'bout time

Progress to where?

I would be insulted if I were black or a woman to be lumped in one sentence with the gay agenda. They did not choose to be black or a woman whereas the gay community shoves this idea that they did not have a choice either.

Want to to talk about gay rights then do so without the comparison.

Todd, you wouldn't like the comparison because you don't understand it.

Uh... I think most gay people say they were born that way. The analogy is about civil rights.

There is no "gay gene". It's not an "on/off" loci in the human genome, Mike.

Therefore, there's legitimacy and truth in the statement, "there is no such thing as a homosexual. Only people who engage in homosexual acts."

And, since when is protection from murder (for any reason) an exclusive "gay right?" Stop the blatant lifestyle agenda pushing.

At this point, those arguing against LGBT rights are broken records of unsubstantiated "facts", misrepresentation of research, and are an extreme minority that no one is listening to.

The shouting that remains is just the death throes of yet another outdated prejudice that will be looked back on as another sad moment of ignorance in our history.

As a side note to Spencer -- your anti-Obama-at-all-costs rhetoric is showing. How conveniently you forget his work to end DaDT, his administration refusing to uphold DoMA and other things Obama and his administration has done for the LGBT community. It's a bit ironic (and quite amusing) that you use overblown rhetoric to try to claim that Obama's presidency has been nothing more than overblown rhetoric.

Spencer, President Obama got DADT repealed, a monumental achievement you seem to have missed.

No, there does not appear to be a "gay gene" but the complex hormonal soup in a mother's womb does seem capable of producing a range of possibilities. Most of us are born straight, and some of us are born with our orientation the other direction. We don't choose our orientation. Preferences are another matter. My preference is for blondes and brunettes and nice womanly curves.

No, Mr Brown, children do not have a "civil right" to be raised by a mom and dad, or either divorce would be a crime or immediate remarriage would be required under the law (both concepts are obviously absurd). Kids do have the civil right to never be abused and the moral right to be raised by loving grownups.

Spencer, talk to us about the president getting something done when the republican congress gets their work done. You know they have blocked nearly everything the president has tried to do.

Economy is in the toilet, we are downgraded on our credit rating as a nation as we will most likely be again VERY soon and he wants to hold hands with some gays as he jumps off the cliff of financial sanity----yup, sounds like a wonderful president.

This is a joke.....the democrats are into the privates of people sexual encounters and calls it equal rights?

Pathetic! We got BIGGER problems than who gets aroused by who. Good grief!

BrutalTruth,

I always love this ridiculous argument.. there's more important things than people's rights! Wars, economy, etc...

Given the number of economic problems, wars, and threats of terrorism, etc. that have occurred over the course of our country's history, the amount of time we would have had to work on other "less important problems" would be about 10 years. At that rate, women still wouldn't have received the right the vote and slavery would still be legal -- you know, because there was always something "more important and pressing" going on than dealing with silly things like basic human rights.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th. Mickey-1983943 i expect your shoe size exceeds your IQ..

Mr. Mudd,

"Mickey-1983943 i expect your shoe size exceeds your IQ.."

Well I know one thing for certain, and that is that Republicans never accept responsibility for anything. The economy did not collapse under Obama. It collapsed under Bush Jr. in 2008, and the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating by Standard and Poors was due to the GOP's intransigence. S&P even said so themselves.

There is no "gay gene".

There is no "straight gene," either, by your "logic" (if you can call it that).

Therefore, there's legitimacy and truth in the statement, "there is no such thing as a homosexual heterosexual. Only people who engage in homosexual heterosexual acts."

Just following your "logic" out to its natural conclusion there.

And, since when is protection from murder (for any reason) an exclusive "gay right?" Stop the blatant lifestyle agenda pushing.

No one said that protection from murder is right reserved for gays only; where did you get that stupid idea? And what "lifestyle agenda" is being "pushed" on you?

Leave it to liberals to ignore the giant financial problems they created and perpetuate by bringing everything else up. Im all for gay rights, and I think everyone should be allowed to marry anyone that they want. But focusing on this issue over the failing economy is quite bad. I believe it was just a shout out, which as a celebrity Barry has to do one from time to time, but he needs to focus on where he is failing as a leader, which is just about everywhere. States have decided its time for gay rights. Neanderthals are still around, but they are dying out.

One bigot wrote earlier that children have a right to a mother and father. I'm straight. Have nine children by four differant mothers. No gay person had anything to do with their mothers and myself going our seperate ways. No court forced us back together in a stance to protect the assumed childrens rights to a mother and father in the home. This is not about childrens rights, it is about consenting adults rights to love and marry period.

The President fulfilled yet another promise made to the people and proudly stands by them today. I am proud of this President.

And I suppose, Mr. Burns, that two unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare Part D also unfunded, credit default swaps, AIG, and Morgan Stanley had nothing to do with it. No-o-o-o. Nothing at all.

Leave it to liberals to ignore the giant financial problems they created and perpetuate by bringing everything else up.

Leave it to partisans to ignore the fact that a giant number of "liberals" amongst them are also fiscally conservative.

I wonder what those of you are going to think when you find out Obama is just paying lip service to this issue. He will only blame his opposition when nothing changes on this issue, then move on to other things. He is making more promises that he will not keep. He is after all a politician. I feel sorry for those of you who blindly follow either party thinking they will bring about some Utopia where everyone is truly equal. These promises have been made throughout history and the political class still get away with misleading the populace because the people they lead do not hold them accountable. They just make more promises and get re-elected because they sound good.

Mike, I'm all for what you said about liberty, but damn dude. It may be time for you to start masturbating a bit more. I don't want to offend you, but 9 children with 4 different women?

chad-1841583

The first three cheated. I left. The fourth wife I've been married to for twelve years. Sometimes we make the same mistake over and over but still, we have to keep trying. I have four children with my current wife and am completely happy her.

Wayne-721139

You forgot to add in the 350 billion dollars a year off the top in defense spending that was also unfunded and has been adding up with interest for the past ten years.

Mike,

Wow, they all cheated? That sucks man .... I'm real sorry to hear that. My wife and I have been married for 3 years now. I can't even fathom how I'd feel if I found out she cheated on me. I'm glad you found the "true" one.

MrBurns: It is shallow and narrow-minded of you to think that your so called "liberals" are not concerned with the economy simply because they recognize a profound moment in the lives of our fellow Americans.

Atlas shrugging,

"This move by our president was predicted thousands of years ago, as a country, many have turned their back on God and He will turn His back on this country"

If that is so, then how do you explain the fact that many gays are quite religious in spite of the fact that so many "Christians" hate them? Have they turned their backs on God?

The rest of you will just request this post get deleted.

I won't ... I rather enjoy a good dose of bat-@!$%#tery now and then.

This move by our president was predicted thousands of years ago

Damn, Barry O even made it into your Bible ... dude is more boss than I thought.

He who have ears, listen; he who have eyes see

And, he who have penis, don't stick it in the dirty parts ... God gets really pissed...

Atlas, are you shrugging off everything else in the bible, say the part that if you divorce, you SHALL not remarry or you will be committing an abomination and will be punished by death? Or eating shellfish or wearing clothing of two different fibers at the same time? You lost the God argument but just remember, God loves everyone, even YOU! It is not for the government to push religion on us, it is the more important 1st right in the bill or rights in the constitution.

As I have aged in THIS country, tolerance has taught me MANY important lessons.

What the President said NEEDED to be said. God bless him for speaking the truth yet again.

EVERYONE in this country is TRULY blessed because of this mans leadership and vision.

Nihilism justifying 'anything goes' won't end up being so good for us.

This is just part of the decline.

well the farm animal people didn't get a shout out...sheep herder for president 2016...

The number of straw man arguments on here is astounding. Just keep in mind -- if people use a straw man argument it means they are either a) uneducated about what they're talking about or b) can't actually topple the real arguments made by the other side.

Either way, the anti-LGBT crowd doesn't have a leg to stand on. And as you can tell, that makes them a bit ornery.

rednawt1: Ah, but you forget. God TOLD "atlas" to be deceitful and disrespectfully cherry pick his holy book to promote the agenda of hate, bigotry and intolerance.

Makes you wonder what "atlas" is worshiping, doesn't it.

Gays already have equal rights. What they want are special rights.

@Siobhan27

The number of straw man arguments on here is astounding.

I wish I could give your comment more votes. I concur completely.

Gay brothers and sisters? Way to try to garner approval ratings. When did we as a species pick up another race? Last time I checked there were only human beings with a self identified homosexual orientation. They make up only 2% of the population. Sure it sounds good, but where's the gay gene again? Since men can't give birth and women can't produce sperm, how does homosexuality advance the species? What's the biological purpose? I know a bunch of gay supporters want to start sprouting B.S about how sex is about pleasure. If that's true then why do human beings have an entire reproductive system instead of just a big climax button?

Ew.

I personaly couldn't be more happier. Now i know the end is near.

You got that right, shockedanddiscusted, pretty scary.

Zathrose, just what special rights are gay people asking for? Hate crime legislation? That actually applies to everyone. What other special rights are they (we) asking for?

When did we as a species pick up another race?

Who said sexual orientation is a race? It is an inborn trait, like red hair or green eyes -- or race.

Last time I checked there were only human beings with a self identified homosexual orientation. They make up only 2% of the population.

Actually, it's more like 5-10% of the population.

Sure it sounds good, but where's the gay gene again?

Where's the straight gene again?

Since men can't give birth and women can't produce sperm, how does homosexuality advance the species? What's the biological purpose?

What's your point? What does reproduction have to do with marriage?

If that's true then why do human beings have an entire reproductive system instead of just a big climax button?

So you only have sex when you want to reproduce? And that requires marriage?

"Atlas Shrugging" obviously took his pseudonym from the title of "Atlas Shrugging," making him a great admirer of Ayn Rand...who was an atheist and therefore not much impressed by the Bible. Perhaps he should read MORE about her.

Hey ITiswhat: Humans being born gay help physically advance the species the same way as men going bald, our appendix, and people being left-handed do. And yet, somehow, despite all these variations, our population keeps growing. Many of our variations have no "purpose" other than to challenge the tragically limited world-views of conservatives. Not much of a challenge though.

I know a bunch of gay supporters want to start sprouting B.S about how sex is about pleasure. If that's true then why do human beings have an entire reproductive system instead of just a big climax button?

By your 'logic', why isn't the clitoris located inside the vaginal canal? And why is there a male G-spot located inside the anal one?

There has been no heterosexual gene found either.

I as a woman advanced the species. My being a lesbian only meant that I couldn't do it accidentally. If the father I picked was also gay then your spiel about gays not andvancing the species is wrong. Gay men and women didn't lose their ability to have children and become sterile upon realizing they were gay or lesbian or bisexual etc.

Todd-719799 Comment collapsed by the community

Progress to where?

I would be insulted if I were black or a woman to be lumped in one sentence with the gay agenda. They did not choose to be black or a woman whereas the gay community shoves this idea that they did not have a choice either.

Want to to talk about gay rights then do so without the comparison.

You're right - blacks did not choose to be black (and whites did not choose to be white) and women did not choose to be women (and men did not choose to be men). And you're wrong that gays have a choice. Gays did not choose to be gay (and straights did not choose to be straight). All are born, black, white, male, female, gay, straight, et. al.

You don't like gays, so be it. You don't have to like blacks or women. You can say so and we'll defend your right to say so. But you can no longer act so. It's against the law. If you own a business, you must cater to all people regardless of your beliefs (even your religious ones) or else end up being fined, imprisoned and shut down. That's the law. If you're a florist and don't believe in interracial marriage, you must still cater to interracial couples. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, you must cater to same-sex couples. Again, et. al. That's the way it is now; you're right to practice what you believe does not trump the right of others to the equal protection of the law, including in public accommodation (meaning businesses). You need to get over it, unless you want to end up broke, homeless, cold, hungry and sick. That's the way it is in America. Treat everyone equally, or else you get punished. That's what makes America great. Don't like it? Leave America. You have that right, too, and we'll support and defend that right. America has no room for practicing bigots; for bigots, yes (because we respect belief), but practicing bigots, no (because we do not allow discrimination). Americans support that; those who don't aren't Americans and are free, as I said, to leave. America is for Americans, not for practicing bigots.

When President Barack Obama noted “our gay brothers and sisters” and their struggle for civil rights in his inaugural speech on Monday, he was making history

Well, as usual this idiot president fu_ked up again. It appears his position is beyond repair.

Anyone who truly believes that abortion is should be illegal has not rationally thought it through fully. It's a belief based on bias from religion/politics or an emotion. I'm NOT a Republican or a Democrat, but I do believe that not a lot of people think about the true consequences of this issue.

The argument for pro-life that I always hear is that abortion should be illegal because all life is precious and that life (the life of the baby) is no exception. And that sounds well and good until you think about it. The problem is it isn't so simple as it seems on the surface.

All life is precious. Very noble. But then I inevitably ask, well what about the mother? That's a life. If the mother's life is threatened by the baby due to complications, then who are we to say she has to die for another to live? There are plenty of things that can happen during a pregnancy. Getting rid of abortion forces the pregnant woman to die every time in that situation. It is no more fair to do that then to kill off the unborn child. Who are we, to as the religious types like to say, play god with another person's life? Well if we ban abortion, we would wind up doing that anyway.

And what about that unborn child? Is it truly better to force all those children to be born into less than desirable situations? It is inevitable that people will have sex. And it is inevitable that some people, wrong as it may be, will have children and not be ready to care for them properly. Is it right to have those children subjected to less than adequate parents, who in many cases never wanted them, and in worse cases may be neglected, abused, or even grow up bad as a result of their poor upbringing? Not every child who needs it can get adequate foster care as it is. I can only imagine how much worse all that would get if every child had to be born. Unfortunately, you can't rely on everyone to be a decent parent.

Then there are the woman who become pregnant off of rape. I often hear that no real mother would kill their child. Unfortunately, life is not always so simple. That child they have could very likely look like the rapist who abused the mother. And no matter how loving or good that mother is, every time she looks at that child she might see the face of that rapist. This unfortunately does happen sometimes, and I can't imagine how hard that is for them. But I can imagine how someone might not be able to handle that. Is it not unfair, to force every woman who became pregnant as a rape victim to deal with that? It most definitely is. And is it not unfair, to force that child to go through that as well?

Throw politics aside for a moment. Step out of religious traditions for just a second. Ignore the fact that Obama said this and that certain people will blindly discredit anything he says before even listening to it. (I don't always agree with Obama, but I'm always will to listen to what the president, whoever that may be, has to say before I decide to disagree with it.) Just think what the consequences could actually be of not allowing abortion. Please, be rational about this. If you are arguing to get rid of abortion, then you don't really know the ramifications of what you are arguing for. Either that, or you are a very cruel person.

Dan Savage is an anti-Christian bigot.

His opinion is dog crap.

I said this in a forum the other day.

Equal rights are not special rights.

Last time I checked a marriage license did not ask if both parties are morally upstanding religious people. why...because they can't it's illegal to ask.

Therefore a marriage license is a legal document. It is used to get benefits like Social Security, Health, and some 190 other rights that people enjoy being married. You can't just say "In the eyes of God we are married" , no you need proof.

Telling us who and how we have to believe is against our constitutional rights. Your God is yours not everyones.

Telling us we can not marry the ones we love is also against our constitutional rights.

You wouldn't put up for it for one minute if someone came along and told you the same your trying to tell us.

God of Fate

I'm a social liberal. I'm also an atheist.

But, I'm not a supporter of abortion. However, the issue is NOT black-or-white and there are varying degrees of circumstance and situation one must take into consideration when discussing the issue.

But, this particular issue has NOTHING to do with gay men and women having equal rights as sovereign human beings.

@ chad-1841583,

I myself am against late abortion, except in certain circumstances. I don't know exactly where I would draw that line of what is considered late, but before that I don't believe we should infringe upon the decision. Personal opinion aside, I guess I wasn't clear enough with this part of it. I was referring to those who blindly believe that all abortion is wrong no matter what. And you are correct that in it certainly isn't a black and white issue.

@ Gimmeabreakoradrink

There is no "gay gene". It's not an "on/off" loci in the human genome, Mike.

Hey Gimme... perhaps you should come down to our lab where we do genomic sequencing and ERV research and explain your genome expertise to us all.

Why? Because we have no f*cking clue what MOST of the genome does. We do know that much of it is transposable (i.e. 'junk DNA'), but so far no conclusive evidence on the 'non-existence' of genomic markers for homosexuality.

But perhaps you know something we don't.

Progress toward a degraded society.

I am confused. Is "shouting out" the same as "coming out"?

" ... Economy is in the toilet ... "

Which is where it was put by a Republican administration ... OOPS! Sorry. We are not supposed to talk about that fact are we. Sorry.

And which is being kept in said toilet by a Republican House, and a filibustering Republican Senate, hell bent on destroying said Economy. OOPS! Sorry. Not supposed to remind you of that either.

Drive the bus into the ditch. And when the tow truck comes and starts to pull it out. The bus driver throws a lit match into the leaking gas. And then blames the brown kid down the street. in spite of it all being caught on video. OOPS! Damn that video! Sorry.

You are right. The economy is in the toilet. So tell your guys to get out of the way so it can be fixed. Before it can't be.

And stop blaming the scary brown man in the White House, again thank you, for everything.

Oh, and there is no Santa Claus. But that's not his fault either.

MY President gets it.

Thank you Obama

Freedom and equal rights for all.

In related news, I changed my razor when I shaved this morning.

" ... the democrats are into the privates of people sexual encounters and calls it equal rights? ... "

Ok, let's go there shall we?

And let's start with the "equal rights" part of this BS statement.

It's not about equal rights. It's about "civil rights". It's about weather two loving, caring, consenting ADULTS, can or can't marry. It's the same BS used to keep people of different races for doing the same thing. It's about freaking CIVIL RIGHTS.

Oh yea. Now we can get to who is into who's privates, and if they can have sexual encounters at all.

Who is it that wants to/ has made laws that allow the Government to order a woman to have a metal probe inserted into her "privates" for NO MEDICAL REASON? And to threaten both the Doctor AND the woman with jail if it is not done? Huh, who would that be?

Who is it that wants to/has made laws allowing the Government to make contraception illegal? Or to save the mothers life if caring the fetus to term WILL kill her? Or even allow a woman to have "sexual encounters", even with her husband, unless she wants to conceive? Who would it be that has done these things? Huh, who would that be?

Here's a clue for you. NOT the Democrats. NOT the scary brown man in the White House. NOT AT ALL!

So who does that leave? Who is it that is trying to deny who's rights, "equal" or civil? Who is it that "are into the privates of people sexual encounters"? Well?

The silence is deafening.

Huh. Imagine that.

the democrats are into the privates of people sexual encounters and calls it equal rights?

Talk to me when the unsafe sexual practices of some heterosexuals are being used as a reason you shouldn't, as a heterosexual, get married either. Or if Democrats legislate to monitor you to see what you do in the bedroom so they can decide if it is against their religious belief and legislate that you can't get married because of it too. Or if pedophiles, being mostly heterosexual, were being used to keep all heterosexuals from marriage..or best yet, polygamy, after all gays and lesbians can't get married so polygamy must be a heterosexual concern to be placed against all heterosexuals getting married....If that happened I'd be happy to stand up against your constitutional civil rights being denied as well.

"I think that the president’s forgetting about the most important group affected by this and their civil rights, and that’s children having the civil right to have both a mom and a dad.” " I guess this moron is forgetting the fact that there are thousands, if not millions, of children who grew up in a single family household. And if they want to say marriage is being redefined, and assuming that the National Association for marriage or whatever the heck it's called is basing it off the bible, let's not forget that the bible says women are property and polygamy is ok.

" ... States have decided its time for gay rights. Neanderthals are still around, ... "

That is correct MrBurns. Yes it is.

And my State is one of them. And I am proud of the fact that we have. Our Legislature passed it. The Governor signed it into law. And the people voted for it. It's one of those damned "liberal" states. You know the ones. ( Psssstttttt! We even made Marijuana legal! )

So when States pass laws like LGBT civil rights, the political leaders of the country should stand up for those civil rights also. It's called "leading". You know about "leading" don't you? It's something that the Right whines about the President NOT doing. Oh, and then they whine when he does. They just can't seem to make up their minds. And I don't know why they can't. Seeing how small the minds of the Right appear to be.

First post. Is that a dick in your mouth? Fitting.

" ... instead of just a big climax button? ... "

" Honey, you can stop pushing your "climax button" now. The guy on the internet says you haven't got one."

Huh. Imagine that.

Here is a popular forum for comments and the most liked post is a pornographic Avatar. I tell you we are progressing alright. Right into judgement we go. And a President that applauds filth. God help us!

Right into judgement we go. And a President that applauds filth

And right into judgment YOU go. I think God has something to say about that. Unless you are saying you are God?

Gay and lesbian Americans(or any nationality) are not filth. Whether the President applauds or supports them and their rights or not.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

People love bring sex into everything. Grow up.

These rights are about everyone having the opportunity to Marry, form a stable socially and legal joining of two people and also the creation of family units.

Saying same sex marriage will destabilize the idea of marriage is like saying building brick house instead of a wooden house will destabilize housing.

As for the genetics of homosexuality the knowledge of those who claim there is no genetic basis for homosexuality show their complete ignorance of genes human genetics and how they function in humans.

" ... and that’s children having the civil right to have both a mom and a dad. ... "

No that would not be correct.

That would be a MORAL OBLIGATION on the part of BOTH parents. But then the Right has little use for that.

Example .....

They are Pro-life when it comes to the fetus. But not when it comes to protecting 6 and 7 year old children from being slaughtered by an assault weapon with a 100 round magazine.

They are Pro-life when it comes to the fetus. But not when it comes to the life of the mother carrying that fetus.

They are Pro-Mental Health. Until the ACA is brought up. A law that they want to de-fund. A law that would help give Mental Health coverage to many, many who need it.

Civil rights? No. Moral obligations. Why yes, yes they are.

Wow, I mean, wow! As a scientist, I'm amazed how many jump to the 'show me the gay gene' argument. Let me bow down to your (clearly) greater knowledge in genetics oh people on a message board, clearly my years of studying genetics/immunology/biomedical science/molecular biology are as nothing next to your vague wikipedia derived information.....

On a serious note, we are only scratching the surface of unlocking the secrets of the DNA. What once was considered junk is now revealing how genes are controlled, and even how proteins can be regulated and altered, by epigenetic mechanisms. This is still poorly understood, but may well have vast implications for cancer research, developmental genetics and other idiopathic diseases.

The arrogance of anyone to state that homosexuality is 'choice' and is not natural, to definitively conclude this with spuriously gathered lack of knowledge is pathetic. It is seen in other species in the animal kingdom, it's documented well. The sociological and psychological evidence is also accumulating.

Those using the 'reproductive' argument, 'pray' tell how you explain colonial insects where most are infertile save for a couple? How about mammalian species where non-reproductive members remain in the group looking after the offspring of others (elephants, apes etc)?

Also, Joeyokum, are you being serious? You're quoting from Romans? That's pretty low, short of delving into standard Lev. passages. A serious of disjointed works by a capricious ex-persecutor zealot who's desperately trying to convert any and all to Christianity by saying whatever works. 'St.' Paul himself wasn't happy with what he saw happening in Rome, so he spoke as if Jesus himself had told him this in profound revelation. He hadn't, Jesus never mentions most of the stuff he talks about. It's almost a "well, he gave me a framework, I'm filling in the details as I'd imagine he would think".

And for others, dare I ask how well formed your holy words are when they were the unintentional formation of ecumenical oversight? Constantine's desire for consensus without ever really organising which volumes would or would not be included?

Given the vitriol and bile spewed forth on these posts, I've no idea why anyone would 'choose' to be gay even in the U.S., let alone places like Uganda where there are homosexuals and yet the punishment there is often death (official or otherwise). Start thinking.

The Word of God Interprets itself. Romans 1 is a chapter that deals with judgement from God upon those whom reject Him as Creator. The next judgement is of those who reject Him as Savior. James 1:5 Speaks of asking for true wisdom from God. If you truly believe that His word is the infallible Truth than you will let the scripture be first and foremost in your conclusions and discard your theories. 1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

By the way dude; What do you think Paul saw happening to Rome?

Joey ... You're delusional.

If you took everything in the Bible literally, and acted on everything you read in the Bible literally ... you'd be locked up for crimes against humanity.

You know why no one takes your Bible seriously anymore? Because Christians don't take the Bible seriously anymore. And for good reason ... for every one single passage about love and forgiveness, there are 10 that contain horrific acts of violence, slavery, genocide, incest, among others.

If you want to clutch your little book and have the world-view of first-century nomads ... have fun. But realize, in doing so, the rest of us will be going about the business of furthering humanity.

My advice to you? Go find a nice cave or mountain-top and wait for your "Creator" to come save you.

joeyokum

God also said Religion is personal. Religion has no place nor role in this issue.

Did you know people also quoted the bible in regards to interracial marriage, and yes even in the new Testament. Therefore if you want to twist the words to suit yourself you can also find passages against interracial marriage.

In your beliefs the word of God maybe infallible but the depth of the ability of humans to misinterpret the bible is unfathomable.

Interestingly in the New Testament there are sections about food, one should not exclude any of the foods that god has created for us to eat for it is a sin. joeyokum I sure hope you aren't allergic to anything becasue its a sin if exclude anything from your diet. Also its a sin to eat food prepared by a non-believer. So I guess you don't eat out much, and you have to grow your own food?

What I am getting at is, interpret the bible as you wish, for your own personal journey, but do not dare to have the arrogance to think you have the authority or the knowledge to place judgment on others.

Hey you guys, Todd @ #1.2 and Gimmeabreak @ #1.5 got your lunch and then your dinner.

The entire human genome as been mapped and studied and researched to a frazzle and guess what? No gene found to cause "gayness"!!! That means you've got the same make up as every other person of your sex so there is no legitimate case for civil rights for gays. They even studied womb environment, upbringing, and social and environmental factors and still no conclusions. Truth is, you CHOOSE your life style, there's no science to say otherwise.

Pedophiles and serial rapists have the same genome trail as others of their gender but I don't see any push in Congress or Inaugural Addresses or invocational prayers to give them civil rights.

God already has.And when you are standing at the Great White Throne Judgement. You will be on your face before Him and He is not gonna argue with you. Open your heart and let Him reveal Himself to you before it is too late.Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Heb 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

when you are standing at the Great White Throne

God had Chipotle for lunch, eh?

"Social Liberal" almost seems like an oxymoron. Being socially liberal just seems like being "sane" ... or "rational" these days. I'd venture to guess, most people (when it comes down to it) are socially liberal. I consider myself a social liberal, but I'm also fiscally conservative, so I don't really consider myself a democrat. But, I'm definitely not a Republican. I think there's a lot of people out there like me, but we're drowned out by all the bat-@!$%# crazies on both sides.

It is insane how, if you criticize one aspect of one party's beliefs, people automatically think that you are a supporter of the other party.

I love Lewis Black's take: "I don't know if you've noticed, but our two-party system is a bowl of sh*t, looking at itself in the mirror."

That's why I criticize ALL party beliefs that I don't agree with. I may be wrong on some issues ... right on others. But, I'm always consistent. When you're consistent within the truth, you're always open to be swayed and convinced in one direction or the other based on the quality of the evidence you're presented.

That's why our political party system is so screwed ... it's run by lawyers who win by making the "best argument" ... not by politicians trying to win by running on what's right or good for the betterment of our nation.

It's one of the reasons I've also hated the term flip-flopper. What does that even mean? To me, it means you're willing to address or change your views when better evidence and more consistent data comes along.

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise. -- Franklin

hey, who is voting for chad's post and not mine? that's unfair..if not for MY inspiring post, chad's would never have existed. lol

I'm voting for ya

vermontguy

I voted for yours, now vote for one of mine

What it is, is a nightmare.

Chad, I think a social liberal, and fiscal conservative would make you a libertarian.

We welcome you to the fold. We need more of you.

Ten to one, many anti-same sex marriage people would agree with our Founders, who said that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes from the CREATOR. Then these hypocrites say that we VOTE on civil and human rights? All that our system of government does is AFFIRM and MAKE POSSIBLE, rights which are INALIENABLE, ours in the FIRST PLACE. If we voted on civil rights, the march at Selma would have meant nothing, women wouldn't vote, kids would still work in mills, and America would still be part of Great Britain. Nearly EVERY good change that America has witnessed did NOT come about because "millions of people voted". Asinine beyond belief. Poor, pathetic people without empathy or vision, who have to hide fearfully behind "millions of votes", to justify their lack of thinking.

Spencer, actually it makes you liberial. just look at who the Libertarian's caucaus with in the Congress. Most Libertarians voted for Obama, so party platfrom went out the window.

Nikolaus20 Not quite. most issues in Civil Rights were voted on. But the politicans changed the votes of the people, in favor of paying off debts to groups. It is funny how you claim that gay marriage is a God given right, but the God of all major religions teach against gay marriage. If Civil rights were put up to a vote they would have won. Voting behind millions, gives privicy, just like the internet gave people.

First of all,Social Liberal is Left Wing,Big Government, Social Freedom or Socialist Freedom thinking,tolerant of everything except those who think differently then they then they use names like Bigot,Homophobe, Zenophobe and the list goes on!

Liberal is actually Right Wing, as in Libertarian, Small Government where people are Truly Free. Traditional,who believe in self-reliance and the free market. Conservatives give more of their time and money to help the poor and needy by 35% over Social Liberals. Social liberals Talk about the poor wherease Conservatives actually help. I spent over 6 months in Biloxi MS. after Katrina and saw thousands of Christians helping out and everyone I talked to said they were conservative and Christian.

The only true successful thing the Social Liberals have acomplished is the "Demonizing of the Right" and blaming them for the financial situation this country is in when the root cause is social programs that have nearly bankrupt the country on Conservatives! Obama spent 6 Trillion Dollars in 4 years.

Google Cloward & Pivens and see for yourself. Go to Wikipedia.com and type in Cloward & Pivens and then try blame the GOP!

I said this in a forum the other day.

Equal rights are not special rights.

Last time I checked a marriage license did not ask if both parties are morally upstanding religious people. why...because they can't it's illegal to ask. Besides most of you wouldn't pass the test.

Therefore a marriage license is a legal document. It is used to get benefits like Social Security, Health, and some 190 other rights that people enjoy being married. You can't just say "In the eyes of God we are married" , no you need proof.

Telling us who and how we have to believe is against our constitutional rights. Your God is yours not everyones.

Telling us we can not marry the ones we love is also against our constitutional rights.

You wouldn't put up for it for one minute if someone came along and told you the same your trying to tell us. Save yourself and leave me and mine out of it.

Thank you, Steve, for pointing out the obvious so I don't have to. "The Church" lost its say on the qualifications of matrimony when marriage stopped being a "sacrament" and started being a legally binding document.

... and destroying the very fabric of what this country is built upon. It's also a matter time before it conquers itself and another country takes over just like Ancient Rome. Admit that!

Your welcome Amytruthseeker

I don't understand all this debate and putting religion into this.

I'm gay and married under a Domestic Partnership. It reads the same way as a Marriage License & was processed the same way, the only thing different about it is that it is not recognized by all states, and it does not have all the benefits of a marriage license.

For 1st time, gay rights get shoutout in inaugural speech

Does this mean Barry is finally going to come out of the closet? Not that there's anything wrong with that...

jamesvincent05

Nice try......The Senate controls the purse strings not the President. See the CRS report that Congress had prepared on it's budget and then tell me what's going on. They didn't have enough confidence (called it false & accused the CRS of pandering to the administration) in the report and took it to an outside agency, and paid them for the results they wanted.

Svenolafson

You've been watching too much Fox snews.....You got proof....Show it or shut up.

Jim Allen -

They said a lot of things in Rome. Particularly interesting was that it didn't crumble until the Christians came about.

It crumbled when they started lighting Christians as torches.

lol, more "rome fell because of gays" nonsense. This IS amusing. :)

Anyone who thinks the acceptance or not of gay people had ANYTHING to do with Rome is a moron. Rome fell due to a number of factors, from social unrest, fiscal issues, warring neighbors, wealth inequality, infighting, and religious unrest.

Furthermore, Roman Empire lasted 600 to 900 years (depending on how you count it). We haven't been around for half that time. So by all accounts, this was a very successful civilization.

Romans made no distinction between gay or straight, they screwed anything with a pulse and probably a few things that didn't have one.

Thank you for that comparison. I have been making that same one for about the last 30 years and now it seems it is closer than ever to coming to fruition. And then there will be the long awaited conclusion to this embarrassing moment in our country's history. What a complete and total wast of time and energy.

BTW, the Roman Empire was born in 27 BC and it was divided in AD 395...the western part ended in 476 and the eastern part in 1453. And successful for whom?

We get it, "act". You hate the United States and pray for it's demise...that way you and your crazy little cult can have your rupture...er...rapture...or what ever you cal the complete genocide of all who do not believe the way you do.

Fortunately, the majority of the American people are humane and compassionate enough to disagree with you.

Some Romans had orgies, a great many were actually quite bluenosed. It's like saying the 1920s was filled with flappers. Sure, you had some of that, but you also had a lot of conservative people.

The empire fell largely because they had decades of civil war followed by a great depression. How well would America do if our civil war lasted 50 years with president after president being assassinated and then followed by the great depression. They largely gave up on science in the 2nd century and the Christians took over in the 4th. The Christians didn't cause the empire to collapse, rather they were a symptom of the collapsing empire. And the Christian rulers certainly didn't help instituting price controls and creating serfdom (because it was thought tying the people to the land would be job security). And so where they had once had the people to defend the empire, the people basically helped those who were coming to sack Rome out because it really sucked.

So no, Rome didn't fall because of the gays. In fact, neither the gays nor the Christians had much to do with it at all. The Christians were just a symptom of the failing empire. Destroying all the nice pagan stuff and enforcing Christianity with the rule of law as the government collapsed and sank into the Christian dark ages, from when pulling back pagan science and a society proved pretty untenable for 800 years. Until there was a rebirth (Renaissance) of those earlier pagan values and pagan science.

Rome fell because their aquaducts came under enemy control. You figure the rest.

I don't get it. "christians" like to blame the fall of Rome of the gays and Romans used to throw "christians" to the lions.

One would logically conclude that the "christians" would love and honor the gays for bringing down the Romans.

Interesting take shocked. Well said. Is there any answer to that people??

When Rome fell, it had been Christian for centuries.

Damn, Cassandra. You got me on a technicality!!

;)

(shh...don't tell the "christians"...)

Greg, because Rome was simply mighty and lost control of their aqueducts? No. Rome sucked for a long time that's why they didn't have the power to control their assets. It's like saying Rome got sacked and that's why it fell. No. That was just the last in a long line of fail.

Rome fell because of social and moral decadence, corruption, greed and war over extending their conquests too far and wide. We're on the same path, it's just a matter of time if we don't take steps to stop the inevitable.

So Tad-401841, you condone, recommend ...

" ... lighting Christians as torches ... "

and

"... feeding them to lions ... " ?

Huh. Let me think about this for a bit.

Hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm ...

Shockedanddisgusted.........rednawt1...........Cassandra-854239

Notice how so many Christian Hating Socialist ,Baby Killing, Dopers people don't allow for a Reply?

Rome may have been a Christian Nation when it fell Cassandra but it was ruled by Polititions and under the same rules. The people of Rome were not true Christians. Someone can stand in a garage all day and that won't make them a car,likewise one attending church doesn't make them a Christian either! The Bible wasn't in print form and the Pope and Preachers wer quite ignorant of the teachings of Jesus Christ!

George From Wa. State is a leader as he is better know as; Chief Ball Cum Sucker!

Rome fell from to much diversity. The old saying rings true, divide and they will be conquered.

The reason for the fall of the Roman Empire:

Empire spread too thin - Many Roman soldiers were not even Roman and the Rise of the Goths and the Huns

Lead lined aqueducts - Roman citizen's main source of drinking water. Many citizens and aristocracy drank out of pewter vessels which contain lead. Many experts believe this lead to a decline in native Roman population growth

Rome fell from political infighting leading to increased feudal repression, which sparked uprisings that resulted in a loss of political will from the working classes.

The rise of Christianity was not just a symptom, but also a cause. Increasing the power of the RCC took power away from the people. The mayors were replaced with priests, whose judgements were absolute and unquestionable, as opposed to a governor being brought in to settle a dispute with a mayor. That was just ONE of the reasons Rome began to fall. More to the point, the fall of the Western Roman Empire actually coincided more with letting the Christians rise to power, instead of lighting them on fire and feeding them to lions as Rome had traditionally done. The Eastern Roman Empire lost most of its territory with the rise of Islam. The rest was kind of muddled as the rise of Catholicism warred with Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe, until the Holy Roman Empire came in and established Catholocism throughout much of the region, but allowed Orthodoxy to continue (relatively) unmolested.

The Roman Empire started in 27 BC, truly, under Caesar. However, Caesar was just a part of Rome, which was a Republic until the Senate was dissolved, and had existed for some 300-400 years prior, if I remember my history correctly.

And no, I don't buy any of the crap about how we all must become good little Christians in order for the country to succeed. Nor do I believe we all need to be conservatives, or libertarians, or whatever. Diversity is good, if people can accept that they are not the most intelligent ones in the room just because they have GED after their name on their business card. If people can actually listen to real professionals, the ones that have spent the time, energy, and effort to research their subjects, rather than talking heads like Limbaugh and Beck, who maybe take an hour to "research" (and by research, I mean they look up a few good out-of-context quotes that fit in nicely with their agenda) the topic then whip the public into a frenzy for, you guessed it, MONEY, then we'd be a lot better off.

As far as the "gay gene" goes, there is no "black gene," or "yellow gene," either. Melanin is but one pigment for skin coloration. Several genes actually play a part in its production and, therefore, its prevalency. The same appears to be true for homosexuality. It is inborn, and the most recent data suggest that it is actually passed from father to daughter, mother to son. More research needs to be done. That would be interesting for anyone who's not a bigot.

jan: WOW! That was some very long post trying to convince others you, and you alone are correct. No credible evidence is given, only a synopsis. Then end with an insult to all others who doubt your word. Hail Caeser, my a$$.

bob -

If you want a full history of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, go check out a book. Better, check out 10. Few of them will agree on the causes, but there were many causes for the fall.

I do have to warn you, they all use big words. Except Orly Taitz's version, which has Obama using George Soros' time machine to go back, find Muhammad, then take him back further to try to overthrow the Nicaean Council and bring Islam about in 400 CE.

" ... George From Wa. State is a leader as he is better know as; Chief Ball Cum Sucker! ... "

You know judgemark, I have been insulted by some of the best. And some of the worst. And they all had one thing in common. An I.Q.s bigger then their shoe size. So you are a first for me. Insulted by someone who's I.Q. is nowhere as big a number as their shoe size.

I am at the same time humbled and honored.

Now might you have an intelligent reply to my comment. So that we may have an adult conversation? Or are fear,hate, ignorance, bigotry and a work of fiction ( the Bible ) all you have?

Huh. Imagine that.

actually, having the president support gay rights is a significant action. And he approved the repeal of DADT.

Obama has done more for gays than every other president put together.

Oh, and I forgot, he's having the Justice Department refuse to defend DOMA (which isn't the same as refusing to enforce it, before someone tries to confuse the two).

Really, there isn't much more a president could do at this point anyway.

Quacks especial rights in the name of Progress, undestand...

Shogun69,

"I'm sure if civil rights were strictly left up to a vote by the citizens in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, basically any of the former confederate states, they might still have segregated bathrooms, drinking fountains, and parts of the bus where they could and could not sit.

Yes. He failed to mention that millions of Americans voted for the Jim Crow Laws that kept segregation in force for black Americans after the Civil War.

"gimmie"...You should probably shut up and go back to your bunker before they take away your guns...

(Oh yeah - there's a sale on Tang at Walmart - better get runnin' and stock up!!)

Gimme. There are only FOUR Presidents in the past 100 years that have won over 50 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama.

The Sicago mob had the election stolen for Obama before the 6th. Numbers don't lie.

Gimme - Read #8.4 over and over again, out loud if necessary, until you get it!

Gimme

I no longer trust this man. It's all about socialistic agenda and marginalizing the American norms and mores. Democrats spend and with the last two decades, are the party of the "least common denominator" when it comes to values, hard work, educational achievement, women having their legs open, killing fetuses, welfare and higher taxes.

It is more like he is upholding the nations mores, if that is the right word. Most people want to work but what happened to so many jobs? The moral conservative CEO's moved them to slave wage countries. It wasn't too many years ago those same conservative business leaders were saying the American worker was the best and most productive anywhere. They still are. But I have known some who discribe themselves as conservative and republican who choose to cheat the system by fraudulently collecting SS disability and some who even live off food stamps (bridge cards) and talk on Obama phones. Many if not more liberals are more highly educated than conservatives. We don't make fun of those seeking a higher education. Women having their legs open? Don't get what you mean by that one. Welfare was answered already but to expand, what about corporate welfare? Higher taxes? Seems to me taxes were lowered even more by this president and a democratically controlled congress. Some were risen back to the point where Bush came into the picture, when we were actually paying down debt and before the no tax and spend republican president took office and bright us to two wars, two tax cuts at the time of war and unfunded Medicare part D along with deregulation so severe the MORAL banksters brought us to the brink of global depression.

North Dakota has it right. A state owned bank and a state owned grain elevator. Isn't that socialism? Isn't North Dakota a "red" state?

Women's right to vote?

The Romans would speak and write in Greek because Greek was the lingua franca of science. The Old Testament was rewritten into Greek by literate people because all the literate people wrote Greek and so few of the learned Jews at the time read Hebrew. It was for this reason that the Septuagint was written. And it didn't require Greeks to accomplish, it just a project to translate the OT into something people could read: Greek.

Bouncing around from the death of Hypatia with false flags like that was the end of the library too. Or that the death of nonbelievers was something absolutely consistent when really it depended heavily on who they were hating at that particular time. And this weird insistent that everybody who wrote Greek was Greek? Or that the OT avoided editing because the Romans saved it by making it part of the Bible? That's a lot of really weird nonsense.

Are you really a historian or maybe just a historian of a completely different time and region well outside your expertise? Because so much of that is freaky that I really wonder. It's not specifically full of any biases. It does odd things like suppose Moses was real and the genocides of the Bible happened, to not knowing Hypatia's name, to incorrectly identifying what happened there.

Tatarize,

I appreciate your comments and input. To clarify one point I consider myself a student of history with a great deal of experience read about it for the last 50 years. There are some periods that I have devoted more time to so, yes I am not an expert on all history. History, As I see it is subject to interpretation of the reader mush like reading the Bible, one can derive different message from the same passages as we see with the various forms of religion. I still read history at every opportunity and enjoy discussion on the subject. Please keep in mind, also the audience I was writing to was taking into account that most of the readers would not share my passion for reading history. Therefore, my intention was to stimulate thought and question as to hope that some of the readers might want to read for themselves.

Do you really believe that God erased Sodom and Gomorrah from the earth? I would speculate that Moses, being a son of Pharaoh, was used to being treated as a God on Earth as was common with the royal family's of Egypt. He was allowed to take the Hebrews from Egypt and they wandered for some 40 years , passing along the way, Babylon.

He wrote the 5 books of Hebrew laws and carried along with him Scribes to write down what he deemed as history and laws. Read those 5 books and you will continually see statements like God's Will and the laws of God condemn this or that person to be stoned to death. The bottom line is that Moses was for all intents and purposes,God on Earth. He wrote laws saying they were the laws of God. To break these laws was a sin, the wages of Sin is death, and to break the laws of Moses was to die. Read through the OT and you will see Jesus on trial by the Pharisees where he is charged with breaking the laws of Moses in the NT. Jesus did in fact break the laws of Moses, but his answers were in the form of Parables such as the Good Sheppard speech.

I have followed the tracks of the Appostles after Christ Died and have formed a mental picture of their conquest to carry the message of Christ to the far away lands.

Homosexuality was common in the majority of cultures up until the Romans Canonized the OT. Why they held onto the hateful laws, I can only assume that they needed some sort of laws that would bind the fragmenting roman Empire through a common Religion. The fact is that a thousand years passed before these laws became concrete in the West. I always wondered why the laws of Ancient Jews were taken by Rome as their own since the Hebrews revolted against Rome twice and was reduced to the status of slaves. Secondly, I always wondered why Islam adopted the Hebrew Writings as their own with such a fanaticism that it is still killing people in the name of God to this day?

My main point is that the Roman Church as well as other potential religions were trying to formulate some sort of solid religious idea that would reconcile the ACTS of Jesus. I have read some speculation when I was researching the Apostles, that the Roman Church was ostracized by many because of its Idolatry, but as we see it survived. I would also speculate that the Remnants of the Roman Empire had military forces at hand to enforce its religious views as did the Hebrews in the Time of Jesus.

Tartarize,

You supposed I did not know hypathia's name, and as with all my other comment I chose to condense the verbage beacuse I was not intending to address such an Esteemed Historian as yourself.

What audience do suppose is the majority here? I was briefly explainif the presumption that the hatred of Homosexuals come directly from the Hebrew writings and was offering, in a limited way, an explanation of the times and society of the the times.

The total death of the Library probable too hundreds of years and several times of damage, like the fire that burneded it in 40 bc by the seige of Julieus Caesar when he set fire to ships of Pompay.

The death of Hypathia was done by Christians if you want to be specific in about the 3rd century, I believe.

The speculation of the final death through was attributed to Muslims during the Expansion in about the 7th Century.

Lazarus

>> "Do you really believe that God erased Sodom and Gomorrah from the earth? I would speculate that Moses, being a son of Pharaoh, was used to being treated as a God on Earth as was common with the royal family's of Egypt. He was allowed to take the Hebrews from Egypt and they wandered for some 40 years , passing along the way, Babylon."

That's another bit that didn't make sense. You can't be a real historian and think the Bible is historical. No. None of that is remotely true.

Tartarize,

The Bible is pure history in nothing else. It is censured and rewriten and is the result of over a thousand year of editing, but as most ancient histor is derived from campfire stories who is to say what is truth given all we have is what is written.

I do not understand you viewpoint, please clarify. The basic point I am making here that seems to completely illude your superior intellect is that ALL ancient cultures embraced Homosexuality. The hatred of Homosexuals come directly from Biblical teachings that all too many societies take so serious that they are still killing oneanother over the History and faith.

You are talented in saying little, so please elaborate as the evidence of why the Bible is NOT history?

Please enlighten me with your amazing knowledge base.

Lazarus

Several years ago a team came across some fragments or parchment from what was called the garbage dump of the Roman Empire. When they did some dating and tests to determine what the fragment said, they found a statement from the 14 chapter of Saint Pauls epistle to the Romans on Christ. Go figure, all the time spent on this project and the fist thing they discovered is what Christians have been preaching for years. Believe on Jesus. The Bible is more than history, but God using means, language, ideas, narrative, literature, death, sex, murder, intrigue, hope, faith, love that we understand. It's amazing to think that in our day, all the previously mentioned things are replete in our culture and God uses these things (that we clearly identify with) and we stumble, i.e. fall flat on our faces in understanding His revelation. The most popular means today is mass media, with our ever ending thumbnail sketches commonly called trailers, giving us hints of the program ahead and God was ahead or our times in the Biblical narrative! Creation, first couple, Adam and Eve, the fall, idea of redemption, violence, call of Abraham and his purpose are just a few of the brief sketches that set the stage of salvation, interwoven with all the abominations we as a human race can conjure up! DONT BLAME GOD for human sin/chaos/error. But believe on His salvation beginning with the nation of Israel and their producing the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, the Savior of the World (John 1:29; Luke 19:10: Romans 10:9, 10).

I too pray that our World will receive Christ's salvation and wisdom. He is revealed in the Bible to those who open up their hearts to receive the truth of the gospel. He died for the sins of the World to reconcile us back to God. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned . Lord, open the eyes of those who are reading this and may they seel your kingdom and bring you glory.

Christ did die for our sins, I have no doubt, but the Romans brought you scripture to you in the form you are read on. history shows us that Jesus was rebellous of the Hebrew laws and customs where sin was attoned through sacrifice. It is in the scripture where certain sins could be paid for with offerings other than blood. The offerings could be of food, grain or meat to be paid to a priest that would keep a portion for their own use. Jesus saw a set of laws that allowed the "true believers" to stone people to death in mobs or kill in other ways. Jesus, himself was made to answer the charges before the Pharasees where he was able to perform like a politician where his answers were in the form of questions and Parables such as the "Good Shepard" tale.

The legacy of Jesus is that people no longer need to fear death through blood sacrifice from the religious powers who were, at the time the Hebrew Police state that was a whore of Rome.

Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice in a confrontation with the Hebrews and if you study the journeys of the Appostles, you will see they followed in his steps to the point of death, most horrible.

The Romans, some thousand years later chose to incorporate the laws of moses as Cannon Laws and so the cycle of hate was allowed to continue. The work of Jesus was null and void, when that happened.

If you ask why the Romans chose to keep the OT as the laws of moses, the answer is simple. These laws ruled a state at war with the world for thousands of years. The fact that the laws virtually gives to God like power of Life and death to the masses who can kill in god's name as we still see practiced today.

I pray that people can wake up to realize that just because the Romans chose to inflict the OT onto us, we do not have to keep it. Realize who killed Jesus without the fairy tale that the Romans gave us. I truly believe in Jesus and the work he did, and I believe in His father God and the Holy Ghost that rose when he died, because I have seen the power of the Trinity at work in fighting real evil. But Evil that men do to one another in the name of God is a travisty to God's name.

Lazarus

Biased pig. Backhanded logic filled with insults, too.

Happily, the religio-fascists are a dying breed.

The invention of the internet means they can no longer keep their children from knowledge.

Remember, that's the goal of religion - whatever you do, best keep everyone away from that "tree of knowledge" if you don't want an empty collection plate!

:-)

Gimmeabreakoradrink

Scroll down a little farther and read that one. Oink!

Everyone has the same rights. What they want is rights to suit them.

With all due respect to all of you people who see us as "religio-fascists" (haven't heard that one before, but amusing nonetheless) and religious nutcases, our beliefs for defining marriage are OURS, and we have just as much right to express them as you do. I think pastor Tony Evans says it best:

"The problem with legalizing gay marriage is not entirely a problem with homosexuality. The primary problem is the REDEFINITION of the family away from its divine design....the problems arise in our marriages when we adopt our culture's view of marriage as simply a means for love and happiness"

(from "Kingdom Man")

The fact is marriage is about more than just love and happiness; as Christians, we believe it is a COVENANT designed by God for advancing His kingdom.

Larry,

This public display of humanity is reassuring to me for a man that has seemed to do so many otherwise harmful things to the nation.

Thanks for the history lesson, now tell us all the harmful things President Obama has done to this nation and back it up with facts and sources.

You are confusing marriage, which existed long before Christianity and existed in many other cultures where Christianity is not the dominate religion, with the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Marriage was not and is not now something exclusive to the religious in this country. You can still get married in this country with no involvement from a religious institution what so ever. Also, in many other countries in many other parts of the world where Christianity is not the dominate religion, people get married all the time. So, it's not us who are trying to redefine marriage, it was Christians that redefined it first, we're just taking it back.

rednaught,

You are welcome for the history lesson, but this history is not yet finished as to the mystery man of the east who sits in Washington City. I could go through a detailed list of the times he has used his influence to divide the nation and one could speculate that he is following the same planned conquest we have seen used in Egypt and Syria as well as other places where the stragety of divide and conquer is masterly used. It has a name. It is called Conquest through apostles and the early Christians used it masterfully throughout the "new" world when the early explorers and traders carried the priest with them. however, as with the Hebrew writing, the Muslims have adopted that method as well.

Lazarus

I see you've been guzzling down that Koolaid. Let me see if I can explain this simply enough so that even a cretin like you can understand. Oops, sorry. That "cretin" word probably went over your head. It's basically the same as a moron.

Now I can't say I speak for all homosexuals, but I'm pretty sure most of us don't give a rat's behind if you "accept" us or not. What we ARE demanding (yes, DEMANDING) is that we be given the same rights to live our lives the way we see fit as the heterosexuals have.

We don't really care if you think it's perverse, or immoral, or just plain icky. I can guarantee you that as soon as the heteros (who, by the way, do their share of c0cksucking and snatchmunching too) get out of our faces and leave us alone we will do the same. So really, it's all up to you straight people. The sooner you realize that you have lost the war the better off you will be.

i think all christians should get outta the way & let gays have their way & that means , all the sooner that Christ returns & tells them in person , that it is wrong, but by then , it will b too late for them , MARANATHA!!!

Makememad,

You sir have a lot of hate, anger and misplaced belief.

Why do gays hate the fact they cannot marry, or that the majority of Americans view their c0cksucking or snatchmunching as amoral and taboo?

Actually, the majority of Americans support equality, so obviously "the majority" does NOT "view their cocksucking or snatchmunching as amoral and taboo," as you claim.

Yet, we still think pedophiles, polygamists and other sexual perverts are taboo. What makes the gay-lesbian agenda for forced acceptance any less perverse?

You obviously have no clue about what "legal consent" means. BTW, no one gives two @!$%#s about the acceptance of bigots like you; it's all about equal treatment under the law.

Gimmee- I'm sorry you can't see this from your distorted point of view. Sexual perverts and pedophiles can't be lumped in with the gay community. When two people, straight or gay, marry...it is for love. If I have two gay friends who would like to marry, then they are two equally committed people, loving each other. So excuse me if I can't draw the comparison to a pedophile who is doing something with someone who is most definitely not equally committed to the act or is it out of "love". Your logic...well....stinks.

Everyone who disagrees with you is a 'hater'. Wow - - 'haters' are more open minded than you.

So, "stimulating" you actively agree that the thing you worship will bring about the genocide of all who do not believe what you believe.

What you are calling "christ" actually has been here in the not so distant past. His name was Adolf Hitler and he, too, attempted to bring about the annihilation of all that did not believe in everything he believed in.

If your "christ" myth is true, you can guarantee that the good and moral people of this world will treat him and deal with him in the same way we last dealt with evil of this kind when it appeared in the form of Adolf Hitler.

Interesting how you expose what it is you truly worship. Your "christ" should be very ashamed.

Mark - I am not angry, I'm fed up. There is a difference.

no shocked , hitler wasnt Christ & there are no good & moral ppl , ppl are selfish & justify their deeds . The world & all creation is Gods creation to do with as he pleases . As for how you will deal with him , your knee will bend , just like everyone elses. I WILL NOT argue with you , only a fool argues with a fool. If you wish to debate on a scientific level , we can do this , my address is my nick @yahoo.com. Please , bring facts .

What do you expect him to do? Outlaw divorce?

How about the ones that have sh*tty parents? And God knows there are a hell of a lot of those.

Fight just as hard for the first amendment as you do for the second. The freedom of religion, which also means the freedom FROM religion. The other eight are pretty important too.

Divorce is also addressed in the old testament. Divorce is allowed. It is remarrying after a divorce that is not. Even remarrying after the death of a spouse is looked down upon.

That's exactly what he would have to do, goodforgoodnesssake. If a child has the civil right to have a mom and a dad, you HAVE to outlaw divorces and anyone who is widowed must immediately remarry, because if you don't then you are violating the child's civil right to have both a mom and a dad. This, naturally, is absolutely insane. That's because children do NOT have a civil right to have a mom and a dad. I'll never understand where the heck they pull that assumption from, it's nowhere in the Constitution, caselaw, or any form of precedent

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/17852888/suburban-man-gets-35-years-for-killing-5-month-old-son

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/17838952/man-gets-45-years-for-killing-infant-son-for-crying

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/11/man-sentenced-to-80-years-for-death-of-caged-son/

Of course I am SO SURE that it is better for a Child to be Killed by his Natural Parents -- Than raised by Homosexuals, Right??

I just L O V E "Moral Superiority" ( Please read this article VERY C A R E F U L L Y ):

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-usa-church-abuse-idUSBRE90L06D20130122

Using a pride parade to define gay people is the same as using Marti gras to define straight people. It's unrepresentative.

Your comparison does not even get to the level of false equivalence.

Yet they didn't show the PFLAG marchers, those parents and friends who support their gay sons and daughters and are proud of them as well. They don't show the various support groups who help where no religious group will as in health care of AIDS patience even when they are straight. The madi gras portion of the parades is but a small portion.

So, if you get to judge all gay people based on one group with a parade, does that mean we should treat all Christians based solely on what the Westboro Baptist Church does and says?

Well said... I have yet to find a valid argument against gay marriage.

Being a gay male, I'm just sick of seeing people feud over this. Just live your own life, and stay out of other people's lives. It seems rather simple to me!

Also, if you're going by the bible, the bible mentions not eating pork, wearing cloths of different fabrics... Rape is mentioned as well... There's a lot more... A simple Google search will bring you to the hypocrisy of the bible.

Sir, You are totally entitled to your view, but I will go by these verses from GOD's word. Letiticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:27-32 and 1st Corinthians 6:9. GOD's Word can never be altered by science, research, culture, opinions or society trying to make it acceptable. Like I said it's your choice what to believe. Have a good day.

you seem obsessed with men and certain forms of sex. why is that? Do you dream every night of those "dirt roads"? lol.

OK! I am progressive and some of my good friends over the years have been gay. However, I just watched the President and First Lady dancing on stage with several members of our military and how weird would it have been if they exchanged partners and were dancing with someone of the same sex! Just wondering how far we really have come?

if you can make it relevant to this article, go for it. Otherwise there would be plenty of other, more relevant places to make your points.

What in the world are you talking about, please elaborate. You did read the article posted above, right?

Sorry, maybe you will make it through Hillary's in 2016.

Hillary in 2016??? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...............hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah............hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..............hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.............................hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! Oh boy, that tickled me! Trust me, Democrats will be out for the next decade after this mess is over with.....and they'll screw things up just as much, I'm sure.

lol, vermontGAY. Wow, you are "clever" and "mature". Well, for a 12 year old. :)

My point, however, is still valid. Plenty of great american gays, judging a group by a small number is stupid...but apparently that doesn't stop you. :)

Evidence to support your comment? Walk around Castro in San Francisco and you will find no more inappropriate behaviour than any other urban neighborhood. It gets risque on Friday nights, but so does any other urban center with a bunch of clubs.

"Skipper" thinks "vermontguy" sounds gay................. Hmmmm........

Its ok vermont. i have another girl in my profile picture. Therefore I must be gay too. The logic is astounding, isnt it?

wet ass...is the other name

Forward.... into oblivion.

wow, hard to refute that post..full of facts, logical arguments, etc. lol.

Waaaaa Waaaaa .........

wow, hard to refute that post..full of facts, logical arguments, etc. lol.

We ARE talking about Obama here.... nothing logical about him to discuss.....

Waaaaa Waaaaa .........

A PERFECT example of the level of communication skills of an Obama Zombie!!

Nicely done dave! Need a glass of water after that taxing speech?

Cry harder, bitch!

Proof that folks from "sunny so.cal" are f*ckwits.

dave-sunny so.cal

WTF are you posting about? Are you for gay rights? Against gay rights? Simply bored and up late in Mom's basement with no World of Warcraft to play? Please clarify your asinine posts so we can understand what it is you're trying to say here.

" ... We ARE talking about Obama here. ... "

Well no Brian25897.

Actually their comment, was about the comment that you made. About how " hard to refute that post..full of facts, logical arguments, etc" it is. Which is to say not hard at all. But that appears to be a concept that you can not grasp at all.

Did you even hear the "WOOSH"?

You know. The sound made when something goes over you head? Huh. I would think that you are quiet used to hearing that sound. Seeing as it must happen quiet often.

George from Wa. State is a leader as he is well know for being; Chief Ball Cum Sucker!