DOMA

Who here is in favor of same sex marriage?

Does anyone else find it interesting Bubba Clinton is back tracking on the law he signed? Or is he being a good husband to his husband?

Well you know my stance East. I'm all for it

DOMA! Me too!

No I meant I support gays getting married

There are weird similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.


Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both were shot in the back of the head in the presence of their wives.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
Lincoln was shot in the Ford Theatre. Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln, made by Ford.
Lincoln was shot in a theater and his assassin ran and hid in a warehouse. Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran
and hid in a theater.
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

Both Clinton and Obama are total phonies on this issue. Of course, few people will bring that up here. After all, they do still have a (D) after their names, right? What has happened between the time Clinton signed it into law and now? Did he "evolve" on this issue like Obama? You gotta love how the timing is always just so.

Anyway, it looks like the court may do away with at least some of the law. California voters, after voting on this issue twice, may have their will negated by the courts. Fortunately, I don't live there. I saw a map on the cover a newspaper the other day and the states that allow this absurdity are still relatively few, thank God.

Again your opinion ivy. A good philosophy to have in life is 1. Love and 2. Live and let live. You seem to have a hard time doing both. My personal belief: I do not give a fuck if gays get married. Because it doesn't affect me in the slightest. Good day

I got no problem with gay people getting married, if they want to do it, let them. As long as they don't go brainwashing the society so they become gay also, till then it doesn't matter to me at all.

As I've pointed out before, how this country wants to define marriage was decided over a century ago when polygamy was outlawed. Since then, where was all the moral outrage by those now in favor of gay marriage? Back then, these were people who were actually being denied their rights, according to the Constitution. But not a peep from anyone, even though the same arguments you've used could be used there, PLUS the freedom of religion. But now, since it's gay marriage, redefining the marital institution it is apparently OK.

Bubba's backtracking on his greatest failure as President because 2016 Hillary could very well run again, and with the shifting public attitudes on Gay Rights, the Clintons can't have that shit without disowning it now.

(Always despised DOMA, which Clinton signed because he was a pussy and afraid of losing re-election. As a result the Federal government with DOMA created second class citizenship, a "morality quarantine" that violated a core Constitutional principle of federalism. It's remarkable how conservatives have no qualms with big government when it comes to their aid. Irony of course was if the right-wing had supported civil unions, they wouldn't be losing the public war on gay rights like they are now.)

As for Obama, he's not a phoney at all. Pure ignorance to believe this otherwise. Sure in '08 he was "against" it, but he was for it previously as a State Senator. (So his views were "re-evolving" lol.) His method is leading from behind, one step behind public opinion, continually trying to prod it towards his goals. And it's paid off.

Once he got into the Oval Office, he had his administration not even bother to defend DOMA in federal court when the lawsuits came up against it. His Republican Secretary of Defense Robert Gates used those lawsuits to argue for repealing the stupid as hell "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military. Then becoming the first President publicly pro-SSM in an election year, he put the entire Democratic Party platform and machinery behind it forwards. He won re-election, and that stance apparently didn't cost him a single vote. It's now a popular, opportunistic cause.

DOMA is a tarnished legacy for Clinton, much like FDR interning ethnic minorities (mostly Japanese-Americans) during WW2. No matter how much bullshit polish one can try to put on it, the stain won't come out. And Bubba knows something about stains.



How would they do that anyway? People who "become" gay usually are homosexual in the first place.

Is there any connection to the guy sitting in front of Pee Wee Herman? That guy was also shot in the head! One would guess he had a family too Dapper! You big politicians always forget the little people!

the idea that the government is even involved in this in the first place is a symptom of a much bigger problem. this should be a church issue, period. if the church in question doesn't recognize same sex marriage, tough shit, find or start a religion that does. i could care less though if someone wants to marry the same sex, or if they want to have multiple wives, makes no difference to me. after all, even if married couples aren't having sex, they are still fucking each other over.

Did I miss something? Is "evolving" the new phrase for politics or phrase for "getting votes". Ask Ivy, the Good Book talks about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

You wanna give me a good reason why gays shouldn't be married? Other than the bible which you cannot prove came from god or for "procreation" in which gays can adopt the millions of children that are currently in orphanages. There's a video about a young man from Iowa about my age maybe younger, who was raised in by two women. He argues in a court against striking down Iowas law that allows gays to marry. I'll post the link

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

Enjoy people

Yes, ok let's say there is no Bible, we throw that out as our moral compass. Lets to with the Big Bang and Science, why do we have different parts? It goes against all the laws of nature. Joe you know me a long time, I've never bashed gays. I just don't feel they should marry legally. I'm not going to get into a nasty debate with you, nor will you change my position. Lets just say I find it appalling I have to explain to my children how men are marrying men and women marry women. When you have one of those conversations Jke then let's revisit the issue.

Joe, if you listen to anything I tell you let it be this. When you have to discuss issues and topics with your children your positions will change. There are so many issues I never even thought of until I had kids.

Quote: RonnieRocketAGO "His method is leading from behind, one step behind public opinion, continually trying to prod it towards his goals. And it's paid off."


That's just what the country needs, a President that leads from behind! What a joke! So your saying he focuses on opinion polls and decides from there? Why would we want a President that is looking ahead and focusing on the future instead of this shit policy on laying in the weeds, watching the public opinion pulse then deciding. These guys are suppose to be out front leading Ronnie! If your telling me "smart politics is better than smart decisions" for out country your more clueless than I thought!

East I would never tell you how to raise your kids. But I can tell you how I'd raise mine. What's the definition of a moral compass? Discriminating against a group of people based on sexual orientation or supporting their right to be happy? They can't help being gay. People have been gay for thousands of years this isn't some new phenomenon. What's natural is love not the basis for a "moral society" in the 1950s. When I have kids, I'll tell them what my dad told me. "its okay to be gay, there is nothing wrong with it, simply the way people are. And if you were ever gay and told me outright you would not lose my love or care as a father"

Joe, when did I ever bash gays? When did I discriminate against them? Saying they should not be married is another issue all together. As for the kids, trust me its a difficult conversation. My wife does a great job, I get the secondery questions. However, I do tell them men and women belong with one another, PERIOD. They have an aunt who likes women, sucks because I like the women she likes! There those Manhatten I want to experiment girls!

Back to the topic, our world is changing so fast, you can't expect everyone to "evolve" as quickly or at all. That's another sad situation we have. People who won't change thier core values are sing attacked! Shall people be attacked for evolving? Should I say you don't stand your ground and don't stick to what you believe in? Bill Clinton back tracking on his own DOMA law is a perfect example!

I don't know how they would do it. But apparently nowdays you got all these religion groups that brainwash you to give them all your belongings.
People are different on this world, just as Hitler wanted only Aryans as the supreme nation, Alexander The Great wanted to mix all the ethnicities to make one large united one.

East, I DO have children, and I didn't find it awkward at all to have that conversation. Kids are far more perceptive and accepting than you think. The only things they don't accept are the things they are taught to think of as unacceptable.

How old are you children? Sicilian Babe, I'm going to say this as polite as possible. However I'm going to be candid. I have children, not young adults such as yourself! Also I've heard your opinion on many matters relating to race, I will say living in suburbia gives you little perspective on the plight of the inner city or minorities. And to insinuate I've taught my children homosexuality is wrong is another one of your over opinionated comments! NOT ONCE DID I STATE I HAD A PROBLEM WITH HOMOSEXUALITY! I said it was a tough conversation! That's all I've said! I've gone out of my way to state I have zero issue with them'!

If you find the conversation awkward, then you obviously do have a problem with it on some level. If you think that isn't telegraphed in some way, shape or form, then you're wrong.

As for my "young adults", do you think they were born that way? They weren't always adults. As for suburbia, I didn't grow up here, either. I grew in the Bronx and moved to suburbia as a young adult, so I know exactly what the inner city is.

Perhaps YOU have pre-established opinions.

I thought you meant you currently live in Serbia

I understand your children were not born young adults, however with gay marriage the hot topic of the day it's a more discussed today. Since they are young adults and gay marriage is the news of the day it's highly doubtful there was a need to discuss it several years ago! For the most part people making that decision were still in the closet.


As for when you moved, leaving the Bronx 40 years ago hardly qualifies you as being in touch with today's problems!

If you have two consenting adults who love each other and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It astounds me that there are still people out there who are so backwards in their thinking that they believe people should be treated as second-class citizens based on their being homosexual. This shouldn't even be a debate.

I concur although an individiual's concerns should be recognized and not automatically consigned to a function of prejudice. I also concur with Babe's post above.

Married couples get tax deductions, and tax deductions means less revenue for the government. Not exactly a great idea when there is a massive growing debt and a flailing economy.

From a utilitarian point of view, tax breaks for hetero-couples is good because they may produce children who contribute to the future labor force. Biologically, gay couples cannot produce offspring. Giving tax breaks to people who sodomize each other makes no sense from an economic view and is just another indicator of the decline of this nation.

Because you can't get married you considered second class? I had to wait a few years to marry my wife because we couldn't afford a wedding were we second class during that time frame? And stop with the prejudice of discrimination BS. That's an easy way to get around a intelligent discussion, people use those phrases to try and scare others into staring there opinions!

Not married, dont have any kids. So just me personally, i dont give a shit. Just dont shove it in my face and im fine with it. Cant speak from a parents point of veiw tho. But wouldnt want my kids being gay, or around any honestly. I dont consider myself discriminate, but i guess i am a little bit.

Though I know you'll ignore them all, several excellent arguments against gay marriage are made in the two articles below.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765625644/Too-much-at-stake-in-debate.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344221/why-were-losing-gay-marriage-debate-mona-charen

I'm not ignoring you IVY! Like the articles! And to be truthful, you know what I find aggravating more than anything. Why all the fuss over Gay marriage? Why do these people love to prance in our faces! Does being married change a relationship that much? Actually it's done in front of God, your taking an oath to him and with your husband or wife! And we know what the big guy thinks of homosexuality Ivy! All these Gay couples will have nice tans in the afterlife!

Pure propaganda.

Just and FYI, speaking of the Constitution here's a little education regarding God and our Constitution!


http://m.timesrecordnews.com/news/2012/aug/04/just-where-does-the-constitution-mention-god/

God and religion should have no place in policy making, plain and simple.

Then move to an atheist country! You want to quote the Constitution when you thought it suited you? Now you see it was based by and written upon God's words and beliefs you turn your back on it? Nice!

It was also written almost 240 years ago, during a time when secularism was frowned upon. A civil right is a civil right, and marriage is a civil right.

I think this is the real issue:

Yeah, throw a cartoon in as an argument piece! I didn't even read the stupid fucking thing. Using your incorrect propaganda didn't work so try a cartoon!

And as far as how long ago it was written I could give a shit less, like I said you'll use it when it suits you(or think it does) then turn your back on it when it doesnt?

Ah, the "two consenting adults" line. The stock-in-trade argument of the secular left to excuse just about anything under the sun.

If we want to talk about history, for thousands of years, marriage has always been understood to be between men and women; largely involving the creation of the family unit of father, mother, and children. The very building block of society. Don't give me this "two consenting adults" crap.



Says who?



Since when was marriage a civil right? People just automatically attribute to themselves certain "civil rights;" God only knows where these come from. Gays have no "civil rights" to have their so called "marriages" recognized and legitimized by society.

Use it when it suits me?

If the Constitution was perfect, it wouldn't have been amended so many times. There are certainly parts of the Constitution that suit me just fine, and parts of it that don't. Go ahead and crucify me (okay, bad choice of words, considering it's Good Friday).

Not crucifying you at all. Just don't quote the text as how you live then turn and run when it's a lost argument! And speaking of Good Friday the house of The Lord only observes a Man and a Woman. Homosexuality is a sin! King Solomon was covering all his bases!

There's actually been relatively few over the years.

Of course, twisting and manipulating the Constitution through activist judges, has always been part of the liberal game. If they have it their way, eventually the Constitution will be unrecognizable.

I'm no Biblical scholar, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, the only unforgivable sin is not accepting Christ as your Lord and savior. So suppose a homosexual accepts Jesus as his/her Lord and savior, and does his/her best to refrain from gay/lesbian behavior, would they be accepted into Heaven?

And if that is the case, then it confirms one of my biggest issues with religion. I have nothing against people who have faith in a higher power, but I take issue when a person of faith tells me or someone else that I'm going to Hell unless I conform to a certain prototype.

Pardon me if I'm going off topic, but despite my lack of beliefs, I am fascinated by this stuff.

This is Ivy territory! I'm not as well versed in the Bible! I just know what our Priest has stated regarding the issue!

I really can't understand why people can't mind there own lives and always have to bring in religion as there proof that it's not right. The bible was written by men centuries ago, and been changed over time. During the Roman/Greek times nobody was judged having relationships with the same sex.

It just doesn't make sense to stop people from living there own lives because either you don't understand or afraid of them. How would you like it if you can't marry somebody because they have a different religion than you, a different society class, or race? Marriage has evolved over time for the better.

Actually you don't know what the big man thinks about homosexuality if he exists at all. No one can prove anything east. It's all faith, you either have it or you don't. I don't and I'm not burning in hell for it and neither are gays, to condemn them for something they have no control over is wrong plain and simple

East, don't give me that "you left the Bronx" crap, like I don't know what I'm talking about, although I loved Nicky's comment about Serbia! As for the age of my children, how is the conversation about same sex marriage different from a conversation about homosexuality itself. The fact that Aunt Susie and Aunt Joan are a couple, married or not, is the conversation that you may have trouble with, not whether Susie and Joan can marry. To a child, that's irrelevant. How would you explain any couple living together that isn't married?

I do believe that no Church, if it's doctrine states that homosexuality is a sin, should suddenly conduct same sex marriage. However, the Bill of Rights recognizes that we are ALL created equal and that we are guaranteed the right to live a life of liberty and one in the pursuit of happiness. That means that the rights granted to one must be granted to all. If I have the right to marry, then my gay neighbor should also be granted that right. The same 14th amendment that protects me protects all and makes sure that we are all equal under the law. If we're all equal, then why can't everyone marry??

Well, the good news is, it seems DOMA is going down. Good riddance.

Well, you're going to get at least slightly different answers, depending on who you ask.

My response is that what is known as the unpardonable sin is denying the Holy Spirit. This basically involves turning from the truth, rejecting Christ and "crucifying Him afresh," once you know with certainty that He lives. It's nothing less than willful and open rebellion against God, while having a perfect knowledge that you're doing so. Those who have sunk to this level would ascent to the crucifixion of the Lord all over again. It's the sin of Lucifer and his followers, who were cast out of Heaven. Since then, they've been known as the "Sons of Perdition."

It's important to note that it's virtually impossible for the "rank and file" believers to commit this sin, to say nothing of non-believers, because few have come to this level of knowledge. And this only comes to a relatively select few who, during their lives, live worthy to obtain what is known as the "Second Comforter." The Holy Ghost is the "First Comforter." The Second Comforter is nothing less then Jesus Christ, Himself, appearing to a person and the Holy Spirit witnessing to them that Christ indeed lives and is the Son of God. Once this happens, that person now has a perfect knowledge and is no longer going by faith alone.

To answer your question, gay people have the same opportunity to "get to Heaven" as anyone else. And that's by obeying all the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. This would obviously include accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior, as well as abstaining from homosexual behavior. Jesus said, "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life, and few there be that find it." He asks all of us to conform to His prototype. He has prepared the way to return to Him and His Father but it has to be His way.

As for "going to Hell," my understanding of all that may be quite different than many Christians. The idea of sinners being sent to some fiery pit to suffer for all time is not consistent with a loving Heavenly Father. There certainly is a Hell, and unrepentant sinners certainly will visit it, but only until their debt is paid. They will have to suffer the "buffetings of Satan" but all except the Sons of Perdition will eventually be redeemed through repentance (made possible by the Atonement of Christ). Now, this doesn't necessarily mean they will enter Heaven in terms of where God resides. But they will inherit a kingdom of some level glory, though they have no obtained the fullness of what they could have, and have their eternal progression blocked. This is what is actually meant by the oft-used term "damned." Their eternal progression is damned.

The writings of the Apostle Paul were during those times and he expressly teaches against homosexual behavior. Other prophets did the same in Old Testament times.

It has nothing to do with "not understanding" or being "afraid" of gay people. Again, this isn't so much about gays as about marriage and it being radically redefined. And, no, it hasn't "evolved" over time. It's existed, more or less the same way, for centuries. Only in recent times have some people wanted to change it.



You make the same mistake many do by assuming that, because you don't know what the "big man" thinks, nobody does. And there certainly is proof of God's existence. But it doesn't come in the way you would want.



Yes, we - as individuals - are all created equal. But that doesn't mean every relationship people enter into is equal or deserving of the same recognition, rights, or protections.



The good news is that, even if some or even all of DOMA is "going down," the Supreme Court will leave it up to the states; which I'm perfectly fine with. Californians may be screwed but, fortunately, most of the rest of the country has banned gay marriage.

Don't worry, the next case will come sooner than you think. It doesn't make sense that once a gay couple move to another state, they lose their rights. To me, those who are prejudiced against other people having the same rights as they have are screwed up, not the Californians for wanting to recognize gay marriage. To say that the most of states are against gay marriage has no actual foundation. 58% of country is for living and let living when it comes to gay marriage. The rest of xenophobes will surely have to bend to the new laws of the land, as their ancestors did when the slavery was abolished.

Not according to the good book Joe! And since I do have faith and I believe in its laws and teachings its going to get interesting on the other side!

There's a difference between "equal" and functions and titles. Equal in this sense is in regards to standards, treatment and quality of life. Equal doesn't in this sense doesn't qualify everyone to play the same sex! Laws of nature

And Sicilian Babe, it's ok you left the Bronx over 40 years ago, nothing wrong with leaving before it crumbled. My point was it would be impossible to understand how life is there! And now having little or no contact with minorities or other people suffering typical inner city problems it would be nearly impossible for you to empathize with them. What's scary is the passion you convey to prove that you do. It's like all these politicians who make decisions for these areas and haven't walked the streets the represent in years. Same mindset, were here to help, were here to pretend we know how you feel, where here to run like hell when the street lights turn on(if they do, if there there)

Some of you are ignoring the two major provisions of DOMA which affect relationship advantages and full faith and credit. I expect the Court to use the equal protection provision of the 14th amendment on which to base its opinion that federal spousal benefits should be available to same sex couples. However, I predict that it will abide the public policy exception to Article IV's full faith and credit provision.

In the Pery case, I think Scotus will leave the 9th circuit court's decision in place perhaps because the plaintiff's lacked standing.

Oli, how much of this "their just doing it for the benefits" is valid do you think? I find that argument to be a stretch?

Ivy I'm literally laughing, one by one states will approve gay marriage and life will go on. It's inevitable, so you may as well move to Saudi Arabia or something because this country will continue to grow in favor of gay marriage. Ivy I went to school in Massachusetts my entire life and I was 15 when they approved it. Since that time everything's been fine, no ones turning gay, family isn't threatened, and life goes on. In my high school NO ONE gave two shits about people who were gay. What the fuck is the point? We have better things to worry about in life than worrying about a god who may or may not exist and whether or not it approves homosexuality. Morals dont come from god they come from common sense and the evolved human brain. And I'll tell you one thing it makes my day when I see two men or women holding hands without fear of being discriminated against by prejudiced people or religious fanatics.

Saying that homosexuality is against God's will and a sin is the most idiotic thing ever.

Ahmen to that (no pun intended )

I concur with Paul Hogarth's analysis. The Court may take into account that because several states have recognized gay marriage, the denial of federal benefits to those states' spouses denies them equal protection.

East, don't pretend to know me or my life or what I think. I did NOT leave the Bronx over 40 years ago, it was much less than that. Second, I'm not a housewife. I'm a marketing professional who works for a national non-profit, but I also happen to be married, live in suburbia, own a home and have children, so that might be why you're confused.

You're the one who is screaming and writing in caps, not me, so really? Shut up. Also, God doesn't say homosexuality is a sin, the bible does, which was written by men. Incidentally, it also says that you can stone your brother for planting two different crops side by side, that you can sell your daughter into slavery and that you can put to death someone who works on the Sabbath. Better show up with a flamethrower at that convenience store you mentioned in another post if they're open on Sunday!

Don't ever think you know me, my life, my experiences, or try to engage me in a debate. You're far too short of ammunition.

Whats for supper

I would never pretend to know you nor spend the time trying to figure you out. I used caps a few times. However it's done in the same manner as your tone when your spewing your angry views! As for the disgusting woman buying cigarettes using a food stamp card yeah a bomb would do for profit tax paying workers a favor.

As far as ammunition, relax lady. You and your axe you seem to enjoy grinding are enough! Get of your soap box and high horse for a change and you'll see what's really going on in the world!

East, I'm beginning to think that you're related to Kim Jong Un: I recommend that you tone down your posts. Babe is one of the longest tenured and most respected members of this Board. On the other hand, your relatively short tenure combined with the vituperation of many of your posts does not favor respect.

The posting of views on this Board can be simply an effort to assuage feelings. However, many of us post to acquire and to convey information in aproductive manner.

Not Korean! I'm more of a Stalin guy myself! And to be candid and don't care how long anyone has been posting. It doesn't make their views correct, not does it give them a pass to shit on someone. I'm tired of hearing how long someone has been a memeber and somehow that makes them smarter or opinions more valid.

And read the thread not just my post. Those who want respect give respect! The rest is all just bullshit trying to gain favor.

You seem incapable of posting a response that doesn't degenerate into the personal. Please read what I've written about the 14th Amendment and the Bible and respond with a coherent and logical argument. That's how you get respect, not going to a personal attack that makes no sense. What does when I left the Bronx, what I do for a living, my brand of dishwashing liquid or how often I interact with inner-city minorities have to do with my views on gay marriage? That is what this thread is about, isn't it? The personal views of different people on gay marriage? In a thread that you started about that particular subject?

All this social rhetoric is a means to distract from the real issue, which is the fact that our government is in severe debt, and has shown no ability or interest in paying it down. If an individual can balance a fuckin budget, why can't our reps? Its pathetic, get over the social bullshit and focus on the real problem. WE ARE BROKE.

Both of you are living in denial. Or at least going on wishful thinking. Where do you get the idea that more people in this country are for gay marriage than against it? Heck, the whole reason the Supreme Court is hearing the DOMA case right now is because supporters of gay marriage know they can't win the day in most states.



Why is that?

The people of the state of California, the most liberal fricking state in the country voted for a state amendment to say thatmarriage is between 1 man and 1 women.

Ivy you're the one in denial. Over half this country supports gay marriage, the conservative nutjob base of this country is dying out and more and more Americans are realizing that gay marriage is not something to get up in arms about. This whole degeneration of society thing you're on about is a figment of your imagination

How can one person decide what God loves or doesn't love? I'm an atheist, no disrespect to the people who believe in God. But putting in God there just because you're afraid of what's different isn't the right thing to do. It's the same thing as KKK years ago, deciding that it's God's will to eliminate Afro-Americans.

I got no problem with homosexuals marrying each other, if they want to do it, they can do it. It doesn't change anything, neither does it affect me or anyone else. They'll still be gay even if you disallow them to marry each other or to raise children.

And if you ask me, I'd better be seeing some child to be raised by homosexuals than rotting in the child shelters or to be raised by parents who are alcoholics or crack addicts.

Again, what are you basing this on? Liberal propaganda and polls? No less than 35 states (that's 70% of them) have banned gay marriage. Now, obviously some of the more populous, liberal states have or will legalize it. But, even then, I'm not sure it would be enough to say more of the population is in favor of it then is against it.

And the decline of society is no figment of my imagination. As younger people have become more accepting of homosexuality, they've also become less religious and more agnostic or atheist. That's not a coincidence. Now, I'm sure some here would totally welcome that; misguided as they are. They long for the world ol' John Lennon sung about in "Imagine." But it's a recipe for disaster.



People know what God approves of and disapproves of because it's taught in the scriptures. It's just certain people choose not to believe those scriptures. Of course, when you get into it with these people, they don't understand the scriptures as well as they may think and most haven't even read them.

And it's telling how gay marriage supporters have to keep using arguments about the rest of us "not understanding gays," "being afraid of gays," or "hating gays." I think most of them know these are just lazy, dishonest talking points. Speaking for myself, none of the above applies to me. Although I don't agree with their lifestyle, want gays to live well and be happy. But that should not extend to two men or two women being recognized or sanctioned by society.

what is gods favorite food? what is his favorite football team? what kind of music does he listen to? what kind of jeans does he like? i ask these questions because so many here seem to apparantly know him on a personal basis as seen by their unshakable knowledge as to what gods position on homosexuality is based on nothing more than some silly interpretaion of a fairytail written by man. organized religon makes me sick, its nothing more than an outdated sham in my opinion. if you are able to better live your life as a result of your faith, +1 for you but please stop trying to preach what is right and wrong to me, and for those of you offended by my position, remember that the same freedom that allows you to believe in this stuff also allows me to let you know how ridiculous it sounds to me.

look at all of the problem that religon has brought the world. i would say that other than maybe money, religon is responsible for more death and hatered than anything else. the crudsades, hitlers exterminations, the troubles in ireland, the jewish/muslim conflicts, the muslim/western conflicts, the muslim/hindu conflicts, and the rampant sexual abuse/coverups by the catholic church, just to name a few. my point isn't to go off on some athiest tangant, but more to point out that if the history of organized religon was spotless, i might at least give some credability to those who claim that being gay is a sin, but that is far from the case.

our country is in the mist of economic turmoil, and the fact that this is even an issue says alot. in closing, let people do what they want, as the pursuit of happiness is what makes our country great. if 2 guys wants to have the silly title of "married" and that makes you uncomfortable, maybe its you who has the problem and are not fit to live in a truly free society, not just a free society under your own criteria.

Whats the difference between me trying to impart my religous values on you and you trying to impart your liberal theology on me? End of the day, it should be a state issue. If a state wants to make it 1man 1 women that should be fine, and if another wants to say two people of the same sex can get married then thats fine too.

As of December 2012, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland and Washington are the only U.S. states to allow same-sex marriage. The District of Columbia also allows same-sex marriages.

Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted. Of these, ten make only same-sex marriage unconstitutional, seventeen make both same-sex marriage and civil unions unconstitutional, two make same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other contracts unconstitutional, and one is unique.

Let me blow up your bubble. Religion was made by people to control other people.

As to the graphs above, the idea here is "projected support," i.e. wishful/hopeful thinking on the part of gay marriage supporters. As just one example, if anyone thinks a majority of people in Utah will be in favor of gay marriage by 2020, they're smoking something.



This is a good example of what I'm talking about. The scriptures are just a "fairy tale written by man?" I'd be willing to bet that you've never even read the scriptures. Certainly not in depth. I'd be willing to bet what you know about them comes almost completely from the talking points against them you've heard from other people.

And the claim that religion is responsible for more deaths than just about anything is an old lie from the atheist crowd. If you look at the costliest wars and conflicts through history, in terms of human life, it was over politics and not religion.

Completely agree FF and PolakVet. Religion was made because the human species couldn't possibly accept the notion that we came to be on this earth by a natural process. It has been used to manipulate millions in the past and present. Now I also concur that if one can use religion to better their lives, good for them, and I applaud them. But can we stop with this stupid idea that all of our morals come from religion and the bible?

Bible was written by man at a time when we were ten fucking hairs away from being baboons. We didn't know our own shit from cornmeal. Separation of Church and State exists for a reason. I'm sick of morons like Rick Perry, who suggest that creationism should be taught in schools, that's more detrimental to society than homosexuality ever will be. And as for the pledge of allegence, I'm in favor of doing away with the verse 'under god'. Since when does god favor us over anyone else? We aren't a strictly Christian nation, our values and constitution have nothing to do with organized religion. I value my own head and ability to think for myself. The only things I answer to are the law and my boss at work.

Lastly on gay marriage. Ivy you must be seriously isolated or something. Come to Massachusetts, see what it's like, visit some schools and some gay and straight couples and families. Literally no one cares about gay people and if they're married, and if you do it's weird. It hasn't affected 'society' at all. This great decline you see doesn't exist. It's simply tolerance from a generation that has a better understanding of homosexuality and doesn't need a church to do good in this world. Quite frankly, it's better. The more the United States accepts gays and their right to be happy and marry under the 14th amendment the better.

You refuse to look at the polls and have the nerve to say we are in denial? Troll all you want. Gay marriage is here.

Wait a minute, who is making you gay marry? It should be a personal issue and that's what this fight is about. You can't tell someone don't gay marry because I don't, just as they wouldn't be telling you to gay marry because they do.

Totally agree.




Yeah wait a minute. It's not so simple when the issue spills into other areas of life. What about adoptive agencies who refuse gay couple candidates because it violates their personal beliefs? Isn't someone telling them what to do?

Ivy, it amazes me that anything that athiests/agnostics/humanists/etc have to say regarding gay marriage, or anything that you happen to disagree it...it's all liberal/athiest propaganda. Facts are propaganda. Science is propaganda. Anything and everything that doesn't gel with your belief system...it is ALL propaganda. You are an elitist, delusional idiot, and represent everything that is wrong with religion.

Go ahead and suspend me, mods, but it needed to be said.

It's again very simple. If they are a private organizations, they have a right to be as selective as they want. If they are a public organization, they would have to keep their beliefs out of their system. The same code of separation of religion from government applies to them. But I surely don't think if my bigoted aunt Sally wants to give her kid up for adoption, she has to be open minded about a gay couple. She can give it away to whomever she chooses.

I'm not sure what facts or science you're referring to but your opinion on the subject simply comes from ignorance. And the inherent problem of ignorance is that you don't know what you don't know. Religion has always been unpalatable to those whose lives are thoroughly steeped in philosophical conjecture.

You say you are not sure what he refers to, yet you call him ignorant? Who is ignorant then? You don't know, you are not sure, then you are the ignorant party here.

On the religious aspect of things, I'm hoping you always stick around, you are a gem of what religion does to the way people think if they dive deep into it.

I'm against it. It has an effect on children. It's abnormal. The arguments for it, such as any 2 people in love should be able to marry can be used to support incest
too. Letting them adopt children is disgusting to me, and that is another problem which people are forgetting or ignoring.

I don't know because he didn't specify and I'm not a mind reader.



Exactly. To say it's OK for gays to raise kids is saying there's no important difference in men and women. It's saying whether a child is raised by a mother and father, or two men or two women, isn't important. This is a crucial point that goes unnoticed in all this - the secular, liberal agenda to blur the differences between men and women. It's not just a lie, it's evil.

Yet you are sure that it comes from ignorance though, even when you are not a mind reader.

It's not set in stone that every child should be raised by a man and a woman. Many a time one or both parents die. Moreover, there are plenty of straight couples that are really not fit to raise their own children. Just because you feel icky, doesn't mean it should be unlawful.

A baby/Child needs a mothers love/bond..

It's different for everyone. Psychologically girls are more drawn to their fathers, boys to their mothers. But it's sexist to say fathers can't be as attentive as mothers or vice versa. It's different for everyone. Laws cannot be made based on how majority acts. It should also consider the right of the minorities, in other words, the right of men who feel maternal toward their children.

Well no one really knows why the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenge to proposition 8 and the DOMA case. We won't know for sure for years. But the available evidence suggests that the four most conservative justices decided to hear the Prop 8 case while the DOMA case was probably going to be heard no matter what as two lower courts had invalidated it.



Ask Scalia

Would someone explain this to me in layman terms? Also how they decide who writes the majority opinion?

If the Chief Justice is in the majority then he writes the majority opinion.
Otherwise the most senior member of the Court, who's in the majority, either writes the opinion or assigns it.

Perhaps an actual legal expert can answer your second question but my understanding is that based on the below quote is that if you already voted not to hear the case but the case is being heard you really should try to at least examine the merits and not just continue to say that the case shouldn't have been heard.

It is certainly the case that in Romans, Paul makes statements that could be construed as dismissive of homosexuality. But he also makes statements condemning depictions of God and Jesus, fornication, gossip, disobedience to parents, etc, and says that all these things are worthy of death. He does not say that any are worse than others.

But in the very next chapter he repeatedly says that man is not to judge and that this is only God's duty, not man's.

Of course this was the same Paul who said that women should be silent in church and only raise questions at home and yet in other passages spoke with pride of women church workers and leaders.

So...it's probably best that The Bible not serve as the reason for secular law. We have separation of church and state and that's a good thing. People who are anti-gay marriage will have to find non-religious reasons to convince people.

Thanks, I think I get it. They are trying to be more effective than the congress I suppose and not be mocked by constantly keeping away the cases they don't like.

You said "the most senior member," and suddenly I thought why then Robert gets to be the chief justice, seeming he is the youngest of them all. Apparently once a chief justice is retired, the sitting president appoints someone and it has nothing to do with seniority(age).

What are you an idiot? That has to be the most ignorant and prejudiced statement I've heard in awhile, and that counts all that ivy says on this subject. You really think a child can't be raised by two men or two women? There are people among us today who were raised by gay couples and turned out fine. You want an example? Zach wahls, a young man raised by two lesbians. Just look him up you'll see what I'm talking about.

Honestly there are heterosexual couples out there that should NOT have children at all. Not to say straight parents can't raise kids quite the opposite. But there's no reason not to give gays that chance. I know 4 people who were raised by lesbian couples and they are wonderful, productive people. If you think that gays can't or shouldn't adopt or to use Ivys moronic words "evil" you really need to double check your head for a tumor.

Family is about love and care, it's not about who raises a child, but what kind of parental guidance it receives. And gay couples can do that just as well as straight ones

Just because soem straight couples are unfit does not mean children should be turned over to homosexuals. It's wrong, always has been, always should be. Just because they organized politically and got media support does not make it right. They are abnormal. I don't claim Bible told me either, it's obviously abnormal and wrong. I don;t think most even want to marry, they are doing it to force acceptance of their sex life on people.

Jace that's bigotry at its worst. I know kids who were raised by gay couples and are straight, so before you say shit like that, think before you open your big fat mouth. You have no idea what you're talking about. So quit while you're ahead because what you're saying has no basis, fact or logic

I concur. Jace, your words represent a primitive thought process, both academically and emotionally.

Wow! Abnormal in what way? I mean did your parents share their sex life with you, and since it was straight, it was okay? Goodness gracious! It's abnormal in the same way some people are left handed. They surely won't make their children be left handed. But they are abnormal, since most people are right handed, and that's the norm, meaning that's what majority of people are. Doesn't make them any less of a parent. It's irrelevant. Parents keep their sex lives out of their children's lives. In fact, having a left handed parent might even affect children more.

Science does not have an understanding or firm grip on morality (right or wrong).

Questions of morality are answered by 1) philosophy or 2) religion. What makes your philosophy better than anyone else's, logically speaking?

Though this was not directed at me, I'd like to answer this as well.

My philosophy is that in order to decide each matter, I should have an open discussion about that issue. Common sense tells me that in order for me to be happy, I should try so that everyone else be happy as well. My happiness doesn't have to come at cost of others. Now, if someone's desires and actions doesn't harm me or others, then I'm not sure how someone could possibly be against what they want. Claiming It's icky, it's condemned in the some fairy tale scripture, it's abnormal, or it's going to hurt children raised by homosexuals, which by the way have no actual foundation is not a reason that their marriage is harmful to me or to others. That's why I feel my morals in this matter are sound.

I might have stated it better, but probably not.

Thank the almighty Zeus you posted that Dapper, especially the one on Reagan. Religion has no place whatsoever in government

Wow, there sure is a lot of name calling going on in here. That always shows signs of a weak position.

Answer this, oh smart ones. If Gay union is so right then how about the man who wants to take several wives, why would that be so wrong.

How about close family members bonded together if they want...

and why is it right for a single person to pay more taxes then a couple? Shouldn't everyone pay their fair share then. Why should they pay more.
Come on...let us take that ride down that slippery slope ....

Very true.

I'm tired of what the board is becoming... a place for uncivil verbal diarrhea.

I thought it was strange that it went on so long...but then again it is a holiday weekend and so many are away. Looks like SC just got home-

I'm beginning to realize this may be a futile endeavor. Explaining, what should be obvious, to these people is something like trying to explain the color blue to someone who's been blind since birth. They just don't get it. It's common sense but it doesn't fit the political/social paradigm they've created for themselves. Or, to be more precise, what has been created for them by the secular left in politics, media, education, etc. They've all bought in so much to the unisex lie by the left, that argues there's no real difference between men and women, that they see no importance in a child being raised by a mother and father. Or the unique natural traits each bring.

I'm going to put this more politely than I previously have Ivy. What's obvious to you is not to others because it's OPINION. Now I personally don't believe what you believe, but does that make it a unisex lie caused by liberal propaganda? It most certainly does not.

You believe in what you want, but I would ask you not to get on your high horse like you know better than everyone else. I've acknowledged on this issue a whole lot of us won't see eye to eye, but for the sake of being civil please hold off on blasting everyone that doesn't agree with your political, religious and social views.

Joe, I'm going to admit I'm probably the worst culprit here when it comes to insults. However I feel you know me a little more than just the board! With that said I'm not condoning my, yours or anyone else's behavior! What I will say is if you take our private conversations where we have has regarding this type topic where we have shared each others opinions and agreed to disagree you'll be much better off than turning into a grumpy old man like myself! I think you'll admit we have spoken like gentleman to each other about this and many other social issues and have never resorted to my typical board nastiness! And we still both got our points across. As for Ivy I appreciate his knowledge of religion, politics and many other issues of the day. I generally agree with him(excluding Fat Tony Salerno being the best mobster of all time and boss)! Ivy has the Theologian view points that I can relate too, I can however relate to your opinions seeing you pull from more of an emotional side of things in lieu of scripture. And truthfully who fucking knows who is right and who is wrong! My point, stay out of the mud and don't become old and grumpy fighting battles that you in your heart believe in online! It's rare your going to change someone's opinion and you'll only get older faster doing it! As for me, I'll always say its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve and time for another drink! And maybe I'll even try a Cape Cod! Vodka sounds good on our Lords day and I'm out of wine!

No, it is not bigotry at all. You just don't have an intelligent response, so you resort to name calling and insults. You're a jerk.

It is not like being left handed. It is not like being near sighted, bow legged, or having a stutter. It's abnormal sex, and while not evil or dangerous it is sick enough to prevent adoption, and pushing selves into places like armed forces and boy scouts.

My response was more intelligent than what you were saying in the first place. Have you ever met a gay couple or anyone raised by a gay couple? If you did I don't think you'd be so hasty in your judgement. I apologize if my response wasn't civil, but you have to understand what you say on this subject is offensive and not at all what you think it is.

A 2004 report from The American College of Pediatrics:

"Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts...
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science."

Something ignored by media regarding major sex scandals like the church coverup and Sandusky case is that it was not just pedophilia, but gay pedophilia. Media leaves out "homosexual" from its reports, and just calls it "pedophilia." There is a trend, gays are prone to going after kids than straight people.

That's from 2004 when information on gays and children was shady at best. It's nine years later in 2013, I know people who were raised by gay couples and they aren't sexually confused at all. This notion that a child raised by a homosexual couple makes a child gay or confused is pure nonsense. Also last time I checked, gays aren't any more suicidal than straight people.

Frankly, I've nothing against all of these marriages as long as parties to these marriages are consenting adults.

I suppose less tax for married people is a marriage incentive. That's only one of the marriage perks though, I'd say inheritance tax would be a double taxation and that's not really fair. Moreover, the visitation rights, the parenting rights, and the right to choose for one's spouse when they can't choose for themselves is more important. If you ask me, I'm not the one who would be advocating marriage incentives, but to be fair, I could see people living more positive and more fulfilling lives being married than being single. So a little tax incentive wouldn't kill anyone.

And I ask you again, did your parents have sex in front of you when you were a kid? I mean who does that? What makes a difference if a single father lives with a male relative at home? Would that make the kid confused as well? Sex has no place in raising children.

Something you left out, is that these people are rapists. Are you saying that all homosexuals are rapists? So when a couple of straight rapes happen, should I call you a rapist as well for being a man?

Where in his statement did he use the word ALL?
So why would you add it to make his statement appear so wrong?
Then mock him and roll the eyes?

Explain how it should be obvious to "these people", and please do so without citing scripture or basing it on your beliefs.

And again, you've referred to information coming from the "secular left" as propaganda. And no, you don't have to actually use the word "propaganda" to call something "propaganda".

I'm more worried about priests molesting little boys than about if a gay couple would adopt a child and raise him in a family.

Oh, pauleeeeeeeeeze! Pedophilia, is pedophilia; as rape is rape. Nobody mentions it as straight rape, so why should media call it gay pedophilia?

wow! professor.
So your saying gays are prone to fucking kids.You need to get a job writing for law and order or perhaps publish a book with these findings, the world could really use your expert insight.

seriously though you really dont want to start separating pedophiles based on the sex of their victims, in fact you can't because its the same mentality in both types of offenders that has driven them to commit the crime in the first place.

What kind of sex are you referring to?
A kiss? Oral sex? Anal sex? Manual sex? Sex with dildos or other toys?
Is oral sex, for example, "abnormal" when two women do it, but "normal" if a man and a woman do it?

Speaking generally, it can be viewed as abnormal in the sense that only a union of male and female can produce offspring and has a practical purpose, which is favored by nature.

Heterosexual unions produce offspring = survival of the species, community (future labor force).
Homosexual unions produce no offspring, therefore no continuation of the species.

I doubt that letting gay couples to marry each other would disable the continuation of human race.

Few abnormal acts would. Members of this board, everyone human who ever existed is the result of heterosexual union. Even ones produced in a lab are the product of male sperm and female egg. I would take this as strong indicator that nature favors heterosexual union. Things which go against nature can be construed as abnormal.

How? You do know that there was homosexuality in the past like in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece? Kind of we all have survived and nothing has changed. The population of the world has even grown.

Yes, I'm well aware of history. Just because an activity has a long history doesn't make it normal. I'm sure you can think of examples.

I don't see any changes. There are people who are being born every hour. And I doubt you have the right to decide if it's not normal.

This thread is getting silly now, but fun to read.. SC come back and close it..

So at the end of the day, gay marriage should be banned because it's weird. That's basically what it boils down to. It just isn't normal, right?

Yea, that ain't good enough. Try again.

I know you're trying to be fair on this issue, but unfortunately this is not what is happening in the real world. Massachusetts law forbids private adoptive agencies from steering away from gay couples and Catholic agencies have dropped adoptive services in that state. If your Aunt Sally lived in Mass., I'm not sure she would be able to abide by her personal convictions. Boy scouts are another example. This idea that gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody else is a lie.

Yeah? Explain to me how homosexuality hurts other people. Because I've lived around gay people and kids raised by couples who are gay. Literally no one cares and everyone is happy. I seriously don't think you have a basis for what you're saying.

If it causes people to violate their personal beliefs and convictions...
If it limits free exercise of religious expression....
If it causes private adoptive agencies to close business...
Who knows where this will lead in the future as far as freedom? Gulags?

No need to make it a personal attack, or bring in my parents. Your comment shows you have a sick mind.

It hurts us by forcing children to have to deal with seeing men kissing men, women kissing women, and other stuff they do in public. 97% or more of children are oriented towards opposite sex, seeing that can mess them up. I don't know how you know more than one gay couple raising children, but how happy and well adjusted the children are can be open to debate.

Homosexuality in Ancient Rome and Greece is part of era that led to decline in both civilizations.

I move that this thread be closed. Obviously that's up to the creator of the thread and the mods, but this topic has brought out the worst in all of us, and it's turned into a nightmare. I take blame as well as I've participated in this. But this is getting ridiculous, SC was right these kinds of threads have turned into 'pissing matches' and now he's gone and we don't know when he's coming back.

I know I might sound "lofty" as this is an open discussion board and people may post the topics they like. But I think this one has gone over the edge.

Yeah, 2004 is just soooo long ago. Give me a break. You liberal gay marriage supporters are all about what "science" and "the experts" say....until they don't agree with you. Then you dismiss them right away.



It should be obvious to everyone that men and women bring unique traits to a marriage, which are the most desirable for raising a family - the most fundamental unit of society. And that is what the government should encourage and sanction. Not twisted, bastardized versions of the family, including gay marriage. Which, as I've said, is essentially saying men and women are interchangeable and so there's no real difference between a straight or gay couple raising children. That's a lie that should be recognized by everybody.

Though I doubt you will, check out these articles below for further explanation.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765625644/Too-much-at-stake-in-debate.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344221/why-were-losing-gay-marriage-debate-mona-charen

Ivy we need to give it a rest. I don't think any of us are changing our opinions on this. Let's all just let it go.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion and that's what makes this country great. No ones views will change from this arguing so how about we just end it.

Not exactly what I was looking for but it's close enough. I call a truce.

We agree to disagree, Ivy. For the record, I never set out to change your's or anyone else's opinion on the subject. I hope at the end of the day, we can all respect each other's opinions, no matter how much we disagree with them.

There is really nothing more I can say on this issue.

Right, I'm the sick person, and I have a sick mind, because I'm the one who is worried what parents do in their bedroom could affect their children. Right.

Well then, this is way too far. I'm not in favor of catholic organizations running a hospital according to their belief, because people are rushed to these hospitals most of the times with no other option. But when it comes to adoption, they should be able to select their own criteria for parents. I wouldn't be advocating this.

No, you asked if my parents had sex in front of me when i was a child, now you are backpedaling. For you to ask that is low, and sick. To now try and say you were worrying about children should embarrass you.

And that's a valid question for someone who thinks the way parents have sex is important in raising their children, as if their children are part of their sex life. I'm not backing from this, NO SIR. Were you part of your parent's sex life that now has made you think all parents have sex in front of their children?

You just keep getting more offensive as you go along. And I'm not a sir.

OK, 2 can play this. Are you a pedophile? Were your parents pedophiles? If you are a pedophile, did you learn it from having sex with your parents, or did you get into it on your own? ? And last, do you have sex with your own kids?

It figures that the people who support homosexual marriage and adoption are degenerates who can't post with any constructive arguments, but only with degenerate comments. Specifically, Afsaneh.

Yet I'm not the one saying the way people have sex behind closed doors of their bedroom makes them unfit parents, you are.

Now this is getting weird..

1. Gays are not going to disappear if they are not allowed to marry each other. They'll be there, they'll be doing what they do.
2. Sex/intimacy between parents doesn't have anything to do with the child. It's on the parent's responsibility to raise their children and teach them about what happens in life. I doubt any gay couple forces their children to be also gay, as a part of them have been forced to be straight or to pretend to be straight in some part of their lives.

This is the kind of post that drove SC away.

I agree. The moderators can institute procedures to mitigate these types of posts and threads. Yes, doing so will probably affect Board traffic. I don't know the economics of running a Board, but those economics may be better off in the long run if the moderators take action now.

y going to be tough. I actually reported this particular post. Perhaps some of us can take it on ourselves to report these type of posts, or at least to call ou the people making them, then ignoring them otherwise.

Probably the first rule of thumb would be nostand alone ad hominem attacks....This would not include
valid disagreements, i.e. "Olivant, I think your legal reasoning is wrong because...blah blah blah"

DT, that's one approach with which I can concur. Why not place new members on probation? For years I've inveighed against the Board's tolerance of foul language. Again, Board traffic may be affected, but that may prove beneficial in the long run.

Actually NOT a bad idea. I'm not one to report posts, but rather stay away from replying to them, especially if it's one created to make trouble or for the purpose of spewing hate. That only fuels the hate.

It would work I suppose as long as nobody feels the need to report every little thing simply because they don't agree with or like the poster. It's gotta be a good/valid reason IMHO Or the mods would go crazy checking every little thing.

The example you state above....if it's a legitimate argument/disagreement is good.

TIS

Personal insults/attacks and the overuse of foul language should not be tolerated. But we're also not about censorship. Everyone has a right to share their opinions, whether they're agreed with it or not. Sometimes people you disagree with are worth arguing with (politely), but other times this sage advice holds true: "Don't feed the trolls"

Everyone, in their own heart, believes that s/he's right. But not everyone is. While it may be fun to try and prove them wrong, it often goes down a dark path. Once you see yourself on that path, it's time to head back.

Let us get something straight...there are no sides here. not new vs old or old vs young or us vs them. Posts are just that posts!...you shouldn't try and wipe things so clean or you will have only one side of things or what is popular from a given group of people.

You know how to deal with things you don't like here..skip over them! Don't feed the trolls and just like any other place, you learn to fit in and enjoy or you will leave when you/they don't get anything out from being here.

Some people here have to learn that they don't control the board. Geoff does. It is his and we all are just guests. So everyone should act like they would if they were in someone's home as a guest.

Kill the openness and you kill what the board is. A great place to exchange thoughts with others. Otherwise you will have nothing but a kiddy club with only people who you let join.

You will always have some who will come here and see how far they can push or how many buttons they can push...but the truth is they don't get any of this unless you stand here and tangle. It takes two to tangle. Just don't post back and that ends anything that you feel is that dumb.

Seems like many here, just can't walk away and have to fight to the death...with people posting from almost anywhere in the world? What is there to win on here? Let us not try and control another poster, but just enjoy the space we are provided with by Geoff....Peace to you all!

gee, I came back from typing and tis and Geoff had posted everything I was posting...next time I will not take some phone calls and be a late poster-

I have no problems with same sex marriage. That's a private issue between two adults that doesn't concern me. What does concern me is gays or lesbians adopting children, because such a child will grow up thinking it is normal for two males/women to be together. So a child who would otherwise most likely grow up to be attracted to the opposite sex (which is nature's usual practise) might very well become sexually disturbed. That's just my opinion, but I do not make a big deal out of it either, because in the end it doesn't concern me personally.

OK. The April Fool joke is done and over and the Sheriff is back in town. Calling afsaneh a degenerate is despicable and I won't stand for it. She remains one of the most humane, intelligent and compassionate persons I know.

Don't like her politics? Fine. Argue yours with hers. Call her a degenerate? Uh, Uh, Uh!! Won't be allowed here. Don't like that ruling? Tough titties! The Sheriff is back! Beware!!!

jace, you can start by apologizing to afsaneh.

I didn't report anything, and I certainly don't get offended being called anything by this jace fella. I was trying to make a point, and I went personal, so it hit a nerve. But these debates are personal. You can't offend people by calling their sex lives, which is BTW between consenting adults sick, and not get a personal remark right back at you.

Edit: Now I see SC's post. Thanks, but really, I don't really need her to apologize. We're debating. It's quite all right.

Woo woo!!!!! Here come the judge!!! Welcome back SC. We love ya!!!





TIS

ey up look who's back, i knew you couldn't keep away..

NEXT YEAR PICK A BETTER JOKE!

Welcome back SC!!!

Actually it was a great joke no? I mean he did pull it off. We all believed him (liar SC).




TIS

Let me fix that post for you!:

Actually it was a great joke no? I mean he did pull it off. SOME believed him (liar SC).

I think this post should be in the running for the most ignorant post in the history of these boards, or at least during my tenure here. I support gay marriage. You calling me a degenerate?

I am shattered. How can we ever trust him again?

I was thinking the same thing. But I guess it's up to the parents to teach the children what's what.

She got off topic, and made it personal by bringing my family into it. By the way, second time someone on here has insulted my family out of nowhere.

Again, I am not a "Fella." As for what consenting adults do in private, that is private. When they announce to world what they do in private, and demand people change their views to accept it, it is no longer private.

And you are fine with post where she said my parents must have sex in front of me when I was a child?

First off, it was a hypothetical question. Look it up if you don't understand the word. Sweet Afs would (and has) never been disrespectful to anyone. So stop being so hypersensitive and thin-skinned during a debate and let it go already. Get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat. Sheesh!

You are not the one to talk here. Someone who suggests media should address molester priests as gay pedophiles, as if pedophilia is about sexual orientation, and tries to label gays as pedophiles; someone who has no problem calling personal relationship between adults as sick, has no grounds to say she was insulted and it came from nowhere, even if it was an insult. And BTW, I asked a question. If you dare insult gays by implying they have sex in front of their children and that might confuse them, then how come it's an insult when the same question is asked about yourself?

I'm not sure why you think when a straight couple gets married, their sex to the rest of us is less yucky than anyone else's, or that I would have to accept their sex style, be it missionary, all the way to including bondage and discipline. Who cares? You don't have to accept it. Government does. Not sure why you think you are entitled to marriage benefits while gays should not have the same entitlements. Aren't they the citizens of the same country? Don't they pay the same taxes that you pay? Just because you are not accepting of their life style, they should not be getting spousal benefits?

As I've brought a number of times now, and which you and others conveniently sidestep, the U.S. decided on what it considered "marriage" over a century ago when they outlawed polygamy. Even though the polygamists actually were denied their Constitutional right of freedom of religion under the First Amendment. And you and every other secular liberal from then till now didn't say jack about it. But now, when it involves gay marriage, you want to change the rules. This is a classic example of how, despite all the talk, you people couldn't care less about "rights" unless they fit your personal social agenda.

And the government doesn't necessarily "have" to accept anything. The issue should be left up to the states. But we all know why you and other libs don't want that, don't we?

WOW. Apples and bowling balls!

I thought polygamy was attacked by other religious groups (more like how they attacked alcohol) and it lead to it being banned. I might be wrong though.

There is no US Code that makes polygamy illegal; the last code was repealed during the 1970s. While the definition of religious marriage is a function of individual religions, the definition of civil marriage is a function of state codes. Codes in all 50 states make civil polygamy illegal.

While the attempt to draw a connection to past civil rights causes is obvious, the difference is her and her fellow gays want their relationships, and not just themselves, to be recognized differently by the government. They want gay "marriages" to be seen as equal to straight marriages and they're not. Sorry if that's not politically correct but it's the truth.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say but those codes are the result of people in this country deciding long ago what they do and don't consider marriage. It was decided long ago that marriage is one man and one woman. The only reason we're seeing the gay marriage issue raised now, despite nothing said all these years about polygamy, is that the libs sympathize with the gays and not with polygamists. Even though it's the polygamists who actually have a real case when it comes to their rights being denied.

As a society we've become soft and invented the term PC to cover up for our failure as a nation to vote people in on merit in lieu of the truth!


Nothing for nothing Ivy who the hell would want multiple wives! One is way more than enough and my lucky wife is the greatest wife in the world. But in all candidness what's the benefit! Or is there another factor that plays into it?

Let me be clear again, I'm not trying to argue in any way for polygamy to be allowed. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy and selective outrage on the part of the left.

And as I've said many times, like the abortion issue, I'd be more than happy to leave the gay marriage issue up to each state.

Ivy, not saying you advocate for Polygamy I just don't understand the value in it? Is thier a culture reason? Is there a historical or traditional push for it? Not arguing for or against it just don't understand what the benefit is?

Although it has been practiced in other cultures and religions in other parts of the world, as far as the issue at hand here in the U.S., polygamy (or plural marriage) was part of the Mormon religion back in the 1800's. The Mormons eventually abandoned the practice in the 1890's. Of course, there are offshoot groups that still practice it and many people still associate the Mormons with the practice despite the church not practicing it for over a century.

It was considered long ago as such? Well, now it is being considered again. We didn't say jack about it in 70s when polygamy was banned? Hey, I was born in 70s. I doubt I could say jack about anything.

I'm not against any form of marriage, even I don't care if Woody Allen married his step daughter. As I said before, if they are of age and consenting, why do I care? Good for them. And tough luck for anyone who wants to put their nose in others' business, or put his or her marriage in a scale and say, oooooh, no, our marriage is so much more marriagy than their marriage.

Now that is a thought...How has the rest of the world handled this Gay Marragie issue in other parts of the world....(I know, I know... we are not bound by what others do)So lets hear what you know.

So what is the general consensus on how the Supreme Court will rule?

If any two consenting adults marrying or being in relationship is always ok, then incest would be legalized. Mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters, a brother marrying his sister. The argument "If they are adults, it's ok" is crazy.
In fact, most every argument for homosexual marriage can be used to justify incest.

What? Where does it say that the two people being married can be brothers or sisters? Last time I checked there were laws on the books forbidding incest. There is a huge difference between incest and gay marriage. Incestuous relationships are not only subject to religious taboo, they are demonstrably prone to offspring with birth defects, thus there is a harm to society.

I hardly think allowing gay marriage is going to create a huge demand for guys to marry their daughters and sisters (except in the red states which oppose gay marriage and where incest is the rule not the exception already).

I have always maintained the Prop 8 issue will be dismissed on the issue of standing, and I stick by that. Too many of the "liberal" justices were concerned about this issue during questioning.

I also will go out on a limb here and say DOMA will be struck down on a 6-3 vote with Roberts voting with the majority and Scalia, Alito and Thomas strongly dissenting.

The inside baseball politics here is the Court kicks the can down the road on gay marriage, at least for now, but gets rid of DOMA, leaving things up to the states.

I think Roberts will be on the winning side of both issues, thus furthering his personal agenda to make this HIS court, not Scalia's. This is in line with what he did on Obamacare.

The argument for gay marriage is often "Anything consenting adults want to do is their business, and they should be allowed to marry if they want"

Same can be used for incest. There were laws forbidding gay marriage (rightly so) The same arguments being used to overturn them can be used to justify and legalize incest. 'Whats wrong with 2 adults in love.." ???

Jace you miss the point. Incest reslts in demonstrable risk of birth defects...it is a health issue. Gay marriage is not. You are mixing apples and oranges. And BTW before you ask I have no problem with polygamy.

This Thread just goes to show everyone what is in some people minds out there. How they think and what they trust to be true.
Wow and at times what I read worrys me!

If you say A- someone will say B and if you say B some will say that it is bullshit!

this last example really took the cake. If this, then we should allow this and allow that...yeah yeah yeah...

DT I really like that last one:
Incestuous relationships are not only subject to religious taboo, they are demonstrably prone to offspring with birth defects, thus there is a harm to society.

and the old, Don't play with yourself or you will go blind! comes to mind also

religious taboo- gay marraige isn't? and the church say one thing and some clergy love little boys!
birth defects- you would see more do to smoking, drugs, booze and the list goes on and on and on... before incestuous realationships. hey if you don't want your sister, then why would we?

One thing that is missing in all of these posts is the citing of the state's compelling interest in marriage and, thus, its regulation. Such compelling interest (mitigated somewhat by Supreme Court opinions in recent years) can be demonstrated in certain hypothesized marriage relationships, but not in others.

By the way, someone posted that marriage should be left up to the states. It is.

Also DT, I agree with your prognostication regarding Prop 8. It reminds me of Newhouse and his religion related pleading on behalf of his daughter. Scotus ruled that as the non-custodial parent, he did not have standing to plea. I think that the equal protection clause will be used to strike part of DOMA.

So far I found Jace's points ridiculous.
BUT: The health issue doesn't apply. You could make incestuous sex illegal and still have incestuos marriage legal.
Anyway, why would somebody want to marry someone closely related? Well, this is a dead end way of discussion.

Incestous marriage only happened in royal families to keep there blood line 'pure'. Of course most of the descendants had Hemophilia (when the blood doesn't clot) if I remember correctly. Why some still do it now...only those involved know.

This is always the argument, isn't it? If gay marriage is OK, then the next step is incest, bestiality, pedophilia... It's absurd. There is no comparison.

Tell that to Californians, who have voted twice now to uphold Prop 8, only to have the courts overturn their will.



The argument is, if gay marriage is allowed, it's not hard to believe this other stuff will come about. Not the next day or the next year. But you can't say it won't. Years ago, gays "marrying" would have been unthinkable.

People here say, "Well, as long as it involves consenting adults." So, even though these people go further at allowing certain things than EastHarlem, jace, or myself, they do draw a line somewhere. But maybe others draw the line even further then you do. And sooner or later, they're going to be clamoring for their "rights" too.

An animal can't consent and neither can a child. That's why it can never be made legal. No consent means rape. Rape is a crime. Homosexuality is not.

I don't suggest that churches should reverse their doctrine and suddenly allow gay marriage if it's against their policy. However, I see nothing wrong with governments sanctioning civil ceremonies.

You're assuming "consent" will always be the measuring bar.

Yes, because I have to believe that we are not going to degenerate to a race that lives in trees and throws their feces at one another.

If two people of the same sex are in a committed relationship, why should they be denied the rights of spousal relationships, mostly legal next of kin status?

Maybe you haven't noticed but we're a race who's been killing unborn children by the millions for decades now. People find ways to justify or excuse any number of atrocities.



I'm personally not against them being in civil unions or domestic partnerships where hospitalization, medical care, fair housing and employment rights, probate, etc. are there. But society should not go as far as to label such unions marriage, thereby making them appear equal or the same.

If they are committed, and it is a civil union with all the rights you mentioned above, what is the difference between that and a heterosexual couple that goes to City Hall for their ceremony? It IS marriage, whatever you want to label it.

Even if a hetero couple gets married at City Hall, it's still viewed as a marriage. The point is, there needs to be a distinction made in the eyes of the law between the two, if only nominally.

Also of concern is what else this will lead into in terms of homosexuality being recognized and legitimized by society. We've already seen what's happened to Catholic charities because they wisely wouldn't allow gay couples to adopt children. "Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership."

Supporters of gay marriage need to quit asking, "How does gay marriage effect you?" Because we're already seeing signs of it going from one thing to another once the can of worms is opened. And, if they were really honest, many supporters of gay marriage would admit they really wouldn't care if opponents of gay marriage were effected negatively. They'd probably relish it.

This is how white turns into black...One shade at a time!

It's "affected".

Maybe because a committed relationship, is not recognize as marriage. it may be an element of it but so is roommates living together or a friend with benefits....words like mostly aren't getting you all the way there either.

wow.... still no words from around the world? This just can't be a U.S. problem....

My point is that the arguments for gay marriage are ridiculous, and can be used to justify anything, such as the the example I gave, incest between adults.

Okay, now let's play the devil's advocate here, some say incestuous marriage should be illegal, because it results in genetic defects in the offspring. That's not always the case. Depends on the genome mapping of that family, if they have a certain defect in one of their genes, that surely would result in a defect in their offspring. However, if they have no defected genes, their bloodline actually becomes more stronger, having not been mixed with another that may have some defected genes. for instance if someone have the hemophilia gene, if they marry someone who doesn't have it, their offspring might carry the same defect. This way defects get more widespread throughout the society.

Some countries require any couples to go through certain genetic testing before marriage. They usually warn people not to marry if they both have the same genetic defects. I'm not sure if there's a place that would prevent them from marrying.

I usually have a hard time understanding your posts or even worse your humor. You quote a post about polygamy, then ask from around the world how they handled gay marriage? Why don't you simply google? More than a handful of countries have legalized gay marriage. You could always check Wikipedia for details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Back to polygamy. I hope Ivy is in favor of two men one woman as well.

I mean when I say I support polygamy, I support this one as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8y019760Mk

Sorry if you have had a problem understanding. It is simple...Ivy League asked about Polygamy in other parts of the world and I just wanted to know how the world handled the GAY Union problem in other parts of the world.

So tell me Afsaneh77, Do gay couples in your country have the rights that Gay Couples here are seeking?

By the way, I presented the question to expand the thoughts in this thread to others. It would have been nice if you had just offered the views from your own country and maybe some others from theirs.
I know we have several people on here across the world.

By the way, Thanks for the link.

I've said here many a time, they hang gays here. So how do you think the discussion about gay marriage would go here?

BTW, I feel like I need to explain more, they don't hang you if you say you are gay. They however would hang you if you confess to having homosexual intercourse, or there are witnesses to such acts that would testify.

Damn. Now that is tuff...Then again Religon plays a major part over there. It sounds like the chance of any change coming in the future is nill.

That's the government. There's a huge gap between what government sanctions and what the youth today want the government to do. But I'm not sure even if the government suddenly changes, people be open to gay marriage here. Men are less homophobic, they kiss each other on the cheek here as a greeting, but I'm not sure they would be ready to have a discussion on gay marriage. Government was trying to push polygamy here, in the sense of religious form, one man, many women. People in big cities really rallied against it. They said it goes against the norm. Still they made it legal without the consent of the first wife and on the courts approval. Previously it was allowed only with the consent of the first wife, and well, that usually didn't happen. We are digressing from the topic though.

What country is this?

Iran.

Oh wow!

Yes, and it can't be legally recognized because it has not been legalized by any government agency as such. However, a heterosexual couple that decides to live their life this way is making a choice to do so. They CHOOSE not to get married. A homosexual couple HAS NO CHOICE. That's the difference.

Why the CAPS! Why also can't they just live together in leave without having to cause a big STINK about EVERYTHING! There always clicking thier heels for attention! Why can't they go quietly about thier business like everyone else? It's always a parade! A march! A rally! A protest! A lawsuit!

Jeez it never ends

Dicknose, your married to another Man. Can we get your perspective on the issue? Have you two been happy? Neighbors cause you problems?

I was hoping too marry you since your not married yet you made up everything you've ever told anyone on this board don't even get me started ...RESPECT & DP

LOL! Your a jerkoff! Stress of going to jail for twenty years for robbing an old ladies house getting to you?

Your a pathological liar n don't pm me shit noone believes you about your brother mother father etc...Your pretty sick n F'd up in the head to make up that kind of stuff and prey on people's sympathy....I don't need to say anymore ...RESPECT

LOL! As fucked up as breaking into an old ladies house to rob her? Preying on people's sympathy! Your a joke. You've got zero intelligence so this is your method of discrediting me?

No more warnings. You two have a history and should know better than this kind of crap. The fact that you don't (know better) is of no concern to me.

Your departures are imminent .... fasten your seatbelts.

So then close the thread. This thread has run it's course..

I agree.

Yes, it could be time....this issue is way to big for this board!

Just thank the lord that we aren't in Iran and people do have some rights here...even if those rights don't please everyone all the time! A-MEN

Yep, it has run its course.

The thread is fine. SOme of the participants are not. Hopefullly SC has addressed this.

I think it was Jimmy Kimmel on late night who said something like: Living, sleeping and having sex with another guy is a tuff way to get free Dental insurance.

that brings up some other laughs: who would want to marry a girl who was raised by two lesbians. You would get two mother-in-laws on you ass instead of just the normal one.

I second this, specially since the ruling will come out in June.

I was just talking with the lady who does the hair dressing here. Her son is Gay and has a longtime mate as she put it.
He came out to her and her husband years ago and they have always been close. As she put it a mother knows way before she hears these things

Any way, she was saying that a lot of this uproar is being caused by only a percent % of gays and most really just want to push back for all the problems they had over the past years.

It is their turn to be heard and stir up things.

There are many like her son who are just glad to be left alone and enjoy what they have in life. They make their own life not the Govt. and they never need a piece of paper to be in love and committed to each other.

Her point was that the people you see out there fighting and protesting don't speak for every gay person or couple. Like in any group there are those who just love the drama and will be unhappy no matter what happens or how much they get. In fact some people get upset with other gay couples because they aren't fighting along with them.

Even the black/white issue took years to make headway and it still isn't complete. Gay rights may have to wait some to get where some people want it to be. And when I told her about Iran and what happens there, she put her hand over her heart and said thank God it is not like that here.

FS, you have a very low bar. Why don't you compare the US to other European countries who did pass the law for the same sex marriage?

So a lady says her son doesn't like to get married. What does that do for another lady who does want her son to get married to his partner as he wishes? And since when if a minority wants something, no matter what low the percentage, that's just an uproar to settle a score?

And DOMA is going down by the looks of it. The wait is not that long for the gay rights.

I have a "Very Low Bar" because I am telling others about what I heard personally? The lady makes a point. I hear something that I think should be passed along to others and you don't like it so you go into attack mode?

Why are you attacking someone with a differnt view then your own? Aren't they entitled to their opinion just as much as you are to yours.

Your starting to sound just like the radicle people she is talking about. Be passion about your opinion, but please allow others theirs.

I personally hope you get all the rights that will make you happy. That is without trampling the rights of others doing it. Then again. I am thankful that I don't live where you do and people aren't killed like you were telling me this morning.

I'm not attacking you, I'm challenging your opinions. Opinions are open to discussion. Challenging it is not an attack. If I called you a bigot, then I had attacked you. I said you have a low bar, since you compare the country that stands for personal freedoms, with a country that's the biggest jail for journalists and those who dare voice their opinion. Yes, you do have a low bar. And that's my opinion of your opinion. You consider this an attack? Then you don't have an understanding of what an opinion and a discussion and an attack is.

Afsaneh77 -those weren't MY opinions. I just posted what this lovely mother said. Right or wrong it was a point that had not been expressed here.
I can't figure out how you got this: "since you compare the country that stands for personal freedoms, with a country that's the biggest jail for journalists and those who dare voice their opinion. Yes, you do have a low bar" All I did was tell the lady on what you yourself said about your country.

and just to be kind ..if your stating an opinion on what you called MY opinion, you missed the boat as nothing in the post was MY opinion.

My opinion is Thank God you can come on here and voice your opinion... because it sounds like you can't do that as much as you like in your own country. If saying that makes my bar very low in your opinion then I can live with that..I have thick skin and lots of freedom to make me happy.

Peace to you!

Please, didn't you say this:



So you say you and everyone else should be thankful that you have it better than Iranians, and that's somehow enough. This was your exact quote. You do compare your country with Iran. Therefore you do have a low bar. And it doesn't seem you have a thick skin about it, but whatever. Peace to you as well.

You know you are right! 100% right, that is what I posted.

All people, not just Gay people should be so thankful for the rights we have here in America. They should never forget how good we have it here.

I guess I should be thanking you for reminding me of that.

This woman and her son can think any way they want. But what if her son changed his mind and wanted to marry his partner five years from now? He can't. Obviously, marriage is not for every gay person, just like it's not for every heterosexual person. However, as I stated above, the heterosexual couple have the choice. The same sex couple does not.

Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage

Examining the most common arguments for redefining marital unions ...and understanding why they are flawed

By Brandon Vogt - OSV Newsweekly
January 13, 2013


1. Marriage has evolved throughout history, so it can change again.

Different cultures have treated marriage differently. Some promoted arranged marriages. Others tied marriage to dowries. Still others saw marriage as a political relationship through which they could forge family alliances.

But all these variations still embraced the fundamental, unchanging essence of marriage. They still saw it, in general, as a public, lifelong partnership between one man and one woman for the sake of generating and raising children.

This understanding predates any government or religion. It’s a pre-political, pre-religious institution evident even in cultures that had no law or faith to promote it.

Yet, even supposing the essence of marriage could change, would that mean it should? We know from other areas of life such as medical research and nuclear physics that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you ought. After all, such action may not be ethical or serve the common good. Even if this argument had historical basis, it would not necessarily be a good reason to change the meaning of marriage.


2. Same-sex marriage is primarily about equality.

This argument is emotionally powerful since we all have deep, innate longings for fairness and equality. Moreover, history has given us many failures in this area, including women banned from voting and African-Americans denied equal civil rights. The question, of course, is whether same-sex couples are denied equality by not being allowed to marry each other.

To answer that, we first must understand equality. Equality is not equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women have equal rights, but because they significantly differ they require separate restrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not things that are fundamentally different.

Second, there are really two issues here: the equality of different people and the equality of different relationships. The current marriage laws already treat all people equally. Any unmarried man and unmarried woman can marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation; the law is neutral with respect to orientation just as it ignores race and religion.

The real question is whether same-sex relationships differ significantly from opposite-sex relationships, and the answer is yes. The largest difference is that same-sex couples cannot produce children, nor ensure a child’s basic right to be raised by his mother and father. These facts alone mean we’re talking about two very different types of relationships. It’s wrong, therefore, to assume the state should necessarily treat them as if they were the same.

Same-sex marriage advocates may argue that it’s discriminatory to favor heterosexual spouses over homosexual couples. With all of the benefits flowing from marriage, this unfairly endorses one set of relationships over another. But if the state endorsed same-sex marriage, it would then be favoring gay “spouses” over unmarried heterosexual couples. The argument runs both ways and is ultimately self-defeating.


3. Everyone has the right to marry whomever he or she loves.

Though catchy, few people truly believe this slogan. Most of us acknowledge there should be at least some limitations on marriage for social or health reasons. For example, a man can’t marry a young child or a close relative. And if a man is truly in love with two different women, he’s legally not allowed to marry both of them, even if both agree to such an arrangement.

So, the real question here is not whether marriage should be limited, but how. To answer that, we must determine why the government even bothers with marriage. It’s not to validate two people who love each other, nice as that is. It’s because marriage between one man and one woman is likely to result in a family with children. Since the government is deeply interested in the propagation and stabilization of society, it promotes and regulates this specific type of relationship above all others.

To put it simply, in the eyes of the state, marriage is not about adults; it’s about children. Claiming a “right to marry whomever I love” ignores the true emphasis of marriage.

Notice that nobody is telling anyone whom he or she can or cannot love. Every person, regardless of orientation, is free to enter into private romantic relationships with whomever he or she chooses. But there is no general right to have any relationship recognized as marriage by the government.


4. Same-sex marriage won’t affect you, so what’s the big deal?

Since marriage is a relationship between two individuals, what effect would it have on the rest of us? At first glance, it sounds like a good question, but a deeper look reveals that since marriage is a public institution, redefining it would affect all of society.

First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously.

Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despite parents’ objections, the board decreed that they had no right to remove their children from such instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that when marriage is redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless of their parents’ desires.Third, redefining marriage would threaten moral and religious liberty. This is already evident in our own country. In Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer provide charitable adoption services based on new definitions of marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in a newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining marriage threatens religious freedom.


5. Same-sex marriage will not lead to other redefinitions.


When marriage revolves around procreation, it makes sense to restrict it to one man and one woman. That’s the only relationship capable of producing children. But if we redefine marriage as simply a loving, romantic union between committed adults, what principled reason would we have for rejecting polygamist or polyamorous — that is, multiple-person — relationships as marriages?

Thomas Peters, cultural director at the National Organization for Marriage, doesn’t see one. “Once you sever the institution of marriage from its biological roots, there is little reason to cease redefining it to suit the demands of various interest groups,” Peters said.

This isn’t just scaremongering or a hypothetical slippery slope. These aftereffects have already been observed in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. For example, in Brazil and the Netherlands, three-way relationships were recently granted the full rights of marriage. After marriage was redefined in Canada, a polygamist man launched legal action to have his relationships recognized by law. Even in our own country, the California Legislature passed a bill to legalize families of three or more parents.

Procreation is the main reason civil marriage is limited to two people. When sexual love replaces children as the primary purpose of marriage, restricting it to just two people no longer makes sense.


6. If same-sex couples can’t marry because they can’t reproduce, why can infertile couples marry?

This argument concerns two relatively rare situations: younger infertile couples and elderly couples. If marriage is about children, why does the state allow the first group to marry? The reason is that while we know every same-sex couple is infertile, we don’t generally know that about opposite-sex couples.

Some suggest forcing every engaged couple to undergo mandatory fertility testing before marriage. But this would be outrageous. Besides being prohibitively expensive, it would also be an egregious invasion of privacy, all to detect an extremely small minority of couples.

Another problem is that infertility is often misdiagnosed. Fertile couples may be wrongly denied marriage under such a scenario. This is never the case for same-sex couples, who cannot produce children together.

But why does the government allow elderly couples to marry? It’s true that most elderly couples cannot reproduce (though women as old as 70 have been known to give birth). However, these marriages are so rare that it’s simply not worth the effort to restrict them. Also, elderly marriages still feature the right combination of man and woman needed to make children. Thus they provide a healthy model for the rest of society, and are still capable of offering children a home with a mother and a father.


7. Children will not be affected since there is no difference between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.

This argument was most famously stated in 2005 when the American Psychological Association (APA) wrote that “not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

However, several recent studies have put that claim to rest. In June, LSU scholar Loren Marks published a peer-reviewed paper in Social Science Research. It examined the 59 studies that the APA relied on for its briefing. Marks discovered that not one of the studies used a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children. Several used extremely small “convenience” samples, recruiting participants through advertisements or word of mouth, and many failed to even include a control group. Furthermore, the studies did not track the children over time and were largely based on interviews with parents about the upbringing of their own children — a virtual guarantee of biased results.

One month later, Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus released a comprehensive study titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?” His research used a large, random and national sample and its scope was unprecedented among prior work in this field. Contrary to the APA, Regnerus found that for a majority of outcomes, children raised by parents with same-sex relationships drastically underperformed children raised in a household with married, biological parents.

He quickly noted that his study didn’t necessarily show that same-sex couples are bad parents, but that it did definitively put to rest the claim that there are “no differences” among parenting combinations.


8. Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on bigotry, homophobia and religious hatred.

These accusations are not so much an argument for same-sex marriage as personal attacks designed to shut down real dialogue. Let’s look at each one.

First, bigotry. A quick visit to Facebook, Twitter or any online comment box confirms that for many people, support for traditional marriage is tantamount to bigotry.

So, is the charge accurate? Well, the definition of bigotry is “unwilling to tolerate opinions different than your own.” However, tolerating opinions does not require enshrining them through law. One can tolerate advocates of same-sex marriage, and seriously engage the idea, while still rejecting it for compelling reasons.

Second, homophobia. This refers to a fear of homosexuality, and the assumption is that people who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they’re irrationally afraid. But as this article shows, there are many good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with fear. Branding someone “homophobic” is typically used to end rational discussion.

Third, religious hatred. Some people disagree with same-sex marriage solely for religious reasons. But, again, as this article demonstrates, one can disagree for other reasons, without appealing to the Bible, divine revelation or any religious authority. You don’t need religious teachings to understand, analyze and discuss the purpose of marriage or its effects on the common good.

If these accusations were all true, it would mean that the overwhelming majority of people throughout time — who by and large supported traditional marriage — would likewise be homophobic, intolerant bigots. That would include the most profound thinkers in many different traditions: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, Xenophanes, Plutarch, St. Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and Mahatma Gandhi. Most people would reject such an absurdity.


9. The struggle for same-sex marriage is just like the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

The suggestion here is that sex is similar to race, and therefore denying marriage for either reason is wrong. The problem, however, is that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are significantly different.

For instance, nothing prevents interracial couples from fulfilling the basic essence of marriage — a public, lifelong relationship ordered toward procreation. Because of this, the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1960s were wrong to discriminate against interracial couples. Yet same-sex couples are not biologically ordered toward procreation and, therefore, cannot fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.

It’s important to note that African-Americans, who have the most poignant memories of marital discrimination, generally disagree that preventing interracial marriage is like banning same-sex marriage. For example, when Californians voted on Proposition 8, a state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor.

According to Peters, “Likening same-sex marriage to interracial marriage is puzzling and offensive to most African-Americans, who are shocked at such a comparison.”


10. Same-sex marriage is inevitable, so we should stand on the right side of history.

On Nov. 6, voters in three states — Maine, Maryland and Washington — voted against marriage as it has traditionally been understood. In Minnesota, voters rejected a measure to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Many advocates of same-sex marriage considered this a sign that the marriage tides are turning. But is that true? And if so, how does that shift impact the case for same-sex marriage?

First, if the tide is in fact turning, it’s still little more than a ripple. The states that voted in November to redefine marriage did so with slim margins, none garnering more than 53 percent of the vote. The tiny victories were despite record-breaking funding advantages, sitting governors campaigning for same-sex marriage and strong support among the media.

Before these four aberrations, 32 states had voted on the definition of marriage. Each and every time they voted to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Of the six states that recognized same-sex marriage before the November election, none arrived there through a vote by the people. Each redefinition was imposed by state legislatures and courts. Overall, Americans remain strongly in favor of traditional marriage. Most polls show roughly two-thirds of the country wants to keep marriage as it is.

Yet, even if the tides have recently shifted, that does not make arguments in its favor any more persuasive. We don’t look to other moral issues and say, “Well, people are eventually going to accept it, so we might as well get in line.” We shouldn’t do that for same-sex marriage, either.

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx

1. But the bible/Koran/torah/ (insert holy book here) says…
Rebuttal: Well the separation of church and state clause of the first amendment protects us from that.

1b. But it’s not in the constitution! It doesn’t say it anywhere!
Rebuttal: Yes it does, in the first amendment. Not using those exact words. Besides, SOCAS is a good thing. Not only does it keep religion from interfering with government, but it also keeps government from dictating how you practice your religion.

(Note: There are a million ways to debunk the religious argument but this is the most direct)
2. But marriage always has been 1 man and one woman! America will be uncomfortable having to adjust to a new social norm!
Rebuttal: And your marriage will still will be if you so choose. Only it can also be between two women or two men if the party in question so desires. And what is the big deal about gay marriage? How will it affect you? It’s not too much of a new social norm. America is a progressive society which has always adapted to new social and cultural changes, such as cars, television, and the internet. If not for these changes, we’d still be hunting animals in Africa. Besides, when segregation was ended, there were people uncomfortable with the fact that blacks were able to use the same water fountains and restrooms, go to the same schools, and sit on the same sections of the bus as them.

3. But why can’t I marry my car/fiancée’s corpse/dog/ (insert imamate or non human object here)?
Rebuttal: Because they can’t sign a legal contract stupid. If I was against gay marriage, I would ask people to stop using this argument because it makes us look dumb.

3b) so why can’t I marry a relative, or a child? Or more than one spouse?
Rebuttal: But if you let a barber vat your hair, who’s to say he won’t try to cut open your scalp? And therein lays the problem with the slippery slope argument.

3c) I only think of terms of black in white. Please explain that to me.
Disregarding the moral arguments against these things, they are all different from gay marriage. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. As for polygamy, I personally see nothing wrong with it, but it’s just that not enough people have made a big enough deal about it.

4. What about the children?
Rebuttal: What children?

4a) the ones they will want to adopt!

Rebuttal: What about them? They will go through life knowing they have two gay parents instead of two straight ones. It’s not like they are doing anything straight parents wouldn’t do. Besides, what’s worse? Two gay, loving parents or two abusive straight parents?

4b) my children who will be exposed to this!
Rebuttal: So how will they be exposed? What are they doing in front of your kid that you don’t do in front of him? Kids today don’t care about what sponge bob has in his square pants; let alone what Adam’s doing with Steve. It’s you guys who have the hang ups.

5. THEY ARE FORCING THEIR AGENDA ON US!
Rebuttal: The only agenda here is the one you created trying to deny them their rights. Same as the civil rights movement and the women rights movement.

6. But you can’t compare being gay to being a minority! Being gay is a lifestyle choice!
Rebuttal: No one is comparing the two. If you notice however, the struggle for gays is the same as the one for blacks. Speaking of lifestyle choices, Religion is also one. Which brings me to….

7. We can’t give the gay’s special rights!
Rebuttal: They aren’t asking for special rights, just the same ones you have. Besides, veterans and troops get special rights, as do college students, religious groups, and even prison inmates. And another thing, by asking to keep marriage exclusive for straights, and if being straight is a choice by your logic, then aren’t you asking for special rights for being straight?

7b. But Religious groups are constitutionally protected.
Rebuttal: As are all American citizens.

8. The purpose of marriage is to have children! If gays are allowed to marry, this will hurt our population!
Rebuttal: First of all, if less than %5 of the American population were allowed to get married, then you mean to tell me that the other 95 percent can’t pick up the slack? Secondly, marriage is more than having children. You don’t even have to be married to have children. And by this logic, senior citizens and sterile people shouldn’t be allowed to be married as well. And don’t get me started on the single parents.

9. Gay marriage will ruin our society!
Rebuttal: You realize you said the same thing about Elvis, rock and roll, rap music, television, and a bunch of other things, yet we’re still around right? Stop being so frickin paranoid.

10. But gay marriage will ruin our sacred institution!
Rebuttal: Anymore than our high divorce and spousal abuse rates, reality TV weddings, Britney spear’s little jaunt (as well as several other celebrity weddings), Vegas drive in weddings, and music, movies, and books which make it seem cool to cheat on your significant other? I doubt it. If anything, ‘our sacred institution’ can use their help.

10b. but it will ruin my marriage.
Rebuttal: Oh well, I don’t know what to tell you. If your marriage is so fragile that the thought of two gays getting married is enough to ruin it, then perhaps the problem isn’t the gays. Chances are you shouldn’t have been married in the first place.

10c. But the institution will be so messed up, I feel I won’t be able to marry!
Rebuttal: So how exactly does gay marriage affect you anyhow? Never mind that, who would want to marry a tightwad sexually repressed bigot like you anyway?

11. But this will spread HIV, herpes, syphilis, etc.
Rebuttal: So what STDs can gays get that straights can’t? Just as many, (if not more) straights can catch these diseases as gays can, so what makes gays any more susceptible to a STD than a straight? If anything, gay marriage will curb the spread of these diseases by encouraging monogamous relationships.

12. I HATE F@GS! I HOPE THEY ALL BURN IN HELL WITH MATTHEW SHEPARD!
Rebuttal: If I was against gay marriage, I would ask people to stop saying stuff like this. It makes it look as if we are out to get them rather than a desire to preserve our institution.

13. (Insert fecal or anal joke here)
Rebuttal: Again, if I was against gay marriage, then I would ask people to stop talking like this as well. It makes us look dumb and immature.

14. But this will cause the world to hate us!
Rebuttal: First of all, the world hates us for more legitimate reasons than whom we let marry who. If you open your eyes and do a little research, then you find that the reason why the world hates us is because of our foreign policy, among other things. Secondly, as if you, Mr. ‘BOMB IRAQ SCREW THE FRENCH AND SCREW MUSLIMS’ care about world opinion of us anyway.

15. Gays will influence our children to be gay!
Rebuttal: More paranoia at work. If this is true, then how come most, if not all gays, come from straight famlies? Being around gays won’t make you any more gay than being around basketball players will make you a fan of basketball.

16. But activist judges are the real enemy!
Rebuttal: Nice try, but do you feel the same way when an ‘activist judge’ like scalia, reinqhurst, O’Connor or something else makes a ruling that’s in your favor (like banning abortion)? And what is an activist judge anyway? Someone who makes rulings you don’t agree with? What if a ‘non-activist judge’ were to allow gay marriage?

17. But gays already have the right to marry. A gay man can marry a gay woman.
Rebuttal: That’s like saying during the separate but equal era that blacks had the right to use the bathroom and water fountain assigned to them.

18. it’s illegal!
Rebuttal: Now there is a sound argument for keeping something illegal.

19. it’s not natural!
Rebuttal: First of all, who are you, or any of us to decide what’s natural and what isn’t? Secondly, if homosexuality is against nature, then so is war, chopping down trees, and pollution, yet I don’t see you making a deal about these things.

19b. it’s not moral!
Rebuttal: Who are you to decide what’s moral and what isn’t? If gay marriage isn’t moral, then neither is using false, err misleading evidence to start wars, screwing workers to make corporate profits, and high price healthcare plans which only benefit the drug companies, yet I don’t see you up in arms about this.

20. But this will cause people to pretend that they are gay just to get married and enjoy the benefits!
Rebuttal: There are straight couples that do that now. Besides, do you think anyone would really fake homosexuality, an entire lifestyle, just for benefits?

21. The majority of America is against it. This is democracy!
Rebuttal: No it isn’t. It’s the majority deciding the rights of a few. The majority was also against freeing the slaves and giving the women the right to vote. Democracy only works when it’s everyone’s interests being considered. This is more like 5 foxes and a hen deciding on what [or who] to have for dinner. Besides, the majority of America was also against freeing the slaves and giving women voting rights.

22. But look what happened in Norway!
Rebuttal: So how do you know that the same thing will happen here? We are a different country. Besides, Canada’s had it for over a year and they are just fine. Using your logic, our gun control laws should be as strict as those in Europe since they have less gun murders over there.

23. This is too controversial. We should end marriage period.
Rebuttal: That could work, but then everyone loses, and we shouldn’t have to do that.

24. But I can’t stand the homos! I think their lifestyle is immoral and it goes against my religion!
Rebuttal: I’m sure they think too highly of you either, but that’s part of life. America is a diverse society. If you don’t like it, go to apartheid South Africa.

25: But *sniff* I don’t want gays to marry! *sniff*
Rebuttal: Oh well, that’s life. You don’t have any valid argument against it.

http://jacknifedakilla.wordpress.com/200...t-gay-marriage/

It’s about religion.

No, it isn’t. Going to church is about religion. Loving thy neighbour is about religion. Marriage is a secular contract presided over by Government. Like taxes. Atheists get married. Religious people get married. Some churches won’t marry inter-racial couples, or previously divorced couples. They’re welcome to. That’s their right. But that doesn’t preclude these people from marriage altogether. Because it’s secular.

Legalising gay marriage only affects a small number of people, why bother?

There are two flaws with this. If we’d followed this logic then we would have had no black civil rights movement. And asking ‘why bother’ about a human rights imbalance is a little like ignoring the service station when your car is on fire and your face is melting. ‘Tis merely a flesh wound, come back and I’ll bite your knee caps off! The ‘only them’ argument has consistently been shown, throughout history, to be reprehensible. We cannot afford to stand by while ‘only them’ becomes a chorus of our own inability to act. One day, and this is the lesson we still haven’t learned, ‘only them’ could become ‘only you’. It’s a lonely outpost. Would they care to make the same argument about disability funding?

It’s about procreation.

Then you might also want to ban marriages that take place later in life, beyond a couple’s child bearing years. Or you might consider banning marriage for heterosexual couples who don’t want children. Families are about procreation or adoption or surrogacy. Marriage is about love between two individuals. The idea that we must procreate to protect the human race was spawned, forgive the pun, during a time when sabre-toothed tigers were an actual health threat and actual health care consisted of medicinal screaming. So yes, prolific bonking used to be a shared duty. The times have changed, somewhat.

We have more important problems to deal with!

This is disingenuous. Yes, I will help you with your civil rights movement but really, this trash isn’t going to take itself out. This is a familiar refrain. We have to fix health care! We have to fix the welfare system! And we do, we do. But if Government’s cannot multitask, especially to instate a basic right of equality, then we are all in a little bit of trouble. And if you forever want to put gay marriage on the backburner, because the country has had a sudden need to legislate invisible cigarette packages, then we’ve successfully woven a beautiful too-hard-basket that would look simply delightful as the centrepiece on a hardwood table, fit for a gay.

Homosexuality is against the natural order!

And so are those farm animal ornaments with slinkies for legs. But they’re still in our homes. Truth be known – and science can be a wonderful master – homosexuality occurs quite often in nature. If you’ve never seen a pair of male dolphins doing miraculous things with their blowholes, you haven’t been watching enough SBS. Christian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas was a bit of a fan of looking to nature for validation of humanity’s own habits, which might explain the brief fad in the early days of raising our young in a burrow. There are actually some animals that spontaneously change sex from male to female and vice versa, so relying on the ‘natural order’ of things is rather a bit misleading.

Homosexuality is a choice. They made their gay bed, let them lie in it.

There is only one group of people capable of answering the question of choice and homosexuals. They are The Gays. I happen to be one of these. I was born this way. I like men the same way you know you like the opposite sex. Nobody taught you to. You just do. You’re hardwired and so am I. The implication that gay kids, a larger proportion of whom commit suicide because of horrendous bullying and identity issues, would choose to endure the torture of their childhoods is insulting. It’s insulting and you have no authority to tell us you know better. Because unless you’re gay, you don’t.

It’s a slippery slope. Just wait until The Gays can marry their brothers. Who are also animals.

Consent. Repeat after me. Animals cannot provide consent and bestiality is an avenue where consent cannot be provided in a ‘loving’ relationship. Unless your donkey has a Speak ‘n’ Say, there is no consent. And there are medical reasons why incest is frowned upon. But there is no decent, scientific, medical or moral reason why two loving, consenting, non-related adults should not be afforded the same rights as the majority.

It’s about morality, man. Think of morality, won’t you?

Two words. Las Vegas. Shotgun weddings that last 43 minutes aren’t really the pinnacle of morality. Nor are they sacred, for that matter. It’s only a slight affront that a heterosexual couple jacked up on cocaine and the better part of an entire bar can slur ‘I do’ with the full support of the law. That The Gays are forced to settle for ‘I Would’, even while measured against this same impressive yardstick, is simply unintelligible. Nothing is more moral, one would have thought, than a couple willing to devote themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. And this is true in the eyes of the law if you have both a penis and a vagina. You must have one of each between you lest you be cursed forever more to defacto relationships and cloudy legal rights in your old age. Morality indeed.

I totally agree, but let’s not call it marriage. Let them have civil unions!

Ahem. Let them eat cake? Those who adopt this argument can be the most frustrating as this is the one that glosses over the exact issue at stake here. This isn’t about every gay wanting to marry. This isn’t about the words themselves. It’s about what the options are and who has access to them. Apartheid South Africa had a water fountain for blacks and water fountains for whites. Essentially, nobody is missing out except that they’re both lapping at an entrenched division made possible by discrimination. Call it whatever you want. Call it Skiddlepop, if you must, but give it to everybody. If one doesn’t, then discrimination continues. Refusing to amend the marriage act is tantamount to saying The Gays are not worthy of the institution. And blacks aren’t worthy of the same drinking fountains, nor women the vote. Oh, history, it’s like an embarrassing echo.

I like gay people, but I don’t think they should be allowed to marry.

Let me guess, you also have lots of gay friends? And I have a hat made from kitten whiskers. You might like them – everyone has that token gay guy who hogs the karaoke machine at company functions and they’re a right hoot, I’m sure – but you don’t respect them. And respect is really what we’re after here.

But the Marriage Act clearly says it is between a Man and Woman!

Stop shouting. Yes, it does. Unfortunately that Act wasn’t amended by scholars in the 4th Century. It was amended by John Howard. In 2004. It was a deliberate move to exclude and it didn’t take long to execute. Amending the Act would be simple and absolutely no impediment to the debate whatsoever.

Well, here is my analogy about a soccer player joining an AFL Game and wanting the rules changed!

Except the soccer player did choose to be a soccer player. And AFL isn’t the only game in town. And then all the men shower together at the end anyway. Hang on.

But, why should The Gays get special treatment?

If by special, you mean unequal. The Gays don’t want more than what the straights have. We want the same. Which is ironic, because that’s what homo means.

But if we let The Gays marry, I might turn gay.

No, you won’t. Honest. We’ll even promise to stop casting spells on your testosterone or estrogen. Promise. It’s actually scientifically proven that touching a gay, or hearing about a gay wedding will have absolutely no bearing on your life whatsoever. Some very brave scientists risked homosexuality to empirically test this hypothesis, so best you show them some respect.

But a gay wedding would ruin my heterosexual marriage!

False. Unless a gay couple in the middle of their nuptials literally fell on top of your wedding ceremony, this is not going to happen. And I think you’ll agree that is a very unlikely course of events. Unless we all of a sudden legalise gay air weddings, which is just plain dangerous.

But if we let them marry, then they’ll have kids and we’ll end up with a gay society.

This one is simple. I am gay. My parents are not. Work it out.

Just because.

Sigh.

http://swannellc.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/17-rebuttals-of-anti-gay-marriage-arguments/

I demand legalizing gay air weddings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dapper, but aren't you Catholic? My point, of course, being there's an obvious conflict here. I remember reading one of your posts where, similar to Sicilian Babe, you said something about believing in Christ but moving away from the church. This seems little more than an excuse to retain the benefits of Christianity (being saved in Christ and all that) while being able to pick and choose what doctrines of the church you agree with and adhere to. In other words, what is known as "Cafeteria Catholicism." Joe Biden would be so proud.

Boy, isn't that the sign of the times...Hide behind religon when you need.
Just another card to be played along with others like the Race Car, Female card, Opinion card ECT.

Don't be so passive aggressive FS! You don't have to throw in an "Opinon Card" in there. I believe there's no such card, that's actually a 1st amendment right.

Yada Yada Yada-

Thank God WE have rights!

and all of us men have been thrown the Emotion card.at one time or another...well those of us with...

Thank Al Gore! for the internet, as it has made it possible that WE have the same rights as you do when it comes to voicing our opinion.

I'm glad you're back, SC. I guess your return ends my boycott as well .

As far as this thread goes, I'm not crazy enough to get involved in this shit. Live and let live. That's all I have to say about it.

This is a separation of church and state issue, PERIOD. Don't bring my personal religious beliefs into this to try and make a point. You wouldnt like it if I brought up Mormonism and and said I thought it was a joke. Dont you wonder about a church founded by a guy, found guilty of several charges of fraud and swindle, suddenly being shown golden tablets that only he can read behind a curtain. Then, when they get to the point where people are doubting and want to see the tablets, they disappear? Add in the whole wooden submarines, etc it gets about as rational as Scientology with its volcano spirits tormenting us.

I am a progressive Catholic, or what religious conservatives might refer to as "cafeteria catholicism" like you stated. I dont let the church (or any other religious institution) dictate what I should or shouldnt believe in, if somebody chooses to then to each their own. I believe in Christ and choose to worship him in my own way. I dont go out of my way to hate on Catholicism, never have. Sometimes one just has to use common sense instead of following something blindly. The fact is the institution of the Catholic Church has basically made up many of the rules they adhere to today as time went on, things that are not even in the bible. Like the rite of confession (twelfth century) to papal infallibility (came in 1870).

DD, while I was somewhat aware of the origins of Mormonism, I wasn't aware of the detail you provided. It appears that, just like Islam, Mormonism has co-opted some of Christianity to constitute some of its doctrine.

Notice that I wasn't questioning Catholicism itself, but your adherence to it. So no need to attack Mormonism here, especially when you apparently know so little about it. First, while he was involved in around 200 legal cases, there was only one minor case where it's even debatable if he was actually "convicted." And let's not forget Christ was convicted by the Sanhedrin. Second, 11 other people saw and testified to seeing the gold plates. Third, as for the "wooden submarines," which I assume you mean the Jaredite barges, we have no idea what they were constructed of, as it's never specified in the text.



Fair enough but I would say, going by your statement above, that it pretty much negates the point of even having a church. Heck, you sound almost like the early Protestants.

As I demonstrated above, I don't think DD is a good source on Mormonism. And your quick approach of taking what he says on an internet forum at face value suggests you're not really concerned about the facts of Mormonism's origins.

What happened to the golden plates and what did they state?

Separation between church and state is not as clear cut as you think. Rastafarians aren't allowed to smoke weed, for example.

Read the last full paragraph at the bottom.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/js?lang=eng



https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng

I have heard Mormonism referred to as counterfeit Christianity. Religions are like life forms. They evolve and branch. If humans are apes, Mormons are Christians.



No need to go after him. Fact is, I have a number of highly acclaimed books, studies/articles on Mormonism which have been lauded by individuals who are both religious and not. I think my description of Mormonism was pretty succinct. Your not exactly impartial on this issue Ivy.

According to the narrative regarding the submarine, the people were guided by God through the wilderness, and were eventually directed to cross the sea in "barges". These vessels were sealed and watertight and able to be swamped by waves without sinking.Air was obtained from outside the vessels as needed.They also brought with them animals, and food for themselves and their animals.The recorded length of the trip was 344 days.

Like anything else, one should do their own research into Mormonism and decide for themselves.

The Rastafari movement encompasses themes such as the spiritual use of cannabis. Often accompanied by Bible study; they consider it a sacrament that cleans the body and mind, heals the soul, exalts the consciousness, facilitates peacefulness, brings pleasure, and brings them closer to Jah. They often burn the herb when in need of insight from Jah. Cannabis remains illegal in Jamaica and most of the world and this has caused friction between Rastas and modern societies.

That's a good point. "Separation of church and state" certainly didn't stop the government from interfering with the Mormon church's practice of polygamy.

While those who constantly cite the phrase "separation of church and state" don't want religion interfering with the state, they rarely seem to have a problem with the state interfering with religion.

First, I object to your assumption that mankind stems from apes. But that's another topic.

Second, Mormons are not like Protestants, who actually did stem from Catholicism. It's why so many Protestants, and to a lesser extent Catholics, have often said they don't consider us Christian at all.

The statement below may be of interest. It was made by a Catholic scholar to a Mormon leader when he was visiting Utah many years ago.

"You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other position tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Roman Catholic church. The issue is between Mormonism and Catholicism. If you are right, we are wrong. If we are right, you are wrong, and that’s all there is to it. These Protestant sects haven’t a leg to stand on; for if we are right, we cut them off long ago, as apostates; and if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and came out of us. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there was no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that apostolic succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s position is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”



You started the "going after" stuff. Again, I wasn't going after Catholicism (like you are Mormonism) but your adherence to it.

I'm not sure which books you have on Mormonism but, while your description of it was indeed succinct (which means brief or short) it was hardly accurate.

And I don't claim to be impartial here. But my membership and belief in the LDS church doesn't keep me from knowing the actual history of the church I belong to. I pretty much have to know it because there has always been so much falsehoods and half truths about us.

I also don't expect anyone to take my word for it and am certainly not trying to proselytize. I just expect people to have their facts straight if they're going to bring up my religion to make a point.



This is all correct. But nowhere do you see mention of what the barges were made of or exactly how they were constructed; which was your original point.



Agreed. But make sure your research is accurate. Your's apparently hasn't been.

What else is a submarine/submersible barge with plugs on the top and bottom as an oxygen source going to be built of around 2,500 B.C. if not wood?

Nobody is going after Mormonism, you brought up my religious beliefs first so yours came into the picture right after. I respect your and other's beliefs, even if I don't necessarily believe in them.

No idea. But we probably shouldn't go by assumptions to make a point like that. But also notice I'm not saying they weren't made of wood.



Again, you'll notice that I brought up your adherence to the Catholic church. Not Catholicism itself. And, of course, I don't always follow all the tenants of LDS beliefs perfectly. But that doesn't mean I don't believe them.

And it's not that I don't respect your beliefs. I'm just surprised at times how a few posters on these forums, who are Catholic, seem to hold their church at arm's length. But maybe that's just because it's very different for most Mormons.

Anyway, I suppose a Catholic believing that the Catholic church (and religion in general) shouldn't interfere with the state is one thing. But one believing homosexual acts aren't sinful is something else. Though I'm not sure if the latter applies to you or not.

So you dont disagree. Fair enough.

Out of curiosity, you ever debated in front of an audience before? Cause I noticed the way you tackle/answer questions is exactly some of the tactics employed by good debaters. This is not a knock but rather a compliment. I debated throughout my HS through Business School years.



I dont condone it, but I shouldnt have the right to tell one that does partake in homosexual acts that they dont have the right to do it.

That's my take on it. I guess that's the main reason why gay marriage being sanctioned by the state doesn't bother me: Because I know that it will never be allowed in my Church.

If it's truly a sin, then let God deal with them. I just don't think the Government has the right. To paraphrase David Puddy, "They're the ones going to hell, not me."

That being said, if the Government ever tried to force the Catholic Church (or any other House of Worship) to perform gay marriages, then I'd have a BIG problem with it. And in my opinion, there's the separation between Chruch and State in a nutshell.

No, I never took a debate class. I've always found it easier to express myself in writing rather than speaking anyway.



I honestly don't think such future intrusion is as far-fetched as some believe. We already saw what happened with the Catholic charities involved in adoption. And the article of arguments against gay marriage I posted above brought up other incidents that have already happened. It may not happen tomorrow or next year but further on down the road.

I believe that Catholic Charities had the right to turn away homosexual couples, but I also think that the government had the right to take away their funds. I attended Catholic school as a child, and the State Education dept. offered the school some funding for textbooks. Monsignor refused, and people were very angry at him. He felt that by keeping government funds out of it, then the government can't tell you what to do. He said that if he accepted the money for books, then perhaps he could only buy the books that the government allowed. And he was 100% right. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

This is a day of reckoning! I actually agree with Sicilian Babe! PB, what's Power Ball up to? I'm buying a ticket!


Actually, I never understood why you can't have your cake and eat it to? Anyone know?

Makes perfect sense. You can't compromise your beliefs if you don't take the money.

It might be helpful and engender more respect for opinions stated on this Board if some of you would read at least the syllabus (if not the entire majority opinion) of US Supreme Court opinions reagrding the subjects that one posts about. For one regarding church and state education relationships, see Lemon v. Kurtzman or Zelman v. Simmons.

Agreed



I got a haircut at my barbershop this morning and my barber thought I had won the powerball cause he hadnt seen me in months LMAO.

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Assuming you're referring to me, this is part of the problem. Too many judges, including some on the Supreme Court, have overstepped their bounds and "interpreted" the Constitution miles away from the original meaning. To the point where "case precedent," and not the Constitution, is the real law of the land. Heck, look no further than the fourth amendment being used as a basis for legalizing abortion.

Despicable MSNBC host Krytal Ball (there's a name for you) exploiting her own daughter on this issue. Poor girl has no chance being brainwashed by this lunatic.

SC Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison) on first amendment:

Quote:

"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age."

Things have changed quite a bit since the days of Justice Story.

yes, but WE don't have to hide our rights in the Internet Closet!

Doesn't make a difference here. If this is a closet, you are here as well.

I don't think religious establishments would stay away from gay marriage for long. New generation would not have the same feelings about gay marriage as the old generation does. And religious establishments are always looking for new sources of donation, so if hating gays wouldn't sell anymore, why not include them? I don't think this is a "never" issue for church.

Maybe for some of the more "fad" churches but you won't see that in the Catholic, Mormon, more traditional Protestant, or Muslim religions.

I'm just saying the offering plate would determine its fate. Even the most traditional establishments would follow the money. If it doesn't sell any longer, they would drop it quietly and move on. It was a no no to have sex before marriage or have a divorce. Now nobody cares. People who do these sort of things attend their weekly thing, pay their donation, have a sense of community and get on with their lives.

How did we get on subject of polygamy and religion? I'm not only one who is against gay marriage on non-religous grounds.

She is stooping very low in that video, but is clueless or does not care. She is so happy to be indoctrinating her daughter she comes off as insane.

I posted an article earlier in this thread containing several non-religious arguments against gay marriage.

You're going on the erroneous assumption these churches only care about money. And who said nobody cares about sex before marriage? Last time I checked, that's still very much against the teachings of the church I belong to and can even get you ex-communicated. Sexual sins are considered next to murder in seriousness.

I'm not familiar with your church, but the church I attended for a while had members who had kids outside marriage and were not married. Do Catholic churches now excommunicate those who are divorced? I don't think so. There was one across our church, I never checked it out though.

And I'm more cynical about religion to think they only care about money. They also care about power. They change and adapt as they go on to keep their influence on the masses. I would actually think if religion stayed in its original form, we would be done with it long ago, and I liked it better. But religious leaders are wiser than sticking to the olden ways and go extinct. The only good thing that I see in religious communities is that there are people who look out for their community. That's a good spirit. If people would evolve to have a sense of community without religion, I'd have liked it so much more.

Talk about leading someone. 20 shades of GAY.... grooming is what others would call it.

Another great freedom here! Freedom of religon...
Don't we even have one that worships trees or something?

I'll tell you what, we will send you Al Gore and maybe Denis Roadman and his wedding dress....this could be the spark you need to get you on the road out of the Internet closet and if act now we will send you that lady and her kid in the above video as a bonus

I never get your humor. Anyway, you called this a closet, I didn't. I'd rather you did something for yourself first and got out.

Wow, so it's only okay when others teach their children that gay marriage is wrong, but not for those who think it's right? They don't get to talk about such stuff with their children or children of like minded parents?

So where is this religious freedom you were talking about? For someone who is so enthusiastic about religious freedoms, you don't have any respect for the right of those with different religious values, do you? I wonder what you have done for this right that you keep bragging about, except being born into it and by the looks of it, hating it.

Maybe over there you don't understand the closet term, but I thought you would since you lived here in the United States at one time....NO?

That would explain why you don't get the humor.

I'm not myself Gay and if I were I would never have been be in the closet. I am soooo upfront and speak right out as you can see.

I have to run, right now, so maybe someone here will explain the term to ya! and then you will get the humor more.

Damn, I am in a hurry but I just have to say....using a little child like this is just plain wrong, leading a little child to get the answer you want to make your point and then running on the interent the way she does cheapens the meaning for what she is doing to get out, just like OBAMA bringing the families from CT into the floors to put pressure on people.

I have to run, I will post later..bye

I get that perfectly fine, and yet, I see no humor in your post.

PS: Are you suggesting that I'm gay and I'm in an Internet closet, and somehow these two can make me come out of the internet closet and that's somehow humorous? Cause I'm out of ideas, and I see no humor in this.

This looks like an educational program for kids, just like your average Sunday school. She is trying to educate little children about gay marriage. Just because you disagree with her, doesn't mean it's cheap.

Well, If you didn't ready negativity into every post just because some of us aren't jumping up and down agreeing with your views you would see the humor, but I think your passion for your opinion blinds you in many ways.

I am not saying you are Gay! ! ! AND since you say you understand what being in the closet means then you should understand that I mean: Since people there can not be openly Gay there or I take it
(please correct me if I am wrong) demonstrate or openly support Gay rights in the street/ political forums, then your views there are in the closet.

But here on the Interent you can come out of the closet as the expression goes and cheerlead the cause without the fear you would if you were on your own streets. NO?

Not that I disagree with her message that is for sure! I don't like the way she is doing it. If you want to justify in those terms fine..I don't see it that way myself.
"Judge, I object, she is leading the witness" screams out to me. Anyone other TV lawyers see it this way? Again it is not the message it is the way she is getting the girl to answer the question to make her point.

So why are you interested in the openness of my views in the streets or political forums in Iran? And how those two are gonna help my views over here to come out? And what's funny about this? There's nothing funny about what you said. As I said before, I hardly ever get your jokes.

However, the reason I look at your posts so negatively, is that you've been so passive aggressively jumped on any chance to remind me that I was born somewhere that we have no freedom, as if you have somehow earned yours. You were just born in this situation as well.

Except you are on the other side, so you would shout objection. If I'm the judge, I just overrule it.

Your right, I feel sorry for you and everyone else over there, I hate to think what it is like to live under that kind of world. And maybe that is why you are so over passion about your views because as I said before you can't against your own opponants over there. I am not pointing this out to you to hurt you, just explaining why I think that way.
I don't dislike you because you were born there, and I hope you wouldn't dislike us here for the same reason.
Your mistaken that we haven't earned our freedom here
, our history would say otherwise, and many different times including my own family in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. I have two cousins who have served in our latest conflict. And two over in Germany serving there. I don't think any one here takes our freedoms for granted and our country does more then it's fair share to help other countries to better theirs. And boy do we take grief from other countrys as you very well know.We are viewed as evil villians.

Religious freedom dictates you can believer, and teach your children that gay marriage is right, wrong, or neither. Same with pre marital sex, and a panoply of other issues. The main difference between what the USA SHOULD BE (but often is not) and what we perceive Iran to be is that religious views permeate the secular area. What right wingers in the US do not seem to get is that on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and a panoply of others, the freedom to hold one religious belief or another has nothing to do what is permissable in the secular world. For example if gay marriage is legal in one or more states, it does not mean the government can compel, say the Catholic church to perform gay marriages.

First of all, please don't feel sorry for me. Instead answer my questions as to what that joke was about, because the way you behaved, was as despicable as a rich kid making fun of a poor kid. And please don't take pride in what your forefathers or your family have done, you've not earned that yourself, just as a rich kid has not earned what his parents have. You were just born in the US, as I was born in Iran and you don't get to shame me for not having rights or freedom. So please don't change the subject with the history lesson, or make my remark about you into a rant of an average middle eastern about a villain american. For once, take responsibility for what you, yourself and not the rest of country did to another human being. Too dramatic? yeah I suppose.

OK. your angry, your mind is closed and you want to strike back- fine I take it all back. You have found a reason to twist aside everything I say with a hatefull negative view. To bad you don't know the real truth about me or my family which I am not worthy to talk about or what I do stand for or about.
There is nothing else I can say that you will not twist, so I will be happy to let it drop. Feel free to do the same and/or bypass anything I post.
Peace

The media is downplaying anything that would hurt this gay marriage nonsense, and apparently criminal justice system in some places is too.

How is it that this story has been so unknown to most? No hour long specials with Anderson Cooper on these two men.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010

Because it has no bearing on gay marriage. Do you think there are no heterosexual married couples that foster or adopt children and then sexually molest them? There are plenty. Would an article about a heterosexual couple that molested their adopted child cause you to have second thoughts about all marriages???

Babe, I think that many posts about this subject are a function of emotion and/or based on anecdotal information. Some of the objections to gay relationships, sexual practices, and marriage as expressed on this Board (or otherwise) are glandular. I remember a Cheers episode when it was Carla (I think) who expressed her sentiment about some type of relationship as "eww". I think that several of our Board members have that sentiment toward gay people and/or gay sexual practices, and/or gay marriage.

Despite a plethora of words posted in this thread, I 've not read any that state how gay marriage does or would affect non-gay marriage.

Because they can't. Despite what many will claim, the United States is not a Christian nation. The seperation of church and state means the government cannot institute a national religion, and the government cannot interfer with the citizens' freedom of religion. Most are against because their faith tells them to be. And that is fine, just own up to it. But the bottom line is this, religious faith has no place in law making (see above explanation.)

While her filling her child's head with this garbage is disgusting and shameful, it's more about her exploiting her daughter almost as a prop here.



First of all, if you were 100% honest (which I'm not expecting) you'd admit that homosexual behavior between two guys disgusts you too. As even Dr. Drew said one time, it's basically a biological reaction of straight males when they see that stuff. So, unless you're gay yourself, you're going to have that gut reaction. You can pretend to be all enlightened and everything but it's BS.

Second, I posted an article containing several solid arguments against gay marriage, including how it would effect society. But my guess is, you didn't even bother to read it. If you were honest, you'd admit it doesn't matter how many good arguments people give you. You're steeped in this sick, liberal ideology and your mind is made up.



I'm certainly against it because my religion is. But that's not the only reason. Even if I totally took my religion out of the equation, I'd still be against it. It comes down to common sense. Two men or two women being married? That people even take such an absurd idea seriously shows how bad it's gotten.

And don't give me that crap about "religious faith" has no place in law making. Despite what you secular liberals say, that's NOT what "separation of church and state" means. You just twist and pervert the meaning of that in order to marginalize religion as much as possible.

And by the way, as much as you may hate it, the U.S. is mostly a Christian nation in terms of population.

I don't have a problem with religion or people who follow it, some of my good friends are Christian and go to church. But it has absolutely NO place in government or law making. Society's based on religious law are never stable or tolerant, *cough Iran. But it goes both ways, no government should tell people what religion to follow. That's the reason why many emigrated to America in the first place.

Many people in government are religious and that has shaped and influenced how they grew up, how they think, how they view things, etc. And so naturally that's going to influence, to one degree or another, how they make laws. That's just a fact. Well, that's if they actually take their religion seriously. It's obvious a Catholic like Paul Ryan takes his religion seriously, while a Catholic like Joe Biden simply plays the game and couldn't care less about it. Just like the guy he works for. Anyway, to say "religion has no place" in law making just isn't practical. Meanwhile, the flip side to that coin is that you're basically saying any hair-brained idea a secular liberal comes up is OK simply because it's not influenced by religion.

"Separation of church and state" means one thing - we don't have a state church like the Church of England. Everything beyond that is the result of secular liberal and activist judges trying to marginalize religion as much as possible because they can't stamp it out completely.

Ivy if someone is religious good for them. I have an uncle that used Christianity to quit drinking and I applaud him for it. But I object to religion influencing our laws and decisions. Religion should be outside of the pentagon and Capitol hill. You make your decisions based on political beliefs and the laws already in place. If we used the bible as a blue print for our nation we would be walking backwards to the bronze age.

On another note ivy I don't think every idea a "liberal" comes up with is ok quite the opposite, my views economically lean conservative. In fact the super left annoys me as much as the super right. Both sides are awful at times. But I don't like movements like the tea party because it appeals to a small base of Americans, is extreme in their economic and religious views and would have Christianity play an important part in our government. That to me and many people including republicans is dangerous

I'm not saying we use the Bible as a blueprint. But to completely throw certain religious influences out the window isn't practical. Even now, our laws against theft and murder, stem originally from "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not kill."

Heck, even the secular liberal like Obama and Biden know they can't throw religion out the window. Why do you think they go to church and act like they really believe?

Joe, I appreciate your posts. They are reasonable and minimize or eschew emotional expression when such expression and adamancy lends nothing to debate. As I posted above, some posters have a glandular need to emote on the Board; thankfully you don't.

I wouldn't totally disagree with that statement. A lot of the founding fathers were religious and certainly some judeo-Christian ethics were adopted into the constitution. But when people try to argue that the USA is a "Christian nation" that's stretching it too far. Our independence and government was based more off the ideas of the enlightenment and the English government than God.

And I do concur Obama is not what you would call a "true christian" in the practicing sense. I believe he's only actively saying he is just to calm the misgivings of some people thinking he's Muslim which of course is ridiculous

Thank you olivant. I appreciate your kind words. I'm not perfect, many times I've let my temper get the best of me especially on this subject but I try to be civil. Frankly, I'm glad this debate has cooled down

It has effects on society, on children, on morals, and it diminishes normal- marriage.

Well, I'm sure if she was talking to her kid about how gay marriage is wrong, then you wouldn't feel that she was exploiting her kid. As for filling heads with garbage, I could remember myself being subjected to the same practice, but finally when all that I put in my head later balanced each other out, I got where I am. If filling heads could work, I now must be a faithful Muslim. However, I never in my life warmed up to the ideas that I was taught in the school and I always was looking for something else, and now I'm an atheist.

If being disgusted in a form of sexual relationship is now the compass for what goes and what doesn't, then whose gut should we follow? How about two women having sex? Would that disgust men as well? How about BDSM? Regardless of the kind of sex, almost all of us don't want to picture our parents having sex. Since we're disgusted in their sexual relationship, does this repulsion make their sex life wrong? Repulsion cannot be the basis on what goes and what doesn't. Only the parties involve in the sexual act must consent to what goes and what doesn't.

I think that applies to you too. Because despite the "good arguments" that you have presented, they don't represent your reasoning for being against gay marriage. You are morally opposed based on your religious beliefs, and nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that, because I respect your religious views. Just own it.

And I hate to break it to you, but my interpretation of "seperation of church and state" seems pretty accurate. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." Where did I get it wrong?

Even if she had the opposite opinion on gay marriage, it would still be tasteless to use her kid like that.

And, by the way, there's no such thing as atheists. Everyone knows there's a God.



I'm not saying disgust needs to be the reason to ban gay marriage. I just don't like you guys pretending like it doesn't disgust you too. You know it does but you guys are more concerned about appearing politically correct. Not only is homosexuality degenerate behavior (like the other stuff you mentioned above) but it's also unnatural. And the government has no business officially recognizing or legitimizing it.



Of course it applies to me. I freely admit that because I don't care about appearing politically correct. Homosexuality, is abhorrent, disgusting, perverted, and just plain evil. It's why Sodom and Gomorrah was wiped out. And I've also already said a big reason...the biggest reason...I'm opposed to gay marriage is because of my religious beliefs. But it isn't the only reason. Like I said, even if you take religion completely out of the equation, I'd still be dead set against it.



"Respecting establishment of religion..." In other words, an official state church like the Church of England. Not that religious influence has no place in government or law making. That's you libs bastardizing the original meaning just like you do with abortion being justified by the "right to privacy."

Here's some upcoming entertainment the "progressives" here may be interested in...

Taste is very subjective, isn't it? I don't find it tasteless.

Apparently in your bubble everyone knows there's a god, but not here. I don't.




First of all, it really doesn't disgust me. Now say if any two or more people had sex in front of me, that would be very uncomfortable for me, but if that's a porno movie, or a supposed situation in my head, I hardly ever find anything disgusting short of a very hardcore SM relationship.

Then we get to your point about what's natural and what's not. The whole point of this debate is that one side says this is a degenerate behavior which is picked up along the way and is unnatural, and the other side says homosexuals are naturally wired to like the same sex, as are left handed persons are wired to prefer their left hand. Science is on the side of the latter argument. That's what makes it definitive for me that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. To make people go against their nature, which by the way doesn't harm anyone, is downright criminal.

Let the Gays get married and do whatever the fuck they want I mean look at Ex-Govenor Corozine from Jersey he wasn't the first Gov. of NJ to get rear-ended!

Does a married couple in the US have any privileges or advantages compared to non-married couples?

Yes. There are favorable tax advantages, health benefits, retirement benefits, both public and private, and favorable estate consequences after the death of a married spouse, to name but a few.

Does it have to effect it to makes things right or wrong?
When did we have to defend Marraige BECAUSE someone else want to change the terms of things?

It's "affect", not "effect".

why do some people feel that it gives them a leg up, or makes them feel like a some online scholar, because they can correct an insignificant grammar mistake from a person who they might disagree with on a certain subject. i'm pretty sure everyone knew what was meant, so try not to be so petty.

Amazing how all these gun fanatics oppose individual rights.

what rights would those be, sir? in my opinion, correcting the grammar mistakes of someone who you disagree with doesn't make your position any stronger. the difference is, i'm not advocating that someone shouldn't be able to, i'm just pointing out how silly it seems to me.

Grabs Orange jumps suit and puts it on!

-PLEASE DON"T HIT ME WITH THE RULER AGAIN!

At least add a or a -
when you try and puff us!

ARG MATEY! Down Right Despicable!!! Wooooo WEEEE !!!

I totally agree. It's petty. I rarely make spelling errors myself, but I find it highly annoying to read someone correcting one single misspell or typo.

I have also wondered why, Oli, you only choose a select few to drop your grammatical ruler on? I come across spelling and grammatical errors constantly on here, but you choose to overlook those. For example, reading XDCX's post above, he typed "seperation". It caught my eye, did it not catch yours? There are a couple others on here, part of the "over 25,000 post crowd" that constantly misspell words and misuse grammar. You dont catch those either?

Carmela, Oli is a busy person, and thus has to be selective with grammatical corrections. Maybe you should take a more active role.

No, I'm good. People's grammatical errors don't bother me. Mod whores bother me.

\

OUCH! I like these posts even better!

Oli with everything going digital I bet you miss that red pen or red marker to belittle your students on the slightest error to make them feel inferior and I've actually got to know Carmela well and would say that her spelling might be better or just as good as yours given her accolades but that's for her to say...RESPECT

Not everyone is perfect like you Carmela, and i can only presume your having a dig at me "25k Group". I struggle to spells words and i always struggled with grammar at school,sorry it's just how it is, i'm at the other end of the social spectrum. But i guess you are blind to see this..

Well DE NIRO many people struggle with all kinds of social,emotional, and physical disabilities but I don't see them singling out a women who speaks her mind and is verbally harassed for misspelling a word. I know your bored and so am I but geez correcting someone grammar or spelling on here fuggerabouit

talk about missing the boat....
Gee how many posts do I have?

Not sure how this has been turned back onto me, i was just sticking up for myself as one person was having a dig at the grammer of a certain person over 25K posts

You clearly missed my point. I don't care about your social inadequacies, academic inadequacies, or what have you. Since it was brought up in here, I finally decided to ask something that's been on my mind for a long time now; and that's why does Oli choose to point out grammatical errors to certain members and not others. Is it for the purpose of belittling/provoking/baiting particular people?

Now that is the ticket!

Yes, now your cooking with gas!

Interesting read.

Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

How can you possibly make an assertion that the President and Vice-President are pretending to believe in God? On what basis do you make that statement?

Apparently being a member of the uptight kiss-my-ass club enables you to read minds, that's why, Lilo! And, Carmela, really??? I've seen you jump down plenty of throats when it comes to Sicily and the Sicilian language, so pot, meet kettle.

Can we please stop flinging crap at one another and make some attempt to stay on topic?

i think this is considering flaming another member!


which particular post are you referring to here, or is this just a chance to take a pot shot at somebody who disagrees with a poster who you might agree with?

Whatever.

Hey Hey Hey C'mon Now were all friends here...must be the hot weather today everyone is jacked up

MAJOR respect to Carmela
RESPECT

I think marriage is meant to be between a man and women. That's the way I was raised and believe it to be correct. I am not saying I hate gays or think they deserve rights but IMHO marriage is meant to be between a man and women. I hope I haven't offended anybody.

Only when the topic at hand had/has to do with how things in Italian or Sicilian are spelled and said, have I spoken up. I never just pop in with a one word post for the sheer point of correcting someone. Ever. And when I have done so, I never pick and choose members. I respond to the post and the post only, without even looking at who the member is most times. At least I'm consistent.

I love the stupidity rampant in this thread, people demanding that their religious beliefs should become law (or stay law in DOMA's case) and be applied to everybody else as well. And nobody is aware of how shallow that line of thinking is.

Hey Christian Scientists don't believe in blood transfusions. How about we ban blood transfusions then?

Some Muslims in the Middle East (backed by Theocratic fascist governments and terrorists) accept banning women from driving. Maybe we should ban them from driving too.

Some liberal group thinks Tom Sawyer is a racist book. Let's ban it from libraries and bookstores then!

What the hell is wrong with you people? THINK!

If you want to believe in whatever bullshit you want to believe despite what common sense, common decency, and American values of freedom and equality and Christian themes of love and community, then unfortunately that's your right to be stupid. But dear God, please don't make the rest of us suffer simply because you're weak little tummy is naeseous and easily butthurt.

This is 2013. Not 1983. Or 1973. Or 1993. Or even 2003. Get over it and quit the belly aching. Your descendents will appreciate it. If still butthurt, call a Wahmbulance.



Funny I came across suspiciously similar opinions I found in Letters to the Editor in several East Tennessee newspapers in the 1950s and 60s regarding that whole civil rights issue. And that's white people pissy that blacks wanted to like vote and ride a bus and shit. HOW BLASPHEMOUS!

(The issue of slavery caused the schism within the Baptist Church in America, thus the Southern Baptists left so they could conveniently argue that God in his Bible supported slavery. Hey, don't hate them. They were raised to believe in it.)

Besides, your "belief" as a meter for logicity is quaint when you explore the global history of marriage. Nevermind the whole rationality behind your argument can be easily construed for hate by other parties. ("can"? I'm sure, have already.) You're better than this.

You're not an ape. You're a human being, the one biologically/psychologically advanced creature alive on Earth. An sentient animal with the compacity to overcome its cultural programming for the greater good of yourself and everybody else. Over 1000s of years, we've created values that have been shaped and evolved.

And back to slavery. It was once an accepted way of life and economical livelyhood. Notice Mr. Christ never bothered to hate on slavery that much. Yet in the 18th and 19th centuries in the West, popular movement was made to abolish it on humanistic, Christian appeals that it was...you know, fucking slavery. America ended it by a bloody, pointless war.

Unlike the time of Christ and when the Bible was written, nobody in our time is raised to believe that slavery is acceptable. (With exception of CPAC '13, apparently.) In this regard, we're actually more civilized than that time period in history. Think about it.

Excellent points Ronnie. Good post.

By their actions. You'd have to be willfully blind, in denial, or not understand some of the basic tenants of Christianity not to see it.

When people tell me Obama is a Muslim, I tell them he's no more a Muslim than he is a Christian. He a calculating politician who only pretends to be a Christian in this country because it's politically advantageous. He's for abortion. He's for gay marriage. He just allowed women to be in combat. All the same applies to Biden. He pays lip service to being a believing Catholic but his actions say differently. And, "By their fruits, ye shall know them."

You may agree with them politically, but don't even try to pass these guys off as believing Christians. Unfortunately, I have to say the same about Romney, which is a big reason why I didn't vote for him. The difference is, I expect that from secular leftists like Obama and Biden.



I love how you guys keep pretending that non-religious arguments haven't already been made here.



Textbook secular liberal accusation of those who disagree with them not "thinking" or "using reason?" Check.



I really wish you libs here would quit trying to use parts Christianity or the Bible in your arguments. It's long been apparent to me that none of you understand it, much less believe in it. Yes, Christianity is about love and community. But it's also about obeying the commandments. The spiritually immature pit love against obedience. Don't cherrypick a part of Christianity as a reason to legalize gay marriage.



If something is wrong, it really doesn't matter what year it is. And the only one whining here is you.



Textbook liberal accusation of those against gay marriage being hatemongers like the old racists? Check.



I know I'm not an ape. You and your fellow lefties are the ones who believe we came from apes.

And I love how you think we've been "programmed" but you're the independent, free-thinker. Ah, the arrogance of the secular liberal.



You act like you would even care if Christ did say something about slavery.

Ivy you've really gone to another level of arrogance here. No disrespect, but you're forgetting a majority of what people say on this subject is opinion. It's an extremely touchy subject, but you have to respect that many people don't give a damn about religion in any form or the bible or the commandments of God. Doesn't make them "evil" or a "secular liberal" it's just what they believe to be true. And just because it's not what YOU believe doesn't make them "blind".

I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.


I don't see anything in there about gay marriage, homosexuals or anything gay-related. I see basic tenets of life - worship the one true God and no others, honor Him on the Sabbath, don't steal, don't kill, don't covet, don't lie.

You're the classic example of what I'm talking about. Did you miss the scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments that specifically denounce homosexual acts?

I'm fully aware many here don't give a damn about religion. I'm not attempting to change that. I'm just saying you have no business trying to marginalize religion in government and law making by misinterpreting what "separation of church and state" means.

And anyone who doesn't see that Obama and Biden's actions directly conflict with some of the basic tenants of Christianity is blind. There's no getting around that. Unfortunately, in Obama's case, he mirrors much of the black community in general. Their churches are rather conservative, teaching directly from the Bible, but they sell themselves to the Democratic party (which is all but antagonistic to religion) for a mess of pottage.

I would agree that Obama and Biden don't mirror traditional Christianity, and I don't think for a second they take it seriously. What I see is they both use it for political purposes. BUT that doesn't mean because they support abortion and gay marriage makes them any less Christian even if they were true followers of the religion. Plenty of Christians believe that gay marriage is fine (although I would say a fair number I know are against abortion)

I don't argue that parts of the consitution and Declaration of Independence have "Judeo-Christian ethics" within their text. Many of the founding fathers were religious, but just as many if not more were athiest or deist. I say again our basic structure of law came from the Enlightenment and the basic blueprint was the British parliment and system of law, which at the time was the closest thing to a democracy on Earth. I also hold firm that religion should not interfere with politics or law making. It's dangerous and should be kept out of Congress and the White House. I personally don't agree with the "under God" line in our pledge of alleigance. God IMO has nothing to do with our nation or what goes on inside of it.

At least you recognize Obama and Biden for what they are.

The plenty of Christians you speak of, who are fine with gay marriage are, at best, cafeteria Christians. They hold onto the religion, to a certain degree, for one reason or another. But they follow their own political and social ideology more religiously. Sorry, but homosexuality isn't one of those "grey" areas that's open to individual interpretation. Both the Old and New Testaments are very clear on the subject. Not just "dismissive" as Lilo was saying. So, for so-called Christians to go against that is a major thing. An apostate shift.



The last line in your post above is the most telling. In fact, it's scary that you and others really feel this way. You really do think God "has nothing to do" with this nation and what goes on inside it. It's that kind of secularism, which seeks to marginalize the idea of God if it can't remove it altogether, that will be the downfall of us.

According to the Old Testament they should be killed. Is that what you want? If not - why?

That's what I thought. Again, there is a difference between an opinion and a statement of fact. It is your opinion that the President and Vice-President are wrong politically on many issues. I would never question your right to believe that. I believe they are wrong on many issues.

But when you write that they are pretending to believe in God, that's a statement of fact. You ought to be able to provide some evidence besides the fact that you disagree with them. As far as I know you're not Mrs. Obama or Mrs. Biden or anyone else privy to Pres/VP's innermost thoughts. So you're making an assertion, a somewhat offensive one, with absolutely nothing to back it up. This is one step above people saying Obama is the Antichrist. It's also in opposition to virtually everything in the New Testament where man is repeatedly told that it's God's role to judge, not his.

Ivy, to which basic tenets of Christianity do you refer? Because after all there are dozens of different kinds of Christians, who fiercely disagree on matters large and small. As you know some Christians feel that Mormons aren't Christians. If someone made that as a statement of fact, would you accept it. No.

Ted Olson is for gay marriage. Is he pretending to be Christian?

There are Christians who are feminist and Christians who are traditionalist. There are Christians who fight to save the environment and Christians who joyfully slaughter elephants and strip-mine mountains. There are Christians who are pacifist and Christians who enjoy starting wars. There are pro-life Christians and pro-choice Christians. There are Christians who believe the Pope is the highest human authority on Earth and Christians who think he's just a man like anyone else. There are Christians who believe salvation is by grace alone and Christians who believe deeds and faith play a part. There are Christians who believe that imperialism and colonialism were good things and Christians who do not. There are Christians who focus on helping the poor and feeding the hungry and Christians who think Jesus was an Randian free market devotee. All of these groups overlap of course. Which of those groups are the "true" Christians?

In short once you get past a few basic creeds, there are a million and one ways to be a Christian. What you believe doesn't necessarily predict your politics. This is why it's important to have separation of religion and politics. Religion, or at least some religions, claim to have the inerrant Truth. Politics doesn't.

Here's the first amendment:


Therefore what you say that government has no business trying to marginalize religion in government is simply and clearly wrong. When such laws go contrary to the rights of people who do not believe in that specific religion, I believe according to the 1st amendment government should and must part with laws that marginalize people's rights.

As for what those in government have to do when things go against their beliefs, this is the most tricky part of the religion. You can't have two masters and serve them both faithfully. If someone is elected to the office in the US, I think they should put the constitution first, as they are not elected by just a certain religious members of the country. They have to represent all people, be they believers or nonbelievers. They can keep their beliefs to matters only concerning themselves.

That's the most optimistic I could be about religion. My personal beef with it, is that although the 1st amendment is kindly trying to respect the existence of different religions, the nature of religions are not accepting of other religions or even nonbelievers. Religions constantly order their followers to meddle in other people's lives. Just like you are trying to make us understand that marriage has to be the way you define it. You don't take "Okay, you can have your marriage, Adam and Steve can have their marriage as well." for an answer, because you are so much better than some gay folks, right? Oh, the vanity!

Ronnie ive been saying this for years! Think how safe the roads would be without them!

IvyLeague, do you confuse secularism and atheism?
A Christian can be a perfect secularist.

About fucking time someone made a post worth reading. Nice job, kid .

And a secularist can be a perfect ass.

This thread has gone on for at least ten pages too long. And I don't even have a horse in this friggin race. Bottom line: If your religious, you shouldn't proselytize. It's off putting and senseless. It places you just above the Moonies and Scientologists on the religious food chain.

If you're non-religious, you should practice the so-called tolerance that liberals are always preaching. Because I have to tell you, liiberals are only tolerant until people don't agree with them. Then they're capable of just as much hate as the far righties, and don't say they're not. ONE EXTREME IS NO BETTER THAN THE OTHER!!!!

And Olivant? You and I have always pretty much gotten along, I think, because of our shared Italian American heritage. But stop fucking correcting people. When you use those big snobby words, you sound like Little Carmine on "The Sopranos." And God knows that he was a retard.

And jumping down Carmela's throat for pointing out the obvious, and being CONSISTENT about it, is just bush league. Her posts are more articulate than 90 percent of the posters here all week long and twice on Sundays.

I have nothing else to offer to the "DOMA" debate. Ever. The only reason I even wrote this much is because I'm tired of reading this bullshit.

Just trying to lighten the mood now i'll go back to sitting on this fence

I didn't.

Yea, I pointed that out too, but apparently it only means what Ivy says it means.

This thread has been hijacked.

That said, to Ivy League and all those who think as he does, will someone please explain why people who take the Old Testament literally are not picketing
Red Lobsters and All Barbecue places?

You know they make everything fresh at Red Lobster I was offered a job as a cook or waiter there when I was younger and my GF thats short for (Girlfriend) not Godfather said don't take a job there because no one tips there

Christians adhere to the new covenant. Read the book of Acts.

Isn't focusing on religion a bit of a strawman anyway? Opposition to gay marriage also has its roots in human survival and biology. Hetero relationships are necessary to prevent human extinction. Natural selection favors hetero couples to keep the human race going.

If 100% of marital couples were gay, the human race would go extinct in a couple of generations. Hetero marriage contributes to the common good whereas gay marriage is detrimental to the common good.

That's overstating things a bit don't you think? What you're talking about will never happen because there will always be more straight couples than gay ones. The whole procreation argument has never made sense to me.

Just as I've said quite a few times, in order for us to survive right now, we need to drastically reduce the earth's population. If common good and human survival is a factor at this point, reproduction at this rate is going to be the downfall of human race.

Then again, you know full well that the percentage of homosexuals are way less than straight people. And still many of them have children through surrogacy anyway.

Married people are responsible for each other. They give each other a sense of security. They look after each other. You can't limit marriage to just rearing children.

Pretty sure that was meant for me, except I didn't get quite the shout-out that you did, Oli. Gee, I'm hurt, PB, that you didn't include me in your little rant.

The hate that I've read in recent posts, all the while preaching the name of Christ, who taught us that we are all God's children, has turned my stomach. This thread has MORE than run its course, and it's a shame, because a healthy debate can be a wonderful exercise.

I don't know if what I'm gonna say belongs in this thread or not but here goes:

It's no wonder that people want to leave this board. But why do people feel the need to correct grammatical errors? IMO that's BS due to no one is better than the other on the board. Just because someone is better educated than someone else don't make you better than the other.

I can care less if someone misspells or doesn't use a comma in the right spot. I can go on with my rant about other problems I have but I know I'm wasting my time cuz I'm sure the BS will continue.

Mig, although we don't always see eye-to-eye, we're on the same page with that statement.

IMHO lashing out at the spelling corrections is (maybe) an unintended excuse to lash out at a difference in strong political opinions. People get their panties in a bunch when someone disagrees and they lash out at that person/s. Some people need to put on their big boy pants and accept that there are many people here from all over the world. You WILL have different viewpoints. If you can't be civil don't post.

That being said, I agree that this thread has ran its course. Too much hate here for me.


TIS

You need to improve your reading comprehension. I said nothing about whether either of them believe in God or that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I said their actions regarding certain issues, namely abortion and gay marriage, are not in keeping with Christianity. If you want to give them a pass because they have a (D) after their name, go ahead. But don't pretend that they're not in conflict here.

You know full well that Obama's current official position on gay marriage was timed just so. He, of course, had no problem with gay marriage all along. But he didn't feel comfortable coming out with it until after a certain point. It wasn't politically advantageous. So he bought time and claimed he was "evolving." Clinton played the same game beforehand. I know you see this. But, being the liberal partisan you've always been, you turn a blind eye to it. At least JoeSchmo acknowledges the obvious here.



You know exactly which ones I'm referring to - abortion and gay marriage. No honest person, who understands Christianity and the Bible, can argue either is acceptable in Christianity. Since you feel Paul was only "dismissive" of homosexuality, you've shown your understanding to be lacking, to say the least.

And I'm very aware of those who don't consider Mormons to be Christians. And if we're going by their limited understanding and definition of Christianity, I would completely agree.



He apparently believes gays have a legal right to marry so he is certainly putting his politics ahead of his supposed religious beliefs. Hence, he's doing the exact same thing Obama and Biden are.



Another way to put it is, there are varying levels of understanding and adherence to Christianity. Christ isn't divided. The only reason we see so many denominations within Christianity (so called) is because of apostasy of His followers. All of them claim to be Christian, and many do have a basic belief in Christ, but they interject their own opinions, political beliefs, etc. As the risen Christ said, "They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

And I've already explained many times why a complete separation of politics and religion just isn't practical. Not to mention completely without basis when it comes to the Constitution, as much as secularists want to pretend otherwise.



The only "right" you have, when it comes to the establishment clause in the first amendment is for the U.S. to not establish an official state religion, i.e. like the Church of England which the founding fathers had to deal with. It has nothing to do with law makers not using their religious influences in how they make laws. The latter is simply a perversion people, such as yourself, have made to thwart the original meaning to your whim.



No, I'm not confusing the two. And I would disagree that a Christian can be a secularist on certain issues. For instance, Obama can't claim to be a believing Christian and then have the stance on abortion or gay marriage that he does. What's next? People claiming to be Christians but saying they don't believe Jesus ever existed?

Just close this damn thread already. We've beaten this to death. This is the last time I'm posting on this topic and I say live and let live. Goodbye.

The differences aside, I do agree with the above. It's pretty much played itself out.

In answer to the original post, while I am certainly supportive of DOMA, I'm content to leave the issue up to each state.

Obviously, you do confuse the two. Secularism has nothing to do with what a person believes. It's about the seperation between religion and government. As far as I know that was one of the most important issues of the founding fathers, so important that they made it the 1st amendment. If you want to know what the opposite of secularism is, ask Afsaneh about her country.

Oh, and I'm always thankful if you correct my spelling, grammar and syntax mistakes via PM.

So suppose a Muslim gets elected to the office. Do you say he/she can make laws that are tenets of sharia, yet since they technically have not established sharia as the main law of the land, it's all good and constitutional? Or is it just okay for Christians? And what about the rest of people who might be nonbelievers and do not share the same standards?

Please don't twist the 1st amendment. It's very simple and clear. You not only can't establish a specific religion as the main religion, you cannot trample upon people's right to live their life they way they choose to live. Any official might have a personal and religious view as to what is right and what is wrong, but they certainly can't make or uphold laws that disenfranchise some people for no good reason other than their personal beliefs. They have to serve all people.

No that's not what you said. What you wrote was


And then when challenged to produce hard evidence for your factual assertion that both men are pretending to believe you couldn't do so and starting ranting about their actions. In short you're begging the question here. It's a simple logical fallacy. You need to improve your writing style and refrain from making statements you can't back up. Opinion <> Fact. You make assumptions for which you have no evidence and get nasty when someone asks for proof. And on this board I don't believe I ever wrote who I voted for in any election but you'll continue to make assumptions, I am sure.



Ha! From what I've seen so far your understanding of anything outside of your own worldview, let alone the Bible, is rather limited. Being opposed to abortion and gay marriage are simply not required to be Christian. If you say otherwise, you're making stuff up, just like you made up the claim that the President and Vice-President are pretending to believe. And as usual you can't refrain from insulting anyone who believes differently than you do. Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible. And even it it were once again, we do not live in a theocracy. And I don't know too many "liberal partisans" who are also pro-life. But when you're stuck in Manichean worldviews, everyone that does not walk in lockstep with you is evil, stupid, misguided or one of THEM, right?





Nice to know that only you have the One True Christianity. I'll note that down for future reference...

Bunch of drama queens in this thread. But hey, it's probably for the better if a Carlo Gambino nod will be given to this thread.

AMEN! SHUT IT DOWN!

Or let's take the grammar and religious stuff to other threads.

It works like this...stop posting in it and bypass the thread and it will be out of your life. It will go away!
No need to shut anything down. Let those who want, stay and piss and moan back and forth as long as they like. It may just be the most important part of some people day.

A simple solution.

Of course it does. Secularism involves the belief that religion and government should be separated.

Once again, the first amendment is about not establishing a state religion. To bring up whatever country Afsaneh is from is a bad example because I'm guessing it's a Muslim country and Islam is basically the state religion there.



A Muslim politician here is certainly free to introduce and make laws that are influenced by their religion. Of course, it doesn't mean all of them will be accepted.



You said I claimed they didn't believe in God. I never said anything about whether they believe in God, generally speaking. I said their actions show they don't take their Christian religion seriously.



I did back them up. What better proof do you need then their actions? I give you examples of how their actions conflict with Christianity and that's when you have to start mealy mouthing about all the different types of Christianity in order to avoid the point. Anyone who isn't a liberal partisan hack - that doesn't include you - can see Obama and Biden are just going through the motions because it's politically expedient.

If you were truly honest, you'd admit that Obama suddenly arriving at his current official position on gay marriage was manufactured. But you won't. When it comes to the ever present problem of liberal partisanship on this board, there is no better example then you.



True, abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. But the commandment not to kill certainly is. So, it doesn't take a genius, or even a believer, to understand that Christianity would be against abortion.

Besides, we've already seen you couldn't care less what's in the Bible to begin with. When you're not misrepresenting what it says (Paul only being "dismissive" about homosexuality), you're making arguments for why people should ignore it altogether.

Of course he is free. But is it constitutional? Suppose it passes. It can be challenged in courts and will be struck down, because it is not constitutional.

It's not against the Constitution for a Muslim to try and get bills passed that are influenced by their religion. Now, if they wanted to make Islam the official state religion of the U.S., that would be unconstitutional.

Bringing up the courts is futile to make your point because we've already seen the courts go far beyond their role, i.e. activist judges making law rather than interpreting law. I mean, they're all interpreting the same constitution. But yet why do so many of these judges interpret the same document differently? Furthermore, our system has become corrupted by the fact that it's more about case precedent today than what the Constitution says.

Yet another example of how "acceptance" of all things gay is affecting society.


California bill targeting Boy Scouts’ gay ban passes first hurdle
The Associated Press
April 10, 2013


SAN FRANCISCO — A bill aimed at pressuring the Boy Scouts of America to lift its ban on gay members by making the organization ineligible for nonprofit tax breaks cleared its first vote on Wednesday in the California Legislature.

The Senate Governance and Finance Committee voted 5 to 2 to move the first-of-its-kind bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee for review.

The Youth Equality Act, sponsored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Long Beach, would deny tax-exempt status to youth groups that discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious affiliation.

That means those groups would have to pay corporate taxes on donations, membership dues, camp fees and other sources of income, as well as sales taxes on food, beverages and homemade items sold at fundraisers.

Former Boy Scouts of America president Rick Cronk appeared before the committee on Wednesday, telling members that Scouting has had a positive impact on the state and that being taxed on fundraising sales would hurt local troops.

The proposal was written with the Boy Scouts and its exclusion of gay members and troop leaders in mind, but its language also would require other youth groups to revisit membership policies for transgender and atheist members.

If the Appropriations Committee passes the bill, it would require two-thirds approval from the full Senate before it could be sent to the California Assembly for consideration.

Boy Scouts of America spokesman Deron Smith declined to comment on Wednesday’s vote. Conservative legal aid groups have said they would sue if the bill gets enacted into law because it penalizes groups based on their beliefs.

The Irving, Texas-based BSA is reviewing its membership policies. Later this month, Scouting’s executive officers will present a resolution regarding the policy to be considered in May by the voting members of the National Council.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-new...irst-hurdle.ece

I beg to differ. There's no other way to show a bill is unconstitutional unless you challenge it in a court. Suppose the majority of people in the congress were Muslims. How else would you defend your right other than challenging the bill in the court? You are at the mercy of court to interpret that the 1st amendment is protecting your right, so that you would not be subjected to a sharia law.

I'm not against a law being challenged in court. I'm against the courts not only interpreting the constitution so differently, but going beyond their roles and actually making law rather than just interpreting them correctly.

Article III of the US Constitution extends the judicial power of the United States to "all cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made..."

Whether one opposes equity adjudications or not as a principle or particular equity decisions, Article III is rather definitive about it.

first of all, I'm still saying that your interpretation of the 1st amendment is plain wrong.

Second of all, you basically want to neuter courts and make them irrelevant, so that the other two branches can make laws they please and enforce them without checks and balances, because right now the majority of the country is Christian and that pleases you. But beware what you wish for, things might change. The judicial branch is there and can make laws or struck them down for a good reason. And that's to ensure everyone's right is intact.

Finally, someone posts about a basic tenent of our Nation's state and federal Constitutions - checks and balances. I should have done so, but I thought my previous post about Article III was more germane.

I thought it was more Italian. Maybe French. But definitely not Germane.

Maybe we should Finnish this.

LMFAO!

"Enjoy your success" Little Carmine!

Czech please.

Yes, they have power to interpret all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution. That means two things. First, they should only interpret what's in the Constitution. What is not in the Constitution should be left up to the states. Second, they should interpret the Constitution in terms of what the men who actually wrote the damn thing meant. Not what they, today's judges, want it to mean.



Well, of course you think it's plain wrong. You're right in lockstep with the activist judges of today. Totally misinterpret the Constitution until it's virtually meaningless.

Nobody is trying to "neuter" the courts. Just bring them back to where they were designed to be. Liberals here in the U.S. have always wanted to the courts to go beyond their Constitutional bounds because that's how they get their agenda through most of the time. They usually can't win in the court of public opinion so it's much easier to win over some judges who can't help but overindulge in the power they've been given.

So you're basically saying that society hasn't evolved since the days of our founding fathers, that times haven't changed, and that the way they wrote it 240 years ago is perfect as is? Because the founding fathers admitted that they knew the Constitution wasn't perfect, and that society during Colonial times would be vastly different from society 50, 100, 200 years in the future.

The First Amendment prohibits government from instituting a state church, as well as.allows.its citizens the freedom of religion. Therefore, if the government cannot institute a national religion, it stands to reason (in my mind anyway) that religious beliefs have no place in law making, because it presumes that the people who these laws affect also share those same views. I'm not a Christian, there are many people who have no religious ideology. You have to take them into account too. Therefore, voting against something like legalizing gay mariage based solely on one's faith is irresponsible. There is really no other way to look at it.