Equality for ALL.

LIving up to the high ideals expressed in our Constitution. Finally !!

.

Oh, just wait for the old "Activist Judge" rants to follow.

Yep, it was a Activist Judge ruling. I wonder why Congress even passes laws, they are just gutted by the Courts. No-where in the constitution is marriage defined, it was left for Congress.

The Constitution is the foundation for the laws of the US. It does not cover every situation. It was meant to be taken literally. Judges are reading too much into the constitution, it does not cover these types of rulings.

Absolutely right!

Of course we know that practically all of the resistance to this issue of human rights for gays is a faith-based one. So it never ceases to amaze me how the religious right -- looking at the world and the human condition solely through their hateful, anti-human biblical glasses -- are either unwilling to accept, or wholly incapable of understanding, our founding principle of liberty and equality FOR ALL. This is a secular nation with secular laws (at least for now), and even though I am not a gay American, I am one who will fight for equal rights against the poison of religious dogma & stupidity to my dying day.

K.I.
You're right. It's not in the Constitution. In fact, most of our laws aren't. The Constitution is simply a framework of ideals under which we, and our laws, must exist. The judges job is to decide when and if the Congress passes a law that is outside that framework of ideals. And in this case, thei decided it most certainly is.

I thought it funny that the judge appointed by Bush agreed and the judge appointed by Clinton dissented.

This is a good day to be an American. The guy is right. Next stop SCOTUS. Maybe then we can put a stop to this nonsense and recognize that same-sex marriages should be legal and everyone is entitled to the same benefits.

K I,

The Constitution expressly does cover this type of situation. It's called the 14th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ed Poko

Can you insert some logic in there, how does wanting marriage equality mean a person does not believe in marriage?

Hambone - 14 Amendment does not even mention marriage, you are reading your beliefs into what is written -- just like the activist judges

K I Smart Simple

Somehow I think judges are a little more qualified than your good self to make callings on these topics. As for activist judges in both cased where DOMA has been deemed unconstitutional Bush appointed (conservative) judges have made the call.

Here's the deal just becasue anyone is religious or conservative does not mean they have to like everything or try and block everything, what it means is looking at the constitution leaving your own feelings out and looking at in it in the purity of the law.

Republican's want strong family units what less government intervention and believe in the Constitution, marriage equality would tick all of these boxes.

KI, more "activist judges" garble-de-gook! Judges only seem to be activists when they DISAGREE with the right. I believe "activist judges" ruled that any group can spend as much as they want on elections without identifying themselves. That was the stupidist ruling ever!

And what's with the right wing feelings about the right wing "nanny state." Seems to me the right's need to legislate individual behavior is so much more "nanny state" behavior than anything the left has EVER DONE!

The government being secular has no right to impose a purely religious edict on all the people in the US and thats the fact Jack.

Yet another example of religion being used as an excuse for prejudice and bigotry.

The problem in America isn't gay-marriage, it's religion.

You got that right

BTW I am not gay but I do believe they have rights just like the rest of us. What next outlaw magic underwear?

Ed Poko; I wasn't aware there were still people who believed the amount of birth control used was directly proportional to the amount of sex a person has. Or for that matter whether or not said sex was free? At any rate it makes anything you say tainted with the fact you are just to ignorant on this subject to post. Thanks for playing!

I'm new here, but is K1 mentally challenged?

Why should gay couples be any less miserable than us straight married people? JK!!

Polygamy and polyandry should be legal as well. Why the heck not? They are far more natural anyway...

No religion in government. Being against same sex marriage is a religious decision, not something that should be law.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.

Hambone, excellent quote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The problem with applying that clause to marriage is the way marriage is defined in law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Marriage_law

I'm all for the law changing, but until it does, we should be following it while adding pressure to those responsible for shaping the laws of our country, states, and municipalities.

The Defense of Marriage Act is "necessary to encourage procreation"? I would venture to guess that procreation will continue to happen regardless of whether DOMA is stricken down or not.

I've always been of the opinion that it would help the argument if the word "marriage" was removed and replaced by civil union. I may be incorrect, but marriage was originally defined, religiously, as a union of man and woman, but in the end all it really is, is a civil union.

You can go to the Justice of the Peace and have a civil union ceremony. I know it sounds simple, but people are pretty simple minded. I've always thought that if they just changed the wordage, it would be more palatable to the masses.

You could change the law to say civil union is between two humans, that way you don't have to worry about the crazies that say you would eventually be able to "marry" a kangaroo or something.

When it comes down to it, it's all about selling the idea and when you sell an idea, you want to choose your words carefully. When you use the word marriage, most people think religion right off the bat, which is why people say the Bible (insert argument). If you take the word marriage out of play it may be easier to get people to agree or at least admit that they really don't care one way or another.

K I Smart Simple: The 14th amendment also does not mention segregation, equal pay, or any number of other issues,but when you read "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." it seems pretty clear that the intent of the 14th amendment is to cover all manner of discriminatory behavior by the state to deny a person life, liberty (ie the freedom to choose whom they marry), or property (which in the case of the lady who sued, 0ver 300K in taxes that she shouldn't have had to pay).

D-#s,

I'm not sure what you mean. Everything I read on that page, except DOMA, express no difference between OSM and SSM.

K I,

the Fourteenth Amendment does not need to specifically state marriage since it explicitly states:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The "small government" rant from the republicans is a sham. It only applies when it suits their bigoted agenda. Keep government hands off my tax shelters, but its ok for the government to force a women to be pregnant, to insert probes into body cavities, and to tell people who they can and cannot marry.

All of you far right wing nuts - Please move to Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, (not Louisiana, they have great food), and the northern 1/3 of Florida - and secede from the union. I promise you, we won't bother you. It was a mistake to not let you do it in 1860. We're sorry. We won't stop you this time. We'll provide free transportation. And Kansas, take Kansas too. You can all joyfully reject science and wallow in your collective ignorance. You can strip the poor and middle class of their voting rights all you want. You can subjugate women (yup, barefoot and pregnant. That's how we like 'em). You can have the truly free market, unregulated, Wild West economy you long for until your infrastructure degrades into dust. You can create your idiocratic paradise in your own image. Oh, and don't forget to issue an AK-47 to every child at birth

People who scream "activist judges" have a sad sore misunderstanding of civics. Not only do the so-called activist judges only get called so when they make a decision at odds with the opinions of the socially conservative, but the idea of the judiciary creating and establishing law is and always has been a core part of our history going back not only to the founding of the United States, but to British history (which we inherited our legal system from) going back to the middle ages. The concept is called Common Law. Look it up some time.

lKI: You say the judge and some posters above are injecting their own opinions into the constitution.

Tell me, what's the difference between them and your OPINION??????

It does not cover every situation. It was meant to be taken literally. Judges are reading too much into the constitution, it does not cover these types of rulings.

One day closer to equal marriage rights for the United States of America. Maybe this country will no longer treat its own citizens like Iran.

Also I'm fairly certain the Constitution is meant to apply to every law passed by Congress and the individual states. Nothing in government is outside it's purview.

Linof - the problem there is that marriage is older than the Bible, and exists in pretty much every culture on the planet in religious and secular forms. My best friend just got married, another friend did the ceremony after paying a 30 dollar fee online. Marriage hasn't been exclusively religious in...well never in the United States. It's also been defined and restricted in various ways throughout the years. We've slowly been chipping away at that, the end result being that eventually any two consenting adults can form a union for legal purposes. The religious aspect should never even enter into the civic discussion, the fact that it's so pervasive is kind of troubling for a supposedly secular government.

These DOMA people don't seem to understand you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. The current of history will sweep them away like a fallen autumn leaf. (If I may mix my metaphors)

YES! Another victory for equal rights.

Time for people to realize that gays and lesbians are people, too. Everyone wants and needs pretty much the same things in life. Let's stop digging holes for future generations to dig out of. As long as we are not being injured, we should treat everyone with the dignity and respect we, too, deserve.

It seems to me that those in our society who always scream most loudly that "Government needs to stay out of our lives and out of our personal business" are also always the shrill voices demanding that "Government should decide" who we can and cannot love and marry, and what women can and cannot decide about their own bodies and sexual health, etc.

But what is truly bewildering is the inability of these same people to see their display of their own profound hypocrisy; which is so evident to the rest of society. It is as if they are born without the "introspection" gene.

What is in within Christianity that makes people become so irrational and paranoid? Or is it just that the irrational and paranoid are drawn to Christianity? It's a conundrum.

Don Giacomo, it seems like you are trying to shove your crap onto us. You got your believe's and we have ours. For the last few years, you non-straight people have been telling us we have to tolerate you. Me, I dont care what you do, just dont try to say i am bigoted because I don't believe in your ways. You don't believe in mine.

Hambone, read the section on marriage restrictions, these are defined in law (some of which have been overturned).

This is an extreme, so please don't take it as my blessing this, but there are laws against marrying someone who is underage. This means that the statement "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" doesn't apply since there is a law against underage marriage.

Again, I support the law being changed, but I don't believe the 14th amendment applies here since the law hasn't been updated to cover these circumstances. When the federal definition of marriage changes to something to the effect of "two people of consenting age", then states will have to allow marriage between anyone meeting the criteria, as defined by law.

Another Fascist law brought to you by congress, squashed by SCOTUS.

I dont quite see how these folks can call themselves conservitaves, then go against everything principal this country was founded on.

"Conservative" my a$$...

Crowbar - I don't think anyone is suggesting that a church needs to be forced to perform ceremonies for a same sex couple. But it would require a Court Clerk, Justice of the Peace, or Judge to issue licenses and/or perform civil ceremonies whehter they agree or not.

OMG Really people?,

That is because two consenting adults are harming no one. Did you pick up on the word, "consenting?" Here, let me repeat it for you: Two consenting adults are harming no one. Your example is so full of fallacies, it's disgusting. Learn to think.

Those things may not be mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure that it says somewhere in there that people who offer stupid arguments to promote their agenda of hate and oppression are executed by firing squad upon making their 2nd stupid argument. Better stop while you're ahead.

You sound like the woman who demands birth control stuff from her Christian employer

Hope your employer is not Jehowah Witness and your wife needs blood transfusion in childbirth. Or a scientologist, and then you'd want your child's anti-seizure medications covered by insurance.

OMG, when my ancestors were slaves there were people like you who argued why they should remain so. When they were granted their freedom but had little to no civil rights there were ignorant, bigoted people like you who argued convincingly (to some) why we should not be granted equal rights. Your argument is a reflection of your limited intellect and abundant ignorance. I am not gay but I see this matter as a civil rights issue and just like how many whites stood with blacks to secure freedom and civil rights, I will stand with my fellow Americans to ensure they have the same rights as you do. We are not talking about animals or children, we are talking about adult human beings. If you feel that allowing gay men and women marry will somehow affect your relationship then perhaps there is a problem with your your relationship. There is certainly a problem with you. I certainly would not want to live in a world that is shaped by people with your mindset.

@OMG really people?!!

" ....this is a slippery slope, and if the gays can marry, why not a pedophile marry little kids?"

Was it truly your intention, with your "slippery slope" argument, to equate love and the desire for marital commitment between two consenting adult human beings ... to child sexual abuse, and to pedophilia, and to bestiality?

If that was NOT your intent you should clarify your post and say so. If that WAS your intent you should be ashamed.

Food for thought: "Hate destroys the hater."

The appeals court has a job to do. They are presented with a case, and make their rulings. Just because you don't like the way they decided the case, doesn't make any of them "activist judges". One side can ALWAYS claim "activist judges" are at fault...no matter what the ruling was. I mean, that is the kind of thinking done by political and/or religious zealots. "Any ordinary judge would decide the case as I would, and any judge deciding the other way is some kind of wacko activist".

That's just plain stupid. You lost the case. Now it's likely on to the USSC. That will resolve the issue, until fumbling, bumbling, narrow-minded "family-values" Republican legislators try to rewrite the bill and pass it again in ever-so-slightly different form. Over and over and over again, because God is on their side and if they quit they will end up in hell or something. I can't believe this country still wastes so much time and energy on social issues like this, just because of the religious beliefs of many members of, primarily, one shrinking political party. It just blows my mind.

Equality for all.

OK...why is incest still a crime? Why is polygamy still a crime? They both can be done by 'consenting adults in the privacy of their own home'

Now we will hear the hypocrisy from the answers provided by the hypocrites.

@rEbULlXtAsY

"For the record, homosexuality is a mental illness ..."

Whose "record" would that be? Your statement is contradicted by the "record" according to the American Psychiatric Association. You are of course entitled to make up your own mind, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.

"Be gay or not be gay is none of my business ..."

Yes, I agree with you. It is none of your business.

"Equality has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage ..."

The courts have so far decided that you are incorrect. "Marriage" in the United States of America is a "civil contract." Do not confuse your or other's religious ceremonies with the civil contract of marriage, and the rights and protections of that civil contract.

rEbULIXtAsY:

For the record, homosexuality is a mental illness because it would defeat the norm for human reproduction.

Now there's a statement coming from an enlightened, informed individual - NOT! Seriously? What is wrong with letting members of the LGBT community be married if they want to be? How, specifically, does it adversely impact you? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Here's a concept, grow up and learn to live and let live. It costs you nothing and is better for everyone.

This is the same type of thinking that allows insurance companies to charge women higher premiums, as if being female is a pre-existing condition. Sheesh, isn't it time we move forward and engage in more productive matters?

Phil:

Are you really that stupid? The questions you pose about Incest are sick, immoral acts that are ILLEGAL and polygamy is ILLEGAL, as well. Being LGBT is NOT illegal; nor should it be.

I want to have multiple wives. I would hope that this judge would also rule that preventing me from having multiple wives is unconstitutional. Anyone that does not support my right to have multiple wives is a bigot and a pluraphobe.

D,

True, but also illegal to have sex with a child, sibling, parent, etc. It is not illegal to be gay. Those restrictions almost all correspond with things that are illegal outside of marriage, as well. (The restriction of polygamy is an entirely different pair of pants).

Agree with you Dan123123123

Jim in Auburn,

Apples and Oranges. You want to fight for polygamy, I wouldn't challenge you. The difference is you'll have tax codes and inheritance issues to deal with, along with the social acceptance.

@Just Wrong,

Are you really that stupid? The questions you pose about Incest are sick, immoral acts that are ILLEGAL and polygamy is ILLEGAL, as well. Being LGBT is NOT illegal; nor should it be.

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't homosexual acts considered immoral acts at some point, and still are by many? Weren't homosexual sex acts illegal at some point?

But then you would say that society became enlightened and decided that it was not immoral and should not be criminal. Couldn't the same thing be said for incest?

You find it immoral so you want it illegal. Others find homosexuality immoral and want it to be illegal. Why is your opinion any better than others?

A case could probably be made that incest is more of a natural/normal thing than homosexuality. Lots of incest going on in nature.

Jim in Auburn - Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't homosexual acts considered immoral acts at some point, and still are by many? Weren't homosexual sex acts illegal at some point?

Some nutty bigots consider homosexuality immoral, but most people don't. Nor is it the government's interest to enforce your quaint morality and silly sharia laws - that's precisely why we have a 1st Amendment.

And all laws against sex between gays were struck down in 2003.

I'm fine with gay couples being together. Its your right to be with whoever you want to be with in my opinion. But to change the definition of marriage so gay couples may marry is just outragous. I mean whats next, change the definition of all words in the dictionary to better accomplish something your fighting for. Get out of here.

Hambone, exactly my point. People who practice the acts you mentioned are violating the law. It's not illegal to be gay, but the law currently defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Gay marriage violates that law (regardless of how you feel about that).

From the Wikipedia article I referenced:

The United States has had a history of marriage restriction laws. Many states enacted miscegenation laws which were first introduced in the late 17th century in the slave-holding colonies of Virginia (1691) and Maryland (1692) and lasted until 1967 (until it was overturned via Loving v. Virginia).

So there was a law blocking the term marriage from being inclusive of couples of different races. The law was then overturned expanding the criteria for who could legally marry. I believe we need to expand the criteria again.

Perfectly said Alibaster.

To rEbULlXtAsY

You said "Natural morality values are being shadow by political correctness..." Perhaps you should worry less about teaching your kids about gays and more about teaching them grammar. Just sayin...

"Couldn't the same thing be said for incest?"

There is one big difference - unlike homosexuality, incest does demonstrable harm (the children of incestuous couples are far more likely to have genetic defects.)

As for polygamy - sure, maybe it should be legal. Of course, there would need to be some strong legal protections, so it's not done the way it is in Colorado City, where women and children are essentially hostages.

D,

I think we're agreeing, but not.

DOMA is to SSM what anti-miscegenation laws were to mixed-race couples. We need to overturn DOMA.

However, the 14th Amendment doesn't put those restrictions there. The 14th explicitly states all people (and implies that mustn't infringe upon the rights of others, which pedophilia does).

As far as incest, I couldn't care less, as long as it is not parent-child, because that tends to indicate some form of coercion or abuse. And as I stated above, same goes for polygamy (good luck dealing with the taxes and inheritance.)

"Actually I do believe this to be the case just like other brain diseases. Its a mental illness. Sorry but you CANNOT REPRODUCE or carry out your species when your "homosexual". That's just a simple fact all. Hence this CANNOT just be "normal"."

"For the record, homosexuality is a mental illness because it would defeat the norm for human reproduction."

I'm loving your armchair psychology. Unfortunately for you, anyone who actually knows anything about psychology would laugh at the idea that "not the norm for human reproduction" is synonymous with "mental illness." That is to say, very few professional psychologists would consider homosexuality a mental illness. And even if they did (as they did 40 years ago) - not all mental illness is necessarily debilitating or something that can be cured. Nor is it something that should be condemned.

"Be gay or not be gay is none of my business but don't ever try to tell the mass it's normal because it's not."

Define "normal." If your only definition of normal is "a trait shared by the majority of humanity," then you're right that homosexuality isn't normal. And that's fine, but you also have to acknowledge that lots of other things aren't normal, like left-handedness and very low and very high IQs and blonde hair and so on.

The rest of us, however, don't necessarily use that definition of normal. Homosexuality is natural and occurs throughout nature. It's not debilitating. It doesn't prevent someone from living a long and healthy life. Therefore, it is normal for many of us.

"the "act of conception" defeats the false propaganda of LGBT's argument that they too should be included in the sanctity of marriage."

So what's your response to married couples who either won't or are unable to procreate?

"So by your logic, should we legalize polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc. as well? No institution nor individual can defeat the basic human civilization of a true marriage."

Nothing he said actually presented such logic. But to answer your question, perhaps polygamy should be legal - as long as it's not done in the way it is in some of the Mormon fundamentalist communities in southern Utah (where women and children are deprived of many of their rights.)

Incest and pedophilia both do demonstrable harm. Pedophilia also defies laws of consent. Which is a completely unrelated issue to the question of whether consenting adults should be able to marry. You may think you're talking about similar issues and "slippery slopes" when you bring up pedophilia, but you're actually just revealing your own inability to think clearly or to understand the arguments presented by the courts.

"Give the sicko's their own island so they can live as they choose without corrupting our young easy to influence children. There's an island off the west coast of Japan that would be perfect for them as it's currently uninhabbitated."

So send all the sicko fundamentalist Christians to an uninhabited island so they stop brainwashing our children and causing them to grow up making mindless arguments like "legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of pedophilia!!!!!!"? It's an interesting idea, I guess, though I'm not sure how moral it is.

On a more serious note, it is interesting that you think that consenting adults (but consenting adults who happen to "gross you out") need to be sent to an island in order for them to have the right to live as they choose.

Marriage is a religious institution, it is not anything that relates to the actual "marriage" license which is what the state delivers called CIVIL UNION and provides for all legal interests the gays claim they are fighting for. To call it "marriage" is just the same typical liberal BS of doing what they know the majority will not like. That is their in your face MO, they want to enforce the minute minority to impose BS masked as a constitutional right on the majority. That's what makes them feel superior when they win. Typical for over-educated hypocrites with no values.

Yeah Hambone, we're close enough. We need to overturn DOMA AND expand the federal definition of marriage. Once the law is changed, then we'll have enough ammunition to provide the same legal rights to same sex couples.

hambone johnson - DOMA is to SSM what anti-miscegenation laws were to mixed-race couples.

Actually DOMA is worse because even when the anti-miscegenation laws were in place the feds still recognized the mixed-race marriages from the non-bigoted states.

We need to overturn DOMA.

Yep, but while that won't directly fix the Jim Crow laws in the states it will help by creating additional legal pressure through inter-state inequities.

So...an 83 year old woman is suing the government because it doesn't recognize a marriage performed IN ANOTHER COUNTRY and her attorney is anxious to win because she's in poor health and her time is running out and wants the money...?

I'm curious...DOMA was enacted before there were any state level same sex marriage laws....how does DOMA violate a state law enacted AFTER a federal law? Doesn't federal law have supremacy?

Equal rights for everyone.

OBAMA 2012

Egads, the amount of blatant misinformation and poor logic on here in astounding.

1.) Homosexuality is a not a mental illness. It does not fit the clinical definition of mental illness. This is why it was removed from the DSM (and from other group's definitions of illnesses). The APA, NIMH, NIH, WHO and various other organizations (include China's psychiatric society) conducted hundreds of studies and demonstrated that homosexuality does not qualify as a mental illness because it doesn't meet the criteria of a psychological disorder. Oh, I'm sure you'll attack hundreds of studies done by many different psychologists and psychiatrists around the world as "liberal science propaganda" but I'm pretty sure anyone with an ounce of logic would recognize that those hundreds of studies have a lot more weight than the rantings of a random person on the internet.

2.) "Homosexuality is unnatural."

There are two problems with this the claim. I'll address both.
2a.) Even if homosexuality were "unnatural", something being unnatural/natural does not make it good/bad. This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Please look it up. Morever, there are plenty of instances in which you would call something natural bad (meningitis, poisonous plants, venomous snakes, animals that killing their own young, etc). There are also plenty of "unnatural" things that are good (medicines, internet access, water purifying systems, etc.).

2b.) Homosexuality is not "unnatural." Many people try to claim it is based on the idea that homosexual individuals don't procreate. However, there are many species in which certain segments of the population don't procreate. For example, bees -- only the queen bee mates and only with certain males. The rest of the males are workers who do not procreate but provide for the rest of the hive. In many monkey species, in any given group there is only one mating pair. The rest of the monkeys in that group help the group such as via allomothering and protection. Thus, there is no evidence that a lack of procreation is "unnatural."

On top of that, as has been pointed out countless times, homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of species. Of course, someone will respond to this with the idea that "well, just because animals do it doesn't make it right." But such a rebuttal misses the point. I'm not claiming that what animals do is right or wrong. I'm merely disproving the claim that "homosexuality" and "not procreating" are "unnatural." They are, in fact, perfectly natural behaviors observed in many species, including humans.

On top of that, there is research out there examining why homosexuality might actually have been favorable. These include the ideas of kin selection (by not having one's own children and instead supporting their sibling's children, homosexual individuals would: not be creating "competitors" for limited resources and instead would be maximizing the survival of others who share a portion of their genes). Other research shows that the same genes which can lead to homosexuality in males can, when found in females, makes females more attractive to the opposite sex. This means that those females would have preferential access to mates (and high quality mates) and thus be more likely to have more children. By having more children, those females would then be passing on those same genes to her male and female children.

3.) If you allow "same-sex marriage" why don't we allow pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy?

There are several issues with this claim as well. One is that in the first three cases listed, we know that those acts are harmful. Pedophilia severely physically and psychological damages children. No such thing can be said for homosexuality. Research shows that the vast majority of cases of incest are a result of coercion and abuse (not just some, a majority). Which would also suggest that incest is harmful. And again, no such thing can be said for homosexuality. Beastiality is a problem because we don't perceive animals as being capable of consenting (for many reasons, including research like things on theory of mind).
Polygamy is not necessarily harmful. However, for polygamy to be legal and non-discriminatory that would mean that both men AND women would have to be allowed to marry as many partners as they wish. Which creates complicated legal issues for federal and state marriage benefits. For example, imagine Man1 and Woman1 marry each other. Man1 then goes out and marries several more women (and/or men). Woman1 also goes out and marries several more men (and/or women). Now, who is married to whom? Are people who are married to Woman1 also married to Man1? When someone dies, who does inheritance go to? How about child custody? And so on. Now, I'm not saying that this means polygamy shouldn't be legal. I have no moral issue with polygamy as long as it's legal for both sexes and completely consentual among all parties. However, for polygamy to be legal, there would have to be serious re-writing of state and federal marriage benefits. Whereas, this is not true of same-sex marriage.

So, the reason all of these arguments that "well if gays can marry then X, Y, and Z" are a logical fallacy is because the person making the arguments fails to recognize that there are issues inherent in X, Y, and Z that make them different from the issue of same-sex marriage. Pretending they are the same thing is a logical fallacy (in fact, this logical fallacy is called the "slippery slope fallacy").

I've only begun to scratch the surface of the logical fallacies and misinformation that is spread by the anti-LGBT groups. All of the points I have made are backed by research. I encourage people to look this information up. I promise this is not just my opinion, but points derived from research from many different disciplines, from many different researchers, from many different parts of the world. My points are anchored in facts and science, something that anti-LGBT groups can't say. So, when it comes time to deciding who to listen to -- ask yourself this: do you want to go with facts and science or do you want to go with the rantings of random people who are unable to back up what they say with anything other than Bible?

Supporting the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman only just makes sense.

Sexual orientation is not genetically determined but rather it is influenced be early childhood factors and can change. This statement is evidenced by testimonies of ex-gays.

The APA decision to remove homosexuality as a disorder was made after electing an active homosexual as their president. Experts did not present their findings; homosexual studies were ignored.

The AIDS pandemic devastates millions of lives and costs billions of dollars. Sexually transmitted diseases and rectal ailments are more common in the homosexual population.

Studies show the ideal family situation for children is having one male and one female parent. Sadly, children are being used as guinea pigs to satisfy misguided lust.

Where homosexuality is legitimized:

The GLBT community indoctrinates school children to accept homosexuality and encourages curious youth to label themselves as gay. Many later realize that they have mislabeled themselves.

Homosexual behavior tends to increase. The term “bi-curious” describes those who experiment with same-sex relationships.

Only a minute percentage of homosexuals are in a committed relationship and even fewer wish to marry. In surveys homosexual males in committed relationships report having on average seven to eight outside sexual partners.

Speech and religious freedoms are lost when same-sex marriage is allowed. Hate Crime legislation targets opponents.

You mentioned bees? We cannot pattern human behavior after insects! Apes?

Bottom line, if everyone were to behave in this manner our species would soon be extinct. So, what do homosexuals really do to better all of humanity?

Marriage is a religious institution, it is not anything that relates to the actual "marriage" license which is what the state delivers called CIVIL UNION and provides for all legal interests the gays claim they are fighting for.

If marriage is a religious institution, why do states issue "marriage licenses"? And, why is the religious right wing not up in arms that states regulate marriage? It is not marriage, but "holy matrimony" that is a religious institution. And, "holy matrimony" is not regulated.

Marriage is not required for procreation, and procreation is not required for marriage.

I Love America 24-7

Supporting the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman only just makes sense.

Sexual orientation is not genetically determined but rather it is influenced be early childhood factors and can change. This statement is evidenced by testimonies of ex-gays.

You have no clue as to what you are talking about. People are born gay. That's a fact. I grew up in a very large family and we had 4 that were gy out of all 15 siblings. All raised by both heterosexual parents.

This statement is evidenced by testimonies of ex-gays.

Actually, people that claim to be ex-gays are still gay. I think you are referring to bisexual men that sleep with both men and women and chose to go one way or another. some are forced into heterosexual relations due to family and religious bashing and scare tactics.

I have know some gay men that were forced into marriage even tough they were not happy about it. Depending on the area of the country and town you live in, and the fear and bashing aka bullying from religious zealots and ignorant parents, gay men get married and live on the down-low (married, and still sleeping with men).

At one time people wee taught to believe that being gay was a mental thing, but over the years, the studies have changed and learned that in fact people are born gay as there are many species of animals in the wild that are gay as well. Who taught these animals to be gay? No one. They were born that way. They just don't have a bunch of religious zealots and ignorant people attacking and bashing them like we have in the human species.

Equal Rights for EVERYONE, and YES to GAY MARRIAGES all over the USA.

Being against same sex pairing or marriage is fine. Just don't expect the government to uphold your beliefs. That's like Jewish people to expect people to celebrate their holidays or Hindus telling someone not to eat beef because it offends them. Stop hiding behind religion and at least be honest with yourselves about it and stop expecting the government to back up your ideals because it grosses you out.

Hambone, and others

The 14th amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendment to the US Constitution.

The 14th amendment does not apply to federal laws. The due process/equal protection ruling in this case was based on the 5th amendment due process/equal protection. (btw, the 5th amendment says nothing about "equal protection", as is part of the 14th, but past SCOTUS case law has interpreted due process to include equal protection.

Will SCOTUS look for a way to make the federal law constitutional, as they specifically did on the mandate portion of Obamacare? If SCOTUS shoots the law down, it won't be for the reasons the Fed Appeals court have ruled. It will be based on whether the US Constitution gives Congress the power to make such a law. Marriage, not addressed as an enumerated right in the US Constitution, has been long considered under the power of the states or the people. See the 9th and 10th amendments---both in the Bill of Rights.

The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.^[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

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

Speech and religious freedoms are lost when same-sex marriage is allowed.

How? in fact, why do you even care? Gay marriages won't make your marriage void.

Hate Crime legislation targets opponents.

How? Only if the opponent commits a crime.

NotSoSmart..I mean, Subtle, please explain to me how the 14th amendment does not apply to federal law? That statement made my brain hurt! Did you not take American history, or American government, or a civics class in school?

If there was never religion to begin with, do you think we would be discriminating against gay people?

I don't!

It's all about religion that teaches and preaches bigotry, hate, and racism into the minds of its sheeple that cannot think for themselves, and want full control over the rest of us that can think for ourselves.

Keep religion out of politics, and politics out of religion.

Nuff said!

OBAMA 2012

I love America:

Sexual orientation is not genetically determined but rather it is influenced be early childhood factors and can change. This statement is evidenced by testimonies of ex-gays.

Research suggests that homosexuality has genetic and environmental components (which is true of much of human psychology and personality). There is a great deal of evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality. At this point, you’re merely denying mounds upon mounds of evidence.

The APA decision to remove homosexuality as a disorder was made after electing an active homosexual as their president. Experts did not present their findings; homosexual studies were ignored.

NIMH conducted studies and recommended that homosexuality no longer be considered a mental illness before the APA even discussed it. Several different health, psychology, and psychiatric organizations around the world have conducted independent studies and have all come the same conclusion. These include WHO, NIH, and even China’s psychiatric society. Again, you can pretend that the overwhelming evidence doesn’t exists, but it’s out there. So, you can convince yourself that the APA changed the status because of a gay president (which actually isn’t even factually correct, but I digress), but are you really going to try to explain it away with the same excuse for all of these others organizations? How about China? Do you think China was influenced by the “LGBT propaganda”? Again, for anyone interested in facts, please do your research and see that I am correct and this poster is merely spreading conspiracy theories.

The AIDS pandemic devastates millions of lives and costs billions of dollars. Sexually transmitted diseases and rectal ailments are more common in the homosexual population.

Actually, sexually transmitted diseases are more common among men -- regardless of sexuality. The vast majority of AIDS infections in women are caused by heterosexual contact with men. Also, do you know who is least likely to acquire AIDS? Lesbians. So, if we're using AIDS as a litmus test for appropriate sexual behavior, male-male sex is out and female-male sex is out. Guess only lesbians are having sex now. I'm kidding, of course, but the point is that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease that can be passed on during any sort of intercourse. Both homosexual and heterosexual individuals need to be careful. And this stereotype that it's a "gay" disease has actually been shown to lead to an increase in AIDS and HIV cases among heterosexual individuals.

Studies show the ideal family situation for children is having one male and one female parent. Sadly, children are being used as guinea pigs to satisfy misguided lust.

Wrong. Studies show that the ideal family situation is having two parents. Almost no studies examined whether those two parents had to be a male and a female. And one of the few studies that did compare homosexual parents vs. heterosexual parents vs. single parents found that lesbian parents were the best parents. Of course, that is only study and we would have to do more to really come to any conclusions about that. However, as I said, all the data has reliably shown is that two parents are better for children than one. And according to research, the primary reasons for this are 1.) higher income levels, as typically there are two incomes in two parent households (and, as we know, SES plays an important role in a child’s development) and 2.) the child spends more time with at least one of the two parents at any given time (and we know that parental involvement is also an important factor in children’s development). Given that these things wouldn’t be any less true in households with same-sex parents (in fact, the first might be MORE true of same-sex parents as gays and lesbians tend to, on average, have higher incomes than heterosexual couples), there’s no reason to assume that two opposite sex parents would be any better than two same sex parents. Again, there needs to be more research. But my overall point is, there is no research that backs up your claim.

Where homosexuality is legitimized:

The GLBT community indoctrinates school children to accept homosexuality and encourages curious youth to label themselves as gay. Many later realize that they have mislabeled themselves.

Homosexual behavior tends to increase. The term “bi-curious” describes those who experiment with same-sex relationships.

Only a minute percentage of homosexuals are in a committed relationship and even fewer wish to marry. In surveys homosexual males in committed relationships report having on average seven to eight outside sexual partners.

Evidence does not support your claims. In the Neatherlands, same-sex marriage has been legal for 11 years. Homosexuality rates have not gone up. Opposite-sex marriage rates have not gone down (or at least not down any faster than they already were, as heterosexual marriage has been decreasing for a long time across most of the Western world). There isn’t more crime, more disease, etc. And actually, evidence from the Netherlands showed that once same-sex individuals were able to get married, their relationship, on average, lasted longer. Thus, suggesting that legalizing gay marriage will actually help increase commitment for gays and lesbians. So, if anything, if you're so worried about the "promiscuity" of gays and lesbians, you should be in favor of same-sex marriage.

Speech and religious freedoms are lost when same-sex marriage is allowed. Hate Crime legislation targets opponents.

How are speech and religious freedom lost when same-sex marriage is allowed? To be clear, there are already laws in place that allow churches to marry (or not marry) whomever they want. A church right now can refuse to marry two people because they’re black and there’s nothing that could be done about it, because laws already protect churches in the matter of how they perform their rites. And no one is interested in changing those laws. All the LGBT community wants is to receive the same CIVIL marriage rights and privileges that opposite-sex couples already enjoy.

You mentioned bees? We cannot pattern human behavior after insects! Apes?

Bottom line, if everyone were to behave in this manner our species would soon be extinct. So, what do homosexuals really do to better all of humanity?

And here, btw, is where you reveal that you can’t even handle basic reading. I specifically followed up my comment about bees explaining that I was using the example to disprove the claim that “not procreating” isn’t natural. And that I was in no way suggesting that animal behavior is right or wrong. The fact that you can’t even grasp what I was saying, even when I explicitly explained it suggests that when it comes to reading things you don’t agree with me, you don’t actually take the time to comprehend or understand. And given that, it tells us all that your understanding and knowledge of the real issues behind homosexuality and same-sex marriage are likely based in nothing but your biases.

And lastly, rates of homosexuality are rather consistent. There's no risk of going "extinct" (just like how non-reproducing bees don't take over the entire hive and bees don't go extinct. Again and I'll make this super explicit so that you don't get confused again. I am not saying we should be like bees. I'm saying that there is evidence that other species have NONreproducing members and it's perfectly natural AND they don't go extinct. So what does that tell us? It tells us that just because a certain segment of a species (whether it be bees or humans) don't reproduce, that doesn't make them "unnatural" and it doesn't mean the species is going to go extinct. It's called an example. Do you understand now?)

Also I listed two lines of research that suggests that homosexuality can in fact be beneficial (kin selection, gene expression). If you can’t bother to read, I’m not going to bother responding to you again.

Let em marry. But do not tell a Church that they have to perform the ceremony.

crowbar, I'm good with that part of your comment.

The 14th amendment does not apply to federal laws. The due process/equal protection ruling in this case was based on the 5th amendment due process/equal protection. (btw, the 5th amendment says nothing about "equal protection", as is part of the 14th, but past SCOTUS case law has interpreted due process to include equal protection.

ROFLMAO! The 14th Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution, most certainly DOES apply to federal laws, as well as state laws. And the due process/equal protection ruling was made based on the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Marriage, not addressed as an enumerated right in the US Constitution, has been long considered under the power of the states or the people.

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, and the federal government attaches some 1,100 rights and responsibilities to marriage, the states can regulate marriage to a degree, but they cannot violate the constitutional protections afforded every citizen (as is true with any law, state or federal).

EDITH - you are absolutely stunning, beautiful and with such poise.

Thea is dancing for joy and sending you hugs and kisses for your fight.

From a straight person, human being, to two other human beings living their lives of choice - and with congrats and best wishes to you, Edith for your future.

I am so happy for you - but feel immense sadness for what all you were put through.

God Bless You for hanging in there and doing what was right. I am just so happy you won.

I have been discriminated against almost my entire working career and I will not tolerate any other human being being discriminated against.

AGAIN, GOD BLESS YOU BOTH and I am saying a special prayer for both of you today so I hope that is OK with you.

TO - ROBERT IN OREGON

You are correct again. Love all your posts.

And God Bless You for all your special work you do that you detailed earlier.

Speech and religious freedoms are lost when same-sex marriage is allowed.

One could make the same argument when divorce is allowed or people of different races/religions are allowed to marry. Allowing OTHER people to do something that does not affect you does not intrude on your rights. If you are against same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.

Let em marry. But do not tell a Church that they have to perform the ceremony.

When has a church EVER been required to perform a ceremony that it opposed? For instance, even though we have strong laws protecting an individual's religious freedoms, a church may refuse to marry a mixed-religion couple. Why would same-sex couples be any different? This is just a scare tactic of the right intend to frighten people who don't think for themselves.

Jason, you make some great, rational, well-reasoned points above. Thank you. I haven't noticed you around here before; if I've just missed your previous contributions, I regret it, and if you happen to be new, please don't be a stranger.

In our Constitutional Republic, government gets its authority from the people. People have all of the rights and government is granted certain rights. The SCOTUS has recognized many time that the right to marry, although not written in the Constitution, is one of those rights. Anytime there are Legislative or Executive actions which aim to remove rights from people, the Courts will step in to correct their overstepping of authority.

Sexual orientation is not genetically determined but rather it is influenced be early childhood factors and can change. This statement is evidenced by testimonies of ex-gays.

a) How do you explain two identical twins being twice as likely to be gay if one is, than fraternal twins?

b) Sexual orientation is at LEAST partially, if not totally, genetically determined. This statement is evidenced by "current gays".

c) define "ex-gays"

c) define "ex-gays"

He can't. 90% of "ex-gays" return to homosexual activity within their lifetime, usually coming out and talking about how the whole thing was a lie caused by the abuse "gay therapy" treatments had done to them.

Your opinion is what has "perverted" this country from moving forward in the 21st century.

Obama/Biden 2012!

No, this judicial decision is not wrong. And no, the "perverts" are not asking to be "more equal", they're asking for the same rights as everyone else. Equality is not people like you having the power to dictate to everyone who they should be because of what you believe.

You want a theocracy, go write your own constitution. Ours was written so that people like you couldn't bend other people to your foolish will.

How are same sex partners getting "more" than straight partners?

If your division is based on anything resembling religion, it can't be used in US Law. And they aren't asking for anything more than what I get with my husband. We should abolish Marriage as a legal institution and leave it to the Churches. Marriage should be handled within the Churches and the law should only recognized registered domestic partnerships. If the Episcopals want to consecrate gay unions, they should be allowed and it should be called marriage. If the Catholics don't, then they shouldn't have to. But, the Government has no business defining marriage or recognizing one marriage over the other. Registered Partnerships could provide the same function within the law while preserving religious freedoms for everyone else.

Normals? Are you kidding? What's normalcy to you, madireddi? Should we all live by your standards? Or do you live in a great country of FREEDOM?? Because I do. Freedom to love, freedom to worship, and freedom from inequality.

"Marriage is between man and woman." Well - that depends on where you go...doesn't it? What you mean to say is that "Marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman". Well -- that is an opinion. And we all know that enforcing this opinion is a matter of discrimination based on what is mostly religious bigotry. Let's hear why your opinion needs to be enforced... likely has to do with your imaginary god talking to people in the dessert thousands of years ago. Another hateful ignorant moron that wants to control people when there is no real reason you can't just let them live their lives.

Marriage is between man and woman. Civil unions can be same sex.

Marriage is just a freaken word dude.

I don't know. There are some "normals" who are pretty perverted.

According to the Constitution, marriage definitions belong to the state, therefore DOMA is unconstitutional. Don't the Teabags want the states to control everything. Supporting DOMA is hypocritical for them.

Federal law doesn't recognize civil unions and doesn't grant people joined in civil unions the benefits that married couples receive. Would you be in favor of a national civil union that the US government would recognize as legally equivalent to marriage?

Semantics. What's the difference between "marriage" and "civil union"? Nothing. Regardless of what it's called, people involved in either should have the exact same rights regardless of whether they are the same sex or not. A rose by any other name....

As Jeff said it's "just a freaking word."

If you're looking for perverts, just check the local Parish nearest you...

http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privileged/

As the culture evolves, people who benefitted from the old ways invariably see themselves as victims of change. The world used to fit them like a glove, but it no longer does. Increasingly, they find themselves in unfamiliar situations that feel unfair or even unsafe. Their concerns used to take center stage, but now they must compete with the formerly invisible concerns of others.

Marriage is a WORD. Marriage existed for centuries BEFORE Christianity and before Judaism. And it was called MARRIAGE. What Christians are doing is confusing "Holy Matrimony" with "MARRIAGE". They can mean the same thing in one union and not the same thing in another. It depends on the relevant beliefs of the parties involved. My marriage was NOT Christian, yet I still consider it valid and so does the state. Yes, I am "straight", but it is not the genders of the people involved that make my marriage valid - it is the LOVE and desire to live the rest of our lives with each other as well as the legal contract we have entered into. Churches do not issue marriage licenses and do not perform divorces in our society, that is handled by the government because marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT and a LEGAL DEFINITION, not a religious one.

This judicial decision is wrong. It seems that perverts are more equal than normals.

I'll tell you what has been perverted.... Christianity.

The Christian dogma has been perverted to launch another hate campaign, just as Christian religion was perverted to justify slavery of black people and just as Christian religion was used (and still is) to limit women's rights.

We have to learn to move past the hate, move past religious bigotry.

It seems that perverts are more equal than normals.

Protection of Civil Rights is never an issue to the majority. NEVER.

Get your knowledge of the US Constitution upgraded.

SpyderGirl,yours is the best post by far.You nailed it.

What's the difference between "marriage" and "civil union"? Nothing.

Except that civil unions don't offer the same benefits that marriages do, because, although a specific state may recognize civil unions, not all of them do. DOMA itself doesn't recognize civil unions as being the same as marriage, so even if a couple has access to state benefits, they don't have access to the federal benefits.

I believe in same sex marriage. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as straights?

Personally, I don't know why you would want the law/government involved, anyway. It makes it much harder & expensive to get out of it. Ask 50% of the men & women that did it. The other 50% have settled on that stupid decision they made 30 yrs. ago. I know, you think it's going to last forever, how sweet!

Jeff "Marriage is just a word" and the courts and people like you are trying to change it's definition to suit your morals.

KI,

It's a word that describes the legal status of two people.

Bill C - how long as marriage been described as being between a man and women --3 thousand years ? And now certain people are trying to change that definition to suit their morals.

Actually, since civil marriage predates organized religion, "marriage" is older than "holy matrimony" by thousands of years.

BTW, it's not a moral issue; it's a civil rights issue.

Bill C - how long as marriage been described as being between a man and women --3 thousand years ? And now certain people are trying to change that definition to suit their morals.

Marriage between same sexes has also existed since before the Bible was written.

Are you people seriously so dense as to not be able to realize that there are more cultures in the world than yours?

Are you people seriously so dense as to not be able to realize that there are more cultures in the world than yours?

in a word, YES

in a word, YES

One word might be too difficult for some of these people. Can you translate that to grunts?

Yes indeed, 'hummbird'. I could not agree more.

There is something distinctly "un-American" about DOMA. Whenever a group of citizens -- or those who represent them in Congress -- goes about the business of writing laws to explicitly deny equal rights and equal protections to another group of our citizens, ...a red flag of danger and call to action should be raised for all to see. That flag should read "AMERICA IN IMMEDIATE PERIL".

"Polygamy and polyandry should be legal as well. Why the heck not? They are far more natural anyway..."

What about polyester?

Want to talk about "activist" judges? I give you the voting majority in Bush v. Gore, the majority in Citizens United, every decision of Scalia and most of Alito. Not a liberal among them.

Congratulations to the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a ruling to celebrate for all real Americans.

Good post...fairness in all matters...

Well said, WisconsinDad.

The US is a republic, not a democracy.

kudos well done....you may have a cookie

Thanks for the clarification Brian...but in the context, and in the interest of all levels of understanding...democracy works fine.

WisconsinDad-2479817, As an atheist and anti-theist I applaud your comment. If only more theists understood the principles of a/our secular government, we would be a much better nation for it.

However, as we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy where all people are forced to abide by the desires of mob rule by the majority, a pure democracy will never "work fine".

The laws are in place to protect the minority from the "tyrrany of the majority". Those laws are either upheld or struck down by the courts, thanks to a system of checks and balances. I'm confident the supreme court will agree with this decision and strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. De-Segregation had to be court-mandated...if it had been up to the majority, southern blacks would probably still be using seperate drinking fountains.

I would go a step further, WisconsinDad. You said, "It's so laws can be passed that benefit the majority of Americans, not to appease groups who don't like the behavior." But I would also argue the Constitution protects the minority when it comes to fundamental rights, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I see marriage as something that fits right within life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The particular gender of the citizens involved should not disenfranchise that fundamental right.

Obama/Biden 2012

PS WI is now a swing state. Please vote!

Hell, it's at the point they have more rights than straights.

I know I won't get a logical answer, but what rights does any gay person have that you don't?

so oakie,

why are you trying to push your beliefs down my throat?

@flbikerchick:I don't think you are going to get ANY kind of answer to your logical question. Nothing gets the evangelicals all riled up like the fear of "their rights" being "trampled" on. Then of course there are the homophobes who should really seek therapy so that they may uncover their hidden gay person within them.

"There is no greater human vanity than the belief that one's own values have universal validity."

Sen. J.W. Fullbright

As a Freudian, I have to wonder if OKIE isn't expressing some latent homosexual tendancies?????????????

It's that shoving something down his throat statement.

:)

I've never seen that assertion, that gays have more rights than everyone else, backed up with any facts. It's just so devoid of logic tho, so it's not very surprising.

Also America is a Democratic Republic. The republic part in the form of power sharing between the Federal government and the states (also we don't have a king), democratic because of the way in which we elect our leaders ad occasionally vote on laws. The Soviet Union was also ostensibly a Republic, but not a democracy, because no ones votes but Party members mattered.

That's a silly semantic argument anyway, any country where citizens can vote (and those votes count) is a democracy.

@Oakie, how is gays getting married pushing anything down your throat figuratively or literally?

Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs. You are free to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and a gay person is free to believe that marriage can be between any two consenting people. Nobody is asking you to change your belief. Nobody is looking to take away your right to marry a woman (assuming you are a man). Nobody is even forcing you personally recognize a gay person's marriage. Just like you are not recognized to personally recognize an interracial marriage (anti miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional just like anti-gay marriage laws are being ruled unconstitutional). The constitution only applies to governments, not individuals.

However, your beliefs are trumped when they interfere with another person's beliefs. A gay person's belief that marriage can be between any two people doesn't prevent you from believing that marriage is between a man and a woman even if they did try to enforce that belief on everybody (which they actually aren't), because it doesn't prevent you from getting married to a woman (assuming you are a man). However, your belief that marriage is between a man and a woman does directly negatively affect gays when you do try to enforce that belief on everybody (which you actually are, e.g. DOMA and Prop 8) by preventing gays from getting married.

To put this in perspective by way of analogy, your right to shoot a gun is trumped by a person's right to not get shot. You have the right to shoot a gun as long as it doesn't cause somebody to get shot. However, a person not getting shot does not prevent you from shooting a gun as people shoot guns every day without people getting shot.

Okie ... perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell us what rights that gays have that heterosexuals don't?

Fubo - I had never seen that quote thank you it is added to my pile of favorite quotes.

They have the right to shove "things" down his throat! Sounds like his fantasy to me.

I get so tired of Gays and Lesbians saying they are discriminated against.

Okie, are you aware that in Oklahoma it's legal to fire somebody simply because he/she is gay? Even a public/government worker?

We are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.

James Madison, father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

Once again the issue is that some people (like Okie) cannot deal with others who are not exactly like him. It's sad, really. Either Okie missed too many days at school or is such a homophob that he is barely functional.

These are the real issues that so greatly divide our country - the ability to accept and deal with people whose views and feelings are different than your own. The DNC has figured out how to be inclusive of the diversity of the majority of us; the RNC, not so much. At the end of the day, this is what the 2012 election is about: moving forward into the 21st century or trying to re-capture the RNC's glory days of Ronald Reagan and the 1980's. The choices really are that clear.

Last I checked it was my understanding that gay people are a "protected" class. They are plenty of programs and things you have access to that others do not. Are you saying that you get nothing at all for being Gay at this point in america? I'm actually curious about that...

Hey Oakie: Come Steak and BJ Day (look it up), you don't get either.

Hollykb -

My 7th grade social studies teacher started a class one day with that quote on the board. It prompted an interesting conversation. I really didn't appreciate the meaning so much then (or Fullbright, or the teacher), but it impressed me enough to memorize it that day. I find it amazing that 45 years later it's relevance hasn't diminished one bit. I think of the quote often when I see examples of intolerance. thanks for the shout-out.

dan123123123 - Last I checked it was my understanding that gay people are a "protected" class.

Your "understanding" is wrong. This ruling is the very first time gays have been treated as a suspect class in the 2nd circuit.

They are plenty of programs and things you have access to that others do not.

Care to cite some examples of that? From what I can tell my gay daughter doesn't enjoy the same legal rights I do, and is treated as a 2nd-class citizen.

Dan, gays are not a protected class. In many states, they can be denied employment or housing. In the states that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, the protections apply equally to heterosexuals and gays.

The government interest in marriage comes from tax and property laws. If tax and property laws were written in such a way that marriage had no impact, government could stay out of it.

Brian, that's why I say all "marriages" should just be legal registered partnerships (civil unions) and leave Marriage to the religious institutions. That way, our current inheritance laws and tax laws could be amended to use the term civil union or registered domestic partnership. Then Marriage would be back where it belongs as a religious institution. If a Church wants to sanctify a gay marriage, that's their prerogative.

thanks brian, i had forgotten that

This comes from someone who was "married" by a justice of the peace and then later had a religious wedding. Even without the second ceremony, I had all the rights and privileges under the law.

SpyderGirl - I'm more in favor of re-writing law so there are no legal benefits to marriage. Current laws discriminate against unmarried people.

Brian-1075075

There are many other federal laws which rely on marriage to be clarified not just property or taxes. Immigration is another to consider.

Interesting point. Start that discussion and see how many married gay couples argue against that.

That is right. And if people want to marry sheep and goats, that is no one else's business. Laws that prohibit this discriminate against those whose religions or equivalent belief's look favorably upon it, and are baaaaaaaad laws!

Let's hear it for freedom!

Warren, does that statement make logical sense to you or are you just trying to enrage people? From your "logic", it must follow that either gay people cannot consent to be married, or that animals can consent. Which is it?

Warren, this is a horse race. All jackasses keep out.

Warren, can anyone that you know of legally marry an animal? If not, then your point is moot!

Me, try to enrage people? By making them think? Why, never.

By the way, something that "makes sense" is "logical"; a statement cannot both "make sense" and be illogical. So, to speak of a statement making "logical sense" is redundant.

And animals certainly can make choices, including consent. They do it all the time. Now, whether they make informed choices or give informed consent is quite another matter; but, then again, it could be argued that many people entering marriages also fail to make informed choices or to give informed consent. Just ask their parents.

I simply think that total freedom of choice on religious or other grounds is really neat and certainly supports many of the arguments I see here.

Don't you?

Alibaster--Horses, jackasses, but no goats or sheep? You are being discriminatory. Makes me maaaaaaaad! And was your post made to announce your exit from this debate? Just wondering . . . .

Starbuck--Hmmmmm. Gay marriage was not legal anywhere in the good old United States until fairly recently. Should that have been moot as well? I am a progressive, you see.

WARREN: You'll be happy to know I just spewed coffee on the screen.

Keep up the good work.

Don't take life serious.....you'll never get out alive.

I just asked my wife what she thought about this topic.

She just looked at me with her big brown eyes and said, "MOOOOOO"

Starbuck - that would be moooooooot

I know this is a Democracy - but do you really need to push Homosexuality down our thropats (no pun intended)? I get so tired of Gays and Lesbians saying they are discriminated against. Hell, it's at the point they have more rights than straights. Sometihing wrong with this picture. No bent wrist here!!!!

Methinks the okie doth protest too much.

I suspect Warren may be the product of an illegal marriage between two very close relatives.

Warren, I didn't exit the discussion. I had to go bang my goat. The sheep didn't like it, though. Sheep develop negative attitudes in a split second.

Warren,

Go to your local college and take a class called Elementary Logic. You have a bit to learn there and that class should suffice for your needs. Apply what you learn to your anti-equality arguments.

Look up what is required for legal consent (and why) while you're there. You won't need the animal argument after that. Should save you some time.

Usually anyone who makes the "Why can't I marry my animal" argument can't actually come up with a genuinely good answer as to why they oppose gay marriage. Also without resorting to the religious defense.

Hey Caer: Here's a little truth for you and your lefty and libertine buddies to chew on, especially uou, Alaskagirl (it's time to wake up!): Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who study the natural world can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.

Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.

Actually I'm a right handed person. But thanks for assuming what I use. :)

And not really Homosexuality has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Didn't they find out that some sea creatures from the ice age as well as some other sorts of other creatures from the dinosaur era may have possibly had homosexual tendencies? Ducks and dolphins also today hold onto some homosexual erotic behavior as well as pairing for life (ducks do anyways, not sure about dolphins) and neither species has died out without the interference of humans.

And really what is traditional marriage? A traditional marriage here in the US is laughed at in places in Africa where men marry several women to form polymamous relationships. The more women he marries the more power he obtains, it's also recorded that many of these women also strike up relationships amongst one another. That's traditional for them.

Just got back on and just look at the comments! With all the check-marks and stars, and at least one ad hominem thrust in my direction, I should be afraid of a witch-burning from the oh-so-tolerant and purportedly freedom-minded.

Tom--Glad that I made you laugh! Sorry about the computer screen. Your wife sounds like a real pistol, and I am envious;with or without the upper or lower case moooooooo!

DOC-- Better that than descent from any relative of yours (can't sully my gene pool too much, you know). By the way, I think that you mean an illegal or unlawful union, since an "illegal marriage" would be null and void as a matter of definition. Of course it would explain why, from time to time, I have been called a real bastard. My name used to be Damien . . . . In the antique English that is your wont, methinks thou dost project too much.

Alibaster--Finally! Someone who understands! That is why you have to get them up against a nice, narrowing precipice, so that their natural skittishness works in your favor!

... --Anti-equality arguments? If you have been reading, I am pro-equality; and I resent the hostility of quadropediphobes such as you. And to end your second sentence with "suffice" would have been sufficient; "for your needs" is superfluous. (I learned that in college.) As for "legal consent," the antiquated and oppressive lawful consent requirements for marriage must be changed so that others and I are free to engage in our pursuit of happiness! To arms, True Believers! To arms!

CaerRaven--Your comment was truly a gem! Without addressing the substance of my posts (such as they are), you look down your nose at my "animal argument" and then--wait for it--reply to OldKingBlog by referring to "sea creatures from the ice age," "other creatures from the dinosaur era," and "ducks and dolphins". Well, here's an animal reference for you: "What is good for the goose is good for the gander". Ah, True Believers of any cause follow no rules and know no bounds . . . .

Well, off to work! No more time here. Got to get busy down on the farm!

I truly regret that due to lack of time further comments may well receive no response--more's the pity.

Warren -- your arguments don't work because of things like theory of mind and consent. We have very specific definitions of consent, both in law and science. Your cavalier use of the term "consent: and your comparison of it to someone making a "poor" choice is just equivocation. Your argument really doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.

Another example of equivocation by you is the idea that CearRaven making the point that there are several species which engage in homosexual behavior (thus providing evidence that it is neither "unnatural" or deleterious for to a species overall genetic fitness) is somehow the same as making the claim that interspecies sexual behavior should be legal. Which is a huge illogical stretch, by anyone's measure.

Not to mention, I'm assuming (though correct me if I'm wrong) you're attempting to make the point that allowing gay marriage means we should allow people to marry animals. However, you're committing the slippery slope fallacy and failing to recognize that one does not automatically lead to the other because there are issues inherent in one (e.g., consent) that aren't inherent in the other.

The other logical issue you have here is that you can use the same (poor) argument against heterosexual marriage. If straight individuals are allowed to marry, why shouldn't people be able to marry animals? Or children? Or their cars? Why do straight people get special privileges but no one else? However, I don't see people who are against gay marriage getting up in arms about the slippery slope of "heterosexual marriage --> beastiality."

Most likely, however, you're just trolling. But either way, I've given you the benefit of the doubt and addressed the logical issues with your point.

OldKingBlog,

The fact that you just completely made up the term "devolutionary" is pretty telling about your understanding of evolution (and more specifically, evolution by natural selection). There are many species which have non-reproducing members of the species. Bees for example -- the vast majority of the hive doesn't reproduce at all. Instead, they invest in their fellow hive-mates and help their related brethren by working on and protecting the hive. But, by your logic this is "devolutionary" and "unnatural" and should cause bees to go extinct. In many monkey species there is only a singe mating pair in any group, the rest of the monkeys in the group help (and increase their genetic fitness) by alloparenting their related brethren's children by helping to protect the group. There are literally hundreds of examples in nature of a species having a certain segment of non-reproducing individuals, telling us that there is nothing inherently "devolutionary" about having a small segment of nonreproducing individuals.

There are also several lines of research examining why homosexual behavior might have either been selected for (i.e. actually have been functional and beneficial) or why it wasn't selected against. Kin selection is a big area -- those who do not procreate but invest in their sibling's children still pass on their genes by increasing the likelihood that the rest of the kin survive (particularly to reproductive age. It could also be especially beneficial that they themselves don't reproduce when there is limited resources because then there will be less competition between related individuals for resources. Some evidence that may support this is the fact the male homosexuality tends to be more often found among later born children (i.e. after several siblings who are also competing for resources have been born).

Another line of research shows that the genes which may be related to the expression of homosexuality in males may, when expressed in females, actually make them more attractive to the opposite sex. Because of this, those females are more likely to find mates (particularly high quality mates) and have more children who will be likely to survive to reproductive age. Any male children those females would bear would have a 50% chance (roughly) of having those same genes passed on to them and thus predisposing them to homosexuality. Thus, while the genes may not be beneficial for the male individuals who have them, the genes themselves are consistently perpetuated when expressed in females. Thus, male homosexuality would essentially be a byproduct. Either way, the genes themselves would still be selected for. And since the vehicle of evolution is at the level of the gene, it's actually irrelevant whether or not something is beneficial for the organism as a whole.

Also, I'd like to point out that kin selection has been a seminal theory in evolutionary biology and psychology for at least 60 years. It's a very well established theory within evolutionary theory. So the fact that you don't even appear to know about this theory also suggests that you have no real understanding of evolutionary theory. I highly suggest you educate yourself rather than making silly statements based in oversimplified logic that doesn't actually hold up under any scrutiny.

Siobhan- I think logic eludes these two. I really really do.

The only argument against same sex marriage is a religious one.

There is an athiest argument against same sex marriage: failing to address it weakens the overall argument for same sex marriage. I think failure to recognize and deal with that causes many who would support same sex unions to see a slippery slope where polygamy is the new society norm.

Yes interjecting religion in any situation of public or policy decisions between two individual is flat wrong in current and was a mistake in the past.

To add to your thoughts: no where in the same sex marriage laws are there requirements for religions to perform marriage services. The civil ceremonies (say before a Justice of the Peace) which are governmental approved marriages, now are empowered to marry same sex couples.

When this was first being argued, I heard a Christian minister suggest that she/he was being forced by the government to perform weddings against his/her religion. Why break the bond of truth? If your religion views prohibit this form of marriage, then say so and do not perform the ceremony.

Let us, as Americans, allow the "freedom" which our constitution gives us, to extend to everyone.

The appeals court rejected the group's arguments that the law was necessary to maintain a uniform definition of marriage, that it served the government's interest of saving money and that it was necessary to encourage procreation. [from the article]

How does banning marriage equality encourage procreation? Gays will not suddenly marry someone of the opposite sex if they're not allowed to marry each other. As for saving money, perhaps DOMA does do that because it discriminates against a class of people. However, we could also save money by denying all tax deductions to Republicans. That would be discriminatory, but according to the lawyers employed by the House of Representatives that would be OK because it saves money.

There is an athiest argument against same sex marriage: failing to address it weakens the overall argument for same sex marriage. I think failure to recognize and deal with that causes many who would support same sex unions to see a slippery slope where polygamy is the new society norm.

Slippery slopes are the worst of all the fallacious arguments. I would warn against using them if you wish to present yourself with any degree of credibility at all.

David Taylor-4260617 - There is an athiest argument against same sex marriage: failing to address it weakens the overall argument for same sex marriage.

I've never heard a secular argument against same sex marriage that made any sense whatsoever.

I think failure to recognize and deal with that causes many who would support same sex unions to see a slippery slope where polygamy is the new society norm.

Ahhh....I see.......you're using the exact same argument your fellow bigots used 50 years to oppose mixed-race marriage. Perhaps you can explain why opposite-sex marriage isn't already a slippery-slope to polygamy?

Funny how you bigots keep recycling the same discredited nonsense:

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

Mr. Taylor:

Marriage is defined as being between 2 people; why are you bringing polygamy into the equation?

I agree with the majority that the same sex marriage issue is related to religon. Atheism is also a religious choice, I might remind you.

shouldnt be their call in the first damn place

Ok no problem, just strip all of the benefits "married" couples get from tax incentives to insurance incentives and I can promise it wouldn't come to this...or give the same exact rights and privileges, without judgement, to those that are married and those who enter into civil unions. This would of course mean that every state would have to recognize same sex unions. So you go ahead and devise a plan to meet either of those goals and let the rest of us know what you come up with. I mean probably just takes the snap of your fingers right?

Yeah, that equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution and the creation of the federal courts can be such a downer.

Syracuse, that sounds an awful lot like "seperate but equal". Those who support gay marriage fight for it, at least partly, because of principle. It's simply wrong to give one groups "different" rights.

@UncleBob

+3 for the post

and + infinity for the avatar (Duke alumna and faithful worshipper at the Church of Krzyzewski)

Very seldom do I agree with a Dookie, but this is one of them.

Syracuse Jay....Tell ya what you can take away all the privileges as far as taxes....but tell you what....When your wife's about ready to die at the hospital and say her family hates you and really don't like you....you have no legal standing to be by her side in death. So just think your kids can see her but you wont be able to because you have no legal right to see your wife......Keep that in mind as another privilege in your straight society!!

Scooter, are you saying it should be the people's vote? I hope not because this is a civil rights issue and you automatically lose on that front.

Lol to the edit.

That's just it, isn't it? It's not about their respect for God's laws. It's about their personal phobias.

Yes, that is just it...I'm sure if any court/lawmaker in the US said - you know, we'll go along with your man/woman marriage thing if you agree to make divorce illegal for anyone who gets married, you'd see people screaming to allow someone who just happens to love someone of the same sex the ability to get married.

What that would do is put the onus on the other side of the discussion and I can pretty much guarantee that would put an end to the discussion.

Hmmmm...what happened to the church's (and it's followers) belief of that rule of God?

Exactly ! Where is the GOP demand for a Consitutional Amendment banning all divorces? The religious blohards should be happy to keep marriages together forever since it is so damn holy!

The Democrats in Virginia proposed a law to make adultery a criminal offense as a Defense of Marriage Act. Republicans couldn't kill it fast enough.

you are a stupid idiot

Yep. That topic is covered in Psychology 101. It's always the repressed homos causing the most raucous.

Would you care to back up your viscious quote from any Psychology 101 textbook? You won't be able to because it doesn't exist.

I think Matt may have a touch of THS (Ted Haggard Syndrome).

There was a study conducted between "straight" homophobic men, and non-bigoted straight men, utilizing gay porn. The homophobic men ended up having erections from man on man porn. Hmmm.......

Oh, by the way, whoever asks me to site my sources, you're an idiot. You're online already, look it up. Unless, that is, Faux News has their own search engine. I'm sure if they did, it would filter out actual facts.

Would you care to back up your viscious quote from any Psychology 101 textbook?

He's talking about projection, but it's a foolish argument to make anyways.

whoever asks me to site my sources, you're an idiot. You're online already, look it up.

This just means you can be disregarded out-right without anyone needing to dismantle the arguments you bring up. Always cite your sources, otherwise none of what you say matters.

Oh, now they will have to take a real long bathroom break to work out their frustration(s)! LOL

To Tom and Some guy, Psychology 7th ed. By Stephen F Davis. It's in here.

Matt needs a hug, and what-ever.

LMAO @ tom and mike!

Although I have to admit, it would no doubt be very amuzing to watch as Matt is plunked down into the middle of a homosexual community. Would probably make a good case study on desensitation therapy and the negative consequences that can arise. Like Matt stoking out and foaming at the mouth.

It seems to me that if gay "marriage" being legal would discourage procreation, the religious right would be all for it. After all, there'd be fewer teen pregnancies, fewer abortions, fewer welfare mamas....

I'm confused, does denying a pair of homosexuals the right to marry suddenly make them not homosexual anymore?

How is it supposed to encourage procreation?

I'm confused, does denying a pair of homosexuals the right to marry suddenly make them not homosexual anymore?

@Some Guy ... shhh ... don't ask those questions. The Republicans are hoping that the rest of the rational world will just ignore the elephant-sized holes in their logic. Only irrationality can justify DOMA.

Really bro - cause with the flipped back hat, paris hilton sunglasses and tipped head pose avatar, you seriously look like you'd not just support same-sex marriage, but celebrate it.

Donald, did you take the short bus to the website, if my history serves me right and you are using a real photo of yourself, I will apply the same logic that all blacks want to rape white women and sling crack, not work and so on oh and while we are at it civil rights for some, how about you go back the the cotton fields .... oh wait the emancipation proclamation and civil rights happened, and even the racists noticed the the sky didn't fall in how about sharing some of that "good will" or at least not be a d**k about it !

Moron people like you are what is wrong with the US today

Donald, do you know that only 50% of straight marriages last forever? Why should it be any different for gays?

Hmmm....I visit the CDC website at least twice a week. I have yet to see a statement there that says,

" gays don't wanna marry each other they just want to play house and sleep around town spreading STD's to each other(source: CDC)."

The divorce lawyers are going to make a fortune off this foolishness.

And the source of your resentment would be the fact that they won't let you into law school with a GED? How frustrating that you won't be seeing any of this projected income, I'm sure.

Donald, everyone knows all black men just go around making babies they have no intention of supporting, and spend their girlfriends welfare checks pimping out their cars. So what do we care what You think?

Are you brain damaged or just ignorant. Quit commenting and you might fool someone into giving you a job or something.

The Constitution wins over religious bigotry!

gwarth, you're clearly uneducated... you write at a second-grade level.

Why would a god choose you, of all people, to spread his word? Shouldn't he have made you smarter, if you're going to represent him?

gwarth2, I feel sorry for you and people like you. You believe in something that defies all logic. You embrace that fair tale because to dismiss it would mean that you must face that fact life is what you make of it. There is no divine puppeteer pulling strings on or for you. When good things happen to you it's because you are either skillful or fortunate; or a little of both. When bad things happen you must adapt and overcome them. I'll bet you believe God talks to you, don't you?

gwarth, you're clearly uneducated... you write at a second-grade level.

Now, now, don't sink to his level. It makes you no better than him, you know.

Guy, you are correct.

gwarth2,

Now you've done it. when I hear some intolerant, person who is totally devoid of knowledge about that which he uses to judge and persecute others, I have to get involved.

Historical facts about the origin of the Old Testament and where Homophobia comes from:

Moses was a Hebrew son raised in the house of Pharaoh in Ancient Egypt where the Jews were enslaved for thousands of years. He was raised as a prince because he was adopted into the house. He was still a Hebrew though and was taught Hebrew laws and religion as well as Egyptian laws and religion.

Charlton Heston's version says he freed the slaves with miracles from God.

The question is where is the writings derived from. Wealthy people could afford to hire scribes and scholars to write histories from the beginning of time where people could record the written words, beginning with the Greeks long before the Egyptians. Greeks were taught to read and write and thus were employable for such work. That is why we see so many ancient writings in Greek.

Moses was allowed to take the Hebrew tribes out of Egypt but had no place to take them. He did know of an area where the lands had changed hands and nationalities since the beginning of time, Palestine (before Palestine).

He is said to have wandered for 40 years with his tribes and they rebelled against him many times in an effort to settle down.

Moses brought with him the ancient writings that described Abraham and other tales, but he needed to write the 5 books of Hebrew laws that were designed to hold the tribes together (control them) Moses ruled that to sin meant to die. He also ruled what was sin ans to break the laws was to sin. To break his laws, was to sin and to sin was to die.

Unfortunately some of the city states he and his traveling circus came near to had customs that appealed to the Jews. These cultural practices were designated sins and to sin was to die. Homosexuality was one of these practices and had been socially accepted since the beginning of time. I'll show you some others listed in Leviticus. originally posted by Dr. Laura, I hope she does not mind:

Dear
Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I

have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that

knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend

the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other

specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a

pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.

They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair

price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in

her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,

how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and

female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend

of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can

you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus

35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated

to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an

abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than

homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I

have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading

glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room

here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair

around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.

19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes

me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two

different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing

garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester

blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really

necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town

These ancient laws that were stated and written for rich people to control the poor masses, are still being used today to perpetuate hatred and brutality. The Muslims adopted these laws and we see the evidence of their control every day in the news. We saw the Catholics use them during the Inquisition and we saw the laws being used when Christ was crucified for rebelling against the religious police state of the Hebrews.

It is time for the light of truth to shine so the ignorance cannot kill anymore people.

Lazarus

Learn to spell. Or better yet, just stop posting your religious crap.

I'm sure that you made a lot more sense to yourself before the bong hits wore off.

I agree with SyracuseJay. I am a woman and I "DO NOT WANT" any man telling me how to live let alone the government! That sounds like communism. My best friend of 42 years had been asking me over to dinner for a couple of weeks and I kept on putting her off for one reason or another. Finally I went to have dinner (she's a great cook). I was sitting in front of the TV while my best friend sat almost behind me but on the other end of the couch. After a couple of bites I heard "I'M GAY!!" I stopped, thought a moment about what she just said as it was the last thing I thought I would hear out of her mouth (due to previous issues with lesbianism by her). After I swallowed my bite of food I looked at her and asked "What do you want me to do? You're not in love with me are ya?" She laughingly said "NO". I then told her that I could care less if she were green, from another planet or whatever. She is my best friend!!!

Fergieo,

That story was getting pretty hot, then it just kind of died.