In response to:

Beyond the Supreme Court: A Guide to Settling Gay Marriage

anderson659 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:20 AM
Intellectually fraudulent leftists equate homosexual marriage to interracial marriage before Loving vs. Virginia. Ask yourself this, Loving was about innate qualities, specifically race. Has anyone ever seen any former white people around that are now black? There are literally thousands of former homosexuals and heterosexuals, sexual orientation seems to be fluid, the other variable is bi-sexuals. People change sexual orientation all of the time, people can not change race no matter how hard they try. Beware the foolish and intellectually fraudulent homosexual activist argument about homosexuality being innate. The purpose of same sex marriage according to same sex activists was to take marriage and "Wreck it "
David3036 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:54 AM
Anderson, if a gay person wants to participage in the institution of marriage, why would he want to WRECK it?
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 9:14 AM
Homos already HAVE -equal- right to marriage;
they can marry another person of the opposite sex the same as any other person.
That IS the definition of "marriage";man-woman,it's been that way for several thousand years.

This is all about the REDEFINITION of "marriage" to be something it's never been,and thus FORCING other states to recognize the abomination via Article IV,sec 1.
Homos are seeking SPECIAL rights and the reordering of US society to suit their agenda and mental illness.
mistermilo Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 10:32 AM
Jay Wye--
Wyes comment. It is an understandable effort by homosexuals to be accepted as "normal". It s guilt, either because those involved know that it is not normal or they care very much how "normal" people feel about them.

Simply put , their relationships are not normal. Never were, never will be, but they keep trying to make it so.

Many Americans are willing to accept homosexual unions, but the LGBT community insist that heterosexual communities accept them as normal.

How can you be "normal" if you are noticeably different??? Why do try so hard to be accepted as "normal"? Why isn't having your lifestyle accepted not good enough for you??

Live in peace. If you need "normal" acceptance, move to a society that grants it.
OBAMA-DRAMA Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:27 AM
Homosexuality... is innate... and occurs among humanity.. wherever and whenever carefully measured at 3%... not 10, 20, 30%.
anderson659 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:42 AM
Really?

Homosexuality is a species killer, birth defects happen too...
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:56 AM
Homosexuality has been around as long as the bible. yet somehow the species has survived and flourished.

Just as many heterosexuals will never have children, homosexuals will have few children but there is no danger to the species because a small % do not reproduce.

It is not like ALL of us are going to turn gay. I certainly do not plan on turning gay and if two women get married it will not hurt my marriage of 25 years to my wife.
Miss_Construed Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:57 AM
Death is a reality.

Death holds no prejudice regarding sexuality.

Anderson, you will bite the dust one day. Your righteousness will not save you.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 9:13 AM
homosexuality is a mental illness. It explains why long-married men turn homo,it explains how homos can get better and return to normality.It explains Ellen DeGeneres statement that she was normal until another girl converted her to homosexuality. It explains the high rate of suicides of homos. It explains the unhealthy,destructive behavior of homos,even in the face of serious diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
Homosexuals weren't removed from the mental illness list by scientific breakthrough, they weren’t cured, the Gaystapo simply forced a vote on the APA.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to tackle two gay marriage issues, those of us looking for some sweeping overall conclusions on the issue should temper our expectations.

The cases to be examined by the high court involve some specifics-- the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the range of benefits the federal government should grant in states choosing to recognize gay unions.

Both will necessarily involve some examination of what role the federal government should play in matters of gay marriage, but neither is likely to settle the biggest questions:

What is the proper...