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, July 31, 2006
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why gays are losing on marriage
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


With a clearly definitive win in the Washington Supreme Court this week, marriage advocates you're are on an impressive roll. From the beginning I argued that among the most recent cases to be decided, the case in the state of Washington was the most important.

With no residency requirement in the state, the radical homosexual activists pushing the fraud of a changed marriage definition would take a win in Washington and seek to challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In doing so it would leave the national definition of marriage up to a single federal judge - and not the millions of Americans who should by right be the one to define such terms.

But don't be fooled, upcoming decisions in New Jersey and a handful of other states still leave more than enough room for judicial monkey business. The fact that Massachusetts' gay activists were smarmy enough to get their state referendum held hostage away from the voters of that state until after this election cycle is completed is proof plenty that the agenda has not died.

But why are radical homosexual activists losing the fight?

Simply put - it's a Godless proposition they are putting forth and the vast majority of Americans - even some liberals are not ready to bankroll a completely bankrupt values agenda.

How can I make it clearer?

Homosexual activists have been so ugly and nasty in their utter contempt for good church going people in America that the great con they have been able to pull for the last thirty years has now all but been exposed for the fraud that it is.

When a culture despises the moral foundations that make it great, such contempt will ultimately steal its greatness. Our culture is not yet ready to take that ultimate step just yet.

People all over the globe understand intuitively that two daddies will never be able to provide the needed guidance for a young girl that only a mommy and a daddy can bring. People understand easily - without argument - how a boy growing up with two mommies will never have the definition of what real manliness is by it being lived out in front of him. It just defies common sense to attempt to argue otherwise.

I also think that it’s pretty evident that people understand what makes homosexual behavior different than a darker shade of skin. For a few months radical activists have gotten away with trying to make the, "we are just like them" argument when it comes to comparing the needed civil rights reform this nation was all too slow to embrace, and the charade that homosexuals are trying to propagate in terms of their behavior today.

No gene, no cell, no DNA has ever been proven to cause one man to engage in all varieties of sexual acts with another man. Pure unbridled lust maybe, but not DNA. And for the record, pure unbridled lust - almost always turns out bad - no matter what gender of person you're engaging with sexually. Restrained sexuality is certainly what scriptural texts call for, but it is also what science has proven to be the healthiest for the individuals involved.

Presently the reason homosexual activists are losing on the battle to redefine marriage is simple - it’s just plain wrong.

I know, it’s not a popular position to take. Neither is telling the uncle who is always drunk how alcohol might kill him someday. But if you really loved your uncle - wouldn't you at least try? And you certainly let him get behind the wheel.

Calling for sexual restraint is not popular. Calling for sexual discipline in society that matches the scriptural model isn't either. (One man, one woman, in marriage for a lifetime.) But ultimately if you truly love those around you who are injuring themselves and others they love - it is your obligation to speak up.

My book which comes out August 1st (MuscleHead Revolution - Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking, Harvest House Publishers) will soon be available right here on TownHall.com, in it I will give you 10 principles to assist you in clarifying your thinking so that you can take positive action in not just winning the debate of the issue, but even win the hearts of those you engage with.

The time for shading the truth, is past. And doing so does nothing to help anyone.

Marriage is winning, and the activists are losing.

In doing so we commonsense types are helping the radicals by simply pointing out some really old fashioned ideas - like right and wrong.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

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

Good article
What I liked most was the line, "understand intuitively..." because it points out the basic LIE that all 'gay rights' and the anti marriage is based on.

Marriage is for children. Children NEED BOTH parents - mother and father.

If it didn't take the two sexes to have children, we wouldn't HAVE TWO SEXES! And it also takes the same two to raise a child to the child's fullest potential.

It may be true that homosexuals can raise children, but almost definitely NOT to their fullest potential. (A child COULD be raised by wolves, but not to it's potential.)

And now we are seeing in courts what happens when those 'gay marriages with kids' go bad. Who gets the child? Does the "father" of a child that donated sperm have any parental rights or duties to a child "born" into a lesbian 'marriage?' If a women bears a child to "give up for adoption" to two gay men, does she HAVE any rights to that child?

It seems to be that the homosexual agenda seeks to destroy any biological affinity for one's one child.

Until, that is, the "marriage" is over. Then we see the sperm donor sued for support (look it up, it is happening.)


It's unnatural.
That's what I tell proponents of homosexuality.

When two men or two women can have a child NATURALLY, with NO OUTSIDE help, no sperm donor, no frozen pop, etc, then I'll rethink my position but for now, homosexuality is sick and twisted behavoir that does nothing for the human race. While gays are out cavorting with one another us "breeders" are ensuring the continuation of the human race through natural procreation. After all, that's what it's ALL about.

good article
This article makes some very excellent points. The homosexual lifestyle is unnatural and self-destructive. Acceptance of this lifestyle will destroy the moral foundations on which this country is built. The contempt homosexuals show towards those who support one man, one woman marriage shows the depth of unwholesome emotions this lifestyle evokes.

THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL THIS
is in the back of so-called 'gay' peoples minds is they themselves feel their lifestyle is indeed wrong.
If they didn't, why all this clamoring for being accepted as an 'equal'? All of their 'arguments' as stated by Mr. McCullogh ring hollow when confronted by reason.The other 'arguments' set forth in their agenda belie logic and are sometimes laughable.
Like the argument for equal rights in the workplace. What a joke. 'Gay' people, as a demographic, are the most well off group economically in the nation. How about 'housing'?
Well, just look at San Francisco. They turned that into the most unaffordable to live in area in the entire United States. Even more than New York. Now that is saying something. 70% of the households there have no children and it is still astrononmical to live there.
'Education.' Here in New York there are several schools that have exclusively all 'gay','transexual,'transgendered,' student bodies.EXCLUSIVELY. That is so they can grow in a 'nurturing enviroment.' Please.
This all leads me back to my original thought that they themselves feel what they are doing is wrong and only by getting our-the rest of society-sanction, can they go about their lives without any remorse. This can only be accomplished about what I have wrote about in many posts, though the courts. Government by fiat. With the bang of a gavel they hope to compel us, by law, into becoming participants, actors if you will, in their skewered reality.
A man who wears a dress is a 'she'. Their significant other is their'wife.'A woman who dresses in Timberland boots and overalls is a 'he.'
The very fact that when you consider we are even sharing our thougts on this matter today and to think back about 30 years ago when the AMA classified homsexuality as a mental disorder, we have fallen a long way. Or come a long way if you hold the 'gay' viewpoint.
But it all leads me back to my original thought that they themselves feel their 'lifestyle' is wrong.

Are you living in the 18th Century?
You're kidding right? I will post my comments on your postings later, but let me first say what upstanding citizens and examples you are of freedom, choice, and dignity. "George Wallace" types are fewer and far between because we evolve in our society but clearly all of you are still living in 1950's America where discriminating against people, any people, is okay.

You're disgusting. Your hatred of gay people wrapped in the bible is startling, given how far we've come as a country.

I might remind you that there is a war going on in Israel because a group of people, Islamics, who hate Israelis so much and believe that their bible tells them that it's okay to kill them and wipe them off this earth. Your behavior and statements aren't too far off from that and given the opportunity I wouldn't put it past you to behave the same way towards these gay people who are trying to find their place in society. Apparently George Wallace is alive and well still within our country. What a sad example you all are!


Are you living in the 18th Century?
You're kidding right? I will post my comments on your postings later, but let me first say what upstanding citizens and examples you are of freedom, choice, and dignity. "George Wallace" types are fewer and far between because we evolve in our society but clearly all of you are still living in 1950's America where discriminating against people, any people, is okay.

You're disgusting. Your hatred of gay people wrapped in the bible is startling, given how far we've come as a country.

I might remind you that there is a war going on in Israel because a group of people, Islamics, who hate Israelis so much and believe that their bible tells them that it's okay to kill them and wipe them off this earth. Your behavior and statements aren't too far off from that and given the opportunity I wouldn't put it past you to behave the same way towards these gay people who are trying to find their place in society. Apparently George Wallace is alive and well still within our country. What a sad example you all are!


Gay Marriage Debate
I'm hosting a "diablog" with a proponant of "marriage equality" at aTypical Joe (in favor) and Bloggin' Outloud (opposed).

The first two posts are:
1) http://blogginoutloud.blogspot.com/2006/07/current-argument-gay-marriage-part-1.html

2) http://www.atypicaljoe.com/archives/2006/07/the_great_gay_m.php

A central argument for me against same gender marriage is similar to that of McCullough, with some historic/economic reasoning attached.

Thanks for reading, Bloggin' Outloud

How stupid.
While many see gay folks as [fill in your derogatory term of choice], straight people are the ones ruining marriage. Checked the divorce rate lately? How many single parent families out there? Rampant sexuality? What is the adultry rate? While proclaming what great christians you are you spit on the few folks that want their legal protections that you already have. Shoot, why not embrace folks that respect your marriage institution...clearly there are few left based on their behavior. Go judge another christian, not folks that didn't choose that 'lifestyle'. Christians just love to judge everyone but themselves. I never hear loving statements from the holier than thou crowd.

Gay agenda-acceptance not just tolerance
In my view, what homosexuals really want is acceptance not simply tolerance. I say no to acceptance. I can tolerate gays just as I tolerate crazy liberals and phony conservatives (like our current Republican Congress and President) but I do not have to accept their chosen lifestyle and neither should society at large.

Tolerance
I can agree with Wolfman. Their lifestyle is unnatural and I noticed that Robin does not reply to that but instead, slams religion and us "breeders" who get divorced, etc.

So Robin, I guess a husband who dies and leaves a wife and a few kids is wrong huh? I know a lot of military folks who remain faithful to their spouses on long deployments, I was one of them. You decry Christians but Hindus, Jews, and Muslims also do not accept homosexuality.

I was raised on a farm and have YET to see two stallions or two roosters going at it. I guess animals understand procreation of the species better than you do.

Where is love?
Reading the hateful and hurtful comments from both sides, accusations of wrongdoing, judging and charade. It seems that all are written with concern and the need to be "right."
We are created who we are, and through time become adults who make choices based on many factors, including people who are important to us (who may have helped or hurt us depending on their ethics and character), effects of our upbringing (or lack of it), and motivated efforts to "get it right." We all seem to be seeking someone in our life to share our joys and sorrows, the responsibilities and the time we have in this life.
Science gives us the biological "facts" of our lives; there can be no argument as to what it takes to procreate. However, nurturing and providing a good home to a child is often lacking in homes of all economic and social strata. "Christians" who live in heterosexual relationships without respect and caring are in large ratio in our society, and the divorce is high. "Adults" who copulate without wanting the responsibility of dealing with the fruits of procreation have made huge political issues of their right to choose to murder those innocents.
And the seeking, needing of love and caring goes on. The troubling debates about right and wrong in all of this go directly back to the instinct in human beings to be in relationship with another who cares and shares responsibility.
When "Love" means nurturing and caring, giving and sharing, and people of all genders realize that no one is on this earth to be used by another, we will be able to have respectful discourse about this troubling and divisive subject. May we rediscover our Creator who gave us the potential to be more for each other.

Rejecting Gay Marriage is OK
Marriage is a public act. It is a public ceremony whereby society at large gives its imprimatur of approval on a union.

This is tacitly understood by the Gay Lobby, and society's approval of homosexuality is their ultimate goal.

But having asked for society's acceptance and approval, Gays should not complain if society answers back with a resounding "NO!". While Gays are certainly free to argue and persuade for their position in the Free Marketplace of Ideas, it is not appropriate for them to try to browbeat the public into accepting their position, nor to hurl epithets at a public that has politely declined their invitation. The more that Gays resort to an ugly militancy, the more there will be a backlash with the public. Nor will there ever be true "acceptance" if gay marriage is forced down the public's throat by way of Judicial Diktat. That was the route chosen by abortion advocates, and it led to nothing but decades of divisiveness. Rather than having resolved the issue, a judicial opinion like Roe v Wade for Gay Marriage will simply set off another front in the culture wars.

Gays have to realize that attacking the religious or moral convictions that lead a majority of the public to reject Gay Marriage as mere bigotry will not engender warmth and understanding in the targets of their vitriol. At the end of the day, in a free society, I and others like me retain our right to disagree, to reject endorsing homosexuality (which is what gay marriage would be---an endorsement of homosexuality by society), and to think freely---not to be subject to having our opinions and beliefs dictated to us by a tiny minority of the population, nor a cabal of black robed judges.

"IS GAY, GAY?" THE RAPE OF WORDS
ANOTHER EXCELLANT COLUMN ON THE SUBJECT IS BY SELWYN DUKE. HE WRITES ON THE INTERNET FOR "NEWS WITH VIEWS". HE SAYS THE IDEA THAT THE TERMS "GAY" OR "SAME SEX" ARE ERRONIOUSLY SUITED TO THE TERM "MARRIAGE". SINCE THE UN MADEOVER ORIGINAL MEANING OF "MARRIAGE" LOCKS IN A COMMUNION BETWEEN A WIFE, AND A HUSBAND (IE. A HE AND A SHE).

THERE IS NO VALIDITY TO THE GROSS ATTEMPT BY THE SAME-SEX CAMP CONTINUEING TO HAVE IT OTHERWISE VIA A LINGUISTIC CONTRIVANCE , OR (MY VIEW) THE OUT OF CONTEXT RAPE OF THE TERM MARRIAGE.

HOW DO WORDS LIKE "GAY" AND "MARRIAGE" GET SO ASSAULTED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT? IT'S BY SIMPLY HAVING CONVERSATIONAL ENGLISH SERVED UP AGENDA STYLE. SLOW AND EASY. LIKE SLIPPING A LITTLE SEASONING INTO THE COMMON STEW; JUST TO TASTE.

THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IS ALL ABOUT MOLESTING THE LANGUAGE TO "SPIN SPEAK" THEIR CAUSE ALONG.

QUESTION: WHAT DO YOU HAVE WHEN YOU PUT A TUXEDO ON A PIG? ANSWER: IT'S STILL A PIG!

AND YET THE HOMOSEXUALS HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES IN THE LAST FEW DECADES, AND HAVE "TUXEDOED" THEIR WAY INTO CIVIL RIGHTS ARENAS, AND MADE GREAT GAINS IN GOVERNMENTAL, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FROM PRE-SCHOOL UP, AND CORPORATE AMERICA. THEIR PINK RIBBONS ARE NOW WAVED IN OUR FACES THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE LAND.

JUST READ UP ON HOW FORD, OR HOME DEPOT, OR IBM, OR ..., HAVE PUT THE ROYAL WELCOME MAT OUT, AND DECREED MANDATORY SENSITIVITY / DIVERSITY TRAINING FOR US "UNTUXEDOED".

IT'S TIME FOR A DELUGE OF STRAIGHT TALK. (WITH OF COURSE "STRAIGHT" IN THE CORRECT UNSPUN CONTEXT)

WE NEED TO APPREHEND OUR CIVIL, COMMERICAL, AND CHURCH OFFICE HOLDERS AND LEADERS WITH WORDS THEY CAN STILL UNDERSTAND. WORDS THAT STILL HAVE THEIR PURITY OF MEANING, AND HAVEN'T BEEN RAPED OUT OF CONTEXT.






Where is love?
Reading the hateful and hurtful comments from both sides, accusations of wrongdoing, judging and charade. It seems that all are written with concern and the need to be "right."
We are created who we are, and through time become adults who make choices based on many factors, including people who are important to us (who may have helped or hurt us depending on their ethics and character), effects of our upbringing (or lack of it), and motivated efforts to "get it right." We all seem to be seeking someone in our life to share our joys and sorrows, the responsibilities and the time we have here.
Science gives us the biological "facts" of our lives; there can be no argument as to what it takes to procreate. However, nurturing and providing a good home to a child is often lacking in homes of all economic and social strata. "Christians" who live in heterosexual relationships without respect and caring are in large ratio in our society, and the divorce rate is high. "Adults" who copulate without wanting the responsibility of dealing with the fruits of procreation have made huge political issues of their right to choose to murder those innocents.
And the seeking, needing of love and caring goes on. The troubling debates about right and wrong in all of this go directly back to the instinct in human beings to be in relationship with another who cares and shares responsibility. How very human.
When "Love" means nurturing and caring, giving and sharing, and people of all genders realize that no one is here on this earth to be used by another, we will be able to have respectful discourse about this troubling and divisive subject. May we rediscover our Creator who gave us the potential to there for each other.

Acceptace?
It all comes down to tollerance vs. acceptance. I can tolerate gays, respect them as people, but I never will accept their lifestyle.
It seems that the homosexual activists show great distain for the 80% of society that tries to live moral lives, then they want us to not only TOLERATE their behavior, but claim they have a "right" to call this MARRIAGE.
I'm all for giving them the same hospitalization visitation rights, or living will rights, as long as these rights are'nt called marriage.
To accept this lifestyle as marriage, would be the beginning of the end of American society today -- just like the fall of the Roman empire began with the degrading of morals.

JUST A COUPLE OF MORE THOUGHTS
none's posting gave me food for thought.
'Gays',as consenting adults and American citizens can LIVE THEIR LIVES AS THEY SEE FIT.
Hospitalization rights-ER visits, etc., living wills. Yes. As American citizens they have every right to these needs.
Adoption. Yes. THEY PAY TAXES TO SUPPORT THIS SYSTEM, DON'T THEY?
My remark about falling a long way or coming a long way sounded a bit callous. My apolagies.
But the basic idea of my first posting, to be forced to accept their lifestyle by law, by goverment fiat.
NO. On that point I remain adament.

Temptation and morality
Gays seem to feel that because they are tempted to have sex with someone of the same gender that they are justified in doing it. If I am tempted to make love to a cute fifteen year old girl I am expected to resist the temptation. If the bank teller steps away and I can reach the cash drawer I am expected to keep my hand out of it. What would the world be like if people didn't resist temptation?

If gays keep their behaviour to themselves I am willing to tolerate them and let God handle the matter in His own way at His own time, but when they try to push it in everyone's face (even in grade schools) in an attempt to gain public Acceptance for their perverted behaviour then Society has an obligation to push back.

I agree that what they are really trying to do is to get over the guilt they feel because they know what they are doing is wrong.

Changes
So the problem can be solved without a Constitutional Ammendment. People with their pet axes to grind are always willing to clutter up the Constitution with unnecessary ammendments though our laws and State governments seem perfectly capable to resolve problems if people are patient enough to let the issues play out in the areana of public opinion and the natural process for changes that our government provides.

Choice.
The claim that gays (a misnomer, if ever there was one) don't choose their lifestyle is absolutely ludicrous. People may not choose the physical characteristics to which they find themselves attracted. But everyone, with the exception of rape victims, chooses when, where, and with whom they engage in sexual activity. Being sexually attracted to someone doesn't mean that you absolutely must have sex with them on the spot.

Here are a few other examples of gay lifestyle choices:

Changing your last name to Sissyfag.

Men dressing up like Dorothy, from the Wizard of Oz, or Marilyn Monroe, and walking down the middle of the road shouting bumper sticker slogans. (By the way, gay pride parades are NOT in any way equivalent to the civil-rights marches of the 60s.)

Having frequent, anonymous, unrpotected sex with multiple partners. Though fictional, the manner by which Tom Hanks character in Philadelphia acquired AIDS is not uncommon in real life.

All people deserve to be treated with respect to the degree with which they act respectably. In my life I find that I receive far more respect when I act in a dignified manner thereby showing I deserve it, rather than pouting like a child and demanding it.

For scooternyc: I have read neither hateful speech nor Biblical quotes anywhere in this thread to this point. What I have read is condemnation of bad behavior. If it is hateful to condemn bad behavior, then we'd better open the doors to every prison right now (see how ridiculous your arguments based in "moral equivalency" sound to the rest of us?).

For Robin: Christian condemnation of unbridled sexuality is indiscriminate. As Kevin McCullough put it, "one man - one woman, for life." Sexual behavior outside this proscription is unacceptable, but not unforgivable. Anyone can change.

With regards to the divorce rate: Yes, it has been hovering around 50% for all marriages for years. That does not mean that every marriage has only a 50% chance of surviving. Nearly 80% of all first marriages last. The divorce percentage is driven by the other 20ish% - People like Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lopez and Elizabeth Taylor, to choose some public examples, who can't seem to a) stay single, and b) stay married. Do you honestly think that extending marriage to the gay community is going to FIX these problems?

Gay marriage proponents find themselves in a small minority, outnumbered by more than 2 to 1 nationwide. Roughly the same percentages as the 60's debate over civil rights, I might add. Maybe all us rubes are on to something. Ever consider the possibility that marriage, the way it was originally meant to be, might actually be important and beneficial?

The "Love" Is Right Here..
I wanted to address the offbase comments one by one.

scooternyc, you really said a mouthful. Unfortunately, the mouthful of what you said is filled with more contempt, politically correct rhetoric and propagandist lies than anything else.

You say that we here, who agree with Mr. McCullough are "upstanding citizens and examples you are of freedom, choice, and dignity"

I suppose you were trying to be tongue in cheek. But since when is any spokesperson of a fringe element, not speaking as a mouthpiece for the majority, in any way an arbiter for true concerns about people's rights?

And while we're on it, it is very, very tiring, not to mention intellectually insulting AND disengenious to keep hyjacking civil rights terms ,and political hyperbole, as banners over a non cause and a dead issue.

"Choice" has only been a prized moniker flying over articles on magazine covers since Rowe vs. Wade, and only more lately in the last 5 or 10 years.

"Dignity" can be offered any human being, without their vociferously seeking to warp, assimilate or hyjack a life passage, instilled by God (marriage) that is not their own (the poltically inclined gays).

"Freedom", along with words like "tolerance" and a few mentioned here, are just code words used by powers that be, so homosexuals, blinded by their lust and confusion, can be used as agents for a terrible, and wicked kind of change.

"Freedom" is not the right to do whatever you personally please, regardless of the will and good interest of the people, despite corrupt judges and the changing laws of the land.

sccoternyc, you say to the commenters here:
"we evolve in our society but clearly all of you are still living in 1950's America where discriminating against people, any people, is okay.You're disgusting."

But "discriminating" is another word copped by those pushing your agenda to blind people to the truth, particularly naive ones.

No one is discriminating against your right to go to some quiet outpost, or some dark corner and molest another another man, or have him accost you..

And your finding us "disgusting" only shares the true contempt and who is carrying it in the issues here..

With all due respect, have you taken a long, hard and sober look at your recent personal life's activities, or at least those of the ones you advocate?

If you have, you might think twice about who, or what, you erroneously dub "disgusting".

And please don't give us more stock lines like this:

"Your hatred of gay people wrapped in the bible is startling, given how far we've come as a country."

We don't hate anyone. And not wanting, liking, advocating, or buying all your politically correct rhetoric meant to white wash and legitimize gay's sin and bad behavior will ever make us agree that what you do is clean-minded, healthly, or anyting close to right!

What an insult you are scooternyc to those of us who are Christians and do agree with the Bible and have tolerated years of these kind of lengthy diatribes by folks like you.

People that freely throw around the words "hate", as if they have a very good idea about it..

People who come out speaking more judgeing and truly intolerant remarks that I could ever fit on this screen in a lifetime!

If you are too blind or too callous in your life of struggle and sin to admit your own dilemma, do not take it out on those who can, clearly, point it out for you.

How honestly ignorant is it to hold up words about truth and people's rights, and grab them for us towards a perverted end?

Beyond that, how can anyone, anyone, use words like 'hate''wrapped up in bible", when they don't even understand the true nature of love or what's being said? Let alone, sorry but true, the Bible..


"just thinking", you may be thinking but your thoughts don't seem just. I don't see any particularly 'hateful' comments from both sides on this and only a truly hostile comment from one.

Why do you place "the need to be 'right " in quotes, as if a right mind, honest insights, and plain speaking are a setback here? Or, as if "right" can only be a loosely used term and should be one avoided at all costs, or at least seen with an arched eyebrow?

No one is denying we are "created who we are", that does not give us the right to claim rights to how we are, or want to be, however morally bankrupt that might be, to impress that upon large bodies of unwilling people.

I think more than people like scooternyc, it is folks who speak as "just thinking" has above that pose the most threat to Truth in causes like these.

It is they who imagine they speak smoothly, even lovingly, when their voice is weak and compromised by a lack of rightness, truth and clarity.

Some of the most awful lies are bought when they are portrayed in long meandering sentences by 'well-meaning ' people who just have it wrong..

They wax, or feel they do, prosaically about "Love", and how we are "all people", but it does nothing for the cause of Truth at all.

The reason being, True love rejoices in the Truth (See 1 Corinthians 13).

When we love someone we do our best to lovingly share the truth with them, whatever that cost may be. This is because their welfare and the health of our relationship, and what we know, begs truth as its sustenance and holds it up as its banner.

By the same token, Mr. McCullough, though constantly mislabled, threatened and mistreated by activist gays, stands up for the cause of Truth, because too many have bought the lie!

God's Word says when we speak we should speak the Truth in love.

But my, how many people have used the word "love" and dragged it into the ground as if it is not completely a thing that goes hand and hand with Truth!

I do not "love" my homosexual friend by telling him schmoosey sounding words about how "we are all human and need love so go and sin.."

This has nothing to do with Truth and precious little to do with True love!

How I wish I had -truly- been even more loving years ago to have spoken even more plainly to a cousin I loved lost too soon to the throes of AIDS/HIV.

Maybe if there was some way I could have said more, or put aside worrying about his approval, to share with him how bad this 'life' (death) style was for him, he'd still be here today.

I'll tell you this my friends, it was not "love" nor the Bible that killed my cousin, taking him from me and our family.





Marriage is about the Children!
Yes!

Ban and nullify ALL marriages between two individuals that are incapable of and/or unwilling to procreate naturally!

If she is infertile, post-menopausal, etcetera they cannot get married and he must find a different woman to wed.

If he is infertile or impotent, then they cannot get married and she must find a different man to make her babies with.

If they (a couple) have no intent of having children then they do not qualify for a marriage license.

Additionally, once a couple has raised their children and they are out of the home and on their own, then the union must be dissolved as the purpose of their marriage (procreation and nurturing) has been fulfilled...
...unless, of course, they wanna make another baby.


Unless and until folks that trot out the trite "about and for the children" argument ALSO insist upon these measures then it is simply a non sequitur of hypocritical proportions that does nothing to bolster their case.

lose a battle, win a war
I think that the pro-gay marriage side will win the war, only it will take some time. Incidentally, this is one of my problems with conservatives - they can't see past today. The younger generation increasingly believes that marriage is for two 'people' who love each other. So, gay marriage bans may be the opinion du jour, but give it another generation and then we'll see how well we're doing.

But I'm saddened by the lack of thought on the conservative side wrt this issue. Gay marriage bans do not make our society moral or righteous. Hearts and minds are what make this society righteous! Where did we come up with this idea that we can ban such and such and be righteous? Rome, as an example, was previously mentioned; Rome tried to legislate sexual behavior once, and it failed miserably! Why should we think it'll work now?

If we want to ensure that America is a righteous and "moral" nation, we must first start with ourselves. G. K. Chesterton responded to the question "What's wrong with the world" by saying: I am. This attitude, in general, is completely lost on conservatives.

rant over.

Well, what I find interesting
Is that the folks who posted in support of same-sex marriage seem to take the position that if you oppose same-sex marriage you're a homophobe.

Well, this is the typical liberal response to any argument with which they don't agree: ad hominem attack. Two problems with it:

1. It's intellectually lazy.

2. It doesn't reflect reality.

I'll use myself as an example. I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do sexually in the privacy of their homes. The key part of that being "privacy of their homes". However, I certainly don't support the entire redefinition of marriage simply to grant to them society's imprimature. That's clearly a tail wagging the dog scenario.

I'm not, of course, insensitive to the fact that there are, indeed, homophobes. Prejudices and bigotry exist in all individuals to some extent, and will never be eradicated. That's simply part of the human condition.

But people can oppose same-sex (and let's use the propoer term, it's not "gay marriage") marriage for many reasons.

Incidentally, gays aren't truly deprived any rights, as they're still perfectly free to marry anyone they wish who is of the opposite sex. That's why I use the term "same-sex marriage".

If we start redefing the institution, where does it stop? The only requirement is "love", as someone wrote? How about brother and sister? Threesomes? Pets? Why not? All it takes is "love", right?

Minding One's Own Business
Mrs.V wrote:
“. . . But since when is any spokesperson of a fringe element, not speaking as a mouthpiece for the majority, in any way an arbiter for true concerns about people's rights? . . .”

Hmm… How about since the Revolutionary War?

Only about a third of the Colonials supported independence and fewer supported fighting for it. Roughly a third advocated remaining loyal subjects to the Crown and another, rough, third were “undecided”.

The architects of America’s independence and our subsequent Republic were intimately familiar with the notion that the MAJORITY is RARELY a true advocate for the rights of the individual. Popularity does not make a belief or practice right, proper, or just. It MERELY makes it popular.



“. . . ‘Freedom’ is not the right to do whatever you personally please, regardless of the will and good interest of the people, despite corrupt judges and the changing laws of the land. . .”

You are right. Freedom is NOT the right to do whatever you personally please. It is, essentially, the right to do anything you personally please THAT DOES NOT interfere with the EQUAL RIGHTS of others AND without regard to what anyone else believes or thinks. “The will and good interest of the people” be damned!

If it does not interfere with the Equal Rights of others, then it is their Right, in a FREE society, to do it... and it is no one else's business what they are doing!

No one else has any natural authority to dictate or proscribe the peaceable conduct of free, consenting adults.

No discrimination
Promiscuity in any form is sin. It is not the only sin there is. Lying, cheating, stealing, etc... We all need forgiveness and when we accept that we need forgiveness, God gives us the Spirit of self-control along with a lot of other good things! I'm not the judge and I really don't want to know peoples' sexual preferences.

Gay?
There is nothing gay about homosexuals. I refuse to refer to them as gay. The fact that it has become a common usage of the word shows how great the inroads are that homosexuals have made in our society.


Think about when you have heard or read anything that is "happily excited", or "merry" coming from a homosexual. Just look at the pro-homosexual posts here. They convey a sense of grievance, and and contempt. There is nothing happy or gay about them at all.


I have developed an intense dislike for homosexual activists and the homosexual agenda. I don't want to see them discriminated against. Anyone who physically assaults them should go to jail. Just like anybody who assaults a heterosexual. The same constraints that are placed on every one regarding verbal abuse should apply to homosexuals. (I am not sure about what the legal constraints are. I think the First Amendment is a consideration, but I would condemn anyone directing angry, insulting comments to a person they think is homosexual, just because they resent homosexuals).


Hate crimes legislation is another sign of how successful homosexuals have been in their campaign to force people to accept their lifestyle as normal. They demand and receive extra-legal protection under law. That is outrageous. The clear implication is that they are more deserving of protection than others. Ridiculous.


Where the homosexual agenda really becomes grotesque is in the assault on the minds of children in public schools. There is no excuse for that. Homosexuals are given access to children at younger and younger ages in the classroom. Activists are permitted to do "presentations", supposedly to help children clarify their sexuality. Why the hell is it necessary to clarify the sexual orientation of kids in second grade.


Some of these activists direct children who "may" be confused as to whether they could be homosexual to "supportive" environments/places in their towns or cities for help in understanding their sexuality. Basically, it directs them to homosexuals who can suggest that they are in fact homosexual, and introduce them into homosexual practices. Anyone who does that should go to prison. That includes school administrators who permit those perverted fishing expeditions in their schools.


As to whether homosexuals are born that way or not, I believe that they are. There is disagreement abouy genes determining sexuality. I think that is a waste of time, and just another way to explain what is an abnormal pattern of behavior.


I can't believe that anyone would at an early age simply decide that they wanted to be homosexual. That would be like saying "Hey! I want to sentence myself to a lifetime of ridicule and hostility. I even want to engage in sexual behavior that increases my chances of contracting AIDS or other STDs". It makes no sense.


Neither do I believe that some children DECIDE that they want to live a life of sin, as some of my Christian brothers and sisters believe. That also makes no sense.


Personally, I think that homosexuals are hurting themselves by attempting to force acceptance of that lifestyle on the majority of our citizens. Liberal politicians certainly welcome the homosexual vote. The media, the entertainment industry, and the schools push the homosexual agenda. So do rank and file leftists,some of whom post on townhall. None of these efforts will ever make people accept homosexuality as normal, buecuase it is not normal.


Leftist judges have been pushing their personal agendas past what can be tolerated by our society. Eventually they will force legislators to bring them under control. The same applies to the homosexual lobby. I say it can't happen soon enough to suit me.



Force is exactly what they are trying to use to achieve their goal. Their methods are dispicable.

Absolutely
BrianR, great post.

I absolutely agree and I could not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes but when my 3 y.o. son sees a man in a dress as SF Airport and asks me why is that man in a dress, it aggravates the hell out of men.

To proponents of gayism, the "phobic" ending of homophobic means to "be afraid" or "fear" homosexuals. I do not fear them but their lifestyle is something I don't accept, much in the same way I don't accept the lifestyles of crackheads, criminals, racist group members, anyone that deviates from the normal mores of society.

As I stated earlier, the bottom line is procreation, and until gays can have children NATURALLY, you don't have a leg to stand on. A promiscious gay lifestyle is something that children should not be exposed to.

Feel free to do what you want to just don't expect the MAJORITY to roll over for the VAST minority that are gay.

BrianR
Wrote:
". . . If we start redefing the institution, where does it stop? The only requirement is 'love', as someone wrote? How about brother and sister? Threesomes? Pets? Why not? All it takes is 'love', right? . . ."


Surely you understand the difference between consenting adults and individuals engaging with other, non-consenting... um... "beings".

Surely YOU'RE not so intellectually lazy as to fall into the "pets, toasters, and children" slippery slope non sequitur trap. Pets, toasters, and children lack the capacity, experience, and knowledge to (A) review and understand, (B) contemplate and reason through, and, finally, (C) express informed consent.


"[Brothers] and sisters" (of the age of majority, not children) and "threesomes" are valid concerns and I am not addressing those. But please don't fall into the trap of "debunking" your own objection by including pets or any other non-consenting individuals, creatures, or objects.

(And if such DOES come to pass - that we do recognize non-consentual unions - and I stand with egg on my face, it won't matter much as the world will really be in a heluva mess...)

GunnyG wrote:
"As I stated earlier, the bottom line is procreation, and until gays can have children NATURALLY, you don't have a leg to stand on."


What about hetero- couples that cannot have children naturally?

UNTIL you also support banning AND dissolving all unions of infertile AND childless-by-choice hetero couples you have no leg to stand on with that procreation argument.


Mere Bigotry
In typical fashion, the anti-gay marriage crowd trots out the customary conservative whine: "Don't call me a bigot just for expressing my opinion: I don't have anything against gay people, I just oppose re-defining marriage." (Of course, some of you don't bother to hide your contempt of homosexuals, and to you I say: you may be disgusting bigots, but at least you're honest about it.) The real hypocrisy on this issue comes from those who claim to be protecting the institution of marriage, while advocating the rights of people to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes.
Oh yeah? Maybe the next time you guys advocate amending the Constitution to enshrine your views you might take the time to read the actual text of the amendment. The most recent version of the Federal Marriage Amendment says: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage OR THE LEGAL INCIDENTS THEREOF be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Just what do you think "the legal incidents thereof" is supposed to mean? Does it mean visitation rights in the hospital? Does it mean the ability to allow your partner to make decisions for you in the event you can't make them for yourself? Does it affect inheritance rights? Does it invalidate contracts between homosexual couples trying to create a life together?
Who knows? But I have yet to see one so-called "conservative" come out against the inclusion of this piece of bigotry in the Constitution of the United States.
One of the posts here today did have something right: put a tuxedo on a pig, and it's still a pig. Boy is that ever true! The harder you guys try to claim you're just trying to preserve the institution of marriage, the more the rest of us can smell a pig.
Here's a fact: If you support the Federal Marriage Amendment, you are a bigot. The Federal Marriage Amendment does not protect marriage, it denies gay people the right to create their own lives. And just because a majority of the country currently supports this position doesn't make it right. Soon enough, your majority will be dead, and future generations will move past this shameful chapter in the history of hatred.


A TICKET TO RIDE CALLED TOLERENCE
I HAD MY SAY, I THOUGHT. THEN SCOOTER PUSHED MY BUTTON. NO, MR. SCOOTER, I DON'T HATE THOSE INCLINED TO HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE NO USE FOR THOSE PRONE TO HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISM, NOR THE PRICE TAG GIVEN OUR NATION TO SUBSIDIZE SUCH SUBSOCIETAL BEHAVIOR.

ALL THIS "COMING OUT" DOESN'T IMPRESS ME. IT MERELY SHOWS THE DESCENT TO SHAMELESSNESS AS PART, AND PARCEL OF A DEGENERATIVE MINDSET, OR, AS IT'S WRITTEN, A SEARED CONSCIENCE.

NO, I WILL NOT TOLERATE ONE OF SUCH OVERT ACTIVISM IN MY HOME, MY BUSINESS, MY CHURCH, OR ANY OF MY SOCIAL EVENTS. AND MAY GOD CONTROL MY ANGER IF SUCH DARE COME AT MY CHILDREN, OR GRANDCHILDREN.

BEING INTRODUCED TO THIS "LIFESTYLE" IN A GARAGE BY THREE OLDER BOYS (WHILE SEEKING SEXUALLY WHO THEY WERE) WHEN I WAS 4 YEARS OLD, DIDN'T CULTIVATE TOLERENCE IN ME FOR THEM, AND THEIR KIND. THERE'S NOTHING GAY ABOUT IT!

NOW,MUCH LATER IN MY LIFE, I'VE LEARNED, AND EMBRACED WHAT FORGIVENESS MEANS. BUT TOLERENCE? TO STEP ASIDE, AND WELCOME THESE AGAINST NATURE MISFITS AS FELLOW TRAVELERS IN LIFE WISHING ONLY TO HAVE AN EQUAL PLACE IN THE SUN, NO WAY!


reply..
CMoore, You say:

"Mrs.V wrote:
“. . . But since when is any spokesperson of a fringe element, not speaking as a mouthpiece for the majority, in any way an arbiter for true concerns about people's rights? . .

You say:

”Hmm… How about since the Revolutionary War?"

I say, Wrong sir/ma'am. You have clearly, and obviously, lost your way on the way to the meaning of the word FRINGE.

You then add: "The architects of America’s independence and our subsequent Republic were intimately familiar with the notion that the MAJORITY is RARELY a true advocate for the rights of the individual. Popularity does not make a belief or practice right, proper, or just. It MERELY makes it popular."

Wrong once more. As this is not a discussion about being "popular" or about true minorities who are being exempt from God-ordained rights, as, for example, Blacks and other minorities who lose rights based on the unchanging color of their skin.

If all this were simply about some 'tyrranical' 'majority' who is simply liking to be 'popular' so as to 'oppress' some little side contingent, which has no intent or heart to hurt and destroy then this might be fine.

But this is not what we are talking about at all!

This is about a minority of individuals, political gays, seeking to grow as into a majority by indocrinating, or adopting kids, that is backed by wayward powers that be, reprobate black-robed judges et al., to push an agenda and way of being so destructive and so anti-life and invasive, the ones pushing it do not even know or wish to see.

In ADDITION, this is about just such an agenda being coddled, and promoted, and nurtured by secuarlists in Hollywood, media, and academia alike, to push on a majority of the world's populations a set of concepts and ideas that are the desire of almost none and against the will of almost ALL.

Not "all" minority causes are right, and not all who claim minority status, actually are minorities in its most pure sense.

Let's have an honest discussion, rather than the most obvious agenda of pushing the angle that gays are so put upon by the big 'bad' straight and 'popular' majority.

This is not about popularity anyway sir, it is about right and wrong.

Everyone ought to go back to folks like Bafundi's post about the rape, or misuse, in these political circles, of words.

CMoore, while I DO agree that not all marriages are less loving or less married that do not result in children, or living children, and to base marriage on this alone would be unfair and naive, this does NOT make homosexuals 'marrying' any less of a misnomer and a non-concept which negates itself and has nothing to do with marriage or the society's sustenance.

The fact remains that for the majority of marriages children might or do come, and homosexual activity is one of the least wholesome
ways of living that should be exposed to them.

The gay men and women or question being 'nice guys or gals" has nothing to do with it.

Someone in a power or two got a very malignant idea about championing "rights" that were never to be such for homosexuals at all, as they are simply destrutive to society as we know it, and sin-loving and naive gays took the bate.

Gods Word says they would love a lie, and their minds would be given over in a way that makes them debased.

How can one embracing sin make them see their wrong clearly?

A heteresexual in marital sin is not makming a better move, of course not. But the rocky ground that marriage has fellen on in the last 30 or 40 years (no thanks to the last 30 or 40 years) makes marriage as God intended and as it was meant to be no less a goal and opportunity that is credible. Nor does it suddenly make marriage a thing that can be grabbed up as a thing to tamper with and own for gays.

CMoore, I believe you summed it up quite nicely for those of us looking to see the opinion of those who oppose society and married life God's way, to use your words:

"“The will and good interest of the people” be damned!"

Which was exactly my point on you all..








Skip,

I agreed with most that you said. However, you obligingly acquiesced the "born that way" argument to those that are homosexual. This is certainly not something that has even begun to be proven and most studies certainly suggest that the majority of homosexuals are not born that way.

You question why anyone would choose to be a homosexual. But, everything is not determined by birth or by a strict chooice. THings happen to people that do change them. War might result in some developing "post traumatic stress disorder". They didn't choose to have this disorder nor were they born with it.

I do believe some have a greater proclivity towards certain things from birth, and if certain occurances in their life line up their proclivity might develop.

Thankfully however we are still able to chose to take steps to correct disorders.

Most people who are vehemetly against...
homosexuals harbor homosexual feelings themselves. This results in a deep internal embarassment and confusion, leading to over exhuberant rantings and rationalizations about why its 'wrong', 'unnatural' or 'corrupt'.
They go on message boards and draw analogies that make no sense or follow horribly flawed logic while remaining extremely proud of themselves.

I myself could understand limiting gay marriage on the merits put forth in this article and subsequent messages. However, while 'hetero' marriage remains the complete joke that it is and not a finger is raised to ban britney and Kfed or whomever from getting married, then Rosie O donnell should be able to marry Larry the Goat, because that will do more for the human race than half the 'hetero' marriages taking place today. Unless banning gay marriage legislation is accompanied with sticter laws for heteros, then Im afraid it amounts to nothing more than homophobia. plain and simple.

Further more....
By the way....
Those who cite scriptures and 'God' as a reason or rule for doing something, as if thats some sort of authority, sound exactly like an Islmaic extremist. Not trying to offend, but the tone is exactly the same. Something to consider.

BULLSQUEEZE!`
meat...

That is simply pure crap. Just because someone doesn't accept homosexuality doesn't mean they harbor homesexual feelings. That Ad Hominem attack is just another tactic from the gay agenda playbook and doesn't wash.

What gays do behind closed doors is THEIR BUSINESS just don't ask the rest of us to accept it.

I love hunting and shooting but you don't see me and those like me trying to shove our lifestyle down other people's throats.

I do not accept and will never accept homosexuals and their antics as normal and the thought of what they do is simply revolting.

Marriage redefined
I recall one Barbara Walter's TV show about a homosexual couple with kids. It showed them in a relaxed environment(happy home). She asked various questions of the couple and kids about what it is like to have two daddies or mommies all with great concern. I would have ask them how will they explain the "Birds and Bees" to the kids. Is there a homosexual version with included safe sex pamphlet? The show then flashed some stock footage/clips of Rev. Phelps and his "God hates fags" family that are suppose to represent Christians. Get the message. Christians are the hateful ones. This is typical of the media.

The marriage that homosexuals want to define is a counterfeit version. It will look just like the real thing on the outside.

Mrs.V, RE: Fringe and Popularity
----------------------
”You say:

”’Hmm… How about since the Revolutionary War?’

”I say, Wrong sir/ma'am. You have clearly, and obviously, lost your way on the way to the meaning of the word FRINGE.”
-----------------------

Fringe: Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views. Source: www.dictionary.com.

The revolutionaries certainly WERE the Fringe element in colonial America. The war for independence was both extreme AND unpopular. No ma’am, it is you who do not know the meaning of the word “fringe”. The FRINGE revolutionary movement was a far greater advocate of people’s Rights than the majority, the loyalists and doangivadam’s, ever was.


-----------------------
”You then add: ‘The architects of America’s independence and our subsequent Republic were intimately familiar with the notion that the MAJORITY is RARELY a true advocate for the rights of the individual. Popularity does not make a belief or practice right, proper, or just. It MERELY makes it popular.’

Wrong once more. . .
-----------------------

No I am not wrong. Democracy was reviled by the Architects.

Please learn your history. Try reading some quotes by some of those Architects…
James Madison wrote in Federalist number 10:
". . . A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. . .”
[Hmmm… The author of the Constitution understood that majority opinion – POPULAR opinion -- is not necessarily right!? Omigosh!]
Also from James Madison:
"Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Alexander Hamilton:
"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
Also from Hamilton, Speech on 21 June 1788 urging ratification of the Constitution in New York:
" The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."


-----------------------
“. . . As this is not a discussion about being ‘popular’. . ."
-----------------------

Actually, you asked, to which I was replying specifically, “But since when is any spokesperson of a fringe element, not speaking as a mouthpiece for the majority, in any way an arbiter for true concerns about people's rights?”

Your inplications are clearly that (a) the fringe elements are NOT truly concerned with people’s rights and (b) the “majority”, and therefore popular, IS.

My rebuttal is STRICTLY to BOTH of those implications and NOTHING else. In American history, since the before the Revolutionary war, it has been the fringe, by-and-large, advocating TRUE concern for people’s rights. NOT the majority.

And I merely pointed out that majority opinion is merely popular. Being in the majority does NOT magically confer any degree of legitimacy, propriety, righteousness, or justification. It MERELY makes it popular.

Mrs.V, RE: Misrepresentation(s)
----------------------
”. . . Not "all" minority causes are right, and not all who claim minority status, actually are minorities in its most pure sense. . .”
----------------------

I never said “all” minority causes are right.

By contrast, when you asked, “But since when is any spokesperson of a fringe element, not speaking as a mouthpiece for the majority, in any way an arbiter for true concerns about people's rights?”, you clearly implied that minority (fringe) causes are ALWAYS wrong AND that the majority is ALWAYS right.

----------------------
”. . . Let's have an honest discussion . . .”
----------------------

It’s kind of hard to have an honest discussion when you have to twist, misconstrue, and misrepresent what I say in order to argue with it.

The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature
Also, I personally take exception to the uncharitable and false nations gay-advocates are posting about Christians and Conservatives here.

These are the same people, the likes of whom, think we all eat Velveeta all day, have no background in the Arts or Literature, wear polyester stretch pants, and spend all day watching World Wide Wrestling, when we aren’t at swap meets, or looking for caps to replace our lost teeth.

Their contempt and disdain for anything remotely having to do with Mom and Dad and God and family amounts to no more than masse-acting-out of a never-addressed early family issue. Which they thrust at us, when the real person they have the gripe with is God.

For those who are pushing the idea of homosexuals hijacking marriage. We Christians and Conservatives do not ‘hate’ anyone by asserting and protecting our God-ordained rights and place in society.

Just because this temporary place in time has network TV and its media subsidiaries and corporate entities acting as a mouthpiece and spokesman for you ('gays'), arm in arm with the NEA and your local perverted Judge/lawyer/school teacher, does not make the things that you and they push by proxy anymore right, healthy, sane, normal or providential for America or the nations.

How dare you speak in such ways here to try to define us when you can barely define, much less legitimize, your own behaviors, which have only recently been dubbed as lawful, and only then by a few of the most base and misguided of men.

You are no more qualified to speak for or about us than a stranger on the street.

And said stranger would probably be coming to the table of discussion with a lot more truth and honesty on his or her side, Lord knows a lot less lies and miss conceptions about us as people too.

This is the finger on a several pronged fork with Feminism (Fe-man-ism) as its hand and tool.

No one in such a compromised position and under the grip of such a nerfarious agenda could speak imaging goodness and rightness in their cause unless they've been sincerely hoodwinked and had.
Which sadly, tragically really, political gays have here.

Here’s an amazing and accurate article to substantiate these points, or some of them. It is called: "The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda"

I urge anyone who has even the mildest interest in seeing society, and our world and nation protected from such protracted time at the 'Kool-aid" by reading and re reading this link.

It's info. is basic but nontheless, key.

The clarity and accuracy there can't be denied and I ask anyone who cares about these issues from a Christian or Conservative to pass it on.

Here is the title once more:

"The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda"

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040428

Mrs.V, RE: Right and Wrong
----------------------
”. . . This is not about popularity anyway sir, it is about right and wrong. . .”
----------------------

Ah! But define Right and Wrong, as it pertains to the discussion of gay marriage, WITHOUT using religious definitions.

Can’t, can ya? And I be you cannot comprehend that not everybody accepts YOUR (religious) definitions of Right (moral) and Wrong (sin).

That’s why Thomas Jefferson defaulted to a more universal and inclusive view of Right and Wrong, in terms of Law, saying, “No man has the natural right to commit aggression against the Equal Rights of others and this is all from which Law ought to restrain him.”

How does two, freely consenting men declaring themselves husband-and-husband before family, friends, the community and their God commit aggression against YOUR Equal Rights? How does giving their union legal recognition commit aggression against YOUR Equal Rights?

CMoore
CMoore oh please..Don't misquote me..change my questions or misquote them then add your version of some revisionist history to make your point.

My questions answered your replies..as you noted them.

And your definition of fringe is missing the element to which I was rferring.

There is much more of an implicationt o the word fringe than simply a 'minority'.

I don't need history lessons from you, or anyone, versed in faulty logic and twisted revisions, trying to push in on this board and me.

I know what I said and I know what I meant, and, respectfully, I don't need you, or anyone else with a confused mentality, to address me on it as you have and do..

Please also quit with the blathering about 'my' 'implications', as you note in your quote below.

"Your inplications are clearly that (a) the fringe elements are NOT truly concerned with people’s rights and (b) the “majority”, and therefore popular, IS."

Because CMoore, I NEVER said what you are stating above in your quote. I am sure you are probably quite well-meaning in the delusion you court as a hopeful right or a happy reality. The 'majority' is not 'always' right.

CMoore, have an honest dialogue with what you think, base it, as you have, on some faulty history, but Sir Or Ma'am, do NOT try to draw me into ANY discission where you say and imply things i did not say and consistently persist in misquoting me and my words. From this point on I will not take the bait. It is a stressful waste of my energy and time.

Mrs.V, RE: Finally a gem!
----------------------
”. . . Someone in a power or two got a very malignant idea about championing "rights" that were never to be such for homosexuals at all. . .”
----------------------

Good! Now, you’re starting to understand. Opponents are couching this the wrong way with discussions of “sin”, “marriage is about procreation”, right-and-wrong, ad nauseaum.

This is about gays demanding special rights. As I have stated in previous posts, and echoed by BrianR in this thread (somewhere), homosexuals ALREADY have the EXACT same “rights” to marry as heterosexuals.

Homosexual men have the EXACT SAME rights as heterosexual men to marry women. And homosexual women have the EXACT SAME rights as a heterosexual woman to marry men.

Counter the bogus Civil Rights arguments on these grounds and abandon all the holier-than-thou rhetoric and bogus slippery-slope-to-toasters arguments and you might actually get somewhere OTHER THAN shouting contests.

Everyone seems to be...
...missing the point.

Tub thumpers on both sides of this issue (or any other issue in life that stirs up controversy) do their tub thumping in order to convince everyone else they are right--especially themselves. If they didn't have doubts about their positions, they wouldn't be projecting their doubts outward onto everyone else and then trying to answer those doubts (or drown them out).

Given that we have three brains (R-Complex, Limbic System and Cerebrum) and that two of these brains can have either of two sexual orientation (the R-Complex and the Limbic System can be either male or female), sexual identity is considerably more complicated than most people realize. Add to this the greatly increased presence of estrogen mimics in our environment since the beginning of the 20th Century at least (if not the Industrial Revolution), as well as the growth of the feminist movement with its misguided belief that woman=good, man=evil, and it's no wonder we have a mess to deal with.

More on this shortly at my blog, phoenix-rising.townhall.com (click on my nickname above).

cmoore, re: your response tp my post
Unfortunately, you resorted to the very tactics to which I referred in the opening to my post: ad hominem attacks. You ascribed things to my post which weren't there.

I was very specific in what I wrote, and chose my words very carefully. Nowhere did I refer to "toasters" or "children". When I described what people do in the privacy of their homes, I referred to consenting adults.

I did include "pets" because there was some dingdong who wanted to marry her cat. Why should she be denied her right, using the logic of the same-sex marriage activists?

I will not be dismissive of your arguments, as long as you return the same courtesy. I think people familiar with my posts would agree that I respond to people on the same level at which they address me.

apples and oranges
I think the main reason why this issue is so divisive is that conservatives and liberals have there focuses on completely different aspects.

Conservatives want the SANTIFICATION of marriage legislated. Obviously, same-sex marriages can't be sanctified in a Biblical sense. However, that's a church issue and the last I read, government wasn't supposed to interfere in church matters.

Liberals tend to focus on the many, many SECULAR aspects of marriage -- joint financial, property, power-of-attorney rights, etc. Since these matters do not involve creating and raising children, there should be equal access to these benefits for both same-sex and heterosexual couples.

The best solution is to create some separation of the religious and secular aspects of marriage and allow some form of legal domestic partnership that will facilitate the joining of property, finances, etc. for couples that wish to do that. Unfortunately, many conservatives are fanatical about even denying someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. This kind of thing is the gaybashing that same-sex marriage advocates may perceive from the same-sex marriage opponents.

GoodOnPaper
I don't quite agree with the opening of your post. It's not an issue of sanctification, at least to me. I view it as a redefinition of a millenia-long social and cultural standard.

However, I've always agreed with your proposal for an alternate legal status, such as "civil union" or whatnot.

Further, I've always felt the issue of being "denied rights" was a straw man, as partners can define rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, asset sharing, etc., through simple contractual arrangements.

Mrs.V, RE: And the gem shatters . . .

----------------------
”. . . How can one embracing sin make them see their wrong clearly? . . .”
----------------------

”One’s sin is another’s virtue” and, “Sin, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder”.

(Some) Catholics believe that using birth control, of any type, is a sin. Protestants, by and large, do not. Heck, (some) Christians believe that ANY sex, even with a spouse, for any reason OTHER THAN making babies is a sin. [Better not canoodle with your spouse UNLESS you’re trying to conceive!!] (Some) Southern Baptists believe that consuming alcohol and dancing are sins. I’ve never met a United Methodist or Lutheran that did. (Some) Christians and Jews believe that ANY labor on the Sabbath is a sin. Others, of course, do not.

Christians cannot even agree on what is “sin” and what is not. Heck, there’s even debate and disagreement within the SAME denominations of what is and is not “sin”.

So, tell me, whose definitions of sins do we enforce with the Law?

I’d rather follow the “advice” of Jefferson and default to a non-religious definition of Right and Wrong (as it pertains to LAW), something that is more universal and inclusive. In short, peaceable conduct -- that is, any consenting behavior that DOES NOT interfere with the Equal Rights of others -- should NEVER be interfered with by Law. That’s called Freedom.

----------------------
”. . . CMoore, I believe you summed it up quite nicely for those of us looking to see the opinion of those who oppose society and married life God's way, to use your words:

"’The will and good interest of the people” be damned!’

”Which was exactly my point on you all..”
----------------------

Oppose society!? ROTFLMAO! Still hafta misrepresent my sentiments, huh?

You really don’t get it, do you? The Will of the People is not, thank goodness, Law. If it was, the law would be a meaningless haze of shifting popular opinion and whim.

Tell me, if the Will of the People was that women shall only exist for men’s pleasure, would you bow so cowed to that Will?

And the “good interest” of the people? Since when have the “people” ever had any “good interest” that was not in their own best interests? And, I’m sure you’re aware of the saying about the Road to Hell...

If, in the “good interest of the people”, the majority decided that a flat income tax of 75% should be levied upon ALL laborers in order to “more fairly” distribute income and end poverty would you meekly fork over your earnings to the interest of the will of the people?

divorce and sexual restraint
It seems universally accepted that divorce -- not homosexuality -- is really the number one threat to marriage. Why don't conservatives push to outlaw divorce?

I think the answer is this -- any divorce-related laws would affect everyone, even the religious, neo-conservative people who are trying to "defend marriage". That's inconvenient. It's more convenient to find scapegoats that are completely outside this community -- gays and lesbians fit this description perfectly.

A comment on the "sexual restraint" called for in this article: I read more and more about how rampant the Washington intern sex scene is among conservatives and liberals alike. Reg Henry's suggestion that unmarried interns working for pro-abstinence politicians should sign celibacy agreements seems to be very appropriate.

BrianR stated:
"I view it as a redefinition of a millenia-long social and cultural standard."

and? in a relativistic society, definitions are meaningless. words and the meaning of words become subject to the individual.

to borrow an idea from Chesterton; that we believe that marriage is between one man and woman at 3 o clock is no reason to believe it at 4.

fine idea, but what is your basis? yourself?

BrianR
I apologize. I evidently poorly worded my response in an effort to be clever. There was no ad hominem attack intended. Nor was I suggesting that you did mention kids or toasters.

Rather, I was attempting to point out the "problem", albeit obviously poorly, with any concerns about non-consenting partnerships. I included the kids and toasters because they are examples used by OTHERS in other threads of the non-consenting partnerships and colorfully describe the non-consent partnership argument.

As the epithet "homophobe" is intellectually lazy, so to, I contend, is falling into the non-consenting partnership slippery slope. Just because someone HAS asked for it does not suggest that we WILL concede it. Consent, I believe, will remain a sticking point. (At least, I certainly hope so!) And, as such, any arguments revolving around non-consenting partnerships are non sequiturs.

Gunny G
Gunny G said this:
"I love hunting and shooting but you don't see me and those like me trying to shove our lifestyle down other people's throats."

Here is fuzzy logic.
No one is 'shoving' their lifestyle 'down your throat'. They want to get married. Has no effect on you. Unless you can explain how two homosexuals getting married directly affects your life.
I dont agree with hunting and shooting and I dont like you shoving it down my throat. Oh wait, you hunting and shooting doesnt affect me in anyway whatsoever, so I dont care that you do so. Homophobe. plain and simple.

Acquiesce?
Freeman, I didn't acquiesce to anything. I formed a conclusion based on my understanding of the opinions put forward by others of differing viewpoints. My own observations impacted the view I expressed. I also factored in my own experience in dealing with homosexuals, (one in my family, who I feel great affection for), and in my professional life.


I spent thirty years involved in the delivery of mental and behavioral health services in a major Eastern city, and its suburbs. I was employed by a major teaching hospital, by the City, a university, the Veterans Administration, and various non-profit organizations.


At one time I mandated attendance of a small population of patients within our system who exhibited absolutely no response to treatment efforts. These people were enrolled in a substance abuse treatment facility that employed methadone as one approach to addressing heroin addiction.


Because methadone is an addicting drug itself, it is controversial. I think that it has its place, but can not be applied to every patient. If it can not be demonstrated that a maintenance daily dosage results in the elimination of heroin use, then methadone is not a feasable tool.


The patients I mandated to attend group sessions twice weekly were homosexuals. More specifically, they were cross dressing, flamboyant male prostitutes who were noted for their penchant for robbing their tricks at knife point. Several of them were at early stages of sex change operations, and all were receiving injections to increase the size of their breasts.


They were also abusing a variety of drugs, not only heroin but cocaine, methamphetamine and valium, that was available on the illicit market. Needless to say the first month of these mandatory appearances consisted of attacks on my character, lack of human compassion, and motivation for their forced attendance. Oh! There was one other thing tossed my way. I must have been secretely homosexual to show so much interest in them. I noticed that same lame, overused allegation here in response to this artcle. I guess you could call it a homosexual talking point.


I readily admitted that coercion accurately described what was happening, because I had arranged for methadone to be denied these individuals until after attending the group. If they came in at clinic closing time the medication would be released, but two such occurances would result in disciplinary detoxification and terminatiion from treatment.


After the usual BS we finally got down to business. I was interested by one common thread to the histories shared. They described knowing that they were "different" from a very early age. At least two had been homosexually molested at age eight, by a family member or the live in boyfriend of the mother. An identical experience was expressed to me by my cousin, who was also molested at eight years of age. That just may be coincidence, but I find it interesting.


My cousin shared this with me many years after the groups I refer to. He was just a little kid when I left our neighborhood to join the military. Even then there was whispering in the family that he acted like a little "sissy". That term was used at the time to suggest a person was homosexual. My cousin was attending to my mother when she died. He made sure she received the medication prescribed, and helped any way he could. His involvement made it possible for me to work a second job.


We had only one conversation on the subject. He initiated the conversation. He told me that he always knew that there was something "wrong" with him. (His word). He too described being molested, interestingly at age eight, by a family member. He didn't say who, and I didn't ask. He said that after that experience he knew what was wrong with him. He became actively homosexual, but told me that he was no longer engaging in homosexual activity, and never would again.


I make these comments because I consider Freeman's assertion that I acquiesced to anything inaccurate. I am a Christian. I attend an Evangelical church. I also understand that many in my church believe that homosexuality is chosen by people as a sinful way of life. I disagree. As I said, it doesn't make sense. As to t my conclusion leading some Christians to suggest that I do not sufficiently adhere to the Scriptures, I say, the final determination of that is God's business, not theirs.

Mrs.V, Re: I’m Rolling on the Floor . .

-----------------------------
“CMoore oh please..Don't misquote me..change my questions or misquote them then add your version of some revisionist history to make your point.”
-----------------------------

How can I misquote when I copied and pasted?


-----------------------------
”And your definition of fringe is missing the element to which I was rferring.

There is much more of an implicationt o the word fringe than simply a 'minority'.”
-----------------------------

You mean “unpopular”? If you don’t mean “minority” and “unpopular” then (a) you chose the wrong word or (b) you failed to clearly define YOUR intended meaning.

-----------------------------
”I don't need history lessons from you, or anyone, versed in faulty logic and twisted revisions, trying to push in on this board and me.”
-----------------------------

ROTFLMAO!

Faulty logic? Twisted revisions? Tell me, where’s the faulty logic or twisted revisions of history in my posts?

Are you suggesting that the revolutionaries were NOT the minority? Or that the architects of our Republic did NOT abhor democracy as an option? Are you accusing me of making up those quotes that I presented?



Oh wait, nevermind. You’ve taken your ball and gone home...

Another thought...
...why must heterophobes destroy existing institutions? Why don't the heterophobes begin their own institution instead of forcing entry into one that excludes them and give it their own "gay" name, like Rainbow Cohabitation? Because it's not about marriage, it's about forcing right minded people to accept abhorent, deviant behavior.

CMoore, about the slippery slope argument, Sharon Tendler married a dolphin, Cindy.

Quote:
So, tell me, whose definitions of sins do we enforce with the Law?

The same group that was used for 175 years, the majority in each state.

Our nation was founded on the principle that whether legislation was religious or secular in basis, it had to be desired by the majority through their representative form of government and limited by their State Constitution. Thus, until 1833, we had State Religions and hundreds of laws across the states that were based of whaterver the majority held in common from their personal belief system. We still have some states with "cohabitation with the intent to commit fornication," I believe, but regardless the majority was to decide. We have over 2,000 faiths and denominations so it has to be something held in common by a lot of different people to pass it.

However, there is also the secualar aspect of cost and risk to a society of any behavior that society decides it doesn't want, as long as it follows the guidelines for legislation. Singapore, a nation that brags on its secular government, "bans gay sex, defining it as "an act of gross indecency" punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. There have been few prosecutions, however."

Like most things done in secrecy, there is seldom prosecution but the standard is set and that is how a society lets people coming into that society know what is and isn't expected of them.

That is why most states had laws against other sexual things including adultery, incest, polygamy, beastiality or anything outside the bond of marriage.

However, whether something is or isn't religious depends on the State Constitution and how it's freedom of religion and other protection of rights were covered. The Court may be moving back toward the State's rights as they did before about 1950 and if they do, then State Constitutions are going to play a much bigger role. All 50 state Constitutions have God in them and when the nation had the U.S. Constitution written and ratified, all but R.I. had State Religions as I recall. The majority in each state did away with the tax supported state religions by 1833, as I mentioned, but it was the "we the people" not Courts that did away with them.

As Jefferson stated,
Quote:
"Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government. It must then rest with the States...."

As the Supreme Court Chief Justice MARSHALL state in Barron v. Baltimore, the people, had they wanted the rights that were covered by the U.S. Constitution against federal power, wanted those identical points made for their State, they could have done it in the State Constitution. Marshall stated that since they didn't, the Supreme Court had no right to impose the limits set for the Federal government on State powers.

That view held until a slow "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights began close to 1900 but still with no real impact until about 1925 and even then the 1st Amendement wasn't incorporated significantly until the 50's. So, while all the debate about "sin" or "rights," goes on, it will all rest on whether or not this Supreme Court decides to go back to the premise of State Rights in religion being the governing body for the relationship with issues the majority desires that also touches on religious beleifs.

We can talk about fair, equal rights, sin or anything else and it won't matter because we have morphed into a society where we let Court decide what "we the people" meant when we wrote our State and U.S. Constitutions. Recently Sen. Kennedy says he was fooled by Roberts and Alito and that they are going to be "conservative" in their rulings. He didn't use that word but did indicate their rulings wouldn't serve the liberal goals.

Let's say he is right. Do we want a Supreme Court that is going to change the meaning of the Constitution everytime we have a new majority on the Court, or do we want to keep the "original intent" where "we the people" make the changes we desire to the Constitutin of our our State, and our nation?

why even legally recognize marriage?
Reading these comments, I've started to wonder about the point of having a legal definition of marriage. Why not just eliminate the concept from our legal system and relegate it to the religious sector? Liberals are fighting constantly about the wall of separation between church and state, so why are they so adament to make this Holy state available for everybody. It makes more sense to eliminate it.
Without a legal definition of marriage, anyone can marry anyone he wishes. A couple would simply have to repeat their vows before whatever passes for a cleric in their version of reality. One of the arguments against same sex marriage is the extra burden it would place on the health care system, as homosexuals are more prone to a variety of diseases resulting from their chosen lifestyle. Elimination of marriage in the legal sense would solve this problem by making everybody responsible for himself.
The divorce rate problem would be solved as well, as without legal marriage, there is no need for a divorce. When a couple tire of each other's company, they simply go their separate ways, although any children resulting from the union would have to be provide for.
A legal, state sanctioned state of matrimony is a leftover relic of the days gone by when a woman was dependent on a man to take care of her, first her father as she grew, then her husband as an adult. With women being an integral part of the workforce now, they are more than able to take care of themselves and no longer need anyone to take care of them.
Some form of legislation would of course be necessary for those who chose to shirk their responsibility to their children. A man who fathers a child is, I believe, as responsible for that child as its mother is, and neither parent should be allowed to leave the child in the lurch.
As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe that God created us man and woman, and the man is to leave his parents and join with his wife, and what God brings together, let no man part. I don't need a big brother government to define marriage for me. I know my responsibility, and I would choose to stay with my wife and children and care for them to the best of my ability regardless of whether I was legally married or not.
Where I live, in Germany, the marriage in the Church is not legally recognized. A couple who wish to marry must first marry before the equivalent of a justice of the peace, before saying their vows in the church, in front of the parish. Because of this system, many couples forego the church ceremonie and marry only in the "Standesamt". My belief is, however, that the church ceremonie is the more important.
One commenter wrote that he doesn't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. I do care, I must say. Because I love my neighbor, it causes me grief to know that people are choosing to act in ways that will deny them salvation. I can't do anything about it, of course, except pray, everybody does have the right to choose his or her own lifestyle, but don't expect me to approve.

scooternyc:
Look up the definition of "disagree" and "hate." You will note that they are not synonyms.

The underlying issue is revealed
"everybody does have the right to choose his or her own lifestyle, but don't expect me to approve."

Well well well, arent we high and mighty....approving and disapproving of what others do. My my, God must be busy to be delegating his responsibilities to mere mortals.


meatsanwchv or meathead ?
You ask how homosexual marriage affects others. You obviously haven't thought that through, foolish logic on your part.

Right Fighters
Dr Phil calls this type of fighting 'right fighting', where one is no longer listening but is more interested in being right than being happy. Christians aren't interested in minding their own business and gay folks are tired of having to suck up the mental abuse heaped on them. We gay folk are American citizens too and that should mean something. For your enjoyment here are my demographics: 46 white, female, in 24 year monogomus relationship with a 48 year old white female..both of us college educated and both of us army veterans before don't ask don't tell...both of us molested by white males..her father and my first boss...homeowners and business owners doing the 'job americans won't do' [cleaning houses]. incidently, we live in nc because virginia has such laws that we cannot go to a lawyer and contractually protect ourselves. i'm trying to help elderly parents from 3 hours away. i'm sure i'm such a threat to society that i'm going to bring about moral decay. i've had a bible thrown at me for pete's sake. even if you believe being gay is a sin, why are you freaking out about a small percentage of the population when there are bigger and 'worse' problems to deal with. i heard a great line on the radio today, 'a hypocritical christian is worse than an honest liar.' perhaps the moderate christians, who i clean houses for, and moderate muslims can't be heard over the vocal members of their religions.

BV
Re your post of 4:11 PM.

Your assumption is based on the idea that ours is a relativistic society, and in that light makes sense.

However, I disagree with your basic premise; there are constants in our society, some bedrock principles. The most obvious, of course, being the Constitution itself. There are also societal standards that are considered definitive; that's why the idea of same-sex marriage faces such opposition.

Of course, if you're a proponent of a "living" Constitution, then you'll disagree with that statement, too.

I found your statement "in a relativistic society, definitions are meaningless. words and the meaning of words become subject to the individual" also to be quite interesting. That seems to me to be a very nihilistic and solipsistic point of view.

I can't subscribe to it.

cmoore
Well, I have to agree with your position regarding non-consenting adults. Adulthood and valid consent are always prerequisites, in my opinion. So we're on the same page there.

If you ban smoking in subways...
No one will be able to get to work. The taxi services will be overrun. It will ruin life for the rest of us.

Homosexual marriage will have an unnoticable effect on anyone's life.
At least no more than any of the heterosexual disasters currently 'sanctified' under god.
If you can honestly sit there and say a homosexual marriage is worse for 'you and I' than Susy White trash with 2 divorces and 4 kids in welfare, the STDs and another bun in the oven, then the 'fuzzy logic' rests on your side of the fence. Because there are far more of those situations than there are gays wanting to marry. Gay marriage can also help reduce abortions and broken homes by out of control heteros by increasing adoption to loving environments.
It doesnt make any sense to whine about gays marrying when there is a much larger and worse problem amongst the hetero marriages.

meatsanwich re:
Your post to Gunny.

You claim Gunny's (and my) shooting habit is being shoved down your throat; it's not. It's a defining feature of our society, as outlined in the Bill of Rights.

The way in which gay marriage can be considered a throat-shoving is in the sense that it redefines one of the major and basic tenets of our society. That's a change of seismic proportions.

You're all gay, and you know it!
*If you're in a homosexual relationship, you're gay.
*If you disagree with homosexuals, you're gay.
*If you talk about or to homosexuals, you're gay, in a latent sort of way.
*If you say that you just disagree with homosexuals but don't hate them, you're a homophobe. And you're gay.
*If it rains on Thursday (or any other day), you're gay.
*If it doesn't rain, you guessed it. You're gay.

Now that we're all gay, can we just say that we are policing ourselves and that for some strange reason, most of us homosexuals have decided to limit marriage to the mythical heterosexuals?

Cynewulf
ROTFLMAO!

You are right
Robin sounds like you could use a hug.

A free society
In a free society, no group can impose their will onto the larger society without all the people, or the representative of the people, making sure the will of the larger society is upheld and protected. All sides can state their arguments pro and con on the issue. Then, the people decide what they feel is best for our society. However, when a group from within our society attempt to impose their will on the larger society by intimidation and deceit, it harms everyone. It introduces the "bully" into the public debate. It attempts to run roughshod over the larger society and impose their small issue onto everyone whether they agree or disagree. They don't care for society, they only care for the advancement of their narrow political cause. All this drama over gay marriage, in my mind, appears to be masking something other than that single issue. Once gays change the definition of marriage, what is next on their agenda? I do support the concept of domestic partnerships. I do not support changing the definition of marriage. I know that society will accept a reasonable compromise. However, gays have invested in having the definition of marriage changed and they will accept no compromise. When gays protest, so much, over the issue of gay marriage it causes me to wonder if the issue of gay marriage is viewed by gay political activist as the first stage of a larger cultural battlefield. Changing the foundation all societies are based, the joining of a man and a woman for the purpose of producing new members of a society, will have, hidden, intended consequences that the gay activist, I believe, require to proceed to their next stage. And, unintended consequences, which society cannot risk.

BrianR
"You claim Gunny's (and my) shooting habit is being shoved down your throat; it's not. It's a defining feature of our society, as outlined in the Bill of Rights."

Your shooting habit is a defining feature of our society? wow.

The two examples you have given as 'basic tenets' shed light on exactly what century you live in. The right to bear arms as a 'tenet' was intended to prevent military oppression from government. Well, those times have changed. We dont all NEED guns to protect us from our own government.
Marriage laws, as defined in the 1780s! have changed as well. Same thing goes for rights for women, minorities, ect ect ect infintium.
Things change. They always do. The arguments for exclusion, for whatever group, are always, always, incomplete and/or faulty.
And things are never as bad (in fact, almost always better) as they were predicted to be by those attempting to exclude. Read up. Thank you.

I have a question....
....why do qu@@rs want to marry? Isn't marriage a religious rite? They continually call Christians hypocrites, and yet they want entry into an institution that condemns their behavior.

What religion recognizes h0m0s or accepts their practice?

Robin, quoting "Dr. Phil" doesn't garner credibility.

GAY DIVORCE SO SOON

GAY DIVORCE
BOSTON (AP) — The lesbian couple whose lawsuit led to legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have announced they have separated. “Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart,” Mary Breslauer, a longtime gay rights activist, said July 20 on their behalf. Breslauer declined comment on how long they had been separated or whether they would divorce. The Goodridges were among seven gay couples whose lawsuit led the state’s Supreme Judicial Court to rule 4–3 in November 2003 that gay couples had a right under the state constitution to wed. The Goodridges were married May 17, 2004, the first day same-sex marriages became legal under the court ruling, by a Unitarian Universalist minister. A recent Boston Globe survey showed that of more than 8,000 gay couples married as of May, only 45 had filed for divorce.

Proving once again that homosexuals are no different than anybody else, Massachusetts' first same-sex marriage has fallen to pieces after less than 18 months.
"Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart," Mary Breslauer, a local political consultant.
It was the Goodridges' successful suit against the Massachusetts Department of Health that won gays the right to marry in the commonwealth.


Gay marriage is not the cure for heterosexual marriages problems.

And the gem shatters . . .HUH!?
CMoore

Get a GRIP MAN you go on and on and ON..about a supposed point..made by a MISQUOTE of MINE (You CMoore misquoting me)..which you post as a quote-that ISN'T..calling it a "GEM" and applying all sorts of twisting of my words and non logic TO it.. and then raving on in an ADDITIONAL post about:

"The gem shatters"..

What on EARTH are you talking about MAN?

You must have a very fertile imagination to salt a pepper and baste and sautee' a topic I have not spoken in a quite a few minutes..

Save your drama for the local little theatre, your "irony" and, supposedly, pithy replies are LOST ON ME..

And I ought to know..since I am the one you are misquoting..

I am the one you continue to misquote and whose words you continue to chop up, twist, mangle and contort into some heady brew solely of your imagination!

Take your mind's imaginings and your going off on weird furtive tangets that have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ANYTHING I HAVE SAID OR MEANT, and bring them to a place which have meaning in then discussion.

Otherwise, you bear no fruit (no pun) that can be taken seriously, when you run roughshod like a crazy turkey across a message board boasting about some point I never made, which is supposed to endorse or support an idea I never even conveyed to you, but which you twisted and joined to madness from the early parts of this discussion.

Take your shattered 'gems' and your false premises based on poor logic and faulty points and gain the sound mind of God, or at least a sembelence of such, before you walk about connecting people's words to your posts that have entirely nothing to do with the points you are attempting to make.

Please crazy gay man, or what/whoever you are, stop harassing me today..

Suzy white trash
George Michael, who is scheduled to marry his boyfriend Kenny Goss this year, is embroiled in a new sex scandal. The London tabloids are having a field day because Michael was allegedly caught in the fields with his pants down. Despite damning pictures, right now, Goss is still standing by his man.

As for Cynewulf
As for Cynewulf..

Seeing that the laws of the land keep fluctuating lately..only/mainly..and we no longer have living children of our own, I propose that we adopt you..

Your most recent posts were so hysterically engaging, and actually made me smile amongst some stressful and confusing others, I am sure the lawmakers these days will find that ample footing to base a case upon making you our daughther or son..

Everyone else, all the best, schools out for summer..


It still boils down to the majority in any society have the right to choose what that society's standards are. We limited our majority but, it is still majority rule. We have 50 societies and within those societies are sub-societies. The main society accepts or rejects the rights of the sub-society to do things differently. For example, in the Amish Communities, many things are rejected by them that are accepted by the main society, and they in turn do things that are done by the main society, but they are "tolerated" under the protection afforded them in the State's Constitution on religous freedom. Yet, a religious group isn't protected if they actually break a law the majority wants enforced, such as say a ban on religious sacrifice of animals or some unhealthy demand on members that could risk their life.

If any minority is looking for fairness, a majority rule society isn't going to be fair to everyone. There has never been one, and never will be one. Societies are formed and maintained by the majority. In our Constitution, it takes a super-majority, in fact, to change it, not a Court or a minority if we adhere to founding principles.

Marriage is religious???
Jimmy Carter asks: Isn't marriage a religious rite?

Uhhh, no. Not necessarily ... in THIS country.

I've been married twice -- once by a JP; once by a mayor. The laws affecting both marriages -- and the spousal rights of each party -- had nothing to do with religion either.

I'm not gay (which doesn't matter) -- but religious people should butt out of the purely civil aspects of marriage (or civil unions).

Once upon a time, conservatives understood and defended the ninth and tenth amendments to the constitution. Inconvenient rights?


BrianR stated:
"However, I disagree with your basic premise; there are constants in our society, some bedrock principles. The most obvious, of course, being the Constitution itself. There are also societal standards that are considered definitive; that's why the idea of same-sex marriage faces such opposition."

-the American society has rejected, philosophically, these bedrock principles. nothing is set in stone save the indiviual itself. individual autonomy is the name of our game, and if a perspective from the right or left violates one's autonomy, then it is condemned.

"Of course, if you're a proponent of a "living" Constitution, then you'll disagree with that statement, too."

-i am not a proponent of the living constitution. it is self-evident that the writers who wrote the constitution had specific idea in mind while writing this document. to throw away their opinion and explanation is foolish, which of course, the living proponents do.

"I found your statement "in a relativistic society, definitions are meaningless. words and the meaning of words become subject to the individual" also to be quite interesting. That seems to me to be a very nihilistic and solipsistic point of view."

-this is exactly the point. nihilism and solipsisticism are the RESULTS of man's own autonomy. autonomy is the root issue.

that you can't subscribe to this worldview shows that you have a basis for your beliefs other than yourself. the problem is that America, philosophically, DOES subscribe to the worldview of autonomy of the individual.

gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc are all symptoms of the problem of individual autonomy.

meatsanwch
Aaaah. Now we've defined the root of the problem.

You wrote: "We dont all NEED guns to protect us from our own government."

This is a clear indication of the philosophical difference. I couldn't disagree with your quoted statement more. What do you think is the one right that guarantees all the others? It's the Second. The armed populace is the final guarantor of government's accountability to the people.

You, on the other hand, evidently believe there is no longer any danger from repressive government. Therefore, to you, the standards upon which this country was based -- things like "Marriage laws, as defined in the 1780s" -- are no longer relevant.

That's a huge difference between us. I believe the norms and standards of a society define that society. And this is a case, I believe, where one should be very careful of what they wish for.

Historically, many of the great societies of the past disintegrated once they reached a certain point at which standards and morals had collapsed; and weakness, indulgence and decadence had set in. Examples: Greece, Rome, Egypt. We're seeing it right this moment in Europe.

The danger to those espousing a sea change for American mores is that once this happens, a cascade effect (engineering term) can set in, and the outcome is uncertain. It could very well lead to a simple devolution into anarchy. But this is also the melieu into which Hitler rose to power, in the chaos that was post-WW1 Germany.

Generally, though, I think it would be safe to say that the odds of such an event leading to a society even MORE benign than the one extant in the US are small.

That's a very key factor activists of all stripes should keep in mind. You may not like the end result of your activism.

If the foundations are destroyed…
“When a culture despises the moral foundations that make it great, such contempt will ultimately steal its greatness.” –Kevin McCullough

Mr. McCullough, we were hoping that this statement would provoke some good discussion. It’s difficult to get folks to think about the questions of authority and epistemology. We want to measure our opinion against the other. If our opinion is based on our own thinking or someone else’s thinking, then how do we know that it can be trusted? Some of us want to isolate the Constitution from its heritage. What is left when the Constitution is read in a secular context?

Consider the statement from the prophet Jeremiah. “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” The depravity of autonomous man knows no limit. That should give us pause to at least consider what we believe and why.

You are right that there are those who would throw away our heritage. They live at enmity with their Creator, and will not submit to His authority. Marriage was instituted by the God of the Bible as a covenant relationship for the good of men. God uses the institution of marriage in the New Testament to illustrate the holy union between Christ and His church.

Our culture has already weakened the marriage relationship by allowing easy divorce. Now it wants to redefine marriage in an effort to try to legitimize sexual perversion.

That holy institution which was instituted by our Creator is now made a mockery. We debate the definition of marriage and whether sexual perversion is sin. The Bible is clear that sin is a transgression of the Law, and the Law says, “Do not commit adultery.” So the fulfillment of the Law is to commit yourself to your spouse, recognizing that expressions of our sexuality is confined to the marriage relationship.

The modern man says there is no God. We can have sex with who or what we want. That may be what you think, but your authority is corrupt and will not stand because it is based on the opinion of men rather than the revelation of the Creator.

Our government already sanctions that which the Bible calls sin in the abortion of our most defenseless citizens. To legitimize what the Bible calls an abomination will move us further under the wrath of God, revealed from heaven against all those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Repent and believe the gospel before the foundations are destroyed.

Jimmy Carter
Hey, bro, I was wondering where you were.

Anyway, you know why same-sex marriage is being pushed, so I know you were posting a rhetorical question.

It's because, like every other victim group (or three-year-old child) they're testing their boundaries. Trying to make the grown-ups give in.

MrsV
You no longer have living children of your own?

I am SO sorry. As a parent, I can't even imagine the depths of THAT anguish.

Please accept my sympathy and condolences.

Brian

BV, I beg to disagree.
You wrote: "the American society has rejected, philosophically, these bedrock principles"

Really? What is that broad and all-encompassing statement based on? Is that your opinion, wishful thinking, or what?

If that has, indeed, happened it's certainly BIG news to me.

It seems we agree on the irrelevance of the idea of a "living Constitution".

I think this is key. You wrote: "this is exactly the point. nihilism and solipsisticism are the RESULTS of man's own autonomy. autonomy is the root issue". Yes, you're right, but don't you see? That's EXACTLY the reason why viable societies need a reliable bedrock set of standards that are "good". Man tends toward the nihilistic if not solipsistic nature; I think it's inherent in our limbic. That's the whole point of civilizing societal standards. To protect man and society from its baser instincts.

You and I have both seen, on this one thread, people railing emotionally against homosexuals. What keeps them, or others, from grabbing a bat and going out "qu__r bashing"? The fact that we have a social contract that doesn't countenance that behavior. But that very same social contract works two ways. The activists are consciously, CONSCIOUSLY, trying to change the social contract. Well, when they do that, they're playing Russian Roulette.

Don't ever forget that the whole idea of civilization, social contracts, societal norms, and everything else all fell into place to replace or placate the nature of humans -- which is a predatory herd animal.




BrianR....
...I was at the southern border hired as a coyote to help bring some gay aliens across....coming soon to a town near you...

Well, how interesting (oops...
... sorry, hit the Return key too soon).

In my last post I used the words "qu__r bashing" in a condemnatory fashion.

The post was blocked for inappropriate use of language.

Evidently, the word "qu--r" is in the Townhall censors automated and brain-dead frickin system.

Though evidently the word "frickin" isn't.

How qu__r that is.

Hmm.......

Hey Jimmy
You said "coming soon to a town near you"?

Too late, bro. I live in LA County.

The future is NOW!!!!!!

Thank you Brian
Thank you BrianK.

Kindness and good humor are just so lacking out there today..

Not to mention speaking, let alone living, the goals of Godliness and purity of heart..or at least as a thing to strive for..

We appreciate your words.

I mean BrianR
My bad, thank you BrianR.

Yes, we lost our baby just 2 weeks ago to the day.

We sent a prayer need to the McCullough show, he must have had something pressing..

But would appreciate any prayers or kind thoughts you can send up for our loss.

Nice to see a smidgen of deceny here..

That is the stuff of true gallentry..said in a most platonic way..

Hey, Frankenfisher
Hey, Frankenfisher, I'm waiting for you lefies to come forward with proof that the reason for the downfall of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was that they defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Trying to limit marriage as being between a man and woman as a religious position is simply a red herring.


celtic-dragon....
...about your tripe.

"....respect ALL beliefs..."

The problem begins when people like you who do not know how to earn or refuse to earn respect simply demand it.

Do you respect the beliefs of pedophiles?

People like you, with your lack of a moral compass, also infect our judicial system with a rufusal to condemn immoral acts while on a jury.

It's people like you who do disrespectful acts and don't understand why they are direspected and then scream for respect. It's learned and earned.

To Jimmy Carter
It is the disgusting and despicable comparisons that people like you make by equating Gay, Lesbian and Trans people with criminal predators that make me glad that we have a Second Amendment, as I said before. Hateful bigots such as yourself only encourage others to complete the logical conclusion of your opinions. I have no intention of being another casualty and I will not go away for your convenience.

MrsV
Please. Don't even mention it.

I would think that everyone, regardless of our politics, feels the same.

I know that's the one thought/dread that keeps me awake at night. I'm always humbled in the presence of one who's lost a child.

And thank you for your grace in taking the time to put forward your kind words on my posts. You have no idea how much that means to me.

Brian

It's not hate...
...it's disrespect. I have no esteem or regard for deviants who dabble in abhorrent behavior.

Dear Jimmy
If your disrespect is really so profound, then you better not travel by air, especially United Airlines. I wouldn't want you to depend on my competancy or proffesionalism as a structural aircraft technician. You might not want to go to the grocery store either, or the video store. There might be too many people there that you would have to disrespect. Like I said, I'm not going away for your convenience...

My sincerest condolences
to MrsV. I am so very sorry for your loss. I cannot imagine the magnitude of what you are going through and I pray that God will bring you the solace that only He can. God be with you.

AnneMarie Dickey

To All
Before I begin - To Mrs V
My prayers go to you for your loss.

________________________________________________________________________

I have read almost every post to this topic here tonight and I have to admit I am saddened by most of what I have read. Why? Because both sides are, for the most part, hateful. (Again, not all, but most) Marriage is a beautiful institution between two people who love each other and are committed to each other.

I will admit, I am a 32y/o gay man in a loving and committed relationship. What I most want to do is marry my partner. Now I am not looking to redefine marriage. However, I would like the legal protection that it affords to heterosexual couples extended to me and my partner. Now, I will concede that marriage, as defined by religious views, is between a man and a woman. The problem arises from the fact that our forefathers did make a mistake when providing the legal protections that they used the same term. I am looking for equality under the law, not religion.

At one point, the 'gay agenda', as it was put, was pushing for 'domestic partnerships'. This would have afforded gay couples the same legal protections, but with term other than marriage. But this was shot down in some states with more right'ist views, outlawing 'domestic partnerships'. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that all I would have to do is have legal documents drawn up to do the same thing and all would be equal. Unfortunately, not quite true. Some states do not allow that because under the types of laws mentioned earlier in this paragraph. If the document mentions the term "life partner" basically makes it null and void. So thats not equal. Also, the cost of applying for a marriage license and having a Justice of the Peace is cheaper that hiring lawyers to draw up all the necessary legal documents that come automatically to married couples. Again, not equal.

If the religious part is taken totally out of the equation, then there is segregation and right are afforded to some and not to others. We have the separation between church and state and while we can't totally remove the church from the state, the laws tempered must take into account those that aren't of the same religion. I agree that the separation doesn't mean an absence, but rather freedom from government advocation one religion over another. And furthermore, freedom from government advocation religion over non-religion. I beleive in God. I do not beleive I will go to h3ll because I am gay simply because I live by God's Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated.

I treat others with respect and I wish to be treated with respect. I can tell you I didn't choose to be gay. I didn't choose to live a life of ridicule. But I can tell you I wouldn't change who I am. I am a caring guy, love my partner, honest, decent, and hard working. I go to work everyday. Pay my taxes. And honor America and all Americans who came before me. I love my country. I chase the American Dream, tho the person by my side is a man and not a woman. I know this idea scared a lot of people right now, but think back, so did having an African-American be treated equally to a white person and having women vote. These ideas were also considered to be radical in their time, but looking back, we ask ourselves, what was the big deal about?

With that, I will step off my soapbox and listen in again. I welcome responses, but please do not attack me personally. I did not attack anyone and love an honest, open debate about this.

StPeteGuy73...
...the state has a vested interest in marriage in order perpetuate society, hence the privileges afforded the union of one man and one woman in Holy matrimony.

While you are redefining marriage as "...two people...", why did you stop at just two? Why did you stop at just people?

Where is animalgirl?

Mrs. V,
Just wanted to echo the condolences of the others. I can't imagine going through that. May God hold you in the palm of His hand.

To St PeteGuy
I aknowledge that my advocacy may have been overwrought. In my own defenbse, I can only say that my wife has been harrased in her workplace on several occasions because she has remained married to me. I have been physically threatened at least once and have felt compelled to keep a loaded firearm (actually, an honest-to-badness Tommy gun) in my home, which kind of creeps me out. As you probably know, violence against Gay, Lesbian and Trans people continues unabated. Trans women, often teenagers living on the street and surviving through prostitution, are murdered on average once a week. Nobody cares. Some of the posts earlier were on the border of actually advocating such violence and I did let my anger show. I wonder how some of the people espousing these views would react if they were exposed to their own vitriol. I wonder were Christ would be continuing His ministry and showing His love if He were here now. For my part, If my remarks were intemperate or inappropriate, then I apologize. I'm still not going away, though...

Hate has reached a what?
Celtic-dragon wrote, "The Hate Has Reached A Fever Pitch." Hate? Feverpitch? What words do you have left to describe something when the hate really has reached a feverpitch?

Uh, Pearlgirl
Hmm. Don't be subtle, by all means. Just say what you mean lol. Sheesh!

Jimmy Carter, re your post
You responded to StPeteGuy73 and his post of "the state has a vested interest in marriage in order perpetuate society, hence the privileges afforded the union of one man and one woman in Holy matrimony", but -- sorry friend -- failed to address the core of that phrase.

I will do it directly. StPete, you're absolutely right. No doubt. No question.

And rightfully so, because that's how WE define our society.

That's simply the way it is. It REALLY is that simple.

If you don't like it, and you think there's some other society more amenable to your predilections, feel free to relocate.

Jeez! Let's just cut to the chase.


Jimmy Carter Sir...
You have used the quote "...the state has a vested interest in marriage in order perpetuate society, hence the privileges afforded the union of one man and one woman in Holy matrimony" a few times, that again brings religion back into this, which should not be considered when tempering a law. Also, since when has marriage been the catalyst for procreation? I do beleive that procreation is going to happen whether a couple is married or not. All you have to do is look at the birthing rate and then look at the ratios of married and unmarried couples to see that.

Also, please stick to reality. I am being serious and grounded. I say marriage is between two people who love each other and wish to show that committment outwardly to the world as this was the way my mom, my family, and everyone else I came in contact with as a child and young adult described marriage long before this debate ever started and long before I came out to my family, so no, I am not redifining it. Its has only been recently when those that are afraid of change have started saying it is between one man and one woman. Marriage is between two loving, consenting adults, beit man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman.

"Why, Daddy, why?"
This whole thing may be a subject for a future essay on my blog. Jeez, Louise!

It reminds me of when my little girl was 3 or 4.

"Nikki, don't touch that".

"Why, Daddy, why?"

"Because you might break it."

"I'll be careful, Daddy."

"No, please don't touch it."

"Why, Daddy, why?"

"Because it's very delicate, and it might break."

"I know, Daddy. I won't break it."

"Yes, I know you don't mean to, but accidents happen. Please don't touch it."

"Why, Daddy, why?"

"If you break it, I can't replace it. Then what happens?"

"But I won't break it, Daddy!"

"I know you won't mean to, but accidents happen."

"I won't break it, Daddy. I promise."

"No, Nikki. I'm sorry."

Wails: "But WHY NOT?"

"Because I said so! I'm the parent, and you're the kid!"

StPete
See my post, which evidently was in-process while you were writing.

This is, in fact, a republic. But that doesn't mean that the majority's standards don't still rule.

Democracy: Three foxes and a chicken deciding on what's for dinner.

Republic: The fox representatives and the chicken representatives for the whole farm debate the issue.

Got it?

Jimmy,
"It's not hate...
...it's disrespect." I'm sorry to be the one who has to break this to you, but I looked in my Lefty Dictionary and:

argue - v. to hate
challenge - v. to hate
complain - v. to hate
contend - v. to hate
disabuse - v. to hate
disagree - v. to hate
disapprove - v. to hate
dispute - v. to hate
disrespect - v. to hate
dissent - v. to hate
object - v. to hate
oppose - v. to hate
quarrel - v. to hate
reprove - v. to hate

As you can see, by your own admission, you are, in fact, a hatefilled homophobe. Sorry.

Thank you so much, gentlemen..
Well..thank you very much for your kind words once more BrianR and to celtic-dragon and StPeteGuy73

Despite all my comments, as one who has had much of my life spent in the Arts community, I have had a fairly large exposure to gay men and people..as friends, and even close love dones in the family. Some still living, some saved, some now in Heaven..

I don't have a lot more to say about this.

I appreciate the kind words of you three and clearly these illustrate the point that whatever a person's background or persuasion, we are all people who want love and are made in the very image of God, however much we do or do not feel that is true..

We did lose our children. And my cousin we lost too, to HIVAIDS, years ago, as I said above.

I wish I had him back as I miss him too.

He had a lot of fine qualities as a man and a human being, and I saw him as so much more than just a label, "homosexual". He was a beautiful soul and an amazing person..And I have no doubt that, though he was saved in a coma, he is with God today.

Probably a lot would change if commenters saw each other face to face and heard the stories.

It still won't change our Christian/conservative stance on these things, time has taught us this is right somehow.

I suppose, ironically, celtic-dragon said it best for the sentiments of most here, though I do not think he or she was meaning to.

"Your rights stop where my family begins AND THAT MEANS YOU.."

Yes, it still does hurt about those losses. Thank you so much, gentlemen, for your kindnesses.

God bless and keep you all.

My Comments
I posted them. Never showed up. Guess they didn't meet with the approval of some homosexual censor at Townhall....

Cynewulf
Cynewulf thanks very much. Funny how a discussion can go. I had no idea that would come out (no pun, again), as a topic, about our losses.

Well, anyway, thanks again everyone. Night..

Someone here at Townhall
didn't like my original post it seems. It disappeared. lol

StPet73
You wrote: "Its has only been recently when those that are afraid of change have started saying it is between one man and one woman. Marriage is between two loving, consenting adults, beit man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman" man/man/man, man/woman/transgendered, brother/sister, mom/son/daugheter, woman/cat/dolphin, father/daughter, ....

Well, I could kind of go on forever with the permutations.

Which, of course, highlights (using your own words as a starting point) the fallacy of your position.

Further, your claim that "it has only been recently" is absurd. One man and one woman in heterosexual liaiason to form a married couple has been the basis for the family unit in civilized society for millennia.

Pleeeeease.

StPeteGuy,
"Its has only been recently when those that are afraid of change have started saying it is between one man and one woman."

It has only been recently when the definition of marriage has had to be spelled out.

You would have it that the definition of marriage has always had room for two grooms and that society has just had to catch up to the definition.

That doesn't begin to make any sense. Why would a society that couldn't even conceive of two grooms marrying each other construct a definition that would allow for that possibility?

Your problem seems to be that you're using the toddler definition of marriage taught to you by your mother and applying it to adults.

You can look at marriage from all kinds of angles (historical, political, religious), but focused in the center are always going to be the bride and the groom.

If you think it's time for that to change, fine. That's your right, and you can start making the arguments. But don't pretend that the definition of "dog" has always included cats and it's just now that people are saying that cats should be excluded from the definition of "dog."

StPeteGuy73....
....of course religion is brought up in this discussion, if you don't swear fidelity to your spouse before God, then you're just living together. Marriage has a specific definition.

I never stated that marriage was the catalyst for procreating.

Why do you people want to join a Holy institution if you don't want to be judge by its members?

StPete
Caught my own error in argument (you wrote "two consenting adults"), so let me correct:

brother/brother, father/daughter, sister/sister (a terrible TV show), grandmother/granddaughter, mom/son, mom/daughter, brother/sister, ....

Okay, corrected that.

My work is done here!

Cynewulf
Yes!

Excellent!

Cynewulf...
....Logic = Gay.

Y'know, defenders of traditional ...
... marriage, a thought just occurred to me that is not yet fully formed, and I'll think further on it.

But those who propose redefining the tradition of marriage constantly say that there was no historical governmental definition of the institution.

However, if you think back a bit, that requirement wasn't really necessary. The English model upon which our own society was based actually goes back to the Henrys who were always squawking about how the -- and here's the key phrase -- church-dominated legal mandates were keeping them back from being with the babes they loved.

The key element being that they acknowledged that there were traditions and social mores by which they had to abide. And they were kings! So, even though the Magna Carta didn't clearly say that "one man, one woman" or whatever, it didn't have to, because that was simply the given upon which our society and social contract was based.

Yeah, I like it. I have to think about it and polish it, but I think I'm onto something here.

Jimmy Carter
Marriage is a religious institution, but is also an institution of the STATE. You know, the government, The Man etc. If you wanted marriage to remain strictly the provenance of the church, then people should have rejected the benefits-and controls!-that secular government oversight brought to the institution. It is a couple hundred years too late to cling to some notion that Christians get the final say on who gets married. Then again, maybe you would support the Judge in Virginia who ruled to support the states ban on interracial marriages in 1967, prior to the ACTIVIST SUPREME COURT striking the law down. The Judge in Virginia opined that Black and White people where kept separate by God and had no inherent right to marry (at least, not each other). Sounds kinda familiar. Bigotry is as bigotry does...

To Townhall:
Y'all need to stop with the Big Brother censoring thing. I mean, when you have Mike Adams write a column making fun of people complaining about the use of the word "n*ggardly" and the posters responding to it aren't allowed by Townhall to use the word "n*ggardly," it's a bit more than ironic. It's a problem that needs to be fixed. Then on this thread we have someone not being able to use the word "qu**r." This despite the primary definition for the word being "differing from what is usual; odd; singular; strange." And then we have a post that disappears altogether. It needs to stop.

celtic dragon
Your claim that "Christians get the final say on who gets married" is simply absurd.

Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, ancient Roman pagans, ancient Greeks, all have had the same standard.

Marriage = one man + one woman.

Where did you get your idea that it was a Christian concept?

celtic-dragon....
....you're a horse's a$$. Not a single reference to race in this whole thread.

Also, I have stated that it is also a state institution. The state profits with procreation and so it encourages it. It has no interest in pervs.

To Brian R
I didn't espouse any such notion that Christians had primacy on the institution of marriage. They have been doing that quite well on their own. Also, I wouldn't go claiming that Roman and Greek societies were champions of Hetero marriage!lol! You really might want to reconsider that...

Hey, Handy!
How dare you interrupt a good argument with some cold logic?

Just who in the heck do you think you are?

Actually, I liked what you wrote (obviously) and I'll have to give it some thought.

I don't think it really addresses the base issue of societal standards, unless it really is the only and true motivation of those pushing for same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's truly the case, otherwise they'd be happy with the "civil union" compromise.

I think they really, truly, and consciously are out to try to redefine our culture. That's the real prolem.

For the last couple of years, I've been saying that we are actually in the midst of the Second Civil War; fortunately, this one's been bloodless, at least to this point.

Handy
Although I cannot support your entire premise, it was truly a pleasure reading an articulate and well reasoned argument that relied on logic, law and historical precedant. Bravo!

celtic
No, I don't want to reconsider my statement that Roman and Greek cultures used the current standard of marriage as their own. That's simply historical fact. They did not allow marriages other than between men and women.

Actually, Brian R
I do think that civil union would be a reasonable compromise, except for all the States that rushed out to specifically ban any such possibility. Some States have gone so far as to refuse recognition of wills that designate a non familial adult of the same gender, power of attorney, adoption (even if out of state. Oklahomas law was struck down because it gave the State the power to confiscate children from a "gay" person who was traveling through the state!). When states aggressively attack a group based upon RELIGIOUS principles, it's hard not to take it personally. If you are reading this, Jimmy Carter, your comparison of me to a pedophile kinda set the tone for our exchanges. If you want to tone it down, then stop with vile epthets. Until then, you sound like any other bigot-racsist to me. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

celtic-dragon...
...I did not compare you to a pedophile. You stated that all beliefs should be respected so I used pedophile as just one example of someone's views whose should not be.

There's a difference between race and sexual preferences. Race is not a voluntary action. I judge actions.

Well, celtic
It seems we're exactly on the same page. I think this whole issue revolves around one word: "marriage".

So, we simply, as you imply, split the baby. I don't have any problem with that. As to the jurisdictions that have passed some kind of law or ordinance: I don't think they'll survive challenge in a civil proceeding. People are allowed to enter into any kind of contract they wish, as long as it doesn't violate criminal/penal codes.

I don't even, in all honesty, consider this a compromise. I think it's an accommodation, and is in accord with civil codes, in most if not all jurisdictions. I certainly feel it would put this whole sideshow issue to rest, assuming the zealots on both sides sign on. It's a perfect example of realpolitik.

On a personal note, Jimmy Carter is actually a pretty cool guy, and very reasonable. I have a lot of respect for his opinions.