Legalizing gay marriage wouldn’t affect traditional marriage

There are no good arguments for denying homosexuals the right to a civil (non-religious) marriage. But of all the arguments that opponents make, perhaps the most ridiculous is this: If gays are allowed to marry, heterosexual marriage will be weakened.

How, exactly, does that work?

Despite the utter illogic of the argument, a nationally-known, so-called expert on marriage — David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values — testified in California’s Supreme Court yesterday in a case challenging a law that prohibits same-sex marriage.

Opponents of same-sex marriage in California rolled out their star witness Tuesday, an author and advocate who predicted that allowing gays and lesbians to wed would discourage heterosexual marriage and might lead to legalized polygamy.

Extending marital rights to couples who cannot conceive children would change marriage from “a child-based public institution to an adult-centered private institution” and “weaken the role of marriage generally in society,” David Blankenhorn testified at a trial in San Francisco federal court on the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Blankenhorn, the trial’s last scheduled witness, said he believes “leading scholars” share his view that same-sex marriage would weaken heterosexuals’ respect for the institution and accelerate a half-century-old trend of increased cohabitation and rising divorce rates.

But under cross-examination by a lawyer for two same-sex couples, Blankenhorn was unable to cite any supporting statements or evidence for that conclusion from the scholars he relied on for his testimony, though he said he was sure some of them would agree with him.

Though I’m divorced, I’m a fan of the institution of marriage because of the benefits it delivers to those in good ones, including better health and financial security. However, I know perfectly well why marriage has been under pressure in the Western world for decades — reasons that have nothing to do with gay and lesbian couples.

For most of human history, marriage has been an institution that resolves economic problems and property rights — conferring economic benefits to a wife and property heirs to the husband. (And please don’t tell me that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If the Bible story is literally true, who did Cain marry?) As any student of ancient history — or the Old Testament — knows perfectly well, the traditional marriage didn’t involve one woman. It involved as many as the man could afford to take care of.

Down through the ages, marriage has evolved as society has evolved. In the Western world, where women can control their reproduction and work at jobs that give them financial security, it has evolved into an institution that couples rely on for mutual support and fulfillment. That’s a high bar, which helps explain why roughly half of marriages end in divorce.

That will not change when gays and lesbians are allowed to marry. They should have that right under the law. No church that opposes gay marriage would be forced to perform one, but churches that do perform gay marriages, like mine, should do so and have them recognized. (Marriage is a civil rite as well as a religious one. Couples get married everyday at courthouses and city halls around the country.)

768 comments Add your comment

Rick

June 18th, 2010
7:47 am

This is one of the times that I fully agree with you Cynthia!

Mrs. W.

June 18th, 2010
7:53 am

I believe laws should change as times and public opinion changes. Nothing remains the same. I am pro-life but I realize it is none of my business if you choose to have an abortion. Gay marriage doesn’t affect me and it doesn’t affect you. Butt out. This post is on honor of my much loved, gay niece – perhaps her being gay and me loving her and realizing that this was not a “choice” on her part has changed my perspective – I don’t know

Rightwing Troll

June 18th, 2010
7:55 am

Marriage is a quaint and outdated concept.

My advice to young men is shack and make babies if you must, because once it’s over, your assets will be better protected, and you will have the SAME exact rights to your children as if you had been married… next to none.

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
7:55 am

Prop 8 The Musical

I look forward to being one of cousin Jane’s groomsmen!

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
8:00 am

This is the problem: If we allow gays to marry, you know some siblings from Arkansas are going to come out and want to get married too. Some people in Utah are going to claim discrimination for not being able to marry more than 1 wife. It’s going to be like opening Pandora’s box that probably should stay closed.

felix

June 18th, 2010
8:14 am

Problem is CT, the gay mafia wants it to be religious. Notice how there is absolutely no cry for civil unions, which would give homosexual couples all the legal and financial benefits of a normal couple. No, they want to attack the institute of marriage and destroy it, as well you know.

cake

June 18th, 2010
8:15 am

Legalizing slavery wouldn’t affect traditionally freed blacks either, now would it?

Peachtree St.

June 18th, 2010
8:16 am

If you open this window where does it end? What do you say to the freaks that want to marry their cars, their trees, their pets?

Joel Edge

June 18th, 2010
8:17 am

This is never going to end. I say ban marriage entirely. Make it a legal contract. Negotiated by lawyers. Then we can all be equally miserable. Maybe then CT and the gay groups will shut the h@#l up.

Tave

June 18th, 2010
8:22 am

Mrs. W,

And which public opinion do you speak of? Even in the bluest of blue states, such as California and Massachusetts, gay marriage is shot down on the ballots time and time again. Fact is, public opinion hasn’t changed one bit. But the Marxist goons in our corrupt media like CT can’t come to grasp with these realities and refuse to admit they are in the VERY slim minority on this issue.

A Lumpkin Resident

June 18th, 2010
8:23 am

No, legalizing gay marriage WILL affect traditional marriage. What it would do is destroy the definition of marriage. If a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, can marry, then why not a woman and two men or a man and two women? If you can’t define marriage as between one man and one woman, what legal basis do you have for maintaining the 1:1 ratio?

If you cannot define marriage as between a man and a woman, then why can you put artificial limits (like a 1:1 ratio) on it? What about one man and three women? There are plenty of cultures and religions around the world that find this perfectly acceptable. How could polygamy be outlawed 100 years ago in the LDS religion and gay marriage be allowed now?

NOW, you see that our law, based on a 1:1 ratio, will change drastically. Everything from Healthcare to SS benefits WILL be affected.

Drawing Black Lines

June 18th, 2010
8:24 am

I actually agree with you on this one CT

gale

June 18th, 2010
8:25 am

The plain fact is, a civil union is not the same as marriage because that is not nationally recognized. This is not a religious matter. Gay couples find many churches willing to marry them with full religious ceremony. The problem is the 1100+ rights and responsibilities that are recognized in our legal system because of centuries of court decisions related to the relationship and contract of marriage. Civil unions are not the same and would need to revisit all those decisions. “Separate but equal” is never equal.

another lie

June 18th, 2010
8:25 am

Even that “evil” George Bush and Dick Cheney have long been cheerleaders of civil unions. As it was said above. If this was truly a fight for equal rights then gays would be all over the civil union bandwagon. But no, this is an assault on anything that the radical left deems traditional and sacred. This is why gay marriage will never be accepted.

Eric

June 18th, 2010
8:25 am

Right on! Straight people are still free to marry regardless. It seems to me, if more people (gay and straight) participate, it would strengthen marriage. Isn’t faithfulness, commitment, and monogamy what marriage is all about? Great article.

joan

June 18th, 2010
8:30 am

I gather that before the Bible all kinds of incestuous things went on, like old men on boys in Greece and Rome, and mothers with their sons, and all sorts of things. I believe the teachings in the Bible sort of codified what was right and wrong, and the world was probably better for it. But since Obama just opened the public’s pocket to gay unions, I couldn’t care less if people in perverted relationships thrive, so long as they don’t do it under my nose.

gale

June 18th, 2010
8:31 am

I don’t see an open door. What is so hard about defining marriage as a contract between two consenting adults? Note: Consenting adult is defined as a human of legal age defined in the laws of the state who is competent to form a contractual agreement. There are also laws in most if not all states forbidding marriage between siblings.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with polygamy, though I see a lot of problems with inheritance and property rights in such a relationship.

Sighko Sis

June 18th, 2010
8:34 am

Right on, Cynthia. There are no valid reasons for denying civil marriage to gays and lesbians. Those who say that this would open the door to other unconventional marriage arrangements are blowing smoke. You don’t have to be a genius to see that the reasons given for denying marriage rights to gays (all invalid), are nothing like the reasons for denying marriage to blood relations or multiple partners. If the reasons given for denying those types of marriages are also found to be invalid it will have nothing to do with gay marriage. And can we stop with the stupid posts suggesting that the next thing is marrying outside of our species? Oh, wait. Perhaps they want this arrangement because they are jackasses and would like to marry humans.

greg

June 18th, 2010
8:36 am

@ctucker,

It must suck knowing that the majority of blacks and hispanics do not agree with Democrats on any social matter. Once they begin to start thinking for themselves and doing their own homework, the veils will be lifted and the Democrat party with cease to exist.

Cynthia is Sexy!!

June 18th, 2010
8:38 am

Well if the gay marriage thing gets past it will be mayhem.

I predict we will then have Mother/son marriages, Grandpa/granddaughter marriages, dog and cat marriages, Men/animal marriages etc and of course then NAMBLA will wont to get into the action…where does it stop.

Mid-South Philosopher

June 18th, 2010
8:41 am

Good morning, Miss Cynthia,

As a son of the first half of the 20th Century, I am not in favor of same sex marriage. It is a prejudice that is a product of my raising and my values. It may be petty, but it is how I feel.

However, I do favor the legal concept of civil union.

All of that being said, it is clear to me that under Section 1 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, the issue of marriage, which is a state matter, is nationalized to the extent that “full faith and credit” to those marriages of gays in states that recognize such unions must be given by states (like Georgia) who do not. At some point in time, the “Big Nine”, aka the Supreme Court, are going to have to point this out.

I may not like it, but the Constitution is the Constitution.

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
8:41 am

“There are also laws in most if not all states forbidding marriage between siblings.”

Correct. But if gay marriage is allowed, what’s to stop 2 siblings from challenging these laws and say they are unconstitutional?

THE TRUTH

June 18th, 2010
8:41 am

If you people think our courts are maxed out now, just imagine how it would be if this disgusting perversion were ever legalized. Just look at the some of the same sex cases now that are in the courts. It’s madness. Especially the ones that involve the real victims of this sickness, the children. It’s bad enough if you want to marry someone of your same sex, but to traumatize innocent children with your sickness is criminal. But again, look at the cases now that are in the news. There is no way for the courts to decide who gets the children, and some of the defenses for these people are crazy. “Well I was gay, then I become straight again, then I thought I was gay again but now I’m really straight.” This is the very definition of Pandora’s Box. Luckily the overwhelming majority of Americans are sane and will never support this.

gale

June 18th, 2010
8:41 am

I am going to be waiting eagerly for the CA court decision on this case. If there is a narrow, CA only, decision, it will be a legal nudge. If the court decides more broadly, the decision could effect all states that have enacted such bans.

tam

June 18th, 2010
8:42 am

GAY IS NOT THE WAY! GAY IS NOT THE WAY!

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
8:42 am

I find it quite amazing that conservatives are all against goverment intervention and are worried about freedoms and individual liberty, but when it comes to gay marriage, they want all the government intervention in the world.

Joe Mustich

June 18th, 2010
8:45 am

Kudos to Cynthia Tucker.

As a justice of the peace, I perform non-religious and civil marriages for opposite-sex and same-sex couples all the time in Connecticut. Just last week a great couple flew up from Atlanta to be wed because Georgia doesn’t allowed same-sex couple to wed just yet. It’s time Georgia. It’s time America.

Onward to equality and fairness in marriage rights in 21st century America,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington, Connecticut, USA.

And kudos to CT, most of New England, Iowa, DC, many EU countries, and many other cities and countries around the world for supporting marriage in the 21st century.

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
8:46 am

Legalized incest———post #5
Legalized zoophilia—–post #8

Going off the rails on schedule and at the usual places.

Union

June 18th, 2010
8:47 am

thought you had to consummate a marriage for it to be a marriage.. definition of consummation? look it up… so we would need to change that law as well. other than that.. this discussion is irrelevant.. majority of americans oppose gay marriage.. as is their right.. doesnt matter their reasons.. and you have no right to question that

gale

June 18th, 2010
8:49 am

“But if gay marriage is allowed, what’s to stop 2 siblings from challenging these laws and say they are unconstitutional?”

Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. 2 siblings can challenge the marriage law now. Polygamists can challenge the law now. Persons who wish to marry minors may challenge the law now. Each of these cases are currently illegal in most states. Gays and lesbians are simply the largest group wanting to marry. The only difference is that gays are only forbidden to marry because of gender. They are otherwise able to form this contract, just not with someone of the same gender.

Joel

June 18th, 2010
8:51 am

If you would quit defining them as gay or straight, then you would realize a man has the right to marry a woman and visa versa. Everyone has the same rights!

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
8:53 am

Didn’t know consummation was a legal term

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
8:54 am

Mid-South has hit the proverbial nail on the head. Eventually, this will be decided by the SCOTUS, and I think even the most conservative of justices will view this as a 14th Amendment (”equal protection”) issue and either same sex couples will be permitted to marry, or all heterosexual marriages will be disolved as unconstitutional in favor of some sort of civil union or domestic partnership. Americans have always and will continue be permitted to “marry” before the god of their choice (just as some gay couples have done). At it’s core this is a very clear legal (14th Amendment) issue. And for all the conservatives who yammer about “no mention of healthcare” in the Constitution, please direct us all to the Article or Amendment which specifically addresses “marriage” (and heterosexuality/homosexuality, for that matter).

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
8:54 am

Gale, the point is homosexuality, incest, polygamy, etc. is not normal. If gays are allowed to marry, the courts will be flooded with incest cases, polygamy cases, etc. etc. I don’t think they are ready to go there.

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
8:57 am

Useless post not contributing anything to the topic @ 8:46 from the usual suspect.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
8:59 am

Cynthia: I wonder why Jesus didn’t mention gay marriage?

Matthew 19:4-6 (New International Version)

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

…………. and I guess your church conveniently ignores other passages you don’t like:

Romans 1:24-27 (New International Version)

“24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

Sam (The Cool 1 )

June 18th, 2010
9:00 am

The Cisco Kid and Poncho would never marry each other. That has got to tell you something.

Union

June 18th, 2010
9:00 am

some .. stupid..
. yes.. they are.. and yes.. it is..

gale

June 18th, 2010
9:00 am

Peadawg, your point is pointless. Those cases still have nothing to do with whether gay marriage is legal or not. Check statistics and you will find most individuals convicted or charged with incest and polygamy are straight males. In fact, if it was legal for siblings to marry, or a marriage to include more than two people, how would that cause more court cases. Those situations would no longer be illegal.

blutto

June 18th, 2010
9:01 am

CYNTHIA: “They should have that right under the law.”

While “legalizing gay marriage wouldn’t affect traditional marriage” can be debated, the inconvenient fact for gay marriage advocates is that California voters have twice decided that marriage requires a man and a woman.

Proposition 22 which stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” was approved by California voters in March of 2000 by a vote of 61%-39%.

From Wiki: “The official citation of Proposition 22, the “California Defense of Marriage Act”, is almost the same as that of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1996. This federal law had a similar purpose, and was intended to prevent any state from being obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another state.”

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision (In re Marriage Cases) struck down Proposition 22 and declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry.

In November of that year, California voters overturned the In re Marriage Cases decision by approving an amendment of the state constitution called Proposition 8. This amendment used precisely the same language as Proposition 22 and was approved by California’s voter by a vote of 52%-48%.

QUESTION FOR CYNTHIA: Why does the left–especially Democrat Party liberals–have such a difficult time accepting the will of the voters as expressed in democratically held free and fair elections?

Gridlock

June 18th, 2010
9:01 am

1) Peadawg, you’re still an idiot.

2) Union, you’re running a close second.

3) THE TRUTH, you actually take the cake.

2) Gay marriage doesn’t affect anybody but the 2 people getting married. It doesn’t open a pandora’s box of anything (see every other country that has legalized gay marriage – no boxes, pandora or otherwise, have opened) That’s reality.

3) Gay marriage doesn’t “traumatize” children, and it most especially does not traumatize the children of gay parents. The only people it seems to traumatize are the narrowminded religious nutjobs who are terrified of anything “different” or “new”, or outside of their particular stunted comfort zone.

4) Civil rights are NOT supposed to be decided by a majority vote. No minority would EVER get rights if it was left to the majority to grant it. Learn your damn history. Read a book that doesn’t start with “Genesis”.

5) MARRIAGE is not an inherently religious term, you need to realize this. The word actually means “the joining of 2 or more pieces”, a blending, osmosis, etc. People getting MARRIED at city hall in a civil ceremony are still MARRIED. No church, mosque, synagog or otherwise has EVER been FORCED to perform any marriage (not just gay ones, they have all sorts of fun restrictions) since gay marriage has become legal in other nations.. their right to refuse any ceremony outside their doctrine has been upheld.

So given all that, what the hell are you nuts so worried about? Did interracial marriage destroy the universe back in the day too? No? This is the same thing. You sound just as stupid as the racists did back in the day.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
9:01 am

Peadawg-

How is homosexuality not normal, it happens in nature(some animals exhibit homosexual behavior. It’s not normal in who’s eyes? I guarantee 2 gay people thing its normal.

Jethro

June 18th, 2010
9:01 am

It’s all pretty silly if you ask me.

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
9:04 am

I have a question to Cynthia and others:

If we allow gays to marry, do you also agree that we should allow incest and polygamy? I think all 3 and wrong and disgusting. But if we allow one, we should allow the others, right?

Gridlock

June 18th, 2010
9:05 am

Oh and Peadawg: gay IS normal. The same percentage of people have been gay throughout history. It’s been around since the dawn of time. Hell, it’s even all over the animal kingdom… animals, that barely have cognitive abilities, who obey their NATURAL instincts.

Of course, now you’ll argue that people are supposed to be better than animals and control their urges based on some 2000 book of fairy tales written by bronze age cavemen in a desert 300 years after their prophet died… but, frankly, that sounds about as silly as anything I can imagine.

ctucker

June 18th, 2010
9:08 am

blutto, the us constitution protects the rights of minorities, no matter what the “will of the voters” may be.

ctucker

June 18th, 2010
9:09 am

Woody Mellor, I think you’re right

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
9:09 am

Gridlock, when you call someone an idiot for not agreeing with you, your opinion means jack sh*t. Have a good day.

ctucker

June 18th, 2010
9:10 am

Joe Mustich, thanks for weighing in.

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
9:11 am

If we allow gays to marry, do you also agree that we should allow incest and polygamy?

No.

I think all 3 and wrong and disgusting.

I don’t give a fat rat’s @ss what you think

But if we allow one, we should allow the others, right?

False comparisons.

Gridlock

June 18th, 2010
9:12 am

Peadawg, when your argument is so flaccid and untenable due to sheer ignorance, nobody cares about your opinion.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
9:12 am

Sam (The Cool 1 );

But he did say “Hey, Ceeeesco – wait for meee” !

itpdude

June 18th, 2010
9:13 am

Marriage has traditionally defined as between a man and a woman. That is the tradition mankind had adhered to for centuries, with or without a religious ceremony. Also, we’ve defined a person with a penis as a man and a person with a vagina as a woman. Many of the same people who want gay marriage are people who instruct others to “question gender.”

It’s a bridge too far.

However, I do think gays should have access to civil unions that legally confer all the same rights as marriage except for the word marriage; a word that is steeped in centuries old tradition. Why not fight for civil unions instead of marriage?

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
9:13 am

Kamchak:
“No.”

Why?

“False comparisons.”

How?

Keep up the good fight!

June 18th, 2010
9:15 am

Ahhh… the slippery slope ….. If you allow homosexuals to get married, FEAR what may happen next. Sounds like, if you allow INTERRACIAL marriage, FEAR…. If you set slaves free FEAR… If we can’t waterboard, FEAR…. If we have healthcare, FEAR…. same old broken record, same old nonjustification. FEAR everything that may change. Its a wonder some of these people get out of bed.

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
9:16 am

“I don’t give a fat rat’s @ss what you think”

Not had your coffee yet? Didn’t sleep well?

The Nerve

June 18th, 2010
9:16 am

I had to go outside and look….yep, pigs are flying. I agree with CT. And it hurts.

HDB

June 18th, 2010
9:18 am

If we suscribe to being a nation of LAWS….then let’s examine these:

1) By LAW, any contract entered into in one state must be recognized in ALL states….
2) Any marriage entered into in one state must be recognized in ALL states
3) By TREATY….any contract entered into in any nation this nation recognizes must be honored….

Article 1, Section IV AND the 14th Amendment (”Equal Protection Clause”) are the issues that make this issue a non-issue. If this is a nation of LAWS, the law should be upheld. Since gay marriage is legal in ONE state (I know, it’s more…but!!), it’s de facto legal in ALL states. All gay people are asking for is the same constitutional protections that marriage affords ANY married couple; that should NOT be a problem!!!

gale

June 18th, 2010
9:19 am

itpdude: see my 8:25. A civil union does not confer the legal weight of marriage. That is why.

Mike

June 18th, 2010
9:20 am

Coming from your liberal pen, this doesn’t surprise me.

Chris

June 18th, 2010
9:20 am

Marriage is something done by Man/Woman couples. Gays should get the same rights, but need their own ceremony and bond. Two men or two women don’t make a marriage. A man and a woman do. Call it garriage or something, but don’t take a sacred ceremony and bond away and change its definition for those who honor it and have lived by it for centuries.

Again, gays deserve the same rights. Don’t get me wrong. Just make up a gay set of sacred traditions and ceremonies. Don’t hijack something sacred and make demands. It wouldn’t make sense to suddenly call the sky a mountain would it? It’s just as senseless to say that two men or two women are married.

Two men = garried
Two women = garried
One man and one woman = married

Now go get your equal rights and benefits.

Joe

June 18th, 2010
9:21 am

That’s your opinion Tucker as the heading of your morning spew states. I don’t want my child growing up in a nation or state for that matter that rewards deviant behavior. Homosexuals cannot conceive and therefore it is unnatural. When you show me two men or two women that can actually have a baby without intervention I will agree with you. Until then I will resoundingly reject the notion that homo marriage would be good for our democracy. The voters have spoken and time after time it has been rejected. If only for unelected activist judges would we even have this travesty forced upon us in 5 states plus D.C.

lourdes

June 18th, 2010
9:22 am

I think the government should reclassify all marriages whether hetero or homo as civil unions. Let’s leave discrimination where it thrives in the pews of organized religion, give unto the self-righteous ownership of the term ‘marriage’ defined by their flawed,bigoted religions.

Chris

June 18th, 2010
9:22 am

I agree 100% with itpdude.

Chris

June 18th, 2010
9:23 am

I agree 100% with Joe too.

Gridlock

June 18th, 2010
9:23 am

“Homosexuals cannot conceive and therefore it is unnatural. ”

Infertile couples can’t either, is that unnatural either? How about the elderly? What if they get married? They’re unable to procreate as well.

Are civil rights to be granted based purely on who can pop out a kid? Stupid.

The Nerve

June 18th, 2010
9:24 am

“Garried”…..that’s funny. Good one.

gale

June 18th, 2010
9:24 am

HDB : “1) By LAW, any contract entered into in one state must be recognized in ALL states…”

Not so in many cases.

whatchu say?

June 18th, 2010
9:25 am

I just read the Eminem is completly for gay marriage stating, “everyone should be equally miserable.” LOL

Robert F. Hmailton

June 18th, 2010
9:25 am

When you review human history and customs, no matter where in the world you look or the millenia, marriage has served one purpose: the orderly transfer of wealth from one generation to the next, or from one group of people to another. It’s certainly not because of procreation: you don’t have to be married to have children. You don’t have to have sex even in order to be married–e.g. marriages between the elderly or the sterile or the physically disabled. No, the validity of marriage is for the ordlerlly transfer of wealth and power. Only.

When viewed this way, denial of marriage based on color, or religion or sexual preference is counter-productive to human experience and need.

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
9:28 am

Why?

Taboos against incest are genetic oriented.
Taboos against polygamy are recent in history, and in my mind along the lines of—one spouse is enough to identify my faults, so why do I wanna hear it from more than one. Maybe this has to do with women being regarded as people and not chattel.

“False comparisons.”

How?

Homosexuality does not equal incest or polygamy—your disgust ain’t got nothing to do with it. I find creamed spinach disgusting, but I would never dream of equating it to human sexuality.

Michael

June 18th, 2010
9:28 am

Gridlock……you’re right on! Very well stated your point and I couldn’t agree more. Thank-you!

Chris

June 18th, 2010
9:28 am

Maybe from now on there should be no term “man” or “woman.” Maybe from now on we can just remove all meaning and definition from everything, stop working and let the government give us what we need to live.

Marcos

June 18th, 2010
9:29 am

The far right has done a great job spewing all sorts of lies about gay marriage. NO CHURCH WOULD EVER BE FORCED TO CONDUCT A GAY MARRIAGE IF THEY DID NOT WANT TO! There are plenty of churches that welcome LGBT people and would love to have them married in their sanctuaries. Just as there are plenty of churches that do not like gay people and would not welcome them. NO LAW can change that. And gay Americans are NOT asking that be done. Also, the notion that brother and sisters could marry or someone could marry their dog is a joke. If you believe that you are terribly ignorant. Gay people marrying will mean NOTHING to the straight community. Those of you who despise gays (as is evidenced by your comments here) have nothing to worry about since you obviously avoid gay people you will not be invited to the wedding or required to send a gift.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
9:29 am

Cynthia:

Since you mentioned your church’s policy, I’ll add this:

1) If you bothered to read my 8:59 post you realize Jesus did not include more than one woman. There are many other passages where he talked about “one man and one woman.” If you will study even more passages it was the “hardness of the hearts” that got them into polygamy. Always against God’s will.

2) The Israelites in the O.T. ignored God’s Word and were constantly falling into idolatry and judgement.

3) Some Christian churches/denominations in the N.T. ignore God’s Word and the fall into apostacy.

4) We were warned of this: “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” II Timothy 4:3

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
9:29 am

Discrimination against gays in this regard stirs echoes of interracial marriage and the bigotry that comes with unacceptance.

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
9:30 am

Anti-gay marriage attorney to Judge: “you don’t have to have evidence!”

Pretty much sums up their whole argument.

AmVet

June 18th, 2010
9:30 am

Homophobia much cons?

You hopelessly and changelessly stuck in the past Republican conservatives corporatists went absolutely crazy when Slick Willie implemented the brilliant DADT. Then you went absolutely crazy over the Uppity Muslim pending repeal of it in favor of a more current mindset.

No worries, modern day McCarthyites. An enlightened American people who view your irrational intolerance and blind hatred for what it is are moving ahead without you and your abysmal and irrelevant Southern Baptist Convention…

TGT

June 18th, 2010
9:31 am

The fact that there would not be significant change in our culture if the definition of marriage is changed is nonsense, and even some supporters of gay marriage have recognized this.

In December of 2005 The Becket Fund, a nonprofit institute dedicated to protecting freedom of religion, held a conference to discuss the legal ramifications of same-sex marriage. Ten of the nation’s top First Amendment scholars, liberal, conservative, and moderate, were brought in to present their views of same-sex marriage and the likely outcomes if it is legalized. As a result of the conference a series of papers was published.

The conference focused on four topics: Can the government force religious institutions to recognize same-sex unions? Can the government withhold benefits, such as tax exemption, from religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex unions? How will freedom of religion arguments fare against legal same-sex marriage? What are the effects on biblical (traditional) marriage?
Mark Stern, general counsel for the liberal leaning American Jewish Congress and a supporter of gay marriage, writes in his paper, “No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable.” According to Peter Steinfels, writing for The New York Times, what Mr. Stern has in mind are “schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.”

If you think this is far reaching, consider what recently happened in Massachusetts, the only U.S. state, at the time, to legally recognize same-sex marriage. Catholic Charities of Boston is one of the nation’s oldest adoption agencies. It recently announced it was getting out of the adoption business. What was the reason? Catholic Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples. With Massachusetts now recognizing same-sex marriage, the charity found itself on the wrong side of the law. With Massachusetts requiring a state license to operate an adoption agency, Catholic Charities was forced to compromise their beliefs or get out of the business. They chose the latter.

George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley, also a supporter of gay marriage, in his Becket paper noted that, “As states accept same-sex marriage and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, conflicts will grow between the government and discriminatory organizations. There will be many religious-based organizations that will refuse to hire individuals who are homosexual or members of a same-sex marriage. If those individuals are holding a state license of marriage or civil union, it will result in a discriminatory act that was not only based on sexual orientation, but a lawful state status.”

Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and an opponent of gay marriage, participated in the Becket conference and wrote, “Were federal equal protection or substantive due process to be construed to require states to license same-sex marriage, those who have profound moral or religious objection to the social affirmation of homosexual conduct would be argued to be the out-liers of civil society.” Therefore, he argues that churches could be targeted for legal penalties and disadvantages as were universities that participated in racial discrimination decades ago.

He adds that, “This is hardly a far-fetched (idea), as apparently one of the main aspirations of the homosexual movement is retaliation against the defenders of traditional marriage.”

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
9:32 am

I AM A COMMUNIST

gale

June 18th, 2010
9:32 am

Enter your comments here

bromack

June 18th, 2010
9:32 am

Yeah…. and after this, now we can legalize polygamy….

VVD

June 18th, 2010
9:32 am

You do realize this is ALL about semantics. Straight people can go to the courthouse to get their “civil union” in front of a judge and guess what? It is called a “marriage.” So gay people can go to the judge and get their “civil union” and there is NO LAW IN THE WORLD that can keep said gay people from calling their “civil union” a “marriage.”

Chuck

June 18th, 2010
9:32 am

Scout

June 18th, 2010
9:33 am

Civil unions by government are ill advised legally.

Gay marriages by churches are blasphemy.

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
9:33 am

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.

Soulfinger

June 18th, 2010
9:33 am

I am just against gay marriage…and homosexuality…period.

BugintheirEar

June 18th, 2010
9:33 am

Since we live in a democratic/republic where we get to vote, why not let the public vote on some of these issues of the day. Let the populace vote on healthcare, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, I will tell you why they won’t healthcare and gay marriage would be voted down and we would have cannabis café’s in every city.

The Cynical White Boy

June 18th, 2010
9:35 am

This is one area where I differ with conservatives. If folks are crazy enough to fall in love, and to marry, let them do so.

As for those dear people who would argue that we are “destroying the institution of marriage….well…

“Straight” people such as myself have already done enough to destroy the instituion of marriage thank you very much.

bromack

June 18th, 2010
9:35 am

Yeah…… and now
after all the shy young boys find out how much of a headache women really are,
they can start going out on dates with…. and perhaps marry their “best buddies,” instead.

Tom

June 18th, 2010
9:36 am

Scout @ 8:59 perfectly summarizes the one and only justification for opposing same-sex marriage: religious wackaloonery.

VVD

June 18th, 2010
9:36 am

Wow Soulfinger.. you’re against homosexuality? Why not be against squirrels? Or Trucks? Or any other tangible thing. Besides… you know what they say about those who hate homosexuals… they hate what they know about themselves and cannot change. So are you gay and just can’t deal with it?

Keep up the good fight!

June 18th, 2010
9:36 am

Scout….. Lest you forget…there is a thing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state. We’re talking about a legal right to marriage and to the legal benefits (and non-benefits) of marriage. Despite the best efforts to confuse church and state, this about equal protection under the law.

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
9:37 am

“one spouse is enough to identify my faults, so why do I wanna hear it from more than one.”

But that’s your opinion. Maybe others want to hear from more than one. You’re discriminating against people who want more than 1 wife/husband.

“Homosexuality does not equal incest or polygamy”

I still don’t see the difference. You didn’t explained why you think they are different…just some stupid nonsense about spinach.

VVD

June 18th, 2010
9:37 am

Bugintheear… so why did we not get to vote on interracial marriage? It was forced on us by the courts.

cjamesatl

June 18th, 2010
9:37 am

Cynthia, thank you for pointing out loud and clear that many people still look erroneously to their churches for historical facts – facts that are twisted to suit their own selfish belief system.

Today, ’straight’ marriage has become an institute of some frivolity – marry, divorce, marry, divorce at will and whenever. To me, a same-sex marriage is a marriage that is long fought for, and is a marriage that is overwhelming wanted between two same-sex people. I equate this with adopting a child. When a child is adopted, I know one thing for sure – that child is a WANTED child, not some child that just happens along the way, just because.

ctucker

June 18th, 2010
9:38 am

Cynical White Boy, Yes, straight people have. As a divorcee, I include myself in that number.

lourdes

June 18th, 2010
9:38 am

We need to ban divorce in order to protect the sanctity of marriage.

bromack

June 18th, 2010
9:38 am

Yeah…. lets do it the democratic way and submit it “all” to a national vote…. marijuana, gay marriage, healthcare..

Won’t happen…. why,

because our national leaders know the american public will be against all of it…thats why all the sleazebags use the court system….

ctucker

June 18th, 2010
9:38 am

BugintheirEar, I’m so glad I didn’t have to depend on a popular vote to end Jim Crow

Charles

June 18th, 2010
9:39 am

Ms. Tucker,

If you read the comments section, I would like thank you for a great editorial. I like that people as yourself are speaking up for us, and I hope to hear more from you in the future!

Charles

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
9:39 am

Scout- For your argue against polygamy

So says Jehovah, the God of Israel, I anointed you (David) king over Israel,
and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul.
And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives
into your bosom…2Sam.12:7-8

Fundamentalists Go Home

June 18th, 2010
9:39 am

Peadawg @8am: maybe YOUR family members from Arkansas want to marry each other, and YOUR family members in UTAH are polygamists, but aside from your own screamingly dysfunctional family, your arguments are stupid and not based on the law. Which, by the way, is the only thing that matters here – the law. And the FACT is, that prohibiting legally consenting non-related adults to marry is a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. End of story. This WILL happen in the United States -it’s only a question of when. And as soon as all the religious zealots crawl back into their stone-aged caves, the rest of us can get on with the 21st century.

TGT

June 18th, 2010
9:40 am

Another myth in this debate: That gays (especially men) are all that interested in being bound by traditional marriage. The homosexual lifestyle in general is notoriously promiscuous. As one supporter of gay marriage has put it: “There are many gays and lesbians who strongly value the right to marry, but few (none, more or less) who think of it as a gay ideal to have relationships that are as close as possible to the traditional hetero myth/ideal. The possibilities for different types of relationships have been common currency in the gay community and gay press for as long as there has been an open gay community.

It is a given in the gay community that one-partner-forever hetero marriages are not necessarily a model for gays, or even a healthy model for straights either. As “sexual outlaws” to begin with, legally denied the stereotypical relationship even when they ask for it, gays are in a position to look across the board and choose more freely. They have had the chance to think carefully about what relationships they most value, and try to find ways to make them work. And in seeking to broaden the accepted legal definition of marriage, not all of them want to stop at the obvious first step – monogamous marriage for gays – but choose instead to take the opportunity to create legally-recognized relationships that fit the various ways in which humans combine.”

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
9:40 am

There are 18,000 married gay couples in California right now; What if there were only 15,000? Would you wingnuts magically notice the difference this made in YOUR marriage?

lmno

June 18th, 2010
9:41 am

Yeah, I agree. Let gay people get married.

I’m really disappointed in the people of California by the way. I thought that they were more progressive than here.

In November the people of California will vote on whether to legalize marijuana. I am anxious to see how they decide.

Liberal Laughter

June 18th, 2010
9:41 am

Marriage was designed and created by GOD. Between a man and a women. Enough said, Ms. Tucker!

Mark

June 18th, 2010
9:41 am

Sorry if this isn’t coherant, I haven’t had my morning coffee, and it was a late night; what with staying up late to plot the downfall of humanity with my other heathen lefties. Seriously, do you people believe the stuff you say? That there is really some huge conspiracy being plotted against the concept of marriage? If you want a conspiracy, go read The Divinci Code or something, but realize it too isn’t true.

As for civil union/marriage discussion. I’ll gladly accept civil union the moment that you accept it for yourselves as well. You can still go get your marriage act performed in church, and frankly, I could careless if a priest, rabbi, or shaman performed mine. Let’s just realize something here, that marriage certificate you received has nothing, let me repeat that, NOTHING to do with your church or religion. It is a civil contract between two people. The fact that you had a priest perform the ceremony doesn’t matter. You could have just as easily had someone at the courthouse do it for you.

The problem is this, as I see it. Long ago, probably centuries before the USA was ever founded, man institutionalized marriage. Meaning both the concept and the word itself moved from the religious realm to the government realm. Like Cynthia said, this was all about heirs, inheritance, and insuring that your wife produced your kids and not someone elses.

All that would need to be done is to change the contract between all parties in the government realm from a marriage certificate to a civil union contract. Then you and yours can go your merry way and have your priest, rabbi, et. al. perform your ceremony, and I’ll go about my way and have mine with family and friends.

And for those with the polygamy and beastiality “arguments” I ask one thing. Really? You aren’t being serious, right? So, because you think somewhere down the line in history, gay marriage may be used agaisnt marriage in general to allow polygamy, etc then a whole group of people generally accepted as including 8-12% of the population should not be allowed to marry with the same rights that straight people have. So, you want to live in fear of this? Or is it really that there just aren’t good arguments against gay marriage so you have to throw the kitchen sink at it. Honestly, when I hear people make those ‘arguments’ I think they are poorly educated and running scared from something they don’t understand.

Starring Kam Fong as Chin Ho

June 18th, 2010
9:41 am

Gay unions affect me in no way. I could not care less one way or the other. But to call them “marriages” offends me and my beliefs. Wow, after 53 years I’ve finally been offended. Maybe I should march on some place or possibly declare a jihad, nah, been done and it looks as stupid when I type it as it does when people do it.

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
9:43 am

I AM A RACIST

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
9:44 am

“And the FACT is, that prohibiting legally consenting non-related adults to marry is a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. End of story”

According to you, then, polygamy and incest should be allowed as well. Thanks for agreeing with me. Those laws should be overturned.

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
9:45 am

GEORGE W BUSH WAS BEHIND 9/11

Sluggo

June 18th, 2010
9:45 am

Enough already with gay marriage. There are a whole lot more pressing problems going on in this country. Those who are not gay are tired of hearing about it.

Kenbud

June 18th, 2010
9:46 am

If people in traditional marriages think they are the end-all, be-all and perfect examples, then what say we of Larry King, Elizabeth Taylor, my uncle (4 times), pick-your-own-closeted-and-married politician, Rush Limbaugh, etc. (I think we could add to this list quite easily, and it doesn’t have to be celebrity names).

My problem is how easy it is to get married. People get married on a whim (Vegas) or in a show-stopping, multi-million extravaganza (we’ve all been there). They get married before they even know each better or have lived together to know habits, past life, etc. It should be tougher to get married. How? I’m not sure, but that fact that a person can be “ordained” online within minutes and “marry” someone. That’s just downright pathetic.

Divorce rates are going sky-high and the fact that many “straight” people still think they own a monopoly on the institute of marriage makes me think it’s all more about the majority scared to lose their grip to a minority.

Women, African-Americans. They have both advanced over the years as a gender and a race. Both have made great strides to improve society as a whole. There are good women. There are “bad” women. There are good African-Americans. There are “bad” African-Americans. There are good homosexuals. There are “bad” homosexuals.

For every “God-fearing, church-going” straight person, I can introduce you to the same, who happens to be homosexual. For every “party animal, go crazy” homosexual, I can introduce you to the same, who happens to be straight. For every “straight suburban couple who just bought a house, leads a quality life, pays taxes and does it right”, I can introduce you to the same couple, who happens to be homosexual.

We are all the same. Straight or gay. I think that is what scares humans the most. To find out we really aren’t all that different. Some people are just discriminated against to make it seems as if they are.

AmVet

June 18th, 2010
9:46 am

Scout, various toy soldiers and Talibaptists.

Take heart, you could always emigrate to Iran, where of course, there are none of those people!

Gwinnett Mom

June 18th, 2010
9:46 am

Queers getting married is unholy and not what God wanted. Thats whats wrong with this country, queers and mexicans.

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
9:47 am

I BELIEVE IN HANDOUTS, ENTITLEMENT, AND THAT PEOPLE DESERVE EVERYTHING – REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO WORK, SAVE, OR MANAGE THEIR MONEY CORRECTLY. THIS IS EQUALITY

Keep up the good fight!

June 18th, 2010
9:48 am

TGT, yeah right…because heterosexuals have never been promiscuous…. there are no recent examples in the news, nothing about heterosexuals claiming “sex addictions”. What next in homophobia?

And of course, to borrow from Steven Colbert, WRBWJD?

DannyX

June 18th, 2010
9:49 am

There are millions of divorces every year but of course Scout wants to blame the downfall of civilization on gays. If you really want to save the world through your Bible you may want to start there.

Divorce is a choice!

Keep up the good fight!

June 18th, 2010
9:49 am

Gwinnett Mom….. Flaunting your ignorance is just so unattractive!

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
9:49 am

still don’t see the difference. You didn’t explained why you think they are different…just some stupid nonsense about spinach.

The only link that you provided between the three was your disgust. Just because three things are disgusting, that does not make them the same. I was hoping that the spinach would illustrate your nonsense.

Lee

June 18th, 2010
9:49 am

Cynthia, you’re divorced? Say it ain’t so!

cy

June 18th, 2010
9:50 am

Cynthia – You’ve actually got a major point wrong in the post and it is central to what is going on in this case. The testimony is in “Federal” court, not the California Supreme Court. Yes, it is taking place in California concerning the Prop 8 ban on gay marriage but it is a Federal Court and that is why it has national implications. Otherwise this is an excellent post on the irrationality and weakness of the arguments of those who oppose equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

Sunshine

June 18th, 2010
9:50 am

Homosexuality is a Sin, Pedriod!. If you don’t believe it is, then you might need to delve a bit into the bible. You can rest assured the Homosexuals can’t and won’t respond to that part of the bible that says it is an abomination to God. The reason they won’t is because they love their Sin and want to continue it. In other words, they have their head in the sand. If we make that legal, then why not make adultry legal, make sodomy legal. Cynthia, you need to get your head out of the sand and wake up and smell the coffee. You seem to know there is such a thing as a bible but apparently are not well versed in it. Maybe you should do a bit more studying and then see if you have the same opinion.

Peadawg

June 18th, 2010
9:51 am

Kamchak @ 9:49 blah blah blah. Still didn’t answer my question. You say marriage should be legal between 2 consenting adults. Then gay marriage, incest, and polygamy should all be allowed according to your logic.

blutto

June 18th, 2010
9:51 am

CYNTHIA: “the us constitution protects the rights of minorities, no matter what the “will of the voters” may be.”

Indeed it does. It also gives Congress the power to enact laws and the President the power to sign or veto them. The Defense of Marriage Act provides for the following:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. California’s Proposition 22 and Proposition 8, also appropriately enacted, are virtually identical to federal law.

In this case liberals are once again asking the courts to assume powers never contemplated by state or federal constitutions in order to overturn the expressed will of the voters, the constitutionally enacted federal and state laws and the executive power to approve or disapprove.

No wonder conservatives are wary of judges/justices who assume that the law just gets in the way of what liberals deem “fair” and “just” and who are willing to arbitrarily change the meaning of state and federal constitutions in order to make “law” that neither voters nor legislatures nor executives approved.

gale

June 18th, 2010
9:52 am

If the restrictions against gay marriage were erased, this would quickly become a non-issue and we could stop discussing it. It would only be an issue to the rabid right who will fight against anyone who does not believe exactly as they do.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
9:52 am

Keep up the good fight! :

They have equal protection …………. if they are male they can marry a woman or vice versa. Or they can choose not to get married. Pretty simple.

They want “extra” in the law.

Darryl Moore

June 18th, 2010
9:53 am

Marriage is the union of a man and woman!!! If a gay/lesbian couple want to be together…more power to them. But they should not be given a marriage license in ANY state.

***Why is it wrong when a Christian, Jew, or Muslim speaks out against this or any other homosexuality topic**

lourdes

June 18th, 2010
9:54 am

Jesus was a gay hippie, he had 12 boyfriends…

Talking snakes happen all the time

June 18th, 2010
9:55 am

I don’t understand the biblical references here. That thing is like a sci-fi fantasy book…..If you really believe it, can you honestly say you believe there was a talking snake?

Really?

Scout

June 18th, 2010
9:55 am

Here’s the bottom line:

If God Himself showed up in front of Cynthia today at the AJC and said “print this” ……….. “I DON’T WANT GAY MARRIAGES OR CIVIL UNIONS. KNOCK IT OFF” …………………

Well, most of you would just continue in your sin ……….. it’s the way man has always been. That’s why so many spouses cheat on each other …………. and that commandment is pretty clear.

So, the choice is always yours. God has provided a way. Reject it or not.

Have to run ………………….

VVD

June 18th, 2010
9:56 am

Who said homosexuality is a sin? Oh right… some mythical God you “Christians” trot out every time you want to bash someone. You have twisted this religion so perversely it does not even resemble its original intent. You have used your religion and your God to start wars, defend slavery, starve the poor and kill off the sick. “Christians” have NO moral high ground and it is hypocritical and disgusting to see so many “God fearing Christians” swill in so much hate. Shame on you all. If your God is real you will be the first he will smite.

RxDawg

June 18th, 2010
9:56 am

This one is kind of a no brainer. A lot of people that lean right will agree with this.

lovelyliz

June 18th, 2010
9:57 am

How can the marriage of a stable, loving homosexual couple be more of a threat to traditional marriage and society in general than my heterosexual cousin’s, well ex-cousin-in-law, 4th marriage before the age of 45?

gale

June 18th, 2010
9:57 am

Sunshine: thin ice. You may want to reread that Bible for the many “sins” you probably commit on a daily basis. Just saying.

Mark

June 18th, 2010
9:57 am

For Sunshine @ 9:50, you are wrong. This homosexual wont respond to what the bible says, not because he can’t, but because the bible doesn’t have a dang thing to do with government and our wonderful constitution which requires separation of church & state. Try reading it sometime.

blutto

June 18th, 2010
9:57 am

HDB: “Any marriage entered into in one state must be recognized in ALL states”

See my post @ 9:51. The federal law (DOMA) says you are incorrect.

Buckhead Writer

June 18th, 2010
9:57 am

The Constitution of the United States of America says we have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if it makes you happy to marry someone of the same sex or your cousin or more than one person, then by God, knock yourself out, I say.

Marraige ain't What it used to be!

June 18th, 2010
9:58 am

Marraige, for those of us who have tried and failed, ends up being nothing but a contract allowing a woman who was know where in sight while you had two jobs in college to build your education and wealth come along 10 years after the fact and gets awarded your money and property in a divorce settlement and now I am living ion a studio apartment in Kennesaw. I may be a little bitter because the wound is still fresh but I am stating facts. Let the Gays marry! Who Cares! My only issue with the Gay struggle is the fact that they continue to compare their struggle to slavery and IT DOES NOT COMPARE! Gays come in every ethnicity, every color under the rainbow and can jump in and out of that closet at their discretion. Try as they may, I have yet to meet an African-American who could change his color but I can name several gay men and women who are gay one year and straight the next, making then in fact..Bi-sexual. I personally could care less who another adult wants to sleep with, thats your private and personal business but the comparison to the slave trade and the millions of black men and women who were killed during that time the only true comaprison to slavery would be the Holocaust…not the Homosexuals!
LIVE AND LET LIVE!!! LIFE IS SHORT!! I WAS JUST 23 LAST WEEK AND NOW I’M 39! IT FLIES BY FOLKS!!

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
9:58 am

You say marriage should be legal between 2 consenting adults.

Please show me where I said precisely that.

Keep up the good fight!

June 18th, 2010
9:59 am

Scout… why based on your 9:52 statement you could ban a lot of things… Why not ban interracial marriage…Why they can marry anyone they want in their own race?

They are not asking for extra, they are simply asking for equal rights. If a man/woman marry they get a different tax basis than a man/man. The only distinction is the sex. This is true in many areas of law.

lovelyliz

June 18th, 2010
9:59 am

The irony is that cousin-in-law met all his wives in the mega church he attends and teaches marriage prep classes and counseling. The same one where he married #1 & #2. The preacher came over to the house and performed a ceremony for #4

Steve

June 18th, 2010
10:00 am

The stupidity here is staggering. Marriage is between to people – whether they be male or female. The whole brothers, sisters, pets, cars, multiple partners thing is STUPID and won’t happen. There are very clear lines that can be drawn… Just like there are very clear lines between what is discrimination and what is not. Get your heads out of your backward a**es.

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
10:00 am

I think some of the anti-gay folk need to look up Poe’s Law. Your posts are so crazy it’s impossible to tell if you’re serious. That should tell you something.

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
10:00 am

Off topic–

USA!
USA!
USA!

Sunshine

June 18th, 2010
10:01 am

Well, Talking snakes, you will wish you had believed it on judgement day. But, its your life you are being rather ignorant with. But, then, you probably believe you came from the sea! LOL

I don't believe in gay marriages.....

June 18th, 2010
10:01 am

I don’t believe in ANY marriages.

Getting married screws up a good thing.

The institution of marriage is nothing more than a money grab. Expensive weddings, diamond rings, honeymoons…….You think the people behind this care who is getting married? They only care about the money.

TGT

June 18th, 2010
10:01 am

It is true that heterosexuals can be just as promiscuous as homosexuals, however, studies have shown, that in general the homosexual lifestyle lends itself to much more promiscuity than the population in general.

Multiple surveys and studies paint an extremely promiscuous lifestyle for the typical homosexual (again, especially male). A 1996 survey of homosexuals revealed that 42% had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 and 100 partners. A University of Chicago study released in 2003 found that 61 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area had had more than 30 sexual partners. In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported that “A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.”

blutto

June 18th, 2010
10:01 am

CYNTHIA: “I’m so glad I didn’t have to depend on a popular vote to end Jim Crow”

Agreed. I am also glad that you did not have to depend on Democrats, who were responsible for enacting, enforcing and continuing such laws, to end Jim Crow laws–as well as slavery.

lovelyliz

June 18th, 2010
10:03 am

I am still waiting for these pro-traditional family values; we oppose gay marriage because the Bible says homosexuals are an abomination, folks to start protesting outside of Red Lobster, McDonalds and Wal-Mart. That whole eating shellfish/pork products and wearing mixed fabrics are abominations thing.

65 foot tall burning Jesus

June 18th, 2010
10:05 am

Why God? Why did you do this to me? Oh wait…..you don’t exist, and neither should any of this pseudo christian rhetoric…..

gale

June 18th, 2010
10:05 am

I do agree that comparisons to the black civil rights movement by gays are wrong. I am certain I could stand next to 90% of you and would never be identified as gay. I don’t wear it on my skin like a person of color, and I use that phrase to mean any color but pasty to tan white.

Blue

June 18th, 2010
10:05 am

“No good arguments”? All bow to the omniscient CT. Just because you don’t THINK there are any good arguments does not mean there are NO good arguments. By the way…why don’t we just legalize bestiality and pedophilia as well…allow people to marry animals or marry children? If there is no ‘line’, where does it end?

Will

June 18th, 2010
10:05 am

Gay marriage should NEVER be legalized. Gays try to be like african-americans in the 50’s. You’re not another race!!

Not So

June 18th, 2010
10:06 am

TGT… so why should that keep people like me and my partner who have been monogamous for over 15 years from being allowed to marry? My brother-in-law cheated on my sister and lefter her for one of his many girlfriends… should he not be allowed to remarry?

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
10:07 am

off topic—

KAMCHAK IS MY PROTEGE

gw

June 18th, 2010
10:07 am

if marriage is a quaint and out dated religious custom, why do gays want it?? the gay rights problem is that they insist on calling the union a marriage. give it another name and your issue goes away. breeders do not deny non-breeders any right except to call their union a marriage. why is that so hard to understand?

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
10:08 am

“I believe laws should change as times and public opinion changes.”

Ah this is the liberal concept of our constitution as a “living document”. No truths, values, and beliefs are usually stable. Our forefathers got it right. This prevents one place like NY or Cal from making all the laws because they have a larger population.

As for gay marriage, it is an attempt to make homosexuality look normal. Gay unions are no problem. Marriage is a concept used since the beginning and refers to the union of men and women to become as one. Gays need to find another word or phrase. Gays should look at the word marriage like most look at the “N” word. It is ok for gays to call each other married but can not do it publicly or offically.

bob

June 18th, 2010
10:10 am

lovelyliz – try transitioning from the old to the new testament. you still can’t find a verse to agree with gay marriage.

Joe

June 18th, 2010
10:10 am

I think with my many posts have have put up many arguments that have yet to be rebuked….

lourdes

June 18th, 2010
10:11 am

The last supper was a homosexual orgy with copious amounts of hemp and wine consumed…..

TGT

June 18th, 2010
10:11 am

Not so: Go read my 9:31. Changing the definition of marriage will have significant consequences.

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
10:12 am

KAMCHAK IS MY PROTEGE

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I know who you are.

Not So

June 18th, 2010
10:14 am

Ha! Like it did for my sister? Her husband cheated on her and left her… would you deny him another marriage? He is straight…

Mark

June 18th, 2010
10:14 am

TGT, really, with the promiscuity thing? Yes, I have probably had more sexual partners than most straight men. In my prime, I like to think that I was quite a catch, for a night or more. But let’s think about this, would straight men have had as many sexual partners if it was so available to them? Umm, Yes please, would be the answer you would hear from 95% of them. You have 2 men who have sex drives out their minds, then guess what, you tend to have sex happen. It’s natural. But what does it have to do with marriage. And FYI, yes, I had many sexual partners, but I’ve settled down and been monogamous with my partner for the last 6 years. It’s a phase generally driven by hormones, but it has nothing to do w/ marriage. Next topic, and this time could y’all make it relevant, please?

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
10:16 am

KAMCHAK-

WE HAVE A SIMPLE RELATIONSHIP:

I HATE WHITE PEOPLE AND SO DO YOU.

Michelle Mal's Kin

June 18th, 2010
10:18 am

The Gays of America should refuse to pay taxes until they are fully represented within the same standard as The Straights of america. Money talks.

N

June 18th, 2010
10:19 am

Soulfinger — that’s a good point. And makes for a good civics lesson.

To me, the most important part of your statement is the stress on “I”. While gay marriage is an intensely personal issue for some straight people as a result of their individual brand of religious belief, the personal preference, while important for debate, has no bearing on the resolution of a legal issue in our system of government. Look at any number of hot-button social issues — abortion, the death penalty, interracial marriage — and you will find people’s individual preferences don’t bind or determine the outcome. In many cases, states attempted to amend their constitution to forbid, or control what was allowed, and it still did not matter. Our legal system places a premium on inalienable rights.

I’m not telling you that you should change your feelings, I believe that will come in time, if not for you, then for your children. But I will suggest what other like-minded people posted above — this is a legal issue, and there is no legal basis to deny access to a fundamental right based upon gender.

Cynthia — little fact checking on your article, I don’t believe any evidence was given in that case recently — I believe the evidence wrapped in February sometime, and the closing arguments (only) were this week.

Curious

June 18th, 2010
10:20 am

I’m just curious – if marriage was so sacred, why is the divorce rate so high? Also, I’m not sure why folk think gay and lesbian people are so perverse. Most pedifiles are straight men, most rapist are straight men, most terrrorist are straight men. The majority of things mainstream America hates is being performed by straight men. So folk think it’s wrong for 2 men to have sex but don’t see a problem with a man wanting his woman to either give him a bj or let him perform sodomy on her. Just a bunch of hypocrites if one was to ask me. A committed relationship between to people should be honored. According to the national statistics, the top 2 reasons for the extremely high divorce rate among heterosexuals is finances and infidelity. If marriage was so darn sacred, why would infidelity be the secondary cause of divorce.

sam

June 18th, 2010
10:20 am

that is true CT, but it would however put alot of gay conservative anti-gay marriage preachers out of business.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
10:20 am

Ah. . .the great heterosupremacist debate over the rights of other Americans. I’ve always found it fascinating at the willingness of heterosexuals to readily “vote” on whether gays can have the right to marry – but they bristle at any idea of putting any one (or group) of their own marriages up for a public vote. Now why is that? Why should the gays, for example, or even the rest of society, be forced by the government to recognize “marriages” of irresponsible heterosexuals, particularly those straight people, who by their own lack of character and commitment, work so hard to destroy the institution while still demanding individual special rights for themselves?

It is always interesting to note that heterosupremacists never seem to want the public to “vote” on their own marriage, or even the definition of marriage (save for the bans on interracial marriages). Wasn’t it Georgia, where conservatives ran around foaming at the mouth in earnest to vote the rights of gays out of their state constitution by passing a heinous marriage amendment (cuz the straights NEED to vote on any redefinition of marriage) – while quietly ignoring their own precious statutes on the books that allowed a 37 year old impregnated woman to marry the 15 year old friend of her son’s without any parental consent? Seems like the state of Georgia had no problem “defining” marriage as “between a man and a woman” as long as a 15 year old was a heterosexual male who could impregnate a legal adult woman. Nope – no crazy conservatives running around the state, wasting money demanding constitutional amendments to remove the rights of 15 year old minors from marriage.
Of course, one of the heterosupremacist arguments was that, if gays could marry, it would be taught in the schools. I suppose much like it was apparently taught (in Georgia) that if a legal minor is able to get pregnant or make someone else pregnant, he/she can marry anyone they like without parental consent. Right?

We already know that this is really not about protecting children at all. Since gays adopt or have children of their own, heterosupremacists are perfectly happy to point out that existing laws governing SINGLE people are more than adequate to protect any ‘gay” relationship, and yet demand over a thousand special rights laws for their own relationships, citing their own self-claim to having a “greater value to society” so the 51+% of legally “unmarried” adults must be forced (without any vote on any of those laws) to financially support them. This, of course forces the gays (who heterosupremacists demand must not be allowed to marry) to support (up until a few years ago) the teenage heterosexual’s voyeurism, the roving adult male or female’s adulterous behaviors, the 24-hour marriages of celebrities, the child-abusing heterosexuals, the serial rapists and heterosexual sex offenders right to marry – all without any “vote.” Why, even convicted serial rapists and murderers, with little or no chance to “consummate” their marriages, are allowed to tie the knot to outside heterosexual partners, even if they are permanently put behind bars. Doesn’t the law even allow heterosexual child sex predators to marry and produce their own children?

The point is here that the question is about individual rights – which heterosupremacists readily demand be guaranteed for THEMSELVES – while at the same time demanding they have the “right” to vote on what individual rights gays are “allowed” to have under the same Constitution. It is called tyranny.

Michelle Mal's Kin

June 18th, 2010
10:21 am

This is the problem: If we allow gays to marry, you know some siblings from Arkansas are going to come out and want to get married too. Some people in Utah are going to claim discrimination for not being able to marry more than 1 wife. It’s going to be like opening Pandora’s box that probably should stay closed.

You’re talking apples and oranges. Gays are advocating to marry ONE partner at a time, just like Straights.

Sick and Tired

June 18th, 2010
10:22 am

I’m so sick and tired of folks that would use the Bible in defense of thier own inability to accept the reality of human nature.

In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for reasons such as working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT), being gay (Romans 1:24-32), cursing your parents (Leviticus 20:9), not being a virgin on your wedding night Deuteronomy 22:20-21, or being a bratty kid (2 Kings 2:23-24); and the list goes on.

So who’s first in that judgement line from your own house?

Creamy Crack

June 18th, 2010
10:23 am

Let’s make creamy crack illegal first!

TGT

June 18th, 2010
10:24 am

Also: In general homosexuality is a very unhealthy lifestyle. According to the CDC, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases, and more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. During its 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, the CDC revealed that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. Also, the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.

According to Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, “While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations.”

This is especially true for black men. Again from the CDC: “The HIV/AIDS epidemic in African American communities is a continuing public health crisis for the United States. At the end of 2006 there were an estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV infection, of which almost half (46%) were black/African American. While blacks represent approximately 12 percent of the U.S. population, they continue to account for a higher proportion of cases at all stages of HIV/AIDS—from infection with HIV to death with AIDS—compared with members of other races and ethnicities.”

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
10:25 am

WE HAVE A SIMPLE RELATIONSHIP:

You mean apart from you humping my leg?

I HATE WHITE PEOPLE AND SO DO YOU.

Not me. Not gonna pretend to speak for you, however.

BugintheirEar

June 18th, 2010
10:25 am

VVD, i am saying we SHOULD get to vote on these issues that effect everybody, but instead the rich elite feel like they know better than us what we need.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
10:25 am

No matter how many times you say it, it’s WRONG. No wonder this country is going to hell. Go ahead and whine – “it’s not hurting anybody” – so that makes it OK? HELL NO!

sam

June 18th, 2010
10:26 am

let gays get married..let them be as miserable as the rest of us.

Billy Bob

June 18th, 2010
10:26 am

Duuur whats to stop people from marryin there furniture if we allow gay marryage!

Mike

June 18th, 2010
10:26 am

I am not opposed to a civil union between 2 people who want to make a legal, binding contract between themselves and that will be recognized by the local, state and national governments. Just don’t call it a MARRIAGE!!

Michelle Mal's Kin

June 18th, 2010
10:26 am

joan: I gather that before the Bible all kinds of incestuous things went on

They went on before during and after the bible was written!! As a matter of fact in the Old Testament there were a lot of licentious things that went on between so-called children of god and the “sinners” that they were sinning with. Kinda like what’s happening now!

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
10:27 am

“Multiple surveys and studies paint an extremely promiscuous lifestyle for the typical homosexual (again, especially male). A 1996 survey of homosexuals revealed that 42% had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 and 100 partners. A University of Chicago study released in 2003 found that 61 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area had had more than 30 sexual partners.”

———————————————————————————–
So you are essentially saying that “men” = “homosexual?” Apparently women, who represent over half the population, and by the research you are citing here, are less apt to be promiscuous. Therefore, lesbians would be less apt than, say, heterosexual men, to engage in promiscuous behavior, and by extension, are more “qualified” to be married to each other than straight men.

Michelle Mal's Kin

June 18th, 2010
10:27 am

Enter your comments here

sam

June 18th, 2010
10:27 am

as long as the creamy crack lobbyists keep giving millions ti obama, it’ll never be illigal. one more reason to hate obama

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
10:28 am

lovelyliz

June 18th, 2010
10:03 am
If you know these things then deep down you have a problem. You just want me to pat you on the back and say, “its ok liz”. Do you have a problem with the forefathers LL? So you believe everyone should change because a few want to be different. You want me to recognize homosexuality as NORMAL? Right?

twinkletoes

June 18th, 2010
10:28 am

What do you MEAN Felix? Just how will homosexuals destroy marriage if they get to use that word? It’s not that they want to be religious, they want social equity. Many states DO NOT honor civil unions as they do marriages. Marriage has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with achieving equity. Personally, I think that Heterosexuals do a good enough job destroying marriage without one bit of help from homosexuals!

BugintheirEar

June 18th, 2010
10:29 am

ctucker, Jim Crow if it were a popular vote would have been removed a lot longer ago, but in reality the democrats where the ones holding up the repeal of Jim Crow….. how come liberals forget that?

Susie Home Maker

June 18th, 2010
10:29 am

Yes — let’s protect the institution of marriage so that people like Gov. Sanford (SC); can, after 10+ years of marriage, announce that he’s finally found his “soulmate”. (while saving the tax payers of SC thousands of travel)

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
10:29 am

Sick and Tired – Oh well, too bad for you, you’ll probably be on of the MANY deathbed converts. The Bible is the Word and I will cast the first stone. Wrong should be punished anythime. You don’t have to be perfect to understand that.

Marv C.

June 18th, 2010
10:29 am

Hey TGT… maybe if gays were allowed to marry and were not subjected to lie at the back of the closet, they would grow out of the one-night stands. Besides… what do any of your numbers mean to a gay couple who wants to marry? Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed because they were promiscuous at some point? Please… if that is the case then every girl in Buckhead on a Saturday night should be denied the right. Besides… African American men who are spreading AIDs are not necessarily gay. You know that right?

sam

June 18th, 2010
10:29 am

thanks for the stats PCP, but what does that have to do with the question at hand?

Mark

June 18th, 2010
10:30 am

TGT, you seem obsessed with the inconsequential. What do STD rates have to do with marriage? Let me throw you mind for a bender. Maybe if you allowed marriage, and gay folk decide to sign up, then the promiscuity would not be there. Then the rampant spread of STDs you prescribe upon us all would decrease, and the ‘burden’ we cause on the healthcare system could be eased. How about that for random post of the day. Back on topic, please.

D Boy

June 18th, 2010
10:30 am

I guess a lot of people don’t read the bible. GOD forbides homosexual sex.If you are for gays to marry then I suggest you go ahead and prepare for hell. You fools.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
10:30 am

Mike – we already have “civil unions”…they are called “CIVIL marriage.” Everyone who marries has a CIVIL marriage – there are no legally recognized “religious” marriages. No church is allowed to enforce its doctrine on any couple that marries within the church in a court of law. No state demands that church doctrine be complied with as a condition for divorce. Heterosexuals walk right out of a church all of the time if the Church says “we don’t recognize your right to marry” or “we don’t recognize your right to divorce.”
So why do conservatives demand that gay citizens, who are likely not members of their church, be denied the same CIVIL license – but must be forced to adhere to some other church’s doctrine?

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
10:31 am

With the nation being in recession and people needing jobs, I find it hard to believe you still have one Cynthia. The partisan, immoral views you advocate are way off base with the majority of Georgians.

ppd

June 18th, 2010
10:31 am

Silly straight hypocrites! Cling to your sad little word “marriage” if it makes you feel safer. You are a bunch of scared little children… So sad, so typical, so Christian.

Thad

June 18th, 2010
10:31 am

One more reason the AJC should be allowed to go bankrupt… Keep those quarters in your pocket.

blutto

June 18th, 2010
10:31 am

Meanwhile, as we debate gay marriage, here on DAY 60 the federal response continues to be just what one might expect.

From yesterday’s ABC News: “Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state’s oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor’s wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore … Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP’s oil as recently as Tuesday … the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because (they) needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.” Note: The barges are now back operation having lost a day or two to federal incompetence.

Nice work, Barry!

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
10:31 am

kevinbgoode – Are you daft? What body fluids are dykes passing? Kissing will NOT cause Aides.

Billy Bob

June 18th, 2010
10:32 am

I beleeve in individual rights and less goverment involvement in peoples lives! Thats why I support the goverment being able to tell people they cant get married if theyre gay! Duuuurrr!

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
10:32 am

DBoy – Oh, puhleeze. I thought that God’s creation of Eve (from the “rib” of a sleeping Adam) and the creation of Adam in God’s image, was an indication of the original homosexual act – and the consummation of the first “marriage” relationship between Man and God. So there.

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
10:32 am

Mike

June 18th, 2010
10:26 am
You have it right but please do not ask me to believe it is normal behavior.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
10:32 am

kevinbgoode – Let me also ad carpet munching.

AmVet

June 18th, 2010
10:32 am

Slightly chubby and precocious eight-year-old,

They ain’t going back in the closet as much as you’d desperately love to force them to do so…

Joe

June 18th, 2010
10:33 am

I see Tucker is blocking me again because like most libs she lacks the intellect to win a debate…

No Slippery Slope

June 18th, 2010
10:34 am

PD @8:54am: “Gale, the point is homosexuality, incest, polygamy, etc. is not normal. If gays are allowed to marry, the courts will be flooded with incest cases, polygamy cases, etc. etc. I don’t think they are ready to go there.”
Are you completely unaware that gays are currently allowed to marry in several states and in several other countries? So kindly document where all of their courts were flooded with those cases. No? Nothing?
(By the way, the Divorce rate in 2009 for the first state, MA, to legalize marriage for gays is still at the bottom of the divorce rate for all states)

Billy Bob

June 18th, 2010
10:35 am

I am the gatekeeper of what is and isnt normal! If I dub something not normal, then it cany be legal! Duuuuurrr!

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
10:36 am

No Slippery Slope – I think the BIGGER point, is it’s NOT normal.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
10:37 am

So it would be safe to assume PPD, that you are agnostic.

ppd

June 18th, 2010
10:38 am

Joe… No, this paper just has standards.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
10:39 am

ppd – Didn’t you mean to add extremely LOW standards?

Let Freedom Ring

June 18th, 2010
10:39 am

People should be allowed to do whatever they choose with regards to whom they would like to spend the rest of their lives with. I don’t think it’s wrong and should be protected under the 14th Ammendment to the US Constitution. I also think what was supposed to make America the land of the free is that the government was seperated between church and state. Outside of folks individual religious beliefs, where is the wrong in 2 men or 2 women getting married? There is none. Because there is supposed to be a separation between church and state, the religious factor should not be the sole purpose of denying 2 men or 2 women from marrying. If the religous factor is included in the decision to deny them the opportunity, would 2 ammendments to the constitution be violated? Gays and Lesbians marrying would not have any affect on the rest of us. Legally – with the separation of church and state – they should have the right to marry. I agree with Cynthia! Thank you CT for bringing it up! I think the Judge in the case in California asked some good questions!

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
10:39 am

What is it about the word marriage! Why do homsexuals want to use THAT word. They have unions and legal binding civil contracts. Why does the word marriage have to be part of their lives. They can not fulfill all the concepts of marriage such as procreating but they can fornicate as much as they want. Why use the word marriage? I know! They need to be recognized as NORMAL people.

ppd

June 18th, 2010
10:39 am

Johnson… Why should I sign up to be a Christian? All I see is a bunch of hatred and fear. Sounds awful!

ppd

June 18th, 2010
10:40 am

Willibkind… They have unions and legal binding civil contracts. NO THEY DON’T and that is the point.

Union

June 18th, 2010
10:40 am

didnt realize liberals were so selfish and insensitive…. we have a diverse culture in this country and you are completely disrespecting the muslim faith.. billions of people and you are just telling them to kiss your a** ..

Dr. Phil

June 18th, 2010
10:40 am

YOUR DIVORCED? Who woulda guessed! explains a lot of the bitterness in life you show in your “writing”.

unreligious

June 18th, 2010
10:40 am

Blutto, you have a serious misunderstanding of the federal government and the role of the courts. The founding fathers set up three branches of government to act as checks and balances. Yes it is the legislatives role to pass laws and the executives role to sign them into law. However it is the courts role to examine the constitutionality of said laws and overturn those that do not pass muster. Using the term activists judges, has become a conservative talking point to try to discredit court rulings that they don’t agree with. The courts are preforming the role that was set out for them in the constitution. DOMA will be over turned as it violates the 14th amendments equal protection provisions. It does not matter how many people voted for it, or who signed it, it is an illegal law.

anastasia

June 18th, 2010
10:41 am

Saying that the 1:1 ratio will change if gay marriage is legalized is the most “joe critter”, ignorant thought I have ever heard. Also, there is absolutely no logical basis for saying that legalizing gay marriage would change the meaning or significance of any heterosexual marriage. Anyone who believes that, please give specific examples of how that would happen. Since when does the importance and success or failure of any marriage depend on whether another couple gets married, regardless of the gender of the two people? That doesn’t even make any sense. REALLY, people are going to marry their cars…REALLY?! c’mon! people!

Susie Home Maker

June 18th, 2010
10:42 am

Agreed. I am also glad that you did not have to depend on Democrats, who were responsible for enacting, enforcing and continuing such laws, to end Jim Crow laws–as well as slavery.

Blutton – FYI yesterday’s Democrats are Today’s republicans. (Strom Thurmond et al.)

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
10:42 am

Religious Zealots Sunshine and Scout…

Please explain to me how you can pick and choose which parts of the bible you live by. I notice you pick certain parts to simply uphold your own prejudices and rather than take responsibility for your racism and sexism, you blame your religion. Explain these following to me…

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Thanks for your help.

A "Voice"

June 18th, 2010
10:45 am

Except for listing a partner as a dependent for health insurance purposes I just don’t see why homos believe they don’t have the same rights a straight couple. Anybody can be listed as a beneficiary on any policy and they can own property jointly; they can have joint checking accounts . . . certainly they can adopt a child . . singles can do that. And as for staying in the hospital w/a sick partner . . . I stay all the top w/friends and relatives when I need too. So what is the big deal?

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
10:46 am

tired of it all – How witty, You either BELIEVE (that’s also known as FAITH) or face the HOT option.
Unless you become a deathbed convert.

Nod

June 18th, 2010
10:46 am

WilliBKind: What is it about the word marriage! Why do homsexuals want to use THAT word.

Me: So what if we call it NASCAR… or WalMart… or Pabst…

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
10:47 am

PPD, Not everyone who claims to be Christian is, many claim to be. Its through actions, deeds, faith PPD.

That said, I have never witnessed the core Christian base to promote hatred and fear. That is the basis of Islam. Not Christianity.

I can see how someone with no morals or belief system to think that immoral gay/lesbian behavior is acceptable. It is not up to me to condemn that person for it however, for that shall come on the day of judgement, and that will be worse than any opinion i could ever give.

While I do not wish to restrict a persons right to choose, I do not feel the legalization of gay marriage is right. Whether marriage has evolved or not is not the issue. Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman.

If it is okay for gays to legally marry, what would hold man from marrying animal, man from marrying multiple wives, or from parent marrying child? Once you open the door to one immoral act, you release the floodgates to SO much more.

Hypocrites Beware

June 18th, 2010
10:47 am

If the religious people are so concerned about the morality of it all, they should probably focus more on closing Trapeze. :-)

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
10:48 am

anastasia @ 10:41, that’s exactly what happened in court. The wingnuts can offer no example, no evidence whatsoever as to how legalizing gay marriage would affect straight marriage. So don’t expect a coherent, logical answer.

GreginTampa

June 18th, 2010
10:48 am

Re: LUMPKIN RESIDENT “NOW, you see that our law, based on a 1:1 ratio, will change drastically. Everything from Healthcare to SS benefits WILL be affected.”
This is just one prime example of the discrimination that already exists. As a gay man, I pay the same SS rates as everyone, yet because I can’t marry or adopt children, no one will benefit from what I’m paying in except me–the SS rates should be similar to insurance, i.e. more dependents, higher rates, and vice versa…so either equalize everything, or lower what I pay into SS to support people like you!

gale

June 18th, 2010
10:49 am

A Voice, here is one little bitty example for you. Try filing a joint income tax return if you are a gay couple, civil unioned or legally married in your state.

socrates

June 18th, 2010
10:50 am

Gridlock “it’s all over the animal kingdom”. Cite examples and sources. Didn’t think so. Like all liberals throw enough s#$t at the wall some of it will stick. There are probably some nimrods that read your post and think wow I didn’t know that must be true since it’s posted.

socrates

June 18th, 2010
10:50 am

Enter your comments here

ButtHead

June 18th, 2010
10:51 am

Gee I wonder who the “Christian Bashers” cry for in times of grave danger to themselves, do they say” Oh butt buddy” help me…. No the pray to God that something happen to help them. Funny how that works….

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
10:51 am

I see Tucker is blocking me again because like most libs she lacks the intellect to win a debate…

Translation: Boo-hoo-hoo I am so important that my every thought deserves to be in print.

News flash sport. If your comment is in moderation, there is a good chance that an automatic filter was triggered by a combination of letters

MIchael Smith

June 18th, 2010
10:51 am

Until and unless Republicans learn that the Taliban wing of their party — those “social conservatives” that want government to dictate that gays cannot marry, to dictate that gays cannot defend their country in the military, to dictate that woman cannot have an abortion, to dictate that creationism must be taught in schools, to dictate who may or may not legally be in the country — until Republicans learn that demanding such government dictates amounts to a demand for the violation of individual rights — they can never be effective champions of individual freedom and its political corollary: capitalism.

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
10:51 am

@ A voice, ask Sadie Fields’ daughter.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
10:51 am

Aquagirl – Are there not LEFT wingnuts? Paint with that big brush and you only show your closed mind. Try opening it, you might find it’s a BIG world out there. And, BTW, Obama is so ONE TERM. He makes Jimmy Carter look good.

itpdude

June 18th, 2010
10:52 am

@Ms. Gale per you comments at 8:25. First, I cannot agree with your absolute comment of, “separate but equal is never equal.” That is dogmatic thinking that also invokes memories of Brown v Board and other race cases coming from Jim Crow. I don’t buy it.

Second, the point many are trying to make is creating a civil union system that confers all the same rights as marriage (this can be done with legislation) and will get around the defense of marriage act. Remember, DOM was a workaround for the Constitutions full faith and credit clause.

Also, it being a civil union, it will get far less resistance from the people. Most Americans adhere to the tradition of marriage being something between a man and a woman. It has been that way for centuries. And even where marriage was between a man and several women, it was still between different genders. It was not a marriage of the same sexes.

There is a way to legally confer every single right of marriage to a civil union through proper legislation, allow the union to be recognized between the states through full faith and credit, and not cause a huge ruckus on an issue that pales in comparison to the water cannons of Birmingham or the race riots of Baltimore.

Equating gay marriage to Jim Crow falls flat. Walk a bridge in Selma and get your face bashed in by a brick. Encounter resistance to anti-lynching party positions. THOSE were intense civil rights issues. This gay marriage issue is weak, particularly when it can be solved with clearly worded legislation codifying a civil union as having the same rights and privileges as marriage.

This shows what a disaster the Griswold v Connecticut decision was, which is no surprise. When the Court pulls something out of thin air, this is the kind of garbage you wind up with later.

Mr. Clean

June 18th, 2010
10:52 am

So If I’m unemployed I can have a few drinks with my bud’s get one of them to go with me to the local courthouse pay our fee ,say we are married and i can get on his insurance policy until I’m back to work. Sounds like a plan to me.

Marriage Defender

June 18th, 2010
10:52 am

There are at least two negative effects from legalizing same-sex marriage. (And these effects would be much worse if courts force legalization, which is what’s been happening, under the guise of constitutional construction.)

Effect 1. If same-sex marriage or polygamy is legalized today, this is what kindergartners will be taught tomorrow: “OK. Our lesson for today is about marriage. Bobby, before you marry a girl you might want to consider whether you would prefer to marry another boy or even marry both a girl and a boy at the same time. All of these are equally good, acceptable, and useful relationships. Remember we celebrate diversity. Any questions?”

I don’t want my children taught this. If this message goes out to our children I think it will have a devastatingly negative effect on family stability, child welfare, and the general productivity of our society.

Effect 2. Over 10,000 studies show that children do best when reared by both biological parents (a man and a woman). This is true in terms of health, safety, school performance, avoidance of teen pregnancies, etc. Putting the government stamp of approval on family forms in which one of the biological parents is always missing (such as homosexual families) will inevitably lead to more homes of that type—resulting in harm to children.

blkwrestl

June 18th, 2010
10:53 am

I am gay and do not beleive in gay maariage (gm). Look, marriage was originally designed to legitimize births. Although people in support of gm say it will bring about equality and provide services not offered to gay/lesbian couples now, there are some factors that need to be explored. Gay/lesbian couples can name each other as beneficiaries on their respective life insurance policies. Unless there is a minor child, insurance proceeds will go the designated beneficary. Gay couples can purchase homes together and have a right of survivorship provision. Again, unless there is a minor child or if either of the gay parties are legally married to another person, the property would pass to the surviving gay partner. If a gay person is hospitalized, exercise a health power of attorney(not sure of the exact title). This allows the other party to make medical decisions based on the initial parties wishes. Again, assuming that the party exericising the power of attorney is not married to someone else. In the same vein gays can exercise a power of attoney similar as hetereosexual persons. Religious insitutions have a right to ban gm. If the teachings of a church forbid gm society cannot expect said institution to be forced to accept something their teachings do not support. As long as the teachings remain within the church and are not thrust outside of church doors, no harm no foul. Finally, if for symbolic purposes a gay couple want to be “married” civil unions could be an option. And before anyone becomes ballistic, this is an opinion that I am advancing for healthy dialouge so maybe a positive resoultion to this matter can occur. Thank you.

Mike

June 18th, 2010
10:53 am

The sanctity of marriage is attacked every day by straight people – why did David Letterman and Harrison Ford wait so long to marry their wives? Why did Dennis Hopper and Michelle Phillips marry, or Ernest Borgnine and Shelley Winters, or Britney Spears and her friend from high school, only to divorce quickly?

There are many gay people in healthy, normal, committed relationships that last for decades. But there are also young people growing up who believe that straight people get married and gay people party until they’re thirty then become bitter old trolls. Not allowing gay marriage is a threat to the sanctity of monogamous, healthy gay relationships.

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
10:53 am

Let Freedom Ring

June 18th, 2010
10:39 am
What is the very next clause after separation of church and state. You need to learn that clause, it is just as important as the one before it. We all know the concept of separation of church and state has been defiled from its true intentions by our forefathers. I have the right to free exercise of my religion and the constitution does not say I can not do it on public lands or offices.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
10:53 am

@mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama – BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

———————————————————————————
How could an upstanding, con-artist con-servative, moral pillar of morality like yourself know anything, or even imagine anything about “carpet munching?” Seems to me that this is a prime example of how some heterosexuals, especially right-wing conservatives, should have their right ot marry voted on by the rest of us. . .whenever they project their fantasized notions of the intimate acts of others from their minds onto the rest of us, they indicate that they themselves do not possess the character or ability to engage in an exclusive, monogamous life-long relationship. Someone who is deeply devoted to their own orientation wouldn’t possess any thoughts projecting what they imagine other people are intimately doing, now would they? That would be….immoral.

Wow!

June 18th, 2010
10:54 am

@Scout: I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!

We wonder what is wrong with America. Why am I forced to agree with you, but you are not forced to agree with me. It is fowl and disgusting for two men to have relations. It is just disgusting. YUCK! I have friends of the same sex and love them as well, but my heart is not going pitter patter for them. When we were created, He said be fruitful and multiply. Two men and two women can’t produce together. Is ANYTHING sacred anymore in America?

TGT

June 18th, 2010
10:54 am

Marv, Mark, and anyone else: Again, go back and read my 9:31. There are significant consequences for changing the definition of marriage.

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
10:54 am

The Pastafarians have no problem with Gay Marriage.

All hail FSM!

Ramen!

Wow!

June 18th, 2010
10:54 am

correction: instead of fowl it should be “foul”

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
10:55 am

“Not allowing gay marriage is a threat to the sanctity of monogamous, healthy gay relationships”

Horsepucky!!

ATL

June 18th, 2010
10:55 am

I can’t wait for the day when this is a huge non-issue– ask most folks under 35 about Gay marriage and you will get a resounding why-not or who really cares… Two adults who love each other and are willing to commit to one another should be allowed to do what they want– yes it’s really THAT simple…

Julius

June 18th, 2010
10:55 am

Can we claim tax exemptions for our cats if we are allowed to marry?

Steve

June 18th, 2010
10:56 am

Remember a few years ago when Bishop Eddie Long had his anti-gay march in downtown Atlanta? I specifically remember thinking to myself why doesnt he stage a march against women that have children without being married or a march against men who father children and then abandon them. Or how about a march against men and women who have divorced and gotten remarried? I’ll tell you why he didnt have a march like those…..he would no longer have a congregation!!!!!

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
10:56 am

I have the right to free exercise of my religion and the constitution does not say I can not do it on public lands or offices.

——————————————————————————————

And yet you would deny gays the right to practice THEIR religion by demanding that YOURS be interpreted and enforced upon the most deeply personal, intimate relationships in their lives. And you’d not only demand the laws and constitution reflect YOUR religious interpretation and YOUR church, but that you should get to VOTE on the legal rights of the gays and their religious beliefs because your “religious choice” is superior to theirs, right?

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
10:57 am

Mr. Clean

June 18th, 2010
10:52 am
Just another way to beat the system on the backs of taxpayers huh!

bob

June 18th, 2010
10:59 am

Sudan man marries a goat
by Iva Skoch (RSS feed) on Mar 12th 2008 at 10:40AM

Nod

June 18th, 2010
10:59 am

blkwrestl your comment “Again, unless there is a minor child or if either of the gay parties are legally married to another person, the property would pass to the surviving gay partner.” is simply not true and in many states the property would revert to the family regardless of any “legal” documents between partners. Same thing for hospital visits. If the partners family is like many of the posters on this site they would deny the partners from seeing each other in the hospital. And by law they could REGARDLESS of any “legal” documents between partners. And why should gay people be denied all of the rights (tax-wise and otherwise) bestowed upon legally married couples?

If you are truly gay as you state, you are entitled to your opinion, but why would you deny other gay Americans the right to combine their lives and assets in a legal union that no family or court could tear apart? That just seems cruel.

Mike

June 18th, 2010
10:59 am

Mr. Clean, don’t think this doesn’t already happen.

Straight people get married for insurance, immigration, money, politics, and a list of other reasons that don’t have anything to do with love.

Marriage Defender, in what school do the teachers advocate their students getting married? That sounds like that Mormon separatist cult in Texas. The way the schools should handle diversity, whether gay marriage, interracial marriage, interracial adoption, whatever, is to explain that some people are different from you and it’s really none of your business if they are.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
10:59 am

Steve – Heck, I would have been impressed if they had done a march protesting the right of child sex predators to marry. But shoot – you can’t expect heterosupremacists to campaign against any of their special, individual rights.

Besides, con-artist con-servative churches view hatin’ on the gays as a big moneymaker, just as they count on fearing God as a sacred cash cow. It’s all about the fear to them and their special right to engage in fearmongering for profit.

A CONSERVATIVE

June 18th, 2010
10:59 am

According to GENESIS Ch2, verses..18–24..Marriage is instituted by GOD..Marriage is meant to be between a Man &a a woman……….Cynthia…You are going to lose even more readers with your kooky writings….outlandish liberal stand..

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
11:00 am

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama – BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
Really? This is your defense…you either belive or not. What I am asking is a) do you find yourself breaking God’s law and overlooking it and b) if you think all rules of the bible hold true, shouldn’t we revert back to those times? I am looking for honest opinions here because I know the truth and you will not give up your steak and shrimp and bacon, but you choose to persecute others who have chosen to love.

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
11:00 am

Peadawg…..what a crock

Polygamy and incest are not the same as a marriage between two, unrelated, consenting adults.

Polygamy was and is common in some cultures. It was prevalent throughout the Old Testament. Western cultures have adopted a normative standard that marriage is indeed the union of two persons for mutual love and support. No one is suggesting that the structure of marriage be extended from two to three, four or more persons. That isn’t to say that at some point in the future conditions could be such that polygamy becomes accepted as normative. But that is not the debate here today.

Incest is not permitted because it falls within the prohibited degree of consanguinity. It is the same reason that marriage is prevented between other close relatives. In Georgia, unlike many states, you are allowed to marry a first cousin. There the issues are that any offspring run a greater risk of birth defects as well as the fact that incest usually involves domination or dominion of one in the family over another.

The issue here is to allow two, unrelated adults, the right to enter a legal institution that carries with it both the rights and responsibilities as defined.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:00 am

ATL– You are allowed to do what you want. You dont have to legalize it for that to happen.

I support an end to people having to marry just to afford health care and other perks. If this was the case, gays and lesbians wouldnt be fussing so about having their “unions” legalized. If it wasnt for the financial gain, it wouldnt matter. Its not about LOVE, its about the money. And thats where its wrong.

Marriage is between a man and woman who love and cherish one another. Or it should be. That is the reason for divorce. People marry for what the other person can give them materially and not because that person is the one for them. When people start marrying for the right reason, marriage will once again be what it should.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:00 am

D Boy-
God also forbid pre-marital sex, and working on Sunday.Should you be preparing for hell.

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
11:01 am

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
You confusing the constitution with the Church of England! That is why the forefathers put the religious references in the document. Also, in the past a whole community could have certain customs and beliefs and one person could stand up and say that violates my righs like your are saying and the entire community has to change for that one person. Is that what you think should be done? Is that freedom. No that is tyranny by the minority.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
11:01 am

Your analysis begs the question of why marriage is even a government issue. It is my opinion that two adults (over 18) should be able to enter into any agency relationship they choose. The government should recognize all of these contracts that confer certain preferred-status benefits to the other party. I do not think the government should be in the marriage business, but I understand why they are.

Very simply, a man-lady marriage statistically results in more productive, better educated, children that are less likey to commit crimes. Many people (probably even Cynthia) think the government should play a large role in shaping society in order to increase productivity and protect the citizenry. Therefore, the government is choosing to incentivize a desired behavior (marrying the opposite sex for child rearing purposes) via taxation and legislation.

A CONSERVATIVE

June 18th, 2010
11:02 am

Ms. Karl Marx……Next…..you will be advancing marriage between three women..or any threesome……MARRIAGE IS..WHAT IT IS….Between a man & a woman…Cyhthia…you are trying to legalize SODOMY….SODOMY………SODOMY.

kulfv

June 18th, 2010
11:02 am

kevinbegoode – you need a new church

Wow!

June 18th, 2010
11:04 am

@ tired of it all: And when the children of Israel did not obey the law, they found themselves sold into slavery. Because they would not obey, God decided that he has to help them through Grace. Therefore he sent his son to die in our place when we should be the ones for our crimes. Well, shall we sin so that grace may abound? God forbid! We are no longer under the law (those scriptures that you quoted) we are under grace. Jesus fulfilled all of that when he was nailed to the cross.

To bring it home…. it took Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and many other civil right leaders to die in our place, so that the “Jim Crow” laws of that day can be done away with.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:04 am

some ppl are stupid– the real issue here is whether it is legal. Dont bring up what God forbid. Man doesnt follow Gods command all the time, that is evident by the shape the world is in. He gives man free will and a choice, you do with it what you will. He forces Himself on no one, hoping that all will turn to Him.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:04 am

all you people are crazy

songbird

June 18th, 2010
11:05 am

We need to revoke the tax exempt status of all churches. There is absolutely not reason they should not pay taxes.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:05 am

thank you for your insight on why natalie merritt

MIchael Smith

June 18th, 2010
11:06 am

Johnson asked:

If it is okay for gays to legally marry, what would hold man from marrying animal, man from marrying multiple wives, or from parent marrying child?

A parent cannot marry an underage child because the child lacks the capacity to consent to such a thing. That’s why there is a minimum marriage age.

A man cannot marry an animal because the animal, too, lacks the capacity to consent. The animal doesn’t even have the capacity to grasp the existence of a relationship like marriage. So the notion that such a marriage could have legal status is absurd.

As for polygamy, if a man and multiple, consenting, adult females wish to enter into a marriage contract that fully and clearly defines the property rights of all the parties involved, including agreements on how such property is to be disposed of in the event of divorce by one or more of the parities, then there is no reason they should be prohibited from such an arrangement and no reason why the resulting contract should not be recognized and enforced by the government.

Government should be in the business (among other things) of recognizing and enforcing valid contracts — not arbitrarily and unilaterally ruling out certain types of contracts on the basis of sexual orientation or the number of participants in the contract.

Gay marriage does not violate anyone’s rights. To the contrary, declaring that one may only marry someone of the opposite sex is a violation of individual rights based purely on sexual orientation. But rights are universal and equal — they are NOT a function of sexual orientation.

Legalize gay marriage — it is the only rational, just and proper course of action.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:06 am

Songbird– more entities than churches are tax exempt.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:07 am

this is just a bunch of people gossiping. JOHNSON

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
11:07 am

kevinbgoode – I know about Hitler, does that make me a Nazi? I know about Jesus Christ, does that make me Him? Brush up on your comment skills, or lack there of.

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
11:08 am

@Wow! – So what I am hearing you say is that all the silly religious laws Christians spout out in defense of marriage are fallous because of their own religion. Taking that vein, religion should be removed from this entire conversation…I couldn’t agree more!

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
11:08 am

ppd

June 18th, 2010
10:39 am
I did not know you could just sign-up to be Christain!! All this previous references prior to the teachings of Christ mostly apply to the jewish community. But again most of the posting are simply drive by comments.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:08 am

“Marriage Defender: Effect 1. If same-sex marriage or polygamy is legalized today, this is what kindergartners will be taught tomorrow: “OK. Our lesson for today is about marriage. Bobby, before you marry a girl you might want to consider whether you would prefer to marry another boy or even marry both a girl and a boy at the same time. All of these are equally good, acceptable, and useful relationships. Remember we celebrate diversity. Any questions?”
—————————————————————————————————————————————-

So, you are saying that, until five years ago in the state of Georgia, school children were being taught that they don’t need their parents permission to marry at any age as long as they are capable of and DO: a) impregnate a woman or b) get impregnated themselves. Since this was the law, weren’t those marriages being taught in the school system?

As for your second contention about studies, those have been contradicted many times, most recently by a study of lesbian parents in which the children thrive in many measurements better than those reared in “traditional” households. Beyond that, your argument is ludicrous. Do children being raised in the “both biological parents” household (in which one or both is a child sexual predator) fare better than a child being raised by a same-sex couple? Do children in a home with their biological parents in which one or both is a spousal abuser fare better than a child raised by a same-sex couple?
Tell us about those studies, please.

Ignorance

June 18th, 2010
11:09 am

@uga_b:

“Very simply, a man-lady marriage statistically results in more productive, better educated, children that are less likey to commit crimes.”

OMG! Your comment is extremely ignorant!!!!! Since gay people can’t procreate, where did all the criminals come from? the jails and prisons are overloaded with folk that were created by heterosexuals. :-)

All I can say is WOW!!!!!!

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
11:09 am

A Conservative…

First of all in this country marriage is a secular and not religious institution.

The Bible is the story of a people and their relationship with their God as they have recorded it and handed it down. You may be a person that believes the Bible literally and that is fine. Believe whatever you want and practice what you want (provided it doesn’t harm anyone else) within your home or house of worship.

As a Christian I am not a literalist. I recognize that much of the Bible is allegorical and illustrative. I for one do not believe that God instituted marriage. I believe that this was a way for the Israelites to explain and frame marriage to support societal goals.

So you and I differ on whether God did or did not institute marriage and between whom he did. Regardless, that is a religious belief and should not be confused with a secular institution.

I presume you are opposed to divorce and would support a change in the law to prohibit any form of it? I assume you also believe in arranged marriages? And you certainly support and maybe practice polygamy? Why do I ask this? Because divorce was proscribed in the law and polygamy was common among God’s people.

You can’t have it both ways..picking and choosing from the Bible.

Be Honest if You Can

June 18th, 2010
11:10 am

This is a test. I have some relevant points to make that are contrary to Cyndy’s, but it appears as those she’s filtering them off her property (I’ve submitted twice; and nothing, nada). Funny how liberals work so hard to ensure only their point of view sees the light of day.

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
11:11 am

“Legalize gay marriage — it is the only rational, just and proper course of action.”

again Horsepucky!!

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
11:11 am

itpdude, your infantile take on biology/gender is amusing, as are the opinions of those who use words like “traditional” and “normal” to discribe marriage. are you familiar with the term unisex? it is used to describe children born with the genitalia of both males and females (a penis and a vagina). I believe this occurs in something like 1 in 200,000 births. This medical phenomenon obliterates any argument agains “same sex” marriage because we are all essentially the “same sex” at conception (take that, pro life fools). as the fetus develops, the body develops the primary characteristics of one gender over the other… excuse me, this “normally” occurs. but, as stated, every once in a while, the coin ends up resting on it’s side, and Mother Nature cannot decide. oh, and for all the red-blooded American heterosexual mean, let’s do an experiment; remove your shirt and look in the mirror. where did you get those nipple? so, my question is; were these unisex American not “endowed by their Creator” with the same “rights” as you and I? is a person who was born with a penis, which was removed at birth, and raised as a female; or a person born with both genitalia, but raised as a male, not permitted to marry at all? and here’s a rhetorical hunch, I believe Chaz Bono (formerly known as Chastity Bono) had gender reassignment surgery to challenge the California law. His birth certificate lists him as female, but he can now marry a woman because his driver’s license identifies him as male. just a hunch.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:12 am

“mmm…mmm….kevinbgoode – I know about Hitler, does that make me a Nazi? I know about Jesus Christ, does that make me Him? Brush up on your comment skills, or lack there of.”
———————————————————————————————————————————
Brush up on your critical thinking skills. How did you learn about Hitler and about Jesus Christ? And by comparison, how did you learn all about the imagined intimate relationships of two women – especially intimate relationships that were not discussed in textbooks, not talked about in public schools, and certainly (one would hope) not discussed in such detail in church?

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
11:12 am

Ignorance Yeah, but how many in prison are forced or enjoy homosexual acts? Ponder on that.

Rev. Menthol Shatbat

June 18th, 2010
11:12 am

Cynthia

Gay marriage has been voted down in every single state. Americans don’t want it.

End of story.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:12 am

Johnson-

If the questions is whether it is legal then it is up for the courts to decide. That is their job. I was simply mentioning the bible to a poster cause it’s funny how people want to decide which sin is worse than any other sin.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:12 am

why do you people care if guys marry guys and girls marry girls its none of your buisness whatsoever.my best friend is gay. and i love him dearly. there is nothing wrong with being gay or marrying into a gay relationship.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:13 am

Michael Smith,

Gay marriage is not a valid contract, so it doesnt have to be recognized. It is not the governments place to legalize such a practice. Government is involved in too much already. Keep us away from the government.

My thing is, you dont see the opponents of gay marriage out trying to have gay marriage banned by the federal government.

On the topic of parent marrying child. The law could be changed to allow a child to be “promised” to the parent. Or the parent could legally marry the child when the came of age. I was not referring to a parent marrying the child in youth.

On the topic of man marrying animal. There is a push out there for this to be accepted and for relations with animals to be accepted, many times by those supporting gays.

On the topic of man marrying multiple wives. Where would the sanctity and sacredness of marriage be if you could just marry anyone you wanted and have as many as you like?

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
11:13 am

kevinbgoode – I belive your mother or sister told me.

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
11:13 am

Amazing, out of those 10,000 studies, how many were introduced as fact in court by anti-gay lawyers? NONE.

Same with the OMG, people will marry their pet rocks!!!!! argument.

Just like Kitzmiller vs. Dover, when the nutcases have to produce facts, they wither like a salted slug.

songbird

June 18th, 2010
11:13 am

Johnson – I know there are more entities than churches that are tax exempt. I am commenting on churches and their tax exempt status. Which I believe should be revoked. The others would have to be decided individually based on their own merit.

A "Voice"

June 18th, 2010
11:13 am

gale

June 18th, 2010
10:49 am

gale, life isn’t fair ~ never has been and never will be. . . . a lot has to do with the choices we make. Maybe the tax code could be change so that gays and lesbians who live as couples can file joint tax returns.

Legal Angel

June 18th, 2010
11:13 am

Jose

June 18th, 2010
11:14 am

Did you hear that everybody, Tuck says there are no good arguments to support a ban on gay marriage. So if you are against it, well you are just plain wrong and Tuck thinks you should go away. I know, lets put it to a vote like California did. Oh wait, that is going to let the courts turn over the people’s vote. Our vote does not matter in the liberal-socialist world of today. Tuck, once again you show your ignorance and your values.

songbird

June 18th, 2010
11:14 am

The reason I believe their tax exempt status should be revoked is because they have continually violated the separation of church and state and had entirely too much influence on laws.

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
11:15 am

Liberals have defiled this country so very much! Now that want us to accept it as a rational and proper course of action. It is not normal and it will never be normal. You should not be allowed to change traditional customs and beliefs simply because it is you.

Bed Dover

June 18th, 2010
11:15 am

Please let me marry my lover!

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:15 am

I dont think gays want the court to decide, they know this would end in defeat.

However they would love to get it to Congress, where the ppl messing everything up already can squeeze it through based on special interest.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:16 am

TO kulfv – but why do I need a new church? I’m not trying to stop you from marriage – seems to me that I’m allowed the same constitutional rights as you to worship as I choose, don’t I? Or . . .was that just another conservative con-artist game where they tell us the forefathers really meant to say “except the gays” in the Constitution?

Ben Dover

June 18th, 2010
11:16 am

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:18 am

Legal Angel: hell no what?

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
11:18 am

As a true lesbian decided at birth, I would truly enjoy being as miserable as the rest of you married heterosexuals! I’ve grown up to be a productive member of society, have been a lesbian my entire life, am considered to be an extremely beautiful woman who does not appear to be a lesbian. We are not pervesive and would just enjoy the rights afforded to all people in America that are covered by the US Constitution! I don’t think anyone that’s not gay or lesbian would have the right to say what my rights should be as an American citizen.

songbird

June 18th, 2010
11:19 am

Rev Shatbat – the constitution protects people from the tyranny of the majority. The US is a republic, not a democracy. The forefathers saw the need for this so bigoted people like yourself could vote to deny rights to others you don’t agree with. This is exactly what is going on with gay marriage and is the same as the civil rights fight for rights that blacks fought in the 50’s and 60’s. It’s a shame so many of them have forgotten how hard they had to fight for their civil rights.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:19 am

So if its not okay for churches to be tax exempt, no others should be either. Cant have favortism. If churches were the only ones, you could argue favortism. Since they are not, you cant.

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
11:19 am

Honest @ 11:10, get over yourself. The AJC blogs automatically filter posts with certain words. It’s not just a liberal thing, as the “teab@&&er” word is one.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:19 am

If everybody believes in equal protection, why is legalizing gay marriage so bad? Do we have a right to discriminate against other groups.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:19 am

lesbian at birth: right on!! you go girl

gerry

June 18th, 2010
11:20 am

VVD, I can tell by your comments, that you do not believe in GOD; and you have that right. But I’d rather live my life believing there is this mythical God you speak about and find out in the end that don’t exist. In that case I will lose nothing. If I live my life like there is no God and at the end of time this mythical God appears then I have lost everything. It’s that reason I will keep believing he not only exist but is alive.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
11:20 am

Tired of it all:

If you bothered to notice, I used all N.T. versers including the words of Jesus. We are not under O.T. ceremonial/dietary/religious law ………. we are under N.T. moral law. That’s why Jesus healed and gathered food from the fields on the Sabboth. A big difference.

Keep up the good fight! :

Under your logic then I should be able to claim 6 wives and 18 kids on my Tax Returns.

Couldn’t disagree with you more ……………… our society continues to degenerate.

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
11:20 am

“was that just another conservative con-artist game where they tell us the forefathers really meant to say “except the gays” in the Constitution?”

Yeah, you know the gay thing is really new to the scene! Yankee doodle and all that. It is you who is so special that you need to be recognized as a normal person down the street. I do not feel sorry for you and I hope you know that.

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
11:20 am

This is a test. I have some relevant points to make that are contrary to Cyndy’s, but it appears as those she’s filtering them off her property (I’ve submitted twice; and nothing, nada). Funny how liberals work so hard to ensure only their point of view sees the light of day.

Funny how you think that you are the only one that has happened to.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:21 am

Willie – “Liberals have defiled this country so very much! Now that want us to accept it as a rational and proper course of action. It is not normal and it will never be normal. You should not be allowed to change traditional customs and beliefs simply because it is you.”
————————————————————————————————————–

Oh puh-leeze. Heterosupremacists have been changing “traditional customs and beliefs” for themselves all along. Marriage used to now have one damn thing to do with “love” – that came along in much more modern society.
And didn’t the Georgia legislature just change the definition of marriage to exclude those 15 year old boys who impregnate a 37 year old woman. . .so they can’t get hitched without parental permission?
Marriage in the year 2010 is not the same as marriage was in 1850. Y’all have been changing it to accommodate your own “individual” desires all along. Since marriage has been long recognized as an individual endeavor, why is it that you deny gays the individual right to engage in legalizing their love relationships? It’s not like you would be forced to have one. . .is it?

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:21 am

Les at Birth–

Not all marrieds are miserable.

Also, you are not born gay. That is ludicrous. It is a choice you make. Its not in your brain.

Finally, the Constitution does not give any rights to gays. The Constitution does not recognise unlawful acts.

JF McNamara

June 18th, 2010
11:22 am

Legalizing gay marriage is about money. Companies don’t want to foot the bill for benefits, so, as usual, the rich Republicans have conned the Jesus Republicans into doing their bidding.

BTW, What’s wrong with polygamy?

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
11:22 am

Johnson – My thing is, you dont see the opponents of gay marriage out trying to have gay marriage banned by the federal government.

Really? Because of our right wig religious president past, there is a federal ban on gay marriage even though it is unconstiutional under Artcle IV of the constitution…zealots like those who argued from Prop 22 and Prop 8 are those who are in opposition of gay marriage. Get your facts straight.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:22 am

how is it unlawful

songbird

June 18th, 2010
11:22 am

I meant to say could not vote to deny rights.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
11:23 am

natatlie merrit: Thank you!!!

Avenger

June 18th, 2010
11:23 am

Cynthia is right – we don’t need homosexuals to ruin marriage. We heterosexuals have done a pretty good job in doing that. This issue is like any other issue that people disagree with. People will double talk and obfuscate to try to make their point. Of course the human animal will react to those who demonize him by insisting that he has the same rights that his demonizers have. The demonizers will resist with all kinds of reasons – the bible, polygamy, incest, sun rising, moon shining, and any other excuse.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:24 am

Willie – oh puhleeze – do you really think you are so very important that I would care if you “feel sorry for me” or not? That sounds so much like another heterosupremacist point of view. . .”I feel soooo sorry for those poor homosexuals. . .they can’t be like ME.”

And, I hate to break it to ya, but the “gay thing” isn’t new to any scene. It’s been around for centuries. Of course, it’s part of con-artist con-servative philosophy that anything they don’t like shouldn’t be seen or heard or read about in public – except when they want to reinforce condemning it. So it ain’t all your fault that you don’t know human history.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:24 am

Williebkind-
Should traditonal customs and beliefs be change. I don’t think anyone is arguing for that.

But legal traditons should be changed if they discriminate between one group. That’s what the 14th amendment is about, equality

Mark

June 18th, 2010
11:25 am

TGT, I went back and read your 9:31 post. It’s nice to see at least one of your posts today was relevant…It points to discussion of how allowing gay marriage affects religious institutions more than anything. So, if gay marriage is allowed and legislation is written so as to acknowledge a church’s right to deny access to gays, would you be ok, then? Because I’m perfectly fine not having access to your church. Trust me, I’ve seen what it has done to people for centuries.

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
11:25 am

Scout, I recognized the versus you used, but does your bible not include the OT and NT? Are the jewish laws not the basis for your NT? If you bothered to truly study the religion rather than believing what the preacher said, I believe even you would question the facts in your book.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:26 am

Johnson – “Also, you are not born gay. That is ludicrous. It is a choice you make. Its not in your brain.”
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
I’m assuming then, that you aren’t “born straight.” It’s a choice you make. So perhaps you have a story to tell us all about how you made that choice.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
11:26 am

Ignorance, you may want to change your name to Irony. There are countless studies that show children do better in a traditional married home. This is not an opinion on single parents, divorcees, gay people, orphanages, or foster parents. As far as I have seen, there are not as many definitive studies on children in gay couple homes. Most studies show that children do not turn gay and some perform very well but we just do not have enough data points. Please think before you write.

Now I leave you with some wisdom from Mark Twain:

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:27 am

Johnson-
So being gay is against the law?

I can’t what to hear this one

A CONSERVATIVE

June 18th, 2010
11:27 am

.. CYNTHIA……YOU ARE ADVOCATING LEGALIZING SODOMY…homo sex issssssssss SODOMY….IT WAS PERVERSION DURING THE ROMANs TIME……..GAY SEX IS STILL A PERVERSION……..BY THE WAY……..ARE YOU A LESBIAN—–????

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
11:27 am

Also, you are not born gay. That is ludicrous. It is a choice you make. Its not in your brain.

So when, precisely, did you decide not to be attracted to the opposite sex?

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:28 am

There is no ban on gay marriage. It just isnt recognized as legal, so ppl cant get their money or benefits. That is what riles them. States have legalized gay marriage, which I disagree with.

And if you call Bill Clinton religious, you are crazy.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
11:29 am

Also, Ricky Martin.

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
11:29 am

Johnson, I suspect you escaped from Milledgeville. You are the most ignorant person on this blog today. Please resume taking your medication and return to your padded room immediately.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:30 am

why do you people care if she is a lesbian or not. its her buisness. and can you really prove that you arent born a lesbian? nope you cant so when you have prove of that then you can open your mouth till then its better you keep it shut :)

JKL2

June 18th, 2010
11:30 am

I’m all for personal responsibility. As long as you’re not relying on others to support your lifestyle, why not do what you want. For legal reasons, you are allowed one spouse of the opposite sex and your children. Anything else is on you.

If you want 20 wives, great. You just have to be able to afford them. If you want to marry your pet rock, great. It doesn’t get any legal benefit. I hope your both happy together.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:30 am

that last was was directed to johnson

Gridlock

June 18th, 2010
11:31 am

None of the arguments against gay marriage make any sense at all.

1) “How dare you try and CHANGE marriage! It’s a tradition!”

Marriage has always changed. Back in the day, you weren’t allowed to get divorced. That changed. Women used to be property of men and a marriage was used to transfer that property. That changed. Marriage was used to pay debts. That changed. Marriage was used to cement political alliances. That changed. Argument 1 destroyed.

2) “If you let gays marry, people will want to marry their lamps or sisters or dogs!”

People already want to do that and have for a long time.. AND and still aren’t allowed. No country that has allowed gay marriage has allowed the rest to happen. Allowing gay marriage does not mean people will be able to marry their sisters, or lamp, or dog. Argument 2 destroyed.

3) “Churches will be forced to marry gays, it takes away religious freedom!”

No church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other religious institution, ANYWHERE, has ever been forced to perform ANY marriage that falls outside their doctrine. It’s not just gay marriages they refuse, they refuse all kinds, all the time. No religious institution, anywhere, in any country that has gay marriage, has ever been forced to perform one. EVER. Argument 3 destroyed.

4) “Gay marriage will traumatize children!”

There is no proof, not even a shred, that gay marriage will “traumatize” children. In fact, a number of studies have shown that the children of gays and lesbians often do better in school and are better individuals, more tolerant, accepting and otherwise. Argument 4 destroyed.

Since NONE of the arguments make any logical sense, what’s left? How does gay marriage affect YOU, specifically? How does it impact YOUR life?

Can you answer that?

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:31 am

You make a choice to go against what is right and commit sin.

Everyone is born straight. However, when you get to the age of accountability, you make a choice to do right or wrong. Some ppl choose the wrong.

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
11:32 am

Johnson – Yes, I call Bill Clinton a religious president. He passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 saying that the federal government recognizes marriage as that between a man and a woman, thus banning gay marriage on a federal level. Im sick of people not understanding their facts before speaking. Aren’t you glad that Bill Clinton is a peer of yours in religion. He really gives credit to the institution of marriage.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:32 am

how is it wrong? i dont see any reason for it to be wrong?

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
11:33 am

kevinbgoode, exactly. in fact, all the Bible-thumpers have kinda dug their own grave. If homosexuality was addresses in both the O.T. and N.T., and deemed to be sinful, case closed. Surely, the Founding Fathers were aware of homosexuality (some may have even been gay, or bisexual – I heard Ben Franklin was a freak!), and yet they made no mention of “marriage” or sexuality (hetero or homo). Does the Constitution require Americans to attend church on Sundays or temple on the Sabbath? Does it identify which foods (pork, shellfish, etc.) are legal and which are not? No, because these things are part of religious law, not civil law.

Gridlock

June 18th, 2010
11:33 am

Also, if being gay is a choice, then so is being straight.

I invite ALL straight people to choose to be attracted to the same sex from this point forward.

I look forward to hearing how well that goes.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
11:34 am

Gridlock, ipse dixit.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
11:34 am

tired of it all – I bet Hillary and Monica thought he was GOD!

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:36 am

When they are burning in the fiery pits of Hades, they will see the error of their ways. It is not right to knowingly commit sin, or to be tempted by sinners.

And maybe the founders didnt add anything about gays because it wasnt their place to ban or legalize it. And maybe the sinners at that time were not as bold about coming out with their sin.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:37 am

Were in th bible is being gay mentioned?

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:37 am

johnson you need to get over yourself.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:38 am

Johnson-
It is not right to knowingly commit sin, or to be tempted by sinners.
and isn’t pre-marital sex a sin and working on the sabbath. So if you knowingly do that, arent you going to hell?

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
11:39 am

My desire to marry my lover if I had one would not be about money! My desire to marry my lover when I get one is strictly about taking the relationship to the next step, which is what every person who dates decides to do when they really love someone. That’s all it’s about, nothing less, nothing more. I already have my home, my cars, my finances, etc….

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
11:39 am

I don’t accept your assertion on Number 4. Lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of a position. Despite that many gay people do procreate with heterosexual coupling, see Ricky Martin, that does not mean that all children in a gay household will be blood related. While there are many exceptions, most children do best when they are kept in an intact biological family. Yes, I have seen the Blind Side. Thanks for asking.

Gridlock

June 18th, 2010
11:39 am

yes Johnson.. when logic fails, retreat to the scribblings of your invisible sky fairy and the cavemen that wrote them. Such a solid foundation for an argument.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:40 am

johnson you are just afriad of change.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:40 am

I just wish some people would realize that the constitution and the bible are 2 different things. If the bible and the constitution was the same thing….we would be IRAN.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:40 am

The Defense of Marriage Act was written by Bob Barr, GA Republican and SIGNED into law by Clinton. This was after an 85-15 vote in the Senate, and 342-67.

Clinton was not stupid. An OVERWHELMING majority of Congress and the citizens of the USA wanted this passed. That is why he signed it. He had no choice.

Lourdes

June 18th, 2010
11:40 am

Christianity is for cowards!

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:41 am

lesbian at birth: good job.

Gridlock

June 18th, 2010
11:41 am

“While there are many exceptions, most children do best when they are kept in an intact biological family. ”

Please explain how biological blood relation has any bearing on proper child rearing. Quantify that specious reasoning.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:41 am

wow johnson did you just go look that up?

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
11:42 am

Johnson, Thank you. I think I have proven my point. DOMA bans gay marriage.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
11:42 am

Johnson, you really are special. You used a term culled from Greek mythology (hades) to support your Christian definition of “sin”. You are correct, The Founding Fathers did not mention homosexuality because “it wasn’t their place to ban or legalize it.”

Mark

June 18th, 2010
11:42 am

Johnson, yes, DOMA may have been written by Bob Barr, but today even he doesn’t think it should have passed.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:43 am

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. — Lev.20:13

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:43 am

Cause an overwhelming majority of people want something that doesn’t make it right. In the old days the majority thought black people were 3/5 citizens and women shouldn’t vote.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
11:43 am

And like I said above, I am leary of government incentivizing desired interpersonal behavior, but I do understand as a revenue raising entity, policing entity, and judicial entity they have incentives to do so. Furthermore, as you blur public and private lines with increased regulation, entitlements, and interference, the more personally vested a government becomes in its populace and their behavior.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:44 am

Johnson – Oh puhleeze. If you were so concerned about “sinners,” you would have campaigned to prevent child sex predators from marriage. But heck, no – we can’t have the state get involved with the individual rights of heterosupremacists, no matter what OTHER sins might commit them to “hell.”

Such a ‘religious” con-artist game. We, the heterosupremacists, must be allowed to vote to remove the rights of the gays from the Constitution, but preserve every single individual right for ourselves to sin and still access all the protections and benefits of law for ourselves.

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
11:44 am

Johnson – Please see my earlier post from Leviticus and discuss how your last comment means anything in the eyes of today’s people.

TGT

June 18th, 2010
11:44 am

Speaking of the health risks of homosexuality: Of course, perhaps the most dangerous aspect of homosexual behavior (whether we are talking about monogamous relationships or not): anal sex.

One researcher referred to it as the “sine qua non of sex for many gay men.” A 1994 survey noted that among gay and bisexual men, 76% of the survey respondents had experienced insertive anal intercourse and 82% receptive. Also, in February of this year, the international AIDS charity AVERT reported on a British study that revealed that about 70% of homosexual men have had anal sex.

Anal intercourse, as Dr. Jeffrey Satinover points out, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. “These tissues are meant to accommodate the relatively soft fecal mass…and are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissues. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream.” According to the CDC, “The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.”

This behavior, combined with the other risky behaviors (promiscuity, drug use, etc.) that are typical among homosexuals, makes for a truly lethal combination.

We never heard much about this when debating the sodomy laws, did we?

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
11:44 am

Johnson-

As Scout pointed out, isn’t that in the OT??
I thought we were under NT living?

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
11:45 am

The law, also known as DOMA, has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
11:45 am

For all you Bible verse quoters, please show me somewhere in the Bible where Jesus condemned anyone? The condemnations in the Bible were by the men of the times, just like today! I am also a follower of the Faith!

no one knows

June 18th, 2010
11:47 am

no one knows

June 18th, 2010
11:48 am

Lesbian At Birth: how old are you

PearlJam

June 18th, 2010
11:48 am

A Marriage is a joining between man (husband) and woman (wife).
Marriage is not about love – some places to people who don’t even know each other get married, arranged by parents.
Some people get married for money, some because they get knocked up and feel it best for kids, other reasons.
Plenty of people love people they are not married to.

I don’t get how gay people think they can marry someone of the same sex when a marriage is between male and female. Not possible.

Marriage laws do not discriminate against gays, they can marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else does, no law prevents that.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:48 am

Johnson – “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. — Lev.20:13″
——————————————————————————————————————————————
That verse doesn’t say a single thing about intercourse. It was, naturally, the heterosexual man who interpreted it to reflect his own uncontrolled, “instinctive” desires when, apparently, “lieth” with a woman. I suppose con-servatives should ban sleepovers with males, too. . .or pass laws preventing the poor from having more than one male (even a child) from sleeping in the same bed as another male child.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
11:49 am

no one knows: I’m considered a Baby Boomer – which means I’m over the age of 45. You know it’s not proper to ask a woman her age. :-)

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:51 am

Wow Pearl Jam – so you are sayin’ the ideal is that gay people should just marry someone of the opposite sex for money, or for property or a green card. . .heck, whateva. . .just to preserve the notion that heterosexual supremacy is far more important than love?

I think you just gave us a good reason why states should revisit and dump all those special rights laws for “marriage” and save the taxpayers a whole lot of money. We shouldn’t have our statutes cluttered with unnecessary laws just to protect the con-artist games of people who marry for money.

no one knows

June 18th, 2010
11:51 am

ha its okay im a women too.

no one knows

June 18th, 2010
11:51 am

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
11:52 am

Everyone is born straight. However, when you get to the age of accountability, you make a choice to do right or wrong.

Teh stoopid—how it burns!

Oy.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:53 am

evryone is born how they want..wether it be straight bi or gay

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
11:53 am

TGT, I am not an advocate of anal sex, but excessive consumption of alcohol casues far more deaths (liver disease) than anal sex. Ditto, smoking or smokeless tobacco. The same could also be argued for the physical damage caused by auto accidents. The soft tissuse of the human body was not meant to experience the trauma of slamming into a dashboard or flying through a windshield. Should we ban auto travel? And how did you come to know so much on the sexual habits of gay men? I am sure you are aware that anal sex is practiced by heterosexuals as well. Again, the term sodomy orginates from the Bible. As noted by previous poster; let’s distinguish between the Constitution and the Bible. The Constitution concerns personal choice and personal responsibility. The Bible is for people who canot think for themselves, so they defer responsibility to some god or “prophet” who may or may not have lived 2000 – 3000 years ago.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
11:54 am

Lesbian at Birth:

Jesus called the religious rulers of His day “vipers”. Look it up.

tired of it all :

Sorry, but Jesus said “A MAN AND A WOMAN”. “God is not the author of confusion”.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
11:56 am

P.S. to Lesbian at Birth:

“He that believeth in Me is not condemned but he that believeth not is CONDEMNED ALREADY (emphasis added) because he has not believed in the only begotten Son of God.”

Anything else I can show you ?

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
11:56 am

there is nothing wrong with being gay!!

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
11:56 am

TGT – I find it fascinating that you are so obsessed with trotting out every right-wing “researcher” you can find who, curiously, always focus their research on imagined male-male intercourse. Yet, you continually fail to compare, for example, the sexual habits of some straight men with, for example, the sexual habits of lesbians.

Essentially, you are making a great argument for prohibiting men, in general, from either marrying at all or supporting the idea that all men (gay or straight) should be encouraged to marry into monogamous relationships. You just casually neglect to talk about the health risks in certain heterosexual practices.

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
11:56 am

Scout, I love how like all other zealots you are unable to argue your point further once you are questioned. If you ever want to win a debate on this, please learn your scripture well enought to understand when and why each book was written. It will really help or at least open your eyes to the truth of the gospel.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
11:57 am

To Scout: You are correct in that the Bible does say “God is not the author of confusion” and thus I am not confused. I don’t think anyone that is truly gay is confused. I think the people that don’t understand what it means to be gay or how or why a person is gay is confused. :-) :-)

tired of it all

June 18th, 2010
11:58 am

I am quickly noticing that the zealots on the blog shell up when confronted with an open minded person who understands their own religion better than they do.

no one knows

June 18th, 2010
11:59 am

say it proud! lesbian at birth

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
12:00 pm

Scout – so when does a “man” become a “man”…and a “woman” become a “woman?”

PearlJam

June 18th, 2010
12:03 pm

Lesbian At Birth:

Matthew15:16 So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:03 pm

natalie merritt:

You may be right ……….. but the act is immoral.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:03 pm

tired of it all:

I’m ready when you are ……………. go first.

Ronald H. Christ

June 18th, 2010
12:05 pm

peed on dawg, what the hell is the matter with you? fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:05 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

You said Jesus had never condemned anyone.

I gave you the verse.

You didn’t respond.

P.S. and don’t forget the time he made the whip and drove the money changers from the temple …………… kind of a “physical” condemnation.

Rob

June 18th, 2010
12:05 pm

Offering civil unions or domestic partnerships to gays instead of civil marriage is like offering a separate water fountain to African-Americans, as was done before the civil rights era. How demeaning!

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:06 pm

kevinbgoode:

Maybe never fully. The “act” is what God condemns.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
12:06 pm

Lesbian at Birth, as a heterosexual male, 0-2 in the marriage box score, I think you are on to something. It is those of us in the heterosexual world who seem to be “confused”. Most of my gay friends are very comfortable in their own skin, and more importantly, do not feel the need to judge the skins of others. For some reason (I don’t know, could it be religion), many heterosexuals feel compelled to comment on the lifestyles and behaviors of others (and by others, I mean those who do not seek the answers to life’s questions in a 2000 year-old book, that was written to document events and personalities who may or may not have existed 200-300 years before this “oral narrative” was put to paper (and very carefully edited).

PearlJam

June 18th, 2010
12:07 pm

Lesbian At Birth:

Matthew 23:25-28 (Jesus talking)Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
12:09 pm

Scout: how is being gay immoral?

Rob

June 18th, 2010
12:09 pm

Love is not an abomination to God. Bigotry is.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
12:09 pm

Scout – I didn’t know the Constitution assigned you the special right to decide for ME what God condemns and thus must translate into denying me constitutional rights. I didn’t even know the Bible assigned to you the special right to sole interpretation of scripture and that all others must adhere to that interpretation.
I suppose that is what the First Amendment really means to Conservatives.

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
12:11 pm

Wow, I wasn’t aware God had changed His name to “Scout” or “Johnson.” How lucky He dropped by to clear up the whole matter. Must be Cynthia’s Pulitzer connections.

Cynthia is Sexy!!

June 18th, 2010
12:11 pm

Anti-Gay is not bigotry.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
12:13 pm

so does that make me a bad person if im friends with lots of lesbians and gays?

Rob

June 18th, 2010
12:13 pm

Not treating others, including gays, as yourself IS bigotry.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
12:14 pm

TO PearlJam: I believe the hypocracy is within those of mankind that want to condemn everyone. Jesus also said “those without sin, cast the first stone”…”before you try to remove the mote out of thy brothers eye, remove the mote from your own”…..

To Scout: The scripture you posted doesn’t specifically refer to the gay lifestyle.

To Woody: I will take your post as a positive and say Thank you. You are absolutely correct, the Bible in all it’s versions was written by men that may or may not have existed centuries ago and has been carefully edited.

Keep up the good fight!

June 18th, 2010
12:14 pm

Scout…you now seem to be arguing against polygamy not equal protection and you want to claim that there is a “degeneration” of the country because of your religious beliefs….not really a valid legal argument against constitutional rights.

Barring polygamy is a societal choice not a equal protection issue. In fact, there is nothing that says that this country could not recognize polygamy and it could determine that some of the legal matters would be limited to the 1st marriage. Swede made a cogent argument (11:00 AM)

As for any “devastation” to our society because of enforcing the Constitution…that is your right to believe but does not make it constitutionally permitted. We’ve heard this argument about civilization and the US going to hell in a handbasket time and time again. We survive your shortsightedness time and time again and we continue to fight back. Your shortsightedness denied woman the vote, denied slaves freedom, denied equal rights to woman and more. Frankly, your shortsightedness is what, in my opinion, is part of the problem in this country.

But you have made no valid argument against prohibiting same sex marriage. There is simply no valid argument against it.

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
12:15 pm

DOMA does NOT ban gay marriage.

DOMA simply says that if state A legalizes gay marriage, state B does not need to recognize it.

Congress thought they could invalidate the “full faith and credit clause” of the U.S. Constitution with DOMA. Personally I think DOMA would fail if it were every challenged in court.

Historically marriage and its attributes (e.g. divorce, etc.) has been left to the states. That is why the age limits, residence requirements, etc. for marriage and divorce vary by state.

Where the federal constitution enters the picture is when a state law such as the one in Georgia that prohibits same-sex marriage, violates the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law of the entire country.

I submit to you that any attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to take away rights such as an Amendment to prohibit same sex marriage would fail. This issue will eventually be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court and it will invalidate laws that prohibit same sex marriage and reconfirm the requirement that all states recognize all marriages conducted in other states. It is just a matter of time.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:16 pm

kevinbgoode : As always …….. “you” decide. Your choice ……… your eternity.

natalie merritt : God specifically condemns the act just like he condemns heterosexual fornication or adultery. He even says the “thought” is a sin. Now, personally I wish it wasn’t that way but guess what …………. I don’t get to make the rules.

If God gave me the vote I would also vote out Hell ………. at least after the first 100 years. But ………….. I don’t fully understand His Love and Holiness ……… that’s why there is an eternal Heaven and an eternal Hell.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
12:16 pm

If nothing is wrong with being gay, then why do most hide it?

Rob

June 18th, 2010
12:17 pm

Moses and Paul are not God. Jesus never condemned gays.

Keep up the good fight!

June 18th, 2010
12:19 pm

Scout…heaven and hell are functions of your believes…. other than being locked in the same room….there is no proof Hell or Heaven exists.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:19 pm

Keep up the good fight! :

“He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

I wish you well !!

Gridlock

June 18th, 2010
12:20 pm

“If nothing is wrong with being gay, then why do most hide it?”

Because stupid people like you would persecute the hell out of them and try to destroy their lives?

There’s a thought.

Keep up the good fight!

June 18th, 2010
12:20 pm

Correction: beliefs….and locked in the same room with you…

I cannot type today

TGT

June 18th, 2010
12:20 pm

It is true that much heterosexual behavior is dangerous and disgusting as well. Prostitution, pornography, promiscuity, etc. are terrible plagues on homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. And there are laws against some such behavior.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
12:20 pm

I believe most hide being gay to avoid the bigotry and condemnation of others as seen in this blog. I do not hide my Lesbianism. There’s an extremely large amount of hatred in America, which has been the case since it’s inception. This may be why the Constitution was created – to protect it’s citizens from the ill treatment and discrimination of others who just happen to be different.

A "Voice"

June 18th, 2010
12:20 pm

songbird @ 11:14 a.m. So does that mean that all tax-exempt organizations should also have their status revoked since many have “entirely too much influence on laws.”

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:21 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

1) So you agree Jesus did condemn for at least one thing ?

2) Romans 1

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Jimmy62

June 18th, 2010
12:21 pm

Marriage is a religious institution. I know all you liberals love the idea of separation of Church and State, but when it comes to marriage you are hypocrites. The ONLY consistent and moral solution to this quandary is for the government to stop recognizing marriage, and only recognize civil unions, which can be between ANY two people, even if they’re just friends/roommates that want the same tax advantages as a couple in love. And then each religion can define marriage in their own terms, and it won’t have a thing to do with taxes or estates or wills.

The only reason people give for why this can’t or shouldn’t happen is that it’s change. Well so is allowing gays to marry. Either changing long term traditions is ok, or its not ok.

Rob

June 18th, 2010
12:22 pm

Gays hid their orientation for their own safety from a society that condemned it without understanding it.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:22 pm

TGT:

Exactly ……………..

jupnorth

June 18th, 2010
12:25 pm

I’m just a dumb hick but how can you look at the physical bodies of males and females and say that any other union is ‘normal’. Living a homosexual lifestyle is a sin. I believe homosexuality is an unfortunate affliction that some people will have to overcome. The same way someone who is predisposed to alcoholism must overcome that affliction. It’s not fair and is unfortunate but saying, “Well this is the way I was born and so it must be ok.” is a cop-out. Being born with the affliction is not the sin. The sin is acting upon it. I know what I say is not popular. I am not a gay basher. I love them in spite of their sins, just as I love anyone in spite of their sins.

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
12:25 pm

Lesbian at Birth: This is not isolated to America only. Every country has a major disagreement with homosexuality, rightly or wrongly so.

BUT LIKE YOU I HATE AMERICA TOO. I BELIEVE REPARTATIONS ARE IN ORDER

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
12:27 pm

To Scout: I am not here to debate one’s different religious beliefs. We all have different religious beliefs. I am extremely comfortable with my sexuality as is my family and all who know me. Those of you who don’t know me, may not be comfortable with my sexuality – which is your choice.

Someone like me who has been a lesbian since birth could consider hetersexuality wrong as it is different than my birth orientation and therefore should be banned but I chose to allow everyone to make their own choice and live their lives as they chose as long as it doesn’t directly affect me. People who are born gay should not be permitted to partake in a hetersexual marriage (of course someone like you wouldn’t know that something like that does exist :-) ). I am here because I believe that gay people should be afforded the same protection under the law as afforded by the constitution.

Rob

June 18th, 2010
12:28 pm

Love is emotional and psychological, not a matter to fitting body parts together like puzzle pieces. The love between gay is not something to be overcome like alcoholism. Bigotry is.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
12:28 pm

The Constitution was created to give us an identity as a nation and to set certain standards and beliefs. It is nice to know the founders didnt force a religion, or try to go into peoples homes.

Johnson

June 18th, 2010
12:29 pm

How do you know you were Les at Birth?

David S

June 18th, 2010
12:30 pm

The minute the people allowed the government to stick its nose into marriage in the first place they opened the door to every kind of problem that government inherently is.

Marriage is a religious sacrament. It should only be governed by a church. A contractual union is something that anyone, or even multiple people should be able to enter into without interference by the government.

Christians and others blast gay “marriage” and complain that now the government is making a mess of things. That comes with govnerment involvement. The minute you give the power over anything to government, you enable any group to sieze that power for their own purposes.

Liberals blast the fact that republicans want to destroy the public schools by introducing teachings they don’t like, etc. Same type of problem, same root cause – government. If government had nothing to do with education and all the power that goes along with it (theft through taxation, teacher licensing, mandatory attendance laws, etc.) then government power over education could not be siezed by anyone and used to futher their agenda.

People like you Cynthia bash us principled libertarians and freedom lovers because we want government OUT OF EVERYTHING. This is why. People deserve freedom. Government is the opposite of freedom. Keep government out of everything and people will be free. Plain and simple.

gale

June 18th, 2010
12:31 pm

Johnson, Why do -some- gays hide that they are gay? The tendency of some people to think they can beat up, kill, or simply discriminate against them with impunity may have something to do with that.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
12:31 pm

To Johnson: I had my first crush on a woman at the age of 4 years old – or younger. I am not a victim of any type of trauma, grew up in a 2 parent heterosexual household in the suburbs, went to church 7 days a week, etc…..I had what most would consider to be a “normal” childhood.

Big D

June 18th, 2010
12:31 pm

I have no problem at all with a Legal Civil Union, I do have a problem with the term marriage being used. If we go off on that road ( changing a legal definition) we will allow ourselves to start changing any definition.
Van, if you hate America I would advise you to get get the hell out of here and quit stinking the place up.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
12:32 pm

Gridlock, I have posted a response that is awaiting moderation (I assume because it has links). It basically shows that there is some difference across common family structures (who knew?); it did not however address being raised by a wolfpack or as part of a religious collective. SPOILER ALERT: two-parent structures do better across the board. Every gay couple study I have seen is inconclusive.

Personally, I am all for non-interventionist approaches to sub-obtimal child development because that gives my future children a better chance. Now to just get the gubmint to stop feedin’ em and givin’ out book learnin’.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
12:35 pm

The only real way to protect what heterosexuals refer to as “the sanctity of marriage” maybe divorce should become illegal. My marriage of my partner will not have any affect on any heterosexual person whatsoever. How would my marriage of my partner affect the marriage of a hetersexual married couple? I applaud the Judge in California to posing that question to the opponents of the proposition. I do not believe they have a legal foot to stand on.

PearlJam

June 18th, 2010
12:37 pm

Lesbian At Birth:

Thanks, but I’m not claiming to be without sin or casting stones, you asked for verse where Jesus condemned someone and I gave them. I made no judgment.

Also that’s probably where we differ, I see myself as the biggest sinner of all, When I became a Christian there were many things in my life that I felt God and Jesus would condemn me for, I had to make drastic changes in my life, homosexuality was not my sin but believe me I had plenty, I’m trying to change those.

Some of those are lying, stealing, neglecting poor, adultery, list can go on and on.

Jesus came for me, died for me, no so I would continue in those sins but that I may be forgiven for them, my role is to repent and love Jesus for what he has done. Jesus said he who loves Me will keep My commandments.

One problem I do have for all those condemning gays and sanctity of marriage, gay marriage is not biggest issue. Divorce is, our laws allow for a lot of divorces that God does not approve of so I see that as a bigger issue. Jesus said that no man should divorce his wife, expect for if they commit fortification, the one who committed fortification is not to remarry, so that next marriage relationship is adultery. This is a bigger issue in this country that can destroy marriage.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:37 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

Yes you “were here” to debate a religious position because you stated Jesus never condemned anyone. When I should you just how much you were wrong ………. you no longer want to engage in a religious debate. That’s fine ……. your choice …….. just don’t hide what happened here.

Now I have a question for you (and I am not putting you in the same category – I am just asking the question).

Are those who engage in pedophilia, necrophilia or bestiality (to name but a few) BORN that way genetically or was it acquired ?

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:38 pm

jupnorht:

Truer words were never spoken.

I’ll also ask you the same question I posed to “Lesbian at Birth”:

Are those who engage in pedophilia, necrophilia or bestiality (to name but a few) BORN that way genetically or was it acquired ?

gale

June 18th, 2010
12:39 pm

The only way my marriage would effect anyone else’s marriage would be if only a finite number of marriages were allowed. When I marry, you are forced to divorce! Get a grip. If anything damages marriage it is the thoughtlessness with which people marry and divorce. Gay marriage will not effect the current fragility of straight marriage.

A CONSERVATIVE

June 18th, 2010
12:39 pm

HEY YOU LEFT-wingers………WHAT PERVERSION & SIN….in biblical times…is still….perversion & SIN….what was unnatural in Jesuss’ time is still unnatural..SIN is SIN…IS SIN…is SIN..

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:41 pm

Lesbian at Birth @ 12:31:

So be celebate …….. God specifically condemns the act.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
12:41 pm

Lesbian At Birth, I hope that anyone who actually professes to be uncomfortable around you is speaking out of lack of understanding. To this day I have no idea why/how/where two consenting people touching each other involves anyone outside of, potentially, a jealous girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse. For myself, I see marriage as one of the major phases of a relationship where you make a public declaration of love for another person in front of the other people in your life you care about. I don’t believe anyone should be limited from that opportunity. Why in the heck we entangled that expression of love in legal benefits is beyond me. Why do I have to be sleeping with the person I would like by my bedside if I am dying in a hospital?

A CONSERVATIVE

June 18th, 2010
12:41 pm

LIBERALS don’t want any limits of their sexual desires…just go to bed with whomever……..forget morality….& sin…Do whatever you feel like doing it to.

A CONSERVATIVE

June 18th, 2010
12:41 pm

LIBERALS don’t want any limits of their sexual desires…just go to bed with whomever……..forget morality….& sin…Do whatever you feel like doing it to.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
12:42 pm

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
12:42 pm

Are those who engage in pedophilia…

Well…there you go again.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
12:42 pm

To Scout: I have no idea! And I see you obviosly place gays in the same category – which is not a very good showing of your mindset. Although there are studies that could argue they are born that way. Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, was noted for killing animals before he started kindergarten and of course he eventually graduated to killing and eating people. The majority of those items you are asking about have notoriously been performed by “heterosexuals” and not necessarily gay people.

A CONSERVATIVE

June 18th, 2010
12:45 pm

LIBERALs seek to destroy all morality….& traditions..in society…LiberalS ARE FOR FREE SEX WITH ANYONE….regardless…Liberals don’t want society telling them who they can legally sleep with..be it a dog..or sheep…or whatever.

Joe Mustich, JP

June 18th, 2010
12:45 pm

Earth to many ACJ readers, in America, we have freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
And many couples, both opposite-sex and same-sex, prefer, non-religious and civil wedding ceremonies today.

Onward to fairness and equality,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

And to the anti-marriage folks, please find another issue to focus your time and energies on.
How about aiding in the clean-up of all the BP muck washing up on our coastline?

Joe

June 18th, 2010
12:47 pm

I like the way Tucker puts this garbage out there and just sits back and watches as the spineless crustaceans of the far left smears everyone who disagrees with them… If they only knew how idiotic they sound…

Lil' Barry Bailout

June 18th, 2010
12:48 pm

Calling it marriage doesn’t make it so. Americans know what marriage is, and it ain’t that.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
12:48 pm

Maybe this has turned into an issue or morality or religious beliefs because there is no legal foothold to defend the discrimination of a entire group of people.

Mrs. W.

June 18th, 2010
12:49 pm

Winkie @ 10:08. I am actually more of a Republican than a liberal Democrat and almost never agree with CT on any subject. Laws have been changing for 200 years +. I think they are called constitutional amendments.

I am not afraid that allowing civil unions for same sex couples will trash my marriage of 26 years.

My niece is not a pervert or an abberation – she is simply a lesbian. One in a committed and loving relationship. She is not ugly or “butch” looking. She is smart and funny and she just happens to love another woman. I think we have much larger issues to deal with as a country. Issues that really do affect ALL of us. This is not one of them.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
12:49 pm

Scout, from a logical standpoint you are presupposing your God’s existence as fact and using that premise to base your arguments. If someone does not accept your premise that YOUR God exists, the one that hates Egyptians and Gays, they won’t find anything you say all that relevant. I think if I had a God, he would hate circular logic and those shirts that girls wear that make them all look pregnant. You know the ones.

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
12:50 pm

A Conservative………..

First of all the Bible doesn’t make one mention of homosexuality. It talks about man to man (interesting I guess Lesbians get a pass) sex. The concept of homosexuality wasn’t recognized at the time the Biblical oral tradition was memorialized in writing nor until the late 19th century.

Secondly, sin is a religious term. You can believe anything you like in your church, synagogue or mosque but it has no place in secular society.

I personally believe that ignorance such as that you are displaying is sinful according to my personal religious beliefs. I believe God gave us a brain for a reason and wants us to learn and expand our understanding of our world.

The fact that ignorance isn’t written in the Bible means nothing. The Old Testament is simply a record (heavily edited to meet man’s own objectives) of the people of Israel. The New Testament is a record (heavily edited to meet man’s own objectives) of believers in Christ as a Savior.

I can say anything is a sin. It doesn’t mean my religious belief has any place in the public realm.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:51 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

The point is ………… it doesn’t matter whether its genetic or learned. The ACT is wrong and perverse.

Guess what? I was born with a genetic heterosexual problem ………. it’s called (at least in my younger years) to have at least a little desire to have sex with beautiful women other than my wife.
To ACT OUT on that is immoral and wrong (and the thought as well – that’s why we are All sinners).

Based on your age, you may or may not remember a guy named Richard Speck. He murdered 8 nurses in Chicago years ago. At one time (and then they thought better of it) his attorneys were going to use his XYY (double male) chromosone makeup as a defense. There was evidence that the double male XYY defect (instead of just XY) made men more prone to violence, acne, etc.

Even if that were true …………. a genetic problem NEVER excuses the act.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:52 pm

Swede Atlanta :

You have obviously never read Romans chapter one. May I recommend it to you.

Americans

June 18th, 2010
12:54 pm

“Americans know what marriage is, and it ain’t that.”

I am quite capable of my own deciding what it is that I “know” without any help from you.

Union

June 18th, 2010
12:55 pm

first.. i dont think the “christian” religion should have a voice.. of all the religions… it is the youngest.. second.. gay marriage should be allowed and no one should be able to say anything about it.. third.. a honeymoon in the middle east should be mandatory..

PearlJam

June 18th, 2010
12:56 pm

Joe Mustich

Your a gay rights activist – how about showing some respect fo those that don’t agree with you.

Stop throwing that title “Justice of the Peace” around like it matters, you just spaming for money.

Lil' Barry Bailout

June 18th, 2010
12:58 pm

Americans: I am quite capable of my own deciding
———

You’re in denial. You probably think that if you call a dog’s tail a leg, it has five legs.

Michael K.

June 18th, 2010
12:58 pm

I don’t really come down hard-and-fast on one side or the other. On the one hand, I believe that consenting adults should be allowed to form any contract they want. Looking at the issue that way, I suppose I support the legalization of gay marriage – or perhaps the end of the legal recognition of marriage to be replaced with contractually recognized civil unions (it’s sort of all the same).

Then, on the other hand, I do recognize that marriage and sex are inherently social practices. I’m not always certain that my libertarian philosophy is so great at dealing with these types of issues. Cynthia presents a sort of teleological view of the evolution of marriage (I realize teleological evolution is an oxymoron, but I don’t think Cynthia does), that isn’t really correct. Marriage didn’t evolve into monogamy – outside the West, I don’t think any major civilization forbade powerful men from taking multiple wives. Monogamy is an idiosyncratic feature of European culture, that many (though not all) other cultures have subsequently adopted.

Gay marriage, too, is an idiosyncratic Western phenomenon – though it’s a modern one. Lots of cultures have taken a permissive attitude towards homosexuality, but ours is the first to create the idea of “gay marriage”. It seems highly likely to me that if the US legalizes gay marriage, that we will end up legalizing polygamy as well – especially if it’s done by courts on the basis of marriage being a fundamental right. Muslims and other polygamous groups will argue that polygamy has been a part of their religions/cultures for millennia and that it’s discriminatory to define marriage according in the traditional Western manner.

I oppose polygamy on the grounds that, in the real world, it leads to repression of women and, I believe, undermines the fundamental notion of individual equality that underpins American (and, to a lesser extent, European) civilization. Regardless of what Cynthia flippantly says, the legalization of gay marriage increases the probability that polygamy will be legalized as well.

So, I guess I’m mixed up. I’m not really sure there is a right answer to this issue. On the one hand, I’d like for gays to be able to pair up if they like. On the other hand, marriage is a social institution and, in broadening the definition past traditional Western norms, I worry that we open a doorway that will lead to the legalization of polygamy.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
12:59 pm

Cynthia,

You need to study the scripture of Jude. You know, that one in the New Testament of the Bible? (that’s the book they use at Church, or are supposed to) You and your liberal cronies are the “dreamers” spoken and warned about in that book.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:00 pm

To Scout: Can you accept the fact the people just don’t believe what you believe? I’m glad there are laws in America to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on us. Wasn’t that the whole reason those guys fled England and established America in the first place? Wasnt’ that the whole reason for all the wars in the 1700 and 1800’s? It’s sad to think that after 200+ years, there are still people who want to dictate to others what to believe and what to think – even the Communists didn’t last that idea.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
1:00 pm

I can think of 425 (this blog) reasons to support my belief there is no god. And, for all you Muslims, I can think of 73 reasons there is no allah (the virgins promised martyrs). I live “in town” and I am not aware of any gays in hiding. Nope, I think the Vatican of all places is where you’ll find most of the hidden gays (especially the child molester variety). There is nothing special about being heterosexual, and there is nothing special about being gay.

Lil' Barry Bailout

June 18th, 2010
1:00 pm

I guess it’s also possible that you’re not a real American.

blutto

June 18th, 2010
1:00 pm

Swede Atlanta: “DOMA does NOT ban gay marriage. DOMA simply says that if state A legalizes gay marriage, state B does not need to recognize it.”

You left out something that while it does not specifically ban gay marriage, makes the term meaningless–sort of like saying, “dry water.” Water isn’t dry and no attempt at redefining it will make it so. From DOMA:

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:01 pm

Union :

1) Your first premise is wrong …….. it’s the oldest. “In the beginning the Word (Jesus) …….. was God.”

2) Disagree.

3) Agree !!

A CONSERVATIVE

June 18th, 2010
1:01 pm

GENESIS 3:—-GOD created marriage to be solely between a man & a women….Social laws are based on the Holy Bible…a book liberals despire for its rules on life.

Michael K.

June 18th, 2010
1:04 pm

A bit off topic, but does anyone else find the existence of homosexuality to be fascinating in and of itself? Since, all things being equal, homosexuals will breed at a lower rate than heterosexuals one would expect that the tendency towards homosexuality would have eventually been “bred out” through the process of evolution. It’s continued existence suggests that it has evolutionary value. That value could either be direct, associated with other traits, or it could even be something that increases the reproductive potential of the group (though not the individual). There are so many possibilities – it’s just really intriguing.

The fact that homosexuality is so much more common among men is also interesting.

Union

June 18th, 2010
1:05 pm

for every bible verse quote.. i can come up with another quote.. written by some “other” person.. that may or may not have had “divine” direction when the pen was moving across the page.. or quill and ink for that matter.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:05 pm

i dissagree with all of you accept for Lesbian At Birth

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:06 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

1) Well, you don’t debate my points very well with a counter argument (i.e., XYY’s) or answer my questions. That tells me something.

2) Never forget that every law ever passed (from murder to how to drill an oil well) is one segment of society’s effort to impose their view of morality (usually by majority but not always) on the other segment. It’s about who has the votes.

That’s why adultery is still “grounds for divorce”. Why is that? Don’t people have the right to have sex with who they want? Who gives a spouse the so called “RIGHT” to sue for divorce on those grounds …………. how horrible and unpatriotic !!!

Hummmmm ……………… ??

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:07 pm

Lesbian At Birth: i hope these people are not getting to you.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
1:08 pm

I just read GEnesis 3 and see no reference to Marraige being between a man and a woman.

How bout a compromise.

1. The term “marriage” seems to be the issue, so how bout we simply call everything a civil union, a contract that is recognized in every state like other contracts.

2. Uhmm not everyone is Christian, so asserting your Christian beliefs is not really convincing someone who is non-christian of seeing your way.

3.If being homosexual is a choice, then being heterosexual is a choice as well. If something occurs in nature, kinda hard to say it’s unnatural.

4. There is a reason for seperation of church and state, it’s so one religious group does not circumvent the rights of other groups through religion.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:08 pm

to natalie merritt: Thank you!

Americans

June 18th, 2010
1:09 pm

“You’re in denial.”

That seems to be a favorite phrase of yours since you use it with such frequency. Presupposing to speak for Americans shows a sense of insecurity by those uncomfortable with their doubts.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:10 pm

To natalie merrit: They are not getting to me. I am comfortable with who I am and who I chose to love. I think that “Some People are stupid” just posted a great compromise for everyone – except Scout – :-) ROTFL!

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:11 pm

Some People are stupid :

Is pedophilia, necrophlia and bestiality (to name only a few perversion out there) an unnatural choice ?

It all occurrs in human “nature”. Just asking.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:12 pm

Homosexuals are genetically defective.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:13 pm

natalie merrit & Lesbian at Birth:

Hard to debate isn’t it ladies? Just much easier to say “but that’s not what I believe”.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:13 pm

Oxymoron:

We all are. That’s the point.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:13 pm

Lesbian At Birth: i agree! :)

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:16 pm

to Scout: It’s not hard to debate at all. I’m just not trying to convince you to see things my way – as your are trying to convince us all of your beliefs. I do believe the conversation started with how will legalizing gay married affect the “traditional” marriage. Since you don’t have any arguments to support the actual subject matter, your only argument has been YOUR religious beliefs. I’m not trying to argue anyone’s religious beliefs. I don’t believe my marrying my partner will affect YOUR marriage. Once you come up with an argument for that – the subject matter – we can communicate on a more intellectual level.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:17 pm

scout: you can belive what you believe. and we can believe what we believe. stop preching to us cause your just wasting you time. and just because you believe something doesnt mean that what everyone else believes is false. they just have differant opinions then you do. you are narrow minded,

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:18 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

If you weren’t trying to convince people to see things your way, you wouldn’t still be arguing with Scout.

songbird

June 18th, 2010
1:18 pm

Johnson – mankind refers to all human kind, not just men. You truly are an ignorant person.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:18 pm

To natalie merrit: It would really be nice if we could communicate offline! I love your thinking!!!!!! And support! I also appreciate all those who chose NOT to enforce their beliefs on my lifestyle – whether they agree or disagree.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:19 pm

Natalie Merritt:

Stop preaching ~ you’re wasting our time.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
1:19 pm

Michael K., is you really want to go off on a tangent, read my earlier post about unisex Americans (born with both sex organs). and, as I suggest, take of your shirt and explain why YOU have nipples? (assuming you are male – Michael is also a woman’s name). Some people follow their own insticts/heart and others look to god or science books to define words like “sexuality” or “love”, or “marriage”, etc. There is a biological definition (as determined by X and Y chromosomes), but as I noted, sometimes the genetic definition does not match the physiological definition. AND FINALLY, for all those Bible-quoting parrots who make it clear that the good book holds the answer, let me lay a little Tim Tebow John 15:13, “…no greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his friends…” Do you mean dying for one’s friends is more “loving” than matrimony? And is God telling us that “love” trancends gender? When a soldier throws himself on a hand grenade to save his “friends” is this an act of “love” EWWWW – I thought we don’t want gays in the military. OR, maybe they’re not his friends, in which case, he has committed a sin in suicide. Hmmmph? (rubbing chin with hand). And really, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter because the government doesn’t view Americans as gay or straight or male or female. It views us a worker bees who exist to sustain the hive. Speaking of which, I must go back to work.

George Foreman 3:16

June 18th, 2010
1:20 pm

“If a man layeth head to toe with another man in a sleeping bag, reach arounds are permitted, so sayeth the Lord”

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:20 pm

Oxymoron : how is she trying to convince people? she is mereing standing up for herself and her beliefs just as you would if someone was doing this to you.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:21 pm

To Oxymoron: I’m still on here because I have not yet heard one legal defense of how my marriage to my partner would affect the marriage of any heterosexual couple. Also, I’m not arguing with anyone on the matter but rather decided to participate in the hope of providing some insight of the subject matter from the gay perspective.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:22 pm

Oxymoron : im preaching? hmm well if i am .. leave :)
have a great day!

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:22 pm

Oxymoron:

Thank you.

Enjoyed the exhanges ……….. wish some of you could have been more honest in your responses to my points/questions on genetics vs. learned behavior, etc. And of course you continue to disregard the fact that every law is a “moral” decision by someone. Even athiests make “moral” decisions ………….. or “nothing” is wrong – even murder.

Got to run ……….. back later.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:22 pm

Natalie:

By continuing to argue, my dear. Get on with life. She’s doing the same thing that she’s slamming Scout for doing by incessantly posting and posting and bitching and bitching.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:23 pm

Lesbian:

“Providing insight” is trying to make people see things your way.

I'm here from the government and I'm here to help

June 18th, 2010
1:25 pm

This is such a BS issue I will only make one post. Hurray! I know!

Gay marriage fits right into where this country is heading. Down the drain! If we all were gay where in the hell does the next and future generations come from? Artificial insemination? Right! This guy ask this women to carry his baby or this girl asked this guy for his semen?

We were created as a man and women for a reason. Those that were created differently, I’m real sorry, LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

GET OVER YOURSELVES!

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:25 pm

Lesbian & Natalie:

If you weren’t trying to preach/ change people’s minds, you’d say your piece and be done.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:26 pm

so hmm what do you think your doing? the same thing…just say your piece and be done

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:27 pm

I did. I’m just trying to get you to shut up.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
1:28 pm

Jimmy – Marriage hasn’t been a “religious” institution for centuries. They lost that distinction because of the Church’s own corruption. . .their failure to recognize or banish members they didn’t like (and refuse to recognize their children and marriages) and their inability to provide accurate records of the population in their communities. That was long before America was established. If marriage was a “religious” institution, then our laws would be forcing people who marry in certain denominations to adhere to the requirements of those churches for both marriage and divorce – and we all know that heterosupremacists readily walk out of a church that won’t let them wed – or divorce when a couple wants otherwise.

Why don’t we just admit that we believe individual rights exist only for heterosexuals?

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:28 pm

To Oxymoron: Not really! There are an extremely large amount of comments being made from a lack of education or knowledge. If the comments are being made from knowledge and education, wouldn’t they be considered ignorant? I remember when the KKK performed lynchings under the claim “It’s in the Bible”. I also know for a fact that white supremicists groups also use the same “Bible” to support their race hatred. I find it also odd that the American government can step into other countries with the argument of “defending democracy” but there are still people in America that don’t have equal protection under the law. I would just like to hear some valid argument outside of a religious belief of how my marriage to my partner would actually have an affect – negative or positive – on a heterosexual marriage.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:29 pm

Cynthia is Sexy!!

June 18th, 2010
1:29 pm

LAB trying to make it a discriminatory issue…lol.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:30 pm

And once again, you’ve missed the point. SAY WHAT YOU NEED TO SAY AND QUIT REPEATING YOURSELF! I said what I needed to say: 1 comment about homo’s – that’s it. The rest have been about you and Lesbian repeating yourselves like a broken record.

Cynthia is Sexy!!

June 18th, 2010
1:30 pm

God created Adam and Eve…not Spot and Whiskers.

Ant

June 18th, 2010
1:31 pm

Hate to break it to you Bible-thumpers, but CIVIL marriage is a CIVIL institution, not a religious one. That’s why no one in this country is required to believe in the Bible to get married. Atheists, Buddhists, Jews… the government doesn’t care about your own private religious definition of marriage. It’s only concerned with the legal benefits and protections that come with civil marriage. If you’re so concerned with making marriage a religious, and more specifically Biblical, institution, I hope you are also as passionate about passing laws that prevent Hindus, Muslims, agnostics and everyone else from marrying. If you’re so concerned about protecting marriage, I hope you are collecting signatures to try to outlaw divorce. Otherwise, you are hypocrites of the highest order.

And what’s this about “liberals” wanting to destroy morality? Do you think that they don’t have families and morals too? You know what, it’s always “family values” politicians and church leaders who are caught cruising men in public bathrooms, buying drugs from male prostitutes, sexually harassing young male pages, and screwing around in bed with other guys. I’ve seen immoral behavior from both liberals AND conservatives, and obviously many conservatives agree that gay marriage should be legalized. You can get away with calling liberals immoral when there is no more immorality among conservative ranks.

The whole slippery slope argument is utterly baseless too. We’ve had gay marriage here in MA for some time now and there has been NO push for legalized marriage between siblings, animals or anyone else. No church has been forced to perform any marriage it doesn’t want to. That whole line about “if we allow gays to marry, then anyone must be allowed to marry” is just a lame excuse, the kind people used back when interracial marriages were legalized.

Gay people are creating households and raising families that deserve protection under the law. They pay their taxes, fight your wars, teach your kids, bag your groceries, perform your surgeries, fix your cars and make your favorite TV shows. There is no reason whatsoever to keep law-abiding, contributing citizens from marrying legally.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:31 pm

ha your jealous. i thought you said you were going to drop the subject? hmm

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
1:32 pm

Looks like Lezzy Girl and Natalie are ready for a hook-up.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:33 pm

what makes you say that?

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:33 pm

Thank you ANT!!!!!

Cynthia is Sexy!!

June 18th, 2010
1:33 pm

“NO push for legalized marriage between siblings, animals or anyone else” give it time…next thing we here will be Gay Rights for the animal kingdom…

“Lets watch as Marlen peers thru the blind and we witness the courtship of two very muscular yet adolescent male lions as they experiment and explore their inner most feelings…”

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:34 pm

Oh my gosh, Natalie apparently got dropped on her head too many times as a baby because all reasoning has gone out the window with this stupid chick!

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
1:34 pm

Hmmm….How about the way you two are panting over each other’s comment, for what 4+ hours.

George Foreman 3:16

June 18th, 2010
1:34 pm

Genesis 1:1…”God gaveth Adam a wee-wee and Eve a woo-woo, and proclaimed go forth and fornicate until you both climax and it was good, so sayeth the Lord”

Cynthia is Sexy!!

June 18th, 2010
1:34 pm

With a name like natalie what would ya expect.

blutto

June 18th, 2010
1:35 pm

Some People are stupid: “In the old days the majority thought black people were 3/5 citizens….”

Wrong on two counts.

No one North or South thought that black people were 3/5 citizens. Free black people were citizens. Slaves were not. The 3/5 compromise was proposed as a way to gain southern support for the Constitution by agreement to count three-fifths of a State’s slaves in apportioning Representatives, Presidential electors, and direct taxes.

Article 1, Section 2: (Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)

While some like yourself apparently think that this was an effort to claim that a black person was only 3/5 of a person, the compromise, proposed by northern liberal delegate James Wilson, prevented the South from dominating the Congress which their numbers would have permitted had slaves been counted as whole persons for purposes of apportioning representatives and electors. Thus rather than being an attempt to boost slavery, the 3/5 compromise helped ensure that the North’s voting power remained predominant.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:36 pm

what are you 6 act your age. i dropped the subject..you keep saying stuff about it.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:36 pm

OMG! Now folk have really gotten off topic and reverted to what appears to be an attempt at insults. I thought we were all adults that could convey our opinions in a very adult manner instead of reverting to the 3rd grade.

Cynthia is Sexy!!

June 18th, 2010
1:37 pm

YOU”RE IN 3rd GRADE!!! BLEH!

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:37 pm

Lesbian At Birth : four three five-seven three zero-four seven right zero

Ant

June 18th, 2010
1:37 pm

It’s also funny to me when someone says, “If everyone were gay, the human race would yadda yadda yadda”. What kind of argument is that? If we were all Asian, the world might be a different place. If we were all blind, things might be different. If we were all females, the human race might go extinct. What’s your point?

What makes you think that allowing gay marriage would turn you and every other straight person gay? Are you that impressionable? There has never been a time in history, even when homosexuality was tolerated, when there was a threat of everyone “going gay”. It’s not a contagious disease. In fact, the homosexual population has more or less always been proportionately smaller than the heterosexual population. Any apparent increase you might see in the number of gay people could only come from the fact that closeted gay people might feel less of a need to hide their sexuality, but they were always there to begin with.

Seems that anti-gay crowd will throw anything at a wall and pray that it sticks. Pathetic.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
1:37 pm

I’m here…, we’ve passed through the drain my friend. Surrogate parenting, in vitro fertilization, and sperm banks are all reality. The difference between these abominations and and same-sex marriage is; they’re legal in all states (along with abortion, by the way – why do we have some doctors making babies out of thin air and others killing perfectly healthy ones?). I couple can choose to procreate the old fashioned way, or the “test tube baby” way. Same sex couples CANNOT marry in all 50 states. So, as has been argued, the gub-mint needs to ban all marriages in favor of legally recognized civil unions, or domestic partnerships, OR provide the same LEGAL benefits/rights to gay couples as married, heterosexual couples. Frankly, if the straight folks want the word “MARRIAGE” I’m cool with it, but I am straight. Maybe we should have a contest to pick a word for same sex marriage, but not including the word marriage. Would “faggiage” be too offensive?

Michael K.

June 18th, 2010
1:38 pm

@Lesbian At Birth
Let me say that I’m pretty ambivalent about the gay marriage issue. On the one hand, I think consenting adults should be able to do as they please. On the other hand, since marriage and sex are social practices, I do worry about some of the potential consequences of expanding the legal definition of marriage.

Not sure if you read my earlier post, but I argued that legalizing gay marriage will make the legalization of polygamy more likely. Excluding European cultures, I think every major civilization has allowed men to take multiple wives. If gay marriage (which has no historical precedent, even in societies that were very permissive about homosexual behavior) is legalized, I think that the courts will also likely accept the argument that the traditional monogamous definition of marriage in America discriminates against other polygamous groups. For a number of reasons, I think legalizing polygamy would have tremendously negative repurcussions.

I guess I don’t really come to a satisfying conclusion about the right thing to do. If I were in your shoes, I’m sure I would have the same view as you. For you, unlike me, this intimately impacts your life. I think that might tend to blind you to the potential for negative externalities. In the same vein, since this doesn’t intimately affect my life, I probably don’t fully recognize the hardships the current law causes for homosexuals.

I also think that legalizing gay marriage probably contributes to a culture that values reproduction less and, thus, reproduces too little. That’s a problem, since we’re barely at replacement rate now. Of course, that’s also a hypocritical position for me to take, since my wife and I have no plans to have children.

I don’t know – like I said, I just don’t see a clear cut solution to this problem.

no one knows

June 18th, 2010
1:38 pm

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:39 pm

Natalie, dear, you’ve only proven how immature you really are. Thank goodness you’re a lesbian because you don’t need to be reproducing right now, and neither does LAB from the sound of it.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
1:40 pm

Lezzy at Birth – Insult? Don’t you WANT to be with a woman. All I said was you too are becoming very “chummy” and a hookup might be in order.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:41 pm

Oxymoron: you really need to get laid.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:41 pm

mmmm,mmmm,mmmm:

They are overly sensitive about their ’situation’, therefore they are very defensive. Don’t look at them!

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
1:42 pm

everybody needs to leave Lesbian at Birth alone.

After all she, BARACK OBAMA AND I HATE AMERICA

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:43 pm

Natalie:

Sounds like you’re the one who needs to get laid…by a man! Get a husband, girl!

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
1:43 pm

To I’m Here from the government- Why don’t you get over YOUR self? I mean, all this history of con-artist con-servatives demanding special rights for themselves – and then claiming “life isn’t fair” as they demand the right to “vote” the rights of other Americans out of the Constitution.

The whole argument boils down to the con-artist con-servative ideal that some citizens deserve a thousand special rights laws, including protecting the individual heterosupremacist right of child sex predators and spousal abusers to marry, while proclaiming that they MUST have be allowed to remove the individual rights of gay Americans. The whole con-artist game being used by conservatives to “amend” the Constitution to “define marriage” to reinforce heterosupremacy and special individual rights had nothing to do with “activist judges” and everything to do with promoting tyranny.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:44 pm

Thank you Van Jones, except I don’t HATE AMERICA. I actually served in the military for quite some time in defense of the Constitution – or so I was told that’s what I was doing. :-)

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
1:45 pm

But legal traditons should be changed if they discriminate between one group. That’s what the 14th amendment is about, equality

You are not being discriminated against. You can have all the vile sex you want. You just can not call it Marriage.

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
1:45 pm

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
1:46 pm

That is what homosexual marriage is all about.

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
1:47 pm

Lesbian at Birth and Natalie

Thanks ladies for providing your perspective.

I am ashamed sometimes of my fellow humans and their behavior. If it makes you feel any better, some of the bloggers you have heard from today would have treated you even worse if you were undocumented aliens or muslim!

Keep the faith my sisters, these folks will pass eventually and so will
their meaness of spirit.

Hope to see you here again.

Ant

June 18th, 2010
1:47 pm

“give it time…next thing we here will be Gay Rights for the animal kingdom…”

So gay people and their families who deserve legal marriage benefits and protections should be denied them because of your prediction? Thanks, Nostradamus, but we have evidence based in REALITY that no such thing is happening, especially in nations that have had legal gay marriage for much longer than MA.

And you know what, allowing one thing does not mean we have to allow anything else. What kind of thinking is that? Every issue should be judged on its own merits and faults. If polygamists wanted to legalize polygamy, let them try. What does it have to do with gay marriage, straight marriage, interracial marriage, interfaith marriage or any other kind of marriage?

I’m sure there were people in the 60’s who said “If we allow people of different races to marry then we’ll have to allow ANYONE to marry.” Does that mean we should never have legalized interracial marriages?

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
1:48 pm

George Foreman – “Genesis 1:1…”God gaveth Adam a wee-wee and Eve a woo-woo, and proclaimed go forth and fornicate until you both climax and it was good, so sayeth the Lord”
———————————————————————————————————————————-
Hahaha…and then they were kicked out of paradise. . .and for centuries, it was blamed on the women whose punishment and reminder was, apparently, their monthly visitor.
Maybe if the original heterosexual relationship hadn’t corrupted our original relationship with God, new people could have been constructed out of clay and/or spare ribs and procreation wouldn’t really be necessary. So maybe it was the heterosexuals who ruined original society and created original sin.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:48 pm

Granny Godzilla: thank you :)

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
1:49 pm

GG:
“I am ashamed sometimes of my fellow humans and their behavior.”

Me too GG. Some do get vile and disgusting.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
1:49 pm

Granny – are you for undocumented aliens? Breaking the law is OK with you. If so, you are the real FOOL. AZ prop is OK with me. Go to a foreign country without proper paperwork and see what happens.

Big D

June 18th, 2010
1:50 pm

L.A.B., you’ve had some good points and you have remained cool under fire, so don’t go placating the idiot VAN.
Van, if you would like to leave I will gladly pay for your one way ticket to where ever.
You sound like your mommy didn’t hug you enough.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
1:50 pm

To Ant – Hahaha. . .well, you know con-artist con-servatives always love to demand others make sacrifices to coddle their fears and insecurities. They naturally ask “what’s wrong with removing a few constitutional rights for the gays if it means we can reinforce our own belief of natural superiority over them?” So of course, they think the gays should sacrifice their rights for con-servative insecurities. That’s what they mean by “life isn’t fair. . ” they mean that life is supposed to only be fair for them.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
1:51 pm

And Granny, I learned all I need to about Muslims on 9/11. I guess you forgot, or maybe you had a plane ticket and didn’t show up.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:52 pm

Granny,

It’s time for your enema and diaper change!

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:52 pm

to natalie merrit: lesbianatbirth at gmail.com

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:53 pm

and these people think im immature. GG just member what you said
“these folks will pass eventually and so will
their meaness of spirit.”

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
1:53 pm

This blog has me reaching for the Jack Daniels and it’s not even 2:00 PM. ALL laws exist for the benefit of a few (usually those with wealth). Biblical law is no different, although the “wealth” is measured spiritually, as opposed to financially. At the end of the day, be it politicians or religioys clergy seek to control and exploit the weakness and fears of others. And what’s the pay off? If you vote for me (or follow my Commandments) you will be safe from terrorists, financial disaster, drugs, oil spills, Communists, Indians, etc. – or you will be “safe” from Satan, and enjoy eternal life in heaven. All you have to do is turn your wealth over to me. It is, as KBG points out, the oldest “con” in the Book (pun in intended). In fact, it could be argued that the reason Christians and other “believers” are so passionate and vociferous about this and other moral issues is;; they FEAR the agnostics and atheists are right, and if so, they have wasted this life by buying into empty promises of a mythical next life. Heaven and Hell don’t begin in death my friends; if you truly believe you would do well to create heaven on earth in the here and now, and whatever lies ahead for you (and those unlike you) lies in the hand of (your) god.

Joe

June 18th, 2010
1:53 pm

Scout:

It’s just a simple fact that if you don’t agree with them they demonize you. You must be a homophobe, raciest, Marxist, or something they have yet to conceive yet. I call it intellectual dishonesty myself. Most of the far left as with homosexuals can’t stand that they don’t fit into normal society. So they try and force their way in by using like minded activist judges and politicians… I don’t think this is what our founders had in mind when they all agreed that our great country would be a democracy…

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
1:54 pm

The hookup has begun! Isn’t it great when two people meet and fall in love!

Ant

June 18th, 2010
1:54 pm

Michael K, you speak of negative repurcussions… can you give us some that are based on the reality of gay marriage as it exists in the nations that have legalized gay marriage? Have they all legalized polygamy? Have their societies crumbled? And if it’s heterosexuals who have approved of polygamy in the past, what does that have to do with homosexuals?

I can think of many positive effects of gay marriage here in MA. Same sex couples are now protected equally under the law as their straight neighbors. They can raise kids who don’t feel their families are somehow “less than” others’. Gay kids can grow up feeling they can take part in the traditions of society and their families instead of remaining outside of them.

Of course you could say that I’m looking at things through rose-colored glasses, which is true enough I suppose. However, at best all you can really say is that legalized gay marriage has been a total non-issue.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:54 pm

natalie_merritt @ msn.com

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
1:54 pm

Oxymoron

No more enemas for me….Last time I had one you blew out.

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
1:55 pm

oops I was a bad Granny again, sorry nice people

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:55 pm

Granny:

You’re one to talk about meanness of spirit, you old hypocrite!

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:56 pm

No, that would have been Kamchak that blew out, not I. I don’t get that close to a liberal’s ass.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
1:57 pm

Williebkind – “If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.”
———————————————————————————————————————–
You should be a stand-up comedian. Why, those “good” homosexuals are the ones who are more than happy to give up their constitutional rights for their superior heterosupremacist masters.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:58 pm

I’m still curious as to how my marriage to my partner would affect the traditional marriage. No one can seem to answer that. There were a couple of folk that did state gay marriage would not affect their 26 year old marriage.

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
1:59 pm

Scout, please give me the specific reference from Romans that references homosexuality as it is known today. I’m not talking about references to man-on-man sex. Male rape is man-on-man sex (which is what Leviticus is talking about in the story about Sodom and Gomorrah) but it is not homosexuality.

I can assure you you will find zero references to homosexuality as an inherent physical and sexual attraction to a person of the same gender anywhere in the Bible.

The Bible talks about sexual acts. Remember that traditional rape of man on woman is a sexual act that is driven by the need to dominate. That is an act but is not an expression of heterosexuality.

Yeah Right

June 18th, 2010
1:59 pm

“Gay marriage will open the doors to incest and polygamy”

Yes, since that is what is happening in all the countries that have legalized gay marriage. Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Portugal and all the rest have now been hit by a wave of incest and polygamy!! Run, children, run!! Give me a break.

Face it folks, 10% of this world’s population is gay. That’s 10% in EVERY country. That’s A BIG CHUNK of the world’s population. And all of the bigots of the world think that this 10% don’t deserve and won’t eventually get the right they so deserve?

History will wash away the bigots, and their grandchildren will be ashamed to speak of their bigotry.

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
2:00 pm

Oxymoron

why am I not surprised that you can dish it out but you can’t take it?

typical bully.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
2:00 pm

Swede – I’m not talking about references to man-on-man sex. Male rape is man-on-man sex (which is what Leviticus is talking about in the story about Sodom and Gomorrah) but it is not homosexuality.

I’m curious how YOU know it wasn’t gay? Were you there?

gale

June 18th, 2010
2:01 pm

ah ladies. You really should not have posted contact information. You do know the crazies will be after you now, don’t you?

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

June 18th, 2010
2:02 pm

gale – sometimes the urge overtakes the brain.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
2:03 pm

I do believe I’m dishing it back to your old @ss quite well, granny. So, who’s the one that can’t take it?

Van Jones

June 18th, 2010
2:03 pm

Yeah Right….

I agree, history will wash away all you bigots. And they are all white and conservative. Only the righteous left will survive and evolve victoriously, sniffing our flatulence the whole way, fully in love with our own perfection. Ahhh to be an elitist…its wonderful

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
2:06 pm

To Joe – Talk about intellectual dishonesty. . whew! The Far Right is especially adept at declaring that they alone are the arbiters of God, morality, the authors and interpreters of the Constitution (hey, only con-servatives can determine interpretation of the Constitution to mean “all” except the gays – but that ain’t “activist” is it?). . .the Right is always expert at claiming that explaining that they are superior because…well, because they said so, and they even chose a Church that tells them so too, so everyone else needs to just shut up and let the Right dictate to them. Oh yeah. . .then they’ll call it “freedom.”

I suppose it’s one reason why in every single case I’ve ever seen of one party in a gay relationship dying, the members of the family who swoop down the quickest on the property are the rightwingers and the conservative “Christians.” Yep – they ain’t got a single problem with ostracizing the couple for years on end, but you can bet they are the first ones at the door to kick the partner out and grab every valuable in sight.

This is what conservatives mean by “creating wealth” and “working hard.” They have a vested interest in keeping those special heterosexual marriage rights exclusive for themselves – if they let the gays have them, they are apt to lose a chance to get the money, property, and valuables of their gay relatives.

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
2:07 pm

Yeah Right

“History will wash away the bigots, and their grandchildren will be ashamed to speak of their bigotry.”

Very well said.

Big D

June 18th, 2010
2:07 pm

Most of the Liberals who post here have nothing more than a bone to pick with civilized society and their opinions reflect nothing more than how they “feel”. Feelings are the topic here and are applicable, we cannot change the most powerful urge we will feel in our existence here, we can only control it with the tools we are given. There are times in my 57 years that I truly wished I could turn it off this procreation function as it has cost me more money and heart ache than any other facet of my life. I would never judge anyone else for the way this chemical phenomenon has affected their life in a gay or heterosexual way. My best neighbors are two lesbian couples and I would trust them ( and do) with the keys to my house, in sharp contrast with my other redneck heterosexual neighbors. If we are to quote the bible in this situation we must take special care not to judge or commit blasphemy. I believe this whole topic should revolve around definition only.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
2:07 pm

Swede, And what does the Bible say about a married heterosexual man who rapes his wife (or physically abuses her)? The rapes that occur in prisons are not sexual acts. They are, as you point out, about domination and aggression. This is in line with our primate cousins (oops, I did it again) and other species, in which mounting or any same-sex act is performed to establish dominance or submission. The problem for Christians is, they’re trying to study biology or sociology in the Bible. The Bible is a good source of information about Christianity, or Judaisim (Old Testament), but you’re not going to find much information about how to tune up a ‘66 Impala in the Book of Job. NOR, are you going to find the answers to twenty-first century American Constitutional law. AM I the only one disturbed by the fact that the “bad guys” these days are bad guys because they are guided by a document produced 2000 years ago, but when a current events issue pops up in the USA, many Americans run to the Bible for the answer?

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
2:12 pm

Well, Oxy,

You can call yourself the winner on this. You would anyway.
It’s really not important to me.

Now primp up your feathers and do the rooster walk.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
2:13 pm

Thank you Granny Godzilla for your openmindedness and support!

Anal Retentive Douchebag

June 18th, 2010
2:15 pm

“It’s time for your enema and diaper change!”

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
2:15 pm

now hold on just a minute, we already got lots of polygamy, incest and child molestation right here in the US of A (or has everyone forgotten about the fundamentalist – there’s that word again – Mormon compound(s) in Texas, Utah and Arizona. You see, their “good book” is only good if you’re a 35-75 year-old male. then you can take many wives and spritually marry/impregnate a 13 or 14 year-old, because this is what God wants. And how do we know what God wants? Joseph Smith, a 19th century snake oil salesman was visited by an angel named Maroni…

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
2:15 pm

Ref Woody, you are exactly right.

I am a Christian but I recognize first of all that this book is heavily-edited history of the Jews/Israelites (OT) and the story of Christ and the early Christians (NT). I also understand that the writers of the Bible used allegory and other methods for teaching their target audiences the important lessons of the day.

I do not look to the Bible to tell me what rights my neighbor should or should not have. I look to the U.S. and state constitutions.

The fundamentalist Christians are those that are unable to think for themselves or use the brain that God gave them. They equate hating and vilifying everyone different from themselves as “loving one another as thyself”. The pick and choose from the OT law to suit their selfish purposes.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
2:17 pm

This topic is hot

Scout-
When i said nature, i meant occuring in natural processes..I have never seen a dog pedophile. HUman nature and natural are not the same thing

Blutto-
Maybe I should rephrase, they thought black slaves were 3/5 citizens. I was trying to stay away from comparing majority of people back in the day though slaves were ok…didn’t want to seem like a race baiter.

Michael K.

June 18th, 2010
2:18 pm

@Ant
I don’t want to give the wrong impression. I think that opponents of gay marriage dramatically overstate their case. I live in VA and, if we had a referendum on gay marriage in this state, I’m not sure that I would vote in favor of gay marriage, but I would definitely not vote against it. Like I said, I see the potential for negative repurcussions, but they’re abstract and hypothetical. I wouldn’t personally feel right about voting against gay marriage, because it’s an issue that mainly affects other people and not me. Of course, using that logic, I should probably be a supporter of gay marriage. I guess I’m a bit of a hypocrite or maybe just confused about the right answer.

My argument about polygamy dealt with the US legal system – not that of other countries. I don’t think there’s any chance that you’re going to see polygamy legalized in Europe – though you might see it happen in Canada. Our courts, however, tend to be a little more focused on individuals rights and a little more determined to eradicate any vestiges of race/religion/creed based discrimination. If US courts determine that denying gays the right to marry violates their rights as individuals, it will be next to impossible to argue that individuals don’t also have the right to marry multiple other people – especially if their religion allows it. Admittedly, there’s probably less risk of that happening if gay marriage is legalized by referendums instead of by court orders.

I guess I’m arguing that the twin doctrines of tolerance and diversity (so cherished by the left) can be taken so far that they are used to justify repression of individuals in order to respect other cultures (i.e. legalizing polygamy). That worries me, but, then again, it’s pretty abstract.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
2:19 pm

If a poodle humps your leg is it still considered beastiality?

gale

June 18th, 2010
2:27 pm

Polygamy presents interesting legal challenges for the way benefits and responsibilities relate to marriage. Consider Social Security spousal benefits, for one. A surviving spouse is entitled to a specific amount. There are no defined conditions for dispersing the benefit to multiple surviving spouses. Or do all surviving spouses receive the same benefit. At least with gay marriage, we are talking about two people.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
2:28 pm

Okay time for a summary catch-all:

Natural v. Unnatural Choice: this is a meaningless distinction unless you are using a moral belief for natural. In nature, there is only typical and atypical behavior which does not have a moral conotation. Heterosexuality occurs more frequently than homosexuality, while this may have evolutionary components like offspring, there is no good/evil characteristic just like hair color, height, skin tone, or baldness.

Marriage v. Gay Marriage v. Polygamy: The honest truth is that if unions fall back under traditional contract law where I believe they truly belong, people would be able to enter into a agency relationship with any number of partners they so enumerate. So in essence, all of these relationship constructs would be on the table in addition to non-sexual friendships. This is fair because consenting adults should be able to enter into any contract where there is negotiation, consideration and agreement for purposes that are not illegal.

Necrophilia, Bestiality, & Pedophilia: I believe psychologists do classify these as perversions despite their occurence in nature. They are atypical behavior. The one distinction is that they do not involve meaningful consent. The dead, underage, or non-human cannot give consent. From a contract standpoint, this is a patently stupid argument.

Societal Impact of Marriage: Married males tend to be more productive workers; married women take more time off. They tend to out perform singles financially and tend to be hired at greater rates. There are economies of scale based on cohabitation such as splitting bills. Additionally, a little extra help around the house allows everyone to be able accomplish more activities. Children raised in married homes perform better psychologically, educationally, financially, and commit less crime. And if I remember correctly, married people also live longer.

Government Incentives: The government likes people who make more money because it grows the economy and provides more tax revenue. The government likes people who commit less crime. They realize that better educated more socially adjusted people do better in the first two areas. Given that marriage produces better results, they try and incentivize it.

Impact on Traditional Marriage: Gay marriage should not impact anyone’s sense of love for a partner anymore than any other outside partnership. As to respect to the institution/ideal of marriage, any redefinition will have an impact just like divorce did. At this point, you have to make a choice between the importance of the ideal and the interpersonal relationship. Marriage is a societal construct that was created for many religious, legal, and philosophical reasons. It does deserve some respect. Concordantly, societal constructs sometimes shift with the time. No one can truly quantify this impact.

Gay acceptance vs. validation: this is the crux of the issue I think for most people. I think both sides have their in-your-face aspects that devolve legitimate discussion. Is Gay marriage acceptance of someone’s distinct characteristics and choices or is it complicit validation of a lifestyle some people don’t approve of? The problems with other people’s choices is sometimes you don’t agree with them; that is why you have the war on drugs, social security, etc. It is my belief that by letting someone make a choice you are only supporting their right to choose and not the choice itself. By this logic, gay contracts are supporting the individual’s right to self-determination and not where they end up.

I do not believe either of the current 2 parties support someone’s right to make interpersonal choices in all avenues so you have an unfortunate precedent coupled with a real government incentive.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
2:33 pm

Some people are stupid, I would ask that you speak for yourself. I believe most people are stupid, but that’s another story. The term pedophile is exclusive to humans. It originates from the Greek pederast, or “lover of boys”. In addition, because animals mature more rapidly than humans, it would be pointless to distinguish between an adult dog and a “child”. That said, any male dog with copulate with a female if the bitch is in estrus. With all due (dis)respect to Roman Polanski and the aforementioned Mormon perverts; this is one instance in which I believe humans need to obey laws other than “natural law”. Which brings this to an end; “human nature” is “natural” (hence the similarities in the words natural and nature). As I said, what hopefully separates us from other species is the part of our brains, which allow us to analyze and reason. “Reason” is a big word for non-religious people. That’s not to say I do not know many religious people who demonstrate the ability to contemplate and reason… I just don’t find many of them here in GA.

gale

June 18th, 2010
2:35 pm

uga_b, studies show that children do better in two parent homes, regardless of the sex of the parents. For gay parents, married would be helpful because it helps the parents communicate guardianship to organizations involved with their children.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
2:39 pm

To uga_b: Very well put! I would however, disagree the crux is acceptance or validation. I think the issue is that there are gay couples that have been together for a lifetime but not afforded the benefits that comes with. For example, a gay couple of 30 years who invested the equal amount of funds into the home they shared for the 30 years do really have any protection to prevent a family member from from fighting the “last will and testiment” of the deceased party. These types of situations have landed in probate courts and since there’s no law protecting the union of gay couples, the survivor has lost the home that they have built with their life partner over 30 years. This is one of the reasons I support the legalization of gay marriage – whatever they choose to call it.

Although, one the other hand, I am very glad that currently I cannot marry my partner as I do not have the issues the heterosexual men have of “continuing to pay” even after the divorce. :-)

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
2:40 pm

Woody-
Please explain that to Scout

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
2:41 pm

uga_b, well said. and with regard to acceptance v. validation (as it relates to marriage), there are many cultures within the U.S. and beyond, in which concubines, mistresses and sex outside of marriage are permitted, and in many “open marriages” encouraged. and yet, these married heterosexul couples are treated (by the law) as if they were a monogamous couple.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
2:42 pm

Since in some cases gays are allowed to adopt children, and children are currently living in a 2 parent gay household, that would be all the more reason to legalize gay marriage to assist with the continued care of the children in case of divorce or separation, i.e. child support, medical payments, visitation, etc…

George Foreman 3:16

June 18th, 2010
2:43 pm

Deuteronomy 28 “The Lord suggestive when man with wee-wee want to woo woman with woo-woo, said man should follow these commandments: (1) wear Stetson cologne spirit (2) play side 1 of Led Zep IV, (3) ply her with fire-water and (4) compliment her shoes….so sayeth the Lord”

Cynthia rocks!

June 18th, 2010
2:47 pm

This gay male (like most gays & lesbians) has done all the right things:

I get to work every day and on time
I work hard do a pretty good job (I think) and have the highest respect of my supervisors & co-workers
I pay my taxes (as a single male I qualify for NO tax credits/deductions and I’m taxed to the fullest extent)
I obey the laws (other than minor traffic infractions, no criminal record)
I’ve served honorably in the military for 5 years
I’ve gotten a college & post-graduate education
I look after my elderly parents (I’ve taken a leave of absence from the job when they were both simultaneously striken with cancer)
I regularly volunteer at my local church kitchen that feeds the homeless
I volunteer at my community block watch
I donate to charity
I do all the things you can ask of a responsible citizen

Is it too much to ask for a government, laws and public policies (including marriage rights) that treats me equally and DOES NOT discriminate in return?

Sick and Tired

June 18th, 2010
2:47 pm

Granny @ 1:54

I am still LMAO. That was too dang funny…

CJ

June 18th, 2010
2:49 pm

For those of you who feel marriage is sacred, then I challenge you to lobby for the Prohibition of Divorce. By all means – stay married. No matter what. It’s too sacred to end in divorce.

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
2:49 pm

Thanks George Foreman for your scripture citations. Many of us need this level of humor to deal with the dearth of intelligence, education and reason on this blog. It appears many posters here were educated in Georgia. Since Georgia is at the bottom of list in terms of education among states that explains much.

Ralphie

June 18th, 2010
2:49 pm

I run a bakery and we work alot of weddings. Give me a break. We’re just not set up to put two guys on a wedding cake.

Joe

June 18th, 2010
2:52 pm

kevinbgoode:

I don’t even need to mention religion to prove my point that gay marriage is wrong and immoral. Obviously homo’s think its ok to use your anus as an entrance instead of an exit. That’s fine by me if that’s what gets your rocks off. The point I’m trying to make is that homo’s want to feel normal all the while knowing that they are certainly not. No one in their right mind would consider homo behavior normal. Hence the reason they want marriage so it will make them feel better about themselves. Think of millions of homos that come out of the closet and how their parents felt when they heard the news that their son or daughter was gay. They probably felt betrayed and just wondered what went wrong. A homo as I stated above has something wrong with them mentality and could care less how it affects a loved one. They have the “if it feels good do” mentality. We have no place in our society to main stream that if we want to continue to provide a country worth living in. A country civilized enough to raise children and to be able to teach them proper behavior. You’re kidding yourself if you think being a homo is something you’re born with. Most of the time homo behavior probably stems from some sort of traumatic event such as molestation or child abuse. No need to reply because deep down you know I’m right… LOL…

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
2:53 pm

Gale, I have seen studies that show performance is better for two-parent households regardless of biological versus step-children. While I am sure that 2 gay people perform better than one gay person and most likely even a single non-gay parent because they can divvy up responsibilities, I have not seen the data. I think gay families is a larger issue for most people and may be cart before the horse so to speak. I am sure the marriage distinction would make gay peoples life easier across the board.

LAB, I meant from a populist standpoint not the real-world ramifications.

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
2:53 pm

“and (4) compliment her shoes….so sayeth the Lord”

If a man compliments a woman on her shoes, he’s either 1) gay, or 2) has a serious foot fetish. Consider yourselves warned, ladies.

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
2:53 pm

Sick and Tired

Thanks, but I was a bad granny and should not be encouraged.

les

June 18th, 2010
2:54 pm

Good thought Ralphie. I guess many things would have to be re thought. Such as, Would 2 guys getting married have groomsmen only and bridesmaids only for the gals? Come on, this is the very kinda thing that keeps me awake at night.

Cynthia rocks!

June 18th, 2010
2:54 pm

@Ralphie: “not set to put two guys on a wedding cake?” Your trivial objections = lost business.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
2:55 pm

Joe-
If you aren’t a homosexual, you have no idea what they are born with. Just like they have no idea if you were born straight. It’s kinda specific to each person. Also, speaking of anal sex, you do realize heterosexual couples do that too

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
3:00 pm

Most of the time homo behavior probably stems from some sort of traumatic event such as molestation or child abuse.

Teh stoopid it burns, and is contagious.

Oy.

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
3:02 pm

Joe, your most recent post is so full of holes.

First of all gays do not feel abnormal. I feel the same as I have felt every day of my life. I am well-adjusted and have a truly amazing abundant and meaningful life.

Neither my parents nor my sibling ever had any issue or question about my sexual orientation. While neither were college educated their response was this is how God made you and we love you as we did yesterday. Further they said they wanted me to find a partner in life to provide the depth, love and fulfillment that a life-long partnership could bring.

What evidence do you have that allowing homosexuals to live open lives (whether married or unmarried) will make your country not worth living in? Cat got your tongue? I guess so because you know you have zero evidence.

There are many things that could make this country not worth living in such as rampant violent crime, high unemployment, inadequate or affordable healthcare, dirty air and water, poverty, religious nutcases run amok, etc.

You claim that homosexual orientation is not something you are born with. First of all don’t pretend to “know” something that you can’t know. Were you always straight? I’ll bet your answer is yes. I was always born. I didn’t wake up one day and say…gee I think I’ll be gay.

Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that molestation, etc. results in homosexual orientation. Most of the current evidence suggests a genetic link but there may be other factors. But it is clear that the orientation is unchangeable and most likely has organic and not behavioral or experiential origins.

neo-Carlinist

June 18th, 2010
3:03 pm

re: George Foreman 3:16, I refer you to George Carlin When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops: “I once saw a man with no shoes, but then saw a man with no feet, so I took HIS shoes and gave them to the man with no shoes, because a man with no feet doesn’t need shoes.” This is actually a shot a liberals

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
3:05 pm

To Swede Atlanta: Thank you!!!!!! I agree!!!!! My parents told me the same thing!

ctucker

June 18th, 2010
3:07 pm

Joe, Perhaps you need to catch up with the latest science: Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. You think gay penguins have been watching Ellen?

ctucker

June 18th, 2010
3:08 pm

Ralphie, Don’t worry. Many other bakeries would step in to handle the business you don’t want

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
3:10 pm

Did you block me, Cynthia? It won’t work this time!

Joe

June 18th, 2010
3:11 pm

Swede and some people are stupid:

What honest argument do you have that homo marriage should be allowed. The civil right argument don’t fly because you do have the right to marry. Just not to the same sex. You people want yet another special right and the voters have resoundingly rejected the notion. We live in a democracy and if you don’t like the result move. Should we legalize drugs so addicts can have even more access? LOL….

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
3:14 pm

Dirty pirate wh0re

Big D

June 18th, 2010
3:15 pm

I am totally amazed at my Christian conservative brethren:
This is a country of choice= Constitution.
Christian= Tolerance and avoid blasphemy. ( blaming something on God/Devil that is not).
Have a great weekend and try a little forgiveness.

Joe

June 18th, 2010
3:15 pm

Talk about the lack of intellect. Using penguins as an example. Did they make offspring too Tucker? LOL… That’s certainly one of the most out one of the most outlandish examples gay marriage supporters love to use. I guess in the wild if a dolphin or a penguin of the same sex just happen to brush up against each other they must be gay. So in other words you’re putting gays on the same wave length as animals Tucker? LOL… Again the voters have spoken and have rejected the idea of that type of nasty and immoral behavior…

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
3:16 pm

It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or not, if you like it in the booty you’re a dirty pirate wh0re

gale

June 18th, 2010
3:18 pm

It is only a matter of time. The people who oppose gay marriage are dwindling. More people today are ambivalent. When gay marriage becomes legal, it will be a non-issue and the opponents will find themselves shouting at the wind with no one to listen.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
3:19 pm

Since most companies that we all work for currently do offer domestic partnership, same sex benefits, I do anticipate gay marriage at some point in time being legalized. I suppose some of the opponents of gay marriage will now force their employer to stop offering same sex benefits to those gay co-workers.

echuck

June 18th, 2010
3:20 pm

From teh early research of Alfred Kinsey to the present, it is clear that homosexual vs heterosexual is a continuum with most people, including heterosexuals, not absolutely 100% either gay or straight. There is also ample evidence that tells us sexual preferences are influenced by genetics. Since gays are depicted in ancient artwork we can conclude that there is a genetic advantage to the human race to pass down at least some level of bisexuality. After all, anybody who is 100% gay is unlikely to reproduce and therefore his or her genetic propensity will not be passed down to the next generation. Most societies have encouraged gay children to reproduce when they are of age. Recently we are stopping that trend. That is not a problem for the minority in the 100% gay group. However some toward the middle or even close to the gay end of the continuum will now be encouraged to commit the equivalent of genetic suicide and not reproduce.
In America, two consenting adults have a fundamental right to love each other regardless of sexual preferences. Ultimately marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by most societies primarily for the purpose of raising children. Men and women of all ages with a genetic disorder preventing conception, an illness that left them sterile, or just by choice do not have children are still encouraged to marry as an example to the youth. Society pays for this encouragement with government status or monetary rewards. I see no societal advantage to pay for homosexual marriages. If private companies think they can recruit and retain good workers by offing benefits to a best friend of the employee’s choice, so be it. The government should not spend taxpayer money for that purpose.

Bring It Back

June 18th, 2010
3:20 pm

There are plenty of reasons why legalizing homosexual marriages is WRONG…the main one being that a marriage was originally meant to be between a man and a woman, to raise a family. Why do people keep wanting to change things? It’s bad enough that homosexuality is allowed, PERIOD. It should be ILLEGAL.

Joe

June 18th, 2010
3:20 pm

gale:

You are so sadly mistaken. If California voted to ban homo marriage no state in the union would support it….

Kamchak

June 18th, 2010
3:21 pm

You people want yet another special right and the voters have resoundingly rejected the notion.

Nope—just the same rights that we breeders have.

Paging Dr. Freud

June 18th, 2010
3:22 pm

Oxy needs some insight on his fascination with booty love. I see years of therapy ahead.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
3:22 pm

Joe-
What argument that homo people should marry??

What argument that hetero people should get married?

It’s the same argument. In respect to the law, a civil union is basically a contract. The term ” marriage” is where people are having an issue with. You are gonna say marriage is between a man and a women based on what…the bible…what if the two gay people are atheist..or buddhist…then the people doesn’t hold anything to them.

You are saying they can get married, to the opposite sex and thus they are afforded the same right as heterosexual couples…how is that different to a ban on interracial couples, they can still get married, just to the same race…do you support a ban on interacial marriage.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
3:25 pm

to echuck: “The government should not spend taxpayer money for that purpose”

I’m not sure where the taxpayer money thing comes in with regards to gay marriage. Because I am a lesbian, I guess I wouldn’t be aware of any government subsidies for being married – outside of a lower tax rate.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
3:25 pm

Bring it Back
the main one being that a marriage was originally meant to be between a man and a woman, to raise a family

Where is that stated? A gay couple can raise a family..so can s single parent…kinda weak there

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
3:26 pm

Dr. Freud:

Better brush up on your assumptions: I’m a SHE not a HE, dipsquash! And if you like something being jabbed up your butt, more power to you, but that’s not an entrance in my world! Looks like YOU’RE the one who needs therapy with your butt-lovin’!

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
3:27 pm

Cynthia, what role do you the government should have in the support of nuclear families or traditional marriages?

Clearly they support through estate law and tax breaks.

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
3:28 pm

Joe, you are an absolute idiot.

1. Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Because the Constitution guarantees me equal protection under the law.

2. Your argument about being allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex is ludicrous. Why would I want to marry a person of the opposite sex? Marriage is a legally recognized relationship by two persons who choose to enter that relationship with the attendant rights and responsibilities. I don’t want to marry a woman.

3. Special Rights
Actually we want the same rights you have. We want our relationships to be recognized and given the same status along with rights and responsibilities. In fact it is you that has special rights in the form of Social Security survivor benefits, insurance benefits, special treatment under the tax code.

4. Voters have rejected initiatives to permit same-sex marriages because the electorate has been pummelled with right-wing and religious hate and misinformation. When you take a national poll, without all the fervor of a ballot initiative, the majority of Americans believe homosexuals should have their relationships recognized with the same legal status as marriage. That might be civil unions but they support the recognition. The hate mongers on the right have thrown millions of dollars into these states to defeat these initiatives by scaring people that their marriages will fall apart if gays are allowed to marry.

5.What do drugs have to do with this discussion? I think you probably struggled as a child when you had to identify things that went together or were different.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
3:29 pm

Swede: I Agree!!!!

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
3:30 pm

Bring It Back – “There are plenty of reasons why legalizing homosexual marriages is WRONG…the main one being that a marriage was originally meant to be between a man and a woman, to raise a family. Why do people keep wanting to change things? It’s bad enough that homosexuality is allowed, PERIOD. It should be ILLEGAL”.

————————————————————————————————————————
Who told you that line of pathetic nonsense – the First Church of the Heterosupremacists? Hahahaha. . .it amazes me how many alleged heterosupremacists, claiming the moral high ground, also claim to have such intimate knowledge they can project from their own imaginations about the intimate relations of others. Yet these same people insist they themselves are allowed to the individual right to marry who they love, even though their projections indicate a complete inability to morally adhere to their marriage vows. One wonders how married heterosupremacists explain away their method of being able to project “nasty” ideas about the imagined sexual and intimate relations of same-sex couples, when their minds are supposed to always be paying attention to their own sanctified relationships?

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
3:30 pm

Bring it back…stupidity such as yours should be illegal.

I suggest you move to Iran. They are a theocracy. You would fit in there but be careful of some of their Sharia laws. You might find them a bit harsh.

neo-Carlinist

June 18th, 2010
3:31 pm

Joe, relax. this is not a moral issue, or even an issue of sexual behavior. if you don’t like anal sex, don’t have anal sex. if your god pprohibits sodomy, I would suggest you refrain from performing or receiving oral sex. this is a LEGAL issue as defined by the Constitution. homosexual couples do not enjoy the “equal protection of the law” their heterosexual counterparts enjoy, because in many states they cannot marry. I agree with most of the folks (conservatives and liberals) who believe the government should get out of the “marriage” business and just tax the sh*t out of ALL Americans – to pay for our imperialist wars, corporate welfare, the war on drugs, etc.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
3:31 pm

Swede: To answer your question #2 posed to Joe: Because they do it all the time and thus see no reason why we wouldn’t be able to do it. There are probably more closeted gay people in heterosexual marriages than we know about. That could also be why the heterosexual divorce rate is so high. Of course, we only know about the congressional folk that get busted seeking out men in restrooms while their wifes are clueless about their husbands real sexual orientation.

Poppy

June 18th, 2010
3:32 pm

I bet your pastor is gay.

gale

June 18th, 2010
3:34 pm

I strongly believe that most Americans are completely unaware of the many benefits, rights and responsibilities, not to mention legal recognition that comes with a marriage license. If they were aware of those things, they would be less ambivalent about the subject. The argument that gays can write contracts to provide the same protections as marriage falls very short in reality. Yet, many people who don’t really want to think beyond their own marriage –and why should they?– believe that.

ctucker

June 18th, 2010
3:34 pm

uga_b, I don’t have a real problem with tax breaks for dependent children because the nation needs more kids. Without them, we won’t have enough young workers to support a huge elderly class.

dawginDC

June 18th, 2010
3:35 pm

cynthia, do you expect God to bless a nation that supports such evils? i am so sick of you liberals…you want to take america right into the wrath of God..

dj

June 18th, 2010
3:35 pm

Cynthia, I have problem with gays getting married. In fact, when I told my gay boss around the time I was getting married was that I’m for it but he should be against it. However, gay males tend to have higher medical costs then straight males. Therefore, a business shouldn’t have to be on the hook for a gay man’s partners medical coverage. I find that as the only non-religous reason for gays not to marry.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
3:35 pm

Those who claim that “marriage” is a “religious” possession should be required by law to adhere to their Church’s teachings.

That would be the fastest decree to driving people out of getting married in a church. Just imagine the response of a couple who were married “Catholic” and who decide to get a divorce, only to have the state tell them “sorry – you said your vows in the Catholic Church, so we can’t divorce you until the Church says it’s okay.”

Of course, heterosexuals have never had much problem walking away from any church that didn’t want to tie the knot for them. And walking straight into a church down the street – or the courthouse – and be named “married.”

Gosh – I haven’t seen a voter initiative or a constitutional amendment to eliminate THAT practice. Once again, heterosupremacists believe that the individual right to marry is only meant for them – and the rest of the population must be enslaved to support the thousands of special rights laws they keep drafting to give themselves (alone) special rights and benefits.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
3:36 pm

The government consistently offers tax breaks for activities they see as productive such as college tuition, man-lady marriage, housing, and charity. In effect they are investing in these activities by incurring an opportunity cost. Renters are not constitutionally protected from paying their taxes. So echuck is right that they are paying for people to get married (I have outlined why I think they do). As far as the special survivorship rights that is based on legislation and I am sure common case law precedent so the Constitution would not really be applicable since there is no explicit violation.

dawginDC

June 18th, 2010
3:36 pm

i pray you get saved cynthia..you and obama

ctucker

June 18th, 2010
3:37 pm

Joe, I was trying to help you catch up with science, which has come to the conclusion that people — like animals — are born gay

dawginDC

June 18th, 2010
3:37 pm

no swede..the constitution does not allow for the legislation of immorality

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
3:37 pm

dj – That’s interesting. So, in turn, should bosses hire “married” people when they are going to cost more in benefits than the single employees? Seems to me that the single employees are constantly subsidizing the married ones.

Paging Dr. Freud

June 18th, 2010
3:38 pm

Oh, then that’s two corrections. SHE needs DECADES of therapy. Repeated, specific graphic thoughts mean a long road ahead….Unless she’s ready to admit the true source of such fascination and give in, which might improve her disposition to “barely tolerable to other humans.”

dawginDC

June 18th, 2010
3:38 pm

no it hasn’t cynthia..that is a lie..prove it!!! The bible says, you honor me with your lips, but your heart is far from me..i pray you repent and come to faith in Jesus cynthia…

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
3:39 pm

dawginDC – Really? It allows for the Republican Party. I must have missed the wording that says “immorality as defined by right wing ideologues only” throughout the Constitution.

LydiasDad

June 18th, 2010
3:40 pm

Then you better be ok with polygamy too. It’s next, and you can’t allow one, and forbid the other.

dawginDC

June 18th, 2010
3:42 pm

you cannot legislate morality, but you can legislate against immorality…read the Bible..nations have been destroyed by homosexuality…no matter what you libs say, it is an abomination…the grass withers, and the flowers fade, but the word of the Lord REMAINS forever

Reality

June 18th, 2010
3:43 pm

Legalize gay marriage? What’s next legalizing pedophilia and bestiality?

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
3:43 pm

So ugb_a: I would not qualify the tax breaks as a heterosexual thing. Gay partners or single gay parents get the college tuition tax break for the children they rear, the gay homeowners get the homeownership tax break, gay parents get the child care credit, gay people pay taxes and at the higher single rate. So I’m still confused about the:

“The government consistently offers tax breaks for activities they see as productive such as college tuition, man-lady marriage, housing, and charity. In effect they are investing in these activities by incurring an opportunity cost. Renters are not constitutionally protected from paying their taxes. So echuck is right that they are paying for people to get married (I have outlined why I think they do).”

Basically the only thing missing is survivor benefits for the gay couples that chose NOT to have children. There is no spousal survivor benefit for a gay partner.

dawginDC

June 18th, 2010
3:45 pm

kevin…nice try..it is not a political issue, but a moral issue…the truth is God’s word and i stand on it…what do you stand on?

neo-Carlinist

June 18th, 2010
3:47 pm

dawgindc, so how do you explain the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery)? Either slavery is immoral or it is not. Did it originate as a moral act, but become immoral nearly 100 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights? you and your ilk need to grab the nearest dictionary and look up the word “LEGAL” memorize it, then look up the word “MORAL”. matters of a legal nature are very different than matters of a moral nature. I won’t even ask you to offer your opinion as it relates to the myriad of currently illegal activities (prostitution, cultivation of marijuana, possession of cocaine, sale/possession of a machine gun, etc.), which were deemed to be “legal” by the Founding Fathers, but have become illegal over the years.

Tony

June 18th, 2010
3:47 pm

Okay … to all those saying gay marriage will lead to all types of freaky marriages: As CT pointed out, there are no good arguments left for banning gay marriage and this is one of them. There are good solid arguments against siblings marrying (birth defects) or polygamy (abuse of women) or bestiality (animal abuse or health risks) or children (abuse). There are also laws on the books for these reasons.

Gay marriage would be between two consenting adults. People who are against gay marriage are simply bigoted, ignorant, or they are influenced by religion. In any case, they want to be granted rights and privileges from their tax dollars while denying it to others who also pay taxes.

Tom Middleton

June 18th, 2010
3:48 pm

Why are we having to constantly remind some Christians of the two basic commandments on which all the others are based – love of God first and then one another?

Kind of nuts, isn’t it? We have the basis of Christianity as never-ending (unlimited) love (since God has no limits), yet here they come – the so-called Christian practitioners who believe that we should have more than a few. Can they get anything right?

First, let them learn to live the basis of Christianity as taught by Jesus (and do so with mustard-seed faith), and then let God decide who should and shouldn’t be getting married, as they should have been doing all along.

God is NOT the self-loathing, prejudiced, yet arrogant homophobe they keep trying to tell us and never was. The real God loves each of us divinely and absolutely and is incapable of anything less. May they start getting it right and very, very quickly!

P.S. Cynthia, you were too good for him! :)

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
3:49 pm

Thank you Tony

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
3:49 pm

Joe — “Obviously homo’s think its ok to use your anus as an entrance instead of an exit. That’s fine by me if that’s what gets your rocks off.”
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Once again, one wonders how an allegedly heterosexual man, steeped in a deep understanding of his own ‘normalcy” because….well, he says so….seems to be able to know so much about the intimate relations between other people. How, exactly, would that qualify Joe for marriage, for example? Shouldn’t we all be getting to vote on whether a man, whose mind can project such interesting and intimate details about the private intimacies of others, possesses the character for marriage? And shouldn’t we be able to vote on how “normal” that lifestyle choice of projecting is for such a moral, monogamous-oriented society?

former stay@home mom now working to support freeloaders

June 18th, 2010
3:49 pm

CT, I normally skip your articles. I read the article today and I think I will return to my normal routine……not reading your articles. This article might explain why you are divorced.

DawgDad

June 18th, 2010
3:50 pm

“There are no good arguments for denying homosexuals the right to a civil (non-religious) marriage”

No, Cynthia, you do NOT get to trump my right to free speech! Of COURSE there are good arguments, you just want to preclude the debate because you cannot prevail on logic based arguments.

I’ll give you ONE good argument: It will cost the taxpayers untold sums of money to fund the resulting civil court cases and the people executing them, cases treading into unchartered waters legally and resultingly very expensive to execute. Gay marriage is a boon for lawyers, ploiticians, government employees, and other bureaucratic types which is a significant factor in why gets so much support from straight people on the left.

Let me separate this into two issues: Civil and religious. Religious marriage is (or should be) up to the religious institutions and the people involved, regardless of whether civil society recognizes those marriages or not.

Civil: The underlying moral objective advanced by civil recognition is the creation of a family unit and the obligations therein. ALL GAY PEOPLE already have the SAME right as I do to get married in a civil context; they now want to extend the definition of the “marriage” beyond man and woman. But if we destroy the “man-woman” definition of marriage, where exactly are the new boundaries? Could there possibly be any secular argument against polygamy that would withstand a legal or constitutional challenge? I don’t think so. Any why not allow someone to marry their horse, or sheep, or dog, or cat? Don’t think someone would try? Think again.

Again, our current definition of marriage supports a long-standing traditional reality of life; i.e., there are compelling moral reasons for society to recognize the marriage of a man and a woman. I say, instead of allowing civil gay marriages, ALL CIVIL RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGE SOULD BE DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Custody rights would attribute to parentage. Inheritance rights would default to wills, or in the lack thereof there was clearly no intent to leave an inheritance to anyone.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
3:50 pm

I personally don’t like the government engaging in social experiments by screwing with people’s natural valuation and incentives. Look at the housing market; some people would be better off renting.

You are confusing behavior with motivation/desire. You could marry a dude and be rewarded for that behavior. You don’t have to. Neither do heterosexuals. You could go to school or not. You could give back or not. You could buy a home or rent. They are discriminating against behavior as opposed to people. 14th amendment protects classes of people and not behavior.

CT--I'll try one more time

June 18th, 2010
3:51 pm

Why can’t a threesome or a 45-year-old man and his daughter have equal marriage rights? If we change the cultural, customary definition of One Man-One Woman, why not Three People, or Five People, or A child and Fully Mature Adult. Don’t they deserve ‘equal marriage rights’ too? Why are they not considered normal and deserving of these ‘rights’ like two people above a certain age? Equal rights for, isn’t that your point?

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
3:52 pm

You know, I think we should just pass one constitutional amendment that declares that conservatives cannot possess any additional right, protection, or privilege than any other American.

It might be fun watching them play on the same field as the gays in life.

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
3:52 pm

Its’ a SHE?

I am embarassed for my gender.

Cynthia rocks!

June 18th, 2010
3:52 pm

@former stay@home mom now working to support freeloaders: Huh!!!???

PearlJam

June 18th, 2010
3:52 pm

1. Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Because the Constitution guarantees me equal protection under the law.

What law prevents you from getting married?

Carnivore 69

June 18th, 2010
3:54 pm

You guys still have not figured out Cynthia’s true agenda. There is a formula to it.
Step 1 – Take a stand on some topic that most people disagree with, including most liberals.
Step 2 – Sit and watch 600+ comments come back from the peanut gallery telling her what a fool she is.
Step 3 – Tally up the web hits and show them to the owners of the AJC. Her blog gets more activity than almost any other area of ajc.com.

In this manner, she is able to justify her continued existence and can point to a % of ad revenue attributable to her blog. In fact, she can make the argument that she is her own profit center.

If you are really tired of her, then stop reading her blog, and she will vanish soon thereafter. But everyone needs a punching bag, and she is well paid to be a punching bag.

neo-Carlinist

June 18th, 2010
3:55 pm

former stay@home… we’ve already gone over what is “normal” so since you “normally skip” CT’s articles, please return to your normal routine.

PearlJam

June 18th, 2010
3:55 pm

2. Your argument about being allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex is ludicrous. Why would I want to marry a person of the opposite sex? Marriage is a legally recognized relationship by two persons who choose to enter that relationship with the attendant rights and responsibilities. I don’t want to marry a woman.

Wong –
Marriage is no between to people, it between man and women, man = husband, women = wife. Just like parents = father (man) and Mother (women), just like a female child = daughter, male child = son

It’s not alway two people who choose to enter into the relationship – a lot of people are married because their parents arranged it. Still a marriage.
“I don’t want to marry a woman” – that’s your choice, no law stopping you.

dawginDC

June 18th, 2010
3:55 pm

Tony,

You need to go back and re-read your bible..Jesus did say to love one another as one of His commandments, but what is love? is it not telling someone they are headed to hell if they do not repent? go read it…Paul said to preach the truth in love..It is not some lovey dovey fleshy love that the libs think..are you a supporter of gay marriage? there are hard truths in God’s word….

if you truly loved someone you would tell them to repent..

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of
God.And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

i am still waiting on proof that people are born gay…

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
3:56 pm

“It will cost the taxpayers untold sums of money to fund the resulting civil court cases and the people executing them, cases treading into unchartered waters legally and resultingly very expensive to execute. ”

If divorces are paid for by the taxpayers, aren’t the gay people already paying for the high divorce rate among the heterosexuals? Gay people do pay taxes. Last I read, people higher divorce lawyers and more than likely get divorced in some type of court (superior, family, etc..) So, if the judges of those courts are paid by taxpayer dollars, in essence we gays are actually paying for the heterosexuals to get divorced.

Williebkind

June 18th, 2010
3:58 pm

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat..
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
4:00 pm

to dawgndc: and I’m still waiting on proof that people are born straight.

That reminds me of the left-handed issue in the 70’s. The not so well educated folk would say “all people are born right handed and thus chose to be left handed so we will force those that cater to the left to be like the rest of us and use their right hand” :-) And unless you’re left handed, you wouldn’t know about that cause that went on. And by no means am I comparing being gay to being left handed.

neo-Carlinist

June 18th, 2010
4:01 pm

DawgDad, you have obviously never been in a civil courtroom. There are no “public defenders” in civil (divorce) court. The litigants pay ALL legal costs (I know, my tab is $100,000 and counting – and folks tell me I got off easy). But, if you really want to cut costs, ban ALL marriages, because with 50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, divorce/custody cases are piled up like firewood at any courthouse.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
4:01 pm

To CT – I’ll try one more time: It is interesting that you automatically project apples and oranges as if they are the same thing. Yet you didn’t talk about how easy it was for the Georgia legislature to redefine marriage after a 15 year old legally tied the knot with a 37 year old woman he impregnated without parental consent. Clearly, the legislature moved to remove equal rights from the 15 year old male, even though the same government said he had them before 2006. Apparently it was a “one man, one woman” thing in 2005, but suddenly redefined in 2006 to be something requiring outside consent.

So, in other words, heterosupremacists are all for redefining the cultural, customary definition of marriage whenever it suits their purpose – and their purpose alone. The rest of us, apparently, are just around to foot the bill.

Granny Godzilla

June 18th, 2010
4:01 pm

How to Spot a Republican

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

“She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be an Obama Democrat.”

“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”

The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Republican.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”

“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.”

PearlJam

June 18th, 2010
4:03 pm

3. Special Rights
Actually we want the same rights you have. We want our relationships to be recognized and given the same status along with rights and responsibilities. In fact it is you that has special rights in the form of Social Security survivor benefits, insurance benefits, special treatment under the tax code.

Valid, have no problem with this – why I don’t like progressive tax system and Govt involved in our personal finances.
Should be allowed any beneficiary you want. What business is it of the Govt.

Adam

June 18th, 2010
4:05 pm

I do not understand the argument against polygamy, actually. Why do you care if one man and 3 women want to marry? You treat it as if it’s taboo. Who cares? The issue would be with the tax code (and benefits). Outside of that, it’s not my business.

The argument about “why don’t gays just go for civil unions?” Is built with ignorance and flaws. I imagine most gays don’t care what you call it, if you get all of the same rights. As it is, the rights are not the same. There are over 1000 rights not granted, currently, to civil unions. Futher, the grand state of Georgia banned them too.

Can any conservative truly say they want less government while demanding that the government intrude into private relationships? It’s so twisted and hypocritical.

Ultimately, the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. They should be civil unions for all couples, recognized everywhere, and leave marriage up to churches. The end.

Ask people in MA if their straight marriages have been impacted by gay marriages. It’s been going on for 6 years and the answer is “there’s no difference.”

Cookies

June 18th, 2010
4:06 pm

Gridlock – you are an idiot. I’m assuming you are gay.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
4:06 pm

Carnivore – I haven’t seen “most liberals” protesting this column. I’ve seen a lot of the typical right wing conservatives who only want big government when it regulates the gays down the street. This protects the conservatives who are more than ready to swoop in and take the property of their gay relatives without having to accept their “relationship” as legal, and makes for quite a profitable estate when one of those gay relatives passes on.

Obviously, if gays were legally married, this cash cow would be removed from conservative lives. It would also devastate large numbers of right wing organizations who are dependent upon donations generated by their fear-and-smear campaign against the gays.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
4:12 pm

To Adam: ” Ultimately, the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. They should be civil unions for all couples, recognized everywhere, and leave marriage up to churches.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————

I’d agree with that, as long as laws would be passed requiring those people receiving legal benefits and demanding to be called “married” because of their “church” be also legally required and bound to the church doctrine. Meaning, no easy state divorce. If your church forbids or restricts it, the government doesn’t bail them out of the marriage.

Of course, only the most adamant far Right wingers would agree with that. In the few states that have established a two-tier marriage system (covenant marriage) with different requirements for divorce, very few couples have stepped up to the plate. And strangely enough, there wasn’t a single proposal from a right wing organization to “LET THE PEOPLE VOTE” on “redefining marriage.” Nope – the public didn’t get to vote at all on the far Right-wing “covenant marriage” redefinition. . .they shoved it thru the legislators to benefit a few dozen right-wing “Christians” who wanted the state to define THEIR marriages closer to their church doctrine.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
4:16 pm

Williebkind: “If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.”
—————————————————————————————————————————————
One correction: If a conservative is down-and-out, he waits for one of the same-sex partners in his extended family to die, then declares their relationship illegal and immoral, and swoops in to gather the bounty.

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
4:17 pm

Sheesh…more of the anti-gay silliness: marrying the dog, polygamy’s next, baby Jesus will cry….Wow, where were all you geniuses when the wingnuts were trying to defend prop 8 in court? They were obviously unaware of your devastating logical points, because they didn’t introduce them. So when pedophiles are marrying hamsters, it’s all your fault!!!!

Forward your brilliant ideas to the prop 8 legal team for use on the appeal. I’m sure they will appreciate them.

Tommy Maddox

June 18th, 2010
4:17 pm

Those two dudes that left the Lord at Abraham’s tent and went on down the road to Sodom and Gomorrah were not mailmen – but they did deliver a message…

Truth

June 18th, 2010
4:24 pm

Cynthia:

Some animals eat their young. Is it o.k. if we do that?

itpdude

June 18th, 2010
4:25 pm

@ Woody Ma-whatever, before you call someone’s opinion “infantile” and arrogantly call it “amusing”, do a little spell check and grammar check. Your argument is not bolstered by your poor grammar and spelling.

To the rest, I do not understand your point with babies who are born with ambiguous sex organs. They are assigned a gender (most times) and that is how they are raised and considered by the law. Same with gender reassignment cases: Chastity Bono will be (if he isn’t already) a legal male.

Case closed. And I still do not understand your point.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
4:25 pm

As a libertarian I enjoy the incompatability of the steretypical logic puported by both sides such as:

“Conservatives”: Against gay people a-marrying because the bible said no and they want to protect their traditional American Judeo-Christian values. I am against big government unless it is supporting morality and values. People should be free to spend their money however their bible tells them to.

“Liberals”: The government should stay out of gay people’s way and afford them the right to marry and make personal choices! The choices exceptions are personal savings, health care, education, environment, and everything else that is good for society. How come you think you have a right to educate children as you see fit and drag them out of homes, but don’t support trying to install a better home life via marriage? Which is what we are currently doing but youre against?

In the end both parties want to regulate behavior to protect us from ourselves. I don’t care what dogma you based it on.

Kevin

June 18th, 2010
4:26 pm

I don’t believe in Gay marriage and would not support it but if passed the one thing that should not be allowed is for Gays to adopt children.

Truth

June 18th, 2010
4:26 pm

Also, to the best of my recollection, I don’t think God ever instructed the animal kingdom on marriage as He did those made after His image.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
4:28 pm

but Kevin gays can already adopt children. Where have you been?

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
4:28 pm

How can you reconcile intervening on behalf of society in some purely individual choices while ignoring others? And more importantly how can you use the same logic to defend both sides of the coin?!

Matt stafford

June 18th, 2010
4:29 pm

in many countries gay men are eliminated quickly and efficiently. If only it were so here, as the nation speeds to its demise.

The Rock

June 18th, 2010
4:34 pm

Gridlock had the living crap beat out of him so many times as a kid for being a fag he doesnt know which end is up

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
4:34 pm

uga_b, logic should apply equally to arguments, that’s why it’s called LOGIC. When you pick and choose when to apply a principle, it’s not a principle, it’s an unsupported opinion.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
4:36 pm

Aw Matt Stafford – how comforting that you apparently are willing to keep the gay women. I suppose that idea comes from your own projected fantasies. . .another shining example of the “morality” so dear to conservatives.

let the People decide! power to the people!

June 18th, 2010
4:37 pm

Why is it so difficult for you liberal to understand that the state of California voted on a gay marriage proposal and it was resoundingly rejected?

Interestingly enough the white vote was evenly split but the black vote went against gay marriage something like 70/30 and the Hispanic vote went against the gay marriage proposal something like 60/40. So much for the illusion that its conservatieve, white Republican people that stopped the gay marriage proposal.

Bit nooooooooo, the liberals don’t want the vote to stand since it didn’t go their way. Now they want the courts to override the will of the people. So if they don’t win at the ballot box then they want to ignore the will of the people through some left wing judge. If you people could have it your way we would have a left wing dictatorship rule rather than the will of the people So much for the inclusiveness, fairness, and tolerance for other viewpoints that liberals are always preaching about.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
4:39 pm

itpdude, Case re-opened, and your position is not bolstered by the (infantile) 4th grade health class logic that; “boys have a penis and girls have a vagina”. I was not making an “argument”. I was asking you to account for the possibility (reality) that some children are both boy and girl at birth and only a doctor (usually with the consent of the parents) determines the child’s (social) gender. By your definition, a human and not “god” determines gender, and if so, what exactly is a homosexual or homosexual marriage, if a person is born male, but raised female (after having his penis removed), and then marries a man? By law the marriage is legal, but by “nature” is a same sex marriage. As far as Chaz goes, genetically (biologically) speaking he was born female. So, when/if Chaz Bono marries a woman, he will be party to a legal (in CA) “same sex” marriage. I tried to use small words, but I am confident you can ask your parents for help if a word or concept is above your INFANTILE head (my 10 year-old does it all the time).

Matt Stafford

June 18th, 2010
4:39 pm

Sorry kevinbgoode Hang the carpet munchers also. There does that make you feel better? Hey remember those days in HS when you had the sh%t beat out of you every day? they are a coming again kev old pal.

An abomination yep it sure is

June 18th, 2010
4:41 pm

Plain and simple. 80% of this country identifies itself as Judao-Christian and the Bible says 2-3 times that homosexuality is a sin and that for a man to lay down with another man is an “ABOMINATION”. What is it that you people don’t seem to understand?

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
4:41 pm

TO Let The People Decide: Perhaps your argument would be far more convincing if the “people” got a vote on your own individual right to marry. Those referendums were nothing but an exercise in tyranny – a movement by people not individually or directly affected by the act of someone else’s marriage demanding the right to remove that right from them through the Constitution.

The riddler

June 18th, 2010
4:43 pm

Nice try Granny changing the words around, however the post about democrats has been around for a decade and most everybody has seen it. Nice try and good copy and paste -with an edit.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
4:46 pm

Pearl Jam

this is probably gonna make you mad but…one of the definitions of marriage is between two consenting adults, with attendent rights…

also the definition of marriage is a union(marriage of ideas)…

and for the people using the term marriage…we should actually be using the term wedlock…marriage is the act of wedlock..

And also for the argument that you can get married so you have the same right…the act of marriage is not the right…its the choice of who you marry…which is being denied…the example of you can get married can be used to deny interacial marriage, interreligious marriages…and any other distinction between people.. the law has to hold all people equally and can not distinguish between man and women, black and white, gay or straight(i.e. thats why justice is suppose to be blind) so in legal terms, all marriages are civil unions based on an agreed upon contract to split things evenly except when otherwise agreed(marriage license is the civil contract, pre-nup,postnup is the amendment). So in legal terms, there really isn’t a basis to deny one group access to a contract…the beastiality argument won’t work because animals can’t enter into contract, incest violates the term of the contract(independent parties), and polygamy also violates the terms(signular into union)…The contract is between the state and the 2 parties..thats why it had to be honored in every state, just like contract law states

giraffes and gay animals

June 18th, 2010
4:47 pm

I remember one time cynthia made the bogus claim that there is gay sex in nature because male giraffes engage in what is called “necking”. Get a clue cynthia. Giraffe necking is a test of strength between males. They use the strength of their necks to repeatedly test each other by bashing each other with their necks. A pecking order and dominance is established through this test of strength. Has nothing to do with gay animal sex. This is just how dumb some of Cynthia’s arguments can be.

As a matter of fact the primary reason I don’t beleive in homosexuality isn’t religion. Its nature. You don’t see homosexuality in the animal kingdom. You just don’t. Why? Because its not natural. That’s why. Get a clue people and learn something from mother nature. And don’t give me no nonsense about dogs humping. That also is a dominance gesture. No one on here has ever in their life actually seen 2 male dogs adjoined together like a male dog and female dog.

Second that

June 18th, 2010
4:47 pm

Let the people decide–Amen brother, good post. Great description of liberal ’s. BTW i ain’t it amazing how how liberals got their panties in a wad when they caught the republican congressman foot tapping in the stall yet they wan’t the rest of the country to accept their abnormal lifestyle.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
4:48 pm

Aw now Matt – what would you know about carpet munching? Are you telling us that, as a highly moral, righteous, heterosexually-correct Male, that you are able to use your imagination to project what you think these people are doing, even though you are morally supposed to only pay attention to your own relationships? I’m fascinated. What if someone looked at you and said…”whoa, Matt…you must be one of those people, cuz I don’t know any real heterosexual who would even imagine what someone else is doin’>

I mean, after all, where would even learn about such practices – in church?

TGT

June 18th, 2010
4:48 pm

“People–like animals–are born gay.”

Nothing could be further from the truth, and the science bears this out. Ms. Tucker should know better.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, renowned expert on homosexuality concludes that, “…it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.” Dr. Satinover adds that, “Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same. We now know that in the majority of both men and women, ‘homosexuality,’ as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to ‘mutate’ into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime.”

These facts support the idea of many that homosexuality is not a genetic and unchangeable behavior. This idea is further supported by the fact that there are, of course, many people who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle. Dr. Satinover continues that, homosexuals are “human beings, no different than you or me, who are, of course, sexual beings. Like you and me, their sexuality is broken in a broken world. The notion that ‘homosexuals’ are in effect a ‘different species’ (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.”

And if it is not strictly genetic, then no one is “born gay.”

The Truth Shall Set You Free

June 18th, 2010
4:51 pm

Gay marriage is a sin. The gay lifestyle is not a lifestyle at all but it is what it should be called – a DEATHSTYLE! Being gay is not a sin, but acting on the tendencies of being gay is what is the sin. Please tell me how two women or two men together can pro-create? Exactly, they cannot. So, with that being said, how can gay mariage lead to anything good? Gay couples, if they wanted children still need a man and a woman to make children. God, the creator did not intend for two women or two men to be married.

Funny how a divorcee can be an expert on this subject matter to begin with. You ae the opposite of Boortz, but the same.

Power to the people

June 18th, 2010
4:52 pm

kevinbgoode,

sorry kevin but we voted on it and you lost. Learn to deal with it in the same fashion that I learned to deal with the Obama victory. I’ve learned to deal with the fact that this incompetent won, that he is bankrupting the country by quadrupling the debt, that he completely mismanaged the BP oil spill while miles of boon lay sitting in Maine and 4 giant skimmers sat in the Netherlands for 2 months when they offered us those skimmers to us 2 months ago. Elections have consequences and while I deal with the consequences of Obama destroying the country you must deal with the consequences of gays not marrying. God sure isn’t for it.

Working all day to support the liberal parasites

June 18th, 2010
4:57 pm

Reading over these posts I see that kevinbgoode has been posting since 10.30 a.m. another liberal parasite being supported by the actual taxpayers of the country. -I know kevin you’ll post that you are a rich businessman working at home, or a retired millionaire. Don’t bother, your’e seen for the true liberal gay parasite you are. BTW how’s that AIDS treatment going?

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
4:59 pm

Uhmm…there is eveidence of homosexuality within nature…

To the guy that posted the “scientific expert on homosexuality”…if you read that study, it could also say the same about heterosexuality…that you aren’t born straight…

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
5:03 pm

Power to the People – Oh yawn. There are still 18,000 married same-sex couples in California. So what did that accomplish, other than reinforce the belief that conservatives are all about tyranny?

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
5:05 pm

giraffes… you’re all mixed up. you need to distinguish emotional homosexuality in humans from normal (natural) animal behavior. You’ve obviously never been to a zoo, a farm, or watched the National Geographic Channel. male monkeys, apes and other primate anally rape other males as an act of dominance. Male dogs mount other dogs in order to establish alpha male status. I’ve seen male horses and bulls mount other males to show the herd who’s boss. These acts are completely “natural”. And, as has been discussed before, where does prison rape fall into this mix? It happens, so it must be “natural”, but it’s “nature” lies in aggression and domination of other males, and not affection or any emotional bond. What is not “natural” (by your definition) is love itself; the emotional attachment between a man and a woman. The truth is, as with all this talk of god, and the Bible and Adam and Eve, nobody knows why some chicks dig chicks and some chicks dig dudes, anymore than anyone knows why some guys like big hooters or some women like guys with broad shoulders. AND, nobody knows why many of the black and hispanic married men, who voted against prop 8 in CA are actually “on the down low” (they live heterosexual lives, but have sex with men – out of wedlock, by the way). maybe they fear a world in which monogamous gay couples will reduce their chances of having sex in airport restrooms.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
5:05 pm

Aw Working ALL Day – heck, why should only conservatives be posting all day on web sites about the private individual rights of other people? I mean, don’t they have anything better to do with their time than to try to justify how they are superior to all others?

E

June 18th, 2010
5:07 pm

@ 4:51 A Deathstyle? hahaha. Should I have been permitted to marry my wife even though we have no intention to procreate?

Tom Middleton

June 18th, 2010
5:07 pm

Granny Godzilla@ 4:01 pm

Best joke I’ve heard in ages, Granny. You rock!

Roto rooter

June 18th, 2010
5:08 pm

One thing for sure today’s posts show –Atlanta is a cesspool of frigging gay’s. No wonder it is such a sh%thole to live in.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
5:10 pm

The Truth – Oh puhleeze. . .you and Power are two peas in a pod. Once again, nothing spells “tyranny” quite like right wing self-proclaimed “Christians” who have assigned themselves the official honor of declaring what God likes and doesn’t like – while ignoring the First Amendment rights of others to worship as they choose. Few things get a conservative more excited than the act of tyranny, particularly when they can find a way to deprive other Americans of their constitutional rights.

If someone was smart enough in this country to start a religion that declares all con-artist con-servatives as sinners, and twist a couple of bible verses around to prove it (gosh that wouldn’t be too difficult), I wonder how they’d enjoy those interpretations from God. Besides, marriage in this country has nothing to do with religion. Religion is just an excuse conservatives use to extort money from people and try to deny other free Americans their God-given rights.

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
5:12 pm

Roto-Rooter – Well, I’m sure you’ve been spreading your seed enough to make everything fresh again.

Orange10

June 18th, 2010
5:13 pm

Maybe Atlanta needs to be renamed Sodom or Gomorrah, Take your pick! If this nonsense comes to pass maybe we will see “The Real Wrath Of God” Old Testament style.

I'm a divorced old hag

June 18th, 2010
5:14 pm

CT your kidding you are divorced? Who would let a bug eyed big nosed smashed face bitter catch like you go? Man must be crazy

kevinbgoode

June 18th, 2010
5:16 pm

TGT – Really, you should stop copying and pasting from right-wing paid “researchers.” Especially without ever bothering to go into detail about why someone like Satinover is “renowned” and who ‘renowns” him.

It amazes me just how desperately the alternate universe of the Right works to demonize others.

Robert Hagedorn

June 18th, 2010
5:19 pm

This is relevant to the discussion: the original sin was anal intercourse. Oh yes, I am serious. Dead serious. For the exegesis, google “Robert Hagedorn’s Blogs” and read. You won’t like what you read. So…there must be something wrong with the exegesis. Here’s the challenge to us all: what’s wrong with this very offensive exegesis? Who’s smart enough to figure it out?

Cynthia rocks!

June 18th, 2010
5:23 pm

@let the People decide! power to the people!: Correction, the State of California BARELY voted on an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment (Prop 8) defining marriage as man + woman) in 2008 by a vote of 52-48. Earlier in 2000 the State of California voted on another anti-gay marriage referenddum (DOMA) by a vote 62-37 (this was later overturned by the California Supreme Court).

Notice how anti-gay marriage votes have lost 10 points in 8 years time. Give it another 5 years and gay marriage will be the law of the land in the most populous state in the union and may very well come to a state near you.

neo-Carlinist

June 18th, 2010
5:27 pm

I’ve been out and about for a couple of weeks, but I have to say, some of the more anti-gay posts are disturbing. I will not insult my truly conservative friends (and opponents) who present cogent, albeit ideologically different views by calling any of you homophobes “conservatives”. You are intellectual and moral children. I was married to a certified homophile for nearly 5 years (what some might call a fag hag). In fact, we are divorced because I am not gay, if you can wrap your head around that one. I have lived in Atlanta for nearly 25 years and I have met dozens if not hundreds of amazing gay men and lesbians, some single, others in monogamous relationships for 10-20 years. I stay away from bisexuals because, help me out here, Lesbian Since Birth and Swede, there’s just too much drama, what with all the flipping switches(joke). I have met an equal number of amazing heterosexual men and women; some single, others married. Some un-married couples with and without children, but as I said, the most disturbing subset of Atlantans I have encountered are the “heterosexual Christians”. If intollerance and bigotry are the 11th and 12 Commandments, you guys (and gals) are IN! AND finally, I have met a fair number of malicious, disingenous, reckless gay people as well. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. At the end of the day gay people are people first; they come in all shapes and sizes. There are as many saints and sinners at Blake’s in “Midtown” as there are at some Baptist Church in Cobb County. If anyone wants to play god and stand in judgment, I’ll refer you to the verse about not judging, “lest ye be judged”. You think us heathens are in for a surprise, I can only pray there is a hell, because I’ve been through it, and I don’t think you folks can handle it. So wrap yourself your book of fairy tales about burning bushes, talking snakes, water changed to wine, and the Rapture, have at it. For my money, it’s pornography for self-righteous hypocrites and nothing more.

Truth you are an idiot

June 18th, 2010
5:29 pm

Truth you are an idiot; but most likely having the worldview of the village idiot is a small price to pay for repressing your homosexual feelings.

According to your logic, a barren female would be practicing a DEATHSTYLE by getting married.

Isn’t funny how the ones with the narrow stance are the same ones caught with the wide stance in the bathroom stall!

DawgDad

June 18th, 2010
5:29 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

You wrote: “If divorces are paid for by the taxpayers, aren’t the gay people already paying for the high divorce rate among the heterosexuals? Gay people do pay taxes. Last I read, people higher divorce lawyers and more than likely get divorced in some type of court (superior, family, etc..) So, if the judges of those courts are paid by taxpayer dollars, in essence we gays are actually paying for the heterosexuals to get divorced.”

NOW you’re catching on! You SHOULD be outraged at having to subsidize via government taxation aspects of people’s lives government has NO business being involved in! You’re helping make my point, which is to dissolve civil recognition of marriage completely! (Of course, these laws were primarily designed to protect the interests of women and children, and to ensure they did not become destitute burdens on the rest of society, but what leftist isn’t clammoring for MORE of these victims to serve?)

Obviously, the left would LOVE to compound one wrong of government intrusion overreach into private lives with an extended intrusion. I really wonder if the “anything goes” homosexual/social liberal crowd will be as enamored with “gay marriage” when judges, courts, and governement entities start enforcing court decrees on their broken unions. We’ve seen some of this already, like a judge ruling a separated gay partner cannot leave the state, or be afforded visitation rights, and I’ve seen the wailings on TV! You think heterosexuals create a fuss in messy divorces and bad marriages of convenience, just wait.

Wolfmother

June 18th, 2010
5:31 pm

I’m willing to accept the legalization of gay marriage; but its hard to accept bad journalism.

Homosexuality is an abomination

June 18th, 2010
5:31 pm

It says so in the Bible 2-3 times. God says it. I believe it. Nuff said.

The rest of you want to flat out ignore the word of God and endorse something he very explicitly decries as a sin then go right ahead and lead us ever onwards towards your moral sewer.

God’s word is eternal. It doesn’t change with the particular social mores of the day. Its not that difficult of a concept to understand.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
5:31 pm

to neo: I stay away from the Bi Sexuals as well as it is too much drama.

Mike T.

June 18th, 2010
5:32 pm

Homosexual behavior needs to revert to its pre 1971 position as a mental disturbance.
it was Adam ans Eve not Adam and Steve.

Flo-Ri-Duh!

June 18th, 2010
5:33 pm

My Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination against God…… I don’t hate homosexuals but an abomonation against God should not be legalized.

Aquagirl

June 18th, 2010
5:36 pm

“maybe they fear a world in which monogamous gay couples will reduce their chances of having sex in airport restrooms.”

Woody FTW!

DawgDad

June 18th, 2010
5:37 pm

Neo: “but as I said, the most disturbing subset of Atlantans I have encountered are the “heterosexual Christians”. If intollerance and bigotry are the 11th and 12 Commandments, you guys (and gals) are IN!”

Heterosexual Christians, including, say, Jimmy Carter? Cynthia Tucker (presumably)?

Think about what you say before you say it. You seem bound and determined to project “intolerance” onto one of the most tolerant groups of people in the history of the world, that being “heterosexual Christians”.

God

June 18th, 2010
5:38 pm

Flo-ri-duh,

Just wanted to tell you there was a mix up at the printer. Seems the guy was rather homophobic and made some changes. For the record, I really don’t give a rat’s @ss about the issue. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Rich

June 18th, 2010
5:45 pm

Since we are changing the definition of marriage, can I have multiple wivies?

neo-Carlinist

June 18th, 2010
5:52 pm

DawgDad, I put it in quotation marks because this is what they call themselves. You’ll note I did not put use quotation marks to describe gay men, unmarried heterosexuals, lesbians or others. I am heterosxeual and was a Christian for 35 of my 50 years and I share nothing in common with these folks. I’ve never met Ms. Tucker, but I had the pleasure of meeting President Carter, and I found him to be a sincere and thoughtful man. Not once did he use the term “carpet muncher” or “homo” or express his feelings about the negative effects of anal sex. Nor did he recall how straight thugs terrorized gay students at his high school, and he never once warned of eternal damnation for anyone, though I suspect he has his opinion, like most.

thomasAlex

June 18th, 2010
5:57 pm

Pandora’s box?? Now that is an illogical opinion based solely on your opinion and not fact. The meaning of marriage has always been different in different cultures and society’s since the dawn of man. Gay marriages existed thousands of years before Christianity and Mormons ever did; that’s if you believe their fiction as fact. Pandora’s box as you say is already open if you ban minority’s based on a majority’s opinion from the institutional law of marriage. Lets put women rights up to a vote and see how it plays out in a country dominated by men; majority is ALWAYS right as some of you seem to think!

Mr. Right

June 18th, 2010
5:59 pm

Gay marriage ? YUCK!!

Rich

June 18th, 2010
6:00 pm

There is no right that a straight person has that a gay person does not have. They can both marry someone of the same sex (same for both), the can not marry someone of the opposite sex (Same for both). What they want to do is different.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
6:01 pm

I still have not yet read one legal argument as to how the legalization of gay marriage would affect – negatively or positively – “traditional” marriage. I’ve read mostly strong opinions, intense bigotry, hypocracy, hatred, etc….I thought the question posed by CT was a great question and would possibly open up a conversation regarding legalities of the issue and not so much hatred of how some people chose to live their lives. If the truth be told, there’s hatred about how the heterosexuals handle their marriages – infidelity, abuse, children outside the marriage as a result of the infidelities, down low inside the marriage, etc….

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
6:28 pm

Granny:

If you’re embarassed of me, you should take a long, hard look in the mirror. I know you think that everyone wants to be like you, but we only tolerate you and put up with your incessant nonsense because we know you’re a few crayons short of a full box and it’s not nice to make too much fun of retarded people to their face.

LA

June 18th, 2010
6:59 pm

Gay marriage is nothing but the celebration of anal sex.

TGT

June 18th, 2010
7:15 pm

kevinbgoode: I have referenced many different sources, including the CDC and the LA Times. I am not “copying and pasting” from any particular “right-wing” source. Satinover is very well respected in the area of homosexuality, whether or not you agree with his conclusions.

Cynthia rocks!

June 18th, 2010
7:15 pm

Arguments against interracial marriage 1947-1968. SOUND FAMILIAR?

1.) Interracial marriage runs counter to God’s plan:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he
placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his
arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
(Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard
Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3
(1967))

2.) “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always
productive of deplorable results.”

“The purity of the public morals, the moral
and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of
civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate,
and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by
positive law and subject to no evasion.” (Source: Dissenting California Supreme Court Justice objecting to that Court’s decision striking down a state law ban on interracial marriage in
Perez_v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 41 (1948), (Shenk, J. dissenting))è%

3.) Persons wishing to enter into interracial marriages come from the “dregs of
society.”. = similary to: “homosexuals are perverted and abominable (Source: Advocates in favor of California’s ban on interracial marriage, quoted in Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 25)

4.) Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of
conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than
execration.” = “homosexual marriage will destroy traditional marriage” (Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago
Tribune, May 19, 1996)

Joe

June 18th, 2010
8:15 pm

Swede Atlanta:

It’s time for what I like to call the dunce segment. It’s where points are proved moot.

1. The law in our country is that marriage is only recognized between one man and one woman. It’s called the Defense of Marriage Act. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? Nowhere in the constitution is marriage mentioned because it is a centuries old tradition. Again you have the right to marry. Just not to the same sex. Obviously you want the Constitution rewritten to suit your deviant needs?

2. Refer back to one. The Defense of Marriage act as many laws in many states have upheld that marriage is between one man and one woman.
3. Do you not already get a special right thanks to the far left? If you beat me up you’ll probably get probation. If I beat you up I will be charged with a hate crime. That’s pretty much self explanatory there. The same as it would be if we are forced to redefine marriage to make you happy.
4. You can think what you’ve written in #4 is accurate but it’s almost laughable. In state after state the vote really hasn’t been close. What misinformation may I ask? People are repulsed by homo behavior and don’t feel it should be held to a level of normalcy…
5. This only shows your ignorance of the issue when all you have is an insult….

Joe

June 18th, 2010
8:23 pm

No need for the help there Tucker. You believe that deviants are born deviant but I tend to believe they are either generally crazy or have had a traumatic childhood experience. You can believe whatever. You believe in global warming because some so called experts say so. I do not… You can find information to support your ideological beliefs anywhere… But it still don’t mean its true.

Joe

June 18th, 2010
8:25 pm

Cynithia Rocks:
Maybe you should consult with the democrat party about that because they are the ones who fought tooth and nail to keep the civil rights act from passing…

Cynthia rocks!

June 18th, 2010
8:32 pm

@Joe: It’s common knowledge that the bigots that filled the ranks of the Democratic Party back in the 50s & 60s have long moved over to the Republican Party.

Jack

June 18th, 2010
8:39 pm

Robberies and rapes in Atlanta worry me more than gay marriage does.

shadow_man

June 18th, 2010
9:20 pm

To those of you trying to bring up irrelevant issues, like polygamy, i will show you why the slippery slope fails. First, if you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that’s your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.

Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.

Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he’ll choose his sister, and if he’s gay, he’ll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.

Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 6 years now, and i don’t see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that’s quickly becoming obsolete.

shadow_man

June 18th, 2010
9:26 pm

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.

This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God’s will.

shadow_man

June 18th, 2010
9:27 pm

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a “lifestyle”, that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
“It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”

shadow_man

June 18th, 2010
9:27 pm

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

shadow_man

June 18th, 2010
9:28 pm

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don’t feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren’t human.

“I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if “Gays” have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate “(Legal Document)” of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. “

thomasAlex

June 18th, 2010
9:35 pm

Separation of Church and State; your god may think homosexuality is an abomination but others gods do not. Shall we allow one religious doctorate to governor over other religious doctorates? If so, isn’t that stepping on others religious rights? The fact of the matter is, this issue has nothing to do with Religion whatsoever, but everything to do with Constitutional Rights under law. The 14th Amendment guarantees Equal Rights to all and Equal Protections to all; no where does it say only if your heterosexual. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled since 1888, that Marriage was a basic human right, and therefore guarantees that Gay marriage is a basic human right under law and shall be protected. Homosexuality like heterosexuality and bisexuality is 100% natural and healthy and neither have had a choice in their outcome.

God

June 18th, 2010
9:58 pm

Mike T. you are right about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. But you are forgetting about their next door neighbors Bill and Phil who ran a floral shop until all Hell broke loose with Adam and Eve. Bill and Phil were such a nice couple, it was a shame that they had to relocate.

Larry Craig’s great-great X 50 grandfather altered the original version that was sent to the printer. That guy had issues.

thomasAlex

June 18th, 2010
10:24 pm

@ God.

Who’s Adam and Eve?

Joe

June 18th, 2010
10:24 pm

Cynthia rocks!:

Are you refering to Robert Byrd. A former clansman and leader of the dem party.. LOL… Put your dunce cap back on and get back in the closet….

Joe

June 18th, 2010
10:26 pm

shadow_man:

How about this for reason not to allow gay marriage. We simply don’t want it! Enough said…

thomasAlex

June 19th, 2010
1:49 am

last I checked, 53% of the Nation was in favor of Gay Marriage, the tides are obviously shifting.

Jake

June 19th, 2010
3:57 am

So many crazies out there. It’s pretty obvious where things are going, though, whether people want to pretend otherwise or not. In California in 2000, Proposition 22 passed 61-39. In California in 2008, Proposition 8 passed 52-48. “The people voted against it, so there,” may not be the argument to hang your hat on in another four years… SO looking forward to the comment boards as all the fundamentalists freak out… 45 states to go!

Joe

June 19th, 2010
9:43 am

Why then does state after state resoundingly dissaprove of homo marriage… You may need to check your so called polls again…

Larry

June 19th, 2010
11:09 am

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Call it a union, a mating, a coupling but don’t call it marriage. Marriage is reserved for individuals of the opposite sex.

shadow_man

June 20th, 2010
11:48 am

Joe: You need to work on your trolling :) That’s way too obvious

Larry: Sorry, but as past history shows, separate is not equal.

natalie merritt

June 21st, 2010
10:54 am

is this good?

Did you see me? When I was driving on the opposite side of the road. I didn’t see you coming, it happened so fast, one moment I was in my car listening to the radio, then the next I’m laying on the pavement with glass all around me, and a warm liquid surrounding me, did you see me? I saw you walk by me and stare then get in your car and drive off.

What they give is what they take away.

June 21st, 2010
4:16 pm

Let all of them get marriad.Just make it harder for them to get a devorce. Thay have worked years for the right to get marriad, Make them stay married for ten years before they can leave each other. It sure is a shame that it is always a real good looking girl wants to be with a big fat slob most of the time. I guess it’s like the old country song Marry a ugly women and you have her for life.

To hold and not reproduce.

June 21st, 2010
4:22 pm

Let them all get hitched, will be less of them born after that. Maybe we will run out of them. If none of them have kids, One generation is all they have left.

aint they so cute, hold hands, wlking down the street.

June 21st, 2010
4:27 pm

Gay honneymoon, sound like somebody is going to have to use the back door, to get in where they want to be. Well maybe, that what thomasAlex told me he done.

planetspinz

June 22nd, 2010
5:48 am

All government recognized marriages are civil marriages. Courts have ruled for more than 40 years now that religious wedding ceremonies do not confer any of the 1138 federal and state rights of marriage. Only a state-issued signed, witnessed and filed marriage license confers those rights on two people who marry.

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. The court did not rule that this right is for heterosexuals only. The court did not rule that this right requires the permission of a tyrannical voting majority. The court did not rule that marriage is a religious institution, or that the purpose of marriage is procreation. All the court ruled is that it is a fundamental right.

This right, along with all other constitutional rights, must be unconditional, and must never require permission, acceptance, agreement, approval, understanding, tolerance or respect of anyone who believes that they have chosen to be heterosexual.

The rights of all Americans must be applied unconditionally, and never be denied based on how we look, love or believe. There is only one reason why marriage equality is a fundamental right for gay men and lesbians, and that’s because we are Americans.

The Anonymous, MD

July 1st, 2010
1:37 am

I think both sides are wrong. Check out Gays Ain’t Got a Civil Right to Get Married! (neither do straights) This book solves the problem of how gays can have all the legal rights and responsibilities that current-day marriage affords, and how the right-wing religious folks can protect the sanctity of their religions. No sacrificing. No compromising. Make it fair for everyone by admitting that gays ain’t got a civil right to get married and neither do straights. By removing civil rights from marriage we re-separate church and state and reallocate civil rights and religious rights. Nobody has a problem with modern-day baptisms or funerals. Baptisms and birth certificates, along with funerals and death certificates already lay out a structure of how religious ceremonies can coexist with civil rights. Anonymous, MD approaches marriages and civil unions with a similar methodology. A marriage should not be a civil right for anyone. A marriage should be a commitment that defines a non-legal relationship. A civil union should be a commitment that defines a legal relationship. A civil union should be a civil right for anyone. Civil unions are not scary, are not marriages, and should be required for anyone seeking legal relationship status. Anonymous, MD takes you through a personal journey to demonstrate how this issue affects everyone—even those who are not on one of the two hotly contested sides. Anonymous, MD is neither for or against gay marriage but cannot tolerate the lack of logic that is used to frame the current debate; therefore, Anonymous, MD offers examples of canon law and civil rights, politicians and prostitutes, Catholics and Mormons, S/M and incense, foreskin and fidelity, and gay sex and the afterlife to graphically illustrate the sensibly simple solution.