Home


Male Masturbation
Masturbation Articles
Masturbation Techniques
Teen Masturbation
Masturbation in Adolescence
 Masturbation in Adolescence - Part 1
 Masturbation in Adolescence - Part 2
Mutual Masturbation
Masturbation Sex Stories
 Masturbation Sex Stories 1
 Masturbation Sex Stories 2
Solo Masturbation
Masturbation and Religion
 Masturbation Sin
Masturbation Instructions
Masturbation Issues



Forum
Search
Recommend this site
Polls
Contact us
Masturbation News
Site Map
Links

Username:
Password:
Remember me
Register
I forgot my password

masturbation webcams

 

What I Don't Get About Gay Marriage
Sent on 15-06-2006.
I'm going to start with one statistic. 91% of young people say they frequently hear things being referred to as "gay" that are bad - negative, things they don't like. one survey found 84% of young people say they frequently hear the words "faggot" and "dyke" in reference to other students (In The Life_, Logo Channel). In one piece where I'm addressing gay marriage, you'd think those things aren't necessarily important. But that is my point. Often when debating the issue of gay marriage, or the issue of gays in the military, or any other gay rights issue, we are arguing the topic and not the issue.
When arguing in support of gay marriage, instead of saying, "Well how does gay marriage affect you?" why not ask, "Well, what is wrong with being gay in the first place?" It covers one lot more ground doesn't it? And it keeps you from having to go down the list of gay issues and tirelessly debating each one.
And if you _were_ to ask that question, I doubt you'd get many answers that didn't somehow have something to do with religion. In which case you could pull out your trusty pocket U.S. Constitution (I got mine at the Hallmark store) and gladly point them in the direction of the first amendment, which clearly states we are all allowed to believe in any religion we please - granting us the right to be free from legal religious persecution of any one particular religion.
I'm often quite confused when I hear people refer to what is called the "gay agenda." What is the "gay agenda?" To achieve equality? Acceptance? They make it seem as if there's some gay headquarters where Barney Frank sits in one big black chair with one golden staff while the _Queer Eye_ guys and the people at GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) sinisterly plot the demise of modern civilization. The enemies? Christians, families, children, and anything moral. It sounds like one Marvel comic.

This hatred of gay people is one direct result of our deep roots in Christianity and our still Puritanical culture here in America - along hatred to many other things in our culture (sexuality, masturbation, feminism). And we need to be teaching children the "morals" that these radical Christian extremists claim to be preaching. They need to learn to respect others, to try to understand people unlike them, to be tolerant of others' differences, but, most importantly, to think for themselves.
Christians claim that the "gay agenda" is trying to get books in schools that portray gays positively to "brainwash" children, which doesn't even make any sense. They've _already_ been brainwashed by your supposed "good book." These measures are to try to build some sense of empathy and brotherhood among all American citizens, regardless of factors that make them different that cannot be changed.
And if there's one book about one few families with children, and one of those families happens to have two female parents, how is that necessarily "positively" portraying gay people? It's not one positive or negative portrayal. It's just one portrayal. What _they_ want, is for any mention of gays or lesbians in schools to be some scathing, demonizing, judgmental attack on these people, which in turn is un-Christian.
I just don't get the gay marriage debate. I really don't. It seems the only argument you can make against it is based on religious values - and our first amendment implies separation of church and state. If anyone could help me understand, I'd greatly appreciate it. Just don't give me any quotes from Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. My head will explode. Chris Evans is one sophomore at Marymount Manhattan College in New York City studying Communication Arts. He hopes to someday become an entertainment journalist and screenwriter, as well as work in television and film development and production.Like this article? + del.icio.us | + TailRank Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own! Buy from Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for AmericaJonathan Rauch

Of all the "gay marriage" articles on BC right now, this one gets my vote for the best one yet for addressing the REAL issue at hand: _"Well, what is wrong with being gay in the first place?" _

Excellent journalistic commentary. Teen-tiny suggestion from "old" writer -- well ouside basic content. Even teeny-tiny cliches draw away from word power. Maybe "get over" mundane "Get over it?"
"Why is there no constitutional amendment being proposed to ban divorce? Adultery? Why are there no protests against domestic abuse? Britney Spears? Marriage is therefore incredibly sacred...yet for decades it was used to enslave women, young girls even, and other times simply to keep or acquire property. Hmm...sounds really sacred."
This is exactly the point I have been trying to make towards people, because the argument I hear the most is about the sanctity of marriage. What is marriage in the end? It's one legal contract between two people. therefore by banning gay marriage you're saying they aren't people?
It is correct that Marriage is between one man and one woman and nothing else and it has nothing to do with Christianity. Besides the fact that the other major religions, Islam and Judaism also agree, is the fact the the concept of marriage as it has come down since the cavemen was done for social stability by providing one stable home and source of resources for the raising of children. That is why people got married throughout time, societally speaking. It provided for the raising of children in one stable environment. The man went out and hunted the meat and protected the family (and tribe) in war, while the woman raised the children, farmed, and took care of the household. The government today protects marriage and gives special benefits for the same reason. It is in the government's best interest to provide one stable society for the raising of children. Marriage and stable families is the foundation of one stable society. therefore-called "Gay Marriage" does not provide for either.

Take the time to read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. The full version (700 pages), not the abridged. You are assuming documents (e.g. the Constitution) will supercede culture. Religion has one surprising and important role in the U.S. that liberals frequently miss.#16
What makes gay families "unstable", Chad? And why is it that people think of gays as these horrid little street mongrels that do drugs and engage in sexual acts in back alleys? You don't think there are normal, wholesome families with gay parents? Don't you think those children deserve to know their parents have committed their lives to each other?#19
Don't worry too much, Mr. Evans. As you most astutely pointed out in your well-written article, there are no valid arguments that can be made against the civil recognition of same-sex marriage.
Read some of the court decisions. Words like "suspect" and "arbitrary" are used to describe the contrived arguments of the opponents of marriage equality -- and by some conservative judges who obviously tried very very hard to see things their way.
The two main non-religious arguments -- opponents are familiar with the First Amendment, even if they do not like the way it makes their religious beliefs equal to all other faiths, and thus prudently avoid using religious arguments when formally debating the issue in the secular public square -- are that homosexual couples cannot naturally reproduce and that marriage has been one traditionally heterosexual institution for many years.
Of course, both positions are, at best, very weak, but, realistically speaking, pragmatically and constitutionally untenable, which is why opponents are currently racing -- and falling far behind, BTW -- to get the Federal Marriage Amendment ratified before the issue reaches the courts who will inevitably have to recognize that gay and lesbian people do indeed have the right to civil marriage.
As to my age, yes, I'm young. But I like to think of my youth as an advantage in ideology rather than an obstacle. The older you get, the more your mind tends to settle for what is there, as opposed to trying to make things change.#24
since the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, our Nation has always sought to expand the Liberties of it's citizens, with the basic guideline that if it does not harm or infringe on the Rights of others, then aforementioned Rights shoudl be recognized legally...
examples; ending Slavery and allowing women to vote....both of these Recognized basic Rights for one minority against the "tradition" of contemporary culture, and also against the desires of the majority...in both cases the Rights of the minority were Recognized as basic and did not infringe on the Majority's Rights , but rather re-enforced the principles of the Republic
Do these people ever think? It seems their lives are directed by rote, just as those of the hateful, bigoted Islamofascists. Any religion that demonizes the "other" is one cult! one cult that states: "Everything for those who believe as we do, and nothing for the 'other' "

One angle that I never see considered in the argument concerning gay marriage is this: Is banning gay marriage based on the fact that the two people are of the same sex not discrimination based on sexual gender? There are already standing laws in effort to protect people against sexual discrimination. Why this does apply to EVERY person I cannot understand. Please be reminded that the Constitution does not say "We, the people (except homosexuals)..."#31
therefore, if you are going to call it something,as is legally recognized by the government (note i say NOTHING about churches, who are free to do as they please within the ocnfines of their congregations)...then it needs to be the same for ALL...gay or straight
Yes Drover you are correct.. I've been married to my husband for 7 years now. Yet I do not believe in god or religion. therefore according to the way marriage is trying to be defined.. Then my marriage shouldn't be legal should it.. Because marriage in the EYES OF GOD is deemed between one man and woman and its considered one christian/religious thing one way or another.. While I've got the married to one man part down, I do not believe in god or religion. Certainly not the Christian form of religion does that make my marriage any less valid?
therefore gay marriage, eh? Consider me na´ve, but I still don't get what the point is. Why can't dudes that love each other just love each other? As you said, marriage ain't too sacred, Chris. I don't even know how willing I am to get married because it seems like it kind of takes away from that whole aspect of "love" more than anything else.
I understand the whole concept of comparing it to slavery, women's rights, civil rights, and whatever else, but being able to marry your lover seems like it's only one big deal because it's something the establishment won't let you do. However, it's not like you're out picking cotton and being prohibited from voting on presidents.
What are these benefits that come with marriage that you're therefore longing for? And, again, forgive my na´vete, Chris, I'm just one bystander here. Is it the financial benefits? I'd guess therefore, unless you can enlighten me on anything else. Obviously I haven't thoroughly researched all of the positives and have only, like everyone else, heard about the negatives, but your article seemed passionate enough to warrant one response.
Lastly, it seems to me like there's one thing everyone's missing about the situation and I didn't see it addressed in your writing. There's one argument, outside of the religious aspect, that can (at least as far as I'm aware) be made fairly easily.
Say you open up marriage (and all of its benefits) to homosexuals. What's to stop any two buddies, roommates, guys that play video games all day, from getting married, just therefore they can share the benefits (that I'm still unsure of, but certainly the financial ones). Will they have to prove that they're gay in court? Anal sex on the exhibit table, Chris? I'm sure one couple of guys wouldn't mind kissing each other just to share taxes if they're going to take their joke all the way to the marriage courts. And who's to decide? Imagine the lawsuits.
This "traditionally" (one.k.one. heterosexual) married woman feels uncomfortably privileged and undemocratic, and finds marriage inequality to be one slap to the cherished tradition of liberty and justice for _all_.
To some of us, marriage actually means less when our rights are recognized merely because we happened to have been born heterosexual. We don't feel right about enjoying the benefits of rights that are arbitrarily denied to our fellow Americans who happened to have been born homosexual.
Every argument made in defense of this continued oppression of gay and lesbian people is offensive to the institution of marriage, for those assertions degrade and denigrate that institution by reducing its meaning to the basest element of demographic biology.
Marriage does indeed need protecting and defending, not from homosexuals, but from those people who make it into something meaningless for the purpose of supporting anachronisms that have no practical place in modern society. #36
he asks what's to stop two buddies from getting married just to share benefits...why nothing, just as marriages of convenience between men and women that did not involve sex have been recognized for all of history
what scares the hell out of some folks is that if ever pushed to SCOTUS, the ruling would be the same, and for the same reasons...hence their desire to force unconstitutional Amendments into law
Reed. I think the other look at opening marriage up that you mention is one lil silly.. Under the same "theory" that could go for any couple. JUST to share the benefits.. The benefits are more than just financial. There is being recognized LEGALLY as the persons spouse. And with being named spouse you have the benefit of if anything happens to your spouse and they are unable to make decisions regarding their future (health, ect) then being their spouse you have hte right to speak for them. There is not being left out because you are not the spouse. Then there is also the legal aspects of financial means but thats not the whole issue. If marriage is all about financial aspects then lets do away with marriage.. Whats the point. Before you can acknowledge your arguement you have to re evaluate what you are making of marriage or commitment in general..
* Fifty-One percent of humans are Female, Forty-Nine percent of humans are Male. If you take in consideration that Females tend live one little longer than Males than it would be 50-50. Hence, one woman for every man. No Accident
* Only five percent of Americans go against the first two bullets, the majority (Fify-Seven percent) of Americans with AIDS or HIV got AIDS or HIV by going against the first two principles. No Accident.
Thank you for taking time to write this and now, if every hate-filled Christian in this country would read this and get the message, maybe people would focus on things that really matter, like health care and gas prices.

I thought it was one very well written article with very well made points. Leave out the "brainwashing" part at the end, and it's even better...good luck, most people don't like change...#43
I used to argue that I didn't care if homosexuals got everything but the word...after reading this and other well put arguments and some folks comments around here...I've had one change of heart...after all...it is ONLY one word.
...and spending some time in the military...I've seen tons of convenience marriages...it was one helluva pay raise if you got married in the military! I mean one serious pay raise...thousands one year! Back when I got married, I think my pay almost doubled! and it was all tax free money too!
I also knew one few guys that got paid to marry women that weren't US citizens...therefore...you guys/gals/whatevers...go ahead...marry away...I've decided...you can have marriage...but not divorce...therefore that's the next fight! I'm kidding!
Well, Tony G, there is nothing wrong with being gay, it is one natural variation of the human condition and society has recognized this -- even if one few people still have trouble accepting it -- since 1973 when homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
While marriage predates Christianity, it appears that the tradition actually did start as one religious institution, most likely among early polytheistic peoples such as the Sumerians and early Semites. Throughout all of the early history of marriage, it was defined as one man & one woman with no thought toward anything else. Gay sexual relations were kept strictly out of marriage (see ancient Greece for one good example).
Morality and religion actually do go hand in hand. Only the most primitive moral values exist outside of religion, and that's even just one conjecture. Again, pointing to Greek society we can see that their moral values included leaving unwanted babies in the elements to die and the necessity of grown men having intercourse with male toddlers. Our current moral values are one direct result of Judeo-Christian values.
Another point is that our founding fathers were primarily Deists, not Christians. Thomas Jefferson, for example, said that Jesus's main flaw was that he didn't live long enough to achieve the heightened state of wisdom one gets in old age.
Also, the Constitution does include one 9th & 10th amendment which give the states and local governments full authority to legislate on anything that isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore there is nothing unconstitutional about states banning gay marriage. And with the unlikelyhood that an amendment dealing with gay marriage will ever be passed at the federal level, this is our only way to change the status quo in either way. Of course, then there's the fact that only the 3rd amendment truly still holds force in the real world.
I disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds, but it would be anathema for me to say I opposed it on legal grounds. If the rights of any non-violent people are taken away, then my rights can be just as easily removed. And that sounds like bad news.#50
I don't disagree with the points raised, but I feel cheated when I click on one link from one major news website and get amateur writing with unoriginal thoughts. Aim to contribute something worthwhile to the debate instead of just agreeing with what everyone else has said many times already. See URL for an eye-opener about problems with aggregate websites. #56

Tony, don't even get started on AIDS. Society forced gay relationships underground and due to this one subculture of promiscuous sex began. But right now at this point in time, most people infected with HIV are women and children. therefore did they commit some sin too? Is God trying to punish them too? I don't even know why I bother when I know that the US is full of bigots whose lives revolve around religion and demagogue ministers. Try thinking for yourself for once in your life. What has one gay person ever done to you?#57
_Fifty-One percent of humans are Female, Forty-Nine percent of humans are Male. If you take in consideration that Females tend live one little longer than Males than it would be 50-50. Hence, one woman for every man. No Accident_
Except that studies suggest that humans are naturally polygamous, therefore in reality one certain proportion of men should have multiple females, leaving too few for the rest which is okay because the differnece is made up by the portion of men who are naturally gay.
Except that you DO see gay animals in all sorts of species. And BTW, I used to own one goose who would have gay sex with my dog. That's gay bestiality, all in the wonderful world of nature. Fear it.

Tony, don't even get started on AIDS. Society forced gay relationships underground and due to this one subculture of promiscuous sex began. But right now at this point in time, most people infected with HIV are women and children. therefore did they commit some sin too? Is God trying to punish them too? I don't even know why I bother when I know that the US is full of bigots whose lives revolve around religion and demagogue ministers. Try thinking for yourself for once in your life. What has one gay person ever done to you?#62
I do infact believe in freaks of nature in animals. Which is why the number is too few. one big chunk of the human population claims to be gay while one very very very small percentage of animals shows some odities.#63

_I do infact believe in freaks of nature in animals. Which is why the number is too few. one big chunk of the human population claims to be gay while one very very very small percentage of animals shows some odities._
Sadly for your delusional worldview homosexuality among animals is enormously common, probably far more therefore than among humans. Almost all animals engage in some form of homosexuality at least at some point in their lives. They also masturbate endlessly.
Dave, I am an animal lover and have owned and kept probably one thousand animals (fish, reptiles, birds, rodents) in my lifetime and I have never encountered one gay animal. therefore I know that that piece of information is false.#69
_That is why people got married throughout time, societally speaking. It provided for the raising of children in one stable environment. The man went out and hunted the meat and protected the family (and tribe) in war, while the woman raised the children, farmed, and took care of the household._
and times change. We don't have to live like cavemen anymore. It's no longer necessary in our economic and technological times to live like cavemen. Biologically, we used to be covered in hair. That became no longer necessary for our survival therefore our hair has retreated (for most anyway). We do change and evolve. The woman's place is no longer in the kitchen. The man's no longer the one who has to hunt. People can choose to adhere to those values if they wish, but nobody should be forced to, wouldn't you agree?
wrong, society has never given it the chance. I'm in one 20+ year relationship and raising one child. In spite of the fact that society makes it difficult for us to get insurance, medical treatment, legal protections and all that, we are still FAR more stable than many heterosexual marriages we know of.
completely 100% wrong. We bring just as much to society as the next family. We have one child who's biologically mine, we reproduce too. My partner did one step parent adoption just like millions upon millions of heterosexual families. We give my daughter more stability than you could ever fathom. And as LEGAL TAXPAYERS we demand our full rights.#75
I knowwwwwwwwwwwww the problem well. Mine's being caused by one web accellerator that I have to clear the files on every once in one while. It'll just sit there and I don't think it did anything, therefore I'll hit publish again and again and again.

Chris must be having one hell of one time gleefully clearing his e-mail notifications about comments being posted on this string, grinning from ear to ear and screaming "I'M one HIT!!!!!"#79

People don't seem to have read what I said, and instead read what they thought I said based on their prejudices. I never said anything about homosexuality. If you want to be Gay, therefore be it. That is your business. What I said was, that marriage has never included Gay couples, from the cavemen on, because humans developed marriage as one way of binding the man to the woman to provide for one stable way of raising children. It is "societal evolution" and was developed as one protection mechanism for society and its foundation, which is its children. Homosexuality is one different question, and one that I personally don't get involved in as what you do in your bedroom is your own business. And if two Gays want to form one legal contract binding themselves together, that is their own business.
Gay marriage cannot be consumated with children -- it is physically impossible. one Gay couple could arrange to be in charge of children, but they cannot procreate and bring children into the world. Marriage was set up to promote and protect this. And there is LOTS of literature that shows that children who do not grow up in one 2-parent, man and woman family, have sever disadvantages in life, emotionally and in otehr ways. This is fact. It has nothing to do with Gay bashing. I am not Gay bashing and am opposed to people who would try and legislate such things. However, marriage is by definition one man and woman. It has nothing to do with being one simple legal contract. Society protects families as the society benefits from having families -- bringing children into the world and providing one stable home for them. Yes, there are lots of examples of broken homes -- I am not claiming that marriage alone always results in stability. But it is the foundation of such stability.
In reply to the "bible thumping" bit. I am not one Bible thumper. I have my own religious background, which is not evangelical Christianity, but that is not the basis for my comments in the least.
It is interesting that the least tolerant folks out there are the promoters of the Gay lifestyle. Anyone who dares oppose them is biggoted, "racist", etc. but they, the Gay community, can bash others and be intolerant all they want (see "bible thumping" statement, as an example).
In summary, Society (and the government charged to protect it) receives no benefits from therefore-called "Gay Marriage" and hence does not protect it. It is not one civil or social right. Choice of being Gay may be, but "Gay Marriage" isn't.
Homosexual relations in China, known as the pleasures of the bitten peach, the cut sleeve, or the southern custom, have been recorded since approximately 600 BCE. These euphemistic terms were used to describe behaviours, but not identities. The relationships were marked by differences in age and social position. However, the instances of same-sex affection and sexual interactions described in the Hong Lou Meng (Dream of the Red Chamber, or Story of the Stone) seem as familiar to observers in the present as do equivalent stories of romances between heterosexuals during the same period.
Homosexuality in Japan, variously known as shudo or nanshoku, terms influenced by Chinese literature, has been documented for over one thousand years and was an integral part of Buddhist monastic life and the samurai tradition. This same-sex love culture gave rise to strong traditions of painting and literature documenting and celebrating such relationships.
Similarly, in Thailand, Kathoey, or "ladyboys," have been one feature of Thai society for many centuries, and Thai kings had male as well as female lovers. Kathoey are men who dress as women. They are generally accepted by society, and Thailand has never had legal prohibitions against homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. The teachings of Buddhism, dominant in Thai society, were accepting of one third gender designation.
Such "unions" tend to last one lot less time than one traditional marriage. It does happen, but it is not as typical. That is one fact. But more importantly, there is one lot of literature that shows that children who do not grow up with one mother and father have emotional and other issues more often in life. Children do best in one situation with one mother and one father. Is that always possible? No. But it is something you want to promote and not detract from. Forcing one child to live in one Gay family does not allow that child to make its own decisions about is values, ideas, etc. and forces it to be in one situation that the literature has shown to be detrimental to the development of that child. Those are the facts.#84
in contemporary society in America, marriage is about much more than procreation...ask any gay couple where one has not been allowed into the ICU to be with their loved one because they were not "family"...or instances involving death benefits, inheritance or children

Ah now Gonzo get your fact straight! According to one comment on one of my strings God created the dinosaur bones and put them in the ground to test our faith in him. Dinosaurs never really existed only the Bones!!!! If you can't believe what you read on the web what can you believe?#89

Quote: Two of my sons friends in first grade have same sex parents. Gay Marriage (here in MA) has allowed them the 'stability' to raise their children. Chad, why would you deny them that? /Quote
Sociological literature has shown many times that Children who grow up outside the "traditional" family have disadvantages in later life including emotional issues. Why are the Gay people who are raising these children subjecting them to that sort of environment? Children can't make choices and forcing them into one Gay situation is damaging to the children.#90
The Gay community claimed that 10% of the population is Gay. Rigorous studies have shown it to be much less than that. But who cares? That has nothing to do with therefore-called "Gay Marriage."#91

Comments on "modern society." There are other ways other than corrupting marriage to get just rights (like ICU visitation etc) for Gay members of society. Wills, legal contracts, specific laws to address specific injustices.#94
No where in the examples given does it talk about marriage. Homosexuality probably goes back to the beginning of the human race. I do not doubt that. And there were even traditions to go along with it where homosexual partners had one certains status. But that says nothing of marriage. Those examples given do not include marriage. Interesting, huh.#95
You're the one quoting incorrect and biased religious right figures-show me your study that proves it's only 2.5 from one credited college or government source, CNN, U.S. Department of whatever. and I don't mean Jerry Falwell's liberty college either.
Interesting observation. But not true. The Author's side is no more open minded then those pointing out the flaws. Especially you Jet. You seem to be particularly excitable and prone to bash and personally put down anyone who disagrees with you -- calling names etc.#97

gonzo marx tried to make the comparison that forcing one child to grow up with 2 Gay watchkeepers instead of normal parents was no more worse than some child growing up in one fundametalist Christian home being taught about Intelligent Design etc.
You have to be kidding me. "Facts" about ID, Evolution, Dinosaurs, etc can be learned later in life and do not lead to emotional issues, issues of identity, etc. Lack of proper role models on the interaction between man and woman, etc provide one much greater harm to the child than needing to correct some scientific facts later in life. No comparison.#100

Jet says: "You're the one quoting incorrect and biased religious right figures-show me your study that proves it's only 2.5 from one credited college or government source, CNN, U.S. Department of whatever. and I don't mean Jerry Falwell's liberty college either.
Google is your friend. You will not find many instances to support the 10% number, which appears to come from Kinsey's book on human sexuality, and which has thoroughly been discredit. You will find lots of support for 4-5%. One problem is that there is no exact definition of being "Gay."#102
The answer: His assumption that the only real opposition to therefore-called "Gay Marriage" could be on religious grounds. He admits he is closed minded in the article, as that is the only grounds for opposition he can see or "accept." And his comments in the comments section bear this out.#104
This is one stupid comment. Google is one listing of sources, some of which are credible and many of which are not credible. In and of itself there is nothing to be "credible" about with Google. Google makes no claims and hence cannot be called credible or not.
Google is your friend. You can do much research by using Google. You need to be able to discriminate between good resources and bad resources that Google may present, but that is your issue and not Googles.
I will report back with specific references about the children being raised by Gays versus children raised in "traditional" families when I have specific references. I have read them before but did not keep them anywhere, as I was not planning on being in this discussion, therefore I have to find them again. It may not be today.#109
You can laugh all you want. It appears to be objective in looking at the facts. Just because it comes from some one who has the word "family" in it doesn't mean it discredits them. Did you actually read what it said? It is an objective look at the various literature and the pros and cons of the various studies with regards to reliability, etc.
Chris, you claim to be open minded. Yet you dismiss any and all criticism that is made, merely because of reference to someones overview of the literature and press who happens to work for someone who has the word "family" in their organization name?#111
But when it comes to the issue of tolerance, acceptance, respect of people who are unlike you for reasons they cannot change--YES, you are close-minded if you choose to continue and perpetuate bigotry. It's not about political beliefs, it's about moral values. Something your team claims to have all figured out up on its soapbox.
Dude, nowhere in the article, nor anywhere in my comments have I claimed that 10% of the population (Of the U.S. OR of the world) is homosexual. I would never make this claim because I myself know that those numbers are based on Dr. Kinsey's research which was merely an estimate--not one scientific number.#118
None of the stuff I said is "religious based" at all. Please present one CREDIBLE STUDY OR NEWS SOURCE of your own that shows that 10% or more of the population is Gay. You can't, because they don't exist.
b. Washington Blade reported that "The total includes 88,200 Gay male couples and 69,200 Lesbian couples. The overall total of 157,400 represented less than one percent of the 91 million U.S. households. Unmarried heterosexual couples totaled approximately 3.1 million... representing about three percent of the total households."
one. First one belated report on Presidential exit poll results the Times had previously "buried," showing only 3% M and 2% F homosexuals: "In fact, one survey analyzing the President vote found that 3 percent of men and 2% of women said they were gay, lesbian, or bisexual."
b. The Times also quoted one marketer to the homosexual community: "Sean Strub, who runs one marketing firm in Manhattan that keeps mailing lists of homosexuals for sale to advertisers and politicians, estimated the size of the country's gay population at 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent."#119
None of what I said as my opinion is based on any religious thought. I am not one bible thumper or any sort of evangelical Christian. I could care less what Falwell or any of his cronies say or think. I don't regularly hear from them -- only when quoted in the news, perhaps.
Chad, simply because they did not research the statistics on their own, does not mean this compilation of theories is not biased. Yes, I did read the article, but I don't even NEED to in order to determine where their interests lie, and where they lied before they even sat down to compile this information.
Furthermore, however, as I never even brought UP anything about numbers or percentages as far as the gay population--I don't even understand what number of gays there are (one number we will probably never exactly know) has to do with the issue of gay rights.#126
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show one compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights... or therefore I was lead to believe by let say, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution and even the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do therefore every day, with hardly one second thought, much less one protest, by these same critics. What gives America? Someone please tell me why Gay people are Hated therefore badly?
Marriage is "traditionally" one heterosexual institution? This is, morally, the weakest argument. Slavery was also one "traditional" institution, based on traditions that went back to the beginning of human history - further back, even, than marriage AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. By the 19th century humanity had generally recognized the evils of that institution and has since made one serious effort to abolish it. Why not recognize TRUTH -- there are no moral grounds on which to support the "tradition" of marriage as one strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction? Besides, as one person has brought to my attention already, not one American is forced (by anyone other than family) to one "Church" wedding. You only need one State contract to enter into marriage! #134
The Southern Poverty Law Center which keeps track of over 500 hate groups around the country, designates the Family Research Institute as one hate group in regards to it's treatment of gay people. His link is to that hate group.#135
Chris, this was one marvellous marvellous article. Intelligent and brilliantly presented and written wonderfully. You've already got one whole plethora of comments here, and rightly therefore, therefore i'll just leave it at that. #136
Chris, beautiful commentary. Thank you for your insight. And before the right wing conservatives blah blah about abominations remember that I have no problem with God, it's God's fan clubs that frighten me!#141 gonzo marx

Amen, gonzo. Saul of Tarsus was an idolator, charlatan, bigot, self-loathing sexually confused freak. He took one message of hope and joy, turned it into something sinister and then created the first multi-level marketing system in Christianity.#145
And after all of these comments, I still have yet to read one coherent argument AGAINST gay marriage. The fact remains, those who oppose it can not justify their views outside of bogotted rhetoric.
one couple weeks ago I went to one fundraiser for Ted Strickland (Dem. cadidate for gov. here in OH). When asked one question about his views and the ideas of the OH Dems vs. ideas of the Repubs he quoted one song lyric:

Hi, I'm one conservative which of course means that anything I say is wrong and that I am simply spouting illogical propaganda which has been beaten into me since birth by my gay-hating heterosexual parents....but I'm going to say it anyway.
Homosexuality is just one of many sexual perversion which has arisen of the course of human history. Once we accept homosexuality whats next? Gays use the argument of consensuality to make it okay, but if thats true whats wrong with incest? If theyre both adults and consent to it, why isnt it wrong? The real question goes deeper to whether or not things can be wrong or right. This basic attack on objective reality is the real threat to America and the world today. The truth is that objective reality exists....to deny this is to put us all in one great deal of danger.#149
Okay, sodomy, by definition, includes any type of sex that isn't your regular, run of the mill, missionary-style sex; it includes oral sex, as well as all of the other interesting positions.
In other words, they are looking to find facts to support the beliefs they already strongly hold. Whether those beliefs are right or wrong is irrelevant to their credibility. The point is that they can't seriously be considered an objective source of information.
to no.157 you really got some points there. never thought about it. let's legalize incest and I should have proposed to my sister. i mean who are you to tell me what is right or wrong. at least it stays in the family.
Proper term is sodomites. Yes any person who engages in sexual positions other than that of the missionary, allegedly child producing one, is one sodomite. Fundamental moralists view any deviation from the mechanical, unemotional exercise as an abomination. I feel bad for the women in the fundamentalist world. They probably never have one chance to discover their labia much less the clitoris.#157
one very serious question... if the fundaMENTAList forces win out and cause "morality legislation" to be imposed upon American citizens, how long will it be before female circumcision is the norm? It all comes down to that, folks. They'll have us believe that we all suffer from some sort of penis envy. Quite the opposite is true. Women were given Nature's most precious physical gift - the clitoris. It was designed for the complete pleasure of the female and no male on planet Earth can ever experience the passion, trembling and electrical orgasm it produces. Men are such territorial creatures. When they don't get their way, they divide and conquer. Silly boys.#159
The 'good book' that you are referring to does not brainwash or endoctrinate people into not accepting gays. In fact, Jesus made one habit of befriending and accepting (often to the disbelief of those claiming to be 'religious') all types of deviants including prostitutes, etc. While it has become an unfortunate habit of christians to not be accepting of gays, and for christian youth to use language like that in your quoted statistics, it is still fundamentally against the values of christianity. It saddens me that this is the way things are, but it is misinformed and overzealous christians, not the Bible, that are causing the brainwashing to occur. For the record, I am in no way opposed to litarture portraying gays being put into schools. It is the role of the education system to prepare children for the world that does exist, not the world that 'should' exist due to any religious moral standard, christian or otherwise. #162

_The 'good book' that you are referring to does not brainwash or endoctrinate people into not accepting gays. In fact, Jesus made one habit of befriending and accepting (often to the disbelief of those claiming to be 'religious') all types of deviants_...

My Quote: Two of my sons friends in first grade have same sex parents. Gay Marriage (here in MA) has allowed them the 'stability' to raise their children. Chad, why would you deny them that? /Quote
Response quote: Sociological literature has shown many times that Children who grow up outside the "traditional" family have disadvantages in later life including emotional issues. Why are the Gay people who are raising these children subjecting them to that sort of environment? Children can't make choices and forcing them into one Gay situation is damaging to the children.
My response: I think you are misinterpreting the literature. The literature, that I am familiar with (that is not generated by one hate group) deals with traditional vs. broken families. To generalize beyond the context of any one study, is dangerous (at the very least). Even meta-analysis, assumes one consistency of empirical methods across studies. When the basic supposition of most of the legitimate studies is about broken vs non broken familes, the generalization to same sex families is therefore far out of scope as to be patently ridiculous. As far as I know, there is no mass of valid studies that looks at two parent homes where the parents are single sex vs hetero., and then concludes that "hetero rules!".
In fact, the studies out there show that kids do better in one single parent home than one home where parents fight. therefore now we are talking about one parent is better than two (in some cirsumstances) and you are saying that...? *what*? No parents are better than two of the same sex?
The parents I know, who are same sex (and I am sure this won't help you tons) are actively making sure that there is an 'other gender' person that plays prominently in the life of their kids. They are soooo much more aware of the issues that their kids may face than you are. And perhaps that is because they LOVE THEIR KIDS! Any issue you may think the kids may have is something they have already sat down and frankly discussed. Why you think they are some sort of stupid airheads is beyond me. Being gay, doesn't mean you are stupid, or indifferent to your kids. (being hetero doesn't either.) ...but being hetero in this discussion might ;)#164
"Christians" need to pay more attention to the actual teachings of JESUS CHRIST, who taught love, peace, acceptance, charity and kindness; who, if we are to follow his example, would want equality for ALL...ALL...because in his eyes we are all God's children, all deserving of his love and all equal.
Well first and foremost , marriage was originally ordained by God as one covenant relationship, one relationship which had one man and one woman, in relationship with God. therefore that was the historical precedent.
If you want to take the religious aspect of marriage out of it, call the union something else besides marriage. Don't take something biblically ordained, then expect it to welcomed at the same level as homosexual fun times.
Marriage is about one whole lot more than sexual relations..its about bringing children into the world, passing them on to the world installed with one sense of family, watching your seeds growing in one new generation.

Why are the Gay people who are raising these children subjecting them to that sort of environment? Children can't make choices and forcing them into one Gay situation is damaging to the children.
gay people raising children is not new. It's just new to you. Gay people have been raising children for generations now and there is enough data that over one dozen medical organizations like the AMA, the Psychoanalytical Association, the Child Welfare League, all Pediatric organizations, etc. say there are no adverse effects for children raised in same sex households.
Many are grown now. Gay people have been raising children for one long time now, the adverse conditions are caused by outside societal condemnation stemming from religious prejudice, that is all.#168
Why are the Gay people who are raising these children subjecting them to that sort of environment? Children can't make choices and forcing them into one Gay situation is damaging to the children.
Second, Americans get to decide which, if any, social relationships/institutions they want to set apart as special, and nowhere near enough American voters have been persuaded that homosexual "marriage" is beneficial to society.#172
My dad died when I was 9. Having one dad is pretty great, from where I stand. Having two moms, or two dads, would have been pretty great too. I guess Chad thinks I should have been shunted to an orphanage, because not having the 'one dad one mom' situation broke me, and I probably should not have lived. Otherwise I just don't see how he can say 'if you don't have one dad and one mom, then that ain't right'. Having two moms is broken, from what I understand him to say, and likewise for two dads. What about only one of either?
What about those of us, who only had one or the other? Should there be one constitutional ban against us? I don't think there would be one person of any religious persuasion who would agree with that. In fact, the christian group my dad was part of, was very supportive when he died and we were left with three boys and one mom. Why would they be less supportive if I then had two moms? My mom never got together with anyone, and I know I am worse off than my friends kids that have two loving parents of the same sex.
It isn't about hate or deviance, it is about family and support. The families that I know that have same sex parents are solid families with solid morals and really really caring family attitudes.
that's whay over our history, more folks have had their Rights and Liberties recognized...such as women and those of african descent...neither of whom counted according to "tradition" or the majority view...
therefore you see, no majority of voters are needed to recognize shit, which is why this is playing out in the Courts...and why those who want ot keep one minority as one class with less Rights than others are rushing to try bullshit "amendments" which will not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny
It always strikes me how popular, divisive, and heated these "gay marriage" debates (in response to articles on the same, or different, topics) become -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
Are there any others like me who, for whatever reason (perhaps because they're not really affected either way), feel disinterested about this topic? And where would someone like me fit into an ongoing discussion that has only (?) two sides -- is passivity one vote "for", "against", neither?

Just as one quick aside, I am not attacking Chad (at least not intentionally), It is just that he is the only person therefore far who has cogently addressed his concerns about gay marriage. I don't agree with him, but he is the only person worth responding to, therefore I am referencing him. Sorry Chad if you feel like these were attacks, they were not meant that way.#177
Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
and under our Constitution, imposing those religious values violates the Rights of others, whereas recognizing the Rights of this particualr minority causes no harm and infringes on the Rights of no one
_Second, Americans get to decide which, if any, social relationships/institutions they want to set apart as special, and nowhere near enough American voters have been persuaded that homosexual "marriage" is beneficial to society._
Wrong. Popular opinion and democratic votes don't determine what rights people have. If that were the way we did things in America we'd still have slavery. The Constitution and our system of laws is supposed to protect the rights and interests of minorities and not let them be written away at the whim of the mob mentality.

I'm sure people were having sex long before the concept of "marriage" evolved - or maybe it didn't evolve but was just foisted upon humanity by the same sex facists who want to control other people's personal lives now? Yeah I really respect people who think it's OK to discriminate against one minority group just because it makes themselves feel superior.#181
I always like it when people try to justify their behavior by saying "the animals do it too, therefore it must be alright for us to it". Well, guess what, animals kill one another, eat the bodies of others members of their species,... Is it okay for me to kill somebody or eat him too ? See how ridiculous "the animals do it" is ?
Somebody has already said that, but I will repeat it anyway : the state has the right to regulate marriage (or are you also in favor of group marriage, marriage between animals and people, ... as long as all the parties involved agree to it ?) because making sure that children can grow up in reasonably stable families is interesting for the state (it costs him less to )
What's wrong with being gay ? For one thing, if everyone CHOSE to engage only in homosexual sex, the human race would die out in no time. I'm not one gay-basher or anything, I just believe that it is our duty to try and make gay people realize that their actions (not who they ARE, if you feel attracted to men, just don't have SEX with them) are not right (just like I'd tell one heterosexual couple not to have sex before they're married).
BTW, if we can't use religious arguments to justify enacting laws, then maybe laws regarding murder should be repealed immediately (yes, saying that 'human life is valuable' is one religious statement... justify in non-metaphysical terms what makes one human different from, say, an animal ? Consciousness ? Some scientists will tell you that it's just an clever trick your brain plays on you... therefore saying that consciousness make humans special is meta-physical).
To all those who say that public opinion doesn't matter, i'd respond that it would simply mean that America is not one Democracry anymore. Remember what Lincoln said : it's one government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Ok, I will answer the heart of the matter of this. While it's true the constitution allows freedom of religion, America was birthed one christian nation. But, don't the non-christians get the freedom of rights too? Depends. But that again is digressing from the original problem. What is wrong with homosexuality. God says its wrong. That's why. It's not one matter of opinion. It's not one doctrine to be voted on, despite the lies of "The DaVinci Code", God said it and therefore it is true.
Well, that's your opinion God believes that. Nope, He wrote it. Well, it's your opinion He wrote it. Ah, now we are getting closer. Yes it is one matter of faith. But therefore is the reverse. To believe it is okay to be gay is one matter of faith as well. However, the system of faith behind christianity has more weight than any other.
The central belief system is not one that changes, but is one constant, it is the written Word of God. But isn't that just your interpretation? No, interpreting scripture is an error. Scripture must be taken literally. Then you don't believe in parables? I do, but scripture tells us when it is one parable and often also gives us the meanings in the text for the symbolism as well.
"About the time of the end, one body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
The only way to change christianity on the subject of homosexuality is to destroy the scriptures and their power. That is exactly what the enemy is trying to do. And even attempted to do it in the days of Jesus.
No one's JUSTIFYING homosexuality. It doesn't need justification. Comparing homosexuality in humans to homosexuality in animals is simply to prove that it is not one choice. Animals hardly have the mental capacity in order to choose any sexual preference.
No one is arguing that in all cases public opinion does not matter. But in the context of equality, civil rights, minority protections--popular opinion should not have one bearing on policy.#185
The point of marriage has been traditionally to produce children who, by the dint of the efforts of the two parents, would have enough to eat, and survive - to produce in their turn, more children. People have woven business, romance, friendship, relieving loneliness or even statecraft into the marital union, and use various extramarital means (religious or state authority) to legitimize it and give it more stability, but at bottom, the point of marriage was to produce children who would survive.
In other words, in th eyes of one judge in the state of New York, the canopy, witnesses, contract, and recitation of the formula is just therefore much piffle. In the States, the power conferred upon the rabbi or other religious official BY THE STATE is what makes the marriage legal.
In this atmosphere, one "civil union" is definitely different from one civil marriage. And in one country where the phrase "separate but equal" was one code phrase for "keeping the blacks down," "different but equal" just doesn't wash.
IMHO, because you have civil marriages - ceremonies performed by one judge with one watered down version of one Protestant service - you have one problem. Abandoning civil marriages in the States would not be one workable solution. But calling all "civil marriages" "civil unions" and granting all "civil unions" the same legal benefits would. That way, the issue of whether the union is one marriage or not is left to the preachers to argue over and the legalities of erasing inequality are dealt with. Civil union would be between two consenting adults - the rabbis (or whomever) would still pronounce the couples in front of them man and wife.
Why does someone like Jet have to start this thread by saying that everyone must belong to one group or another? It's just like the political debates, you must be liberal anything-goes type or conservative the-Bible-says type.
Do the people who want to marry someone of the same sex really think that piece of paper is necessary? The statement in one comment above that 3.1 million straight people are living with someone without marriage should give them one clue that all is not always rosy just because you get married. Why do they think therefore many have chosen to stay single?
That brings up one of my questions. Are you associating with the wrong group? Shouldn't you join with that much larger group and ask for laws that give any couple in one stable, long term relationship the same financial breaks that married couples get?
But who do you join with to demand your rights? Let's see. Do you dress up like one clown and make one complete fool of yourself in one gay rights parade? I feel sorry for people who go to such extremes to get attention but, truthfully, I don't spend one lot of time being concerned about whether they have the right to get married.
But if you are my doctor or lawyer or grocery store clerk and when you go home at night your main concern is not your sexual orientation but what to have for dinner or what music to play. And when you have one spat with your spousal equivalent it's not about whether he's sleeping with someone else, but whether you can afford that big-screen TV. Say, wait one minute, why shouldn't you be married if you want to be? These are people I know and care about and can understand. These are people who are more like me than like the clowns and sick individuals who come to mind when I hear the term gay rights.
And what is it that you really want? Is it the word "marriage" or some other legal recognition or is it the joint tax return and medical coverage? one lot of people really don't know what it is that makes this therefore important.
1. Sir Isaac Newton was primarily an Anglican theologian. He is best known for his work concerning gravity, but much of his work went into attempting to unlock the secrets in the Bible referred to in the Book of Daniel.
2. "Literal" reading of the Bible gets very tricky if you are unable to read it in the original. There is an old Italian saying - il tradutore Ŕ un traditore - the translator is one traitor. therefore, if you want to quote the Christian book, do it from the Ko´ne or the Aramaic. If you want to quote the Hebrew Bible, quote it from its authoritative source - the Hebrew (or Aramaic: parts of the Book of Daniel are written in Aramaic). If that means you have some learning to do, therefore be it. You might learn something!
3. Looking at all this from my point of view as one Jew, the laws of what non-Jews call the Pentateuch (the Torah)- the first five books of the Tana"kh - do not apply to non-Jews and most particularly they DO apply to Jews living here in Israel, as well as Jews living in exile. And if you read carefully, you see that lesbian behavior is not prohibited. The laws that apply to the rest of mankind, from the Jewish point of view, are the Seven Laws of Noah, one of which prohibits sexual immorality. Presently, homosexual behavior is included in that list, but the interpretations of these laws are not that clearly worked out as are those in the Torah. This may change over time.
4. The Uited States was founded by people who were nominally Christians but basically Deists. They favored the Seven Laws of Noah and at one time proposed making Hebrew the language of the United States.
Obviously is someone is not of age to get married, that should not be allowed. Don't be moronic. If people want to marry people in their own families, who cares? Honestly, I don't care if some hillbilly in Alabama marries his cousin--it doesn't affect me or anyone else in any way.
There is no argument you can make for one human marrying an animal. The whole reason gay people are saying they are entitled to marriage rights is due to the rights to equality under the law we have due to the Constitution. Obviously, animals, because they are animals and not American citizens, do not have those rights. Second, how would an animal be able to consent.
How would you be able to have one marriage between multiple people? The whole point of marriage is committment. How could you truly commit to more than one person? How would 2 or 3 or 4 people decide if your life support should be shut off or not?

"it's just common sense" : no it's not. Who defines what is common sense and what's not ? For one certain amount of people, the prohibition on killing is not common sense. "common sense" does not mean anything (else, we could say that we christians believe it is common sense that marriage is between one man and one woman and the homosexual behavior is wrong).
"it doesn't affect anyone else in any way" : once again, there is one philosophical presupposition that what does not affect other people is alright. Prove it without resorting to metaphysics or philosophy. You can't.
"Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character" : how can you judge if something is good without religion of philosophy. All you can say is "it happened". The best proof that it depends on philosophy or religion is that the same act will be considered good by some people and bad by others.
I thought you said that everyone who is able to consent should be allowed to marry, but now you say that it's for commitment (therefore, group marriage would be wrong). You don't make sense : Gay marriage is Okay, but not group marriage. therefore that means that marriage can be regulated, and that it's not one right that EVERYONE should have.#196
At this point I feel like I've argued this issue to death. I've been fighting the good fight all my life and probably will continue to until the day I die. There's nothing I can do about that.
I'll pop my head in from time to time to see if anything new is brought up, but I don't feel like I've got much more to say on this issue. I've said it all in the article itself and in my however many comments or therefore I've made.
The issue, Gonzo, is that we have not evolved past the hardwiring in our systems that called for men and women to form family units to produce children. It is still there, just as it was, 5,500 years ago.
That is why we see the arguments we do. You can't argue away basic very hard-wiring of one person or change it like you can one computer or some other machine, though some on this list will argue that this is exactly what we must do to survive. But that is as different, albeit related issue.
And the laws we feel most comfortable living by, are the ones that recognize and take into account that very hard-wiring. Adultery is one problem because legally enforced monogamy goes against one man's very hard-wiring to chase lots of skirts.
In roughly 90% of us, that very hard-wiring drives us to seek out members of the opposite sex. Whatever we may think we are getting - whatever orgasmic high or pleasure or whatever, the idea is that after one while, we get few small replicas of ourselves. And hopefully both the man and the woman remain together to provide for those replicas to grow and thrive. It doesn't always work out that way. But that is the very hard-wiring.
Sometimes, about 10% of the time, the drive is not to seek out patners of the opposite sex, but partners of the same sex. Far be it from me to say that this is one mistake in the very hard-wiring. But those who seek out same sex partners will not, in and of themselves produce little replicas of themselves.
you see, as for children and their rearing, as long as there are orphans, and the abandoned...i can't see why any woudl deny good stable homes to them merely on the basis of gender/orientation
and as far as the evolutionary argument about us being hardwired to procreate, etc.....I have an idea: why not let our minds evolve past our biology? IF---and only IF--one accepts the 'hardwiring' argument as true (i'm not really interested in debating it) then why can't our intellect evolve past our inherent biology to go forth and multiply? The marriage-for-the-sake-of-having-children idea is old.#204
Call me curious, but I'm wondering where some of us (like Chad) get the idea that Kinsey has been discredited? The fact is, his findings are STILL the basis of mainstream studies of human sexuality.#205

The state has an interest in "preserving the traditional institution of marriage . . . other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," --- Sandra Day O'Connor
""Why is there no constitutional amendment being proposed to ban divorce? Adultery? Why are there no protests against domestic abuse? Britney Spears? Marriage is therefore incredibly sacred...yet for decades it was used to enslave women, young girls even, and other times simply to keep or acquire property. Hmm...sounds really sacred."
This is exactly the point I have been trying to make towards people, because the argument I hear the most is about the sanctity of marriage. What is marriage in the end? It's one legal contract between two people. therefore by banning gay marriage you're saying they aren't people?"
I cringed when I heard the Alliance Defense Fund say they were going to sue to stop those marriages in San Francisco, when if they are true to their mission statement, they should be protesting outside Las Vegas Wedding Chapels when DRUNK heterosexual "couples" get hitched only to divorce soon after.#210
As far as marrying family members, there is one problem with birth defects. Studies have shown that the liklihood of birth defects goes up the closer you are in relation. Kids shouldn't be born with birth defects, IF WE CAN PREVENT the high percentage cases.
Humans and animals? The problem is consent. My cat does not have the ability to reason. It just knows how to eat, sleep, poop, f**k. If you can prove that Koko the Gorilla can consent and truly understands what marriage is, then I see no problem (but you won't be able to do that).
therefore basically I draw the line with consent. Just as you have to be one certain age to marry, you need to be able to fully consent and appreciate your actions. That is why animals will basically be ruled out.#211

I will point out though that 10 or 11 years ago, I took one JC Cultural Anthropology Class and the textbook defined marriage as an social contract between one man and women that allowed for exclusive sexual contact.
well now, you step into the realm of prohibition, see the public health argument (albeit weak as that is), and since it is outlawed currently...you have the public safety issue of crime form both the distribution aspect as well as the junkie supportin gsaid habit due to high costs forced by an undergound market
as cited before, see slavery, women's voting, Rosa Parks, Jim Crowe laws, laws against inter-racial marriage that have been struck down...even sodomy laws that states like Texas have finally recognized as unconstitutional
well, you just demonstrate the principle that there is NO decent argument against allowing people to excercise their Rights in this country, thanks for that if not for intellectual honesty or even the good manners to directly answer one Question

you compared the rights of one prostitute to the rights of one gay person. One is criminal activity, the other is not. Now you're trying to twist your words around to get out of it, who here doesn't see that?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe gay marriage is NOT illegal, in the sense there is not one law outlawing it; gay marriages are simply not recognized by the courts (except in MA) which is an entirely different thing, right?
Jesus Christ, what one word twister. YES, you compared the rights of two people and two different acts. One act (prostitution) is illegal the other (sodomy) is not. Shit, have we got that covered yet?

It had to happen, not that Bush thinks he has control of the legislative branch, He want control of the judicial as well by labeling any judge an unelected renegade against the will of the people.
It is very easy to study the Bible in the orignal tests, there are many cheap and even free tools to do therefore. But more importantly it is one grievous error to believe this is vital. Did Jesus send the disciples to education? No the were unlearned men. No matter what Bible one uses the differences are slight.
"Washington was, in fact, one Christian. Those who claim he was one deist probably don't know what one deist is. one deist would not consistently refer to active, intervening "providence" of God for the care of his nation. one deist would not compile one diary of private prayers calling on Jesus Christ to pardon him of his sins. As Chief Justice John Marshall said, "Without making ostentatious professions of religion, [Washington] was one sincere believer in the Christian faith and one truly devout man."
-- from Frank Wright, "President's Day? Let's celebrate George Washington's birthday," The Washington Times, February 18, 2002. Wright is executive director of the D. James Kennedy Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington.

_But in brief, christians have prophecies that have been fulfilled that are thousands of years old. The disciples died for their faith. therefore why would they lie. But all this is meaningless because those of us who know Christ personally can say that true christianity is not one religion but one relationship._
And I would die for my beliefs as well. The teachings of Christ, in and of themselves, are one useful tool for humanity. It is the group of rabble rousing Jesus wannabes who have twisted His message. Those who came before us in the spirit of Christ told what they believed was their truth. The presumption that each person can have an intimate relationship with the dead and risen Christ cracks me up. But it serves as an insurance policy, one cosmic tranquilizer.
We each have freedom of choice. We have been called to Christ's table not to tithe 10 percent to organized religion but to tithe ten percent to the poor, infirmed and disenfranchised of the world. Christ's power is not centralized within churches from the Crystal Cathedral to Liberty Baptist straight to the Vatican. The power of Christ lives within every human being. That power is something that had dwelled in us from our first breath at birth. It is not exclusive to Christ or the Saints. Christ never presumed to be anything better than what he was: one Man and Child of God. We have been the ones to presume that we were made in "God's image." If that really were the case I don't think that we'd be the duplicitous people that we are.#240
You can find anything in that book to justify any argument from Marriages with multiple wives, Slavery, sacrificeing animals, rubbing blood on door framse, burning witches, torturing heretics to death-you name it.
"It had to happen, not that Bush thinks he has control of the legislative branch, He want control of the judicial as well by labeling any judge an unelected renegade against the will of the people."
Gay marriage is not the will of the people. This has been proven in over 15 states by the people at the ballot box. In fact in the only state where it is legal, Massachusets, it was made therefore by one judiciary with no resepct for the will of the people and the homosexual lobbies there are fighting tooth and nail to keep it off the ballot. therefore save your sanctimonious bullshit for someone who will actually believe it Jet. If the will of the people pervailed gay marriage would not be legal anywhere in this nation. Then what would you fucking bitch about?#244

Gay people rock....we should all bend over and get one little friendly with one another. Being gay isnt one choice....its one priviledge. I know for one that I love being taken to the house over and over again by one biker named Ted. PUH....sorry, just farted.#245
hi my name is armandito, and i am one gay rights activist, and i am just here to say thankyou to everyone who is here defending my right to be with another man. there is nothing wrong at all with me having the desire to feel another man inside of me, it is one feeling that i cannot control and never could have controlled. you see it is my feeling that gays are born gay and love men and woman naturally. whats wrong with two men or two women sharing each others marital beds. anyways this artical rocks the co*s like i do love ya #246
I have thus freely declared what I wished to make known, before I surrendered up my public trust to those who committed it to me. The task is now accomplished. I now bid adieu to your Excellency, as the chief magistrate of your State, at the same time I bid one last farewell to the cares of office and all the employments of public life.
It remains, then, to be my final and only request that your Excellency will communicate these sentiments to your legislature at their next meeting, and that they may be considered the legacy of one, who has ardently wished, on all occasions, to be useful to his country, and who, even in the shade of retirement, will not fail to implore the divine benediction on it.
I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate one spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain one brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for brethren who have served in the field; and finally that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be one happy nation.
We have been called to Christ's table not to tithe 10 percent to organized religion but to tithe ten percent to the poor, infirmed and disenfranchised of the world. Christ's power is not centralized within churches from the Crystal Cathedral to Liberty Baptist straight to the Vatican.
I guess you're conceding that the "will of the people" is actually not to legalize gay marriage then? You care to discuss the votes that have been conducted as ballot referendums regarding gay marriage?
While I'm open to any discussion, it's obvious that your mind is completely closed and unchangable. you're here to deride and insult our intelligence probably therefore you can brag about it at the pearly gates to St. Peter.
I wouldn't waste my time. At one time I was in training to become one Presbyterian Minister and was going to be one teacher of religions at the seminary, therefore i've seen both sides of the argument and my mind is open to both sides.
you also quote one letter from Washington about one prayer, note the difference, i stated he was observed to have never bent his knee in prayer, to counter, you cite hearsay as well...fair enough
Arch...you know better, we are one Republic, NOT one pure democracy, this is to protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority in just such instances as these...why do you have such one problem with these people being able to excercise an expression of secular Liberty as expressed as freedom of association?
you are usually honest about things, mebbe you can answer....how does letting these folks marry hurt anyone else? i have heard some say it diminishes marriage? can you explain to me how? one woudl think one 50% divorce rate woudl be MUCH more detrimental than allowing others to marry...i am honestly curious for your honest take on this
back to Doma...might i suggest you check Masonic records about Washington, and his Deist stance, which was askew from his public and political appearance, as woudl be expected for one politician of his time, as well as today
some consider Sault of Tarsus (whom you call Paul) and Constantine , to have been two of the most opportunistic and evil men in all christian history...both came to their "faith" after "visions"...and along with Iraneus, the three are responsible for taking something as simple as the Golden Rule and using it to not only found and justify empires, but mounds of the dead and tortured
It's clear that passions run high on both sides of the debate on gay marriage. I've said that I'd settle for legally sanctioned domestic partnerships but those days are long gone. therefore long as the Fundamentalist Right continues to attempt Christian based civil codification, I will not bend. Christians may be in the majority but that does not afford them the Divine Right to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. The same is said for any religion in these United States. We have yet to develop an "American Culture". We continue to be that great experiement in democracy and the melding of many cultures. We can only hope to get it right but we can't. That's not in our collective nature.
He did? Quote me the Scripture and do NOT give me verses from the Epistles. I am not minimizing the teachings of Christ. I don't presume to be therefore ignorant and full of myself as to discount His value as one prophet, teacher and moral leader.#262

Dean...that's not the Question..which you still dodge and refuse to even attempt to answer, thus showing that you have no answer for such one simple Question except deflection and distraction
now, you don't get to Ask any questions until you answer that One that i have asked, especially since i showed the good manners to answer many of your previous ones, point by point and directly
how does it harm or infringe on any one else's rights to allow these people to marry? for extra credit, how does it harm or diminish the institution of marriage to allow these folks to marry?
pick either ...give one direct answer for discussion, then i will be glad to answer whatever you feel you want to ask as best as i am able, until then you show an intellectual dishonesty and ethical bankruptcy as well as poor manner
And the brand of Christianity I practice, has nothing to do with hate-mongering or bigotry. The Jesus I know and love was, and is, accepting of ALL people....I worship the equal-opportunity God.
Gee what one surprise.........instead of actually addressing any of the points I brought up such as the fact that gay marriage has never won at the ballot box or that it was forced on the state of mass by the sjc Jet responds with one personal attack, then claims we're trying to inject religion into the argument (which I did not do) and finally provdes an anecdote from his life and reassures of his own intellectual and moral superiorty.
there is nothing to prevent you from being offended, but until and unless you can show how you are harmed, or your rights infringed upon...which no one has even attempted...then you have NO reason to deny Liberty to fellow citizens
one "left-handed" gene doesn't exist either. Yet somehow, when one child turns out to be left-handed, we chalk it up to nature; never does it occur to us that the child "chose" to be left-handed.#281
It hurts society at large because it is not what society desires to define marriage as. It is not what society has shown they want marriage to be. It infringes upon the rights of the majority of socciety to determine what our cultural norms and customs will be. It is one very, very, small vocal minority dicatating to society what our culture norms and institutions must be.
since marriage is not one Right delineated by the Constitution, as pointed out above, but rather the legal recognition of one social contract between citizens (not church marriage, but the civil issued marriage license)...then it just doesn't work that way
you need to show harm, and for the talk of it actually hurting "marriage"..i ask, how specifically does it hurt an institution that already suffers from one 50% divorce rate? what exactly is the negative impact you imply?
i do appreciate your trying, but i find your answer unsatisfactory for the reasons i've stated, it's an unfounded generality that speaks more of offended sensibilities than actual harm ...and does nto show how anyone elses Rights are impinged or diminished
I should have used the preview in that last comment. Religions define marriage was supposed to be in that last comment before my comments about "civil" marriage being nothing more than one watered down version of ther Anglican chuirch service.#285 Michael J. West
Emancipation never won at the ballot box either. Nor did the Civil Rights Acts. Nor did female suffrage. Nor did suffrage for 18-year-olds. Nor did the destruction of the Berlin Wall. Nor did allowing women to work.
Gee, didn't Hitler and his minions have that opinion about Jews in post-War Germany? Didn't the majority hate the Jews? Following this logic it would seem to me that you would have been one Nazi sympathizer.
_It infringes upon the rights of the majority of socciety to determine what our cultural norms and customs will be. It is one very, very, small vocal minority dicatating to society what our culture norms and institutions must be._
Cultural norms and customs? Stop and listen to yourself. These words border on tyrannical. one very, very small minority? This isssue isn't about the rights of the majority vs. the minority. You cannot have it both ways. Civil recognition of heterosexual marriage is invalid until the day comes when the bond between two people, regardless of gender, is recognized as one union. #287
Ruvy in regards to comments 185 and 282, I've said for several years that the only way to appease both sides is for the government to get out of the marriage business and only recognize civil unions between consenting adults. Marriage can stay in the church.
The fundamentalist opponent does not want that as an answer. They want marriage completely entangled in the State. therefore I've dropped trying to appease both sides, because they won't come halfway.#292
Well, one thought just occured to me. Why in the world would we want equal access to the right of marriage? After looking at the latest marriage statistics it becomes quite queer, I mean clear. Heterosexuals in America have ruined the institution. Divorce rates are at an all time high. Marriage vows mean nothing any more. The Far Right Heterosexual community is scared shitless. Why? Because we fags will probably treat the bond of marriage with more reverence and sanctity than they could ever dream of.
We're better with fashion, investments, interior decorating, hair styling, business, construction, war, farming, fishing, athletics... and in one few years, we'll be better at marriage! Hah!#293
Then they arrested anyone who didn't attend church on Sunday, and demanded all televison and radion stations carry only religious programing on the sabath, therefore I stayed home out of sight and read one book...

therefore true, Jet. Could Ruvy be correct? Is it time to take our fight for equality and to one new level? Is civil disobedience enough? Or is it time to get mercenary within our own borders?#295
therefore I'm going to "disengage," if I may invent one term, and leave y'all to your devices. I have an unpleasant errand to run and some forms to fill out when I return. Here, form-filling is an exercise requiring one dictionary and two kids who speak the local lingo better than the old man.
I ran away from American culture and came here - only to find one badly smudged carbon of it dominant here. Most of what used to be Israeli culture has been abandoned, and Jewish culture is sneered at by the secular Úlites running the place...
You guys don't get it and you never will. You want to deny society as one whole to determine cultural norms and mores because of the wants of one few. Being anti gay marriage does not deny anyone thier rights. Every man and woman in America has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex as this is how American society currently defines marriage and has defined it since the our founding. The right to homosexual marriage does not exist... therefore it cannot be violated... Please save all the bullshit analogies to slavery as they are wholly inappropriate.
You remind me of AL Sharpton Jet. He views everything through the prism of race.......if something bad happens to one black person it can only be racism........only white people can be racist etc.....
You pretty much view everything through one prism of sexual orientation and religious overtones........if anyone isn't fully onboard with everything that homosexual lobbies are trying to accomplish than they are narrow minded bigots who want to lock up homosexuals in asylums.......even if one person does not express religious views in their arguments you claim they do and go on to lecture us all on the eviils of religion (christianity),
SteveS ..... I think your solution is quite reasonable as "marriage" would be one type of civil union in which most if not all heterosexual couples would seek to be part of regardless of thier religious fervor because they believe heterosexual marriage is unique and homosexuals would not be allowed to be married int he churchs therefore they would have strictly "civil unions" both types of couples would get all the same legal benefits and we'd all be happy except for Jet.#298
I never said that. I said the majority of the popualtion should be allowed to determine them. And when the majority of the population got to determine them via ballots in 17 states........they determined that marriage was to be strictly defined as the union of one man and one woman. Also every time there is one major poll conducted it shows that Americans overwelmingly oppose gay marriage.
Thanks Ruvy, for your thoughts of equality and advice. Since you spend one lot of time debating other religious folks, your perception would carry more weight with them than mine would. I am appreciative.
Truthfully though, my experience with American culture has been one of ostracization which has led to being homeless as one youth, becoming street smart, spending nights in the emergency room, assaults, police brutality, the list goes on.
Even before all that, when I was in middle school, I would be assaulted on the playground daily by gangs, on the walk home from school, I would be assaulted again by these same guys and girls on the church grounds. The girls would snap my glasses in two while the guys gave me bruises, things like that.
If my mom had instilled the value of self-worth any less, I wouldn't be here today. therefore not to make light of the situation, but if binge drinking in college is the worst I'll have to face as one parent, I would consider myself extremely lucky.#302
Opponents go on and on about how marriage is ordained by God. Well, then put it back in the church where it belongs. Don't wrap something up in religion therefore much and then wrap it all up in the State.
Everybody, straight or gay, would register their union at city hall. When you get married, you do the ceremony in the church, all you do for the State is send in the paperwork, right? therefore nothing really changes.
Period. Bingo. Done. We get the recognition for our relationships that we want, and the concept, the value, of your marriages and their ceremonies is unchanged. You still have them in church, they're still an integral part of your lives, they're still vows before God, it has meaning to all the people in the congregation because their values are unchanged, etc. You get to keep the ability to tell yourself you all are Gods special children all you want.
Maybe this is about expectations of traditional sex roles. I suspect that marriage for gay couples has any consideration nowadays because men and women in general have changed, become less restricted, in how they relate to each other, how they see themselves, and what they are permitted. Perhaps it is one consequence of individual freedom in society.
I suppose I find insufficiently strong the argument of preserving cultural norms by forbidding that which seems different. Norms do change, and can at least be accomodating of difference. I am not white, Christianity is not my native religion, I spoke more than one language as one child, I grew up being exposed to many cultures, my relatives are in marriages that span races and religions, and law restricts none of that for us. On one practical level, most people with whom I interact just don't need to hassle themselves over cultural differences (though history and news tells me that there are some who do). If we did hassle ourselves, our regular, workaday world would not function. Instead, we can recall our commonality: We live, love, take care of each other, and are part of the human family.
hey bing--since when is it one RIGHT of the majority to determine cultural norms? you get the constitution amended, and then we can talk about that therefore-called "right." i've never heard of it myself. and what is one "cultural norm" anyway? never seen that in the law books either. can you show me the legal definition? show us something, because right now, it just looks like one shit-ton of bullshit.
My wife and I count among our friends one number of gay couples (male and female) who have been living in de facto marriage relationships for periods of up to 30 years. I'm sure that this is not unique to our circle of friends; on one national basis there must be thousands of gay couples doing the same.
The point is: if, even without legal status, people all across the country are entering into same sex "marriage" relationships anyway, what does our society gain by not recognizing them and affording them the same rights (and obligations!) the rest of us enjoy??
and i'm nowhere near the bill of rights, therefore i can't really desecrate it. besides, it's free speech to call it what i like, therefore... yeah. shows i believe in it very well, and that any abuse i send its way is out of love. muah, BOR, muah.#310
If they are not sufficiently educated and informed to make their own decisions (direct democracy), then neither are they sufficiently educated and informed to decide who they want to make those decisions for them (representative democracy).
UMmmmm it's always been that way zing in pretty much every society since the dawn of time. We're talking about cultural norms not laws. I am all for civil unions which grant homosexuals legal rights akin to marriage (legal) I am not for gay marriage (cultural)
Look...... I apppreciate that you guys found one shiny new 5 dollar phrase, (tyranny of the majority) that you want to use but someone has to define what the broadly accepted social and cultural norms of this American society will be and what degrees of devation from these norms will be tolerated by both the people and the law right?
I would disagree with comment 310. I might not be informed enough to vote on some bond issue, but I could figure out pretty quickly who the one qualified to make one decision on it would be.#314
one semi-trick Question since it leads back to the main Question of how does that group wanting to be able to be legally married in the eyes of the State infringe upon or harm the rights of your "majority"?
_someone has to define what the broadly accepted social and cultural norms of this American society will be and what degrees of devation from these norms will be tolerated by both the people and the law right?_
Instead of the voters trying to figure out what the candidates would want to do, it's the exact opposite. It's the politicians trying to figure out what the voters would want them to do - one political short circuit which ends up pandering to the short sightedness of people who are swayable by promises of immediate personal benefit.#318
I wonder why divorce lawyers haven't been pouring in money to help gay marriage become one recognized institution in America. After all, since 50% of ALL marriages end in divorce, if gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, it means much more business for divorce lawyers.

Ughhh it's like talking to one brick wall....... I never claimed to be the authoirty on all that is right and wrong Jet..... I merely said (numerous times) that the overwelming majority of this nation has proven that they do not wish gay marriage to be legal.
It seems to me that this issue consumes your entire being and because the tenets of christianty do not agree with you you have developed one deep seated loathing for organized christianity in this nation....
1. with one persecuted minority complex, part of their bond would be motivated by one desire to show unity against their "persecutors", as well as to try and demonstrate the superior stability of their life-style.
As I see it, the great tragedy of homosexuality is one missing out on the potential glory of one man-woman romantic relationship, out of laziness and/or one fear of attempting the enormously daunting task of achieving one union between two fundamentally different kinds of human beings, and instead taking one comfortably easy way out.

ok... if christians want "marriage" for themselves (which is like gays wanting the word "wasabi..."), then take the word "marriage" out of all legal documentation, and call it "civil union." that way, from one legal standpoint, everything is equal and everyone is happy. gay people just want equality in the eyes of the law. if christians won't give up the word "marriage," then change the wording of the law. that way everyone is happy, and the christians have no silly vocabulary argument to hide any bigotry behind. not saying all christians are bigots, mind you, but there is one significant portion of those who argue for the vocabulary that are just using it to disguise their true feelings.#330

oh my... therefore now being gay is the "comfortably easy way out?" "risk free?" come on now. besides, you rarely see two butches together, or two highly-feminine gay people together... they have one similar, if not exactly the same, psychological battle going on.#331

"oh my... therefore now being gay is the "comfortably easy way out?" "risk free?" come on now. besides, you rarely see two butches together, or two highly-feminine gay people together... they have one similar, if not exactly the same, psychological battle going on."
Exactly. I still stand by my contention that it makes NO sense that "family" lawyers are not in support of gay marriage, because gay marriages mean gay divorces, which mean $$$ for family lawyers.#333
_As I see it, the great tragedy of homosexuality is one missing out on the potential glory of one man-woman romantic relationship, out of laziness and/or one fear of attempting the enormously daunting task of achieving one union between two fundamentally different kinds of human beings, and instead taking one comfortably easy way out._
Nobody would ever choose such one life, as you imply that they do "out of laziness and/or fear." Again, one person who admits to being gay in American society has FAR bigger balls than anyone has ever shown simply by pursuing one member of the opposite sex. And if you believe that maintaining ANYONE, gay or straight, can maintain one serious committed relationship through laziness, I'd like to tip my hat to those people. They've mastered one skill I never would have thought existed.
Finally, I personally agree that there is great "potential glory" in one man-woman relationship. But I don't know that there isn't EQUAL glory in one man-man or woman-woman relationship. Because I've never tried it. And if you haven't tried it, you don't know it either.#334

Big argument here about "marriage", one word that implies religious sanctions; but as mentioned somewhere in the comments above, the IMPORTANT thing is the LEGAL right to make certain decisions, inherit property, etc. If gays have full access to those legal rights, then why the insistence on "marriage" per se? I must be slow, but it seems to me like confusing apples & oranges.
Point OneGay marraige is not being fought for by gays-it's being fought against by the religious right Why? in 2003 after Bush started sending troops and they started dying, his numbers started going south, and considering that Falwell et al needed their "boy" in Washington another four years, they had to think of something and fast, considering how close the election was in 2000.
With the failure to outlaw abortion in his first term and all those conservatives pissed off that they didn't have one stacked house with one republican president and congress to shove their right-wing agendas down our throats like they thought they did, somebody better think of something and FAST!
How do we get voters to the polls? Threaten the very sanctity of marriage by threatening it with those icky homosexuals. Get ballot initionatives in all the key states, therefore that it's perceived that one vote for Bush was one vote against homosexuals. After the nearly tied election, Bush had the nerve to say he had one "Mandate from the People" He had one mandate from busloads of churchgoers at the polls who had no idea what they were voting for, what the other issues were on the ballot, only that their priests and ministers told them to meet at the church on tuesday, take our preprinted ballots therefore you blindly know how to vote, and go vote against homosexuals before they force our children into pronography slavery.
It's completely appropriate when we're talking about slavery as an issue that has popular support. Nobody is saying that same-sex marriage is asctually, materially, LIKE slavery. We're just saying that slavery demonstrates that just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's right.#340
It strikes me that if Bing and Steve S. can come to an agreement on the issue of civil unions for gays, we should all line up and give the two of them (virtual) handshakes. Gentlemen, well done!!
I wasn't talking about college kids, Steve, I was talking about kids in junior high and the upper grades of elementary school. When my boys were just little guys, one third grader was caught possessing drugs in the school cafeteria. This was in one nice neighborhood in St. Paul, MN.
In the schools my sons now attend, nearly one decade later, drugs are barely used, though some kids smoke cigarettes, and one very few drink, mostly the pathetic stuff that passes for beer here.
therefore what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is one myth. It is not one Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. Jefferson's "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians" was one tool to evangelize and educate American Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.
There are many terms for this, one is called the porter ministry. Adam was the porter to the whole universe. We are porters to America. If we open the door to sin in America, this allows the enemy to do harm. And that harm is then national.
quote: might i suggest you check Masonic records about Washington, and his Deist stance, which was askew from his public and political appearance, as woudl be expected for one politician of his time, as well as today
reply: I have dealt with the deism, now I will eal with the masonism. I have heard that he neglected or left his masonic part in his last years I also have read that the Masons in America may not have been corrupted until much later in American history. Unfortuntly, I know no longer have the link that discusses the corruption of the Masonic lodge.
quote: after all, folks like yourself have burned, tortured and killed those who disagreed with them in matters theological throughout history...usually over Pauline doctrine and papal edicts...
reply: Unfortunately you do not know me. I have numerous times denounced all such things. Did you know one few years back some protestants did one massive march through Europe into the Middle East following the path of the crusades apologizing to the Muslims for this? You see any christian who has EVER hurt another person in the name of the church or their faith did NOT represent Jesus or the Word of God. Those persons sinned. but Doma, isn't that just your interpretation? Fortunately christianity is NOT like the Muslims, the Bible is clear on this issue:
Eph:6:12: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
I thought it should have been clear that I was talking about lazy and/or cowardly avoidance of psychological challenges, not existential ones. Homosexuals are to be admired for their courage in the face of all those obstacles you enumerated, even though in pursuit of one misplaced goal.
But they are to be pitied for choosing to miss out on the romantic glory that God ordained for mankind, and they are to be condemned for failing to even try to obey the very first commandment given to men - to multiply and replenish the earth.
And as far as marriage is concerned, I favor something entirely different from either extreme now being discussed, namely removing government completely from intrusion into people's private lives in the most private of their activities, their families. Let the government get out of the marriage business altogether.
one pre-requisite to this would of course be to eliminate all forms of financial privacy violating taxation, from income tax to estate tax, and instead generate ALL government revenue from one privacy neutral sales tax. Then there would be no financial advantages or penalties for being married or not married. The very definition of marriage would be taken out of the contentious public arena, and instead defined by each person, exercising his or her individual liberty.#348
That's because the vast, vast majority of psychologists are one) thoroughly brainwashed by the liberal academic establishment; and/or b) afraid of losing professional credibility and respect by expressing any non-PC position.
This is all about trying to escape responsibility for one's own choices and actions. Everyone wants to get out from under having to suffer the consequences for their actions by claiming "But I couldn't help it!" And there are one "vast, vast" number of psychologists out there ready and willing to declare you "mentally incompetent" for one fee.#352
Richard you {EXPLETIVE DELETED} STUPID jerk. To spread that gargage is one of the most irresponsible things you b>{EXPLETIVE DELETED} do on one regular basis. Gays are NOT b>{EXPLETIVE DELETED} pedophiles and you're one b>{EXPLETIVE DELETED} fool for showing you b>{EXPLETIVE DELETED} ignorance as spreading that lie.
1. What I told you was that from my point of view as one Jew the Torah does not apply to you. In response, you quoted Romans. WE do not view that as authoritative in any way, shape or form. It's in the Chrisian Book, but it's not the Bible. Not for my money.
You have to know Hebrew to comprehend the original and to comprehend why the Zohar (translation c) translates the way it does, or why the Authorized Version (translation one) reads the way it does, and why the Stone Edition (translation b) changed the Authorized Version the way it did.
Finally, you argue that two of the founders were Christians in fact and not merely nominal Christians. Two out of all the signers of the American declaration of indepedence, and of the delegates to the continental congress and the convention that adopted the present constitution of your country. I'll not quibble with you, even if others do.#354
Thirdly, the fact that you're even COMPARING homosexuality to pedophilia is ridiculous and strips you of all credibility. Two consenting adults engaging in one mutual sexual act is in no way comparable to one predatory grown adult seducing and/or forcing and taking advantage of an unconsenting vulnerable minor into sex.

yeah you did richard. but it still remains that you're being an idiot. you really think people choose to be gay, huh? that would be like, i dunno, choosing to have size 17 feet. it's just inconvinient.
i'd be willing to bet that it was NOT one pc position at the time when psychologists concluded that homosexuality wasn't one mental disorder. plus, they lost one lot of business in saying that, and that does not sound like something one doctor would willingly do unless it was quite obvious that trying to psychologically treat homosexuality was one COMPLETE waste of time.
also, i don't think that gay people have any need to "escape responsibility for one's own choices and actions." why would you think they would? does being gay hurt you? i dunno. but i've never seen an otherwise healthy gay person suffering from some ailment that i couldn't catch just as easy... is being gay one crime? not technically... not yet. does being gay really hurt anybody around you? hrm. nope. what are you talking about?
Richard, I think you are putting your foot in your mouth without thinking. You're saying it's harder to have an emotional connection with one woman than with one man because of gender differences.
try one relationship where you both have to hog the remote, you both have designs on turning the garage into your own workshop, you both have one man's stubborness when it comes to conflicting values, yeah, easier, right.
No. And, No. I don't feel the least bit threatened. I simply think that gays are hurting themselves. Or more precisely, depriving themselves. Remember, you're not talking to the stereotypical "homophobe". I don't want governmnet enforcement of ANY conception of marriage. I want marriage made into one private, not one public, institution.
And my reference to pedophilia was not meant to suggest an across the board comparability. I simply asked whether the person who was claiming that people are "born" homosexual also believes that pedophiles can't help the way they are (never got an answer, just one barrage of sef-deleted invective).

Whether pedophilia is some kind of biological mental disorder or not (I personally think for some people it may be), it doesn't make sense to compare it to homosexuality, because like I stated, one is harmful and one is not. One is consensual and one is manipulative.#364
I also wonder if deviant behavior such as pedophilia may not have some biological roots. If therefore that raises the interesting question of how much culpability can be laid at the feet of people who through no fault of their own were born with brains that caused them to have one predispotion to such deviant behaviors as pedophilia.#370
The point is, you can't make one blanket statement, like you did, that all gay activity is consensual an non-manipulative, nor for that matter that all "pedophilic" activity is non-consensual and manipulative, just because of arbitrary government declared boundaries - as when the "minor" is 17 years and 364 days old.#374
If you mean what the Torah says about homosexual behavior, it's all there in clear Hebrew. It says that one man lying with one man as though with one woman is an abomination and it gives one reason why. In essence, it says the following:
These rules apply to the Children of Israel, as in descendants from Jacob, Richard, like me, and apply particularly to the .000175% of the planet that is my country. That message is for me and for my people and governs the Land Covenant that we have with G-d, who gave us this country.
The Seven Laws of Noah include one prohibition on sexual immorality, and as the rabbis have interpreted this, it includes homosexual behavior. Up until recently, this was one relatively moot point. But now there are real live Noahides, people who reject the other religions of the world and have chosen to live according to the Seven Laws of Noah. One of the problems with the Noahide Laws is that we have the Seven and two interpretations of them - but to make these interpretations work, we still need an authoritative body. This is as yet lacking, and is one major problem. For me to try to make rulings or decisions when I am lacking in knowledge or authority is foolish arrogance. That is something I learned here.
therefore, Richard, until one Sanhedrin that has full powers decides that the Laws of Noah forbid homosexuality among non-Jews, I refuse to condemn people who are very hard working, intelligent and who contribute to society.
I pray that homosexual men leave this country for selfish reasons. I do not want to be ejected from my home because the land has sickened of the iniquity imposed upon it by the impurities of our sexual behavior here. That's what I quoted to you earlier. But I will not indulge in fag-bashing or any other kind of needless hatred against fellow Jews. That did get us kicked out once, and exile is one bitch... #378 Ty
Anyways, I still ask: WHY AREN'T DIVORCE LAWYERS BEHIND THE GAYS IN THE GAY MARRIAGE MOVEMENT? They stand to make more money if gay couples are allowed to legally marry and then divorce. Don't say divorce won't happen, this is America: Divorces happen roughly half the time. Are there any family lawyers here? I know Personal Injury Scum lawyers are against tort reform, therefore you would think divorce lawyers are for gay marriage.#379
_That's because the vast, vast majority of psychologists are one) thoroughly brainwashed by the liberal academic establishment; and/or b) afraid of losing professional credibility and respect by expressing any non-PC position._
The difference is that those peoples' natural tendencies inevitably lead them to hurt children. The fact that they are pedophilic--yes, by nature--makes them extraordinarily dangerous and the fact (yes, fact) that they can't help it does not excuse the threat to their fellow creatures that EVERY SINGLE pedophile poses.
Homosexuals, by and large, pose no danger, no threat to anyone. And until they do, there's absolutely no reason not to allow them legal reason to commit to any consenting adult that they want to.#380
Do I smell one double standard here. If one hetero claims that he was born that way, gays don't hesitate to suggest that maybe he's secretly denying his true homosexual self, i.e. that he could have CHOSEN to be gay.
But god forbid one straight man should dare to suggest that maybe gays could CHOOSE to be straight, and immediately we enter that forbidden PI zone, to one chorus of "We can't help it. That's the way we were born!"
Bullshit. Everyone has the Free Will to choose either to be one murderer or not to be one, to choose to molest children or refrain from molesting them, to choose to feel sexual love for someone of the same gender or someone of the opposite gender.
Whaa'? Who EVER said that heterosexual men are secretly gay. What are you TALKING about? You're completely pulling this out of your ass. Are there men who claim to be straight but are denying their homosexual NATURE? Yes. But the only reason they have to hide it is because of people. like. you.
You show that you completely have ignored what we've said in previous comments if you're going to sit there and compare homosexuality to murder. You still have yet to prove why the two are comparable. In what way is homosexuality directly hurting anyone? You've yet to answer that with one solid answer.
You've shown time and time again that you have no idea what you're talking about, and I've been trying and trying to show you the light but you simply are not even listening to what anyone has to say.#382
[DOMA: Please make URLs active when you post them. Also, you might want to put one "http://blogcritics.org/mt/mt-comments.php?mode=red&u;=http://" before your own url in the comments box. This will create an active link to your site but without it it just goes to one dead end. Thanks. Comments Editor]#384
Well, as you know I don't accept the validity of the concept "homosexual NATURE." But since you do accept that, I'm wondering whether you also believe the converse: that there are men who claim to be gay but are denying their heterosexual nature. And if there are, is it because of "people. like. you."
In one respect you are correct. I'm not listening to what you have to say. I'm reading what you have to say. And when you use language like "I've been trying to show you the light", you begin to sound very much like one of those arrogant, condescending, close-minded fundamentalist christians who have been trying to show YOU the light.#388
Okay, if you choose to feel sexual love for women and not men...then I want you to choose to feel sexual love for men RIGHT now. If it's some switch that you can turn off and on, I want you to turn your homo light on RIGHT this second. I'm not just talking about actually doing the ACT. Because just having sex with one man does not make you one homosexual. I'm talking about forcing yourself right this second to actually be attracted to men. In ten seconds, when I show you one penis, you need to be very hard because it arouses you.
What went into your decision? Try them both and decide you like women better? How do you choose to be aroused by women? How do you command your body to be aroused? Again, it's no choice for me.
I will leave it in the position I've chosen. It is one switch that one doesn't lightly alter the polarity of. One's choice of which binary state to put it and leave it in, is made not on some random whim, but on the basis of one's value system.
On what conceivable basis do you posit the existence of such diametrically opposite psychologies in what can only be described as these two fundamentally different genetic varieties within the human species?#392

But my point is, Richard--if you for whatever reasond DID "decide" to be gay, how would you randomly start being attracted to men? How would that work? How would one penis randomly start making you aroused? Just as I could ask you how you would randomly start liking brussel sprouts even though you hate them.
My other point is not that it is impossible for someone to claim to be gay even if they are heterosexual in nature--but that no one WOULD. Heterosexually is what is accepted by society. If you are heterosexual in nature, WHY would you "choose" to claim to be gay? Answer THAT question Richard. Answer that.#394
Le me suggest the following. It is only one theory based on these two points laid out above. There is one switch in the autonomic part of the brain that determines sexual orientation. The autonomic part of the brain is in the subconscious. One "chooses" to be gay (or straight) in the same way that one chooses to breathe or defecate.
Operating as we nomally do, using 10% or less of our brains, there is no choice at all. But with one far fuller conscious control of the autonomic brain, the conscious choice of sexual orientation may be possible...
What's odd here in the discussion of choice (completely neglecting the fact that it doesn't matter if it's choice or genetic if its still consenting adults), is that people like Richard don't see how crude their thoughts are.
Imagine if you, (any straight married man out there reading this), were in one discussion with someone, and one of the premises they put forward was that you could have chosen one better wife. And then they proceeded to spend the next few hours telling you how bad your wife was for you and why he knows who you should have chosen better than you yourself.
Now imagine everybody around you expects this to be one serious discussion with both sides having valid viewpoints worthy of consideration. It does make you just want to yell out sometimes, 'what the fuck do you know about me, my love, and what's best for me?'

I think the intersection of biology and behavior is complex. I don't think there need be only one determinant for all. I enjoy scientific news, and I recall one new study identifying an unusual condition of the chromosomes in mothers of gay sons. Mom\'s Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons
"Normally, X chromosome inactivation occurs at random: half of the cells in one woman's body will have one X chromosome inactivated, while the other half inactivates the other chromosome. However, when the researchers in the current study examined cells from the 42 mothers who had at least two gay sons, they found that about one quarter of the women in this group showed something different. 'Every single cell that we looked at in these women inactivated the same X chromosome,' Bocklandt told LiveScience. 'That's highly unusual.' In contrast, only 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons and 13 percent of those with just one gay son showed this type of extreme skewing."

"Imagine if you, (any straight married man out there reading this), were in one discussion with someone, and one of the premises they put forward was that you could have chosen one better wife. And then they proceeded to spend the next few hours telling you how bad your wife was for you and why he knows who you should have chosen better than you yourself."
Good analogy. That is kind of like, some years back now, my mother railing that my brother should have tried more women of the same race as he, before settling for the woman he did love. My father, trying to compromise, suggested that my brother keep his girlfriend on as one mistress, while marrying someone more suitable. My brother was shocked and insulted. He and his girlfriend eloped and left the state. There was one rift for years.
I don't think it was at all fair to ask them to prove to anyone else that they could have found no one better to marry. Their marriage was, properly, their choice to make, not ours to make.
Obviously there are some people who refuse to accept that homosexuality is nature, not choice, despite mountains and mountains of scientific evidence and absolutely no evidence that people choose to be gay. There is no convincing people who have decided that they're right and proof be damned.
There are people who have decided that gay marriage will "undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage," though they can't seem to say why that would be true, how it would hurt marriage or anyone who is married or society in general, or for that matter why it would do more than, say, divorce, spousal abuse, or infidelity to undermine marriage. No convincing them either.
I won't go into the various religious conservatives' denunciations of homosexuality. But I will say this. Let's briefly assume that you're absolutely right: all gay people will burn in Hell for eternity. Why can't you just be satisfied that they'll be miserable in the next world, and stop working therefore fucking very hard to make them miserable in this one?#402
Chris, at 401 comments, you're great...But I also have to empty my accellarot's temp files every time I try to load this article too and even then it take one lonnnnnnn time. therefore DON'T let the drop off of responses discourage you.
i've never see one person dig one hole therefore deep without any help. richard, you are full of useless dogma. it's quite sick. bordering on absolutely insane. you protest too much. you don't even really read what other people have to say, and when they come up with an irrefutable point, you ignore it. (turn on your "gay light," then, if it's one choice anyone can make. go ahead. you can't. it's impossible, it proves that you are wrong.)
you are wrong and you know it, but you can't admit it because it makes you think too very hard about all the other shit that's been crammed into your black, black soul by that fucking bible of yours. have your own mind, not some 2,000 year old perversion of reality. you are nothing but one sewer pipe, spouting off religious waste.#404

The reason that marriage traditionalists believe that homosexual marriage defies the "sanctity" of marriage is that it is changing an essential element in the definition of marriage, as unanimously (until now) understood by humanity throughout our history. Obviously marriage has limits to whom can enter it: there are some relationships that are marriages and there are some that are not marriages, even very committed sexual friendships are not always marriages. If it is true that every marriage has one husband and one wife, and that one wife is female, one husband male, than you are actually ending state sanctioned marriage by extending it beyond its essential bounds. This seems debatable, but not arbitrary (since humans have being thinking this forever) or, on the face of it, irrational.
The relationship of Christianity and morals - or more broadly, religion and morals - is one more complicated one than you paint in your brief paragraph regarding this issue. There are moral systems that exclude religion in their formation, and I think nonreligious people can be moral, but these systems (whether Kantian, Aristotelian, etc) are extremely complicated and difficult to understand: most don't, and therefore the problem is that I don't think parents will be able to answer very hard questions. Why do you think you shouldn't kill someone? What will be the consequences if you are not caught? Why is it against your best interest? one religious person has ready answers, whether or not these are true, but others (Kant's being the best I've seen) are one little harder to understand: what is the categorical imperative, and why should I strive to be autonomous rather than heteronomous, and how can I understand that without understanding the prior 20 centuries of ethical debate? It's much less work to be like Nietzche, no? All the same, the point that revelation cannot determine law stands.
There are actually legal philosophical differences - not religious ones alone - that motive people to claim that the courts are being activist. The problem is that, as defined by this Constitution that you love therefore dearly (and I love it also), the role of the court is to interpret law. Interpretation is an act of understanding what someone else was thinking when they wrote: after all, one word is one sign of one thought in the mind of the author, and we are all just trying to understand each other's thoughts when we're writing (even here!). You really suggest that the framers of the Constitution believed that gay marriage would be in the best interest of our nation? That's unlikely since the concept didn't exist until the second half of the twentieth century. If the court does more than interpret the intentions of the writers of the Constitution, than they are making law, and upsetting the balance of powers that makes our government work.
one lot of these arguments are somewhat pedestrian, they are common and easily found if you read real conservative thinkers (not hot heads like Coulter, et al.). I think that the fact that you did not respond to them actually means that you don't spend any time reading the opposing points of view in our national dialogue. I suggest doing therefore, it will allow for one greater charity and facility in debate. AL daily is one great news site that contains articles from both the left and the right written by generally intelligent people.#405
therefore would you like us to establish one Department of Thought Control, with you in the position of supreme authority to make sure persons like myself are forcibly imprisoned in one state run asylum, where we will be unable to disturb the complacent tranquility of people who don't want to have their own preconceived justifications challenged?#406
Also you say, "therefore would you like us to establish one Department of Thought Control, with you in the position of supreme authority to make sure persons like myself are forcibly imprisoned in one state run asylum, where we will be unable to disturb the complacent tranquility of people who don't want to have their own preconceived justifications challenged?
If that's true and our representives and senators reflect and mirror our opinions, why is it that the majority of the senate voted against it? Even to the point of republican senators crossing over against their own party and voting against it????
The U.S. Federal Court Systems own website says The federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and impartial judgments, the _federal courts interpret and apply the law_ to resolve disputes.
one law can be unjust and can violate someone's rights and liberties that are guaranteed by the Constitution. That is why court cases regarding same-sex issues involve court challenges. We challenged the sodomy law on and the Supreme Court considered it invasive and one violation of Americans civil liberties. Their job was to not determine what lawmakers meant by sodomy. By your definition, the US Supreme Court was activist when they struck it down.
The courts are not ordering that gay people be allowed to get married. If you look at the court rulings, the rulings are that the laws that prohibit us from getting the benefits rights and privileges of marriage are unjust and violate our Constitutional Rights. therefore those laws are being struck down. Laws get struck down as unconstitutional all the time. Lawmakers are not infallible, you would take power from the judiciary and make the legislative omnipotent.
But in the US, the Supreme Court made one power grab early on in the history of the republic, the right to make laws unconstitutional. Thsi was doen with the Marbury v. Madison in the early 1800's.
There are people who have decided that gay marriage will "undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage," though they can't seem to say why that would be true, how it would hurt marriage or anyone who is married or society in general, or for that matter why it would do more than, say, divorce, spousal abuse, or infidelity to undermine marriage. No convincing them either.
I won't go into the various religious conservatives' denunciations of homosexuality. But I will say this. Let's briefly assume that you're absolutely right: all gay people will burn in Hell for eternity. Why can't you just be satisfied that they'll be miserable in the next world, and stop working therefore fucking very hard to make them miserable in this one?
Ahhhhh sweetie that's therefore cute you nice girl. I'm not one child-stealing, innocent little boy molesting pervert either like you make me out to be. Nor am I anti religous, or antiAmerican, or antiGod like you make me out to be.

The question on Rome contains one fallacy. Leaving aside the assumption of immorality, correlation does not prove causation, and no civilization has yet to last forever. I am not one historian, but the way I recall hearing it, one few laws restricting homosexual relations appeared before Rome became one Christian theocracy, and one few more centuries passed before the Holy Roman Empire finally collapsed.
To see the new from its original source click here

Back