Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 15, 2009
Harry R. Jackson, Jr. :: Townhall.com Columnist
Defending DOMA
by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Late Thursday, U.S. Department of Justice lawyers filed a motion to dismiss a case that challenged the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act often referred to as DOMA. DOMA currently prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes, and other federal rights of marriage. Justice Department lawyers concluded that allowing federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

Naturally, gay activists were upset, apparently angered that they could not just bend the Department of Justice to their will. Perhaps I should not be surprised by their ire. Their greatest allies have been out-of-control courts and runaway legislatures.

*** Special Offer ***

Yet I was very surprised at how disrespectful they seemed to the White House. It appears that these groups feel the administration owes them a special dimension of allegiance. Despite the president’s promise of greater gay inclusion in the political mainstream and his declaration that June should be considered gay pride month, gay activists like the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobbying group based in Washington and Lambda Legal, called on Obama to begin steps to end DOMA as he promised on the campaign trail. President Obama would be very unwise if he caved into the pressure tactics of gay activists at this early stage of his presidency. After all, many Christian leaders have been disturbed by the president’s stand on abortion, his lifting the bans on embryonic stem cell research, and his liberal economic policies.

Even though the president made very explicit and emphatic campaign promises that he opposes DOMA and would call for Congress to repeal it, the president is too smart to knuckle under to the cries of a vocal minority that cannot shift the balance of power in his favor in either 2010 or 2012. For these reasons and others, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler made the inevitable statement, “Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”

While all of this is happening on a national level, grassroots pro-marriage activists need to seize the moment by reversing some of the victories that gay marriage advocates have achieved. We need to ta ke advantage of President Obama’s lack of support for gay marriage and slow down the momentum of the gay movement. The best way to do this is to give the voters a chance to let their voices be heard. After all, in the 30 cases in which the people were able to choose; they chose marriage between one man and one woman.

Two battles in which we are most poised for victory in the near future are Maine and Washington, DC. First of all, the state of Maine is ripe for a reversal of its recently minted same-sex marriage laws. Secondly, the DC City Council’s decision to pursue gay marriage can be derailed by an irate electorate that feels disenfranchised.

The efforts toward a DC DOMA are headed by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma) and 28 co-sponsors, demonstrating the bi-partisan agreement toward defending traditional marriage. DOMA is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. We must use legal measures to continue the battle to protect our families and our way of life now. We must encourage “Blue Dog” Democrats to work with Republicans and see this Act become law.

There have been previous introductions of a DC DOMA in Congress and gay activists are assuring themselves that this proposal will fall flat as=2 0 others have in the past. In fact, Mitch Wood, President of Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. has said, “We already have assurances from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she opposes any congressional action to overturn the marriage-recognition legislation, now in its congressional review period and expected to become law on July 6.

“We are working in coalition with several local and national groups committed to GLBT equality, in addition to our good friend and champion, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), to ensure that both the currently-pending bill and the full marriage equality bill expected later this year will withstand any attempts to overturn them at the local or congressional level. We will keep you apprised of developments.”

Gay radicals were not expecting pro-marriage America to resist their strategies so vehemently. Our endeavors in Washington have been successful thus far because we have brought blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Asians together based on their common belief in biblical marriage. Such camaraderie makes the overwhelming possibility for all communities across America to rise up together. Our goal is not to just register a political opinion; we must protect marriage for the next generation. We must guard our children’s religious liberties which will likely be abridged under massive gay legislation.

While our organizations work to speak with every congressm an on Capitol Hill, it will take the grassroots of community mobilization to achieve our goals. You are most important in this effort. Let your representatives know that you stand for biblical marriage and you want them to vote YES to DC DOMA. If you need to know how to contact your representatives, log onto www.thetruthinblackandwhite.com Become a voice…make a difference…defend marriage!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Be the first to read Harry Jackson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

We Need a Federal Marriage Amendment
One that, while stating there is no right to a neutered marriage license, will allow states that want to neuter marriage to do so, and that other states with marriage protection amendments should not be forced to recognize neutered marriages from other states, or be forced to neuter their marriage licensing by a court.

I think it should do the same when it comes to domestic partnerships and civil unions.

Perhaps it should also provide some recognition at the federal level for licenses, partnerships, and unions from states that have them. For example... for federal tax purposes.

It should also restate religious freedom protections.

Actually, none of this should be needed... but with the courts too often being activist, we have to do something. Really, it is those who want to neuter marriage who should have to pass an amendment to get that done.

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/26/handy_dandy_marri age_neutering_plea_repellant.thtml

there is a brain somewhere in justice
Can the party that reached that conclusion please hold a talk with the President that insist on political correctioness and social justice instead of abidding by the Constitution of the United States.

Who would have thought?
Another campaign promise broken!

You may "have a dog in the hunt." See---

this article, for instance:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 100278

about one of the *hate-filled gay narcissist* types who Obama has appointed to an important position in the Education Dept., overseeing the "Office of Safe Schools."

Have you ever heard of "Fistgate," and "Day of Silence?"

The reprehensible Kevin Jennings is responsible for these travesties, and is now being rewarded as a campaigner and money raiser for Obama.

"...apparently this is payback time by giving Jennings access to America's impressionable children to further indoctrinate them that 'gay is okay,' said Diane Gramley, president of AFA of Pennsylvania.

"'Our schools are being used in a great social experiment and it's the children who are the guinea pigs,' Gramley said...."

Problem with Constitution
There's a problem with your argument, Harry. Plain and simple, DOMA defies the constitution. According to the constitution in article IV section 1, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

That means that other states have to honor the proceedings of other states even if their laws aren't identical. So if gay marriage is done in one state that allows it, other states have to under the constitution honor it. So DOMA is completely unjustified and so is are all other laws denying gays equal rights. It is an affront to freedom and people like Harry Jackson Jr. continue to lash out against it purely because of personal taste. If that's how you want a society to run, move to Saudi Arabia. They legislate their tastes on the populous all the time.

Bishop Jackson

I want to say to you Sir, that you are a man of great courage and principles.

Those who are in league with Satan hate you for being a Man of God.


Scriptures on Homosexuality
---------------------------
Romans 1:26-27
26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;

27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

1Corinthians 6:9-11
9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom?

Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men

10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.

------------------------------
Most Human Beings regard the anal orifice as a bodily tool, for expelling flatulence and human waste.

Homosexual 'Men' regard the anal orifice, as 'Central' to their identity and the object of passion, adoration, sexual fulfillment and their reason for living.

To stop the *hate crimes* tyranny
call the Senate tomorrow and Wed.--
vote should be Wed.--
at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121,

or the so-called Matthew Shephard Act (he was NOT killed because he was homosexual) will be indicting you for opposing same-sex marriage or not awarding special privileges for *gays* or for objecting to having your kindergarten child taught an*al f*cking is a great way to family planning.

TriciaCT et al

Kevin Jennings is also a Transvestite.

Apparently Barack Obama doesn't think our Government Schools are bad enough now.

Barack Obama's Eclecticism

Barack Obama's beliefs and understandings of everything, seems to be based on 'Eclecticism'.

Barack Obama's knowledge is 'Superficial', he selects what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles, in everything from 'Economics' to 'Religion'.

It is evident to any thinking person, that Barack Obama has NO core standards, principles, values or belief system.

Barack Obama has even implied, that Jesus Christ - God in the Flesh, who dwelt among us - had a poor, incorrect, or perhaps 'Warped view', about the path to Salvation.

John 14:6 (New International Version)
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

In an interview in 2004 with Cathleen Falsani a Chicago Sun-Times Columnist, Barack Obama stated: "So, I have a deep faith, I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place."

Barack Obama has an untenable theological position, that all people of faith -- Christians, Hindus, Muslims, animists, everyone -- knows and follows the same God.

Barack Obama describes his father, after whom he is named, as "agnostic." His paternal grandfather was a Muslim. His mother, he says, was a Christian whom Obama described as "a lonely witness for secular humanism" In his 1993 memoir, Dreams from My Father.

Many Members of his 'Chosen Mentor', Jeremiah Wright's church were Muslim.

Barack Obama my strive to be 'All Things, to All People', but that doesn't work with God.


It is true...
It is true that Congress can do whatever it wants to the Americans living in Washington, D.C., but that doesn't mean it should. Let the citizens of DC overturn their own laws if that is what they choose. Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that Congress MUST substitute its will for the will of the citizens of DC.

And, Mr. Jackson, why are you surprised that supporters of Obama would be unhappy with one of his decisions? Is it because you bought the baloney that comes out of the right-wing meatgrinder that claims that liberals and Democrats believe Obama is the Messiah? No. The Messiah has always been Ronald Reagan.

To Retired Geek
Okay, I'll bite, and I can't wait to hear your answer: how many Gods are there, really?

To renny
re "Matthew Shepherd was not killed because he was gay": Really? You were there? Or maybe you know people who were there? Do tell us more.

Jackson at it again
One wonders why Jackson has dedicated his life in attempt to destroy the lives and rights of gay couples? Harry jackson spreads lies over and over again, his latest was claim that when caught attempting a voter fraud in DC, he claimed that "gays hacked" his private records. Without a shred of evidence this bigot spreads lies in his relentless campaign of hatred and fear.

Jackson sees no other problems in society than commited gay couples, He wants a society where everyone else attacks and hated gays and is willing trop go at any length to destroy the lives of gays. Jackson was in favor of sodomy statutes: after stripping gay couplkes from all legal protections, the next step woul be jailing them.

Jackson loves to see US as apartheid nation where gays are forced to live in a few bantustans in New England, without any possibility to move anywhere in fear of losing all legal right and benefits. This vicious hate monger want a coalition where people of all races unite in hate toward on minority: gays. He especially loves to see black gay men suffer in the hands of their own community...



Jackson also
defends his ideas of using anti-gay hatred as tool for conservatives to get back in power with the small size of a minority. In Jackson hateful and meanspirited, vicious brain it is OK to attack a minority that is small enough not to able to defend its rights alone. Jackson wants to incite enough hate gainst gays so that their fate would be the same as Jews earlier in this century.

Jackson wants a society where it is outright dangerous hateful s to live openly as a gay man.

This is not my concern anymore. I am moving to Canada, a nation that truly is land of the free and that appreciates the rights of all to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. A land where gays have equal rights in the face of the law and where one is not subjected to daily hatred and venom from CHristians.

Christians have dedicated their politics to attacking gays, especially they target gays in committed relationships. Nothing givers Christofascists greater joy than hurting gay couples. The allies of Jackson advocate detaining, torture and killing of gays in Africa, maybe it gives Jackson special warm glow to see his black brethren killed and maimed in the hands of people like himself.

Jackson is personified evil.

Idolatry

Which do you place higher, straightness or faith in Jesus Christ?

Under the traditional marriage which Jackson so zealously defends the following is true.

Two straight atheists can marry.
Two lesbian Christians can not.

Two straight witches can marry.
Two gay Christians can not.

Two straight Satan worshipers can marry.
Two lesbian Jews can not.

Two straight new agers can marry.
Two gay jews can not.

Two straight abortionists can marry.
Two lesbian pro-lifers can not.

Two straight Muslims can marry.

What do you call it when someone places his own idealogy and personal bias above his fellow believers in the Lord Jesus Christ?

I call it idolatry.

Go Leo!
Lets hope all the Leos in the U.S. will migrate over the border to Canada, a country where all anus-worshipping perverts are welcome, and Christians are threatened with jail for "hate crimes" for reading certain parts of the Bible that homosexuals don't like to hear.

Perfect place for Leo.

Meanwhile, let's try to maintain some semblance of morality here in the United States.



You Gotta Love Dirty Harry
First he commits voter fraud by being registered to vote in multiple locations, second, his church is in Maryland but freely meddles in DC's affairs, third, he lives in a baronial estate while being "bishop" of a so-called mega-church whose congregation lives vastly lower than he does, and it goes on and on...

yet...

He claims to stand for Biblical "truth". Which just goes to show you: do what he SAYS, not what he DOES; never mind anything else. Dirty Harry's intentions are all that matter.

On Bibles and Bans

It bothers me when some Christians twist Bible verses in an attempt to support their personal prejudice.

Take 1 Corinthians for example, where several types of sinners are listed who are supposed to be kept out of heaven (this in spite of the death, burial, and resurection of the Lord Jesus Christ!).

The original King James Version of the Bible listed the "effeminate" as one of the types.

The New King James Version lists them as "homosexuals".

But there is a footnote. The term that they have now decided to translate as "homosexuals" actually refers to catamites.

Catamites are boys in sexual relations with adult men!

Anyone can verify this by going to biblegateway.org, looking up 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in the New King James Version, and looking at the footnote.

Now obviously this would involve homosexuality; but I find it hard to believe that God is concerned with the personal relationships of consenting adult same-sex couples and has absolutely nothing at all to say about pedophilia.

Also, as usual there is no mention of women (that is to say Lesbians).

These are the kind of descrepancies one finds in each of the few passages some people use to harrass same-sex couples when one takes a closer look.

And then there's these people who are obsessed by the sex acts of some gay men. Let me tell you something people. Sodomy is sodomy, and it is no less "unnatural" for straight couples than it is for gay men.

But no one is calling for us to ban the marriages of straight couples who engage in sodomy.

jaybird
By "morality" you mean attacking people who do not believe like you do and force them to live under the tyranny of your religious beliefs. By "morality" you mean inciting hatred against millions of your fellow American citizens. By "morality" you mean politics that seek to destroy lives, legalize discrimination and allow Christians to oppress gays in every imaginable way.

You can keep your "morality". I see myself as refugee. But of course you would love USA that would be purged of gays, by force if necessary. Like Focus on the Family who advocated in UN for human right violations against gays in Asia and Africa... you Christians openly endorse human rights violations against gays and encourage and support violence against gays abroad...

Another example of "morality". I choose to live in a country that respects all of its tax paying, hard working citizens. And that country is not USA.



Remember the ERA?
Every time Jackson puts pen to paper he brings out Joel the Oppressor, Retired Geek and the others who copy and paste from their previous rantings. They think there is something so sacred about marriage that you can deny 1100 federal rights to certain couples because they're not a male and a female.

OK, no problem -- call it something other than marriage, but make it legal and make it federal, where it would really count for something other than a hospital visitation.

We really don't want to hear again about the "contract with God" or what somebody wrote thousands of years ago about "abominations." It's not relevant to the law.

If anyone thinks a federal amendment is possible on this issue, remember the Equal Rights Amendment. Feminists got it through Congress in 1972 with a 7-year limit to get it ratified by the states. The limit was extended, a court ruled the extension was unconsitituional, and they've tried every year since then to revive it. Of course you can call for a constitutional convention, but that opens up the ENTIRE constitution to be meddled with, and that would be dangerous.

Obama promised repeal of DOMA, but like all national politicians he thinks the states should decide about marriage. That's just a cop-out to avoid taking a stand one way or the other -- because nobody can get elected in this country without being really wishy-washy on any subject that the bible-thumpers rant about.

A robbery?
Sure, Matthew Shepard's murder was just a robbery! Don't all robbers beat their victims, tie them to a fence rail crucifixion-style, and leave them to die?

That allegation by Virginia Foxx, who called his murder a "hoax," was unfortunately made when Shepard's mother was in the audience. That, too, should be considered a hate crime.

God Bless Bishop Jackson
The Bishop puts out his view point in a logical and meaningful way.
One thing that must be emphasized: legally recognized marriage is not a right, it is a priviledge. States do not have to issue any one any type of license on demand. Licenses are issued in the public interest, there fore the public has a vested interest is seeing who is issued a license.
From a secular point of view, my argument against legally recognized same sex marriage is that a small group of people will gain a great deal of benefits at the expense of others. Example, reduced income and inheritence taxes for same sex couples. This reduction in taxes means some one else's taxes go up and or public programs are cut: teacher salaries, school lunches or something. Basically the same sex marriage advocates are a special interest group trying to get tax breaks for people engaing in sex.

Readityourself 12:09/12:45
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL CHRISTIAN!!

There. I've said it. Romans Chapter One is very explicit regarding condemnation for persons who have sex with someone of the same gender. Yes, I've read it for myself!!

Yes, God is discerning about whom he accepts. All of the New Testament is a testimony regarding the Lord's INTOLERANCE of sin and His forgiveness for those who repent and stop sinning.

why do they support Obama
I don't know why women and gays support Obama in the first place. Once he allows Sharia law to be passed, these two classes will lose their rights faster than conservatives are losing theirs. Under Sharia law those two classes can be stoned for a multitude of reasons. Can't happen? Why would Obama kiss up to the Muslim countries and appoint a person to his cabinet who has publicly approved of Sharia law?

Sol_insolent 10:43
You missed the main point of my previous post. I did mention something about asking for forgiveness and to stop sinning. Works every time.

He did have a lot to say about sin though and if you would actually look at Romans chapter one, it's pretty obvious homosexuality is a SIN!

You say Jesus didn't mention homosexuality. You're right. He also didn't mention rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, etc. Did he have to? He said he didn't come to change the law, but to fulfill it.

Now you will probably say Jesus was tolerant. Looking at the story of the woman at the well (John chapt 4), he was very intolerant of her sin. What part of "go and sin not more" escapes you?




divorce Christian style
Yes, Christ hated divorce... He hated ALL sin. We as Christians are sinners with only one thing going for us... We believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior... therefore our sins are forgiven... even the sin of divorce.
Homosexuals can do the very same thing... repent, ask Christs forgiveness, and be forgiven of the sin of homosexuality.

Retired Geek & Lilly
Beer is proof that GOD loves us and wants us to be happy. Beer is also proof that Allah is NOT GOD.

MichelleO's future
You expect to be crowned Queen of America when Dumbo is crowned King. It won’t happen!!! Dumbo has declared that he is a Qaran-qouting Muslim. Muslims consider human females lower than farm animals.

On the day you expect to be crowned, you will be strapped to a table, undergoing FGM. You will get to listen to the screams, as it is done to your daughters. You will find all your and your daughters’ expensive designer dresses replaced with the black rags of the Taliban, even for your morning exercise.

Each of Dumbo’s three new wives will be younger than the previous one. As the first wife, you would expect to have the dominant position over the others; but, as the wife who didn’t have a son to carry on the tradition of FGM, you will be in last place as the Old and Barren Wife

Plan your escape now. Select a country without a Muslim population and without an extradition treaty. Send every cent there that you can, putting it into a secret account. Get multiple passports for each of you and your daughters, showing different names, appearances, and sexes, and always have your passports hidden on your person

Keep a close watch on what Dumbo does, what he says, and with whom he speaks, to know when to escape. You don’t know how much time you have left. When you go, do not go directly to your place of refuge. Make several stops in other countries on the way, changing appearances and passports at each stop.

Don’t think that I am writing this because I like you! You are a mean, nasty, miserable, excuse for a woman, who is living a life of privilege, who will not even pretend to appreciate the nation and people who made this life possible; but not even you deserve Muslim treatment.

Sol, read the Bible
God Himself is a divorcee - Jeremiah 3:8 - God divorces Israel for her backsliding. It's in plain English.
God does not keep anyone away from Him because of divorce, our own sin keeps us away from God.
As for marriage between a man and a woman, well, duh, what's the problem?
Everyone knows that homosexuality and gender confusion are caused by early childhood sexual abuse. No one is "Born that way."
It is a terrible crime for children to be so abused that they become confused about who they are and later re-define their own gender.
But emotional confusion does not give anyone the right to re-define marriage.
There are many clinics that successfully treat people who do not want same-sex attraction.
The APA came out last year and said after 30 years of research they could find NOTHING biological, organic, or physical as a cause for homosexuality - it is a CHOICE.
Choose your behavior, but choices have consequences. If you act outside the norm, the norm does not have to twist itself into a pretzel to accommodate you.
DOMA should stay intact, because it protects the foundational institution of our society - marriage between a man and a woman.

Sol...
Just as the mind is the intellect of the body, the spirit is the intellect of the soul.

Developing a spirit intellect can only be done spiritually, duh, and it sounds like you are woefully deficient in this area of intellectual development.

Even the Bible says that the natural man-a person trusting only their mind-will never understand the Bible, because without spiritual discernment (development), the Bible will seem like gibberish or a code. I Cor 2:14
II Peter 3:16 says that these things (the Bible) are hard to understand and 'untaught and unstable people will twist (the Scriptures) to their own destruction.'

Sol, believers have had a spirit-developing, soul-growing experience that you have never had. You condemn them for an experience they have had but you have not. That would be like me telling you that if you love someone I personally have never met, then you're a liar and stupid, because I, the most important person in the world, I have never met them, ergo, they do not exist, and you are an idiot for loving someone I never met.

Develop your spirit intellect, Sol, and then you can live the life of a Christian and show us all how it's supposed to be done, since you're such an 'expert' on what Christians can and cannot do.

If a person develops only half of their wits (only their mind), they are a half-wit.

Sol_insipid 11:04
You're the one that decided to incorrectly use the Bible to defend your point. God is no "sky God." He's perfectly real to me.

You said:
"BTW, if god was not on Obama's side, why would he let him get elected?"

I'm thinking it's a punishment to America for getting away from her Christian roots and accepting perversion as a norm.

Sol
The groups that you mentioned have the possbility of gaining a marriage license and getting an official to conduct a legal ceremony. It is also possible that the county clerk or equivalent and the Judge, Priest, Minister, Rabbi or equivalent might decline to issue a license or perform a ceremony under the condictions that you described. Case in point: blood tests to determine STDs. I am not sure that is still part of most states licensing process but it was common for years. Case in point, Judges, Priests, Ministers, Rabbis, ect usually interview the couple that wants to be married before agreeing to officiate. The officials can and have refused to perform marriages. Case in point, at a wedding "does anyone here, know why this couple should not be joined?" I don't how often anyone says anything but that is an acknowledgement of the public impact of marriage and family. The fact is from the movement that two men or two women come in for a wedding license together, the issuer can recognized that they are not a qualified couple.
My logic is that bare minimum to gain a marriage license should be adults of the oposite sex, not currently married to some one else, sound mind and not blood relatives. Additional rules may also be wise.
The tax impact may be small but the fact is it is a negative impact for all but the same sex couples. If you look at the Federal, State and Local Revenue and Expenditure levels, the emphasis to find more tax revenue not less.
The part about my anal canal. I am assuming that the logic and knowledge that I have gained as a CPA, MBA and Mensa member is above your intelligence and you are resorting to slurs. I can not dumb down my argument just for you.

Make them pay for being gay!
Bill, that argument that "a small group of people" would benefit from same-sex marriage at the expense of others is such a selfish position! As it is, the majority is benefiting by denying rights to a minority group.

A gay man who has paid Social Security taxes all his life and is drawing the retirement benefits cannot pass the benefits to his partner when he dies -- even if they have been together for decades! If he had a wife, even for one day, she could continue to get his Social Security check every month. Doesn't that strike you as unfair?

A landmark court case in this state began in 1995 with the death of a gay man who had been in a 28-year relationship with his partner. The two men had shared a home, a business, furnishings, bank accounts, investments, automobiles and other possessions. They had melded their financial assets for nearly three decades, but the partner stood to lose half of everything they owned together to the man’s blood relatives, who contested a court decision awarding everything to the partner. The relatives insisted that he was little more than a domestic employee. Eventually they reached a settlement, but if he had been a female spouse, the inheritance would have been automatic.

These are the kinds of things that happen when we consider an entire group of people unworthy of equal rights.

The result of abuse? Get real!
Donna writes, "Everyone knows that homosexuality and gender confusion are caused by early childhood sexual abuse. No one is born that way."

Sure, "everyone" knows that except for every gay man and woman in the world who hasn't been abused. They will tell you they never chose their orientation nor wanted it. It chose them.

If you turn that argument around, I guess you could turn every gay boy straight just by having a female abuse him!

go to www.narth.com
look it up yourself.

Yes, early childhood sexual abuse - maybe so early the child does not remember it happening, but the effect is still the same.

Homosexuality was de-listed as a mental disorder in 1973. Prior to that time, insurance paid for treatment. Now, people who don't want same sex attraction have to pay to get rid of it themselves.

All your other arguments are weak and panicky.

No, you're not born that way.
Yes, you can change.
But marriage will not and should not.

One tragic thing about people who have been horribly abused as children (even if they were too young to remember it) - they become terribly self-centered and narcissistic.
Understandable, but the first thing that goes when one becomes so self-centered is the ability to see how self-centered one is.

That's what the rest of us observe. It's not hatred against homosexuals for being different, it's rage against someone for trying to change an institution that protects children and our society.

Self-centered people cannot see anything but what will get them their own way.They don't care what effect their actions will have on anyone but themselves.

Normal people see both sides.

Shrieiking Hysterical Homophiles
I read through a number of the posts defending gay marriage looking for something intelligent to respond to and found nothing. What I did find was grotesque parodies of Christian belief, thinly veiled hatred of people of faith, absurd logic, unsupported hypotheses, and plenty of ad hominem attacks.

Homosexual behavior is a sign of failure to complete all the stages of psychosexual development-- nothing more and nothing less. We don't need the Bible to condemn it. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron-- doesn't exist and can't exist.


Marriage is not a civil right.
The gay man who paid taxes all his life and cannot pass the benefits to his partner: no it does not strike me as unfair. If his partner was an able to work to support himself, he would have his own social security. The point of allowing wives (sometimes husbands) to get survivor's benefits was the realization of the time, effort and missed employment opportunities that a stay at home parent raising children gives up.
As far as the long time gay couple did n't they have the sense to write a will? Many (most) married couples write a will. Single people write wills. Any one running a business should have wills and estate planning conducted.
If some one needs to get a license for some thing, then that activity is a priviledge not a right. Keeping legallized marriage restricted to oposite sex couples (and other restrictions) is not denying any one of their rights.
In an earlier post, I used the word movement and meant momment.

Robert AZ
Good call, 'failure to complete psychosocial stages of development' - and the causation of this 'arrested development' is early childhood sexual abuse - and/or abuse so horrible the child cannot develop past the emotional stage they were at during the time of the abuse.

If people this damaged would take this energy they're wasting on trying to ruin marriage, and spend it on bringing their perpetrators to justice, their lives and ours would be much better, and plenty more children would be safer.

But like all people 'stuck' at an early stage of emotional development, they only want to get their own way - they don't care about others.

Robert Wins the Prize
...for today's stupidest post.

"Homosexual behavior is a sign of failure to complete all the stages of psychosexual development-- nothing more and nothing less."

Wow, you've really embarassed yourself with this one--this is the "He's an Arab!" of TH posts.

Who else do you hate enough to make stuff up about them?

Same Sex Marriage
I don't think it is unfair to deny a same sex couple survivors social security benefits. If both people were able bodied adults, why were they both not working through out the years and each earning social security benefits?
The reason that there are survivor benefits is that many wives or husbands gave up years of employment to be a stay at home Mom (or Dad) to raise children. Those people earned their social security.
As far as the long term same sex couple, why did n't they write a will? They ran a business together but no will or estate planning?
Anything that involves a license is not a right. We don't need a license to speak our minds, vote, own a gun or receive a fair trial.
In earlier post, I should movement and meant momment.

problem solved
Let's just kill all the uppity gay perverts, then there won't be any left to clamor about get married, right?

It's not like they're human. At least, in the way God meant us to be human.

We need to protect our children.

Bruce
"Who else do you hate enough to make stuff up about them? " Actually, I was quoting Dr. Erik Erikson. Sorry for your ignorance, Bruce, but a lot of psychologists agree with me. I don't have to make up anything. Reality is sufficient.

Liberals have a marvelous selectivity when it comes to science and psychology. For example, they believe that gender (male and female) are mere social constructs and that homosexuality is an iron-clad genetic predisposition. Of course, the evidence is that male-female differences are biologically determined and that there is NO real evidence for biological determinism in homosexuality.

By the way, Bruce, just insulting someone is usually considered to be the last recourse of the clueless.

Obama's justice department
Did anyone really believe that Obama would try to overturn DOMA?

Gay marriage is non-traditional...
...but traditions change. Mixed race marriage was non-traditional, until it became traditional. I know, I know, "race isn't a choice", let's not go over all that again. The point is what is, and what isn't traditional.

We don't relinquish traditions easily, and we won't relinquish the opposite sex marriage tradition easily. But the tide is coming in and it will, inevitably, wash that tradition away.

Gene
"But the tide is coming in and it will, inevitably, wash that tradition away. " Arguments that the tide of history is in favor of something have a way of becoming ridiculous when the day is done. The death of Christianity has been predicted with boring regularity for the last two thousand years, for example. Capitalism has been pronounced dead any number of times. Likewise the Jewish race. Interracial marriage has been common or uncommon, depending on the age and society one lives in, but there has never been homosexual marriage in any civilized society in the last two thousand years. The tide of history goes where it wills, not where we will.

Robert, I Stand Corrected
You apparently didn't make up this ridiculous stuff about how homosexuals come about, you claim it was Erik Erikson who made up this ridiculous stuff. I've no doubt that (perhaps other than you) you could find some other "psychologists" who would support this stuff--but then I'm sure we could find a few geologists who believe the Earth is flat also, or a couple of physicists who would argue for cold fusion. But the vast majority of research-oriented psychologists and psychiatrists, those interested in the reality of the situation with no agenda to push or support--would shake their heads at the sad (pathetic, really) lack of evidence for this point of view.

You compound your error by making some silly claim about what "liberals" believe. There's no "liberal" school of "gender as social construct"--I haven't polled American liberals on this recently, but I'd bet you'd find far fewer agreeing with this silly notion that you think.

By the way, Robert, asserting ridiculous things is the first and last recourse of the clueless. You're insulting yourself far worse than I could, but in keeping with your cluelessness, you're worried about the smaller issue.


Is this the homosexual agenda? Part I
Michael Swift, “Goals of the Homosexual Movement,” Gay Community News, 15-21 February 1987

Quoted in bringing up Boys by Dr James Dobson


We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We
Shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports
Arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your
Truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons
Will become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially,
Politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.


Is this the homosexual agenda? Part II

The family unit—spawing ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence—will be abolished. The
Family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in a communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of
Beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-
Class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too
Much is not enough.

We shall be victorious because we are filled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns, and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

Bruce
Dr. Erik Erikson was the foremost researcher and authority in stages of development. There are many psychologists who agree with him. "But the vast majority of research-oriented psychologists and psychiatrists, those interested in the reality of the situation with no agenda to push or support--would shake their heads at the sad (pathetic, really) lack of evidence for this point of view." So produce some. Produce the RESEARCH that contradicts this. I don't believe that you can. You can produce opinions, or studies that examine only a small part of the problem, but you cannot produce anything that definitively refutes Dr. Erikson's research.

Again, personal attacks are not substitute for actual facts.

Bruce
Something just occurred to me that I didn't think possible-- you don't actually know who Erik Erikson was or read any of his works on maturity and development, have you? If you got an education in psychology any time in the last fifty years, this would be impossible. So, either your education is very, very recent and very, very PC or both) or you don't actually have an education in psychology? Which is it?

Robert--Wrong Again
I have a degree in Human Behavior from the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work with Carl Rogers. I'm well aware of who Erik Erikson is, and how discredited his views are among people who've done work in this area. People with no agenda.

I love how you throw around the "liberals do this wrong" and "liberals do that wrong", these pathetic, meaningless generalizations, and then you complain about someone telling you your generalizations are pathetic.

Bruce
Good for you. Personally, I think Carl Rogers is a bit of a charlatan. I've studied him, too. What you are saying is that Erikson is not currently fashionable, which is no surprise. You still haven't produced actual studies that prove him wrong. You should be able to with your education. There is zero proof of a genetic link to homosexuality and you know it. The most generous thing that can be said is that the genesis is unclear.

Anyone who set out to reexamine the question of the genesis of homosexuality and came to a non-PC conclusion would have trouble getting published, no matter how sound his conclusions.

Bruce
"I love how you throw around the "liberals do this wrong" and "liberals do that wrong", these pathetic, meaningless generalizations" And do you have a source of me saying this? Of course not and as usual. Yet there are quotes around my alleged statements. That's getting to be a bad habit.

Robert--Hoist on your own drivel
Where's my evidence? Your words, of course:

"Liberals have a marvelous selectivity when it comes to science and psychology. For example, they believe that gender (male and female) are mere social constructs and that homosexuality is an iron-clad genetic predisposition."

You've posted plenty of these sorts of meaningless or plainly wrong characterizations over the past few months--at least have the...well, I was going to say intellectual honesty to admit it, but then your track record stopped me.

Same arguments, same evil
The main arguments against gay marriage are the same ones used against interracial marriage:
1. Tradition: Blacks and whites couldn't intermarry because it just wasn't in American tradition to allow such stuff. Ditto for gay marriage.

2. Religion: The bible has passages that justify keeping the races apart--you know, the Mark of Cain argument about blacks, etc. Ditto for gay marriage.

3. Nature: It's been argued that different animal species don't interbreed. (You have to assume--as racists do--that blacks and whites belong to different species: Ditto for gay marriage (although you have to adjust the argument a bit for consistency.)

So why is it, again, that gay marriage is so awful?

An aside to conservatives: if you folks do not try to revive anti-miscegenation laws in the US it's only because you're either too stupid to see that you should (given your views on gay marriage) or you're afraid to do so.

Bruce
"Liberals have a marvelous selectivity when it comes to science and psychology. For example, they believe that gender (male and female) are mere social constructs and that homosexuality is an iron-clad genetic predisposition." If you don't agree with me, prove me wrong. This is precisely the argument liberals make here over and over again.

Gestell
Not another post telling us what we ought to believe! Don't you ever get tired of creating fantasies and then courageously knocking them down? If there's any response to you at all, it's that you are imagining things again. Wake up and deal with what the vast majority of conservatives and moderates actually believe.

Who said traditional marriage was....
Who has ever said that traditional marriage is going away, perhaps some heterosexuals.

wow
Fifteen or so posts later and several hours after my 1:18 post, and not one conservative has criticised my call for gay people to be killed or tried to disassociate my call for violence from a reaonable social conservative position.

For heaven's sake people! If you don't want most Americans to think that all GOP members are whackos, you need to police you own.

Robert
You've chosen to make the wild, baseless assertion of what "liberals" supposedly believe about gender being a social construct--you claim "liberals" on TH make that claim all the time. Where's your evidence?

I say it's not true, it's not an accurate portrayal of how "liberals" view gender--you ask me to prove a negative...

Allen in Mt
A component of your pathetic post:

"Fifteen or so posts later and several hours after my 1:18 post, and not one conservative has criticised my call for gay people to be killed or tried to disassociate my call for violence from a reaonable social conservative position"

No one responded to your post because it is so blatantly ignorant, it defies response from most people. It was a plainly stupid post not worthy of reponse, qand now you follow it up with another vitrolic post.

You are another same sex activist who routinely runs this type of bigoted vitrol on any thread related to homosexuals.

In the 18 months I have been posting here NOT a single poster has ever advocated violence against any homosexuals. In fact the posters who are fixated on violence are all you same sex activists.

Why are you so fixated on violence Allen? Are you like your other brethern, who hacked in to Bishop Jacksons personal computer and threatened him? Was that you Allen?

Bruce
"You've chosen to make the wild, baseless assertion of what "liberals" supposedly believe about gender being a social construct" I haven't seen it lately, largely because there hasn't been a thread on the nature of gender differences lately-- the focus has been homosexuality. You call my claim wild and baseless, yet this is at the heart of most feminist 'theology' (one can scarcely call it science) for decades. For example, the feminist claim is that differences such as the better math skills of boys and the better language skills of girls are caused by different expectations, i.e., a social construct. Lawrence Summers got into incredible trouble at Harvard for merely suggesting this as a possibility. He doesn't work there any more. So what you call wild baseless claim seems to be a staple of liberal feminist thought.

I wish
the Reverend success. The homosexual lobby is hateful and angry that anyone would stand up to their demands that same sex marriage be considered normal.

That won't happen because homosexuality is not normal or natural. It is an aberation of human behavior.

I do not believe that people choose to be homosexual. I do not believe that they should be discriminated against or physically or verbally attacked. But they should never be permitted to force their unnatural unions on the rest of mankind.


To Skip
You purport and claim to harbor no violence against us, no discrimination should be tolerated (except marriage and all those benefits you see fit to reserve only for yourself and like-minded people presumably), no verbal attacks, etc., you say.

But then your passive-aggressive behavior asserts itself: "but they should never be allowed to force their unnatural unions on the rest of mankind".

I'm confused. A high school teacher once said that whenever someone uses the word "but" in a sentence, it means that everything they said before using that word was a lie.

So what exactly does that leave us "aberrations of human behavior"?

The Skorpio G lament
,Skorpio G posts in part:

"So what exactly does that leave us "aberrations of human behavior"?

Comment: Where it always has. You admit YOU are an aberration, and that is not really correct. In reality YOU chose your path, your preference is a deviant sexual behavior that for hundreds of thousands like you has proven deadly.

A choice, not an aberration. And science says so, in the most basic of terms.

Simple as that.


ScorpioG
Where does it leave you? Aberrant, that's where it leaves you. Don't tell me about your high school teacher claiming that every time the word but is used everything before it is a lie. That is garbage. Obviously that teacher did not teach English grammer or logic.

I am not passive aggressive either. I said just what I intended to say. You are not qualified to do any long range psychoanalysis. Far from being passively aggressive, I am overtly aggressive when I consider that homosexuals are now attempting to overturn the concept of opposite sex marriage that has been the norm since the beginning of time.

You don't like that? I don't care. That is your problem.

More on Skorpio g
Skorpio G is a homosexual. That is his choice. He gets to live with it, not anyone else.

The reality is that Skorpio G and 80% of homosexuals, have voluntarily removed themselves from the gene pool. They do not produce their own biological children.

Use simple biological knowledge. If a gene causes a condition such as homosexuality, whose members 80% of the time or more do not reproduce, then that dilutes the ability to pass on the gene by 80% EACh generation.

Since that reduction would have meant that ALL homosexuals would have long ago disappeared, they have not, and remain a consistent number, that means there is NO WAY the condition can be genetic in origin.

Simple biological facts, if homosexuality was genetic it would have disppeared long ago since the overwhelming majority of homosexuals do not biologically reproduce.

People are born heterosexual. That is creation. Homosexuality is a choice.

That is a fact.

Hope and Change
Here are two organizations that can help homosexuals leave their lifestyles.

Exodus International

and Love won out with Focus on the Family

You Talking Again Grand Inquisitor?
You got to love our poster boy for so-called Christian thought: Grand Inquisitor Andersen. If you don't know him, he's Townhall's resident grand inquisitor and expert on homosexuality.

In today's edition, he's elaborating on how genetics work. However, he fails to realize that homosexuality is not containing in one gene. It's contained throughout the genome. Just like a single gene doesn't make you white, black or Asian. Those characteristics are contained throughout the entire genome. Looking for a single cause is a waste of time.

How are gay people created? By straight people of course! We all have straight parents, and are conceived by them. Always has been that way, always will be.

Andersen has strong beliefs and they remain his opinion only. No facts involved, just his feelings.

To Skippy
No, it doesn't leave me aberrant. That's your opinion and while I appreciate you sharing it, it doesn't apply to my life or how I live it. If that fact is too difficult to accept, too bad.

Like it or not you are quite passive-aggressive. In fact, most people who claim they harbor no ill will at all towards gay people, yet proceed to define how we should live, what restrictions you think are appropriate, and why you think you know what's best for us, illustrate this concept perfectly.

You think we're aberrant, yet no one should do anything to us? You think we're deviant, yet we should just be left alone? Please! Either you're lying (illustrating my original point), or you're suppressing so much rage that you might snap any time now. Either way, get some help before you do something you regret.

out-of-control
"...out-of-control courts and runaway legislatures."

The institution that is the most out-of-control is the academy, which the courts and legislatures follow.

Amazing!
Isn't it amazing how everyone seems to know why certain people are gay....EXCEPT gay people themselves and those who have been researching it for years. Psychology fails to explain it, the medical community doesn't have an answer -- but the know-it-alls who post on this site can explain it perfectly.

Donna wrote, "Everyone knows that homosexuality and gender confusion are caused by early childhood sexual abuse. No one is born that way."

Robert wrote, "Homosexual behavior is a sign of failure to complete all the stages of psychosexual development-- nothing more and nothing less."

Skip wrote, "It is an aberation of human behavior."

Hey, guess what? It's apparently an "aberration" of animal behavior also, in virtually every species. The bonobo monkeys are almost 100 percent bisexual. But for some reason, the gay-bashers think it only happens in humans and therefore it must be a "choice," or the result of "abuse," or that it can be explained by the psychobabble of some "expert."

The gay members of my family have assured me they did not choose this, and I believe them. But even if they did, there in NO reason that a country founded on personal freedom should deny equal rights to anyone. There is no reason gays should be harassed in school, beaten up or killed, or verbally bashed by Jackson and all you people who agree with him.

Start thinking for yourselves for a change instead of repeating all the anti-gay rhetoric that reinforces your own bigotry.

David, WA with all due respect:

There was never any reason to make homosexual living a cause. You've lived so all along. Possibly you've suffered. I don't doubt.

Everybody suffers in this life, not only you. We sympathize; it's a natural occurrence. Heterosexuals have a natural revulsion against anyone androgynous; just as indwelt as your tastes. We are born that way. (Doesn't that sound familiar?)

Your preferences aren't discriminated against anymore. Everywhere you go ordinary people give you your privacy. You aren't molested or barred in social intercourse.

Your bogus idea that "rights" have been denied you is imaginary. PARANOID assumed victimhood. You have no inherent right to marry. Marriage of two same-sex partners would only be a farce. It follows that you aren't denied anything; because should you choose monogamous life with a male, no on keeps you from it.

Let me go on in another post; there's more.

Let's not make this personal
Dreadnaught, first of all, abandon the second-person references. I am a hetero parent of five.

Second, to say that there has been no dscrimination against gays is akin to saying there's no longer discrimination against blacks. It happens every day, and people get killed for being gay -- dozens since Matthew Shepard's murder, which was not an isolated case.

Like everyone else, you're hung up on the word "marriage." So don't call it that if it offends your sensibilities, but give gay couples the same rights as gay couples. I know one gay couple that has been together for 30 years, but they will NEVER have the same rights as a couple who just got married Vegas.

Revulsion?
Furthermore, as a heterosexual I do not have the "natural revulsion" you say I'm supposed to have for homosexuality. I have only love for my gay family members and friends.

Try some love -- you'll like it!

dreadnaught
You say there is no longer any discrimination against gays, and then in the next breath you endorse discrimination that exists.

You (incorrectly) say "Your bogus idea that "rights" have been denied you is imaginary." Gays are not allowed to marry in the great majority of states, and are not allowed to adopt in some states.

You say "You have no inherent right to marry." Then who does have an "inherent right to marry?" Only people you like?

You compound your illogic by saying "Marriage of two same-sex partners would only be a farce." Due to what? A marriage between a gay couple is, essentially, the same as a marriage between a straight couple that cannot, or chooses not to, have their own children. We allow those marriages by the millions--so we shouldn't allow them for gay couples--because---right, there's no reason.

It's OK that you don't like gays, but you need a better reason than that to deny a group their right to marry. Society would benefit from encouraging the stronger bonds that marriage provides, whether between straight or gay couples.

To David again:


You're preoccupied with a lot of trivial things. Things on which most homosexuals in society dwell unnecessarily.

". . . why certain people are gay....EXCEPT gay people themselves and those who have been researching it for years."

Who indeed cares? Whatever it is you inwardly know; or experience, can't possibly mean anything to others. If you consider them ignorant or opinionated, forget them. They're likely willing to forget about you, if you leave them alone.

"Psychology fails to explain it, the medical community doesn't have an answer -- but the know-it-alls who post on this site can explain it."

It may surprise you to know, David; we often don't CARE what made you the way you are. We don't want to know. Personally, I think you suffer a particular pathology; all homosexuals and lesbians. The fact you consider yourselves OK is irrelevant. What are you SUPPOSED to think of yourself? You need no outside support. (Continued)

Concluded, to David
As to the animal world-- don't fool yourself that its aberrations make you sound of mind and body.
Animals are themselves prone to weird pathologies. They too, have to live with sickness. As Chesterton said, "If and when an ape paints pictures of bison and horses up on the ceiling of a cave; THAT would be extraordinary," And; logically:

When two cows or hyenas for being bisexual have a wedding ceremony; YOU and your male mate can protest your own right to marry. Because animals did it.

Don't concern yourselves with marriage. Live in peace. Stay out of other peoples' lives. We can tolerate your proclivities without making you pay anything. You're FREE!

You seem passing intelligent. This is what's wrong with you:

You're tuned into current ridiculous militant attitudes; like an old-time suffragette. Without carrying out protests and claiming extraordinary rights, you fail to meet an imaginary standard. It's a false standard.

You don't need victimhood. You won't be any freer having spouted nonsense about your rights. You have exactly the same rights that I have under the law. I have the same rights as you. Marry a woman. That's George and Martha Washington's rights. They married.

George Armstrong Custer did NOT have any "equal right" to marry Crazy Horse. Too bad; that's nature.


P.S., David

I assumed you were bloviating because you're a homosexual. If you aren't, you shouldn't have anything more valuable to offer than I do. You certainly haven't opened up any new avenues of thought.

I maintain nobody discriminates against homosexuals as a class. Giving us the tired old Matthew Shephard megillah is nothing but anecdotal argument. I can produce plenty of the same which shows how readily heterosexuals co-operate with and support those few homosexuals who live together discreetly.

Maybe my reference to an inborn revulsion felt by normal folks against androgyny --it's factual,

Maybe this seems insensitive or unsubstantiated. You're wrong. It's simple human nature. Times have changed for the better; homosexuals are rarely mistreated the way they once were. Recall the case of Oscar Wilde; he paid dearly; and I know you'll say it was an injustice. Now he wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

What you expect as recurring consequences, is now the world must keep on giving you a redemption it can't give. The charity of so many people of good will is overburdened and can't keep giving.

SkorpioG,
OK! If you are not comfortable with aberrant, then how about abnormal? Or deviant?

As far as claiming that "most" people claiming that they harbor no ill will toward "gay" people, and defining how you live, allow me to respond. Again, you do not know me. Even a licensed psychiatrist can not diagnose anyone based on these brief posts, so knock off the phony psychiatric analysis. That is nothing but an affectation and as far as I'm concerned has no value. You can't make your point by employing psychiatric jargon.

I have never attempted to tell you how to live and the only restriction I have expressed is the effort by homosexual activists to force the majority of people to allow those activists to overturn the reality of opposite sex marriage and force same sex marriage on the rest of society. Opposite sex marriage has been the norm since the beginning of time. That is no accident.

The effort to redefine marriage is arrogant and unacceptable. There is no contradiction between my belief that homosexual behavior is aberrant/abnormal and not wanting anyone to do anything to you. Not wanting homosexuals to be attacked physically, or discriminated against the way my people were discriminated against for so long in this country has nothing to do with allowing homosexuals to redefine marriage. I think that you know that.



To Sol Invictus
Briefly:

You harp on other folks' "hatred" as if it was a given. Anderson enters these threads as I do. We feel we have important insights to share. That isn't a sign of hate.

I say it's TOUGH LOVE, Sol.

You accuse others of "hate" because they won't bow to your wishes. There's no feasible way of allowing the destruction of marriage, it means something to us TRULY married people. To you it's a bone you have fights over.

"Andersen has come back, abandon all hope of rational discussion."

BS! Anderson is quite rational; it's bums like you who argue out of hatred and always irrationally. You want to rule discussions.

"The Ayatollah of hatred and lies is on board."

Yes, Sol Invictus is filled with hatred. He's obviously lying in his remarks; calling others liars.

"Still, we cannot abandon the rostrum to the forces of hatred and rage."

When are you calming down your hate? The words you're spouting here are typical homosexual rage and arrogance.

". . . in 20 years, their own children will shut them up, ashamed by the prejudices of their parents, just like old racists --blah blah."

Why? Racists and ordinary married people-- who uphold the honor and dignity of marriage; have nothing in common with each other. You're the horrifying bigot here, not Anderson or me.

SkorpioG 2
Finally, referring to me as Skippy is hostile. It elicits a hostile response, so knock it off. Don't tell me that I am suppressing so much rage that I might snap. What an asinine remark. Don't try to elevate the seriousness of who you are to me. I would suggest that homosexuals are the ones who are more prone to violence.

Look at what they did in California to people who opposed same sex marriage. Look at the monstrous savagery they inflict on each other. Ask homicide detectives about that.

I don't need to get any help. You need to shut up with your phony attempts at psychiatric diagnosis. Oh! One other thing. I have said before that I believe that homosexuals are born homosexual. I can't imagine anyone choosing to live such a lifestyle.

Not so swift Sol

Sol, carried away in his apostacy and arrogance:

". . . most difficult, to see that the fear which holds Christianity together, the insane fear of losing that illusion of life everlasting,"

Give me a break! Just because you lost your faith is no sign you came out of your "fear."

You left the light for darkness. You exchanged gold for dirt. Meanwhile, folks like me believe; not out of fear, but from LOV. Christians are taught love by Christ; we know Him and love Him and serve Him.

You love your sex organ, your mouth and intestinal tract. You love mischief and spreading discord, Sol the victim (Not invictus).

While I love God, who protects me in this world where Christians are routinely hated and cursed. God who hears my prayers and petitions; answers them and blesses me. I have no fear.

I believe He leads me to everlasting life just because HE CAN. He's the only source of life. Who else reigns in the hearts of only people of good will? He lives and reigns!

If we were not people of good will, there would be no people of God. He never comes to people like you. You live in hatred, deceit, immorality and envy. It goes without saying you must reject God, who is All-Good and pure LOVE.




God Needs a Teaching Certificate
If He is pure love, He's got a very poor track record at teaching it to His people, and has failed miserably at getting it passed along to those who claim to love Him the most...

2:09 post by Sol -vanquished apostate


His 2:09 post, an openly hate-filled diatribe; and he calls others haters! Hoo-haw!

"In vain we have tried to explain to him that this country is not a Christian theocracy, and that "marriage" means CIVIL marriage, a contract between two adults, not related."

That's not what marriage means. And we never have advocated a theocracy.

Think back; was this a theocracy when Abe married Mary Todd; the Lincolns, one man and one woman?

Did it require a theocracy for Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara to become man and wife? How about Bill and Hillary Clinton? First they lived in a hippy commune; then they were married. Was this what a theocracy demanded? Why a man and a woman? Because, they were single; and had a baby, Chelsea. They could've remained singles. This is no theocracy, after all.

"His mind"[Dreadnaught's mind] is off in the lofty myths of "Consummation", of useless and incomprehensible doctrine."

Why are these myths? Do you suppose Clark Gable and Carol Lombard didn't consummate their marriage? How about Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks? No consummation; just for myth's sake?

ARE YOU FROM EARTH?

To Skip
Your attempts to deny that which you are, and further, to recoil when confronted with your true feelings are amusing. The anger is purely yours, and its deep-rooted. Deny all you want, and pretend things aren't as so, but it just doesn't change the fact that you've been exposed and don't like it one bit.

Deviant, amoral, sick, twisted, abnormal, etc. are all related words used to separate yourself from others and show the disdain you hold towards said people. Sorry bud, it's plain English. You chose the words and are trying to backpeddle when confronted with what they really mean.

Get over it, or better yet, evolve and learn.

To Skip, Part II
You amuse me! I like you. I especially like your sense of humor. You equate the thrashing the Mormons took in California for their meddling, to the deadly violence us gays face daily. I would suggest opening your stand-up act with this joke!

I am also finally glad you admit what a terrible life we gays have to lead. Do you ever make an attempt to understand why? Look at your own comments, opinions, beliefs and actions. Starting to make some sense? Care to rethink anything?

How is a homosexual created?
Not by genetics. Here is a scientific article postulating how homosexuality might develop. It also demonstrates how and why a homosexual might come to believe he was born that way.

http://www.narth.com/docs/pieces.html

Here are some other links to investigate for more information about the treatment of homosexuality.

http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

Response for Don

Don wrote, "There. I've said it. Romans Chapter One is very explicit regarding condemnation for persons who have sex with someone of the same gender. Yes, I've read it for myself!!"

No Don. Apparently you did not read it. Here it is:

"For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22(AP)Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.

24Therefore (AR)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (AS)dishonored among them.

25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (AT)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (AU)who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

Don, I know how to read, and what I read here is very clear. Straight people abandoned God and worshiped false gods. Then, and only then, God gave them over.

There is no one way this is a condemnationn of what we understand as consenting adult same-sex relationships. It is a condemnation of...idolatry.

Response for Don Part ll

Romans 1 also does not clarify what "indecent acts" means. Nor, "the due penalty of their error".

However, if you would like to add to the Bible that which it does not say, proceed at your own risk. God specifically condemns such action in the book of Revelation.

SkorpioG,
No, I don't wish to reconsider anything. You are unable to stop trying to lend weight to your sorry arguments by spewing psychobabbel.

You do not know me. I know enough about you through your comments here to point out that what you think does not matter. You are a homosexual. You have your point of view. I do not agree with that view.

I will not try to psychoanalyse you. I don't believe anything that you say, so lets agree to disagree. There are homosexuals who are decent, rational people and their are homosexuals like you.

Don't worry about me doing anything violent to homosexuals because of the rage that you say that I feel. As far as I'm concerned I don't feel rage. Now where you are concerned, contempt may be more accurate.

a scorpio g lesson
". . . equate the thrashing the Mormons took in California for their meddling, to the deadly violence us gays face daily."

The vote? Is it meddling?

No-- Voting is a right we all have; when getting things done comes around. Did you vote, or not?

Are you faced with violence? Maybe a low profile instead of "Gay Pride" arrogance, would allow you better safety? TRY THAT!

". . . Glad you admit what a terrible life we gays have to lead. Do you ever make an attempt to understand why?"


REPLY: -- I figure you lead very indecent lives. Am I mistaken? You HABITUALLY have yourselves reamed and sucked off by other disgusting, lonely fairies! Bad image, Scroopio! CHANGE THAT AWFUL IMAGE!

That should solve your problems of daily deadly violence and all that stuff. You'll appear respectable!

News release
This news was just released yesterday by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs:

New York- Violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people increased 2% from 2007 to 2008, continuing the trend of a 24% total increase in 2007, according to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)'s 2008 Hate Violence Report. Bias-related murders were at their highest rate since 1999 with 29 known anti-LGBT murders committed in 2008. Reports of violence in Milwaukee increased 64% and Minnesota and Chicago saw increases of 48% and 42%, respectively.

Dreadnaught, is 29 murders of gays and transgenders in one year enough "tough love" for you? (That doesn't count the beating victims who barely survived, and it doesn't come close to the numbers that are killed and executed in Middle Eastern countries.)

Still think the gay-bashing Mormons are suffering more?

Skip, does this violence compare with the "hostility" you get from those who deign to call you "Skippy"?

I guess if gays really represent only a fraction of 1 percent of the population, as some of the more gullible participants here have maintained, I guess there won't be a conflict much longer -- at this rate they'll all be dead soon.

We need more hippies
Sometimes I think the hippies of the 1960s had the answer -- chill out, wear flowers in your hair and love everyone.

These exchanges of opinion are never more hateful than when they involve gay issues. And they point out a fundamental problem in the way people get news and information in the Internet age.

Nobody takes the time to learn what's really truthful and accurate. People simply search out the material that reinforces their biases and "confirms" what they already believe.

Nobody thinks for himself any more. It's a symptom of arrested development. By that I mean being stuck forever in that childish state of mind in which you need some "authority" -- a parent, a priest, the Bible or Rev. Jackson -- to tell you what's right and wrong. People who never learn to think independently are like the child who needs a slap on the hand to tell him not to touch the stove.

Nobody cares about studying the principles of logical thinking, so every fallacy of logic that exists shows up in these threads. We see the same twisted logic and misinformation quoted over and over again.

It disgusts me, and I don't know why I participate in this. I guess I keep thinking maybe I can change at least one mind.

More psychobabble
The article cited at
http://www.narth.com/docs/pieces.html is not scientific -- it's just more psychobabble, with no attempt to prove or disprove the theories as a true scientist would do.

In spite of the word "research" in its name, NARTH is not interested in doing real research. It's just another "ex-gay" organization that runs counter to the position of all mainstream psychiatric organizations -- that sexual orientation cannot change, and that therapies that try to change it can be harmful.

NARTH has been widely discredited. Quoting NARTH just proves the point of my previous post -- that people are not interested in finding the truth, but instead go after the material that reinforces their prejudices.

David in WA


In your own post, "We need more hippies," we note these words:

"Nobody takes the time to learn what's really truthful and accurate. People simply search out material that reinforces their biases and "confirms" what they already believe.--" (How right you are!)

Which is exactly what you've done, arguing increases in violence against gays and lesbians!

Are you so well-informed you know a full 95% of that violence is one homosexual mortifying another? Gay on gay? Check it out, you phony.

I have even lived in a condo where walls were thin enough that we often heard a butch lesbian beating the hell out of her Little Nell lesbian partner. Every other week a police car would arrive downstairs and carry away the "wife" of that wife. She was a little wisp of a wife; you should have heard her boney @ss bouncing off the walls. She'd call the cops on the b i t c h who tormented her and they'd take her away in handcuffs!

I'm not telling you a theory. Gay-on-gay murders take place in our society. Just recall Andrew Cunanan the gay punk who rubbed out multiple sweethearts. One was whats hisname Versace, the famous designer. Homosexuals kill one another, Pal. WISE UP--

Turophile Shows Us How
How people can eagerly go stupid in service of an agenda.

He cites a ridiculous organization--NARTH--as somehow having an understanding of "how homosexuals are 'created'." This is the equivalent of asking the Exalted Cyclops of the KKK what he thinks about a black man marrying his daughter.

I'm not surprised there are straight people who don't like gay people. I am continually surprised as how eager and determined people are to be stupid about so much in life.

"He's an Arab!"

furthermore, David of WA


You're so full of it, but on what authority?

David: "I mean being stuck forever in that childish state of mind in which you need some "authority" -- a parent, a priest, the Bible or Rev. Jackson -- to tell you what's right and wrong. People who never learn to think independently are like the child blah blah!"

YOU, David, have a childish state of mind and SOUL. Where true authority exists, GOD-- you're always rebellious. You call it thinking "independently," but what you mean is setting YOURSELF up as the final authority. Because you THINK better than others? Brother, spare us the hogwash! That's what Hitler, Mao and Stalin said; "I'm the only authority! And NOT God, for sure." Because they're thinkers! (God's not a thinker!)

YOU and your kind would have died in some Gulag had it not been we have Christian norms in the world. Norms that you disapprove of.

"Nobody cares about studying the principles of logical thinking,"

THERE YOU GO AGAIN-- all ego and self-absorption; you STUDY! You think!

You suck!



These are useful
I googled

http://www.narth.com/docs/pieces.html

http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

There are references to one site, American Pediatric College; and their papers. Many things I never knew about homosexuals are shown.

I gathered what's called "mainstream researchers" by the homosexual support lobby aren't really the only valid sources. When it's considered there's only political correctness being expressed.

Close to what evolution theory touts as certifiable, but upon closer inspection has plenty of holes in it.

There's a lot dreadnaught doesn't know
Those sites show a lot you didn't know about homosexuals because even you can't keep up with all the sludge people make up.

NARTH is an organization that has no interest in truth or science or research, and is totally focused on a political agenda. If they fit your political agenda, enjoy. If you want to know about homosexuals, then you're an idiot to spend a second there.

It's like the VDare site or some Tim McVeigh or Unibomber site--interesting if you're weird enough, but focused on something other than reality.

dear bruce in Il

No, I don't wat to know more about homosexuals. I already know plenty.

I mean that the sites on Google under that title are interestin in the way they explain who is an authority and who is NOT. It turns out everybody you take for the last word is NOT an authority. o one really knows what makes a boy turn out gay. But the research does NOT conclusively prove they're born that way and only that way. And; even those you place in authority don't uphold all the claims you kep making.

YOUR own sources discovered that a straight boy can be influenced to become not just promiscuous; ALSO gay; even if he isn't born that way. Just by being raised in a gay household! And people like you have been denying it all along.

To Skip
Skip needs to yet again have his words translated into what they actually mean.

Psychobabble: pointing out what you really mean when you speak. Skip doesn't like having this pointed out to him...sort of like turning the light on when a thief's in the room. He looks shocked and denies trying to rob you.

You never did believe anything someone else says that's contrary to your own Archie Bunker-style mind. You only know what you know, which sadly isn't nearly enough. This is why I pity you and your types.

By decent homosexuals you mean those you never see; you mean the quiet, invisible types, or the lipstick lesbians you watch on video. That's why it's so easy to dismiss us. You think you're far superior to us, and feel secure in your smug attitude. Again, I pity you.

To Archbishop Dreadnut
Now it's your turn to learn some lessons Archbishop...

Voting is not the be-all-end-all. Voters approved of Jim Crow Laws, approved the banning of Chinese and Irish immigrants, and made many other bad decisions. Were those good laws or were the overturning of those laws good? By your rationale, Jim Crow Laws were approved by voters and it's just plain awful their wisdom isn't still recognized! :-(

Like Skip, you love homosexuals as long as they are invisible to you. They are not to be seen nor heard. Gay pride festivals and other events remind you of our existence which causes you to seethe.

We all know your well-identified position on what you think of gays. We're indecent, deviant, amoral, evil, etc. etc. etc. You don't know us because, like Skip, you've seen it all, know it all, and should be considered omnipotent on all things gay. After all, you agree with yourself 100% of the time!

Skorpio has a hair up his @ss
Do I care if you're awake or in a daze? Skorpio was just craving attention; is that important?

I want you to be happy, Old Clam. This life was for you. Don't worry; you're not going to be cheated out of sphincter happiness and sucking bad boys while this life lasts.

If it bothers you how some people who are normal try to please God, get away from forums like this one. I won't hold a gun to your head and make you send posts against your will.

This is the life you want! It's not lasting for long, get your kicks. Afterwards, normal men will feel bad for you! Such an otherwise careful man! He went where men shouldn't go. Nobody can figure out WHY!

Hey Skorpio,
you are a real nut. I think I am starting to enjoy this. The more you post, the crazier you sound.

I have been driven to rolling around on the floor. No, not in rage. Not at all. In fact, you are hilarious. One thing though. You shouldn't take yourself so seriously.

To Archbishop Dreadnut
Thanks for that round of laughter. I seriously think you should start a new blog: The Dim View from the Gated Community. In this, you can pontificate about all things you think you know, offer opinions on things you don't know, tell everyone else why they are wrong and you are right, lament that America isn't as religiously pure as, say Yemen, and take pot shots at people you hate.

But then again, you already do that on TH...never mind.

dear skorpio, old clam


That's kind of you. Elevating me to archbishop! And I wasn't even ordained a priest. Yet I do represent the Church very well here. To the clever but damned who care to listen, anyway.

" . . . start a new blog: The Dim View from the Gated Community."

I did start one. It's been lying fallow a while; because my views aren't at all extraordinary. Other bloggers cover them OK. In
". . . pontificate about all things you think you know,"

My intent; none other.

". . . opinions on things you don't know, tell everyone else why they are wrong and you are right, lament that America isn't as religiously pure as, say Yemen,"

REPLY:

America has a long way to go, Skrewpio. Yemen, however is serving Satan. We few here serve Jesus Christ. And even in America, nobody leaves here alive. The trial period takes place now. In the next life, accounts have to be settled. No need to pontificate. An archbishop couldn't tell you this any clearer; you'll be sent to hell.

I truly feel sorry for you & your fellow bed-wetters. You were given so much potential, just to damn your soul in the end.

To address your lingering doubts: NO, I don't hate you. There's nobody here in TH whom I hate. It's just that I'm feisty.

SkorpioG,
I am under the immpression that you are a proponent of same-sex marriage. Why do you think it would be a good thing for Virginia?

as a service to skorpidge


I never said all homosexuals are going to hell. Some are almost sure to be saved.

". . . [We] know your . . . position on . . . gays. We're indecent, deviant, amoral, evil, etc."

As a rule, that's what you are. But-- all aren't evil to the core.

You must know about your icon Oscar Wilde. He was baptized a Catholic on his deathbed! He confessed his sins!!! THAT means he was forgiven and saved.

I believe Michelangelo was a saintly homosexual. He could be pure. If he fell into sin, the confessional welcomed him back to God's grace. Surely there have been others. TODAY, however-- You've served yourselves a raw deal.

Through their own pride and lack of character; homosexuals/lesbians got this odd idea that they're ___Not doing anything wrong !___

--Which mitigates against confessing their faults and repenting --for their own good. ALL moral fiber is abandoned! They plumb CHOOSE to be damned. They refuse to be humble and refuse to accept criticism. Almost without exception, gays tell God to go away and leave them in their sins.

Now; since you believe I don't know you-- why not tell me how I'm being cruel or unfair to homosexuals? Explain where I went wrong. Tell me how I spread hatred.


Sol Invictus
Sol Invictus, the homosexual of many names, Alpha Omega, George, etc. And also of many stories.

All lies.

What YOU profess is a deep seated hatred of Christians, and your nonsensical same sex activist ideology.

I applaud you posting here. You, Skorpio G, Mellor SJ2, Read it, and the other same sex activists that post on these marriage threads of done more damage to YOUR cause than anyone could ever hope to do that was straight.

I have to thank you for your help in the marriage battle. Without people like you, and the rest of the same sex activist posters that leave their drivel here at TH, proposition 8 would have failed.

Remember your words? Of how prop 8 was doomed to failure?

YOUR words and posts woke up people to your game.

Thank you Sol, SkorpioG and the rest, without all of you the marriage battle would be much harder to win.

Now, it is inevitable. A man and a woman will be the definition of marriage.

Even President Obama says so.

Sol_Invictus?
You stated:
"the fact we are fighting for our lives and the lives of our children and grand children,"
Fighting for our lives? Wow.

"and we have patience."
This is a false statement. You know that inevitably the straights that support this gay-marriage nonsense will learn the truth. Homosexuals are in a race against time and are in a panic.

Sol_Invictus, since you "don't have anything against Christianity", would you be alright with a public school that endorses Christianity and was built to cater to the needs of Christian kids?

Sol_Invictus at present
the New York National Guard has separate quarters for male and female officers. If you were a General, would you end this regulation?

Sol_Invictus
You asked: "What did you find false?"

Your statement that "we have patience" is false.

The homosexuals and supporters that I know... know that time is running out. Prop 8 passed because the reality of homosexual marriage in the Northeast was publicized to the electorate of California.

California only has regular marriage thanks to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. France because of Belgium. Germany because of the Netherlands, and so on.

Yes Sol_Invictus, for every state that lets anatomically similar people get "married" two others vote it unconstitutional. At present, 99% of people live where only normal marriage exists.
The 1% that celebrate gay marriage ceremonies are over 70% Christian. Consequently, your statement "You and your churches are free to spew hatred as you see fit" is fantastically nonsensical and shallow.
The evidence suggests that an extremely high percentage of Christianity is a prerequisite for Fred and Ted to wed.
I'd suggest you take a moment to thank Jesus for the liberal attitude of so many of his followers. Around the world, those that do not call themselves Christian are laughing at your gay marriage concoction.

Sometimes, reality stinks for the non-realistic.
You may run away now Sol_Invictus.

Thank you, Anderson, Kev, et al


Good posts, all.

Sol and the other beasts in his posting menagerie don't know how to cope. Their only preoccupation is with those Christians.

You all know he's like some sad fly in a bottle. I know it. I even feel some compassion. What a wasted life!

There are two worlds, he thinks. "One is the real one, consisting of facts, like gay people who meet, fall in love, create families, bring up children, contribute in a thousand different ways to the welfare of this country."

"Entirely in your head, (NORMAL heads, he worries) [are] phantoms and spirits, people walking on water,"

Which he tells us can't be real. Since he doesn't have anything in his head, period.

What isn't real is the WELFARE homosexuals "contribute to this country." He imagines a nebulous, politically correct existence in which "welfare" for the country means: MARRIAGE; vindication of his lust for male flesh.

"Once he and Michael or Max, or HIM, somebody male, are wed," nobody can question their odd living arrangement! It won't stick out like a pair of moose antlers on each of their heads!

This insistence is what "entirely in your head" is; a dream of legitimacy about living in sin and slime! He doubts Oscar Wilde even repented. SURE! He HAS to deny that.

". . . if he was converted on his deathbed, it probably was another of his charming tricks." Sol revels in the illusion:

Either this wallpaper goes, or I will. How meaningful!


sol the victim

"Would such a charming man possibly be Catholic? --We don't know; shucks!"

He was indeed, after confessing his sins and receiving the sacraments, Sol! Good old Oscar "poped out"--! He knew his end had come, the Cheeky Monkey!

WE DO KNOW, Sol!

--Oscar was sorry for leading that disgraceful life. What's odd about that? Of course you find him amusing! But scoring and screwing gays was not what made him great. You can't buy reassurance like that for nothing. You can finally repent! Oscar Wilde shows you that. He's with GOD today!

And, about your "disposable income"-- Are you telling us money buys respectability? You mean to say money can buy MARRIAGE now? How quaint! "He bought the right to shack up with Jack-- In sham married life!" Are you so pathetic, Sol?

Where are the BRAINS you're afraid to use? Are they also deep up in your colon?


Dreadnaught, you stated:
"a dream of legitimacy about living in sin and slime!"

Is it legitimacy they want? Legitimization of excrimentory orifices being violently traumatized.
Or is it some childish tantrum of wanting to get their way?

The fans of gay marriage demand the redefinition of an institution that billions of people are members of. And yet, they can never supply a rational for this dramatic alteration that stands-up to the slightest cross examination. Inevitably they run away. It is so pathetic.

Sol Invictus again- What a Liar
Typical homosexual activist Chritian hating bigot. Can't remember his stories from thread to thread, or even in the same thread

You have posted your anti Christian bigotry all over these threads under various names. Depending on the thread you have all sorts of made up stories.

Earlier you were NOT a homosexual, then later in this same thread you post:

"Fortunately, this country is not a theocracy, and the right to marry that gay people seek is for a civil marriage, sanctioned by the state. We couldn't care less what the church thinks. You can be married in the church, but unless you have a license from the state, the marriage is not legal"

Key word : "We". Obviously YOU claim to be a homosexual who could care less what the state thinks. And that is typical of YOU same sex activists who think the government should sanction any and all perverted behaviors as legitimate.

Thanks George, Alpha Omega, etc. for showing how phony, puerile,bigoted,vaginaphobic, heterophobic, Christophobic, and hateful a person you really are.








The questions for Sol
One question Sol:

The anus is used for excreting wastes, fecal matter, that is its function. It is NOT a sex organ. No human authority defines the anus as a sex organ. No one in human history has either. You homosexuals may refer to it as a "mangina" but in reality it is used to expel waste.

How is a fecal filled waste tube an object of lust for YOU? What turns you on about a fecal matter delivery system?

YOU were born heterosexual Sol, when did YOU decide to be a homosexual?


Sol_Invictus,
since you "don't have anything against Christianity", would you be alright with a public school that endorses Christianity and was built to cater to the needs of Christian kids? Kinda like the public school (Harvey Milk)for homosexuals in your state except for Christian kids. Would that be OK with you?

Sol_Invictus,
If I can prove that some people are not homophobic by choice but are born that way, will they get their own school at tax payer expense?
How about 'Archie Bunker High'?

But seriously, should homosexual sex-ed be taught to the gay students? To force the less affluent gay children to learn regular sex is a violation of their civil rights, is it not?

Sol_Invictus?
Are there any modern adult marriage styles that you believe should stay illegal in New York?

Sol_Invictus states:
"The anus is very much a sex organ"

Wow! I mean Wow!!!

"Being gay is not a matter of choice, but being a bigot is"

Evolution created human nature that is tribal. It is actually normal for all people to have disdain for those different than themselves.

For a regular person to avoid a man that desires to impale another man in an excrimentory orifice is actually quite normal.
Learning to appreciate such behavior requires a lot of effort.

Sol_Invictus?
Seriously Sol, are there any modern adult marriage styles that you believe should stay illegal in New York besides your disdain for conservatives procreating?

And Sol_Invictus,
should homosexual sex-ed be taught to the gay students or not?
To force the less affluent gay children to learn regular sex is a violation of their civil rights, is it not? Yes or no please.

I'd be happy to answer any question you may have from a conservative perspective relating to the subject at hand.


Sol_Invictus?
You ask what would be an "Adult marriage style"?

Would you, for example vote for or against polygamy being legalized in New York?

Sol_Invictus, you stated:
"All sex-ed should be taught to all children"

So, should homosexual sex-ed be taught to the gay students or not?
To force the less affluent gay children to learn regular sex is a violation of their civil rights, is it not? Yes or no please.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.