TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/27335
Jamie Dupree's Blog
If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.
Belinda Skelton, Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!
Avg. rating: N/A
What others are saying
The Other View
All these comments by various bigots for gay marriage illustrate perfectly why the Democrat party has become a joke. You people are caricatures of yourselves. It's disgusting
Spartans etc
Someone mentioned that in cultures like Greece (Sparta, etc) and Japan homosexuality was accepted. The person forgot to mention that you still had to marry a woman. Pederasty was usually the norm, in most cases with a slave or a young boy prostitute. In Sparta, the boys would have love affairs with older men. They still had to marry a woman. Even in Rome it was homosexuality was acceptable, but only if you were the guy on top.
It drives me crazy when people mention Greece, Rome, or Japan without telling the entire story. Marriage in those societies was still with a woman. Homosexual sex was for fun and romance.
Go to a gay bar at 1 AM completely sober and watch what goes on. You will be traumatized for life.
Gay marriage is now a threat?? Interesting. Can any of the fine, upstanding Americans making derogatory comments remember the Southern Manifesto. If not, it was a document signed by members of Congress from the southern states to defy the Brown v Topeka Board of Education decision reached by the Supreme Court. The major claim was that allowing African Americans to integrate the school system violated their constitutional rights. In short, it failed. I would agree there is a storm coming, and the aftermath may promise an increase in civil rights. Regardless of faith, creed, or color any law that places the rights of one citizen above another has already been deemed illegal in our country.
any man seeing another man naked and bent over and proclaims that he is now in love is a complete sicko, and so is everyone who supports this.
We don't have to worry about them too much though, when Islam becomes the major cult here in America they will start killing them until they go back to their closets
BTW,
porch politician
I agree with you in principle that marriage shouldn't be recognized by the state but because of the way our government rewards or discourages different types of behavior, I think it necessary to reward marriage between a man and a woman and discourage homosexual degeneracy.
History and common sense show that homosexuals are at the very least a symptom of a society in decay and at the worst, the cause of the decay.
Why should we focus first on giving the government power to reward homosexual behavior (through tax code for example) when so many other government actions are significantly affecting the lives of DECENT human beings that aren't actively trying to destroy the successes of western culture.
Two Million For Marriage
I have no idea in what way this will affect someone's freedom. How would same-sex couples who want to marry be living as they wish, when they can't be legal? At any rate, anyone who's interested in NOM and their Two Million For Marriage campaign, take a look at http://www.2m4m.org
1:01
That was 1:01 of my life spent watching a "message" which said nothing. "It will impact MY life" um... how? A doctor must make a choice between beliefs and career? I'm sorry, but Hollywood has done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage than homosexual marriage possibly could. Bobby Brown anyone?
Gay marriage
Some LGBT individuals consider having civil unions being the only sort of legal union of consenting adults recognized by the government as a sort of “slash and burn technique”; they feel that heterosexuals don’t want to give LGBT people any way of being called “married,” so they axe it in favor of the term civil unions. In my opinion though, marriage is an institution of the Church, and shouldn’t be recognized by the state at all. If people of consenting age, regardless of sex or gender, want to get together and share benefits, they should be allowed to do so in a way that is recognized by the secular government. If they want a marriage, they can find a church or faith that they identify with and go through that process in that way. But as far as the government is concerned, grown folks should be allowed to cohabitate and share benefits as they so choose.
Wow
All these comments by various bigots against gay marriage illustrate perfectly why the Republican party has become a joke. You people are caricatures of yourselves. It's disgusting.
Jesus question
Being that it's Easter weekend, I want to remind some of you people who persecute gay people, that Jesus Christ himself was hung on a cross because he was a jew and viewed as "different"...AND he was executed for that sole reason. Do you really think Jesus would want gay people to be treated like he was? Did Jesus only arise from the dead on Easter for straight people only? I think Jesus loves everyone...gay, straight, black, white, etc. Why wouldn't he want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else?
Ever heard of Ancient Greece?
Club-a-Liberal: "Look at the gradual negative impact on society it has over the long term. This is an activity that is abhorred by EVERY society in ALL of history, yet, now it will become normal. Let's face it, there hasn't been one civilized society in history that approved of this."
Um, ever heard of Ancient Greece? Sparta? Macedonia? Some of the most powerful and longest lasting nations in the history of our world not only accepted, but openly supported and/or encouraged homosexual pairings. They considered a bond between two individuals to be acceptable and good, regardless of gender. These are nations that lasted for thousands of years and that aspects of our own nation are modeled after.
Bulldawg
Have someone explain idioms and colloquialisms to you.
Child Protective Services
How long will it be before C.P.S. takes away my child for spanking him in public and has him spend a night or two in the loving arms of a male homosexual couple?
Abuse perpetuates abuse and homosexuals have the highest incidence of domestic abuse of any demographic.
Abuse is the cause of their homosexuality and I am convinced that the vast majority of them want access to young children in order to recruit the next generation of homosexuals.
Marriage
The one thing comforting about the gay marriage issue is that it won't be too long until nearly everyone looks back on it like we look back on opposition to interracial marriage today. It was (and is) backwards, hateful, bigoted, idiocy promoted by those who thought they should control other's lives. And of course, many tried to justify their ignorance with religion.
Just like interracial marriage, gay marriage bans were promoted to appeal to popular bigotry. Just like interracial marriage, gay marriage is becoming legal in more progressive states.
Just like interracial marriage opponents, gay marriage opponents think it will somehow harm marriage as a whole. Because somehow, people in an interracial or same-sex marriage are different from others, so that means there is something wrong with it.
And guess what? Interracial marriage didn't hurt anyone. Gay marriage won't, either.
Not only is there absolutely no way it harm any marriage, there is absolutely nothing wrong with gay marriage.
For those who complain about gay marriage being legalize by court decision rather than legislatures, guess what put an end to interracial marriage across the United States? A Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, in 1967. And that's a good thing, because legislators and voters decide government policy, but they don't decide whether certain people deserve human rights. And equal protection is a Constitutional right right. It's not activist judges, it's judges doing their job, protecting our rights from democracy.
Alabama didn't change their anti-interracial marriage laws until the year 2000.
I see some here think that because a gay person can legally marry someone of the opposite gender, banning gay marriage isn't violating equal protection. That's just stupid, and I think a lot of people who say it know it. Before 1967, people could marry people of the same race. So it wasn't violating equal protection, right? They just didn't have the "special right" of a healthy marriage with the person they wanted.
Right?
No, it isn't.
Look back on history. Think about who you will be when people look back on you.
It'll be Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, and Vermont that people are proud of.
Equal Protection
Is marriage really a protection? One could argue that is more an exposure than a protection. As for my personal belief. Let them have the same thing as marriage, just call it unions. People that think it is wrong can complain just like they do about smokers and fat people. Remove it as a protected status from descrimination and make everyone happy.
If they won't accept the same thing under a definition that is not classified as "marriage" then that is their problem.
Lost faith in people
For the people who spoke out in support of the GLBT community, I thank you. To the others...
First off I want to say that I am gay. I came out when I was 17. I am now 28. The crux of this gay marriage debate is NOT, or at least should not, be forcing any private organization to accept the religious connotation of marriage. This has absolutely no bearing in the matter, but unfortunately people of lesser intelligence, on BOTH sides of the arguments cannot understand this.
What this argument is about is the legal contract, known as a "marriage" license, that joins two people in the eyes of the law and confers many rights. The right to share assets, the right to hospital visitation, the right of spousal immigration, and the right of inheritance just to name a few. By offering this contract to a select few within our society this is discrimination of a type that directly correlates to the pre-civil rights era laws prohibiting whites and blacks from marrying.
For those of you sitting there reading this and saying "But Steve, every right you listed there can be enacted by other civil contracts," you are wrong. The best example is the spousal immigration laws. A straight person can go abroad, take a few pictures with someone of the opposite sex that they have never met, and then claim them as a fiancee to bring them into the country legally. If we gays meet someone in another country, they must go through the stringent immigration requirements to come back home with us, no matter how long they've been together. As for the other rights I mentioned, while some can be enacted, the process is long, arduous, and in many cases, ineffective.
I don't care what the churches want. I don't want them blessing my union. I want to be able to go to a government official, i.e. a Justice of the Peace, and have my union with another person of legal age recognized by the state. I want my assets gained by hard work to be transferred to this person if something happened to me. I want to be able to see my partner in the hospital without lying and telling them he's my brother (Yes, I have done this and my partner's mother at the time backed me up.). I want my partner to benefit from my insurance at work just like Mr. Joe Hetero's wife at home sleeping with the poolboy can.
In our country, all men are created equal. It's time we lived this belief along with the primary precepts of many religions, and allow everyone to be equal in the eyes of the law and if that is wrong let God judge when we stand before him.
I've said my peace. Again to the supporters, including Neal, thank you. To the rest, may God have mercy on your bigoted souls.
Can't leave George out
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical. George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
Founding Quotes Continued
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.... what has no meaning admits no explanation. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander Smyth, January 17, 1825 "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." - John Adams
"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." --Thomas Jefferson
"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a religion, and he'll starve to death praying for fish." - Anonymous "If God doesn't like the way I live, let him tell me, not you." -Anonymous
"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing;
it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities;
it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing."--Thomas Paine
"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine
I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world ...
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. Thomas Jefferson
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. Thomas Paine
This post is for religious apologists that claim there is no hatred for homosexuality in the Bible and that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles, or worse a Christian nation.
Daily Bible lesson for the pious: Lev.20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
In the continuing spirit of challenging those that will only quote one side of the argument; here are some quotes from our founding:
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." -- James Madison
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and the right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it."-- Thomas Jefferson --Letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
I abhor the foul stench of your over-exaggerated sense of intellectual self worth. Your insipid arguments objectively codify you as a dolt of the highest rank.
You offered some extraneous bogeyman effect of gay marriage on the nuclear family. This argument is flattened by the combined weight of American religiosity and divorce rate statistics. Your poor attempt at analogical argument therefore, becomes inane. Your believing that Twinkie pilfering in the Bronx has a direct effect on your purchase of cream filled pastries in Irvine is the exact reason why the electorate has no business voting for any office higher than their member of the House of Representatives. Contact your local institution of higher education for a class in microeconomics.
I agree that this shouldn’t be considered a civil rights issue, but should be seen as a government intrusion issue. A government issued license of any kind subsumes the power of the government to prohibit the activity condoned by the license. The fact that the state uses a marriage license to differentiate people, tax rates being one example, makes this an issue. The correct solution would be to abolish marriage licenses and all consequential benefits and penalties created by the government. Marriage licenses were used in the early 20th century to prevent interracial marriages, so you new found indignation is only a continuation of previously held prejudices and unfounded hatred.
The other theme in your diatribe is your distaste for individual liberty. I find it repulsive that someone would expressly cast a vote to deny someone else their liberty when no personal or societal harm would result from the activity in question.
You quote the idea of self government; you are sincere, but only as long as the way others choose to self-govern meets your approval. You are the embodiment why the founders created a republic and not a democracy.
States' Rights
Whatever happened to States' Rights? In the founding of this country, if a State determined that it was not in that State's interest to obey a Federal law, it wouldn't. Oh I remember, States' Rights went away during the War of Secession in the 1860's. (Sorry you government educated types, the war was not a Civil War since the Seceding States did not want control of the entire government and country. They only wanted to secede since they did not want to pay hefty taxes that Washington DC imposed.)
So maybe the States should assert their rights once again. If some states want homosexual marriage, then they can have it. If not, then they can have that. Let the people vote with their feet as to which state they want to live. Unfortunately, too many Americans have been indoctrinated in the government schools, without getting deprogrammed, and do not care about States' rights and individual liberty.
Church and State
Behold, theists, the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the United States Senate in 1797:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Club A Liberal
Lots of things have been abhorrent to social norms through the ages. Women voting, mixed race marriages, medical interference in some cultures still today.
Still doesn't mean that something should be outlawed only because society doesn't like it, so you may not like my simplistic "it doesn't hurt your marriage" but at the end of the day, sometimes simple is best. And true.
Other than that I think you are Great! Especially your name.
Love & Marriage
goes together like a horse and carriage. Homosexuals want the right to divorce. Haha, I love it! Let's raise court costs and grant them their god given rights.
Wow, what a thread! It's like they opened up the Yahoo message boards again.
"Why is the homosexual's choice of lifestyle rewarded with government sanctioning of his/her relationship but the polygamist or the incestual couple's choice of lifestyle is not? Isn't that discrimination?"
Allowing someone to marry is not a reward. Should I celebrate the reward I get for being allowed to get a driver's license?
What a Threat!
Gay marriage is such a threat. I think once gay people can get married, all of the Bibles in each straight household will spontaneously combust causing massive rural and suburban fire damage. I wish there was something I could say to make these Christians look foolish, but they've beaten me to the punch. Come on people. At least admit the truth. This has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with your blinding hatred of gay people.
By the way - I feel like I am the last conservative left who is not a complete slave to the idiotic rants of the church. These are my choices? Comrade Obama vs. moron Christians??
Gay marriage
Homosexuals do not choose a lifestyle anymore than heterosexuals do. They just ARE, just like heterosexuals ARE. They fall in love just like heterosexuals do. Ask yourself: when did you decide that you were a heterosexual? Never, right? You just knew. Well, they just know. They just ARE. Why would anyone CHOOSE to subject him or herself to the derision and abuse heaped upon gay and lesbian people in our society if they could avoid it? I was once a fence-sitter, but since I have a family member whom I love dearly who came out of the closet, I get it now. He deserves no less than I do. Tell him he can't commit fully and legally to the one he loves ONLY if you tell heterosexuals the same. If you're worried about divorce, take a look at the survival rate for heterosexual marriages. If you're worried about the Bible, read "What the Bible REALLY Says About Homosexuality". If you're worried about your children, maybe they'll be better off knowing that everyone can love and be loved and make a commitment. If you're worried about their children, a good parent is a good parent - regardless of sexuality - and two parents are better than one, whether two men, two women, or one of each. It's time to stop being judgmental and angry and frightened of what you don't understand.
Marriage
Marriage is supposed to be by its nature,a religious experience.Government should completely stay out of if.Government should not advance it by licensing it or giving tax breaks for it.If you belong to a church that sanctions your type of marriage,then it should be performed.This goes along with the abortion issue.It is the province of a religious nature.If we don't put the brakes on our government then pretty soon they will tell you how many bowel movements are allowed.Less is best with government intervention.
@Madsol
I know you'll dismiss me and point your finger and feel all justified and say "See? See? I told you so! Vile, despicable person!", and that's certainly your right to think that of me since you don't know me at all...
But while I'm not PERSONALLY in favor of incest or polygamy or your scenario where a man marries a 16-year old (if that 16-year old can enter into a legally binding contract in her state), as long as everyone is an able-minded, legally consenting human adult, I don't necessarily think it should be outlawed just because I don't personally agree with it or have an interest in it.
In the case of incest, however, they should not be allowed to have kids if they're going to be together, because that's been shown to cause a genetic harm to society. Vasectomies should be mandatory in those cases.
Otherwise, all those social taboos are are boogeymen put in place by religious institutions in order to keep people procreating and in line. Whether these rules were handed down as the rule of God, I don't know, but there are still plenty of Mormons who think that polygamy should be ok. Whose God is right?
You can say marriage is the foundation of society, but there's plenty of evidence to back up that the founding fathers also felt that personal freedoms were as equally as important as religious freedoms. They may have all had very strong Judeo-Christian beliefs and based many of their core principles around that, but marriage wasn't necessarily one of them. Many founding fathers also thought slavery was ok, too. Not many people today still think that's such a hot idea.
It's one thing for the church to outlaw a practice amongst its parishioners, but it's not the government's place to do so as long as, once again, they're not depriving someone else of life, liberty or property.
Just because you don't like it or understand it doesn't make it "wrong" and require the government to step in to back up your beliefs (unless it falls into the life, liberty or property category).
Wow. After reading a few of these comments, I am ashamed to be a human being.
Suggesting homosexuality is akin to marrying an animal, a child, or a relative is sickening.
Suggesting that gays can't have families because they're sinful and "wrong" is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Suggesting that they can't provide a loving home is probably the second most retarded thing I've ever heard. Whoever wrote that is the smartest kid with Down's Syndrome.
I truly can't understand why people don't want gays to get married. Seems like a similar argument was used when blacks couldn't be officially married because they were "lesser" citizens.
This is all a distraction
Marriage is not a foundation of American culture; hard work and a pioneering spirit are; adaptability and independence are; courage and tolerance are. The people that founded this country were the ones that determined that they didn't like others telling them how to live and found their own territory and set their own rules. It is completely disingenuous of anyone nowt to try and assert that any lifestyle is unacceptable. Government should not be in the marriage business aside from enforcing a legal contract. Married people should derive no special benefits nor should they be penalized. Marriage should be an institution regulated only by the individuals involved and whatever higher, non-governmental authority they choose to recognize. I think that having some kind of contract or legal partnership entity status would be fine. It would be similar to a corporation. Married people could file such an entity as could any other group of people that choose to pool their resources for a common domestic goal. In fact, people could probably do that now with the current business rules and be better off. What you people fail to realize is that using the guns of government to block gay marriage, or polygamy or incest or whatever else doesn't stop people from engaging in exactly the same behavior, it only prevents them from using a simple term that has changed in meaning across the ages and from culture to culture. Any time you select the law as a tool to prevent people from engaging in activities that are personal and that have no force or fraud consequence on your life, you are part of the problem.
madsol
The difference is the impact on society. Two men getting married does not hurt society at all. They will not produce children that will fall on society to support, etc.
Polygamy is perfectly fine and valid, so long as all adults are consenting, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
The 30 year old marrying a 16 year old would only be an issue because a 16 year old can't legally enter into a contract. You'll also find me difficult to convince that a 16 year old should be driving. If 16 year olds want to drive, then lower the age at which one is considered a legal adult to 16, otherwise shut up and wait until you are legally responsible. But that's another argument.
The brother marrying the sister should not be allowed as long as they are capable of producing children. This is because it's been scientifically proven that any resulting children will be genetically deficient, the child would become a ward of the state at some point assuming it outlives it's parent's ability to care for it. If the brother or sister agree to be sterilized, I have no problem with them getting married legally. I think it's repugnant, but it's not my place to restrict their freedom if their acts will not harm others. If genetically damaged children are removed from the possible outcome, then the harm to others has been removed.
Marriage rights
Just as a straight man has the right to marry a woman, so does a gay man. Case closed.
You're reading what you want Alan...
You continue rebuking arguments I'm not making. In fact, with my last post directed at you I wasn't even making an argument but explaining an earlier post of mine that you mischaracterized.
But since you want to talk about equal rights, homosexuals have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals...one person, of appropriate age, not too close in relationship, and of the oppposite sex. Same rules for both groups. But because of a lifestyle choice that homosexuals have made, they want an additional right, the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Re: How is it diecrimination?
The other Matt - you say"t is discrimination, because you, as a straight person, have the following choices from this scenario: 1) Stay single 2) Marry someone you are NOT physically and/or intimately attracted to. 3) Marry someone you are physically and intimately attracted to.
Gay people only get a choice from the first two, but the third is denied to them. That's discrimination. "
Well, what if I'm a wannabe polygamist? I only have a choice of two of those also. Why should gays have exceptional rules?
If it is all about love and consenting adults, what if I am in love with my 20 year old sister? Who are you to deny me and my sister, a consenting adult, the love we share for each other? Huh? Where do you draw the line?
ENOUGH with the stupid argument of "It has no affect on my marriage". Technically, a rapist serial killer in California has no immediate affect on my marriage either.
Look, 40 years ago. Elvis couldn't be shown on TV dancing from the waist down. Take a look at TV now. There used to be a stigma about getting knocked up without a father, not anymore, because we can't be judgmental. There used to be a stigma about being on welfare, not anymore. Point is, over time these things have become normalized and accepted behavior. It doesn't happen over night. Are we better off because of our lack of being "judgmental".
tax breaks
I could care less if a couple guys want to marry each other. It doesn't mean I think it's normal or not totally bizarro. My beef is with them getting tax breaks. It's wrong for straight couples, and it's wrong for a fake marriage, too.
@Jeff re: Church and state
Wow, Jeff-you sound like you went to one of those storefront unaccredited law schools like your hero Neal. Using your logic, churches should pay taxes as well.
Okay the "other" Matt...
so I would guess that you would be in favor of a brother marrying his sister who he is physically and intimately attracted to? Or a 30 year old man marrying a 16 year old girl who he is physically and intimately attracted to? Afterall, we trust her to drive at 16 surely she can make an informed decision about who she wants to marry, right? Or 10 people or 100 people or 1000 people who are all physically and intimately attracted to each other marrying each other? There's no end to it. Marriage ceases to be the foundation of society and becomes a collection of people however that group chooses to define it.
Why is the homosexual's choice of lifestyle rewarded with government sanctioning of his/her relationship but the polygamist or the incestual couple's choice of lifestyle is not? Isn't that discrimination?
@ Madsol
And again, my point is it does not matter how many people are against it.
It doesn't matter if you go to church daily, twice a year, or a pagan. The gov't MUST provide EQUAL protection.
EQUAL!
National Orginization for Marriage
No one has a right to get married, not even heterosexuals.
@ Scott
"since you are clearly not up on current events, you need to know that it's not a *Republican* who is trying to take over the banks and auto industry"
Actually, Scott ... it was ...
Why License It?
This is one of the reasons why I am against government licensing of marriage. All it does is cause problems. There is no need for a government to license my relationships.
How it is discrimination
Club-A-Liberal, you said "For you morons who think it is discrimination, please explain how? I have to follow these rules to get married: marry ONE person, legal age, of the OPPOSITE sex. Now, if there is a gay person out there who followed these rules and was denied marriage by the state, then I stand corrected and there is a case of discrimination."
It is discrimination, because you, as a straight person, have the following choices from this scenario: 1) Stay single 2) Marry someone you are NOT physically and/or intimately attracted to. 3) Marry someone you are physically and intimately attracted to.
Gay people only get a choice from the first two, but the third is denied to them. That's discrimination.
Sure, they may love their partner of the opposite sex, but it doesn't feel natural or normal to be with them, just as it doesn't feel natural or normal for you to be with someone of the same sex.
So you're giving a gay person the choice of either being a spinster/confirmed bachelor or married in a relationship that doesn't feel natural. You, as a straight person, get a choice that leaves you fulfilled and happy.
That is why it is discrimination.
I know government is supposed to be based in cold, unfeeling logic and facts, but if they're going to be involved in the business of determining who can and can't get married, then they have to take feelings into consideration between consenting, human adults, regardless of which gender they're attracted to. It's either that or just allow the government to pick our partners for us... A country of arranged marriages. That would be equal, too!
That's a strawman Alan...
I wasn't making the point that we're a democracy, not even close. I was pointing out that any time this issue comes up, you can count on the same refrain from the same people, "Oh the Bible thumpers are at it again." "Those religious zealots just hate homosexuals." And my point simply was that with gay marriage bans passing every time they've been proposed all over the country, there are obviously a lot of people who are not fundamentalist Christians who are opposed to same-sex marriage.
Freedom
If a man marries another man, it in no way detracts from my feelings for my wife, or hers for me. It in no way lessens the commitment we have made to other. It does not impact me, or anyone else in any tangible way. The only impact it will have is on people who feel that their imaginary being is better than everyone else's imaginary beings, and feel that they must impose their superstitious beliefs on everyone else. It only affects you if YOU choose to make it affect you.
People who claim that there can be no rule of law or civilized social order, without religion, are blithering idiots. A free society depends on the absence of religion in it's laws. If you introduce religion, there can be no freedom. If a person wants to worship snails, cows, rocks, trees, the sun, the stars, or some imaginary man, then that is their right in a free society. It is also their right to be without such superstitions. Society is based on simple principles that do not require religion to form their basis. To claim it does require religion is a desperate attempt to justify in your mind why you continue to cling to ridiculous ancient superstitions.
It's "couldn't" care less...!
It's I COULDN'T care less people, NOT I COULD care less. If you COULD care less, then you COULD care less. For pete's sake! Damn gov't schools!
Murder
Mattschmatt said "Murder is wrong in the bible, just like homosexuality. So if gays and liberals support laws against murder, they should accept laws against homosexuality. Right? "
Wrong!
Murder deprives someone of life, liberty or property, specifially LIFE.
Gay marriage does not.
@ Club
the long-term impact on society argument was also used in the 1800's - against the abolishment of slavery ... again in the 1960's against the civil rights movement. So your argument holds no water.
Our civil rights protect the individual from the gov't and protect against discrimination - including race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.
I repeat - the moment the gov't gave out its first marriage license was the moment it lost control over whom THE GOVT says can get married.
No one can force a church to perform gay-marriage against its will. The church has every right not to acknowledge gay-marriage, but the gov't does not have that option. It must provide equal rights to ALL of its citizens.
It's those Religious Fundies again...
...with their Hetrosexual Agenda!
Contracts
Matt, you said "I can't go and marry a 10 year old nor can I go marry my dog."
No, you can't, because neither a dog nor a 10-year old can enter into a legally binding contract. You're trying to compare apples to oranges there.
However, a consenting human adult can enter into a contract with another consenting human adult. So if your life, liberty or property is not being taken away (and it's not, no matter how you try to twist it), why should you have any say whether or not the government allows gay marriage? Or rather, why should the government restrict it in the first place? It's not their place.
As for teaching it in schools, if you don't like it, take your kid out of a government school and educate them yourself or put them in a private school more in line with your values. Why do you expect the government to teach your values for you?
As for gay adoptions, if there are so few babies out there who need adopting, why are there so many kids in foster care to this day? Why do orphanages still exist? If kids can find loving, happy homes with a gay person, why is that bad?
As for business owners, like any good capitalist society (which we'll hopefully remain), they can either adjust to the market or go under. How do you think businesses during the civil rights movement handled it once laws restricting blacks from marrying whites were removed? They either accepted it (even if they quietly disapproved), or they went under. This is no different.
As for churches, most gay people respect the separation between church-sponsored weddings and government-sponsored weddings. No church should be forced to carry out gay marriage ceremonies if it violates their beliefs. All gay people want is the same special rights and perks from the government that straight people get when they get married. Now, if the government wants to get out of the marriage business altogether, I'd be all for that, but if not (and probably not), then consenting, human gay adults should be just as free to marry each other as consenting, straight adults.
Like you, I can go on and on....
Equal Rights
@Madsol - Its doesn't really matter how many times something was voted down in "ultra-liberal" states, as we are not a democracy.
The moment the gov't got involved in giving out licenses to get married was the moment the gov't lost the ability to control (and dictate) who can get married (in the gov't eyes).
No one is saying churches must perform gay-marriage - the first amendment protects them from being forced to perform such acts - but the gov't must offer equal protection under the law to all of its citizens.
I am surprised
I’m surprised at the ignorance of your audience Neal, at least many of the ones commenting here.
First - this ad is hopelessly cheesed and hokey. The righties are trying to play the game by the rules the lefties get to play by, but they can't do it and they FAIL every time they try. I wish they would grow some balls.
Second – the main arguments the lefties use in this ‘debate’ is 1) equal protection and 2) civil rights. The righties need grow some steelies and tell it like it is: 1) there is no equal protection violation (as our HPotCotPT Neal has spoken many times), 2) the lefties have hijacked a genuine and worthy cause (civil rights) and warped it into something perverted. This has NOTHING to do with civil rights in any way.
And PLEASE stop giving me your whiny crap about gay marriages not affecting your marriage. Will you please take the pile of ignorant steaming crap that just fell out of your mouth and shove it back in. That is like saying “those 7-11 burglars out in the Bronx don’t affect the price I pay for twinkies here in Irvine” Oh really? So that makes burglary ok in your view? Stupid a$$. The deterioration in general of the nuclear family is killing this country, and gay marriage is another blow, it just so happens that gay marriage is easy to get people excited about. Who cares if it doesn’t affect yours, it probably won’t, but I gauran-fn-tee you it will affect your kids marriage and grandkids. How short sighted and self absorbed can you a-holes be?
The other stinking tripe lefties use as a tactic is to make people feel oh so bad about you shoving your religion on the minority. Hey! You lefty! Yeah you!! Screw you!!! I am as much a citizen of this nation as you and I get to vote however the crap I want to. Someone please tell me when we became a nation that is ruled as opposed to one that is self governed, as long as that is true then you derive your ‘rights’ either from god or nature, etc.. or from the constitution (i.e. from the people) and as one of those people I will vote every time to keep your filthy lifestyle to yourself. Every time you come and ask for me to condone you relationship I’ll say hell no. The righties need to let people know that is OK to vote based on religious conviction, in fact we have a duty to do so.
Oh, and to Stan (Gable): Have you ever heard this phrase “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” You are a stupid a$$, we will govern ourselves thank you. You are perfectly free and welcome to live happily in the closet with your donkey as long as you like, just don’t come to me for approval.
current events
Stan Gable: " I hate how republicans love big government controlling everything"
Stan, since you are clearly not up on current events, you need to know that it's not a *Republican* who is trying to take over the banks and auto industry.
the state of marriage
The whole concept of gay marriage is silly. Gays already have exactly the same rights to marry as straights. I'm a man, and I am free to marry just about any woman who wants to marry me, whether or not that woman is gay. There is no ban on gay marriage.
Having said that, I just don't see how two men getting married affects my marriage. I didn't marry the institution of marriage, I married my wife. If Adam and Steve get married, it's not going to affect my marriage at all. For the folks who insist that it will, I ask them to point out in specific detail how *my* marriage (as opposed to the general concept of marriage) would be damaged. If Adam and Steve get married, will my wife love me less? Will my kids no longer be my kids? Will the state call me and tell me my marriage expired?
There's nothing at all wrong for a church to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. The state, however, should not. If gays pay taxes, then they are entitled to the same services as any taxpayer. I don't favor gay marriage, but I don't see where the state has any right or reason to object.
The Seperation of Church and State
Does not exist in the Constitution nor was it ever intended by the founders to exist. In one of the most ridiculous rulings of the Supreme Court, Justice Black, in writing for the majority, took that phrase from a private letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists many years AFTER the ratification of the Constitution. The Court erred considerably in this ruling because the basis on which they are to rule is the US Constitution, not private letters writeen by someone that had little role in the Constitution's framing and wasn't even in country at the ratification( He was in France) The First Amendment clause on relegion exists solely to prevent a NATIONAL MANDATORY church like the Church of England, nothing more, nothing less.
murder laws are religious based too
Murder is wrong in the bible, just like homosexuality. So if gays and liberals support laws against murder, they should accept laws against homosexuality. Right?
Scockxpert is right in that many of our laws are based on morality which comes from somewhere like the Bible. This is just one more.
Gay Marriage Does Have an Affect on You
First off, let me put a disclaimer out there that I could care less what you do in your bedroom. So spare me the charges of homophobia or I'm a "Bible Beater." But, this marriage push, is getting on my nerves.
I'm tired of hearing of that simplistic talking point of "How does gay marriage have any affect on your own marriage?" Well, yeah, technically, in the very short term, when I come home today, there is no immediate impact on me. However, over time, there is a dramatic impact on our culture. Using that simplistic logic, you can say that about anything....How does allowing men to sleep with animals have any affect on my marriage? How does allowing someone to have 20 wives affect my marriage? Is there really anything that has an IMMEDIATE impact on your marriage? Not really, so the argument is nonsense.
Look at the gradual negative impact on society it has over the long term. This is an activity that is abhorred by EVERY society in ALL of history, yet, now it will become normal. Let's face it, there hasn't been one civilized society in history that approved of this.
For you morons who think it is discrimination, please explain how? I have to follow these rules to get married: marry ONE person, legal age, of the OPPOSITE sex. Now, if there is a gay person out there who followed these rules and was denied marriage by the state, then I stand corrected and there is a case of discrimination. If not, shut your trap and follow the same rules I have to.
Now, if we are to tweak the Opposite sex criteria, then why can't we tweak the one spouse or the legal age criteria? If someone came out today and demanded that we allow men to marry multiple women or marry 14 year olds, everyone would be outraged. If you think about it, that, although I am not for it, would at least be more acceptable given that many societies, even to this day, approve of that. NO ONE EVER has approved of gay marriage.
If I were a polygamist, then I would be all over this making MY demands for MY rights.
Jeff...
The religion clauses in the first amendment (actually, just the establishment clause because as was pointed out below, most who profess "separation of church and state" ignore the free exercise clause) are read to mean "separation of church and state" only by those who want to drive religion and any reference thereto completely out of the public square. Perhaps you're part of that group.
But as Stockxpert pointed out in his post, there is no support for such a position among the founders. In fact, in addition to Stockxpert's citations consider this from Patrick Henry, he of "Give me liberty or give me death" fame: "It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Yep, sure sounds like separation of church and state was a popular topic around Philadelphia in the 1770s and 80s.
"Churches should be allowed to marry gay couples if they want or not allow it if they dont want to. The state should be nutral on this sybject."
Sure... the state however has a bad habit of not doing that in general. Every election cycle for example, some liberal group threatens to take away a church's IRS exempt status if they preach against their candidate.
There has also been talk for years about shutting down religious broadcasting b/c it happens on the "public airwaves".
Don't even get me started about public nativity scenes and Christmas decorations.
In schools, Christian kids often have a hard time meeting together. This isn't always true, but some schools have forbidden "Christian clubs" for fear of having to do the same for "Satanic clubs" as well.
The "state" constantly wants to take over and change what the people believe is morally correct... according to a religion. This whole country was first "founded" by religious fanatics who ran from this type of government control and pressure.
There is a legitimate debate for the public school system undermining the teachings of a church OR the child's parents. And if a Christian teacher is told to teach material that is contrary to their beliefs, they have to choose between telling the kids the Truth or the state's truth. The state in effect is telling them to lie on their behalf and all it would take is a federal law to require such teachings in even religious schools.
If laws require religious based adoption agencies to allow homosexuals to adopt... some will choose to shut down.
It's not about hating gays. Hatred of homosexuals is not taught anywhere in the Bible. Homosexuality is called a sin there, but the Bible teaches that everyone has sinned and thus "fallen short of the glory of God." In fact, in 1 Corinthians homosexuality is called a sin in the same sentence that greed, drunkenness and lying is called a sin.
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:7-11
Honestly, the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. The problem is that with the advent of state approved gay marriage, the state will allow anti-discrimination laws to be used against anyone with a religious belief contrary to what the state says is right.
It falls under freedom of speech rather than freedom of religion in their opinion. Therefore, like pornography, death threats and so on, they will want to control and regulate it. But... they've always wanted that.
BTW, not that you asked me, but that's a HORRIBLE ad. Seriously.
Fun :)
Great fun distracting the masses on both sides from the real issues that actually will effect all of us very soon. i.e. the 100+ trillion in unfunded obligations of SS, Medicare, & Medicaid about to bury us in debt in the next 5-10 years.
I'm happily married, straight, christian, and have a 5 year old daughter.
I have 3 gay friends currently and have had more in the past. Honestly according to them "gay-marrage" is less of an issue "for it" than the "storm" against it.
Gays already have a hard enough life with less than 3% of the population to choose from for a partner (average of studies, ranges from 1% to 6% in most studies)and having to worry about higher cases of STD then to worry too much about marrying their life partner.
The above statements are all fact based on numerous studies so try using Google before labeling me a "homophobe".
I feel that being "gay" is not a choice for "most" people and that if they honestly could choose most would choose to be straight since it's vastly easier.
Over time the U.S.A. will eventually "accept" gay people and give them full access to the same respect/treatment/privileges that are given to straight people just as blacks had to overcome extreme prejudice because they were "different". (I'm white by the way)
You can fight it verbally, monetarily, or both but the trend towards acceptance is strong and can not be reversed so give it a rest already.
Try focusing that anger from both sides towards where it really belongs. The Government has screwed us royally by both parties trying to "control" every aspect of our life and it's time to take this country BACK!
Lets clear two things up
madsol The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an estabishment of religion, or of the free exercise thereof" this is refered to as the seperation of church and state. Mr. Bradford, I also never said marriage was a right granted by the state. I said that same-sex couples have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
and one more thing
These proponents to gay marriage are behind the times. Marriage, unless you have deep religious beliefs that require it (I'm sure most gay folk do), is becoming more and more obsolete. About as much as freedom. Really, why ruin a perfectly good relationship by getting married?
Boortz is wrong
First, government dictates "morality" in everything it legislates. The question boils down to whose morality is the basis for that legislation. One person's morality might dictate that abortion is okay. Another's might dictate that it's wrong. But the bottom line is that you can't have amoral legislation. It's impossible to separate the two.
There has to be some foundation for making judgments of whether a certain action or behavior is right or wrong, legislatively speaking. I say it's morality.
What is that morality based on in our country? Madison said it was religion. He authored a clause in the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights that read: "It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other."
Washington said: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
Benjamin Franklin had an education plan for public schools in Pennsylvania. He said that schools should teach "the necessity of a public religion ... and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
John Adams said: "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
Adams also said: "[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Quincy Adams said: "The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws."
Maybe JQA's best words: "There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy."
One of the framers of the First Amendment, Fisher Ames said: "Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."
Need I go on? You can argue that morality has no place in government. But you can't base that statement on the intent of the founders.
And another thing...
If the position of opposing same-sex "marriage" is one taken by only "religious zealots" and "Bible beaters," then why is it that whenever a state has put the issue on the ballot to define marriage as between one man and one woman, in every instance that measure has passed, including in ultra-liberal states like California and Oregon? Either there are a lot more "religious zealots" and "Bible beaters" out there than we knew about or maybe, just maybe, this issue transcends religion and you can't end the debate by simply demonizing those with whom you disagree as religious whackos. I would guess that there are a lot of people who oppose same-sex "marriage" who would take great offense at being labeled as a Bible beater.
These people are morons
This is America. If a man wants to marry a Donkey he should be allowed to. I hate how republicans love big government controlling everything
another point
Another thought for you... Most of the gay men I know are libertarian or republican in their policital beliefs. Its the social conservatives that prevent them from running with their political beliefs. Seems to me the social conservatives do a better job of alienating potential conservative voters...
Its a Contract
Marriage is a Contract between two people and the state. How is the state legally able to deny two people from entering a contract?
This is a disturbing trend I see from the social conservatives. Useing the Goverment to Legislate morality.
Churches should be allowed to marry gay couples if they want or not allow it if they dont want to. The state should be nutral on this sybject.
And to insult to injury they end the commercial talking about a "Rainbow". Thats my symbol you Jerks!
The people that made this commercial are probably afraid they will get THE HIV if a gay guy looks at them.
Brian is absolutely right. I can't go and marry a 10 year old nor can I go marry my dog. There are laws in place which is regulated and defined by the state. Because government is involved I absolutely have a right and say in how the government goes about deciding to change that definition of marriage which has lasted thousands of years.
No, I don't believe that gays will affect my marriage. However, this will eventually come to impact A LOT of people.
Schools will need to teach that "gay marriage" is the moral equivalent of "traditional marriage." Gay couples will have the legal right to adopt -- thus competing with heterosexual couples who want to adopt a limited number of available babies. Business owners will be required to provide financial benefits to people engaging in behavior they find reprehensible. Churches could be required to make their sanctuaries available for same-sex marriage ceremonies. That list can go on and on.
OK, A Few Thoughts
Seems as though there are a couple of you out there who need a bit of an education. Hugo, the doctor isn't concerned with having to treat gays or people of different faiths. The doctor is worried about Obama's reversal of the Bush policy protecting a doctor's right not to perform an abortion. There are doctors who feel abortion is morally objectionable yet now they can be disciplined for not performing one. Being pregnant isn't a disease that needs a cure. Something tells me that an Islamic doctor wouldn't be held to the same standards.
Now, as for the 1st Amendment, it does not, I repeat, does not establish the separation of church and state so quit following the liberal playbook on that one. Actually, since you want to play the 1st Amendment game, here is what you are probably referring to: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" If you can't nitpick the first part and ignore the 2nd part. While the country doesn't have an official state religion, they also can't infringe on the rights to individuals' right to worship. George Bush upheld that right and Obama summarily stripped it away. Now I ask you, who violated the 1st Amendment?
As for gay marriage in general. Personally I could care less. 2 things on it. First, these Hollywood sham marriages have done more to trivialize marriage than gay marriage has. Secondly, the bigger outrage is that of marriage being a state institution. That is a bigger outrage.
everyone agrees?
how boring.
Adam -- there's no such thing as the conservative party.
It's a fake
It's not real folks. It's an absurd video done by the Gay and Lesbian association to incite anger so people will lash out and support homosexuality. Personally, I'm fine with gay marriage, but these are some perverse tactics being used.
What about the business owners?
What about the business owner who does not believe in gay marriage and now must decide between giving spouses medical coverage and completely dropping the coverage for spouses because she must give them also to the gay partners?
I agree with many here that gay marriage does not impact my marriage one bit. I tell my daughter (age 6) that some men prefer other men when it comes to marriage; it is perfectly nature to them.
To Hugo's Ghost: I am fine with a private business or a church that owns a piece of property being able to discriminate in renting a facility.
I think this is inherent in the idea of private property: that the owner can select whom the owner wants on the property. The government should not interfere with that. And yes if a property owner did not want to rent to a black person, I think the property owner should be allowed to do that. If someone does not like it, then picket or condemn the person, but it is his (her) property.
Should the state require a church owned facility (even one rented out) to rent the place to a satanic cult?
A right?
Just thought i'd throw out there that marriage is not a "right"...it's a privilege - a legal union granted by the laws of the state. Therefore, the people of the state should be able to decide what legal contracts are allowed or not. This idea of a "right" to marriage is silly and asinine. If you don't like the laws and privileges of one state, move to one that you like. What's good for Georgia is not necessarily good for California and vice-versa.
Jeff in Dayton
Hey Jeff, could you lend me your copy of the Constitution where it talks in Amendment 1 (or anyhwere) about "separation of church and state" because the copy of the Constitution that I have doesn't have those words anywhere in it?
And I love how people like you talk about those who are opposed to same-sex "marriage" as trying to force their beliefs down everyone's throat. That is the most laughable proposition I have ever heard. Please point me to one example in the mainstream popular culture where the position opposed to the homosexual lifestyle is presented in a positive way. Save your efforts, you won't find one. Meanwhile, virtually every television show and movie has a homosexual character, often times portrayed as persecuted by the mean old heterosexuals, and more often than not their sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the storyline.
The reason that same-sex "marriage" affects others is that it normalizes the homosexual lifestyle. It's not that hard to figure out. If you're opposed to the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle, as I and many, many others are, than same-sex "marriage" does indeed affect you. Try to at least have some intellectual honesty on the issue.
And if trying to live a life consistent with the clear teachings of the Word of God makes me a "Bible Beater" (How ironic, you rail against the supposed intolerance of those in the video while demonstrating your clear intolerance for all the world to see. I wonder if you have cute, derogatory names for adherents of other religions like Judaism or Islam or if you direct your bigotry only at Christians) then I'll wear that label as a badge of honor..."If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you." 1 Peter 4:14.
GMAFB!
There are lots of threats to marriages these days, and same sex couples seeking recognition of their commitment ain't one of them.
I'm straight and Christian, and my response to Gay Marriage is "Live and Let Live".
To all heterosexual Christian couples: stop whining about gay marriage and work on your own relationship. That's what I do.
re. Jeff in Dayton
I assume you are from Dayton, OH and as such have every reason to be miserable. Try moving from that cesspool before your marriage collapes entirely.
A front to support Guy Marriage
Sounds like reverse physiology. Be concern about gay marriage means don’t care about it.
one yes one no
Gay marriage has no effect on my marriage. I figure if you don't like gays don't marry one!
I can see why a doctor who does not believe in abortion should not be forced to perform them. To them, the Do No Harm part of their oath applies. But not treating someone because they are a different belief than you is wrong.
Marriage these days has nothing to do with religion unless you want it to. You can be married by a minister/priest or you can be married by a justice of the peace. Just having the ceremony with a religious figure still does not get you "legally" married even if it is a man and a woman. You still have to get a government issued license.
A Storm?
What STORM! I am sick of seeing these sad puppy dog face whiners trying to convince me that what they believe is what I should believe. Besides, it aggravates my IBS.
Peaceful Loving Religious Zealots
Once again we see why people are leaving organized religion. They just want to control other.
"My freedom will be taken away".... Riggghhhht
I see lots of things in this country that I don't like, yet I don't get in front of a camera and cry that "my freedoms are being taken away" because of it.
Freedom is not "being free to see/have only things that I approve of". It often includes things that I may not approve of, but if they don't deprive anyone of life, liberty or property, then they should be allowed. No one's freedoms are being taken away by allowing two consenting adults in a commited relationship to get married, and no one is forcing the churches to perform such services within the walls of their sanctuary if it violates the church's beliefs.
Thanks for stirrin' the pudding this morning, Neal! I wish I could listen to you in the office (streaming is blocked and radios aren't allowed) just to hear if you have anything to say about this on the air...
Another gigantic blow to the conservative party by a ridiculous organization. Does Gay Marriage in anyway affect your liberty.
"I'm a Mom, forced to watch her child be taught in school that gay marriage is ok"
OK, yeah lady, I'm SO sure you're forced to not enroll your child in private schools, or to quit your job to home school your kid.
To put it unprofessionally, this is the gayest ad I've seen in a long, long time.
National Organization For Marriage
As a straight man I have this to say:
I wish these crying bunch of "Bible Beaters" would quit trying to force their beliefs down everyone elses throat. Our Declaration of Independence list one of our "unalienable rights" as "the Pursuit of Happiness", our Constution, in Adendment I, provides for the seperation of Church and State. If the Doctor doesen't like her job then find another one, she has the education. If the parent doesn't like the message her children age getting in public schools, then send them to Catholic schools. All these people want is that we, as a nation, should bow to their beliefs and that is a bunch of crap.
Anyway I say if gay and lesbian couples want to get married it should be legal. THEY HAVE A RIGHT, YES A RIGHT, TO BE AS MISERABLE AS THE REST OF US!!!!!
This is really our biggest concern?
I actually heard this ad on the radio on my way to work this morning. I would laugh if it wasn't so scary. Why do people concern themselves with Gay marriage when we've got a government trying to take control of our children and our money?
Gays getting married won't hurt you despite what you think. And even though abortion is wrong(in my opinion), it shouldn't be part of the national debate. Worry about your own self interest and stop blaming your problems on things that don't even belong in the national debate.
Give me a break
Somehow there are people being persecuted because gay people can marry?!? What a joke.
Irony
I find it ironic that a group opposed to same-sex marriage uses the term "rainbow" coalition. I guess it's also ironic that they talk about gays taking away their rights when they are obviously working hard to take away the rights of gays, but I assume that one is a little more obvious.
Give me a break
I love the woman in Massachusetts who is "helplessly watching" as her son is being taught in public school that gay marriage is okay. She's not friggin' helpless, she can teach her son whatever she wants! Just because the govt school teachers say it, doesn't make it so. Besides, if she wants to put the govt in charge of educating her son, she obviously is not all that concerned about his education anyway.
Personally, I think this whole campaign is ridiculous. Didn't one of them say they are losing their freedom? What freedom? Allowing gays to marry doesn't take freedom away from others. Get over it.
Facts
From : http://www.hrc.org/12470.htm
"The real facts of each case are: The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians. The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions. "
Oh, and the those are actors, not the actual people.
Government
What I learned from that video is that Physicians may be forced to provide "reproductive rights healthcare", even if it's against their own moral code of ethics. Aren't doctors supposed to heal people? Pregnancy is not an illness
Many problems with this
The first being that the blond guy in the brown suit is clearly a homosexual.
Can someone please explain to me how other people I don't know getting married effects my life? My marriage doesn't seem to be any weaker since this issue first came up.
Oh noes! The gays are taking my freeeeeeedom!
What an absolute crock. Thanks for the laugh, Neal. I needed one this morning.
Notice how not one of these anecdotes offer any details whatsoever.
Abortion
It kills a human being and must be stopped. It is no more a civil right for a worman to kill her fetus than it it the civil right of a Saudi to beat his wife.
Search Boortz.com
