using your religion to preach against gay rights. It's only a matter of time before the US Supreme Court intervenes. Once that is done, the next step is to REVOKE the 501(3)(c) tax exempt STATUS any churches that want to 'intervene' in the American Political Process. When you pay taxes, then you can be a part of the political process.
gw2, did god forget to tell you to take your meds?
our washington pols spend no time dealing with lack of federal controls monitoring farm produce inspection-currently no inspections required allowing tainted produce to remain a threat to human health--no time dealing with the decimation of wild life in our national park system. they are obsessed with gay marriage----gay marriage harms no one. it is a legal status providing rights in a legal binding contract between 2 individuals----- nothing more.
I agree. Lets get on with more important issues.
Good going, one Granny to another, the issue of those against gay marriage is stupid, stupid, stupid and certainly no one elses business. It harms no one and in no way treatens hetrosexual marriage. We hetrosexual types have done enough damage to that by ourselves. Keep your religion, hatred, and bigotry out of our politics..we old gals have seen enough of it all of our lives and I'm for one, tired of it. We were supposed to be better than that by now, but seems the haters just keep coming and now are using religion as their crutch. Good for those who stood up for civil rights, I hope and pray that your constituants vote you back in with flying colors .
Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, doesn't shy away from the fact his group is hoping to intimidate wavering lawmakers into opposing gay marriage.
Please Google...Are homophobes really closeted homosexuals?
And you will find your answer.
Spider, would you feel more comfortable if these senators has spent $2-3 million on a crusade to sell their point and justify their vote? Or had they threatened reprisals against their fellow legislators should they vote against the proposal? Your accusation against liberals is nothing more than a mirror reflection of what NOM is doing ~ and that is the greatest threat to democracy one can imagine. NOM is just another special interest group with an agenda. hoping to play on fears and intimidation in order to achieve their goals.
NOM is nothing more than a sub-category of the KKK wearing different colored sheets.
Funny how you libs have nothing to praise Obama for and have to resort to bashing his opponant. I'm not a huge Romney fan, but your slander is incorrect.
Want a workable political system? Get rid of political parties. Open primaries to all voters. Then those ideologically driven slivers of the current system couldn't survive. And those wealthy corporations and individuals would have no one to spend their money on other than creating jobs.
Boy I like the sound of that!!
Based on the "Vatican" Actions, it’s ok to be a “Pedophile” as long as you are Raping little boys. However being Gay is a Sin, Unacceptable and will not be Tolerated!
What about a gay pedophile?!
Kinda wrong. The Catholic Church doesn't believe it's wrong to be gay. It believes that it's wrong to act on your feelings, ie you can be gay, just don't have sex with another man.
The Catholic Church teaches that pedophiles are acceptable, since most Catholic Priests are pedophiles.
There are utter fools on both sides of the political spectrum. These particular NOM fools unfortunately happen to be on my side of the aisle. They don't think like me, they don't think for me, but i hope they vote with me and boot Obama from office.
dude, I'm not the biggest Obama fan in the world he has certainly made some mistakes but i just don't understand how anyone can support Romney. Does no one on the right realize he is basically Richard Gere's character from pretty women without the moral epiphany in the middle or that he hasn't proposed a plan for a single major or minor issue for that matter. the only thing Romney has said so far on every issue is make me president and ill start thinking about it.
All Obama has said is "i hae been president for over 3 years and I am just starting to think about it", which is worse?
Side note: I understand that this is a hot button issue for a lot of people and they have strong stances on gay marriage on both sides, but it seems like that is all everyone is fighting over. I believe that under 5% of the population is gay (dont quote me, lol), I will guess and say half of them want to get married, so lets say 2.5% of the poplulation in the U.S. are not being allowed to marry, and how many are out of work, broke, lost their homes, on unemployment? We are owned by China and things are just getting worse, why dont we fight over that? Although, I understand it may be a civil rights issue of 2.5% that the government wont hand gays a peice of paper (no one is being beaten or sold for slavery here), we have more important fish to fry and candidates should do more than just worry about their stance on gay marriage.
Was Jerry Sandousky a Gay man? What would we gain by supporting Gay's?
What would we gain by teaching folks like you how to use apostrophes and capitalization correctly? Hehe.
Well, it's certainly not the case for everyone pulling his lever, but absolutely for some it is: Romney isn't a black man. That's why some people support Romney, plain and simple. (And on the flip side of that coin, I'm sure some people only support Obama because he IS a black man.) It's a sad truth, but for some people, it really all just boils down to that.
Every time Eric Cantor hears da Words “Gay Marriage”, he gets a Boehner. You Bet Cha…Fer Sure.
Also from a reputable source in behind the scenes news comes the not so startling information that Moochele is actually a transgender with a big black twelve inch fun stick that barak thoroughly enjoys deep throating to the hilt.
I read the same thing somewhere.
....also in the same article was something about Moochie, (as he calls himself) was a leading competitor of recent drag queen festivals along the east coast. They say he sports a large afro wig, and pink sunglasses wearing a purple bikini and recently held parties in the oval office for other democrats at $25k per plate. I wonder if that's true? I would think so. Half of Hollywood wouldn't lie. Would they?