Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Watch: Rioters in London Clash With Police Over ‘Cleaver’ Terror Attack

Government

George Will Says Opposition to Gay Marriage Is ‘Dying’ — Find Out Why

Dec. 9, 2012 6:27pm Mytheos Holt

Last week, Glenn Beck invited noted atheist libertarian Penn Jillette on his show and publicly broke with harder line social conservatives on the question of gay marriage. Specifically, Beck forthrightly rejected the idea that government ought to be in the business of favoring one form of marriage over another.

“The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage,” Beck said, reframing the question in a manner that suggested the former question could not be resolved to social conservatives’ satisfaction.

Now, as yet another sign that conservative opinion makers are moving away from a hard line stance on the issue, conservative columnist George Will stated, in no uncertain terms, that opposition to gay marriage was on its way out as a potent political force. At the same time, Will expressed doubts as to whether this phenomenon would prevail upon the Supreme Court to rule for or against the practice when it takes up the question of gay marriage early next year.

“This decision by the Supreme Court came 31 days after an election day in which three states, for the first time, endorsed same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Never happened before. Maine, Maryland, and Washington. Now, the question is, how will that influence the court? It could make them say ‘it’s not necessary for us to go here.’ They don’t want to do what they did with abortion. The country was having a constructive accommodation on abortion, liberalizing abortion laws. The court yanked the subject out of democratic discourse and embittered the argument. They may say ‘we don’t want to do that. We can just let the democracy take care of this,’” Will said.

“On the other hand,” he continued, “they could say ‘it’s now safe to look at this because there is something like an emerging consensus.’ Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s all old people.”

Watch Will’s take below:

As we have documented elsewhere, Will’s argument is consistent with polling data showing opposition to gay marriage dropping in every age group, with the speed of that drop accelerating ever faster among young Americans. It could well be that, even if the court refuses to rule on the issue and decisively take it out of the arena of democratic governance, the question will be moot within 10-20 years. That is certainly the conclusion embraced by polling analyst Nate Silver, who charted out how long it would take all 50 states in the union to accept the practice of gay marriage using forecasting models here. Silver’s model predicts that the final state to legalize the practice will be Mississippi in 2024, suggesting that in 12 years, the issue would be irrelevant even without a Supreme Court decision.

Of course, there is one bit of irony involved if the Supreme Court does decide to rule that gay marriage is a right protected under equal protection cases such as Loving v. Virginia, and that is that if such a decision were to happen, gay rights activists would almost certainly have at least Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, to thank for the decision, as well as former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olsen, who is bringing one of the suits against California’s Proposition 8. In other words, if the issue does go the way that gay rights groups want, it will be because Republicans pushed for it. It is difficult to prefigure what the political fallout from such a decision would be for both parties, however.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (294)

tonythefisher
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:34pm
I for one, could care LESS what your sexuality is! I just find it HILARIOUS that the “left” or the “hippest” among us, that QUICKY belittle and make fun of the “right” or conservatives, are the ones ignorant or in denial of biology in this arena!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:57pm
  ignorant or in denial of biology? how so? oh… you aren’t one of those people who think being gay is a choice are you?
  
  Report this comment
- yournutsarenumb
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:22pm
  no, Keaton, he is probably one of those old fossils that believes that the terms “husband” and “wife” have a definite gender connotation that cannot be altered just to meet a particular group’s political ends…
  
  Report this comment
- spairhair
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:23pm
  Just a thought, what defines homosexuality? Jails are filled with men who are having sex with each other. Rest stops are visited by males having sex with each other. Are they all homosexual or enjoy or just want sex? I have heard women say they are not lesbian but do not want to get pregnant so thats their choice for now. In some cases, certainly not all, its all about the convenience and lust for sex. In some ways it diminishes the person who truly cannot identify with the opposite sex. Just a thought
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:31pm
  Tony: Agree. Also find it funny that our sexually ” concerned” Lefties are so ignorant of economics. Watch out for Keaton who sounds like a new ” identity ” name for old Encinom – somewhat rational, somewhat smart aleck, totally Lefty brainwashed ! Thanks.
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiaku
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:33pm
  I see no indication that sexuality is anything more than a conditioned arousal growing up. You have men that prefer chubby women and people with various fetishes for things like feet. I know of no possible way genetics can influence those desires.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:49pm
  barber.. I promise im not encinom. but I do take “somewhat rational” as a compliment! : ) thanks!
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 9:15pm
  Anyone who has any knowledge at all of historical trend knows this is a retread, something we’ve seen many times before in American history. People couldn’t marry outside their religion, people can’t marry outside their ethnicity or race. All those laws and social prohibitions have fallen one by one. Why? Because the people who made those laws, and enforced those prohibitions with the threats of ostracism died, and a new generation, who didn’t care, took their place.
  
  That’s happening now. George is right. The people who object to gay marriage are dying. The next generation doesn’t care.
  
  The writing is on the wall. America has seen this so many time this is inevitable and big yawner for me.
  
  Report this comment
- jmills
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 9:26pm
  Gays, lesbians and homosexuals are people too. People with hopes, dreams, friends, family, lovers and more. Also, for decades this same group has made the claim they are born that way; born with an attraction to the same sex. We hear about it all the time yet we still haven’t see any evidence to support the claim.
  
  In other words, there is still no scientific evidence gays, lesbians and homosexuals are born that way and a lot of evidence the environment in which we are raised is a major factor. There isn’t a single credible scientist who will state those with an attraction to the same sex are born that way.
  
  Then we have the Center for Disease Control (CDC) putting out reports of the severe health hazards of the gay community. As I see it, we either have a populace of scientifically illiterates or of those who don’t care we have a segment of society engaging in behavior that kills.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 10:04pm
  Keatonc33
  “ignorant or in denial of biology”
  ***
  Where is the gay gene. Which gene or genes have which alleles that cause someone to be gay?
  
  Examples of complex behaviour are tigers hunting solo & lions hunting in groups. Yet scientists have shown that this is not genetically encoded. They have shown that Tigers hunt cooperatively when the need arises
  
  Maybe men are biologically programmed to like women except when competition for resources gets to a fever pitch. Then some will make do with whatever they have. So yes in that sense Keaton you can say that your condition is genetic.
  
  In the book “Biological Exhuberance” do they tell you about cases where the drake of a mated pair of ducks dies “freeing up a female” & all the sudden a drake of a homosexual pairing leaves that pairing & pairs up with the female? Do they tell you how often that happens or why? Are you even interested? Or does the truth have boundaries. That is one must not leave Queerdom upon penalty of death by order of gay group.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 10:17pm
  jmills
  
  The silver lining of Obamacare is that it will create shortages and they will have to cut something or make a huge effort at disease prevention. They will be collecting a bunch of statistics. They will try (as in the past) all sort of education programs. They will warn fat people, smokers, alcoholics & others. They will put sanction on these people by removing the amount or quality of care give due to their bad behaviour.
  
  Now suppose these people correct their behaviour. In whole or to an extent , but service is bad & their are shortages, but they see money being spent on the fallout for venereal diseases. They are going to be mad as hell. Some people will say you fat & that was a choice. & to an extent it is true. But there are also genetic factors & Environmental factors such as sedentary jobs that they cannot help. One can only find so much time to exercise in a rat race. They’re going to resent having strict regimens of eating exercising & everything else to an extent, then they will turn & see these people engaging in acts that have a high incidence in disease transmission & they are going to be resentful. It is that whole fairness thing.
  
  Yes a lot of statistics will be collected with the repeal of DOMA in conjunction with Obamacare. Irrefutable stats. If spending money is a tug of war between groups in Washington, just think what spending health care resources will look like in Washington. The fun is just starting.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 10:19pm
  jmills
  I give it 3 generations (60 years) post DADT /Post DOMA / etc before gays will figure out that they were dupes & that the whole gay thing does not work & there is no gay gene.
  
  In the mean time we have to carry one doing the right thing as they crash & burn & try to not let it affect us.
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 10:49pm
  Two people fall in love. They spend time together and decide their relation is permanent. They marry, hoping to live happily ever after. And fortunately each of them has equal protection under the law. And they live in a country with a Constitution that makes no reference to gender, let alone gender preference.
  
  The law is blind as they say. Whether black, white or brown, ideally the law treats you the same way. And because the law is blind, it also doesn’t take you gender into account. We Americans are all equal under the law.
  
  Report this comment
- FB247
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 11:02pm
  But every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Judges 17:6 and Judges 21:25.
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 11:09pm
  WANKABOUT . . . 60 years, eh? Quite an accomplishment given that the gay has been around as long as humans have been around. But hey, you want it done in 60 years, I’m sure it will be so.
  
  Report this comment
- LogCabinRepublican
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 11:30pm
  **JMILS** Where’s the scientific evidence that men are attracted to women and vise versa?
  
  Report this comment
- sillyfreshness
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:51am
  I will support mentally ill gay marriage just as soon as polygamy is legalized. Not a minute before.
  
  Report this comment
- SUNTZU
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:41am
  )+++==={
  Ho Ho HO.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 4:53am
  LogCabinRepublican
  **JMILS** Where’s the scientific evidence that men are attracted to women and vise versa?
  ***
  We are much closer showing the whys & hows of opposite attraction than than the temerity of your comment suggests. For one they showed the chemical in n animal’s brain that “bonds” her to her mate. Now that is female to male. They will keep making progress.
  
  On the other hand we have evidence to suggest that some gay relationships are not healthy. We have the terms tops & bottoms & after reading JMG & his “Worst Sex Ever” you got to wonder about the psychology of the individuals involved & whether it is healthy. The worst one was not the “Don’t spank me Daddy” role playing which made one participant cringe. But they went along with it so the evening would be a success. Blue ball relief. The worst one is the one were the saying was you know how Est Bay guys are. Then he proceeds to have sex by someone who is extremely guilt ridden & has low self esteem. You got to wonder about the whole tops & bottoms thing. Two different & succinct reason to be gay. Possibly both of them biological. then both of them could be the result of psychologically maladjusted individuals.
  
  Report this comment
- paperpushermj
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:50am
  Who cares about Gay this or Gay that? All this talk is letting people who what to redefine what marriage is define the debate.. We are letting them to once again define the debate therefore we are always playing defense. We need to say we as part of a community have the right to establish who does or does not qualify for a marriage license. We do it all the time, we say if you want to cut **** in our community you need to know certain things and have some experience. We establish qualification for many reason not just for health and safety of the person but also for the health and safety of the community as we define it.
  .qualify |ˈkwäləˌfī|
  verb ( -fies, -fied)
  1 [ intrans. ] be entitled to a particular benefit or privilege by fulfilling a necessary condition
  
  Report this comment
- Old Truckers
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:18am
  All this arguing and justification for or against homosexual marriage is useless and non-productive.
  The real issue is; Does a person want to respect and obey God’s standards, principles and laws or not? Everyone makes that choice all by himself, and will receive the proper reward commensurate to his choice.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:40am
  @Old Truckers
  
  “The real issue is; Does a person want to respect and obey God’s standards, principles and laws or not? Everyone makes that choice all by himself, and will receive the proper reward commensurate to his choice.”
  
  Quite right. It makes me sigh when I see people opposing gay marriage “for Biblical reasons,” and in the same breath say we must keep “traditional marriage” in the US. Marriage in the US is NOT “Christian” in nature. It’s not “traditional.” We have divorce; we have remarriage. We have non-faithful still marrying each other. All of these are non-Christian, non-Biblical. Yet somehow they’re ok… and gay marriage isn’t?
  
  We’re picking and choosing which sins to be outraged about here. Let the gays marry. Let divorcees remarry. Let there be secular, non-religious marriage that is thus not legally valid and still considered adultery in God’s eyes. They’re knowingly breaking God’s laws… but that’s their choice, not mine. And their fate is God’s judgment… not mine. They don’t hurt me, my faith, or my church at all here on Earth.
  
  Report this comment
- swagger
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:26pm
  The reason we don’t allow a heterosexual marriage of a brother and sister is because of inter-breeding and the gene pool. That would not be an issue if a brother married his brother (just two men who love each other-no gene pool mix there) or a sister married her sister (two women who can’t create a baby) or a father married his son (still no gene pool mix) or a mother married her daughter (as long as she is of legal age) or a grandfather married his………etc. If we make the first step of gay marriage than we would logically have to support all of the other described relationships.
  
  Report this comment
- toto
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:44pm
  JMILLS, Homosexuality, the promotion of it, fits nicely with the liberal ideal of population control, although that is being subverted by gay sperm and egg donors to each other. And if they are truly “born that way” then the designer breeding they are doing will surely produce more of them. Maybe that’s the whole idea. If heterosexuals want their children to be heterosexual, why wouldn’t gays want gay babies to nurture?
  
  Report this comment
- MIBUGNU2
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:49pm
  I feel the need to have 4 wives.. will obama evolve ???
  
  Report this comment
- paperpushermj
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:43pm
  @MIBUGNU2
  Will 4 people be able to marry? Good question one which I have asked many pro same sex marriage people, unfortunately they never answer. They challenge the question by saying that has nothing to do with two same sex people who love each other.
  Of course the answer they find so hard to answer is YES, if the only requirement is Love. What would a judge say if Marriage is seen as a Contract. Can the Law impose such a limitation on the number of participants to a contract? Don’t know but I have a feeling where going to find out soon.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 6:14pm
  @sendthemeteors
  It’s called progress. And you stated it well. And resisting each of those more-tolerant-than-the last generations were millions of parents and grandparents loudly lamenting the fact that traditional bigotry would not be handed down as a cultural inheritance. In every case the lamented oh so loudly, until they were, but for a few young reactionairies, silent. Death will do that to you.
  The Blaze is where bigotry, screaming in it’s death throes, meets for their last meal.
  
  Report this comment
- TERossi
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:02pm
  KEATONC33 blathered, “ignorant or in denial of biology? how so? oh… you aren’t one of those people who think being gay is a choice are you?”
  
  You aren’t of those morons who cannot remember Anne Heche are you?
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:04pm
  Marine25, awesome post and I agree. So many positive changes in our country have resulted from parents and grandparents who have decided not to allow the bigotry of their own generation to be passed on to the next. They, each of them, were just one person. But collectively their influence was huge. Seeing that in hindsight is encouraging. Maybe you can’t be a Martin Luther King, but you can have an influence still that has a positive effect on the future of our country.
  
  Report this comment
- IAMAnonymous
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:41pm
  @PAPERPUSHERMJ
  
  Spoken like a true socialist.
  
  Report this comment
- Kerbouchard
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 1:31pm
  M25: “The Blaze is where bigotry, screaming in it’s death throes, meets for their last meal.”
  
  Here’s another view: the Blaze appears to be a place where people are still freely exchanging ideas rather than just preaching one side and a one-size fits all view, as those closer to the fringes tend to do. I’m interested in seeing a spectrum of ideas and not constantly shouting down or shaming the opposition for simply expressing their deeply held beliefs. I see the entire spectrum here at the Blaze and I ask only that people be honest about their beliefs and political leanings. Yes, many here at the Blaze are passionate social-conservatives, with a few who are more socially-progressive and liberal, but that doesn’t necessarily make them Republicans or demand that they be constantly at odds with Democrats. What did this Blaze post start with? Oh yeah, an atheist big-”L” Libertarian and a social-conservative small-”l” libertarian talking about same-sex marriage; then, the Blaze readers exchanging their comments, their thoughts and feelings on the topic at hand. Good for them! What purpose does your post serve?
  
  Report this comment
chicago76
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:32pm
In America and Europe maybe, but both are signs of the bankruptcy of our cultures, and their decadence. Europe and America are bankrupt and the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Africans, and several South American countries are creating a trading block even as we speak. They are slowly tightening the screws that will destroy the dollar and Euro. Slowly they are isolating western Europe and the US both financially and morally.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 10:23pm
  China will have a hard time creating a trading block wit Vietnam & the Phillipines in it due to their South China Seas Strong Arm tactics when it comes to offshore oil.
  
  Of course that could change.
  
  Report this comment
- paperpushermj
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:25am
  I agree with what you say and fear a world where the dominant countries are Russia,China, and others that are Authoritarian in nature. If you thought life under the Robber Barons might have been bad wait until the world is ruled by Robber Barron Counties.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:31pm
  paperpushermj
  
  Your insightful commentary while erudite & needful of being heard is not making my day any brighter :/
  
  Report this comment
huntinwabbits
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:31pm
@OLDSURFRAT

The original poster was on to something here. How do you expect to REdefine marriage for homosexuals – a small minority group – and not expect that this definition can somehow not extend beyond without discrimination. If marriage is all the sudden a ‘right’ then these ‘predators’ such as child molesters will be in the courtrooms fighting the exact same fight ****’s are. Take every pro gay marriage comment on here and other sites. The exact same words could be used for a 50 year old and a 12 year old. How would that marriage affect ‘normal’ marriage. How would a man marrying 30 women affect ‘normal’ marriage. “It doesn’t hurt me.” “It’s just love.” There is a reason why marriage is already defined. People are looking to redefine it without thinking of the consequences of doing so. The number of gays is small, just like the number of – say- people who want to marry their dogs. How can you discriminate against one small group and not the other? That itself is unconstitutional. The traditional view of marriage is marriage. Everything else falls under the same category – it’s not.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- yeahook
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:50pm
  the distinction is an adult male can consent to marrying an adult man and an adult woman can consent to marrying an adult woman. It’s much harder to make the argument that a child can consent to marry anyone
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:00pm
  ” If marriage is all the sudden a ‘right’ then these ‘predators’ such as child molesters will be in the courtrooms fighting the exact same fight ****’s are.”
  
  You seem confused as to the idea of consent (namely, you apparently don’t think it exists). A child cannot legally consent to sex, nor to marriage. Thus your fear is unfounded.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:04pm
  Dogs also can’t give consent. I hear these arguments from you guys every time this argument comes up. but these arguments, beastiality, child marriage, are so far from gay marriage it is insulting. not to mention an incredibly week argument.
  
  Report this comment
- Azzman
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:27pm
  I find it amusing that many people find Hugh Hefners “unions” as discussing while gay “unions” are so cute, free and liberating. Next time you come across a homosexual marriage supporter ask them about the latest marriage of that 16 year old with her parents consent to that Hollywood guy and watch the double standard flow!
  
  Report this comment
- Small World
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:50pm
  Morality has also gone off the cliff.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 9:19pm
  AZZMAN.. Its not a double standard. I would never support a gay woman trying to marry another woman under the age of consent. Above the age of consent though. i’d be fine with it.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:15am
  Since when does consent matter, Keaton?
  
  Report this comment
- Girard1974
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:25am
  @YEAHOOK – “It’s much harder to make the argument that a child can consent to marry anyone”
  
  Sure, “today” it might be harder to make that argument. But just give this society time – just as same-sex marriage was an argument hard to make just a few years ago, other combinations won’t be too far behind. This is how societies are destroyed.
  
  Naturally, no one wants to bring faith into the argument because then those who simply deny the presence of God will chime in with their opinion that the Bible is filled with fairy tales and that anything it says regarding marriage is just a bunch of hooey. I vehemently disagree.
  
  Once God is finally removed we had better watch out! When we truly do become a nation of “freedom from religion” nothing will matter – all bets will be off and men will indeed be marrying dogs and trees; the age of consent will be reduced as courts and other decision makers will see how really intelligent and sophisticated 12-year-olds are and how dare we continue to decide for them what is right and wrong.
  
  Mr. Will might be correct – by 2014 Mississippi could be the final state to approve same-sex marriage. But I’m more concerned what California or Massachusetts will be deciding at the same time. We’re on a down-hill course to disaster. At 56 I’ve only got about 20 years or so before I’m gone; but I do worry about my children and their children (and on and on). It isn’t going to be pretty.
  
  Report this comment
- ranepowel
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:03pm
  Um, up until the last hundred and fifty or so years, it was totally normal and acceptable to marry a 12 year old…It only fell out of style due to science and medical advances showing how traumatizing it was for a young child to be in what we now call “an adult relationship.”
  
  Report this comment
Jude 4
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:28pm
Glenn’s position is self destructive, simply as it relates to the civil implications alone. If Mr Beck were in a biblically lawful marriage (all athers being reputed sin), then according to his opinon, any man can attempt to take his wife away, and he would have no legal protection aginst such a heinous act. If the civil law departs from the standard of the Ten Commandments, then anarchy will naturally occur soon after, which has as it’s foundation; ‘every man did that which seemed right in his own eyes’. I would be interested to know which of the 2nd table commandments (5 – 10) that pertain to mans relation to man, would Glenn also prefere the government to stay out of? Certainly not “thou shalt not kill”, or “thou shalt not steal”. If he would affirm these two at the very least, upon what authority does he give himself the perrogative of nilling any of the remaining commands? He can form any opinion that he chooses, but I can assure him unequivocally, that God will be too hard for him when he is called to give up his accounts at the judgement.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- yeahook
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:52pm
  Glenn Beck has always argued for a constitutional republic though, not a theocracy. If you want to live in a christian theocracy you have to form one yourself.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:07pm
  what? what do the ten commandments have anything to with gay marriage?
  
  Report this comment
- Small World
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 9:01pm
  Funny how you people twist words.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 10:27pm
  Keatonc33
  
  The Jews & everyone else live by more than just the 10 Commandments. They are the bedrock & not the alpha & Omega.
  
  The 10 Commandments is just a crib sheet of the most important. Why are so concerned about the 10 Commandments all the sudden? A ploy to argue like an atheist against the religious? You don;t like 1/2 of them that deal with God 7 you are not that hot on the other ones either. So it seems strange that you would argue from them, unless we suspect that you are being insincere & disingenuous.
  
  Report this comment
- PaxInVeritate
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:01am
  “The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage,…”
  
  Wrong Glenn. It is both. To accept same sex marriage is to accept the violation of God’s Law. Check out these two sites and reconsider your position.
  It is disordered love. It doesn’t matter if it’s biological or choice. Remain celibate… you were not meant for marriage.
  
  http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/when-they-try-to-create-a-sacrament-in-my-churches-out-of-an-abomination-they-will-say-it-was-because-of-the-rights-of-same-sex-couples/
  
  http://www.unitypublishing.com/prophecy/HildigardSaint.htm
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:30am
  walkabout.. yes I know what the ten commandments are. I just don’t see what they have to do with gay marriage as this poster was trying to say.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:06pm
  Keatonc33
  
  You avoided answering with your non-answer reply.
  
  Report this comment
TRILO
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:25pm
The federal government needs to get out of the marriage business all together. It should be between the parties involved and their church.

If the federal government went to a consumption tax it would not matter because all deductions could be eliminated.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- stumpy68
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:27pm
  “The federal government needs to get out of the marriage business all together. It should be between the parties involved and their church. ”
  
  Ive been saying this for years at most the government should issue cohabitation agreements
  to anyony living with someone else . Marrage is and should be a religious contract between a man his wife and God.
  
  Report this comment
- peregrin5
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 9:06pm
  @Stumpy: What about atheists who want to get married? Buddhists? Is marriage supposed to be only a Christian institution then? Why should Christians be the only one to receive federally funded marriage benefits?
  
  Report this comment
- puravida56
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 11:15pm
  There should not be any Federal benefits to a marriage. There should not be a license either. Get the government out of our lives!
  
  Report this comment
- 702TruthSeeker
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:05am
  couldn’t agree more!!! the government has no business defining what marriage should or shouldn’t be, period! there should be no tax exemptions or financial aspects of marriage. and what about bisexuals? why would you discriminate against them by letting two men or two women marry? this whole topic is idiotic but americans are selfish and greedy and would never give up the marriage “perks”, so now the same perks have to be given to those who feel entitled to them as well. gay marriage is not the real issue, the issue is the federal government. this country deserves everything that’s coming, freedom must be earned
  
  Report this comment
flatbroke
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:22pm
We are that frog in that boiling pot of water, a generation ago no one would be talking about this issue, now every young person sees nothing wrong with the oxymoron ” gay Marriage”. they dont understand because we have failed as Americans to properly educate them,or we let the educational establishment “educate” them, and so in another generation, when we are all old and gray, America will sease to exist. and until we put a stop too it nothing will change and our grandchildren will be living in tyranny.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:24pm
  Isn’t it wonderful to watch humanity mature before our very eyes!
  
  Report this comment
- ZAP
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:30pm
  The product of taking the Bible and prayer out of school.It’s what our country was founded on..
  Read the back of a dollar bill
  
  Report this comment
- YAHSHUARULES
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:37pm
  For all those conservatives that think its no big deal – Ask yourself why was it a goal of the Communist Agenda to normalize homosexual marriage??? It is a big deal –
  
  The Mattachine Society was formed by the Communist Party as part of that agenda to force mainstream acceptance of homosexuals, deviants and perverts of all types. Only a country grounded in biblical principals and values our Founders knew was suitable for a representative Republic form of government. Freedom without morality destroys. Forcing acceptance of the filth that is homosexuality comes against God ordained purpose of having a father as priest of his household, nurturer, provider, defender and discipliner bringing his children up in the admonition of the Lord.
  
  The agenda of the left is to create an America so corrupt it stinks and to drive this culture in a direction designed to destroy it. If you don’t know all this you need to find out!
  I think if everyone actually saw this movie we would not have so many people cavalierly thinking this is no big deal. Also, its not so much the opposition is dieing out as the next generation has been co-opted – its not the left’s children – they abort theirs!
  If you have not seen this, you need to and its free at the moment. Watch it. Share it. Freedom without morality destroys
  https://vimeo.com/52009124
  if that is not working try this:https://vimeo.com/16647512
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:50pm
  Keaton – Since when have you Marxists ever matured?
  
  Report this comment
- truthnstuff
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:31pm
  Since most all gays are liberal, socialists, Marxists, maybe we should encourage them to “marry” and within a generation we will be rid of them.
  
  Report this comment
- Small World
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 9:07pm
  @ Truthnstuff…best idea yet!
  
  Report this comment
- freepr008
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 11:18pm
  GITR@ – Obviously you matured so fast that know you’re clearly rotten. Whatever the medicine that they are giving you to control your delusional paranoia disorder that make you believe that you are God is not working. Those urges that you have to scream Marxist communist socialist liberal blah blah and polyandry, incest, bestiality blah blah without control every time you post something is unbelievable.
  I know that you hate all the laws that cover hate crimes. You feel that something was taken from you.but don’t worry your right to hate any one ( hundred of thousands of people who don’t think like you) is protected just don’t do harm to others. Let me give you and advise, now that Hugo Chavez is going to Cuba for some cancer and you being one why you don’t go with him. Surely your ranting is going to be amusing in Cuba. Don’t worry for the cost your obamacare is going to cover for everything. I don’t think the cost of treatment is going to be that expensibe. They are going to study your brain and since is almost non existence well…..
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:17am
  Freeper – You Marxists are scary people. Funny how “hate” crimes are different from other crimes. “Hate” crime and “Hate” speech laws are nothing more than thought policing laws (which is what you leftists support).
  
  Funny how you’re upset about me posting the other alternative forms of marriage, which shows what a hypocrite you are.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 6:32pm
  @git-r-done
  Hate crimes identify a classification of crimes during which the intended victim is not just the one or ones beaten, robbed or otherwise violated. For instance, one might assault a homosexual because he wants his wallet. That’s assault, and robbery. One might also assault a homosexual because he wants other homosexuals to avoid visiting of moving to the community, in which case there are many victims. The Klan, terrorists, and supporters of the black codes and Jim Crow seldom committed their crimes to simply violate the target, but to intimidate people into accepting a community standard that was beneath the law. So if you want to defend Klansmen and terrorists with your ignorant thought-police argument, go ahead. I will stand with civil society where violence and intimidation can not achieve what the law explicitly prohibits.
  
  Report this comment
vox_populi
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:18pm
I, for one, welcome our new gay overlords.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- wifezilla
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:27pm
  They’re fabulous!
  
  Report this comment
uzeguize
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:16pm
The state marriage is useless in the eyes of God. You only deceive youselves if you think it has relevance. Sjhort sighted and short lived you shall be.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ZAP
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:10pm
You so called Christians.It’s a big job turning the USA into Sodom and Gomorrah,ain’t it?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- YAHSHUARULES
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:48pm
  The agenda of the left is to create an America so corrupt it stinks and to drive this culture in a direction designed to destroy it. If you don’t know all this you need to find out!
  https://vimeo.com/52009124
  if that is not working try this: https://vimeo.com/16647512
  
  Report this comment
Mudd
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:07pm
Could someone please explain to me how gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage, religion or anything else. It would mean a lot more to me if you could do it without quoting the Bible.

Thanks.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- qpwillie
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:11pm
  @Mudd
  When a term can mean anything, it means nothing.
  
  Report this comment
- colascguy
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:16pm
  There also the fact that a Churchs can now be taken to court for discrimination if they refuse to allow gay marriage in their sanctuary. I wish people could think critical and analyze to the end game.
  
  Report this comment
- ZAP
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:17pm
  When you take away the words of your creator,you are correct any thing goes. You are in the dark,because of the one who rules the dark….
  
  Report this comment
- KyleD
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:25pm
  It’s not a threat to heterosexual marriage; it’s not a threat to religion. It’s a threat to society. The family is the essential component to society. A strong family means a strong society, a strong country. Slowly and surely the traditional family, a mother, a father and children is being destroyed. More gay marriages, fewer traditional marriages, society suffers.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:26pm
  Colasguy. churches can NOT be charged or taken to court for not allowing a gay marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- R.A. Bullseye
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:35pm
  I’m not saying gay marriage is a threat although being a conservative practicing Catholic I should look at it as a threat because of what the bible tells me. I don’t like the idea namely because how is it a constitutional right? Why not make having a baby with blue eyes a constitutional right too? How about a man who is madly in love with his horse and the horse of course loves him why shouldn’t they have the right to marry? How about a very nice lady who wants to marry three men? They are in love and want to get married so why shouldn’t they have the right? When we start to talk about rights we also have to talk about who is providing those rights. The constitution gives us the right to; Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can live with any one you want to live with. I don’t really care but why do have to take a vested interest in it?
  Secondly I don’t agree with gay men having the right to marriage because of my personal experiences with gay men. I don’t want to go into detail but the gay male lifestyle does not lend itself to a life long “marriage” scenario. I speak from experience. Although it is second hand experience it still is experience. For the most part gay men don’t think in terms of monogamy which is a key factor in marriage. So there you have it in a nutshell.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:51pm
  Keaton – Then how come the government can force religious institutions to provide birth control against their will? What makes anybody with a brain believe that they won’t be forced to recognize same sex marriage?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:04pm
  @Cola
  
  “There also the fact that a Churchs can now be taken to court for discrimination if they refuse to allow gay marriage in their sanctuary.”
  
  Absolutely false. A marriage ceremony is not a legal requirement for marriage in the US. Churches cannot be forced to perform such ceremonies for gays if they don’t adhere to the concept of gay marriage.
  
  My church won’t marry divorcees because it’s adultery as per the words of Christ Himself. And yet we’ve never been sued over our beliefs. It’ll be the same for gay marriage; any lawsuits that DO occur will fail.
  
  Report this comment
- yournutsarenumb
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:16pm
  Nature clearly designed life to perpetuate itself by producing males and females. Virtually the only social custom that humans participate in that affirms this gender dichotomy is marriage; the end product of this process is a husband and a wife. The terms “husband” and “wife” are not interchangeable with respect to their gender connotations and cannot exist exclusively ie one cannot be a husband without also having a wife and vice versa. This has been the case throughout the entire history of this social custom until the arrival of gay marriage which seeks to finally make marriage “fair” by imposing new definitions on old words. The final words of the gay wedding ceremony “I now pronounce you partners for life” imply what everyone already knows–that one cannot create a husband and a wife with two members of the same sex and yet we are now told that gay marriage is to be considered the same as traditional marriage and that a man can be a husband to his husband or that a woman can be a wife to her wife. Words matter and definitions of words matter and they do not originate by decree. It is threatening to all of us when any group (in this case the polical arm of the homosexual lobby and their liberal compatriots in govt.) seeks to impose its own definitions of words on the rest of the population. Orwell covers this in “1984″–reread the part about newspeak, where the ruling party simply does away with words that are no longer relevent. In France they are spouse 1 and
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:16pm
  KyleD
  “ More gay marriages, fewer traditional marriages, society suffers.”
  
  That’s only true if you regard a gay person pretending to be straight and marrying a straight person as “traditional,” and if you consider such marriages to be strong families which strengthen a strong society.
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:19pm
  It will destroy religious freedom. Let me explain the logical progression
  
  If you read this site regularly, you’ve heard about the gay activist couples who are suing private owners of party venues?? These owners will not rent their space for a gay marriage ceremony. The gay couple then sues. Whether you agree with their stance or not, it is their RIGHT to not take money to provide a service that is against their religious belief.
  
  SO…
  
  Imagine what will happen if gay marriage becomes federal law. Couples will go into CHURCHES of all denominations and request their wedding vows be taken there. And when some of those churches say “no,” a suit against the church will ensue. Most couples would go down the street and get their wedding planned at another venue. But not those activists who have a point to prove. They will sue, saying their civil rights are being denied.
  
  It is analogous to the HHS mandate which states that employers must use their money to pay for health plans which pay for abortions and contraceptives! It takes away the right of that person of faith to run their business as they see fit.
  
  Gay marriage becoming the law of the land means that some gay people will continue to push the envelope until those with religious ideals are not free to make choices without severe consequence.
  
  It is a sad reality that this is the new normal.
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:37pm
  The reply I posted got lost again. So apologies if this ends up being a repeat.
  
  This is why gay marriage is harmful to religious communities:
  
  already There are gay activists who sue private venues for saying no to renting them a space for their wedding. Most couples would walk away, but there are always those with an axe to grind.
  
  When gay marriage is federal law, you can bet those same activist types will begin to sue churches that say NO. It means costly consequences in fighting the lawsuit. Churches will lose the freedom to make choices — just like we are beginning to see with private owners of service providers who are accused of denying couples their civil rights.
  
  It is only a matter of time, and it is going to lead to a loss of religious freedom.
  
  Report this comment
- John WIS.
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:16am
  Could you please explain to everyone else, how child molestation, child battery, spousal battery, theft, adultery, prostitution, rape, murder, people who choose not to work for a living, gossip, lying, drunkeness, drug use, and people having sex with animals DOES NOT effect us all in some way shape or form.
  
  Thanks.
  
  Report this comment
- apojoe69
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:23am
  OK. I will. Gay is happy, not homosexual. Homosexual is homosexual! Homosexuals marrying would be moot if we did not have the IRS! So simply get rid of the IRS and poof! Problem solved.
  
  Report this comment
READRIGHTHERE
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:06pm
This matter will have to be hashed out in voting booths and the courts of law and public opinion, as usual. And as usual there are way too many emotions tied to the issue on either side. And as usual it will represent a monumental expenidture of time and money we can no longer afford.

We can’t legislate religious conviction, so referencing the Bible, though understandable, is simply bringing a empty gun to a knife fight, though initially formidable in appearance, there are no bullets and the gun is just a club with no sharp edge, but we can legislate good sense. If a union is solemnized in church by a licensed and recognized member of the clergy the union should be called a marriage. If the union is sanctioned by a justice of the peace or other government entity it should be call a civil union. If you want the word marriage and wish to be considered married go to church. Otherwise be satisfied with your perfectly lawful social contract otherwise known as a civil union. If homosexuals find a church willing to marry them then we have no say in the matter other than to quit attending and otherwise supporting that particular church. If we seek a government answer we will get what Massachussets got, namely, the government telling the Catholic church they must allow “Married” gay couples to adopt, thereby compelling the church to shut down their adoption charities and having to literally throw out the baby with the sullied bath water known as Gay “Marriage.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Granny58
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:04pm
I really wish the Blaze would add the up or down arrow feature because I so want to agree with some of you!!! I’m looking at you Moon 8.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Lord_Frostwind
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:01pm
If the court does another “Roe v. Wade” with Gay Marriage then we will move one step closer to this country breaking down from internal strife. When you talk about equality and tolerance, it’s one thing, but imposing it is entirely different and only makes your opponents hate you more. The battle lines are already drawing up pretty neatly, and while both sides are entrenched, the question will be which one has the endurance to survive.

The downfall of multiculturalism, it always ends in conflict.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
crabbyoldman
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:58pm
It’s all a money thing. They want social security rights. From a broke social security fund? obama wants to wreck our country moraly and economicly. He is dividing us. That is just a tatic to take our minds from his real agenda. The tax the rich thing is also just a distraction. The unions are acting up, watch them. He wants a unliminted credit card. No! to that. He purged his top brass from the war zones. Don’t trust him there either. I hope I smell a coup brewing. No also to all UN treatys!!!! I fear for my country for only my first time in my 70 years.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- circleDwagons
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:10pm
  If we are becoming a banana republic than a Coup would be in order.
  
  Report this comment
ClaudeRains
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:53pm
I don’t have to read this article to know why. It’s because our “conservative” legislators and pundits are gutless. Plain and simple. Left leaning “Justice” Roberts is going to fold on this issue and any other issue put forth by liberals. Guns are next.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Quiata
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:51pm
All this means is that once gay marriage is established, the meaning of marriage will change. State “marriage” will be viewed more as a secular civil union, and it will be even further distanced from church-sanctioned Holy Matrimony.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- qpwillie
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:08pm
  @Quiata
  The meaning of marriage won’t only be changed. The word will no longer have a definite “official” meaning. It could mean a union between a person and any living creature or nonliving object depending on whatever meaning someone wants to apply to it.
  
  I know a lot of people who are very fond of their automobiles.
  
  Report this comment
- chicago76
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:37pm
  This will all go away when the dollar goes away.
  
  Report this comment
possom
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:50pm
Thats right, let them put their names and addresses on a gov database and see how long it takes until it leaks out to the muslim brotherhood via the whitehouse. We all know how much the goat lickering throwbacks like the gay’s!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
moon8
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:49pm
I am suprised Glenn Beck said that. My opinion of George Will has also gone down with his statement. Gay ‘marriage’ has been banned in 32 states. It is legal in a handful of states but most of those were not by the peoples vote. MY, MI and WA pro gay ‘marriag’e advocates outspent National Organisation for Marriage by over $20 million and yet gay ‘marriage’ passed slimly and these are liberal states. I do not how you can call yourself a conservative and not be stringently against gay ‘marriage.’ Government has a role in protecting and preserving marriage been 1 man and 1 woman because the state has an interest in ensuring that the ideal of bringing up children which numerous studies have said is best when a child is raised by biological parents that are married, and the state has interest in transmitting social values and preserving social order that are based on a proper understanding of marriage, which is between 1 woman and 1 man

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- moon8
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:51pm
  By the way I am 20 years old
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:06pm
  All marriages should be gay! The State should stay out of it. Marriage is a church issue.
  
  Report this comment
- Mr.buff1959
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:19pm
  So you want the government, to decide what is correct behavior for you.
  
  Report this comment
- TRILO
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:23pm
  Be careful using “studies” as justification for federal government intrusion. Poverty studies have given us the welfare state. Environmental studies have given us the EPa, etc., etc.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:10pm
  @Moon8
  
  ” numerous studies have said is best when a child is raised by biological parents that are married”
  
  Would you outlaw divorce and adoption then? You seem to base your position behind what’s best for kids… but if studies also show that two parents (of either sex) better raise children than a single parents, then the bigger issue should be divorce rather than gay marriage, yes?
  
  You also add in biological parenting; but gays can have biological children as well. Doesn’t that undermine your argument even further?
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:16pm
  Could you site one study that says that? because I can name 4 children myself who are not better off with heterosexual parents, One was abusive. the others the dad ditched. Gay people make good parents because for them to have a child they must actually want one! also I understand it is a conservative principle to keep the oppression going. but it really shouldn’t be. This is a natural step in our evolution. and I guarantee you in 50 years the ban on gay marriage will be compared to the Jim crow laws. what side of history do you want to be on? And finally gay marriage being against your religion is NO argument against it being legal… thanks to our first amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:26pm
  Marriage is a state issue, because you have to factor in all the marriage benefits. and as far as government not intruding.. that can work both ways. being as government has been intruding on the right for two women or two men to marry since our government was formed.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:21am
  Locked – So that means two people of the same gender can naturally reproduce?
  
  Keaton – How come the first amendment wasn’t applied to religious institutions being forced to provide birth control against their will?
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 6:56am
  @KEATON and LOCKED Are you asserting that gay couples never fight? …Gay couples never have domestic strife, EVER? …Gay couples who “made” kids do not divorce and then have bitter bitter custody battles over the children??? (This is already happening, by the way!)
  
  Oh, I see, I must have missed the memo stating that gay people are simply cut out to be better parents because it’s their ‘choice’.
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:01am
  @KEATON “And finally gay marriage being against your religion is NO argument against it being legal… thanks to our first amendment.”
  
  Keaton: What are you going to say to a traditional Muslim family that would like to have their polygamy (1 husband, 2 – 4 wives) legally recognized here, let’s say…in California? What are you going to do then?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:15am
  @Quiata
  
  ” Are you asserting that gay couples never fight?”
  
  Nope. Where’d you get that from?
  
  “…Gay couples never have domestic strife, EVER?”
  
  Again, where did you get that from?
  
  “…Gay couples who “made” kids do not divorce and then have bitter bitter custody battles over the children??? (This is already happening, by the way!)”
  
  Nope, where did you get that from?
  
  Moon8 said that “numerous studies” found two things are predictors of successful children: 2-parent households, and being biologically related to the child. If that’s his basis of who should get married, then outlawing divorce and adoption would be a much higher priority than keeping gay marriage banned, as gays can have biological children and can have a two-person household.
  
  ” I must have missed the memo stating that gay people are simply cut out to be better parents because it’s their ‘choice’.”
  
  Moon8′s the one who made the argument. You did nothing to refute it (indeed, you didn’t even reply to his post)… but if you have a problem, I suggest taking it up with him. He’s the one with “numerous studies” that turned out to say the exact opposite of what he wanted: that gay parents can make strong families to raise productive children.
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:25am
  @KEATON and LOCKED Anecdotal exceptions do not prove the rule.
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:29am
  @LOCKED Keaton stated: “Gay people make good parents because for them to have a child they must actually want one!” …a rather broad generalization.
  
  You: “He’s [Moon8] the one with “numerous studies” that turned out to say the exact opposite of what he wanted: that gay parents can make strong families to raise productive children.”
  
  Really? Please cite your sources.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:36am
  @Quiata
  
  “Anecdotal exceptions do not prove the rule.”
  
  I didn’t make any anecdotal exceptions. I responded to Moon8′s initial premise. Something, I will add, you still have not done.
  
  But hey, you’re asking the wrong man if you want these “numerous studies.” Moon8 was the one who made the assertion: I’m following it to the natural conclusion.
  
  Quick Google search though says children raised by gay parents perform almost as well in school as the children of married heterosexual couples, and significantly better than those of single-parent households: http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Demography.pdf
  
  So, to the original topic: what do you think of Moon8′s argument, that the best chance for children is to have a biological tie to their parents and to be married? Would it not make more sense to ban adoption and divorce than to ban gay marriage?
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 4:31pm
  @LOCKED “Quick Google search though says children raised by gay parents perform almost as well in school as the children of married heterosexual couples, and significantly better than those of single-parent households”
  
  Thank you for providing that, Locked. Basically what a study like this demonstrates is that two financial/emotional contributors are better than one. However, it’s more an argument against single parenthood than it is an argument for homosexual parenthood. Clearly there are many intangibles involved with the successful raising of children. Depending on the motives of the entities who conducted the studies, certain biases are to be expected in the results.
  
  “Would it not make more sense to ban adoption and divorce than to ban gay marriage?” I’m a little perplexed by this question… if you ban adoption, then the gay parent aspect in that equation is nullified (as in: gay parents can either both adopt, or one “parent” must be an adoptive one while the other is the biological contributor + an absent/anonymous donor. No adoption = no gay parents.)
  
  Your question is basically: ban gay marriage VERSUS ban adoption and divorce.
  
  You need to make the relationship between these options a little more coherent in order to have a proper discussion about it.
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 4:48pm
  @LOCKED “…the best chance for children is to have a biological tie to their parents and to be married?”
  
  YES. Without a doubt. Biological ties are what create and define a family, and it is so primal and innate a bond that I think it’s ridiculous to have to define and defend this aspect of human continuity to you. But I’m nice, and I’m happy to indulge.
  
  Of course the cynical (and idiotic) response to the above statement is to point out the defective/abusive biological parents, and then to draw an erroneous conclusion about how that small minority proves that “alternative lifestyle” individuals are naturally more suited to the task of parenting overall (please see Keaton’s statement as an example). Wrong. This amounts to looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and is a classic example of skewing reality to suit a political agenda.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:52pm
  @Quiata
  
  You don’t seem to address Moon8′s point though. Gays can have children… and at least one parent will be biologically related to the child. They can raise said children in a two-parent household. If this is Moon8′s central premise as to why gays can’t be married, it fails terribly… especially compared to the current legal stance, that divorce and adoption are allowed.
  
  I am in NO WAY advocating that adoption and divorce be outlawed. I’m pointing out that if someone would use Moon8′s criteria as the basis for what is or is not legal when it comes to marriage, he’s not making a case against gay marriage, but rather one against both adoption and divorce.
  
  Hope that clears it up.
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 7:29am
  LOCKED: Not to end this little tete-a-tete on a silly note, but when you say, “Gays can have children… and at least one parent will be biologically related to the child”, we need to go back to discuss the definition of the word “have” as it relates to reproduction.
  
  Male. Female. Gametes. Zygote.
  
  Gays cannot “have” children. Two males cannot make a baby. Two females cannot. A baby will not be the natural consequence and conclusion of a homosexual union, regardless of what “modern” attitudes, laboratory techniques, and donated gametes attempt to bypass.
  
  I tend to concur with the Catholic church’s stance about the creation of new people: the farther you get from the natural act between parents which results in new life, the more ‘wrongs’ will result. (And to answer the question you’re about to ask…I believe this applies to everyone, even barren heterosexual couples, who in my opinion, really ought to adopt a child.)
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 8:30am
  @LOCKED (this might be a redundant post, first one didn’t show up) Here’s a bone to pick apart.
  
  Question: Should the children of a gay couple be allowed to investigate their biological heritage once they’re adults?
  
  What happens when some of the youth being raised by homosexual couples get to that rebellious stage and reject their upbringing altogether? It already happens on the basis of religion, politics, & attitudes, so it’s a distinct possibility no matter how lovingly people are raised. Generally speaking, people do not like mystery –or lies, or half-truths– especially when it comes to something as deeply personal as biology and identity. Only time will tell.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:49am
  @Quiata
  
  “A baby will not be the natural consequence and conclusion of a homosexual union”
  
  So what? That’s not a requirement of marriage.
  
  “I tend to concur with the Catholic church’s stance about the creation of new people: the farther you get from the natural act between parents which results in new life, the more ‘wrongs’ will result. (And to answer the question you’re about to ask…I believe this applies to everyone, even barren heterosexual couples, who in my opinion, really ought to adopt a child.)”
  
  Actually, then your response should be that at least one parent should be biologically related to a child, as that’s closer than adoption of a non-biologically related child. A barren couple shouldn’t adopt: they should get a birth mother, or get artificially inseminated.
  
  Obviously that’s not the “Catholic” teaching, but it is what the correct response should be if you think biological factors are most important.
  
  “Question: Should the children of a gay couple be allowed to investigate their biological heritage once they’re adults? ”
  
  Of course. One of my best friend’s is adopted: no biological relation to her parents. She found out that her actual parents gave her up, but kept several other children. Her biological father was an alcoholic who died early. It was depressing for her, but she realized that she had good parents who DID want her and love her even without being related.
  
  I think you’re really getting off-topic?
  
  Report this comment
Azzman
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:49pm
Marriage is the sacrament of the union of one man and one woman. Marriage has an essence and no man made laws can change that. We could all get together and pass a law that everyone has to call an apple tree a palm tree. Then as we walk by everyone can say hey look at that neat palm tree. Only problem is the essence of the tree prevails and it still produces apples. Let the homosexuals marry it really doesn’t matter because no man made laws can change the essence of what is physical and what is metaphysical. There is nothing normal about two men trying to mate and it would be insane to expect a coconut from a tree called a palm tree that in essence is really an apple tree. Let the cuckoo for coca puffs people marry and let’s all move on.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:22pm
  Just one thing. homosexuality has been demonstrated in over 100 species on earth.. homophobia has only been demonstrated in one.. which seems more “normal” or “natural”
  
  Report this comment
- Azzman
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:29pm
  Insane species are everywhere. :)
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 9:21pm
  haha touche sir!
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 10:32pm
  Keatonc33
  
  Has homosexuality been demonstrated or was it confusion, betahood & other stuff?
  
  Report this comment
JEANNIEMAC
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:43pm
Opposition to homosexual “marriage” is dying out among young people because they have been brainwashed in the public schools, into acceptance of the idea that any sexual activity is OK.
Mention of God and morality is forbidden. The method of teaching reading was changed long ago to the “look-say” method instead of the tried and true phonics method still used by the parochial schools. Our dumbed down students can’t pass police and firefighter tests because they can’t read them. A homosexual “czar” was placed in charge of sex education in the schools. Planned Parenthood supplies filthy pornographic cartoon sex education literature to the public schools.
It is the younger generation and their parents who were indoctrinated into the socialist mind bending education who accept raunchy TV programs and movies, along with violence and cruelty.
This is why people like Al Gore tell young people that they know better than their parents, and not to listen to them.
If parents don’t take back the schools, the generation is lost.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- uzeguize
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:12pm
  Yes, take your kids out of school, we have and we see so much positive responsible change. Do it and deny these liberal educators the time of day. There perverse world is going to be destroyed soon.
  
  Report this comment
- Cosmos102
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:15pm
  The key to our nation’s survival lies in taking back our children’s education. The Federal Govt has created a vast indoctrination machine. Support your local Governments and elect officials who will allow charter schools to operate within your state. If you have the means, send your children to private schools. Get them out of public school at all costs. But even if you can’t, teach your children what YOU believe. Talk the them at home. Go to church. My children attended public school here in NC, and they are pure Conservatives.
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:09pm
  Opposition to homosexual marriage is dying out among young people because they know from the first hand experience of going to school with openly gay fellow students that gay people are okay and not all that different from the rest of us.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:24am
  Chet – Older people also have first hand experience with homosexuals and know how messed up they are. They weren’t brainwashed into the born this way lie or that it’s ok.
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:02pm
  @CHET Visit the CDC website for the best statistics on the health & disease-related consequences of certain sexual practices. Behaviors are not consequence-free. Not bias, just fact.
  
  Report this comment
eddie333
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:42pm
Glenn Beck is allowing himself to become unequally yoked.

2 Corinthians 6:14 KJV
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- strawberry411a
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:49pm
  Beck is still searching. He sometimes misses the details when he goes on his conspiracy rants. I don’t necessarily disagree but there are times when the subtleties of conservatism need an equal voice. Gay marriage is a MAJOR issue and can in the long run actually mean teh destruction of a culture or country. Adoption can only go so far when sexual pleasure is the centerpiece of anyone’s life.
  
  Report this comment
- DougHuffman
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:08pm
  Oh my! Thank you for the citation. 2 Corinthians 6:14!
  
  Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God Bless Bitter Clingers, damn progressives.
  
  Report this comment
SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:41pm
Why are rapist and pedophiles required and these sexual deviants are exempt they all fit the same twisted group.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SCREW-WINDOWS
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:43pm
  To register as sex offenders.
  
  Report this comment
- OldSurfRat
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:54pm
  Screw
  I will respectfully say that you are way out of bounds.
  I know a gay woman that has taken great care of her niece and nephew after they were abandon by their hederosxual mother.
  If it were not for her those children would be so screwed. She also does not wear it on her sleeve.
  I have to say she is the best most honest person I know.
  
  FYI: I felt like you until I saw this so I’m not slamming you but trying to help you see past your comments.
  
  I understand you disagreeing but dont brand them as preditors etc.
  
  Report this comment
- Mr.buff1959
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:26pm
  Your comments are a prime example of non-sentient life on this planet.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:09pm
  Screw.. you are pretty disgusting. the main difference between the two is CONSENT! you idiot. and I’d rather leave my child with a gay man than a priest any day! : )
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:13pm
  OLD: How pleasant to read a considerate, polite comments to an issue which is morally troubling . We see the radical Left pushing their “in your face” atheistic philosophy and using this issue, drugs, etc., to further divide and destroy our country. There are , however, very functional , patriotic people who have these ” different ” inclinations. How to balance this ? Difficult. Wish we could separate the radicals from the rational. Am sure that Jesus, following but still challenging Old Law tenets, would side with the idea of “compassion”…but He would be referring to the rational . Bet the radicals today would side with Alinsky who dedicated his ” Rules For Radicals to Lucifer ! Big difference .
  
  Report this comment
- Azzman
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:22pm
  Yep. Sandusky was a homosexual child molester. But hey why bother with the details.
  
  Report this comment
- peregrin5
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 9:18pm
  @AZZMAN: Child molesters and pedophiles are different than homosexuals or heterosexuals. They fit into their own sexuality which is attraction to children.
  
  Report this comment
- gsp9993
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:03am
  It’s called the Socialist Party
  
  Report this comment
- SCREW-WINDOWS
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:01am
  God gave you the tools to procreate and if you abuse them you are a sexual deviant and should be labeled as such. Just as you are to ignorant to use the tools as intended you are a liability to mankind.
  Progressives have been destroying this country.
  
  Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:35pm
“Opinion makers” make opinion for soft minds only.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God Bless Bitter Clingers, damn progressives.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- strawberry411a
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:41pm
  The barbarians have entered the gates. Turn to Rome to see where we are headed EXACTLY. One of our own presidents stated that a Democracy WILL NOT survive if the people are basically evil. The USA had a good 200 year run. The experiment has played itself out and the heathens have won. Conservatives will never again gain the White House.
  
  Report this comment
- DougHuffman
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:02pm
  Our American Founding Fathers knew that man is easily corruptible and wrote their Constitution carefully to allow maximum freedom yet restrain the government from tyranny.
  
  Constitutional conservatives may not ever regain the White House, there may not ever be free elections again. We have the government we deserve.
  
  “From my cold, dead hands” works for me. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God Bless Bitter Clingers, damn progressives, liberals, libertarians, demoncraps and repugnicans.
  
  Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:35pm
Creed of the young fruit and nut faction… once you got ‘em by the balls their hearts and behinds will follow.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
heavyduty
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:33pm
Fox news with Chris Wallace was talking about the Supreme Court taking up this again today. We just have to remember what Chief Justice Roberts did on Obamacare to know that the outcome is going to be. This is essentially override the state laws and force churches to marry them. Just another assault on our religious freedoms. Destroy the church and family. Then they will be after the guns even harder.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- eddie333
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:44pm
  As a suspected homosexual, Roberts may very well vote in favor of ss marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 6:52pm
  I’ve heard arguments trying to justify Robert’s actions: they don’t fly. Roberts is as dangerous…more so…than Obama. Obama is clear in his goals: destruction of the USA. Roberts remains silent but his actions speak volumes. Amazing how one man possesses so much power.
  
  Report this comment
- Winedude
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:26pm
  All you wacked out, crazzzzzzy right wingers are nasty, bitter, unhappy people. You talk your phony patriotism, personal responsibility garbage talk, but in reality, every moment of your waking hours is spent blaming everyone but yourselves for their miserable state of mind. Hypocrisy is so rampant with you people that your yourselves forget where you stand on any given issue. One week Justice Roberts is your poster boy for conservativism, then the next day you’re viciously attacking him using personal smears. Oh, and you do it all in the name of Jesus. The Savage’s, Limbaugh’s, Hannity’s, and Levin’s of this country are pathetic human beings and some of the most dangerous players in our society. Their reactions to Justice Roberts opinion further exemplifies my points.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 7:53pm
  Whinedude – No surprise that you Marxists are threatened by anybody who says or does anything you Marxists don’t like.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:10pm
  No winedude..Roberts is a posterboy for RINO and libs. It doesn’t really matter now does it? You and your ilk won. This is your game now. An Obama win guarantees we can now sit back and WATCH you people utterly destroy a once proud nation. If evidence is ever needed, look to Detroit and every other liberal run city government in this country. Call us all what you will…it doesn’t matter. If homosexuality, legalized dope, child porn, welfare payments, disability payments, a lying press corps, communists in government, gang violence, illegals surging in to this country at our expense, less police protection, socialized medical care (ha) subsidized housing , spreading what little wealth is left around, a get even with the man mentality and a infrastructure that doesn’t work is what you people are all about, then the truth will be known within a year when this country completely collapses. Oh and one other thing DUDE. You think this homeland security “army” is conspiracy talk? Think again. Then again people like you…and I am willing to take a bet on this…..the unemployed, dope using disability receiving 20something ….just don’t give a damn do you. As long as you have a place to crash, dope to smoke and get a monthly government check, it’s a moot point. Good luck with YOUR country. It’s not mine any more…and I can’t wait to start from scratch.
  
  Report this comment
- Al J Zira
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:14pm
  LOL! Yo whine_dude! Take a pill. Your rant shows the intolerant side of the left that claims to be so tolerant of everyone. Sad thing is the tolerance only works when it’s people with which you agree. Sad little man.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 10:11pm
  Winedude essentially said Roberts was the posterboy for conservatism and was viciously attacked by conservatives after he had ONE opinion the right didn’t like. In replies to this comment alone, Roberts has been described as Rino, liberal, dangerous, wanting to destroy America, and homosexual. I think git-r-done compared conservatives to marxists (that’s okay, he’s compared everyone to marxists, he doesn’t know what a marxist is) and al-j-zeera, I think, claims liberals are the one’s intolerant of Justice Roberts. Roberts was championed by conservatives at his confirmation, and after Citizens United and every other decison he handed down except one; Affordable Care Act. So now conservatives say he’s a liberal, gay, America destroyer. So were you full of crap at his confirmation hearing or are you full of crap now? Maybe both? This tea-party version of ‘conservatism’ leaves no room for dissenting opinion. Vote against Norquist or Dick Armey or the fundamentalist christians once, just once, and you’re out…primaried…cut off…labled a fraud (RINO).
  Perhaps it’s not government you folks are trying shrink so as to drown it in a bathtub, perhaps it’s conservatism. Keep running people out of the party, you had way more support last month than you needed, right?
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 11:20pm
  Wow. Guess it doesn’t matter anyway. You guys one. Good luck Marine.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 11:50pm
  I will say one thing for you Marine and the rest of the libs: you guys fight fanatically for what you believe in. THAT will be the downfall of the conservatives..not just the line that has been drawn that one can’t cross. Which by the way I believe in. No more retreat, no more pandering no more pretending. The problem with liberal fanaticism is the lying cheating and stealing that goes on at every level to win. THAT is why I am standing fast on the principles I believe have to be adhered to in order to be labeled a conservative. I am assuming you are a Marine. Hats off to you. You will understand the importance of Codes..written and unwritten then. Personally I am not taking one more step towards the rear. DIP or move forward…nothing more. But i will not lower my standards for political hacks, NONE of whom I have any respect for. Let them sell their souls. let them cheat at the ballot box. But don’t be surprised when the crap piles up so high that this country finally explodes…and the “explodeees” will not be the usual subjects..blacks screaming for “justice”, SEIU members rioting for wages and a 2 day work week, ACORN nuts being nuts. This time it will be the middle class and I am not certain this country will survive it when that explosion goes off. So again good luck Marine. You will need it with the foxhole buddy’s you have chosen.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.