AP: Nearly Half of Americans Would Support a Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
- Posted on September 15, 2011 at 12:23am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Barbara Von Aspern loves her daughter, “thinks the world” of the person her daughter intends to marry and believes the pair should have the same legal rights as anyone else. It pains her, but Von Aspern is going to skip their wedding. Her daughter, Von Aspern explains, is marrying another woman.
“We love them to death, and we love them without being judgmental,” the 62-year-old Chandler, Ariz., retiree said. “But the actual marriage I cannot agree with.”
It’s complicated, this question of legitimizing gay marriage. Americans are grappling with it from their homes to the halls of government in the shadow of a presidential election next year. The ambivalence is reflected in a new poll that shows the nation is passionate, conflicted and narrowly split on same-sex marriage.
Fifty-three percent of the 1,000 adults surveyed believe the government should give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex, about the same as last year, according to the nationwide telephone poll by The Associated Press and the National Constitution Center. Forty-four percent were opposed.
In May 2011, Gallup similarly found that 53 percent of respondents believe that gay marriage should be legalized “with the same rights as traditional marriages.” In this instance, 45 percent of those polled stood in opposition.
But simply asking the question — whether or not the legal nature of a union between two adults should be recognized — doesn’t fully encapsulate the complicated issues surrounding same-sex marriage.
While some may believe that it should be legalized, they may still find themselves conflicted about the moral nature of a gay union. Support for the legal nature of a marriage has nothing to do, for some, with the personal moral opinions surrounding same-sex relationships.
Over time, though, despite being a complicated and divisive issue, as time going on people do seem to be more accepting of gay marriage. Support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage has shifted in recent years, from a narrow majority opposed in 2009 to narrow majority support now.
Some of the shift stems from a generational divide, with the new poll showing a majority of Americans under age 65 in favor of legal recognition for same-sex marriages, and a majority of seniors opposed.
In some places, government has moved ahead while the nation debates. New York in July became the sixth state, along with the District of Columbia, to legalize same-sex marriage. Still, the issue played a part in the special election Tuesday to replace disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. Democrat David Weprin‘s support for gay marriage cost him support among the district’s Orthodox Jews, and he lost to Republican Bob Turner.
Also Tuesday, lawmakers in North Carolina, the only state in the Southeast that does not have language in its constitution banning gay marriage, voted to put the question on the 2012 ballot. Most Americans who live in states where gay marriage is not already legal say it is unlikely their state will pass such a law; just 20 percent think it is likely to become law in their state. Below, watch for more on the North Carolina initiative:
Americans also are conflicted on how to go about legalizing or outlawing gay marriage.
One option is banning gay marriage by constitutional amendment. About half of the poll’s respondents, 48 percent, said they would favor such an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Most who feel this way do so intensely. About 40 percent would strongly favor such a change. Forty-three percent said they would oppose such an amendment, and 8 percent were neutral, according to the poll.
Most – 55 percent – believe the issue should be handled at the state level, however, and opinions on how states should act are split. People are about evenly divided on whether their states should allow same-sex marriages – 42 percent favor that and 45 percent are opposed – and tilt in favor of state laws that allow gay couples to form civil unions – 47 percent in favor, 38 percent opposed and 13 percent neutral, according to the poll.
“The different moral standards in different areas, probably, are the biggest reason that same-sex marriages are an issue,” said Dale Shoemaker, 54, a military retiree from Boise, Idaho. If gay couples who want to get married live in a state that doesn’t allow it, they can move to one that does, he said.
Either way, gay couples “should have benefits,” Shoemaker said. “If they’re living together and cohabitating and are a couple, (they should have) the insurance and retirement and that type of thing, the monetary benefits.”
Nearly 6 in 10 (57 percent) in the poll shared Shoemaker’s take when it comes to government benefits. They said same-sex couples should be entitled to the same legal benefits as married couples of the opposite sex. Forty percent felt the government should distinguish between them.
The poll did uncover some inequities. It suggests, for example, that opponents of same-sex marriage were far more apt to say that the issue is one of deep importance to them. Forty-four percent of those polled called it extremely or very important for them personally. Among those who favor legal marriage for gay couples, 32 percent viewed the issue as that important.
Von Aspern is an example of an American whose opposition to gay marriage is deep and abiding. It’s based on her religion – she is Mormon – and as such it overrode other considerations when it came to her daughter’s wedding.
“It was very difficult,” Von Aspern says. “We had to bring them to the house and hug them and love them and tell them these things and not let that keep us apart.”
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 683 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 647 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 314 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 171 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 210 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 171 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (187)
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:20amSo?That just means more than half are not against it.
Report Post »Al_Capone
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:01amtrue, but what it doesn’t say is that a larger percentage in that 50% do not agree with it… they may be against a constitutional ban but still be against gay marriage
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:01amGovernment needs to get OUT of marriage …period! Let the churches decide (as most are against it) and the Churches that support it will most likely self destruct. When the federal government gets involved then they dictate what THEY deem right… how is that good? Get government out of marriage!
Report Post »BELIEVER N CHRIST
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:06amtrue, but what it doesn’t say is that a larger percentage in that 50% do not agree with it… they may be against a constitutional ban but still be against gay marriage
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:10amThe fact is, our American President has nothing to fear from our grass-roots Taxed Enough Already party members. These fair-minded, practical, economic activists are wise enough not to get involved in defining homosexual rights and like mature adults, tend to stay away from societal policy issues. The budget-focused tea party has better things to do than worry about restricting LGTB life choices.
TEA
Report Post »$$$
antimaher
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:10amRegardless of which side one takes it is not the business of the federal government. Why do people continually want give the federal government more reason to micro manage our society? Are they so damned stupid they don’t realize they are begging to have more of their liberty taken from them? If one desires to be a slave to big government move the hell out of this country. There are plenty of other countries more suitable to the mind set of such dregs.
Report Post »Joeyp22
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:22am“One Nation Under God”, “In God We Trust”
I see alot of opinion on here. If we are truly One nation under God and WE ARE! We should look at what God thinks about this.
Tolerance is preached and what tolerance really means is acceptance. Let’s see what God has to say about this topic of gay marriage.
Romans 1:26″ For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:”
27 “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
So if one post on here or one American who says they are “Christian” goes against what God says then you better rethink your position and get in line with Gods!
Might I remind you of a place called Sodom and Gomorrah!
For those of you who will “approve” or “accept” it, I have some stern warning for you. Romans 1:32 “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:10am@ antimaher.Wish I Could say stuff as plane and simple as you.Greatest point I have seen! We all favor smaller Government and less Intrusion…..Unless it is those Pesky gays? That is the same “Them Not Us” syndrome that the left basis it’s existence on. You can’t have fire arms,but we can hire brute body guards.You can‘t eat cheeseburgers but Mr’s Obama can.The Tea Party is supposed to be mean thugs beating up people,when it is the Unions doing it.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:18amJoeyp22
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:22am
“One Nation Under God”, “In God We Trust”
I see alot of opinion on here. If we are truly One nation under God and WE ARE! We should look at what God thinks about this.
Report Post »______________________________________________
The First Amendment (establishment clause) and the Religious Test Clause of the Constitution, pretty much says that we should keep God out of these issues.
Wayner
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:33amMy wife (female) and I are casting our votes to ban gay marriage,,,, There… That should put us over the top of the stinking filthy queers.
Report Post »jonnydoe
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:02pm“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:31pmencicom… try reading the US constittuion instead of the SOVIET one that you would like to have here…
Report Post »encinom
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:40pmjoe1234
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:31pm
encicom… try reading the US constittuion instead of the SOVIET one that you would like to have here…
__________________________________
I have no mention of God and limits to the influence of religion on the state. I know you wish for a theocracy instead of a secular democratic republic we have.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:40pmPoor MONACNE…you post a lot..and you say nothing.
Report Post »robert
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:43pmThat only 50% would support a ban speaks volumes about how far this country has degenerated.
Giving Obama a job approval rating of 45% is just as bad, too.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:40pmAnother reason to love DIRTY HARRY………………http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/14/clint-eastwood-i-dont-give-a-fck-if-gays-marry/#.TnDwXdN4Zzg.facebook
Report Post »Carol Ingian
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:15amI am sure it is more than half that would like to see it banned.
Report Post »So ban it already!
godhead
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:03amSure, are you? Seems to me the data suggest the majority of Americans are opposed to a ban on gay marriage. So you are either stupid or you don’t care about the will of the people. Which is it.Do you favor raising taxes on the top 2% of incomer earners in the country? 70% of Americans do.
Oh, what a tangled web it is to screech about polls, isn’t it? You know, if you quit trying to tell people how to live their lives, you wouldn’t find yourself in that state of constant contradiction.
Report Post »shakenblake5432
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:23pmOh come on, allow her to have her opinion without being insulting to Carol. There is no need to go into being “stupid” or “uncaring.” That is called being a liberal.
Report Post »v12tommy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:15amWhat difference does it make? “nearly half” is not over 50%, so there would be no ban because a bill could not get passed. I am all for gay marriage because frankly, it doesn’t effect me. Plus it isn‘t like if they can’t get married they will stop being gay or something. But I am all for voting rights. For instance the fact that California voters have twice gone to the polls and voted to ban gay marriage, only to have a single judge (a gay judge one of the times) over rule the majority of the voting citizens, even though I am on the side who‘s viewpoint benefits from the judge’s decision, that doesn’t sit well with me. If the majority of the voting public voted to ban it, then it should remain banned. If the people who want to legalize it want to overturn the ban, that is fine, but to overturn the ban they must also get enough signatures to get their initiative on the ballot, and then get a majority vote in favor of it during an election.
Report Post »Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:57amDoesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg, so let ‘em get married.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:59amnope, does not take money our of your pocket, but does destroy your nation.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 …’This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.’
Report Post »Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:08amYou know what’s destroying my nation? Two minority groups. Theocratic busybody people like you who tell me what to do for my own good, and Socialist commies nanny busybodies like Obama who also tell me what to do for my own good. How about you worry about your own good and leave the rest of us the hell alone?
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:27am@Scrubpuppy
Do you deny that homosexuality destroys nations? Are you blind to what part homosexuality played in Rome, Greece, Babylone….
Do you deny that homosexuals over the last ten years make up around 80% of new AIDS cases.
Do you deny the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says homosexual men accounted for 65 percent of the nearly 12,000 cases of syphilis in the United States in 2007, making them the “primary driver” of increased syphilis rates overall.
Do you deny that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals?
Do you homosexual community constitutes a high-risk population with regard to alcoholism and drug abuse?
Do you deny homosexuals suffer from higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse?
Homosexuality destroys nations. This is fact. You can have your own opinion, but not your own truth.
Report Post »Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:44amSince you‘re always so fond of saying that they’re like 2 percent of the population, I’d say yeah, all your numbers are made up. So no, it doesn’t destroy nations.
But you’re obviously military affiliated, so lets see what happens when religious zealots take over, like the Taliban. Remember what we saw there? Lots of anti gay rhetoric, women being dehumanized, religious law. Awfully hard to tell them and you apart, isn’t it?
Don‘t you hate it when you become what you’ve fought for ten years?
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:57am@scrubpuppy
“lets see what happens when religious zealots take over, like the Taliban”
I am not quit getting your statement above.
America is not moving toward a more religious society, we moved away. Look at American fifty years ago, look 200 years ago. Back inthe 50s (when were top in the world in math science…) there was no way gays were going to marry in the U.S. We knew better. Back then, public school children still learned creation, they prayed in school, and the Bible could still be studdied in public school.
We could pray in public, no one complained about Christmas decorations……
We are not moving close to Christianity, we have moved away. While we moved away, crime has shot through the roof, homosexuality is on the rise, abortion kills millions, schools are a mess.
I am not getting your logic, as there is no logic to it. These claims that we are like the taliban are foolish. go flip on the MTV, and tell me that we are living in a religious controlled nation/.
I believe in the first ammendment. I do not want the governmen running the church. But I want moral christain people, running the governmet. This is how our nation started. I would like to see us go back/
Report Post »Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:05amActually, I can go through and fix all your info for you…
Do you deny that homosexuality destroys nations? Are you blind to what part homosexuality played in Rome, Greece, Babylone….
Rome- Germanic Tribes destroyed the Western Roman Empire, Islamic conquered the Eastern Byzantine. Greece was a group of city states, constantly fighting each other until the Romans took them over, Babylon was conquered by Islam
Do you deny that homosexuals over the last ten years make up around 80% of new AIDS cases.
Wrong, most new cases are in Africa. In America, African Americans are at the highest risk.
Do you deny the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says homosexual men accounted for 65 percent of the nearly 12,000 cases of syphilis in the United States in 2007, making them the “primary driver” of increased syphilis rates overall.
most P&S syphilis cases occurred in persons 20 to 39 years of age. The incidence of P&S syphilis was highest in women 20 to 24 years of age and in men 35 to 39 years of age.
Do you deny that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals?
at 2 percent of the population, most of which are law abiding, you’re still wrong.
Do you homosexual community constitutes a high-risk population with regard to alcoholism and drug abuse?
Drug abuse is higher amongst low income minority groups.
Amazingly wrong on most accounts. You must do part time editorial work for MSNBC.
Report Post »Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:11amSo what you‘re saying is that you’d rather we went back to the 1950s before the civil rights movement, or 200 years where slavery was still legal.
I’m a big fan of the founders, but they passed on the issue of slavery to future generations, leading to the worst war in the country’s history. Yes, they were good men, but they made mistakes too.
I’m not going to flip on MTV and use it as a weathervane for the American people, one because people who would watch MTV all day are probably sub-average intelligence, and two, because I doubt they’d play any decent music.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:21amScramploppy,
Report Post »It’s faux conservatives like you that make me sick. You demonstrate misunderstanding of theocracy, socialism, faith, homosexuality, marriage, and even the very nation and the nature of its freedoms you claim to love so much.
Ranger comes at you with fact, history, stats, and his own take on them, you accuse him of not leaving you alone. The 1st amendment gives him a right to speak, doesn’t give you the duty to listen. How is speaking his mind NOT leaving you alone. He’s not forcing you to do anything. That would be theocracy. Instead he attempts logic, persuasion, and a genuine concern for the welfare of his nation. You immediately attack comparing him to the Taliban…you honestly don’t see the difference? So is anyone who believes anything automatically a theocrat then? Isn’t there a little something about govt force involved in theocracy?
Truth is, Ranger‘s arguments don’t NEED biblical backing, they’re true anyway. And yes they DO destroy nations: maybe only 2% directly involved, but if you could actually READ, you‘d know that this very ARTICLE you’re posting to puts support for them at roughly 50%.
Freedom under law can only be maintained when laws are just, and when the vast majority of the people are moral enough to obey them without compulsion. Gay marriage introduces a fundamental change in the relationship between citizen and state, and frays the fragile fabric of the morality on which the nation’s peace is based. Over time it destroys.
rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:28am@Scrubpuppy
You can jump over to the CDC and check my stats on homosexuality, also look onthe FBI crime stats in regard to homosexuals molesting children. I did not see you cite any source for facts.
You are correct in that they are less than 2% of the population, and that small percent does a whole lot of damage. Once again, that less than 2% is carrying 80 percent of the AIDS and 64% of syphilis. and that small percent molests a whole slew of children, and they assault each other at an alarming rate (you can find that on the FBI crime stats also).
Islam did not destroy Babylon, Persia did. The night they attacked under the wall , Babylon was in the middle of a drunken sex party.
Study some more, and come back/
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:32amSillypuupy: Rome- Germanic Tribes destroyed the Western Roman Empire, Islamic conquered the Eastern Byzantine. Greece was a group of city states, constantly fighting each other until the Romans took them over, Babylon was conquered by Islam
Report Post »–
All of which brought on by moral decay and corruption, much of which linked to homosexuality. You ignore root causes.
—
Sillypuppy: Wrong, most new [AIDS] cases are in Africa. In America, African Americans are at the highest risk.
–
More incapacity to read: not Ranger’s point. You refuted nothing, naming another way to look at the same data doesn’t change the correct fact that gays get more AIDS than others.
—
most P&S syphilis cases occurred in persons 20 to 39 years of age. The incidence of P&S syphilis was highest in women 20 to 24 years of age and in men 35 to 39 years of age.
–
Yup, you’re malliterate (CAN read, just read wrong…like almost every time!). Age and sex have nothing to do with addressing the 65% stat by sexual orientation Ranger brought up. You are just logical fallacies all over the place here.
—
Sillypuppy: at 2 percent of the population, most of which are law abiding, you’re still wrong.
–
Again complete failure to comprehend plain English. Chances that gays will molest children are higher, no matter if those that don’t are law-abiding. You’re guilty of non-sequitur, again, among other things.
—
Sloppyprop: Drug abuse is higher amongst low income minority groups.
–
So? gays stil
TomFerrari
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:32amExcellent discussion scrubpuppy and rangerp.
I think scrubpuppy has the facts correct, though.
He’s also stating that we must not make the same mistakes that the left is making by infringing on their rights NOT to worship, or NOT to live moral lives.
Just as the left seems hell bent on crushing religion, we must STAND UP for our Constitution, our religious freedoms and our rights… BUT, we must also stand FIRMLY for THEIR RIGHTS as well.
When you start taking away people’s rights, you make it FACT that it is “okay” to take away rights, as long as it is the rights YOU want taken away. So, when the pendulum swings, which it always does, the left will behave exactly the same and try to take away your rights. The courts will have accepted OUR actions as case law (taking away their rights), and will rule in favor of the current powers that be, and rule to take away OUR rights.
So, it is imperative that we DEFEND the Constitution!
Its guarantees were not put there to defend that which we LIKE. (Who needs to be protected when they are saying, “I like chocolate”?)
Report Post »The Constitution guarantees our rights for that which we do NOT like. (Speaking truth to power.)
Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:38amTom gets it. I’m doing you a favor Ranger, by sticking up for these people. Want to know why? Because when they come for you, and its unpopular to stand up for you, I’ll be there. I have lots of friends across a lot of political/religious spectrums, and the one thing I know about gays is that most of them want to be left alone to do whatever it is that they do.
Babylon was disolved as a province after the Arab Islam takeover in 7th century AD.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:39am@HappyStretchedThin
Well stated. I like how you stated that even without the Bible, the facts from history still back up truth regarding homosexuality and the damage it does to nations. It just adds validity to belief in the Bible.
Folks can argue as to what actually destroyed nations and civilizations in the past. There are those that will tell you that Rome fell because they used lead pipes for thier water system. Regardless of how these nations fell, anytime one of them accepted homosexuality as normal, they fell very quickly after. No nation in the history of the world was homosexual on the way to the top. They became homosexual on the way to the bottom.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:42am(Cont): still constitute an at-risk group no matter who else abuses. Besides, LGBT is seasoned across all the groups you mentioned, so you’re not comparing apples to apples.
Report Post »Finally, and perhaps most grievously, your reading of the Founders reveals how little you understand of them, how little you really respect the rest of what they stood for, how little you understand the nature of freedom, and how apt my coined term malliterate applies to you.
The very conditions and arguments upon which the abolition of slavery took place arose from the Constitution. Do you just skip over the “in order to form a more perfect union” part? The Civil war cost lives, but was NOT a mistake. The mistake would have been not establishing a Constitution enabling the institutions that guarantee freedom for all.
Your revisionism is revolting.
Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:42amFaux conservative? I never claimed to be a social conservative. Fiscal conservative, yeah.
I guess as long as Happy can fling insults, I can just keep skipping their posts.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:49am@TomFerrari and Scrubpuppy
I do not think either of you get it.
The left is trying to redifine marriage. Marriage is between a man and woman. that is the definition.
You can spin all you want. Homosexuality destroys the family it destroys the nation. Left or right is not material to the conversation. The destruction of homosexuality is.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:52am@HappyStretchedThin
You seem to be a bit more eloquent with the words – thanks.
To word it for us folks in Alabama – Scrubpuppy peed on the carpet, and Happy got him by the nap of the neck, and rubbed his nose in it.
Report Post »Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:55amSo saying that the founders allowed slavery to continue is revisionism? That would be like me saying that you making up words like “malliterate” is revisionism, except in that case, you’d actually be revising something. LIke the dictionary.
And no one said that the civil war didn’t need to be fought, but it could have been averted had the issue not been kicked down the road to future generations. But back on topic…so what are you guys saying? We round up all these gays and…..what? You’re coming up with all the fingers pointed at gays for destroying the country (because everyone knows it was a gay that shot up Ft. Hood) but no solutions.
Maybe it’s not the gays attempting to destroy our nation. Maybe they like it here because they aren’t rounded up and killed. Saying that gays are our to destroy the nation is like saying they’re planning terrorist attacks. Glitter bombs don’t count.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:56amTomFerrari,
Report Post »I love your passion and you’re spot on about standing up for freedom on ALL sides, not just our own.
Where you are missing the point, though, is that gays aren’t being denied any rights. And no one wants them to be denied any.
They’re not allowed to marry the person they love? Sorry, but that’s not inequality. It would require re-defining marriage to do so, and that would erode something essential about the institution of families on which our society and liberties hang. That’s the moral blanket argument. The more specific conservative argument is about states’ rights: we simply can’t have one state legalizing something and because of absence of federal authority it must be applied legally everywhere. I suppose there may be some laws where that wouldn’t be a problem (I dunno, jaywalking maybe?), but LGBT marriage could lead to other liberal states forcing more conservative states changing adoption laws, divorce laws, estate law, etc., etc. Everywhere family law touches, this could have a huge impact, and legitimize by fiat what should be decided by local majorities. By mission-creep judiciary is left holding the bag for the legislature. Ultimately, leaving it to the states is the only way that can gays remain free to be gay AND still allow straights to believe and behave as they do.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:09amScrappypuppy:
Report Post »My my, you are persistent in your illogic and lack of reading skill, aren’t you?
First, I never insult, only accurately describe. You want to claim purist fiscal conservatism, fine, but you’re faux because you sacrifice Constitutionality to do so (states must have the right to decide, and most have said no), and because you deny the threat to your liberty and pocketbook this would pose. Yes, pocketbook!
Second, I’m a licensed linguist. I write dictionaries. I am free to propose and coin new terms as I please, and do it well.
Third, no one said the war wasn’t bad or avoidable. And no one said the founders didn’t allow slavery to continue. You DID imply that it didn’t need to be fought by stating the founders should have taken care of it at the beginning. By applying today’s standards to their choices you ignore their context, and revise history. They did the best that could be hoped for and DID solve the slavery issue, which would have been impossible to even THINK were it not for the Constitution they wrote.
Your other persistent problem is that you assume if it’s not a direct consequence, it’s not a consequence at all.
For the record, I am against all forms of sin (even my own!), including drunkenness, murder, and lies as well, and propose that the solution to homosexuality is guaranteeing their freedom so I can persuade them to freely give up their sins. No one’s trying to criminalize them, just convince them to be moral.
godhead
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:10amRangerP . . . You call that evidence? Prove that it destroys our nation. Or any nation. Or marriage. Or children. I know you love evidence, soI suggest you do what Bill O’Reilly does and make up some Swedish study.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo8K4YPi-v0
Now, now, I now you‘ll try to deflect the facts with a childish emotional response like Al Franken’s a turd head. By all means, get it out of your system. And later when you’re sitting on the toilet staring at yourself in the mirror, think about what you can do to become a stronger, more honest person. Try to imagine a life where you don’t have to continually rationalize your actions and beliefs.
Oh hosannah! Hosanahh! . . . Hamdala parabola not too sot too halagesh
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:20amGod/Headless,
Report Post »Your faculty for projection is stunning. Talk about emotional responses!
And factless!
Here: http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp
It proves causality in destruction to the institution of marriage when lgbt marriage laws take effect.
From there, it’s a moral decline argument, which Ranger is hardly the first to make.
You want to argue without reference to morality? Fine, but don‘t make scrubblingpoppy’s errors of assuming that just because the cause isn’t direct, that it’s not a cause.
Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:46amSo RangerP and Happy, clearly being proven wrong at every turn, decide to declare victory and claim loudly that the debate is over. It’s like Al Gore all over again.
Honestly, I‘m not surprised you’re from Alabama, and I ignored Happy after it said it writes dictionaries for a living.
Good to see you guys proclaiming your terror of the gays though. When I think of scary, I think terrorists or large government, not some guy in spandex pants and a pink headband sweating to the oldies.
The sad thing about this whole discussion is that you absolutely believe that gays and lesbians are going to overthrow the nation and plunge it into chaos. Well, keep deluding yourselves, because the adults are worried about real issues, like Fundamental Islam and the deficit, not your petty hatreds of citizens who don’t agree with you and your pastor.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:49am@Happy
Mr Happy, I attempted to do a little debate with GodlessHead on another post, and it was rather useless. You will kind some name calling out of him/her, but not much else.
While ScrappyPuppy has real difficulty in using logic, and putting stats/fact together, at least he tries.
Report Post »Joeyp22
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:49amFor those who accept: At what point does your tolerance of immorality stop? Do you have a moral barometer? Your foolish arguements and opinions are what leads to the tearing down of a nation.
I could pose many a question on things that are tolerated and let’s see if we should accept them as a society.
Who sets forth your moral code, you? Then whenever your mind changes so do your morals.
There are moral absolutes and gay marriage defiles morality! Open your eyes and look at the destruction that one immoral sin has caused.
My opinion and your opinion matters not!
Simply stated when a person lives a lie, they drive the knowledge of God out of their mind and they becomes a reprobate.
Romans 1:28 “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”
Report Post »Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:51amI love Happy’s posts. No real intelligence, just changing my screen name in a shallow pedantic way. So clever.
Report Post »Joeyp22
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:12amAs a moderator or judge of debate I would say that HappyStretchedThin and RangerP just put a verbal beat down on Scrubpoopy and Godlesshead.
Facts are important, opinions and emotional outbursts are just exaggerated and extravagant claims you are especially making to promote your flawed way of thinking.
Godlesshead- Get into your bible prefferably the KJV 1611 and study the facts.(I have posted a few on here.)
Report Post »Scrubpoopy- Not sure where to send you, maybe the Waffle House because you jump here and there and waffle back and forth. Stay on task and address the issue with facts!
rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:12am@Scrubpuppy
You are a real hoot my friend. You remind me of good old Saddam Hussein. He would get his tail beat off, and then declare victory.
Prior to this post, I do not think I have seen Happystretchedthin before. I like to think I can debate a little, in that I keep opinion to a low, and use facts from history, current stats, Bible…
Happy has an uncanny ability to debate, and I can not compare. His/her arguments are packed with facts, well articulated, eloquent, and he/she can even throw in a little humor.
To say that you got an electronic beat down by Happy would be an understatement, thus your sniveling comments. Your argument got destroyed. Happy debunked your inability to use facts. Study, take copious notes, and try to learn a thing or two from the Happy one.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:15amI Was mobbed by gays this morning,they took my money,my job,blocked the Welfare line,Re Dressed me in color coordinated clothes, and none of them spoke English.They just speak Gayanese.Come On,get real.What has some one’s sexual preference done to you?
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:19amThanks Ranger,
Report Post »It’s been good to see your perspective too. I think it’s pretty much all out there for neutral observers to read and benefit from. That’s my real goal when I post here: provide argument and logic for our side, provide the same to persuade the other side, and hopefully help the fence sitters pick a side.
Scrubblespreppy,
I have fun making new screen names out of others’. Sometimes they turn out more descriptive that way. All part of the fun. Sorry your sense of humor doesn’t enjoy them. Please note there were a lot of ways I could have made them vulgar, but didn’t. Glad you found them at least worthy of a sarcastic “clever” though.
I‘ve demonstrated methodically at each point where you’ve made logical fallacies and twisted others’ words to make your meritless point. You, on the other hand, have accused my points of having no merit, but WITHOUT demonstrating it.
I rest that the state is and should be invested in the definition of marriage as one man and one woman at the federal level to ensure equal rights for all the States and the people within them, to ensure future generations have families as so defined as an ideal from which to learn morality and good citizenship, and to acknowledge that the basic unit of society is not government itself, but the people and their families.
Peace out!
Nick84
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:35amrangerp-
What do any of your “statistics” have to do with denying two people the right to marry? Even if homosexuals do have higher rates of stds, that doesn’t have anything to do with them getting married. Unless you want to ban marriages of all groups of people who have a statically higher than average chance of getting stds? Also, I’m pretty sure lesbians fall statistically lower than average for stds.
The real issue here is that you are a bigot and are simply trying to justify your bigoted views. Why not just be honest and state that you think homosexuals are an abomination and they should not have the same rights as you? Isn’t that really what you want to say? I’m so tired of people trying to hide their bigotry behind illogical arguments.
Report Post »ProudMinnesotan
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 11:57am@Rangerp: You can drop the act already; dadt has been lifted, just open the door and step out of the closet.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 1:26pm@NICK84
I think you missed the point of the entire argument. My statistics show what homosexuality does to nations, families ,civilizations. The history I provided back it up.
You fail to know the deffintion of marriage. there is not such thing as a gay marriage, it is a misnomer. Marriage is the union between a man and woman. One man, one woman. Two men or two women is a wicked relationship, not a marriage.
You call me a bigot, because you claim I believe homosexuality. You claim I am hiding my opion, my thoughts. Let me enlighten you. My thoughts and opinions do not ammount to a squirt of piss. I am a nothing and a nobody. My Bible tellse me that homosexuality is an abomination, also says that those that do homosexual acts are sons of the wicked one (Judges 19). That is God’s opinion, not mine. I just happen to agree with the Bible, and not Lady Ga Ga and Madona. Where do you get your moral standards.
In regards to lesbians, you need to study, as your stats are way off. Lesbians are twice a likely to get an STD, and stats show that the average lesbian has many more male sex partners in her past than heterosexual women. They have the highest suicide rates, and many other health problems. The rate in which they assault each other is also higher than heterosexuals.
I think you missed the boat on the argument. My argument is completely based on logic, facts, health statistics, crime statistics from the FBI, CDC. I draw from world history, and
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 1:31pm@ProudMinnesotan
Please tell me that you can do better, and have more to offer? This is big people argument, we are a bit beyond the 3rd grade level name calling.
What do you have next, your momma jokes?
If you want to come back and debate the big people, go study and bring the info, otherwise you can go watch some cartoons.
Report Post »gramma b
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:15pmEven aside from the moral and religious issues, the very idea of gay “marriage” is group insanity. Sexual attraction and sexual intercourse have an obvious biological purpose. The urge to imitate intercourse with a person of the same sex is objectively dysfunctional. Yet, a huge number of people are now willing to pretend that this dysfunctional imitation of a biologically necessary act — instead of being nauseating to most people — is “normal,” and that society should now also embrace the idea of them imitating marriage. This truly is an “Emperor’s New Clothes” world that we live in.
Report Post »Faith1029
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:27pmIt will effect you in every way when God passes judgement on this nation which is already starting to take place due to it’s moral decline. He is already beginning to lift His Hand of protection off this nation and unless we repent and turn from our evil ways, we will no longer be the United States of America. If you truly want to know what we should do and what to believe, read the Bible. Whether you believe in Him or not, you will answer and give an account to Him one day.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
Report Post »nomolibs
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:32amAlso I’m pretty sure the majority of americans are for some form of abortion last time I saw a poll it was almost 70%. so seeing what everyone is writing about we should make it a law since majority thinks killing babies are ok. Right?
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:57amSome will tell you that worrying about the gay issue is a waste of time, as there are bigger issues on our plate.
World history shows us that nations that embrace homosexuality fall apart soon after.
There are a number of things a nation can do to self destruct. When the family falls apart, the nation falls apart. The American family is a mess. We have children that have no discipline, we are declining in education, we have 46 million on welfare, but then allow illegal imigrants to flood across the border to work. If there is work to be done, let those on welfare do it,
Nations that turn their back on Israel fall. Look at the British empire. They held the keys to Palestine pre WWII, and they jerked the rug out from under Jews who wanted to move back to the homeland. The British empire went into rapid decline.
Homosexuality destroys families, it destroys nations, it spreads disease, it is a factor in a civilization no longer producing enough children to replentish it’s population.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 …’This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn aw
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:00amGays already have the same rights as straights. They can marry anyone they want of the opposite sex. I can marry any man I want. My husband could have married any woman he wanted. If they want a legal marriage, where you get the marriage tax break, insurance companies treat you as married, all the perks that go along with marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex. What they want is not equality, but advantage.
Report Post »Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:05amUgh, really Ranger? Get over yourself.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:32am@Scrubpuppy
“myself” has nothing to do with the topic. I did not post about me, I posted facts, history, Bible.
Can you debate? Can you do critical thinking? Are you able to state a side of an issue and back it up with facts, history, statistics, or are you a typical liberal, in that you can quote a talking point, call names, make snide comments, then run away?
My education is not from the multicultural publics schools, MTV, the MSM, Oprah….. Step up to the plate and swing. Show us what you got.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:14amI agree with LoriAnn12 that Gays should just Marry Lesbians, and get on with life.
This treatment of faux marriage for optimizing benefits is a pragmatic approach proven to work in the US Military, which rewards marriage with additional pay and housing.
For decades a small minority of otherwise honorable military members have gotten married to improve their spouse’s positions or get foreign spouses into America. RangerP would surely admit this is true.
TEA
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:09pm@MONICNE
For decades a small minority of otherwise honorable military members have gotten married to improve their spouse’s positions or get foreign spouses into America. RangerP would surely admit this is true
_____________________________________________________________________________
What exactly am I admitting to here? You lost me on this one (not hard to do). Are you asking me if people in the military (or anywhere else) get married to improve their social status, or get ahead, or get a person from another country into this country? I suppose so. Gen Petraeus married the Superintendent of West Point’s daughter as soon as he was commissioned as a LT. Did that realtionship help? Heck, I do not know. Has a soldier ever married a Korean girl, and brought her and her family to the US. I am sure they have. I am not the marriage police. Men and women marry for all manner of reasons. I got married, because my wife was pretty, and liked to fish with me. She is still pretty, but not much time to fish these days. twenty years later, and still married, Still one man, and one woman.
What does any of this have to do with the price of potatoes (get Dan Quayle to check that spelling)?
Marriage is between a man and woman (that is the definiton).
family is the smallest unit of government and education
homosexuality destroys familys and nations (see top post, as many stats were listed)
Did I miss something?
TEA???
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:50pm@rangerp
Your patience is comendable and inspiring……..Good Job!!
Report Post »nomolibs
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:27amThis might be the single most unimportant issue ever in the US. we are rearanging the deck chairs on the titanic. Our country is gonna collapse and were worried about gays? Wake up its a bull crap party trick to stop you from looking at real issues to save the country.
Report Post »Scrubpuppy
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:56amI know right? As long as they can pit us against each other so we don’t have the energy to yell at them for jacking up the country, they’ll keep doing it.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:59amYou honestly don’t think the future of our country has a little to do with the kinds of families we endorse as a society? The the rights and freedoms they will enjoy are connected to the moral fiber of society? You don‘t think one state forcing it’s own conception of the relationship between citizen and state (which is one way to look at what a marriage is) upon other states because the feds haven’t protected the rights of all the others to define that relationship their own way is a threat to the rights and freedoms of all those other states? You‘re not only mistaken on the nature of the country’s problems, but on the nature of the very institutions that enable their solutions.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:02amWhat is the point of fixing our economic crisis if we don’t also address the moral collapse which made this crisis possible? Sound economics are built upon a people being self-conttrolled and moral. Those who care nothing for the health of society because it “doesn’t pick my pocket” will easily lose fiscal discipline. Morally corrupt societies NEVER have maintained fiscal soundness.
Report Post »GTH
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:14amJust because gay people have a mental illness doesn’t give them the right to push it on the normal society. Ban gay marriage and ALL gay organizations and treat them as what they are, mentally ill.
Report Post »dpselfe
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:41amI’m for the ban. I‘m not for it because I’m against Gays living together and enjoying Liberty as I do. I’m for the ban against gay marriage, so long as it‘s worded in such a way that it doesn’t single out Gays. It would have to include polygamy, beastiality and incest to garner my support at 100%.
Additionally, if your bedroom activity is off limits to my opinion, then my wallet is off limits to the consequences of your bedroom activity.
Report Post »Ronald Wilson
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:28amStatistics are useful in determining people’s feelings about an issue, but making policy is another matter. Pushing “democratic” thinking ( and I mean the majority rules stuff, not the party ) to justify a position seems anti-constitutional. This line of thinking can justify the government taking away any right that you have, based on the good of the majority. The constitution guarantees freedom FROM the majority.
Report Post »If your marriage means something deeper to you, why would you let the government get involved at all in your spiritual life; create a trust, a will, power of attorney to flexibly define the two partners legally. Marriage at the government level is only a legal convenience for the majority, not a right.
Besides, people should focus on their own marriage and make it mean something, not compare it to everyone else.
Locked
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:56am“Marriage at the government level is only a legal convenience for the majority, not a right.”
Incorrect. According to Supreme Court rulings, marriage is a right. See, for example, Loving v. Virginia, where the opinion included the following: “Marriage is one of the ”basic civil rights of man.”" This case was also used as the basis to overturn Prop 8 in CA, noting that “the right to marry protects an individual’s choice of marital partner regardless of gender.”
The big question of course is whether the ruling applies to homosexual couples as opposed to couples of different races as was the case in Loving. That hasn’t been decided yet at the Supreme Court level; however, marriage (in general) legally is a right according to the highest court of our judicial system.
Report Post »Ronald Wilson
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:18amI stand corrected from a legal point of view, however I disagree with the written decision. It was the right answer, but reference to “basic civil rights of man” is overreaching. The only basis for the judgement on this case should have been “equal protection” under the 14th amendment, as shown in the decision :
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Report Post »LinkedIn G
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:22amRon Paul = Kook
Report Post »ZAP
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:15amGOD speaks for me
Report Post »MOLLYPITCHER
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:03ameven if the government recognizes gay marriage, God does not.
Report Post »onegodinkansas
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 7:24amYes. If you want to know what God thinks about queer marriage, ask Sodom.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:00amAP: Most Americans Believe Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal
Report Post »OEF Soldier
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:14amRead my blog for a better perspective. http://oefsoldier.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-every-american-should-know-about.html
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:51amWhat is the purpose of same-sex marriage? The psychiatric community took homosexuality off it’s list of mental disorders solely because of “political correctness”, and for decades they have tried to shove down the throats of normal and mentally healthy people, that being homosexual is as “normal and healthy” as everyone else. Just saying this – doesn’t make it true. I don’t believe that being homosexual is “normal” or “healthy”. I believe that it’s a mental disorder, just as being “transgendered” is a mental disorder, which is STILL on the list of mental disorders by the psychiatric community. Sorry “Chaz” but you are mentally ill.
I grew up in a world of electricians. I married into a world of electricians. Electricians have terms like – male plugs, female sockets. There is a basic understanding that to make things work, you need male plugs and female sockets.
I don’t care if two mentally ill men or women wish to mutually ma st u rb ate in private – it doesn’t effect me. However, I am concerned about mentally ill persons having the right to adopt or conceive children by surrogates. In my opinion, this should not be sanctioned or allowed. It’s better for a child to have one heterosexual parent, than two homosexual parents. At least with the heterosexual parent it‘s known that there isn’t any confusion about their sexuality.
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:57amContinued …
My biggest argument against homosexuality is: If homosexuals are now considered to be “born” that way (instead of merely having a mental illness), – why are “transgendered” and “pedophiles” still considered to be mentally ill?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:04am@Stronge
“AP: Most Americans Believe Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal”
Reread the article. What you’re saying is not what the poll says. The correct terminology would be “Most Americans do not support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage,” not that they think it should be legal.
@Diane
Report Post »“What is the purpose of same-sex marriage?”
Turn it around: What’s the point of marriage, in the eyes of the state? Two men or two women can do anything a straight couple can. As always I think the problem is people see “marriage” and think of a religious connotation… but legal marriage in the US is nonreligious in nature. There’s no conflict there legally.
Diane TX
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:17am@ Locked
Bingo! The word “marriage” should ONLY be used in connection to a religious belief. Homosexuals need to invent another word for their mutual m as t u rbation, like they did for homosexuality. They “stole” the word “gay” – which used to mean happy and carefree. Maybe the word – “mumasriage” would be appropriate for their sick alliance.
Report Post »Gypsy123
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:42amThis poll shows a moral compass of America. In NC we hope that our moral compass points toward one man one woman. But if it does not then we who want one man one woman can move to a state that supports that. And probably will. I don’t care one way or another how insurance companies payout claims or companies give out benefits. For me marriage is a God ordained event. I don’t think people who are not christian should get married in a church either.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:38amCount me in for a ban.
Report Post »Ron_WA
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:54amCall me a bigot if you will but I believe the word, the definition & institution of marriage should be reserved for the spiritual union between one man & one woman.
I’ve no legal objection against civil unions but marriage is reserved for the spiritual & biological union of one man & one woman ‘til death do them part.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:01amRon, the important word in your statement is “BELIEVE”.
You should realize that people believe in many different things. The question is should the majority, based on their beliefs, force a minority to do something their beliefs do not agree (if they do not disturb you directly)?
Look at affirmative action – 75% of voting adults (women, some non-whites, gays) had assigned to themselves never ending entitlements of Affirmative Action using the same logic. They believed in EVIL white straight man.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:52amI really do not care how other adults sexually gratify themselves in privacy of their home.
I like Ron Paul idea – call marriage what you want, but do not force that on me.
Each state should regulate licenses and adoption issues. People will vote with their feet – moving to places they like the most.
When the federal government rules, it suffocates everybody. Because each person has their OWN life to live, not to please others’ ideology. Just mind your own business, live and let others live.
If you follow Ron Paul free-market approach, affirmative action will disappear and gays will go back to their natural 3% of unimportance.
Report Post »Gypsy123
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:37amI agree with you if the state agrees with gay marriage let them live in that state it is better left up to the state.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:43am@Gypsy123, Correct!
Report Post »And it will “clean” other states that do not agree to legalize!
Diane TX
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:34amIn the Roman Catholic Church, Marriage is a Holy Sacrament of the Church. My only wish is that the word “marriage” be held as an religious commitment, and not denigrated into “I want to ”marry“ my goat”. Why can’t the homosexuals enter into legal commitments instead of marriage, since marriage is based on religions?
Before humans became civilized, there wasn’t any such thing as marriage. Humans “mated” as animals do today. As we humans evolved, and our intellects enlarged, we desired to have purpose in our lives. It was a giant step forward when Jesus Christ was born, after thousands of years of all kinds of “gods”.
The homosexuals can‘t be married in my Church because it’s considered to be a sin in my Church. There are misguided Christian Churches that are NOT Roman Catholic that would “marry” them, but they are not married in my Church’s eyes, or my eyes.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:08amKeep in mind that the Catholic Church also does not allow divorce (annulments… maybe). Hope no one here is divorced, or you’re committing adultery!
I actually find divorce infinitely more vexing morally than gay marriage. That’s like swearing your love before God and then spitting in His face. At least the Catholics stick to their moral guns, unlike many Protestant denominations.
Report Post »gunslng44
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:20amAnd the other half are morally deviant. Into the octagon I say!
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:03amBet it’s more than half!
Report Post »Put it on the ballot and see!!
Noahs Last Warning
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:58amFirst of all no marriage should ever have been controlled by government, as the legal BS of A has helped cause divorces to sky rocket. How does our creator view gay marriage? What you say we were not created and there is no creator. If you hypothetically blow something up I bet you end up with nothing but a mess, and yes the world is now a mess not because of our creator, but because of lying, cheating disrespectfull people who think only of themselves. Back to the gay marriage bit my creator said those people will get it in the END.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:38amIn a country based on freedom it is amazing that some people think they have the right to dictate how others live. It doesnt make any sense. The government does not have the constitutional authority to dictate morals. The first amendment gives everyone the right to have and exercise thier own beliefs. Live and let live. Its not your life so butt out. Forcing others to live by someone elses religous beliefs and morals is no different than the taliban forcing sharia onto others.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:19amHistory proves your “live and let live” mentality destroys society and brings down nations and empires.
Report Post »Just look at the history of now extinct civilizations. Homosexuality was always part of the reason those civilizations fell and are no more. A person doesn’t have to be religious to be moral.
And as John Adams said,
“THE CONSTITUTION WAS MADE ONLY FOR A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. IT IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY OTHER.”
A person who disagrees with that can always move, I guess………………..
Noahs Last Warning
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:41amLook around you and try to find something that was not created by someone or some greater intelligence than man or woman. The computer you are using, the tv you watch the radio you listen to, the coffe maker to get you started in the morning. the list could go on endlessly. How many things can be created out of an explosion? I know of only one and that is complete chaos. Now can you imagine that a beautiful pine, weeping willow, or oak tree was made out of chaos? How about the almost countless varieties of flowers that adorn the world. Can man or chaos create these? Keep looking and let me know if, not when you find something that happened by accident……..So called accidents rarely happen by accident. Most often they are caused by people who have little or no respect for common sense laws, themselves or their neighbors. The 10 commandments which have been done away with by many so called Christians are all we need to live happy lives.Try respecting the other people at the office, the other drivers on the road, and all you come in contact with today. You know few could doubt the saying children should respect their elders, so lets give them something to respect us for.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:59amYou people take the cake. You ASSUME I am not moral or religous because I am not Christian like you are. Show me 1 LAW in the US or any of the 50 states that say that I have to be Christian. YOU CANT. I am Buhhdist and I have a right to my own beliefs, free of your religous beliefs. That garauntee IS IN the constitution., please read the first amendment. John Adams might have said this or that ABOUT the constitution but you know what??? Its NOT in the constitution.
What difference does it make if 2 men love each other, or 2 women love each other? How does that affect your life? In AMERICA people are supposed to be FREE and posses LIBERTY to live thier lives. I have never read or understood that people have to live thier lives just to make some other group of people happy. I would also LOVE to see the evidence that homosexuallity destroyed any civilization. What screwed up history books do you read?
I have also read the 10 commandments many times. They are short and written in very plain language easy for everyone to understand and you know what? I have never read anything in them that says anything about homosexuality. Which commandment in your mind says anything about the subject? The old testament says something but there are alot of those 600+ laws that Christians do not observe or follow. How do YOU get to pick and choose which of those laws are relevant? Its all the word of God to you isnt it?
The American taliban strikes again.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 1:49pm@Cherynn
You just have a chip on your shoulder and want to make it about religion. It’s not! I tried to explain it to you from a historical point of view, but you ain’t havin any of it. You just want to rant about religion. You can’t be rational about this topic because you want to color it with religion. Which you seem to harbor bitterness toward. So not much point in conversing with you since all you want to do is throw a fit and vent your bitterness………Sorry for you………………
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:08pmRational Man, Explain to me,,,,,what gives you the right to control the life of another human being? I am really interested in this. Gay people are denied freedoms based on what EXACTLY??? Personal choice is restricted by others,,,,WHY? You have the ability to decide what is right and wrong for others by what authority??? Why are YOU better than ME ???? Nothing I do interferes with your life, why do you feel the need to interfere with the lives of others??? Please explain your authority to do this?
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:02pmI never said I was better than you! That is your own insecurity speaking.
Noun
moral authority (uncountable)
1.(of a person, institution, or written work) The quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moral_authority
Moral Authority Law & Legal Definition
Report Post »Moral authority is an philosophical concept that should serve as a basis for, but is not in itself a rule of written law. The moral authority and legitimacy of law can be based on metaphysics or religion, on nature, on some aspect of society, or on the individual. It may be referred to as a “higher law”, involving right reason, which calls a person to the performance of their duties and restrains them from doing wrong.
Constitutional democracy combines qualitative, substantive, “higher law” concepts of justice and universal equality derived primarily from classical civilization and Judeo-Christian religion with quantitative, procedural concepts of justice and equality derived primarily from the communitarian ethic of common law, republican traditions, and social contract theory.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/moral-authority/
Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:10pmThe problem with some today is a postmodern philosophy or just using realitivism as an excuse or justification for their beliefs and behavour that does not follow the standards of moral or ethical truths in society.
relativism
belief in changeable standards: the belief that concepts such as right and wrong, goodness and badness, or truth and falsehood are not absolute but change from culture to culture and situation to situation.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+relativism&qpvt=realitivism+definition&FORM=DTPDIA
Postmodernism
Postmodernism is a philosophical movement away from the viewpoint of modernism. More specifically it is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the problem of objective truth and inherent suspicion towards global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial. Rather, it holds realities to be plural and relative, and dependent on who the interested parties are and what their interests consist of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
If your mind is set, then there you will rationalize it in any form you can and relativism is a popular tool.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:21pmPlease explain your authority to change the historic worldwide moral standards that have secured this country for the last 235yrs.
Report Post »And tell me how your standards will insure America will be the success it has been for another 235yrs.
Cherynn
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:00pmThe quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct. WHO defines what proper conduct is???
Moral Authority Law & Legal Definition
Moral authority is an “philosophical” concept that should serve as a basis for, “but is NOT in itself a rule of written law” Your deffinition,,,,sorry,,,,,not written law and by the way,,,,Whos philosophy??
What law defines being gay as doing wrong?
Written law………No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State DEPRIVE any person of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws. 14th Amendment.
Maybe you should move to Iran, you could be buddies with thier president, you think like he does.
I choose to stay in my FREE country. I was born here, I am a veteran and my family fought in the American Revolution. I have more than earned my RIGHT to be FREE. To bad small minded people like you have no concept of what FREEDOM really means.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:08pmRational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 6:21pm
Please explain your authority to change the historic worldwide moral standards that have secured this country for the last 235yrs.
And tell me how your standards will insure America will be the success it has been for another 235yrs.
_________________________________________________
Pleae explain the basis, other than a book of fables and myths for your so-called “Moral Authority.” The arguement for Gay Marriage is rooted in the bedrock of the nation, the notion of individual freedoms and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage is a fundimental right of man, the right to determine who you want to hold out to the world as your partner and the person you want to share your life with. This right comes with propert rights, estate rights and rights to make decision for one partner when that partner is ill and unable to.
To many christians are hiding their own bigotry behind a cross.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:30pmIn an effort to avoid redundancy, I refer you both, again ,to my posts above.
Report Post »Read carefully and thoughtfully and it should answer your challenges and questions.
Be sure to start at the first one.
Besides, this is boring and unfruitful…………….
encinom
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:43pmActually, you prior posts, don’t you make general sweep statements without support, and the contort and inflating the meaning of Moral Authority and other concepts to hide the religous bigotry you have on display. You state these concepts without showing how they apply. Your biggest failing, is the fact that you are blind to see the morality evolves (even Bible is a-okay with honor killing and slavery). How is this current civil rights movement any different from the Women’s Suffrage or desegregation. At the time the bigotted opposition also raised similar moral authority arguments to protect the status quo.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 9:49pmI have made my point that this is a free country. You havent made your point yet. Just answer my question,,,,,who died and made you God????? Your not,,,,,and you have no right to control anyone elses life.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 11:36pmToo bad the truth is too “heady” for you and all you have is insults and false accusations of bigotry.
Report Post »Not sure how you two think that hating on Christians somehow furthers your arguement while accusing me of hate and bigotry. The only hatred I see is coming from you guys. But, then, all of your conclusions are faulty so I guess that is to be expected when you have nothing else and reject the truth. Must be miserable seething with hatred and guilt all the time…….Sorry!
encinom
Posted on September 16, 2011 at 12:29am@Rational Man,
I am still waiting for you to defend your bigotted views? You have yet to state how the right to marry is some how immoral. Again, you are arguing for the government to enforce your opinion of what is moral, even if that view goes against the very notion of liberty that Jefferson and the founders fought for. Tea Party members preach about personal liberty and the need for government to leave the individual alone, yet here, one of the most personal relationship, you “christians” want big brother tell americans who they can and can not live with and how to define those relationships. And, your other posts on this subject show you to be another bible thumper.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on September 16, 2011 at 12:59amRational Man, Just for you and other narrow minded control freaks that deny freedom and liberty to some of the people of this country… FREEDOM FOR ALL,,,,,,,NOT JUST SOME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQNwMxqM3E&feature=share
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 16, 2011 at 7:39pm“narrow minded control freaks ”
“Some people are so open minded, their brains fall out”
Report Post »(Just a wise old man)
thepatriotdave
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:34amI wish our Founding Fathers had thought to include this when they were writing up the Constitution. But then again they all agreed that the Constitution was for a moral people and it probably never occured to them that man-on-man or woman-on-woman marriages would ever be in our future.
Although I think this is a States rights issue, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over a Constitutional ammendment spelling out that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Report Post »TumbleBumble
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:52amDave ~
I’m right with you.
As for Barbara Von Aspern, I believe I would handle the situation as she did. I could not be a participant, either. What a dilemma.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:31amThe thing that drives the constitutional ban movement is the usurpation of power by the judiciary. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts mandated “gay” marriage by a 4-3 vote based on its tortured interpretation of the OLDEST CONSTITUTION IN AMERICA. That’s right, folks, according to the majority of “justices” in Massacusetts, the people of 18th Century Massachusetts mandated “gay” marriage in their constitution.
Report Post »Given that level of result-oriented decision-making in the Mass. court system, would you (as a businessman) be inclined or disinclined to open shop in Massachusetts?
riseandshine
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:30amStupid…we don’t need a Constitutional ban….We just need the Constitution upheld.
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 10:11amI hate so-called same-sex marriage. It’s an abomination. I know my State would never recognize it. I don’t think the Federal Govt. should recognize ANY marriage…pretty radical, eh?
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 2:26amSoon is the Constitution day.
Glenn Beck loves to quote from the Constitution, will he have the stomach to support it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9J2ZQj9qYg
=========================================
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:08amRon Paul Not strong on traditional Marriage: Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:46amWe should admit that Ron Paul’s record on gay issues is better than Romney flip-flopping on healthcare and abortions and Perry on Hillarycare, amnesty to illegals and forced inoculations.
Ron Paul argued FMA would violate the states’ rights to regulate marriage by federalizing the issue, which they say should be left to the states. We do not need to grow more of the federal government – either its regulators and enforcement police.
Report Post »Jim
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:50amNo marriage for *****!
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 3:52amRon Paul is a “live and let live” kinda guy. As are his followers, they keep telling me.
Report Post »Thats one reason he will lose again. He sacrifices his morals and his Christian faith, I’ve been told about, for his interpretation of the Constitution.
If Paul and his followers had their way, America would decline even faster than it already is. IMO
Money isn’t everything.
RepubliCorp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:04amThere are many other votes I could cover. Like Ron Paul’s vote to keep Pelosi as Speaker of the House or Ron Paul’s vote to not remove Rep Chalie Rangel from his leadership position (ethics violations and all)
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:08am@Rational Man, Romney already flop-flopped on guns and abortions – I do not heir you object that too much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1wPrsEP2nc
What will you do if you find out that Perry is a bisexual living a double life of RINO and a fake Christian?
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:15amI like many of Ron Paul voting records & statements in Congress,
# Don’t pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
# Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
# Bush humble foreign policy was hijacked into nation-building. (Dec 2007)
# Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
# Efforts to fund abortion ranks among stupidest policies. (Apr 2011)
Report Post »# Abortion laws should be a state-level choice. (Apr 2011)
# Abortion causes inconsistent moral basis for value of life. (Apr 2011)
# Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
# Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
# Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
# Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)
# Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
# Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
# Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
# Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
# No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
RepubliCorp
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:15am“Ron Paul argued FMA would violate the states’ rights to regulate marriage by federalizing the issue, which they say should be left to the states.” BS! Do you know what a Constitutional Amendment is? His no vote takes away everyone’s right / freedom to vote on this.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 4:33am@RepubliCorp, looks like we argue about details why disagreeing in principle.
Ron Paul and the “bots” do not like Democracy in principle – rule of majority, because Free Man does not need to be ruled. The nature of things make democratic election better than a mob rule. But the government should only protect our borders and liberty, not to force rule of majority.
That is the reason Ron Paul wants everything to be handled in states.
Report Post »Extra bonus for that:
- federal government does not grow (no need enforcement police)
- if one state makes a mistake, people will move out (there is a feedback)
riseandshine
Posted on September 15, 2011 at 5:08pmGreat vid, Blue Sky…great quotes of the founders. My favorites were the Thomas Jefferson and George Washington quotes….but they were all great…and timeless.
Report Post »