Media

Beck Uses Math ‘Equation’ to Explain Argument Against Gay Marriage

Glenn Beck Tackles Gay Marriage Equation Following Santorum SpeechGlenn Beck launched his radio show this morning with a rousing discussion about Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum and his recent statements about gay marriage.

Beck started the conversation off by offering up the definition of the word “bigot” — a term that is often utilized in the gay marriage debate. “The definition of bigot is somebody that won‘t listen to anybody else’s side, because of their point of view…they try to shut down everyone else’s point of view,” he explained. ”If you won‘t tolerate someone else’s point of view, then you are a bigot.”

His point, which is something that is often lost on both sides of the contentious same-sex marriage debate, is that one can disagree while still being open to the thoughts and views of the opposing side. When an individual doesn’t hold the capacity to at least hear out those with whom he or she disagrees, bigotry comes into play.

Throughout the discussion, Beck reiterated his support for civil marriage, while also driving home his belief in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

“I don’t care — if you want to sleep with your boyfriend and you’re a guy…that’s up to you. You don’t destroy marriage to do it,” he said. ”I have exactly the same opinion on gay marriage that President Obama has. Exactly. Unless he’s lying.”

Glenn Beck Tackles Gay Marriage Equation Following Santorum Speech

Toward the end of the discussion, he further explained his stance on same-sex unions:

“I’m for civil marriage. All the rights, civil marriage, that’s fine…My solution is take government out of marriage entirely. What is government doing in marriage?…But you cannot change the law. You can’t change one part of the equation without the other part of the equation.”

The equation Beck is referring to involves the notion that one man plus one woman inevitably (and historically) equals marriage. Violating this concept, which many social conservatives embrace, would essentially, in their view, be like saying that one plus one can equal something other than two (a mathematical impossibility).

Changing what has always been reality, Beck maintains, would open up the floodgates to other changes to the matrimonial equation. He explains:

“The equation is: one guy, one woman equals marriage. That’s the equation. One plus one — one guy, plus one woman — equals marriage. Now, let’s change the second variable. One guy — change the second variable — plus one guy — equals marriage. One woman plus one woman equals marriage. Okay, well how about we change the other variable. Two guys plus one woman equals marriage. One guy plus three women equal marriage.”

Laws, Beck says, aren’t based on personal morals or certitude. ”If you really think that moral certitude — your moral certitude, my moral certitude, anybody else’s moral certitude — is the way we run our country, well you’re mistaken,” he said.

“Our laws were based on God’s laws. If you don’t like that, fine. Fine. That’s totally cool,” he said. “But you must change the Constitution to be able to change the formula. You have to do it.”

Watch Beck explain these concepts, below:

Below, watch Santorum’s dialogue with the young people:

Comments (805)

1 2 3 ... 13
  • LiberalMarine
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:11pm

    Marriage hasn’t ALWAYS been between one man and one woman. To say it always was is patently false, and the Gay Marriage connection to polygamy and pedophilia isn’t a right comparison because marriage can still be between two people of consenting age.

    Report Post » LiberalMarine  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:14pm

      We need a few good men, then place the rest (gay men) on the front line.

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:18pm

      The Lord decides who is married and who isn’t. For example usually when two youths come to know each other, they become married whether they know it or not. And you know what really peeves me off? When a pedophile corrupts that thing or when men wash them away from each other causing the current to carry them far away from each other.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:26pm

      Yes, it has since the beginning of time. You just fail to accept it.

      COFemale  
    • LiberalMarine
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:35pm

      Show me where marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Things like marriage have always evolved. It started out as an institution that was used to gain land, and has evolved since then.

      LiberalMarine  
    • AmazingGrace8
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:36pm

      Genesis 2:21-24….God’s creation and intent…….then came SIN.

       
    • JPDevuyst
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:40pm

      @Liberalmarine — so according to your definition – two parties of connecting age allows for incestuous relationships as well. I mean, come on, isn’t it “about love”?

      Report Post » JPDevuyst  
    • LiberalMarine
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:45pm

      @Amazing

      ACTUAL history, not a 2000 year old made up creation story.

      Report Post » LiberalMarine  
    • LiberalMarine
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:45pm

      Well, older than 2000 years, but made up nonetheless.

      Report Post » LiberalMarine  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:48pm

      A man jumps off a bridge and survives. Is it ALWAYS safe to jump off bridges? You smoke dope, get high and have a great time. Is smoking dope ALWAYS good for you?

      Just because a few people sin does not mean it’s ALWAYS right.

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:51pm

      @ amazing grace
      god created gay people. man, specifically constatite, created and edited the bible. constatine used the rise of christianity to cement power in the vatican to stop the fighting of the christians and pagans to bring rome together.
      why do you think the vatican keeps the vast majority of the chronicles of jesus out of the bible and locked away (over 80 volumes of text exist from when jesus walked the earth yet only a handful are in the bible).

      do you think god wants you to spend your life making someone else’s life miserable?
      if you are for “small government” why are you trying to use government to opress others simply because YOU do not like the way THEY are living THEIR life?

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • LondoMollari
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:52pm

      If you look at states that already have “gay marriage” in the EU or in Canada, they already do tolerate polygamy. The same people who said “what’s the big deal–it’s two consenting adults” are now making excuses for Muslim men from conservatives states in the MidEast to bring not only their wives but their harems as well.

      The correlation between polygamy and child sex abuse/incest is stark, and we see this a lot among unreformed Mormons and Islamist families that have arranged cousin marriages.

      And in Canada some people are now calling for pedophilia to be a sexual orientation.

      Ladies and Gentlement, this is exactly what what we mean when we say it won’t ever end with “gay marriage” even if its legal in all 50 states. They’ll just keep on pushing for more radical sexual ideas to compensate for all that cannot be done in a gay relationship when compared to a straight one.

      Report Post »  
    • VoteRightDammit
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:54pm

      That is simply not correct.

      You claim ‘changing marriage to include 1M + 1M would not mean you also must include polygamy, bestiality, etc.’. But, this is a LEGAL matter, not one of you or my opinion. And, the problem is that if marriage were to be changed to ANYTHING other than 1M + 1W ~~~~~ legally ~~~~~ ANY other group would have a valid argument that it is discriminatory to not also embrace THEIR notion of marriage. The ONLY ‘line in the sand’ that is legally defensible is the current one: 1M + 1W.

      So, while you may THINK gay ‘marriage’ does not open the floodgates, the legal reality is otherwise. If THE LAW regarding marriage is changed to anything other than what it is, no limit is legally defensible and ALL other notions of ‘marriage’ would HAVE to be embraced. All that would be required would be for some, say, bestiality group to file a discrimination suit – and the courts would be compelled to agree and the notion of ‘marriage’ would then embrace bestiality.

      That’s simply legal reality in our system of law.

      Report Post » VoteRightDammit  
    • LondoMollari
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:56pm

      And where are those societies now that changed marriage? Either dead or in decay.

      The comparison between “gay marriage” and pedophilia and polygamy is justified because many of the same individuals who insist that “gay marriage” will between two people of no immediate relation and consenting adults are now okay with Islamic harems and some even want pedophilia to be a sexual orientation.

      Report Post »  
    • GETLIFE
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:59pm

      So finally someone (Santorum) points out that its not an issue about gay marriage, but about laws and definitions. Regardless of my personal religious beliefs, I liked the fact that he stuck with student-like logic and didn’t bring God into it. I’m sure he had more of a chance of getting through to some of the crowd. There are plenty of non-Judeo-Christian cultures whose laws define marriage as ours do. The Judeo-Christian values argument is superfluous here. Santorum was very smart about it.

      Report Post » GETLIFE  
    • Rayblue
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:02pm

      @liberalatrine…Made up ? That’s deep. A real all encompassing euphemism that.

      Report Post » Rayblue  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:03pm

      @ liberalmarine- why i am not a liberal, you are right about the bible. its only about 1600 years old and there has never been a definitive version. its gone through several translations and revisions over the centuries. most done by constatine as an effort to merge paganism with the emerging christinaity. most christina rituals like december 25th being the day god was born as well as the ressurection story are taken directly from earlier pagan beliefs.

      i have no problem with the central thesis of christianity. christ was an great man and has a wonderful philosophy that was unfortunately hijacked by a power structure in order to get the masses to submit to authority.
      my biggest issue with members of any religion is that insteading of focusing on the messages of love that jesus taught, they focus on fearmongering based upon the teachings of the church and use that to justify their ignorance and bigotry.
      “Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. “ ”Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. ” –thomas jefferson

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • RIGEL_ORION
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:03pm

      Actually Marine, it can’t.

      This whole thing isn’t about marriage anyway. It’s about FORCING acceptance and viewpoint change, using the state as a weapon. The Gay lobby is basically wanting the State to compel religions to say that the Bible is wrong, God was mistaken and homosexuality is perfectly fine. That‘s why civil unions aren’t enough.

      This first began with the inconclusive ‘evidence’ showing that homosexuality is genetic. The was the initial salvo in MAN saying that homosexuality is genetic, so GOD must be wrong or mistaken in calling it an abomination. (AKA – God made me this way).

      The truth is that God didn’t make you this way any more than he made a pedophile crave children. The abomination is still an abomination, despite the best efforts of Satan manipulating MAN‘s own pride in his scientific knowledge to undermine God’s laws.

      Report Post »  
    • GodHatesFigs
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:04pm

      Here’s a good illustration of how marriage is portrayed in the bible.
      http://www.google.com/imgres?q=biblical+marriage+chart&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1WCCA_enUS393&biw=1025&bih=632&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=bqwHdBkoTns_iM:&imgrefurl=http://robertcargill.com/2011/10/11/what-exactly-is-biblical-marriage/&docid=DMnZ1XfUbCfP7M&imgurl=http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage.jpg&w=720&h=540&ei=DTcHT822BMLZ0QHLxIG5Cw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=106&vpy=156&dur=480&hovh=131&hovw=174&tx=162&ty=132&sig=100469509041863575167&page=1&tbnh=131&tbnw=174&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

      Report Post » GodHatesFigs  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:10pm

      Beck is 100% dead wrong. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this society to heal without a return to Gods Law. Continued sin leads ONLY to separation of God and man. There’s simply no other place for it to go.

      If Beck contends that this Nations can return to its Founding while tolerance to perversion is not only allowed, but actively encouraged by the leadership, than Beck has no idea PERIOD what the mind of the Lord is, and that makes his efforts to get people to refocus and return to the principles of “this” Republic fruitless. He’s wasting his time and ours by promoting a lie.

      Being queer is not okay with God, it’s an abomination. Governance promoting “civil unions” or other same sex affairs is GUARANTEED to bring Gods wrath because it’s unrepentant sin, and unrepentant sin is separation from not JUST God, but from all His blessings.

      Sorry Glenn but it’s NOT Gods mind that needs changed on this topic (or any other for that matter), it’s yours.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • jungle J
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:11pm

      you can’t be a Marine..you may wear the unifrom but you by no means are a Marine…

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:12pm

      Actually, until a 1967 Supreme Court ruling, the equation was 1 man + 1 woman of the same race. The argument, made by Christians as much as anyone else, was that if interacial marriages were allowed, the death of civilization would certainly follow.

      But it didn’t. And nobody cares much anymore.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:12pm

      God created man, man made the choice to sin which includes not creating a family with a woman. Gayness always finds its way into every aspect of paganism. Look into every issue Pagans side with, and you’ll have Gay people in the middle of it.

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • LiberalMarine
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:16pm

      @JZS
      Actually, there are even some on this site who don’t agree with interracial marriage.

      Report Post » LiberalMarine  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:16pm

      Everyone has a right to marry whoever, whatever, or however they wish. That doesn’t mean everyone must recognize that marriage.

      Your marriage can be recognized by your religious institution, your social relations, and the government. If your religion and your friends and family recognize your marriage, great! The people, however, decide how government recognizes marriage, and since we are still a majority Christian nation, it is recognized when it is between a man and a woman.

      When the majority no longer cares, gay marriage will be recognized by the government (as it is in liberal states). That’s it.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • 1tofollow
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:18pm

      The 3 island theory = All Gay married men on one island, all gay married women on the 2nd, traditional man women couples on the third. Come back in 100 years and only one of them may be populated. The other two will be a bunch of dead bones. The moral here?
      The exception to traditional marriage has no lasting value!

      Report Post »  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:19pm

      @ poverty sucks. you seem to have a disdain for paganism though i’m sure you celebrate christmas, easter, take communion, as well as worship on sunday. all of which were directly derived from pagan rituals and events by constatine and the early founders of the catholic church, creaters of the bible, as a way of merging the pagan religions with christianity to solidify rome.

      do some objective research on constatine.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:20pm

      My above post is of course, unless Beck contends that GOD is a bigot. If that‘s Becks position every word he’s uttered to this point is useless drivel spoken by an enemy of God, and therefore an enemy of the Republic of founding.

      You cannot serve 2 masters.

      “Anytime you disobey God’s word, you hinder His plan and will for your life. To build a strong Christian foundation and endure in the Christian faith, the believer must not only pray and study the Word of God consistently, but must do what the Word says (James 1:22; Mt. 7:24-27). In Paul’s second epistle to Timothy, he notes that it is only by putting into practice God’s word that the believer matures (Heb. 5:14). It is only by feeding on the milk of the mother’s breast that a baby grows; likewise in the Christian life, we cannot grow without feeding on the spiritual milk of the word of God.” (quoted from a fellow traveler in the Spirit of God)

      The silly idea that Gods Word contains 10 commandments is ludicrous. There are 613 commandments in the Mosaic Law. I’d suggest Beck (and others) learn them, because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to understand the Founding of the United States without them.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • normbal
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:21pm

      Bull hockey.

      Marriage, as every ascendent culture on the planet has defined it from time immemorial has ALWAYS been the union of one man and one woman.

      There have always been cultural variations, marriages of convenience to a handmaiden for the purpose of passing along the patriarch’s genes as told in some old testament stories, but they weren’t called “marriage” for the simple reason they weren‘t’ marriages.

      You can try and redefine tens of thousands of years of human culture and call homosexual unions or human-animal relationships (bestiality) marriage all you want, but you can call a dog‘s tail a leg and it doesn’t change the fact that the dog still only has four legs, a tails a tail.

      Report Post » normbal  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:23pm

      Marriage hasn’t ALWAYS been between one man and one woman. To say it always was is patently false
      ——
      It has in OUR country, dodo. Who gives a hoot what Muslims or pagans or any other country has practiced. They’ve engaged in other social practices WE do not accept. So stick to America, mr. alleged marine.

      ==> “…marriage can still be between two people of consenting age.”
      ———-
      Is that YOUR definition of marriage? YOU decide what is moral, huh? Who are you to say it has to be between TWO people? Who are you to say it has to be people of consenting age? Bigot.

      Report Post »  
    • escape_from_socialism
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:28pm

      We should stoned gays, just like Muslims do. It’s like we are in competition with other countries, who enact most tyrannical laws.

      Report Post »  
    • MeteoricLimbo
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:31pm

      @ LIBERALMARINE: I understand and appreciate your position Sir.
      However personally I don’t see how trying to change the core values of other people to suit the needs of an interest group is now or ever will be patently right. Marriage has a definition to me and I do my best to pass the concept of a true union to my children. I can only pray and Hope that they in turn do the same. I have nothing at all against homosexuality at all, I just feel it is self defeating by nature.
      God bless you Sir and I truly appreciate your service.

      Report Post » MeteoricLimbo  
    • Gup20
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:33pm

      LiberalMarine, I don’t think it was “always” between a man and a woman. I think it was “originally” between a man and a woman. You’ve heard the expression “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” – this phrase simply means that God, who created all things (the manufacturer if you will) created things a certain way – the optimal way. To make changes to this is to reject God who has written the owner’s manual on how we should live. Our declaration of independence says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. This tells us our rights come from God, so men cannot take them away – especially government. So if our rights are inalienable because they come from God, then we must look to God to know what those rights are. If they didn’t come from God… if they are the will of the people, or the will of a majority or some consensus, then those rights can be taken away when another majority comes to power… they are no longer inalienable. But because they come from God, and God is unchanging and permanent, our rights are unchanging and permanent (inalienable), and no government can take them away. And if Government does take them away (as England did leading us to declare independence) we are justified in rejecting that government as our founding fathers were.

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:35pm

      @jiggasparks
      It is ones religion that states what marriage is and what it means.
      ———–
      No kidding! So if your religion tells you marriage between you and a baby girl is A-OK, is that all right in OUR society? If your religion tells you marriage is between you and as many women as you fancy (whether they consent or not) is that all right in OUR society? Hey, let’s take it a step further. If you want to kill the woman you marry because she is your disposable property according to your inviolable religion, should you be free to do so?

      Since when do your particular beliefs determine what is right or wrong by our societal laws? You want anarchy, lamebrain.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:36pm

      Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, AND SHALL CLEAVE UNTO HIS WIFE: and they shall be one flesh.

      Is there a multiple reason for this? Obviously. Procreation and proliferation of life are the beginning. Man and man cannot become 1 flesh. Why? Because the circle of life (genetic bonding…for you sciencetoids, it’s a chemical process after-all) is broken. The family can ONLY be fulfilled by the seed of woman, and the seed of man. Man on the other hand has tried to pervert Gods natural function and bent morality into immorality (defined as moral relativism). Man with man, woman with woman is a man-made perversion and an attempt to change the natural affections declared by God.

      Does this make me a bigot? To goofballs I’m sure that it does. Do I care what goofballs think? That’s outrageously funny!

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:38pm

      Santorum is attempting to deploy a cheap political trick where he states what appears to be a neutral position and then says states should have the right to enact their own laws. Similar to Palin and Bachmann, Santorum has gotten attention and the support of conservatives by making inflammatory, attention getting statements in associations of his positions. Now that he thinks he might actually have a chance his staff is advising him to adopt what appear to be moderate positions. No doubt his web site will be scrubbed and he will have a sudden loss of memory.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:43pm

      Although I hate to admit it, GB point is the correct one. You can’t have it both ways. Either government is or is not involved in marriage, and if there not then polygamy should similarly be accepted. Particularly among consenting adults. However, from a purely linguistic standpoint, since same sex couples refer to themselves as each others partner, then the term civil union is more consistent. Marriage is certainly more associated with the terms husband and wife. With all that said this issue is about as unimportant in a decision on who to vote for and abortion is.

      Report Post »  
    • cessna152
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:43pm

      Liberal, first off government should not be involved in marriage..Period! If people are gay and want to be gay then so be it, but forcing it on my children in school, in Church and so forth is equally wrong.How is that freedom? Once again you confuse equal rights with equal FREEDOM! I have been on the “wrong” side of the debate of the “gay” argument. My wife and I were cursed at, sent hate mail, hate email, shunned by teachers and had our bank account compromised. I was threatened, called intolerant and mocked by neighbors. So much for having an opinion. But with God’s guidance he got us through it and the video was pulled from the 3rd grade. Read about it in Laura Ingram‘s book and it was on O’reilly and other stations as well.

      BTW, I have followed your posts and you my friend are a traitor. Some of the things you spew on this forum are total BS and not what our country stands for.

      Report Post » cessna152  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:45pm

      @F-Banger – I dislike the ideology of Pagans who prefer their way unlike Gods ways and who are intolerable of righteous ways. You say Pagans created Christmas, they commercialized the concept of Christmas pointing to Santa Clause so to distract from Jesus Christ who was is the reason to celebrate Christmas all year long, not just the 25th day of December. Pagans commercialized Easter by giving us the Easter Bunny, distracting us from the Crucifiction of Jesus Christ shedding his blood for our salvation. Get a grip you FnBanger

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • RIGEL_ORION
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:47pm

      JZS,

      In with his typical straw man. Always boils down to the same bogus argument. Selectively pick one old instance out of ten, hold it up and say “look, you were wrong here, so you must be wrong there” as if one was related to another. As if being gay was the same as being born black, white, asian, etc.

      Report Post »  
    • machochris
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:48pm

      Yes it is and yes it has!

      Report Post »  
    • louise
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:50pm

      The 10th Amendment,
      Amen

      Report Post » louise  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:54pm

      @ poverty sucks- do some research on constatine. pagans did not distract away from christ with santa clause. december 25 marked the birth of several pagan gods and the date was used by constatine for the birth of christ to bridge them into one religion. same with easter. communion, the act of god eating, was also taken from paganism.

      Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. – thomas jefferson

      do some research into your religion. seperate the layers of control added by the church and get to the core. that is where jesus’s message is. that is what makes a moral society. do you really think god wants you to opress his children?

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:56pm

      @ cessna152
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:43pm

      Liberal, first off government should not be involved in marriage..Period!
      —————————————————————————————————————————-
      Being a queer wasn’t exactly something that was at the forefront of the Founders minds. BUT, since they couldn’t foresee that the American people would become filthy abominations, the declared the Founding of this Nation on the Commandments and Natural Laws (moral codes of the Bible – in its entirety) for our basis. By design, and by simple inference and bowing to those 2 standards they MOST CERTAINLY involved government. Being queer is an abomination in those Commandments and Natural Laws, and therefore a societal governance standard.

      They chose the Bible because it’s WORD does not change……………ever.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • KAWLME
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:57pm

      Marriage is between a man and a woman that is the ONLY way to procreate. I beleive the Bible to be the word of God. Woman and woman or man and man cannot marry it is a sin.

      Report Post » KAWLME  
    • ConservativeResponse
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:00pm

      Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Why do we need to redefine the word marriage? If it’s a rights issue, why can’t we call it a civil union?

      Report Post » ConservativeResponse  
    • cessna152
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:01pm

      @JZS,

      How is that divorce rate since 1964? What happened to our society in 1964? Check homicide, crime and other rates since then…what happened in 1964? Let the lame excuses start….

      Report Post » cessna152  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:03pm

      @FnBanger – Jesus is and was before Constatine. I’ve already done my research and it IS accurate. Here’s my findings. HOLY BIBLE

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • netmail
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:03pm

      A VAST majority of people in our culture can not and do not live up to the responsibilities of what has traditionally been called “marriage”. (no matter who or what they are) The institution of marriage will never change. It’s the culture that has changed and is now attempting to pervert the traditional definition of marriage. Don‘t seek marriage and don’t do it if you can’t live up to the customary vows as they are. (and have been throughout our history) It IS America we are talking about here after all. Civil unions for legal reasons (gays), fine IMO…or call it something else….but don‘t call it ’marriage’, because that’s simply NOT what it is and it never will be. It will always be ‘something else’. Figure it out people and leave married folks alone.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:04pm

      @ louise
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:50pm

      The 10th Amendment,
      Amen
      —————————————————————————————————–
      Thanks. What bothers me is that Christians actually think it’s “okay” to tolerate abomination. What further disappoints me with those who see some “imagination design” of a separation of Church and State is that they have swallowed the lie of progressivism and outright communism.

      IF, as the Founders declared, Divine Providence in this Nations Founding, likewise rejection of that very same Providence leads to the destruction of the Nation. It’s happened in EVERY society in the history of mankind, and expressly to the Nation, Israel, who rejected Gods Word.

      America is testing Gods patience and His WILL (His Commanded Law). Nothing good can come from disobedience, only Gods wrath. For societies that have rejected Gods Law, the ending of them is swift, and certain.

      The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:05pm

      @ poverty I’ll even get you started on you path. though it is true you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t mak it drink
      http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html
      http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html
      http://www.hope-of-israel.org/cmas1.htm
      http://www.hope-of-israel.org/cmas1.htm

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • LookTowardsTheLight
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:06pm

      @LiberalMarine

      That’s the problem. Certain things in life like marriage should NEVER evolve. To change things just to make a certain minority group feel welcome isn’t worth the change.

      Now of course in order to believe in the sanctity of marriage, you most likely have a belief in God which most liberals don’t or if anything a very vague belief.

      Report Post » LookTowardsTheLight  
    • BrotherWill
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:06pm

      Come on, you guys are arguing with a guy called “liberal marine”. He’s a walking contradiction. No “real” Marine would ever be liberal. Not in a million years.

      Report Post » BrotherWill  
    • drphil69
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:10pm

      @LibMarine – You made the statement, now defend it.

      Where and when has marriage NOT been between a man and a woman?

      Typical lib – throw out their opinion as fact, with no evidence to back it up, then ask everyone else to prove a negative… MORON.

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:11pm

      @JZS
      Actually, until a 1967 Supreme Court ruling, the equation was 1 man + 1 woman of the same race.
      ——–
      Why are you always distorting the facts? That ruling affected ~17 states that still retained anti-miscegenation laws. You do know we fought a civil war to end slavery, don’t you? However, racial discrimination doesn’t just go away with a war victory. Nevertheless, we have progressed as a nation, recognized our grievous errors and moved closer to GOD’s intent. That is why the Bible IS all-important. It is our spiritual compass. Without it, our principles and values would degenerate not improve, and our societal makeup would probably reflect what you see in the Muslim world or elsewhere in primitive societies.

      A point to ponder: Statistically, there is a disproportionate number of single black women out there. Why won’t black men marry them? Why do so many rich black males prefer to marry white/non-black women?

      Report Post »  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:17pm

      There’s ALWAYS economic consequences for sin, God our creator made it that way. We are to populate the earth and some people decide to be gay and not populate. Muslims are the fastest growing people group on earth. They WILL be the majority in 40 years because pagans want to rule the earth.

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • Doctor Nordo
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:21pm

      People saying that marriage has ALWAYS been between ONE man and ONE woman really need to crack open their Bibles. Polygamy was a recurring theme throughout.

      Report Post » Doctor Nordo  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:28pm

      @Dr N – You are right, the Mediterranean was the queerest place on earth during Biblical times.

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:28pm

      @BrotherWill
      Come on, you guys are arguing with a guy called “liberal marine”. He’s a walking contradiction. No “real” Marine would ever be liberal. Not in a million years
      —-
      Well, this individual used to call himself CONVERSATIONCANWORK. That is Hussein’s engagement policy in Afghanistan. Any eunuch can be a marine under the P*ssy-in-Chief. Just sayin’.

      Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:29pm

      @drphil, you can argue your position without calling a marine a moron.

      Report Post » justangry  
    • Obama_Sham
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:32pm

      @LiberalMarine

      First you state this “Marriage hasn’t ALWAYS been between one man and one woman.“ and then you state this ”Show me where marriage has always been between one man and one woman.”

      Sorry Liberal… Your logic is false… YOU have to defend your STATEMENT… It is not the responsibility of the opposing view to prove you wrong… BTW, the opposing view defends their STATEMENTS with that 2,000 year old creation story, as you so eloquently stated… In other words, they are showing some kind of proof and all you are doing is making statements…

      Yep, you’re a genius…

      Report Post » Obama_Sham  
    • JesterMN
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:32pm

      My vote is to just get the government out of the marriage business. In that, I agree with Glen. Let contract law decide the legality of a union. Reduce it to 1 + 1 = 2. One person may enter into a union with one other person. Note that a “union” certainly doesn’t need to be sexual. They would gain visitation, inheritance, insurance (althougth insurance laws would need to be trimmed), property rights, etc. Marriage should be at a religious level. If a religion allows a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman fine. But they get NO legal rights. They would need a legal “union” for that. Any that would work for all sorts of situation, like polyamory, triads, etc. Only 2 in this senario would have a “union”. However I wouldn’t necessarily mind seeing more limited contract law appling to others for hospital visitaion and such. Let’s get LESS government, not more. Let’s get the government out of our personal lives.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:33pm

      @ poverty.sucks
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:17pm

      There’s ALWAYS economic consequences for sin, God our creator made it that way. We are to populate the earth and some people decide to be gay and not populate. Muslims are the fastest growing people group on earth. They WILL be the majority in 40 years because pagans want to rule the earth.
      ———————————————————————————————————————————————–
      Totally agree with the first 2 sentences. Completely disagree with the last.

      Islam is going to be destroyed, while Gods remnant will be restored in the Age to come. Either God is a liar, or He’s telling us the truth. Not only do I trust that God has told us the TRUTH, HE gave us the Truth in the form of man, THE BREAD FROM HEAVEN. The same Truth who is the Word that called ALL things into being.

      Islam (and all false “religion”, or wormwood) will be dogs outside Gods walls. His walls are the 12 Foundation stones revealed throughout the Torah. The Torah doesn’t merely incorporate the Mosaic Books, Creation, Prophets, and Psalms, but it’s Sacrificial dispensation through Messiah and his Disciples.

      ANY other doctrine adding to or taking away from that is the enemy. The enemy WILL be destroyed by the Word of His coming.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Abraham Young
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:35pm

      If you‘ve see one Ron Paul supporter you’ve seen them all. I‘ve you’ve seen one Romney supporter, you’ve seen them all. If you’ve seen one Huntsman supporter, you’ve seen them all. If you’ve seen one white man, you’ve seen them all. If you’ve seen one woman, you’ve seen them all. If you’ve seen one Chinese guy, you’ve seen them all.

      If you’ve seen one conservative, you’ve seen them all. If you’ve seen one liberal, you’ve seen them all.
      If you’ve seen one liberalmarine, you’ve seen one.

      Report Post »  
    • black9897
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:36pm

      As much as I hate to say it, everyone should be allowed to have the same rights. Don’t agree with marriage is two ppl of consenting age. Why not two ppl of 13? Who cares if they can’t consent? Doesn’t affect you right? Look at history at the kingdoms/governments/etc that have allowed moral decay to creep in. My thing is why do gay ppl care so much about “marriage” ? Is being with the one you want not enough? No one is stopping you from doing that. If tmr I could not marry I would still be with the woman I loved (or wanted to be with), nothing would stop me…I’d be with her and still be happy.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:36pm

      @poverty yes constantine was after jesus, that is the point. before constantine jesus’s was not consided son the of god. great man yes, son of god no. that came afterwards – designated by men. constantine merged paganism with early christianity.

      which holy bible? the one the vatican uses, the protestant bible, the king james, or another version? what about all the text left out or the dead sea scrolls? maybe you have not done as much research as you have thought if you consider the modified version of events over reality

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:46pm

      Doctor Nordo
      People saying that marriage has ALWAYS been between ONE man and ONE woman really need to crack open their Bibles. Polygamy was a recurring theme throughout.
      ———–
      No one’s claiming that polygamy is not in the Bible. The Bible is replete with humankind’s sinful practices. However, one man and one woman HAS always been God’s intent. If you have a Bible, you’ll find it in Genesis 2:18-24 (OT) and Matt. 19: 4-9 (NT). That’s God the Father and God the Son speaking, respectively.

      Report Post »  
    • black9897
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:48pm

      @FANGBANGER Communion is actually in the Bible , it’s done as symbolism of Christs death. The holidays: did Jesus ever command us to put his day of birth on the 25th of DEC? No. easter? no. If even what you say is true is that so bad? No one is worshipping other god’s on Christmas (notice the CHRIST in christmas.) No one is worshiping other god’s on easter. So what’s the problem? Look at the intent and heart of the ppl celebrating these holidays. We all know Jesus wasn’t actually born on 25 DEC…so what? Point is we give gifts as a symbol of his amazing gift he gave us; we thank God for the birth of Jesus. Easter we recognize and thank Jesus for dyeing for us. That is his message! How is that bad? How is that getting away from the Bible? POVERTY SUCKS is right, the only bad thing is that ppl have made it about santa and the easter bunny, instead of the true meaning.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • Scottscobig
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:49pm

      I think Freedompurveyor has the best response to all of this.

      I think the ongoing further acceptance of gay behavior via the fight for gay marriage or on TV sitcoms and in movies hurts kids. It just puts the gay option on the table for more and more people. No one will argue that babies don’t need and deserve a mom AND a dad, and gayness will go on to deprive more and more kids of one or the other. And the results of that deprivation are easy to see.

      On the other hand, it’s not up to me to force, via the government, anyone to do or not do anything. So, from the standpoint of enshrining liberty as it should be enshrined, I don’t see how we pass laws against gay marriage. We shouldn’t have to pay or get license from the govt for any kind of marriage. That is, I don’t need your permission to enter a relationship.

      My personal feelings or opinion on the matter aside, force/coercion is always wrong, even if the behavior I’m coercing is right. BTW, in my last reading of the constitution, I don’t recall the part where marriage was defined. So, Glenn, there’s nothing to change, constitutionally.

      We’re not going to be able to halt the moral decline of society by force with govt and laws. But that doesn‘t mean we don’t enter the debate and argue with our gay neighbors and support moral traditions as best we can. The 3 island thing is true. And we should be doing everything we can to fight this, short of applying force through law. Political correctnes

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:54pm

      “Well, older than 2000 years, but made up nonetheless.”

      yeah thats why all the archeology confirms the bible is true….get a clue.

      of course gay marriage is just a tool of the gay fascists to take away the rights of christians who disagree.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:55pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:36pm

      which holy bible? the one the vatican uses, the protestant bible, the king james, or another version? what about all the text left out or the dead sea scrolls? maybe you have not done as much research as you have thought if you consider the modified version of events over reality
      —————————————————————————————————————————————-
      God ALWAYS has a plan. People wrongly think that the Catholic Church created what we know as the Christian Bible with Old and New Testaments. Nothing could be further from the truth. God directs His Spirit to give us His WITNESS, who is also the WAY. The Scriptures contained in the Bible (Torah in its entirety) have been given by inspiration. God directed it. What was included, and what was rejected was by Gods WILL through His Wisdom who danced before His creations through His Word. The so called NEW dispensation isn’t NEW at all. It’s a completing of Gods plan. The TRUTH is already known of God, and is fulfilled by His Spiritual “2” Witnesses which are a Shadow pointing to Messiah.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • marjorie faye
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:58pm

      Marriage has always been between males and females and no other combination. That’s the reality. Not male and male, or female and female. Marriage has always been male and female. Yes, there has been polygamy, but even in that it is still male plus female. People try to say that objection to homosexual “marriage” is the same as objection to interracial marriage. That’s silly. The color of one’s skin is has nothing to do with gender. Furthermore, the minute you alter the variables for marriage, i.e., restriction to male plus female only, then you open the floodgates to any and all variables, whether you want to or not. Saying that will not happen is ludicrous. Of course it will happen. They will all come crawling out of the woodwork demanding their rights to be married. Once you change the variables the smallest bit, you no longer have any logic whatsoever for not changing it for everyone who demands their “rights.”

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:59pm

      Well jigga,
      x+x=maariage could be in Beck argument 1 man =x and 4 women=x there for 1 man + 4 women= marriage.

      Report Post »  
    • In.Spite.of.Myself
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:02pm

      Why is his point so hard to grasp? Where is the line? When do you say it’s ok for someone to marry a goat because in your world view, people should love goats? Or cows, or rocks, or any other thing? This isn’t exagerated, or an extreme example, it is inch and then a mile scenario that we know to be true for the humanity.

      Report Post » In.Spite.of.Myself  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:05pm

      It should be left to the churches, not the government. The government should only see individual citizens and not couples or whatever. There is no reason for the government to have any say at all.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:07pm

      Fang-
      Constantine did not cement power for the vatican, The vatican was not the head of the Church at the time, Constantinople was. The Vatican broke off and separated from the church, changing doctrine to suit its own ends.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • Shupp
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:08pm

      Marriage was created into existence to lawfully protect and affirm an agreement between two people to create a union based on protection, support and usually or hopefully love. Traditionally and historically this was between a man and a woman. For one reason…because you can’t create offspring any other way. It takes one of each from the opp gender to create an offspring the main purpose for the support, protection and love. So marriage in essence is a man-made creation to protect a god given law. However, in todays non-god fearing world there are those that believe they do not want or should produce offspring….(thank god for some of those because they shouldnt be reproducing in the first place) and wish to join in a union between same sex. Out of same reasons as the original marriage with the exception of offspring. Do I believe that church recognized marriages should be man-woman? yes. Thats the churchs belief. Do I believe a same sex can happen…sure why not? Just find a person with the same belief and attitude to do it for you and do not force a person who thinks its morally wrong. Thats where the problem comes into play. It‘s the left forcing their own morals onto the right’s. As long as the left performs their own unions ( and want to call them marriages) thats fine. Do not force the right to accept it into their moral standards. Same goes for the right….do no force their morals onto the left. Both can exist in unison with the only difference of capable childre

      Report Post »  
    • 2ndtwin
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:11pm

      Until at some point that no longer satisfies someone else’s moral code and they want to be able to marry a child. You know, children have “rights” too and if they want to get married who are we to say that doesn’t fit the definition of marriage?

      Report Post »  
    • mathews2113
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:11pm

      why aren’t animals gay??????? It isnt natural. Two people (man and woman) get together and get married and have children thats a family.
      marriage = family. The destruction of the family unit will lead to the down fall of the united states.

      TEA

      Report Post » mathews2113  
    • carbonyes
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:13pm

      Hey, with someone like LIBERALMARINE, won’t take long to destroy our armed forces. there will be all kinds of gay gang banging in the army. Might be a few dead gays as well.

      Report Post »  
    • Clive
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:14pm

      i share becks view. who cares what other people are doing.
      i’m for small government, that means fiscally, and socially. stay out of other peoples business, and stay focused on your own life.

      Report Post »  
    • therockczar
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:17pm

      @Liberalmarine Do little research on empires that evolved and openly embraced homosexuality. What’s that? They don’t exist anymore? Hmmm–I wonder why?

      Report Post » therockczar  
    • abbygirl1994
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:27pm

      Show us where in the bible where a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman.. If you can find that then I will say.. okay its alright.. you won’t find it.. actually it looks like you think our Bible is a made up stroy so its obvious you won’t get it anyways… If two men could produce a child or two women without using any outside sources.. wow imagine the millions.. God created man in His image, from Adam God took a rib and created woman.. I think someone has really messed up your mind.. God help you and all of us!

      Report Post » abbygirl1994  
    • EP46
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:27pm

      You just supported Glenn….What 2 people? What age of consent? Why only 2 people ? See…the American acceptance of ‘marriage” is 1 man + 1 woman = marriage. As soon as you change one of those items, you no longer have ‘marriage’…you have some other ‘arrangement’. Changing a ‘label’ to make it more acceptable does not change the action. For those who support homesexual realtionships let them call them what they , don‘t try to rename them as ’marriage’. You can call spinich chocolate cake…but it never will be.

      Report Post »  
    • mathews2113
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:31pm

      the gay men the the military are they going to be allowed to dress like the women???

      Report Post » mathews2113  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:34pm

      Actually LIBERALMARINE….in both ancient Greek and Roman societies where homosexual liasons were commonplace (particularly in the upper strata of society) they stopped short of endorsing homosexual marriage. It was completely frowned upon. This predates christianity in fact. So even pagan societies where homosexual practices were commonplace did not take that final leap and endorse homosexual marriage. Even ancient peoples saw homosexuality as something abberrant to the normal way of humanity. So why are you suggesting it’s only christians (Jews also in fact) that historically frown on homosexual marriage? By the way…Obama’s Orwellianly named “Czar of safe schools”, Kevin Jennings, is a founder of GLSEN-an organization that wants to teach extreme sex acts like fisting to school age children. Jennings has also praised Harry Hay who embraces NAMBLA. I can provide articles if you are stubborn and don’t believe me. I don’t want the societal door opened for degenerates like these militant homosexuals. Do you?

      Report Post »  
    • MyAgendaIsTruth
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:36pm

      It’s sad your whole life revolves around gay marriage. If this one issue consumes you this much you need help. No issue that will not change anything about you should mean that much to you. The REAL reason gays push gay marriage is that want the 90% of us to say your are normal. That will never be the case. Sorry but that isn’t going to change no matter how much GLITTER you though in peoples faces.

      Report Post » MyAgendaIsTruth  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:42pm

      @black9897 and
      communion, symbolically drinking the blood of christ and eating of his flesh, was dervied from the pagan god eating rituals. why is knowing the origins of these celebrated dates important? so you can understand how they have been manipulated and understand their true meaning. having faith is not a bad thing. using faith to opress others is. by understanding how early christinaity was merged with paganism seperates what jesus actually taught from what the church added to control the populace. i am a follower of christ, not the church.
      @10thamendment- flat out wrong. up until around 325 ad there were over 100 known texts of christianity. none of which referred to jesus as god in the flesh. it wasent until constantine and his direct successors that jesus was deified and the catholic bible was released containing only about 80 of the texts. then the protestant bible came out containing around 66 and then the king james with around 56. notice how with each iteration they leave out more and more?
      @hidden_lion- you’re right in a way but you also leave out that during that time the christians and pagans were warring with each other. this caused rome to split and to bring it together constantine merged paganism and christinainty and giving power to the vatican. who then changed and edited the doctrine that is now the foundation of modern christianity.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • MAC12ME
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:42pm

      Two points for your consideration:
      1. All people are free to marry if they are eligible. Eligibility under the law is interested in three things: One, the age of the candidates. Two, the candidates are of the opposite sex. Three, the candidates are not close familial relations. The law is not interested in whether or not you are in love with or are committed to the person you want to marry. You can marry on a dare if you want to. So ask yourself this question: Who is the law interested in protecting? What does marriage do? (Intent) Marriage laws protect children and children’s rights.

      2. As stated before, all people who meet eligibility requirements can marry. The problem is in changing the definition of marriage. Redefining marriage is the “Trojan Horse” tool that is capable of prying our first freedom, that of religious liberty, off the top of the Bill of Rights. If we lose marriage, we lose religious liberty and may pave the road to losing all rights. If the state is given power to redefine marriage then those who believe, based on the tenets of their religion, run the inevitable risk of being described by that same state as discriminatory.

      Now, one final question for you to consider: “What would life in the ”state” be like for believers and non-believers alike if they were not protected by our first freedom, that of religious freedom?

      I was able to see certain aspects of this issue in a different light the day I spoke to a gay man ( a ver

      Report Post » MAC12ME  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:45pm

      @ mathews2113 actually homosexual behavior has been observed in several species, including **** sapiens

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:46pm

      Liberal Marin & JZS

      Some gay rights supporters have been pushing polyamory, more than 2 people. Look it up in connection with the “Beyond Marriage” proclamation.

      I don’t care what the Supreme court said about interracial marriage in 1967. It had been going on for 400 years or longer. The ruling was made to dissuade some Democrat voters from going ape on interracial couples. President Bush’s brother, Jeb, (like many other Republicans)is technically in a interracial marriage. I bet Jeb like most Republicans & unlike a hand wringing progressive doesn’t consider his marriage interracial, he just considers it a marriage. Let’s not forget Sarah Palin or Phil Gramm.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:52pm

      LiberalMarine

      Forget about one man or one woman. If you have polygamy, it doesn’t work out very well. It didn’t for the Sassanian Persians where nobles had 20 wives or more. There was a whole social movement against the practice near the end of the Sassanian Persian era.

      You want a problematic society change the equation. Even the prophet Mohammed knew that have too many wives was a problem. I look at is prohibition of having more than 4 wives in the same right as I look at the “eye for an eye” law. A step in the right direction. If you don;t know what the eye for an eye law accomplished than ask the esteemed liberal Dershowitz. If Dershowitz cannot explain it to you then you are beyond hope.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:53pm

      FANGBANGER….the new testament was written within the lifetimes of the authors of the gospels. You’re looking at dates roughly around AD 70. Luke‘s acts doesn’t even mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem which occurred in AD 70. For a Jewish historical writer (believer of Christ or otherwise) to not mention the destruction of the temple is unthinkable…although it is in fact predicted by Christ in the New Testament. Paul’s epistles alone have to have been written before AD 64 when he died. Luke was Paul’s companion. Lukes historicity is impeccable as is his Greek. Mark was Peter’s physician, Peter died roughly around AD 65. Matthew and John were both disciples of Christ himself. The four gospels differ enough to show that a collusion was not taking place and are similar enough to confirm they’re describing the same events accurately and factually. The earliest Christian creeds go back even further than the Gospels themselves. It’s a great mistake to say the texts were written 300 to 400 years after the fact. There’s credible evidence pointing to a much earlier authoriship. And yes..I know the four gospels are technically anonymous…if you can provide a credible competitor for them I’m all ears.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:55pm

      FANBANGER…homosexual behaviour and actual homosexuality are two very different things. You do understand that distinction don’t you?

      Report Post »  
    • RIGEL_ORION
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:59pm

      Scott,

      You are almost right. At its core this is a problem of government and its role.

      You can see why government would initially want to be involved in marriage. Marriage and the family creates the basic structures and foundations of just about any society. It creates a proprietary system of rights for things like ownership, legal decisions, etc. where first choice is given to spouse, second to children, etc. Looking at this from a logical point of view, having these legal linkages and rights set-up is very conducive to a functioning, healthy society.

      Since most bureaucrats wouldn‘t see the point of creating a separate ’union’ for the legal purposes of the state, the religious contract of marriage was essentially co-opted.

      Why, after centuries, is this becoming a problem now? Because the gay lobby is attempting to use the State as a weapon against its eternal enemy, organized religion.

      Wouldn‘t you consider it odd that the push has never been for the State to simply offer ’Civil Union’ contracts for everyone from now on and get out of the whole marriage business altogether? They’d get a lot less resistance and the end result would be true equality under the State for all unions.

      True Union equality isn’t the end game though. It’s capitulation of religion into saying that being gay is A-OK. Having the State dictate that organized religion’s definition of marriage is wrong, is just the next step.

      Report Post »  
    • NOBAMA201258
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:04pm

      Liberalmarine,WTF are you talking about? It was Adam and Eve, not Steve!

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:06pm

      LiberalMarine

      Show me where marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Things like marriage have always evolved. It started out as an institution that was used to gain land, and has evolved since then.
      ———————————————————————————————————————–
      So most or all groups of hunter gathers don’t have marriage?

      I remember seeing where the Bushmen of Namibia had marriage.

      Marriage may have increased significance with settled agriculture or with ranching, but marriage was an institution long before then. Just because nomadic groups of hunter gatherers of prehistory left no records of marriage, I am sure they would have moved heaven & earth to leave records if they had known that some of their descendents would be so stupid as to believe that marriage did not exist in prehistorical period.

      Report Post »  
    • MyAgendaIsTruth
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:09pm

      I do believe that a significant percentage of gay people are genetically created that way. Then there are a smaller percentage that can be influenced to be straight or gay but this percentage is smaller. With that said (here comes the honest hard logical truth) What is the primary directive of every living biological creature on earth (and the universe for that matter)??? The prime directive of any biological is to REPRODUCE. And unless I missed that day in biology 2 men or 2 women cannot reproduce themselves. So would you say that if you do not reproduce you have failed at your prime directive and the reason for your existence? And yes, this does happen in nature but its a mistake and since it won’t reproduce the flawed DNA will cease to be passed on. If it was the ‘norm’ the species would cease to exist.

      I am not saying that gay people be mistreated in any way but in the same breath, I am not saying that being gay is as normal as being straight. It’s not and never will be. At least, we better hope it doesn‘t become the ’norm’ or the human species will cease to exist. For the percentage of people who can go either way by their environment being gay should not be encouraged. You will have to admit being gay makes life pretty difficult in many ways and you lose your chance to fulfill your prime directive..

      I can imagine the attacks I will get from the gay police but as the saying goes… Question with boldness hold to the truth speak without fear The Truth has n

      Report Post » MyAgendaIsTruth  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:11pm

      Polygamy is as old or older then monogomy in marriage.Just as gay marriage is coming to the usa and therefore will one day be accepted by most americans,[and those who don't will be considered on the fringes of society]after that will come polygamy!I do respect whatever sensibilities people have regarding sexuality.If people feel and believe that homosexuality is a perversion or is wrong-that is not the same as racism or ethnic bigotry.whatever is essential to our human nature[sexuality,food, ]becomes part of not only cultural norms-based on religio or traditions or combination of both-but also every individual can have a visceral reaction to what they find acceptable or repungnant regarding sexuality [or food ]To invalidate people[the label of intolerant bigot] for their sensibilities regarding prime basic aspects of our humanity is i believe wrong,As a catholic ,untill the pope declares otherwise-i believe marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman.What the state does [civil marriage] does not impinge on the sacrament of marriage. Of course people of other faiths are married before God and only God knows who is truly married.

      Report Post »  
    • Socialist Pride
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:14pm

      Glenn Beck + Microphone = $$$$$

      That is all this is. Nothing more to see here.

      Report Post » Socialist Pride  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:15pm

      “why aren’t animals gay??????? It isnt natural.”

      Actually, sheep, at least, can exhibit exclusively homosexual behavior. I believe there was a scientific study a while back in which they were able to reverse the behavior of “gay sheep” with hormone treatments… but don’t quote me on that.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • Theodwulf
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:18pm

      @liiberalmarine

      Can you name a single culture that placed any importance on same sex relationships? NOT even the Greeks did. Alexander was married to a woman… even though history records he batted for both teams. If the most sexually tolerant people in history did not think same sex relationships deserved the same status as “NORMAL” marriage ..why should we?

      “Well, older than 2000 years, but made up nonetheless”

      Only time will tell my obtuse sea going bell hop, but no matter it is irrelevent to the topic. Why should WE, the People, place any value on same sex marriage? What value does it have to society? What value does it have for the country? The only value in acknowledging same sex marraige is to give the appearence of our collective approval… Is our collective approval that important?

      The institution of Marraige exists to pass on property rights to the children of a man’s wife.

      Report Post » Theodwulf  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:19pm

      MYAGENDAISTRUTH….there is absolutely NO genetic pointer to human homosexuality. NONE!

      Report Post »  
    • Eaglesclaw
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:22pm

      Please show me in history when a marriage between same sex started other than recent history ….you can’t

      Report Post » Eaglesclaw  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:24pm

      rose-ellen

      I kind of missed the whole hunter gatherer & polygamy thing. But what the hey, you pull stuff out your a $$ all the time.

      I am sure that polygamy in a hunter gather tribe that is not experiencing warfare is as popular as a fa rt in an elevator or you at a family gathering.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:28pm

      FreedomPurveyor

      Procreation is a process & every process scre ws up. People are born with congenital birth defects all the time. Some people can live with their defects & some di e from them. If we have something coming off the assembly line that is defective we rework it. When we have defective people we send them to doctors & psychiatrists.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:37pm

      WALKABOUT…you have to forgive ROSE-ELLEN..she‘s still a little light headed from her daily pleasuring herself at the video footage of Daniel Pearl’s beheading at the hands of her beloved “freedom fighters”. She gets a little “out there” after a heavy session to her favourite video.

      Report Post »  
    • 2patriotic
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:42pm

      No wonder the military can’t win wars any more.

      Report Post » 2patriotic  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:43pm

      The monitors seem to have issues with my posts so I’ll try once more. FANBANGER…the earliest Christian creeds (which pre-date even the gospels) specifically call the believer to remember the passion, death and resurrection of Christ as the son of God. Your earlier assertion that the earliest Christians didn’t afford a divinity to Christ is ridiculous.

      Report Post »  
    • db321
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:48pm

      You must take this survey to see who the best Candidate is for you on the issues

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game

      It may surprise you. It defiantly will open your eyes to the Candidates.

      Report Post » db321  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:52pm

      @ Clive
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:14pm

      i share becks view. who cares what other people are doing.
      i’m for small government, that means fiscally, and socially. stay out of other peoples business, and stay focused on your own life.
      ————————————————————————————————————–
      If you share Becks “view” on this, you are anti Constitutional, and worse, anti-Christ.

      IF Beck actually believes that the United States of America was founded on God and the Bible as he proclaims, than his position on this is COMPLETELY anti-Founding, and again, anti-Christ. The Holy Scriptures are not relative, they are ABSOLUTE. Therefore if the founding pillars of America, The Commandments and Gods Natural Law are the codices required for THIS society to function as the Founders intended.

      Beck is actively perverting Gods Word and there are NO 2 ways about it. I would LOVE to debate Beck and his cohorts of the Black Robe Regiment. They are following the very same fallacious path that Jereboam followed and it leads to the destruction of the Nation.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:56pm

      RIGEL_ORION..JZS is a cretin. He’s feeble minded and a dunce. He’s the same vacuous pustule who asserted that G W Bush approved the Solyndra loan guarantees. When in fact..the Bush administration passed on Solyndra citing it as too risky. In fact, it was Obama who fast tracked the loan guarantee in 2009 and to add insult to injury, subordinated the loan so that his funding bundler could preserve his investment while the tax payer got left holding the Solyndra bankruptcy bag. JZS is a moron of the highest order. A mental cripple.

      Report Post »  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:01pm

      @ avenger- no the early christinas celebrated the philosophy of christ, not deifying him. Christ was not deified until the council of nicea that is how the vatican cemented its power. after that any heretics were disposed of making the vaticans version of the bible the law of the land so to speak. all modern forms of christianity are derived from the vaticans revisions, not original teachings. though that is still around- ever hear of the golden rule?

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:02pm

      “You must take this survey to see who the best Candidate is for you on the issues”

      I got #1 Romney and #2 Ron Paul. My two favorites! Booya!

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • louise
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:03pm

      The 10th Amendment, you said….
      Thanks. What bothers me is that Christians actually think it’s “okay” to tolerate abomination. What further disappoints me with those who see some “imagination design” of a separation of Church and State is that they have swallowed the lie of progressivism and outright communism.

      IF, as the Founders declared, Divine Providence in this Nations Founding, likewise rejection of that very same Providence leads to the destruction of the Nation. It’s happened in EVERY society in the history of mankind, and expressly to the Nation, Israel, who rejected Gods Word.

      America is testing Gods patience and His WILL (His Commanded Law). Nothing good can come from disobedience, only Gods wrath. For societies that have rejected Gods Law, the ending of them is swift, and certain.
      _________________________
      I agree totally. To tolerate all things is to stand for nothing. This country started outwith people who wanted to be free to worship and live their lives out from under oppressive government. I always refer to the scripture that tells us “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.” Since we know that God does not change…His word does not change as you mentioned. Fast forward to today. People must ask themselves “Is the Spirit of the Lord in America today….is He in the hearts of Americans?” And also this, “Does America have Liberty today?” Cont’d……………….

      Report Post » louise  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:04pm

      @ black9897
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:48pm

      @FANGBANGER Communion is actually in the Bible , it’s done as symbolism of Christs death. The holidays: did Jesus ever command us to put his day of birth on the 25th of DEC? No. easter? no. If even what you say is true is that so bad? No one is worshipping other god’s on Christmas (notice the CHRIST in christmas.) No one is worshiping other god’s on easter. So what’s the problem? Look at the intent and heart of the ppl celebrating these holidays. We all know Jesus wasn’t actually born on 25 DEC…so what? Point is we give gifts as a symbol of his amazing gift he gave us; we thank God for the birth of Jesus. Easter we recognize and thank Jesus for dyeing for us. That is his message! How is that bad? How is that getting away from the Bible? POVERTY SUCKS is right, the only bad thing is that ppl have made it about santa and the easter bunny, instead of the true meaning.
      —————————————————————————————–
      I agree with the basic tenets of your post, but I have a problem with the process. It’s undeniable that the early Catholic Church borrowed pagan rituals, ie the pine tree, ivy, giving of gifts, decorating the tree (winding cords of lights and ornaments is a depiction of the rainbow serpent and alchemy). Josiah destroyed Jereboam and the Northern Kingdom of Israel for following after false religions and their practices.

      Solution? Use the Levitical Mennorah.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:07pm

      here is the origin of marriage- remember this is a starting point, do your own research. question everything.
      http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F2005WS267/AmyChing/Worship.html

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:10pm

      @ rose-ellen
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:11pm

      Polygamy is as old or older then monogomy in marriage.
      ————————————————————————————————–
      And then there’s this! Mentally stunted, historically bankrupt, and spiritually dead.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • louise
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:14pm

      The 10th Amendment
      CONT’D
      40,000 new laws passed Jan 1; apostate churches filled with unrepentant people; a government that is dysfunctional because most of them know anything about how to handle the problems America finds herself to be in.
      Why is this happening…? Why do the leaders not lead in a Godly and lawful way? is it prophecy being fullfilled? Yes I think so. but in the meantime we are still here which meanswe have a responsibility to continue on in the Faith until Jesus returns. People need to repent and be turned back to God and only God Himself can do this. No one man or “presidential candidate” can do this. Only God. So let us get on our knees and repent and be reconciled back to our Father so that we can get on with the business of reconciling our country back to it’s founders intent of Liberty. And we will have Liberty, if the Spirit of the Lord is in America once again. I still believe Ron Paul is our best chance to restore America. But without the Spirit of the Lord IN Americans, it is all MOOT.
      God bless

      Report Post » louise  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:20pm

      @ louise
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:03pmI

      To tolerate all things is to stand for nothing. This country started outwith people who wanted to be free to worship and live their lives out from under oppressive government. I always refer to the scripture that tells us “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.” Since we know that God does not change…His word does not change as you mentioned. Fast forward to today. People must ask themselves “Is the Spirit of the Lord in America today….is He in the hearts of Americans?” And also this, “Does America have Liberty today?” Cont’d……………….
      ————————————————————————————————————————–
      Louise, you hold fast to those first fruits and don’t allow this perversion of the society shake it from you. They will call us bigots, and other silly little things that they think are cutting. When the dust settles from the enemy trying to destroy America, this Nation is going to require adherents to Gods Word to rebuilt it.

      God Speed to you, and KNOW that you are a follower of the Prophets of GOD, and those are the Founders of this Nation believed and tried to emulate in creating this Republic.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:24pm

      FANBANGER…putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la I can’t hear you” isn’t helping you. I’ll repeat…THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN creeds -which pre-date even the Gospels- call the believer to remember the passion, death and resurrection of Christ as the son of God. Ignoring this only makes you look like a bigger fool than you already appear.
      “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.”
      1 Corinthians 15:3 – 5
      Paul gives this creed to his readers among other creeds and hymns that were used in the early Christian church. He was likely given this roughly AD 35 when he was in Jerusalem.
      Why is this particular creed so important? Because under Jewish law only G-d forgives sin and these Jews (albeit believers of Christ, they’re still at this historical stage Jews) are attributing God’s authority to Jesus. Please..don’t insult me with your flaccid calls to “Nicean councils” FANBANGER…I know biblical history a lot better than you I promise you.

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:25pm

      I don‘t know if hunter gatherers were polygamous or not or if some groups were and some others wern’t but i know polygamy is in the bible.So the semites at least practiced it for some time.As some semitic arabs today do.[i guess that gets your goat].

      Report Post »  
    • Mimimi
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:32pm

      What society had gay MARRIAGE ? I am not asking about acceptance of gays or prevalence of gay behaviour, but about MARRIAGE.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:32pm

      THE10THAMENDMENT….FANBANGER is perpetuating the usual atheist and secular canard that because western european based cultures have christmas trees and easter bunnies, that the Christian faith is rooted in pagan beliefs. He doesn’t however point out that for Christmas for instance, the church used the pagan celebrations to absorb those people in those lands into the church with less resistance. It didn’t change the tenets of the church, just the date and style of celebration. A bigger falsehood is the Easter assertion. The older Christian cultures of today..Italian/Latin, French and Greek use variations of the Jewish word Pasach (Passover) for their name for Easter. Not the Germanic derived Oester..the pagan celebration. These earlier christian cultures use this because the events of the crucifixion and resurrection occurred during the time of Passover (Pasach). We get terms like “paschal lamb” from this derivation. FANBANGER is offering very simple, low grade slabs of “stuff”.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:40pm

      @ louise
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:14pm

      The 10th Amendment
      CONT’D
      ———————————————————————————–
      It’s most definitely prophesy being fulfilled. …..for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thes. 2:2).

      Now lets look at the context of that entire passage.

      “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thes. 2:1-3).

      This Country is tettering because WE have ALLOWED perverts of every sort to get away with their anti-Christ ways. 2 Timothy addresses the root cause for following anti-Christ. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

      They will lose. We can take comfort that Messiah will reign, and those who hold fast the first fruits, with Him.

      (CON’T)

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:41pm

      Hey Rook,

      Why do say, “I hate to admit it”

      Are you that shallow that it eats at you when someone you despise says something that you agree with?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:48pm

      @avenger youre quoting of the bible, a man made book that has been revised several times, to act as historical reference is the same as a muslim saying sharia law is god’s law and pointing to the quaran as a reference.

      practice your critical thinking. if there was no church to tell you about god, would you still believe? my guess is yes. because god is not the church. if there was no church to tell youwhat you feel is bad, would it be?

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:50pm

      JZS

      I see others have already taken you to task for your propaganda, but I will offer this.

      I really don’t think many ever thought that marriage between the races would lead to the “death” of civilization.

      But I, and many others do believe that the liberal agenda, in it’s entirety, left unchecked, will most surely lead to the un-civilization of civilization.

      Hell, were half way there already……….buckle up.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:54pm

      (for Louise from above)

      5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He[d] who now restrains will do so until He[e] is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

      HOW does this story end? Read 2 Thess 2:13-17

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:00pm

      At this point FANBANGER you’ve been soundly rebuked and only have your bile left to offer. I can’t help you…you’re unteachable.

      Report Post »  
    • Goldsteinbergman
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:07pm

      When Super Jesus returns…I hope he lets the rabble stone adultreresses also, I think he got it wrong before…to hell with all that touchy feely stuff.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:09pm

      FANBANGER…those creeds I directed you to and you foolishly choose to ignore are from the Jewish culture of the time. They were recited repeatedly because at the time, Jewish culture was an oral culture. Paul is giving the reader an older Christian creed in the passage I quoted earlier, not something “made up” for the text. Paul wasn’t a believer at first, he was in fact a persecutor of the followers of Christ. These early christian creeds and hymns existed before the written bible but this is beyond your myopic assertions and laughable grasp of the history of the church. By all means wallow in the depths of your ignorance however…it makes rebuking you that much easier.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:14pm

      @ AvengerK
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:32pm

      I‘m sure that you’re right on what he’s trying to do. Most people can’t separate ritual from faith. I don’t practice the rituals of Christmas like some others do. But THAT is my personal preference. If others want to practice it with tree’s and whats become tradition in America? That’s their personal prerogative. I don’t have issue with how people honor Messiah, but it’s none the less undeniable that this Nation was founded on Christ (Messiah). It’s THOSE codices that are important, especially when the morality of the Nation is at stake. How people celebrate the birth of Jesus, is ENTIRELY between them and God. My personal sentiments should NEVER be against people following traditional practices. I object to certain things and will speak my mind, but my FAITH and personal preference is within my own house. Weak example. I might prefer a Mustang, you might prefer a Camaro. The unlabeled idea is that underneath, they are the same thing, a car.

      Our Founders applied CHOICE to building the Nation. The Commandments and Natural Laws. They are absolute. Our societal codices are fixed.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:15pm

      @ avenger. thank you for your last post for showing exactly how much history you know as well as confirming my previous statements.

      i explicitly said that paganism was combined with christianity, by constantine- the head of the pagan roman church, and that their rituals were adopted to merge the religions.

      by acknowledging this you are admitting that the bible has been corrupted, and is in fact a product of man and not god.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:19pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:48pm

      @avenger youre quoting of the bible, a man made book
      —————————————————————————–
      WRONG, by a lot. A God inspired, Spirit directed Book.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:23pm

      fangbanger
      Somehow everything you say is one endless lie.

      The Council of Nicaea was held in AD 325. It is accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East & others. Since the Emperor presided over the Council along with Saint Alexander of Alexandria. I don‘t think the Roman Catholic Church had undo say in its’ proceedings. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church which is fairly large & strong in numbers especially then, I don’t think that that a Roman Catholic conspiracy is possible

      I can just see Fangbanger calling his friends. “Code Pink! Code Pink!, We must also destroy the Eastern Orthodox Church! Code Pink!.”

      Fangbanger your revisionism betrays your motives.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:26pm

      @ MyAgendaIsTruth
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:09pm

      I do believe that a significant percentage of gay people are genetically created that way.
      —————————————————————————————–
      That’s a virtual and mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY. Sorry, but you are wrong.

      They are queer by choice, and a very bad choice.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:27pm

      avenger you have not rebuked anything. if anything you have helped prove my case.
      your rebuke to my stating that the bible was written by man has been to reference the bible.
      you dont want to acknowledge history, thats fine.
      there is a game called telephone. i suggest you try it. you take a simple message and tell it to 1 person. that person then tells one person and so on. go thorough about 10 iterations and you have a completely different message than the original.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:35pm

      fangbanger

      @ mathews2113 actually homosexual behavior has been observed in several species, including **** sapiens
      ______________________________________________

      A squid attaching a sperm packet on another male in the lightless recesses of the Gulf of Baja is not hom0sexual sex. Scientists note that their is not courtship rite & the squid could not possibly know what sex the other squid is. They surmise that the squid can;t take a chance of passing up a female so they tag everything.

      Male Bonobos that engage in frotting are not engaging in the same high risk acts as human makes engage in. It is all together different. Frotting is not penetration.
      Without humans shrinking their habitat, I am not sure that the bonobos would feel threatened by lack of food resources. The mere presence of humans taking up much land around the bonobos has altered their evolution. Also since primates have culture (orangutangs do), how do we know that some gay guy didn’t get it on with some chimp & it was subseuwntly passed down thru succeeding generations?

      Report Post »  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:36pm

      @10th amendment
      god inspired, man created. like how movies are “insprired by a true story” then are the farthest thing from what actually happened.

      the vatican wrote the bible . it didnt write many of the texts, but it did edit, revise, and leave out much. anything that contradicted the vatican was deemed heretical and either burned or locked away. anyone practing anything but what the vatican said was the word of god was deemed a heretic.
      these things happened.
      once you understand this you can seperate the truth from the control. until then go ahead and keep opressing gods children in the name of god. im sure god will appreciate that.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • boundforglory
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:36pm

      @Liberalmarine,
      The bible is not a made up story, it is God’s word! Marrage is between one man and one woman. In the book of Leviticus 18:22, God said: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination”. God created everything, man chose to sin and twist God’s creation to suit himself. If the bible was made up as you say, then it would be a lie and lies dont last for 4000 years! Man did not evolve out of a pool of goo millions of years ago. Everything was created by God about 6000 years ago. Jesus is the Son of God and He is coming back very soon. Since you dont believe in God, when you are in the fires of hell, i’ll bet you will scream like a girl. If you are a marine, then you must be one of those; dont ask-dont tell ladyboys!

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:41pm

      fangbanger

      Avenger is much more credible than you. Playing telephone is like memorization. It takes 1 to about m40 times to memorize something. If you are disinterested it takes you a long time to memorize something. If you are interested, you can remember it without any repetition. I don’t see your telephone analogy working.

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:49pm

      Hey FANGBANGER, the fish symbol, which was used by Christians way, WAY before your broken record regarding Constantine, proclaimed Jesus’ DIVINITY among believers:
      ΙΧΘΥΣ (Greek for “fish”)
      I Iota
      Χ Chi
      Θ Theta
      Υ Upsilon
      Σ Sigma =
      Iesous (Jesus) CHristos (Christ) THeou (of God) Uiou (the Son) Soter (the Savior).

      Keep bringing up the Easter bunny, though. It’s a great argument for an atheist like you.

      Report Post »  
    • PRRedlin
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:50pm

      You are correct. There are 8 distinct types of marriage in the bible. 5 of which are now illegal. But that is besides the point as we are talking about legal marriage and recognition of the government. Under the law all citizens are equal. If the precedent of marriage is two consenting adults (currently 1 male and 1 woman) and the law can not discriminate based on sex, then the law must provide the means of legal recognition of two consenting adults regardless of their sex.

      This is how the supreme court will eventually rule. President Obama is smart to stay out of the mix, as it is not a president’s job to interpret law, but instead that is the decision of the court system based off of precedent.

      If it is illegal to discriminate against the sex of a person for every other legal contract, then the same must be held for the legal recognition of marriage.

      As for Beck and Santorum’s statement of “well why not 2 plus 3”. There is no legal precedent of this. Polygamy is illegal because it gives an unfair advantage financially and “stately” to multiple personhoods where as marriage, no matter where the basis came from, gives advantage to no one.

      Report Post »  
    • louise
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:05pm

      The 10th Amendment, you said, continuing our discussion——-

      HOW does this story end? Read 2 Thess 2:13-17
      Wonderful section of scripture. But then ALL of the word of God is wonderful isn’t it?
      I can clearly see prophecy unfolding in front of us very quickly now. Because Lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. They are exchanging the Truth for the lie. I am seeing this and I am sure you and some others are also.

      Believers stay sober and alert because there will be false Christs and false prophets that will arise and will show signs and wonders, in order, if it were possible, to lead the elect astray. Take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance. ~~~~Mark13:21-23

      Report Post » louise  
    • PRRedlin
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:23pm

      This is a discussion about legal marriage. Why even bother bringing up the bible? It has nothing to do with it.

      Report Post »  
    • Kinnison
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:29pm

      Yes, in the Western cannon a legal marriage has been between one man and one woman. There are places in the world where there are plural marriages, yes, but in those places—most of them Islamic of religion, marriage is one man and up to four women and open homosexuality is punishable by death. Please cite either current or historical examples of nations or civilizations where legal marriage is one man and another man or one woman and another woman…

      Report Post »  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:45pm

      @ walkabout
      avenger is citing the bible to prove the bible is true. where i have provided history showing where christianity has picked up its rituals. dont like my telephone challenge? try it. then tell me that over hundreds of years stories are not embellished. we cant go 10 years without embellishing the truth- clinton budget surpluses?

      @ kryptonite. try doing some objective research. ive already linked to things about easter and christmas. as to your fish:
      http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/oct26.html
      again another christian symbol with pagan roots.

      why do christians dislike pagans so much even though much of their iconology is derived from paganism? its not patriarichal. pagan beliefs celebrate man and woman equally- 2 parts to a whole. hard to repress women when theyre spiritually equal though if you claim god created woman from man it makes it a bit easier.
      am i an athiest? hardly. i follow jusus’s teachings, which is essentially “do unto others as you would have done to you”. its not called the golden rule for nothing. do i follow the propaganda of the catholic church- not at all but from your posts its obvious you do.
      learn about your religion. question everything. you may have an answer one day.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:45pm

      @boundforglory
      Liberalmarine, Since you dont believe in God, when you are in the fires of hell, i’ll bet you will scream like a girl.
      —–
      I don’t know about mr. alleged marine, but Jesus was all man. Yet when God placed the sins of humanity upon Him, He cried out in total agony, “My God (Father), my God (Holy Spirit) why have you forsaken me! Jesus had never known anything but perfect fellowship with God. Having to face the wrath of God — albeit for us — was something we believers will never (thankfully) experience, but we do know it breaks even the toughest of men.

      Hell is not something a man can brace for. Male sinners in hell weep and cry out in torment just as much as the gals. Some suffer more than others because their wickedness on earth was greater, but they all scream. No one is silent in hell. Everyone FEELS – and I mean that literally, since the spirit man is a million times more sensitive than the physical man — indescribable agony. That is a sobering thought — or should be anyway.

      My heart breaks for most people who go to hell. I don’t feel sorry for UBL or Hitler or Obama who is thereto bound, but it is everlasting and just too horrific, and I wish most people would repent, seeing that God made it so simple and joyful to receive Christ. Jesus, being the loving Savior He is, must feel great sorrow for the lost souls in hell.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:49pm

      rose-ellen

      I don‘t know if hunter gatherers were polygamous or not or if some groups were and some others wern’t but i know polygamy is in the bible.So the semites at least practiced it for some time.As some semitic arabs today do.[i guess that gets your goat].
      ______________________________________________________________________
      You stated as fact that polygamy was older than monogamy. You don’t know.

      One could have made an educated guess by looking at records of ancient hunter gatherers as reported by ancient writers or by looking at more recent hunter gatherer groups (Anui, American Indian, Aborigines & others). One could also see how a a society with very little stratification would handle marriage. Given records of Germanic tribes, I don’t think you get a lot of stratification of society until there is tribal warfare. Then tribal elders see their power decrease & you see a rise in chiefs & warriors. Anyway in a tribal society without warfare I do not see people standing for polygamy. Maybe polyamory, but not polgamy.

      Report Post »  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:49pm

      “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. ” -thomas jefferson

      “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. “- thomas jefferson

      btw while the bible was a reference of our founders, so were many other faiths and philosophies. it seems as many forget this or willfully ignore it. to say our country and constitution is based mainly on the bible as as truthful as saying that the bible had no influence at all. while you recognize when leftists say that the bible did not influence our founders as the lie that it is, why do you not recognize the lie when you speak it?

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:54pm

      fangbanger

      The Vatican did not write the Bible. If I want to see what may or may not have been left out. I can look at ancient copies, the Eastern Orthodox version or something else. So I have faith that nothing will be hidden. But you seem he11 bent in explaining gay sin away.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:56pm

      @ louise
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:05pm

      The 10th Amendment, you said, continuing our discussion——-

      HOW does this story end? Read 2 Thess 2:13-17
      Wonderful section of scripture. But then ALL of the word of God is wonderful isn’t it?
      ——————————————————————————————————————————
      You better believe it Louise. I find it humorous when dorks like this fartbanger guy in this thread tries jumping through hopes of idiocy trying to convince HIMSELF their is no God, and that Scripture is man made. The harder they try, the more ignorant their self effacing blabbering becomes. I can clearly picture them with distemper dripping from the corners of their mouth.

      It’s fun watching them stumble in THEIR man mad delusions while the Word of God endures forever. Darwin and his sleazy anti-Christ followers will be gone in a few short years, and Gods Word will stand as the pillar its always been.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:07pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:36pm

      the vatican wrote the bible . it didnt write many of the texts, but it did edit, revise, and leave out much. anything that contradicted the vatican was deemed heretical and either burned or locked away. anyone practing anything but what the vatican said was the word of god was deemed a heretic.
      these things happened.
      once you understand this you can seperate the truth from the control. until then go ahead and keep opressing gods children in the name of god. im sure god will appreciate that.
      ———————————————————————————————————————————————-
      Ron, Ron Brown is that you? Your cute little anecdote that God would allow a conspiracy to pervert His Word is hilarious. I believe it’s you and those who wish to deny Gods inspired Word who are under EXTREME delusion. If you understood Hebrew, even minimally you might start finding your way to the Truth. Then if you have the mental capacity to be able to understand Edenic Language (symbol) you’d be on your way to KNOWING just how preposterous your position is. THEN if you could bring it forward to the Founders and their understanding of the Word, you’d start to see just how special this Nations creation is. And better, it’s ALL God inspired, and WE are taking this Country back. Turning the cheek is for cowards and atheists, which is often the same thing.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:19pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:49pm
      ——————————————————————–
      Grow a brain.
      Here’s an even better quote from Jeffersons Master. George Washington.

      “It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being Who rules over the universe, Who presides in the councils of nations, and Whose providential aids can supply every human defect – that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes.”

      Maybe its a good thing that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was crafted. More George?

      “In tendering this homage [act of worship] to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential Agency. . . . [and] we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:22pm

      [In o]ur laws . . . by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system. RUFUS KING, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:24pm

      Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. 37 JOHN ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

      An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of Hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. . . . In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow. JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

      The Constitution enjoins an oath upon all the officers of the United States. This is a direct appeal to that God Who is the avenger of perjury. Such an appeal to Him is a full acknowledgment of His being and providence. OLIVER WOLCOTT, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, GOVERNOR

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Mr. Leonardo
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:26pm

      So what are you arguing aside from the fact their are exceptions–unless you feel those exceptions should be the standard. Who do you think sets the standard by the way, is it just government, God, or the guy with the biggest gun. We either have moral truths or we don’t–they either came from someone or something that we should give an ear too, or we should just say who cares we will do what we want when we want. As a Veteran I listen to authority just like you–but I also realize where ultimate authority comes from, as did our founders. Thanks for your service by the way.

      Report Post » Mr. Leonardo  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:26pm

      The Constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union not only of the general [federal] but of all the state governments should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law to give it strength. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, PRESIDENT

      “What is an oath?” . . . [I]t is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues or punish our vices. . . . [O]ur system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property and all our rights, are founded on or rest on Christianity and a religious belief. DANIEL WEBSTER, “DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION”

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:31pm

      Please stop with the NEW AGE religion of separation of Church and State. Our morality is ENTIRELY based on Scripture. As are our LAWS!

      In 1816, Chancellor James Kent, considered to be one of the two “Fathers of American Jurisprudence,” noted that an oath of office was a “religious solemnity” and that to administer an oath was “to call in the aid of religion.”

      In 1828, Founding Father Noah Webster, an attorney and a judge, defined an “oath” as:

      A solemn affirmation or declaration made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath implies that the person imprecates [calls down] His vengeance and renounces His favor if the declaration is false, or (if the declaration is a promise) the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it.

      I can “call upon” the words of our Founders for the next 7 days without pause to prove their minds ARE NOT the invented revisionist poppycock of todays educators.

      Our Laws are certain, and the punishments for breaking them begins at the top of Governance and ultimately the people. The PEOPLES rights come from God. The governments rights are limited by the people.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:41pm

      @10thamendment- believing in god, as washington did, does not equate to believing the bible is the word of god as washingtons masonic membership should be your first clue.
      “Ron, Ron Brown is that you? Your cute little anecdote that God would allow a conspiracy to pervert His Word is hilarious. ”
      i dont know who ron brown is nor is it relevent. however im curious what you think of joseph smith, founder of the mormon faith. is mormonism a conspiracy to pervert his word? i i write my own “bible” as say it was divinely inspired then how would you prove me wrong without me admitting i made it up?
      you say i dont understand yet you are the one that is ignoring history.
      if you thinking i am attacking faith then you dont understand what i am saying at all. there is a god. god created everything, including homosexuals. i understand you have been indoctrinated by the church to think all these feelings and desires god gave you are bad. that is what i am trying to get you to see.
      in order to be a power the church has to place itself as a middleman between you and god. it uses fear to keep you in control and in line. let go of your fear. have faith in god and love everyone as gods children. live in love. that is jesus’s message. not god hates ****

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • sweetgold
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:42pm

      you’re wrong but if you are a Marine, ty 4 ur service

      Report Post » sweetgold  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:49pm

      @FANGBANGER
      as to your fish:
      again another christian symbol with pagan roots.
      —————-
      Why don’t you try using logic and following the argument that has been posited?

      First, it is dumb to say “my” fish is a “Christian symbol with pagan roots.” The fish was used as an ACRONYM, for its LINGUISTIC features. What the heck did Christians care what it symbolized for pagans in their religions? See if you can grasp that notion. It’s like saying using the word “gay” is disqualified as a synomym for “homosexual” because it used to mean “happy” when you were a boy. Duh, FANG, get a grip.

      Second, my core argument was that the DIVINITY of Jesus was being proclaimed by believers long before Constantine and outside the Bible, and the use of the fish as an acronym standing for Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior is proof of that.

      Third, you‘ve been informed already that Christians couldn’ care less about the Easter bunny and the Xmas tree. We celebrate Christ, apart from our cultural traditions which one can partake in or not. So why do you keep harping on the issue like you are deaf?

      Fourth, you follow the golden rule; good for you. So do other non-Christians, including some atheists in our culture. Good things rub off on others; even on those who write God with a small “g”.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:59pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:41pm

      @10thamendment- believing in god, as washington did, does not equate to believing the bible is the word of god as washingtons masonic membership should be your first clue.
      ——————————————————————————————————————–
      Oh NO the predictable Masonic conspiracy theory!

      Washingtons words express the fabric of the New American Society. Those words were entirely based on the Christian Bible. It’s also why when the War of Independence began that CONGRESS not only authorized that Bibles be imported FOR THE PEOPLE, but further fully endorsed the Aikens Bible publication and recommended it to all people.

      John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: “…Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”

      Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an “indissoluble” bond.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:01pm

      @ 10th amendment
      context counts. not one of your quotes references christianity. they refer to god and religion. not just christianity but to the truth that lies in all religions as benjamin frankiln described, and noted by glenn beck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUD9sLg68is.

      that is where apparently our disconnect is. you fell that christianity, the way as it is currently taught, is the way to go. good for you. how about if a different sect of christianity decides to change the rules and start marrying homosexuals? are you for them expressing their freedom of religion or are you going to try and use the government to stop it? are the christian churches currently marrying homosexuals not, in your eyes, perverting the word of god?

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:03pm

      @ fangbanger

      You wouldn’t have even been a consideration for our PoliSci debate team. ESPECIALLY chasing Masonic conspiracy theories. But then again, you say that the Catholic Church which had locked and loaded weapons against the Masons prior to the turn of the 20th century is another of your conspiracy theories. Make up your mind. Are they ALL conspiring together with proclamations of this being a Christian Nation to subvert the other? You’re hilarious.

      John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

      “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges07
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:09pm

      Glenn Beck: “The definition of bigot is somebody that won‘t listen to anybody else’s side, because of their point of view…they try to shut down everyone else’s point of view,” he explained. ”If you won‘t tolerate someone else’s point of view, then you are a bigot.”

      LOL Glenn Beck!
      Slapping the Almighty God in the face is THE WRONG WAY to start your radio broadcast day.

      “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” -Leviticus 20, Holy Bible

      “For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error [death penalty; see above referred verse] which was due.” -Romans 1, Holy Bible

      Report Post » WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges07  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:15pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:01pm

      @ 10th amendment
      context counts. not one of your quotes references christianity. they refer to god and religion.
      ————————————————————————————————————————————-
      PROOF that you read only what you want, if at all. Lets try this agin’ for a hillibilly like you.

      [In o]ur laws . . . by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the CHRISTIAN system. RUFUS KING, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

      Do you have ANY idea who John Witherspoon was? Any idea? He was the same guy who taught not only James Madison, but Thomas Jefferson. he said, “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.” He was also the same teacher who taught a 3 Supreme Court Justices, multiuple Senators, Executive Branch members, Legislatures, etc.

      How did the prayer of the Constitutional Convention conclude by Edmund Randolf? “May we … continue, under the influence of Republican virtue, to partake of all the blessings of cultivated and CHRISTIAN society.”

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:15pm

      http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti91573.html

      even christians understand the bible was written by man, though divinely inspired.
      they even admit that for the first 300+ hundred years the stories were passed orally as christians were being persecuted by the romans. constantine saw christianity continue to rise so he co-opted it, like boehner and the tea party, and merged it with paganism to solidify rome to stop the empire from falling apart. after that is when the stories were written down, revised, or burned. the vatican solidified its power base and set off on the crusades to kill or convert nonbelievers. you can deny it all you want but it happened. im not trying to take away from the good part of the faith. the part that helps inspire people to help each other and make it good for everyone to live in. not the part that puts the church above god. the part that says women are inferior to men instead of their equal. the part that says its alright to opress people in the name of god if you dont like the way the are living their life.
      love is happiness. happiness is good. good is god. god gave us all our own instructions on how to be happy. you feel that in your heart, not read it on a page.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:20pm

      @ WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges07
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:09pm
      ————————————————————————-
      Well done!

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • moltengold
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:35pm

      This should be a no brainer. What other union besides a man and a woman has the potential to create the “Miracle of Life”?? This alone uniquely classifies “marriage” as a special union and should always be encouraged to propagate our race and way of life. It doesn’t matter if your an atheist, sexually confused or just drawn to same sex relationships, marriage has already been defined as a special union between both sexes. If gays want further recognition of their unions, please call it something else. Give them the tax breaks and respect to live as they choose. imo!

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:39pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:15pm

      http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti91573.html

      even christians understand the bible was written by man, though divinely inspired.
      ———————————————————————————————————————
      This and the rest of that last “post” of yours is like the ravings of a lunatic. Sorry man, but hoop jumping isn’t a flattering method of debate. You create a strawman, and when it’s set on fire you turn and jump on a bandwagon filled with preposterous delusion. Dogs and cats chase their tails because they can, not that it means anything other than it might itch. No matter, it’s still an exercise in circular reasoning and based entirely on inductive fallacy that begs an appeal to novelty, if not pity.

      You’ve used hasty generalizations and your burden of proof after having been met, you try to deflect with an appeal to a biased sample of conspiracy theories that leads right back to your strawman.

      You’ve failed every test and order of a logical argument. You’ve attacked belief with an appeal to belief.

      Try checkers as an opponent. At least in doing that your gamblers false dilemma has the potential of at least a middle ground. On this subject your failure to research sold you out.

      I will pray for you.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:41pm

      10th amendment
      what are you talking about? george washington, as well as several other founding father, were masons. that isint conspiricy, that is historical fact. nobody was cospiring to make this a christian nation. they wanted a moral and enlightened nation. they recognized christianity does not own morality.

      you stated earlier that the vatican did not write the bible. the council of carthage (vatican) was the first to publish a list of all the holy inspired books, known to you as the holy bible. have any doubt any as to the actually holiness of the texts?“dont worry” the church replied “the holy ghost would not have let us any mistakes”

      thats like obama saying “we can afford it”

      lollerskates- id get kicked off the debate team. im sure i would, gotta let someone else win sometime.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • darthtyran
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:42pm

      In the Bible, marriage was initially between one man and woman. God “winked on ignorance” during a period of time, where the Hebrews and Jews had far fewer men than women, due to wars and such. Jewish men and women were also encouraged to marry cousins instead of intermingling with pagans. Sin is on the father and God did not want the sins of pagans and heathen corrupting his people. After a point in time, in the Old Testament, GOD did away with this practice. The act was always intended as temporary solution to the situation of the times, just like the consumption of certain animals. Marriage has never been between same sex couples. This act is, and always will be, an abomination unto GOD!

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:43pm

      @ moltengold
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:35pm
      ————————————————————————————
      Oh man, now you took a leek in their Wheaties!

      WELL DONE!

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Uranium Wedge
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:49pm

      Damn it! Stop making sense.
      Those poor kids, Rick made them think.

      Report Post » Uranium Wedge  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:54pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:41pm

      10th amendment
      what are you talking about? george washington, as well as several other founding father, were masons. that isint conspiricy, that is historical fact. nobody was cospiring to make this a christian nation. they wanted a moral and enlightened nation. they recognized christianity does not own morality.
      ——————————————————
      Our entire system is based on Christianity. It is ENTIRELY designed for a religious MORAL people, and could work for none other. The Commandments and the Natural Laws (the Moral teachings of Christ and THE BIBLE).

      Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: “…the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen”.

      The Supreme Court in 1799 stated, “By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.”

      Please stop your absurd comments. As you said, context means everything.

      Even Ben Franklin said, “…God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

      Benny’s quote is a direct statement by JESUS.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:55pm

      what proof have you provided? you say the bible is true because its the bible and the bile tells us its true. thats circular logic. im giving you references backing up what i am saying. hasty generalizations? ive given you specific motives. you just dont want to give the thought credibility and look at reason and facts as it would uproot your worldview.

      you need the church to reach god? thats fine they always need people to pimp. if everyone was happy they wouldnt be needed right? :)

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • darthtyran
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:02pm

      @lib marine

      You are such a hoot! Are you still active duty ? Prove the Bible was made up! You Cannot! In fact History and science default to the Bible on hundreds of points due to it’s accuracy. NASA has had to use the history contained in the Book to launch satellites. Chinese people connect their ancestry with the Hebrews and many can trace their lineage to Turkey, the resting place of Noah’s Ark. They have accomplished this using the history and lineages in the Bible. I was stationed in the orient for years and not only can Chinese trace their lineage but so the Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese. They are supposed to have the oldest history on Earth but they default to the Holy Scriptures. They note that marriage in their lineages was one man and woman. Marriage was a Judeo Christian covenant before GOD by a Man and Woman, singular! Other cultures corrupted the sanctity of Marriage in their way. This includes the bonding of Empires or Kingdoms, to acquirer wealth by dowry and so forth. In no way does the perversion of the sanctity of marriage by other cultures change the original intent. The constitution was based on Judeo Christian values and that is one man and one woman.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:04pm

      Pedophilia & The Roots Of The ****-Advocacy Movement

      http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2011/11/pedophilia-roots-of-****-advocacy.html

      Report Post »  
    • watchmany2k
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:05pm

      I ot the REAL EQUATION right here

      redefine marriage + divided population = the elite win & continue to ROB the treasury !

      Get a grip, get real, or you can continue the arguments in the FEMA barraks…..

      2012 this is IT

      Report Post » watchmany2k  
    • RiggerMan
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:08pm

      @LiberalMarine – Don’t make general statements regarding marriage. Show me proof that marriage historically has ever been anything other than a man and woman.

      @ JiggaSparks – please show me where Glenn is for the persucution of others. He clearly stated that the government should get out of marriage. That is the true conservative view there should be no benefit or penalty for marriage.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:09pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:55pm

      what proof have you provided? you say the bible is true because its the bible and the bile tells us its true. thats circular logic. im giving you references backing up what i am saying. hasty generalizations? ive given you specific motives. you just dont want to give the thought credibility and look at reason and facts as it would uproot your worldview.

      you need the church to reach god? thats fine they always need people to pimp. if everyone was happy they wouldnt be needed right? :)
      ——————————————–
      I don’t have a WORLDVIEW, sorry. My concerns are the U.S.of A.

      If I attend “church” it’s to “fellowship”. My body is the Temple of God so I don’t need any other structure to hear His Spirits voice.

      You’re giving me second, third, and forth hand sources. I’ve given you the Founders very own words. I’ll take their word over what your “sources” want to imagine.

      Christianity does have agenda. It’s to lead the way to the ONLY chance of reconciliation to God, eternal life, and eternal happiness! Darn it, you got me there!

      The Bible long predates your hero’s of metaethical mumbo jumbo known as moral relativism. I’d imagine that Socrates and Sigmund Fraud, err I mean, Freud, would be proud of you.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:14pm

      @ kryptonite
      the fish symbol is a pagan symbol for female fertility. it was used , as well as other symbols like the cross and the halo’s of angels, to convert pagans to christianity to unite rome. many holidays, christmas and easter, were also adapted to convert people. were not talking santa clause and easter bunny.
      december 25 is the birthday of several pagan gods. now we celebrate it as the birthday of christ. easter was a pagan ritual celebrating a god that died, was placed into a cave and the resurrected. who does that sound like?
      why do i bring these things up? because it shows how the message of christ has been manipulated for the benefit of a group of men.
      many christinans feel mormonism is a flase religion, yet their church has milions of members. if the catholics, protestants, lutherns, and whomever else im forgetting cant convince the mormons their religion is false now how will they be able to do so in 500 years when the mormon church will have nearly a millenia of existence?

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • jzs
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:19pm

      RIGEL ORION, are you an amateur astronomer? If so, cool! Me too. Anyway, you say, “As if being gay was the same as being born black, white, Asian, etc.” You forgot to list the prohibitions about marrying outside your religion, so next time put Catholics, Jews and Muslims on your list of straw men. And marrying outside your parent’s income level and status in society, don’t forget those things! You can call them “straw men” and imagine there was no opposition to marriages of that kind, if not by laws, censure, but that‘s because you’re young and willing to relive a history you don’t know.
      KRYPTONITE, you’re correct, the ruling only affected “~17 states,” which is 1/3 of the number of states in this country. I agree, we’re moving closer to “GOD’s intent.” I take it you‘ve decided we’ve gotten there, and reached “GOD’s intent.” Personally, I’m not so sure.
      AVENGEPERP says I’m a “cretin, feeble minded, dunce, vacuous pustule, moron, mental cripple” That’s the best you got PERP? You need a thesaurus or something. Seriously, as insults go that’s pathetic. Work on that some would ya? Don’t take this the wrong way, but as insults go, your second class at best.
      Billy – “unchecked”? Sure, unchecked expect that now it take 60 votes in the Senate to pass any legislation – not what the Founders had in mind.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:26pm

      10th ive given you the founders direct words as well. given you links of reference specifically to what i am talking about (as a starting point, do your own homework).
      “Christianity does have agenda. It’s to lead the way to the ONLY chance of reconciliation to God, eternal life, and eternal happiness!”
      if this were true we would not have a first amendment guaranteeing us freedom of religion. instead we would be a christian nation. you claim to appreachiate the founds words then do some research into their views on theocracies

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • Big Book Harry
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:30pm

      It is a very simple math equation — 1- Dick + 1- Dick = A Pain In The Ass
      Lets see — Penis + ****** = Procreation Sounds like good math to me.
      If Government wants to recognize same sex mariages it would exemplify that system is sick too.
      If any church performs same sex mariages the blessings of God are certianly not upon them.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:45pm

      OK JZS,

      My faux pas. I should have known that my use of the word “unchecked” would make you think I was speaking only legislatively.

      I was really speaking of the entire liberal / progressive assault on society that is being pressured from all avenues.

      Sorry I was not clear.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:52pm

      @ fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:26pm

      10th ive given you the founders direct words as well. given you links of reference specifically to what i am talking about (as a starting point, do your own homework).
      ——————————————
      I’ve got books, manuscripts, letters and even some research materials (written by the Founders) that would make Glenn Beck and David Barton blush with envy.

      One of the quotes by who seems to be your favorite Founder (probably because he was a member of that “evil” Lunar Society), should be a warning for you. “… God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Thomas Jefferson

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:53pm

      JZS,

      By the way, I also am a fledgling astronomer. But I have a nagging question.

      I’m sure you have heard the colloquialism, “There are no atheists in foxholes”

      What I want to know is, are there any atheists in black holes?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:08pm

      Well Fangbanger I guess I have to let you be………..for now! I have a duty to the Supreme Authority to spend an appropriate amount of time specifically studying only His WORD (that would be Messiah, Jesus the Christ), who also happens to be the Chief Cornerstone of the United States of America.

      I’ll be certain to put your screen name at the top of my prayer requests. Mustard seed my friend, mustard seed! That’s all it takes.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:11pm

      Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:53pm

      JZS,

      By the way, I also am a fledgling astronomer. But I have a nagging question.

      I’m sure you have heard the colloquialism, “There are no atheists in foxholes”

      What I want to know is, are there any atheists in black holes?
      ————————-
      Not JZS, but as to your question. I’ll be sure to inform you after I have a bowel movement! If anything goes “splash” we might have a winner!

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • RiggerMan
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:13pm

      @ Liberal – at first I only felt I needed to call you out on your viewpoints. But the more I think about it the more your moniker disturbs me.

      Why do you feel it is necessary to take our title and attach it to your political beliefs. Do you feel that it lends more weight to your argument. Did you think it would protect you in this arena of ideas, because no one wants to attack the Marine.

      Why don’t you leave our hard earned title out of the battle and stand on your own merits and intelligence. Let people judge you for your ideology and not a title that was never meant to be used in the political realm.

      Report Post »  
    • USAMEDIC3008
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:17pm

      Fangbanger
      God created Man and Woman so thay could continue the
      creation.Babies are the reason for sex,not the side effect.
      He also gave man free will.To be or not to be.
      Being gay means you may never be able to recreat yourself.
      Just something to think about

      Report Post » USAMEDIC3008  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:23pm

      @10TH

      Not exactly the response I was expecting, but appropriate none the less.

      Well played my friend.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:55pm

      Rinse, wash, repeat?

      You make a mighty bold statement here but don’t have anything historic to back it up with….NONE of the greatest minds in the history of the world EVER advocated gay marriage. We are only doing so now at this juncture in world history because we have broken all morality down to zero and teach that God is not the moral LAW GIVER when in fact he is. He himself advises us through Paul that he gives us over to our moral depravities to include men lusting for one another and women the same.

      The thing about liberalism is that you need no such reason, logic, common sense or morality to be one, all you need is what you all call compassion but its nothing but lies from the Left who orchestrated more violence in the name of equality than any religion ever did and have killed millions to this end.

      Your goals are always the same. Break down the family, all power goes to the State. The marriage is a hinderance to your goals, because the Union of One Man, One woman constitutes a mini government which God ordains and can stand united against your BS.

      Wake up man! You’ve been duped to be a mouth piece for zealots and haters of God.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 12:45am

      @fangbanger
      the fish symbol is a pagan symbol for female fertility.
      ———-
      Listen, nitwit, a word can have as many connotations as time and human creativity give it. That means literally, an INFINITE number of meanings. When Jesus told some fishermen to follow Him and He would make them “fishers of men,” He was producing metaphoric language using a staple food of his time. Are you telling me Jesus couldn’t use the word “fish” because it was already taken by pagans? Pray tell, how much did the latter pay for property rights? Who told you words are the sole property of any given individual, family, culture, generation or religion? Get real. Christians took the word “fish” and made an acronym — check out the meaning of the word; it might help clear your mind — that fitted their belief in Jesus as God and Savior, and at the same time provided a secret code by which to identify each other. That was before Rome, dodo. This level of obsession…Are you a Ron Paul supporter, by any chance? :)

      FANG, once again, we KNOW these were pagan holidays and the nominal Christian church adopted them. We KNOW about the Dark Ages. No one is being deceived. As the Apostle Paul said to the Corinthians, there were those Christians who ate food sacrificed to idols without a problem, and weaker brethren to whom it was a sin. Weak or strong, we all belong to Christ. End of story.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 1:03am

      Billy, I like you’re point. I try to keep up with the latest news on physics – although I don‘t claim anything other than a layman’s understanding – and the point comes up again and again with physicists and with people like me: why are things exactly this way, a way that allows stars to form, planets to form and life to develop? They could be otherwise, but they aren’t.

      Is that just luck? But of course, if things weren’t such came into being, we wouldn’t be here to wonder about it.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • David
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 1:32am

      Why does everyone waste their time on one comment that is obviously “out of the mainstream,” and what most of us feel isn’t correct.

      I always think it amusing when people simply “throw facts” out there as if they are true, and a million people respond. I mean, let’s say I posted this,

      “The idea that computers and the internet is a 20th century invention is ridiculous. If anyone would check their facts, people in ancient history used computers, and had internet access, even before the time of Christ (obviously helped in advancement by what we all know to have been other planetary lifeforms who had visited at the time).”

      So, if I posted that, would you all spend so much time responding to it? Where is all the proof?

      This whole thing is ridiculous when someone states something as “fact” and everyone feels obligated to respond to it.

      The idea that homosexuality existed in the past has nothing to do with what prior to the modern age ever considered as “marriage” in any historical record, as defined as people have always defined marriage to be.

      Of course, if you change marriage to mean something more broadly, and that is any sort of intimate relationship between 2 people, and even add that it can even be of a comitted nature (whatever that means,for that can be pretty subjective as well, as someone can own a slave, and that can be seen as a commitment), then, of course, you can make this definition fit an ancient homosexual relationship, maybe a

      Report Post » David  
    • Sheepdog69
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 1:40am

      You are an idiot.

      Report Post » Sheepdog69  
    • HAPPYRWE
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 1:55am

      @ 10th Amendment…..God does not force us to be “good” or “righteous” or like Him. We are given free will to be tested by the adversary, to be tried and refined hopefully. We are given the choice to choose life or ……
      Are we going to arrest gays, lock them up and throw away the key? I say that is for God to judge. And from what I see we will all suffer in one way or another for the mistakes/sins of others. It is called life, it’s not fair but it is how God planned it.
      Now pedophiles are a different case, attacking and injuring an innocent who has no way to protect him or her self is a grievous offense against one’s freedom and spirit.
      If the agenda is to destroy America through Communist ideals then some are held more accountable than others, those at the top orchestrating.
      Moral character cannot be forced.
      Good suffers for the bad, it is man’s free agency, but we will all be judged accordingly.

      Report Post » HAPPYRWE  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 2:06am

      @ kryptonite
      FANG, once again, we KNOW these were pagan holidays and the nominal Christian church adopted them. We KNOW about the Dark Ages. No one is being deceived
      you may want to let 10th in on that, he dosent get it. you may also want to tell the “war on christmas people” those stories were all over the blaze a few weeks ago. people seemed pretty angry, especially if what you say is true and most people know how pagan symbolism was adopted to recruit more converts. they seemed prettty afamant that christmas was the birth of christ. and just wait until easter. the fish symbol is another example. take an existing symbol and change the meaning.

      @usamedic if babies are the sole reason for sex, why do women continue to have sex after menopause? do you only have sex to make a baby or do you have sex to have a spiritual communion with your lover? i used to have the same thought as to why homosexual marriage should not be allowed. i thought being a conservative meant being for the founding principles of this country like freedom of religion and freedom of speech. life liberty, persuit of happiness. what does a gay couple have to do with me, my wife, or my children? absolutely nothing. who am i to deny someone else’s happiness? nobody. does god and christ want you to focus on the things that bring us all together or spread us apart?

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • HAPPYRWE
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 2:07am

      Marriage was ordained by God, period. Man may choose to bend the rules, the exception, but God still invented Man for the Woman, the rule.
      We still need to address the socialist agenda to sexualize children and the push to lower the age of consent by the liberal factions. In other words the evil effort to make pedophilia legal and acceptable. If you were not aware of this please do your research, “it” is not just about gay rights, “it” goes much deeper………….

      Report Post » HAPPYRWE  
    • DV
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 2:21am

      Excuse, me, Mr. Marine. You don‘t have any idea what you’re talking about. You’re completely wrong, and not only are you wrong about some of your facts, it’s obvious you made them up. I’m not going to say more, especially in terms of my educational background because first of all, you won’t believe me, and secondly, your post doesn’t even deserve a reply at all.

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 3:13am

      @Fang:

      Actually, Constantine converted to Christianity later in his reign. He also gave the Christians in his region their churches back, although his counterpart in the East, Galerius, did not. Constantine was very much in the minority, so in his region, he gave the Christians a path to worship.

      As far as the Bible, there are 2 origins: The Byzantine texts (Constantine’s old capital) and the Alexandrian(Egyptian) texts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. The 1611 KJV was translated soley from the Byzantine texts, while all other versions where translated in 1844(?) by 2 occultists, Wescott and Hort, from the 2 Alexandrian texts. One of the translations, the Vaticanus, was actually found in the trash of the temple it was written in. These 2 versions didn’t match in some places, so where they didn’t, the Vaticanus was chosen to be in the final translation.

      As far as the Apocrypha, I’ve only read the Book of Enoch, so I don’t really have an opinion on that.

      Report Post »  
    • foobear
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 3:13am

      @Liberal: “Marriage hasn’t ALWAYS been between one man and one woman.”

      THANK you for pointing that out.

      Lines like the following from the article – “one man plus one woman inevitably (and historically) equals marriage” – is just specious, and shows an appalling lack of understanding of history.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • KAdams
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 3:26am

      @Fang:

      Sorry, 1881 was when the Wescott/Hort translation came out.

      Report Post »  
    • milez5
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 3:30am

      It does not matter whether marriage has always been between one man and one woman that is the way it is defined now under law. If we are to change that definition we should do so for everyone as follows, any person who is at least eighteen(18) years of age can marry any other person or persons who are also at least eighteen years of age and of sound mind. There is no reason to change our laws regarding marriage just for the benefit of gays.

      Report Post »  
    • Wayne
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 8:13am

      You are a sick-O marriage is between a Man and a Woman. the lowest form of animal life on earth don,t do that.

      Report Post »  
    • closetotheedge
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 8:23am

      1+1=2 In marriage it’s 1+1=1. Where 2 are joined together they become 1.Joining all they are as individuals and knowlege and growing the 2 in reverance for each other,forever learning, As for gay weds‘ it’s just not right both physically and morally.The 2 will never bare children thou the keep screaming for the right to adopt, they beleive it‘s morally right for grown men to have sex with little boys cuz in their minds it’s ‘natural’ for the relationship ,they are ” NAMBA, The American Man Boy Association!” They have a right to destroy little boys?? Judgement. And it seems that anyone who stands again’st all these sins is a bigot,simple-minded homophober, or worst of all one of those evil christians! Yeah, another one. And if true to Jesus,they will love you as best they can in whatever place in life you are,for all have sinned,and fall’en way short.And then we have California and included what **** lesbian, Bi’ Transexual, confused and just not sure what they are,in the school books,K-12th showing all the wonderful things they have done and will keep doing. Thanks oba,for military same sex, workplace,amust in our day of enlightenment. Virtually all empires heading towards their collapse, the open debauchery of widespread acceptance of same-sex and all other immoralties were the last straw.,and then,boom. Jesus said it was better that a man tie a millstone around his neck and be tossed into the water than to harm any. That’s how strongly God loves them.An

      Report Post »  
    • helicop
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 8:23am

      In my Marine Corps of 25 years ago, the word “LiberalMarine” was an oxymoron. Must be a Hollywood Marine.

      Report Post »  
    • romaddan
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 8:53am

      @ LiberalMarine, sir, 1) It is not my nor anyone else’s responsibility to prove marriage has always been between man and woman. 2) Where in history and what society has marriage NOT been between a man and a woman? As I look thru history I do see same sex lovers, homosexuality, multiple consorts (same sex and opposite sex) and even people who whose sexual preferences leaned to animals. Yet, even in these societies/cultures were the above sexual practices were accepted,and if not accepted, at least ignored was not marriage still between man and woman. If am wrong, please educated me and point out where and when in history (prior to the last 50 years) where same sex marriage/homosexual marriage has ever been excepted or practiced? If same sex marriage was practiced was it wide spreed?
      LibetalMarine, please understand, I am not a hater. In fact, I could care less about this issue as I have a life of my own to live. I do have opinions but they account for little. HOWEVER, I hate when people like you want to say you have the historical and factual high ground and then don’t back it up? If you are right that marriage has not always been between a man and a women, cite your sources. Nobody on this forum will fault you for citing facts. In fact they will respect you for it. You may not change their minds nor they yours but at least you dont come off sounding immature.

      Report Post » romaddan  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 10:08am

      @kadmas. good morning.
      constantine never converted to christianity. he was baptized upon his death bed when he was too sick to resist. he was also head of the roman church until his work to merge paganism with christianity. constantine saw christianity for the rising power is was and backed it like any politician would do. he merged the religions to stop the fighting in rome. think john boehner and the tea party or naggy pelosi and ows.

      the council of carthage (vatican) was the first to publish a list of all the holy inspired books, known to you as the holy bible. the council then decided which texts were divine and which were not, or in other words, they picked and chose what the considered holy and what was not to fit their needs.
      have any doubt any as to the actually holiness of the texts?“dont worry” the church replied “the holy ghost would not have let us any mistakes”. the council of carthage created the approved bible in 397 ad. it was then written in latin and has been the basis for all biblical translations since. especially after the vatican killed off any dissenters as heretics.
      http://www.letusreason.org/rc15.htm

      the sinaiticus cas a known history ofbeing regularly altered through the 12 century. even though it is know to be corrupt it is still one of the texts that the modern bible is based on. which proves what i stated in earlier posts- the bible is the work of man, not god.
      http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/sinaiticus.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • John Q
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 10:52am

      there is no such thing as a “liberal” marine. If you made the mistake of trying to join the real men would of sent your queer ass home after giving you a proper beating. The military is no place for social experiments. It has a job to do – protect the country, even those queers in it that don’t deserve protection.

      Report Post »  
    • leopiazzaiii
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 11:48am

      When has marriage ever been anything else then a contract between one woman and one man. Sence the time woman and men began posessing objects.. Ie.. Cows, land, ext… We made contracts between one family to another family of marriage to bind the woman and man to a bond, so that they could build up on the to families posesions. Then the church of all religons started to become the rule of law and imlpimeted marriage a sacared bond between your god and your family. We then began to remove the church with government and governments all took the bond of one woman and one man as a binding contract, such as a business contract to be law.

      This is the only area Beck is wrong. We can not rid government, nor which ever church from these contracts due to the posesions each side brings into that marriage.

      Last, but not least why do we not call one man, one man civil unions, or a partnership? Due to the people who want so much the word ” marriage or is it more?

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 12:00pm

      Here is another Marine’s two cents. Get gov’t out of marriage, period! Marriage is a religious act. The only reason it is in the gov’ts purvey is because a contract is formed. Separate that contract from marriage and we’re done talking about this. Separate IRS tax code from marriage and we’re done.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 1:21pm

      @FANGBANGER
      the fish symbol is another example. take an existing symbol and change the meaning.
      ——
      Your problem, FANG, is that you think research involves only spouting info. Not so. That info has to be weighed and the appropriate links made to posit a scholarly claim or hypothesis. You fail miserably to do that. For ex., you take an idol used by pagans and link it to a Christian symbol without the slightest evidence that there IS a tie. I showed you that the word was used within a cultural context of its own, with a unique meaning and serving a distinctive purpose. “Fish” was a staple food, and in fact a word frequently used by Jesus because He referred to things that were common to the culture He lived in, as does any good teacher. Christians took that word and made — not an idol out of it — but a SECRET code to identify each other in a time of persecution. You are making a historical link based on the false assumption that because a word is used in another context, by another culture, in a different setting and for different purposes, there is a de facto connection. That is flawed reasoning and shows poor research skills on your part. The result is a false conclusion, based on no evidence at all. (CONT.)

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 1:35pm

      @FANG (CONT.)
      Similarly, you place the fish symbol in “Christian” Rome, even though there is evidence (you can find it on the Internet) that it was used by early Christians when they were being persecuted by Rome. As I said, it was a secret manner of identifying each other in a time of great peril. You choose to ignore the facts and fit it into the wrong historical context, because it allows you to further your argument. More than shoddy research, that qualifies as intellectual dishonesty. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? You come across as a troll or a very inept person, pal. I don’t see the point in us debating this any further.

      As to 10th, the problem is you two are talking different languages. He is “talking Christian” as a Christian, and you are talking about Christianity as an atheist or whatever. So you are talking over each other regarding that point. (In re the Constitution being based on Judeo-Christian values, he proved you wrong, pal.) Bottom line, there is a difference between a state-sponsored religion and what the state (Constantine, Obama, Chavez, etc.) do with it, and true Christianity. Voilà. Chew on that one, if you can.

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 1:45pm

      @helicop
      In my Marine Corps of 25 years ago, the word “LiberalMarine” was an oxymoron. Must be a Hollywood Marine.
      ——-
      Well, sir, my gut feeling tells me this is just one of the regular trolls who decided to use the word “marine” in a debauched context, to anger us Blazers.

      Thank you for your service.

      Report Post »  
    • SJvet
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 5:12pm

      Actually, it has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman, unless you consider the polygamy extolled by Mohammed and some Mormons. It has NEVER been about two of the same sex, and the entire concept is ridiculous, but a lot of people are buying into it these days.

      Report Post »  
    • another pucker
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 5:14pm

      The purpose for living beings is most importantly to procreate! This, in human beings, with moral beings, is for a man and woman to fall in love and decide to pledge to go through life with each other. To have a family and to teach their children to grow up and be moral human beings who will have a family of their own and contribute positively to society. This cannot truly be done with 2 of the same sex. This all being, if we had not allowed over decades, our morals to be polluted because of fear of offending someone.

      Report Post »  
    • MS Patriot
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:09pm

      Marriage is the union of two people of the opposite sex. If the government would like to include “Civil Unions” to have the same rights, they should call it as such. It is not a marriage, but a governmental union of two people’s rights. Marriage is the Holy union of two people by God. If you don’t like my Christian viewpoint, ask your Muslim, King Hussein what the Koran says. If you are Muslim and gay, you are more likely to be beheaded by your father than be able to join in a civil union with your significant other. It’s amazing how all the minority groups single out Christianity as being intolerant, when they accept the rights of Muslims to be intolerant of gays, women and children to have human rights. The same rights that Christians believe are afforded to all. Have your civil unions, but leave those unions recognized by God alone.

      Report Post »  
    • MS Patriot
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:24pm

      In the Christian church it has been. And the church defines marriage as the union of a man and woman in the eyes of God. So if you are not a man and woman, you need something else to call your union. I would suggest the government use “Civil Unions” and leave marriage to the church. It can recognize both, in a way it already does. I’m surprised that those of the alternative lifestyle would accept the Christian definition for their union.

      Report Post »  
    • foobear
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 12:38am

      @SJVet: “Actually, it has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman, unless you consider the polygamy extolled by Mohammed and some Mormons.”

      Or, uh… in Judaism.

      Judaism, as written in the book, does not work without polygamy.

      One of the foundations of its social order is Levirate Marriage. What this means is that a widow whose husband died will marry a brother of the husband. This both takes care of the widow’s welfare, but also allows the widow to produce an heir to the dead husband (the first child from the union is the legal heir), allowing land rights to be preserved.

      This law was so important that it existed *before* the Law was given down by Moses (see Judah and Tamar), so important that men who refused to honor the Levirate were ridiculed in front of the town (and killed directly by God in the case of Onan), were so important that they superseded the laws on incest (normally you can‘t marry a spouse’s relative), and were upheld by Jesus in the New Testament.

      I’ll say it again – our religion has a polygamous foundation. Pretending otherwise is just willful ignorance.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • CMBigdog77
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 1:07am

      Hey ******, where is there any proof that gay marriage was ever legal anywhere in history? The Bible says God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah because of homosexual activity along with many other sexual indiscretions. Whether or not you believe the Bible, they have found evidence of where Sodom and Gommorah were.

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 1:34am

      @FOOBEAR
      …and were upheld by Jesus in the New Testament.
      ————–
      Wow, I’ve read the NT many times and missed that. Please remind me where Jesus upheld it. Although technically the levirate is not a polygamist or incestuous practice, as Christians we do not practice it.

      You are right that Jews practiced polygamy for a long time. Jesus, however, made it quite clear that it was NOT God’s original intent. I cited that passage, if you care to read it. God was very patient with Israel. That doesn’t mean He agreed with everything they did. Our foundation is Judeo-Christian, but Christ is the cornerstone.

      Report Post »  
    • muzikant
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 2:04am

      we gotta start deleting all these liberal talking people on this site. they are seriously playing on my nerves… come on, gays… i mean guys… go talk on huffington post, or moveon.org, or something…
      man…

      Report Post » muzikant  
    • yHate
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 2:18am

      @COFEMALE

      Where you there? I mean, at the beginning?

      Report Post » yHate  
    • ginge
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 9:54am

      Are there any stats about how many gay “marriages” have been dissolved in divorces? Are there any stats about how gay unions have effected different cultures over history? It seems cultures become more and more depraved during their decline.
      As a Christian I believe in tolerance and prayer for gay people as many are afflicted with sex addiction. I don’t like children being lured down that path as they are confronted with this deviation every where they turn. It shows we are out of control of the world we try to provide for our children. Moe prayer seems the only hope.

      Report Post »  
  • @theJensenAmes
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:10pm

    Yes gay marriage is VERY important…yawnnn

    Why not talk about your boy Santorum and his raid on the INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN??

    Judge Napolitano exposes Rick for the big govt water boy he really is…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU&feature=share

    Report Post »  
    • Detroit paperboy
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:00pm

      The gay lifestyle has got to be very painful, in more ways than one !!!

      Report Post »  
    • MeteoricLimbo
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:04pm

      @theJensenAmes
      If you yourself ran you would be the perfect candidate. People seem to be like snowflakes, no 2 are exactly the same learning to deal with that would seem to me to be tolerance.

      Report Post » MeteoricLimbo  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:46pm

      I liked it when Glenn was exposing all the corruption and evil in government. We needed to learn about it all. Soros, Piven, Van Jones, etc. Giving his opinion on marriage is just that, his opinion. It is no more valuable than mine or anyone else’s on this site. What matters is what God thinks.

      Report Post » NHwinter  
    • escape_from_socialism
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:33pm

      Rick thinks if will dress up like pimp is sleeveless sweaters nobody will catch up on his bigotry. Come on Rick. You have surge, bc pastor Glenn give you good word on his “Holy Radio”. Now it’s time to face reality.

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:18pm

      I don’t condone the horrific killing of Daniel Perl. But come on-the guy was a clueless shmuck.Five minutes after we invaded iraq that anti arab zionist had to be there to see the americans shocking and aweing them.It didn’t get any better then that .They got his number and he underestimated their capacity for revenge and resistence. Not justifying what they did just saying.And the alquada people attacked us for our political unjust meddling with them-not because we’re not muslim.They saw themselves as freedom fighters.And when you invade a country people have the right to resist.And you condone the killing of countless iraqis,afghans, pakistanis etc.Your righteous indignation is simply anger that it wasn’t a one way street[we get to act in the world for our interests with impunity]..

      Report Post »  
    • WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges07
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:32pm

      @theJensenAmes – “Judge Napolitano exposes Rick for the big govt water boy he really is…
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU&feature=share ”

      GOOD LINK !! WATCH IT AND LEARN EVERYBODY !!

      Napolitano: “Rick Santorum, the surprise finisher in Iowa’s 3-way tie last night, is no friend of limited government. He says so himself. Listen to this radio clip. … It seems to me to be an overwhelming urge in the Republican Party is that none of these guys is the person we want to be the standard bearer.”

      Boaz: “Libertarians and TEA Party-ers and Constitutionalists and people who believe government has gotten too big don’t have many choices right now.”

      Report Post » WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges07  
    • KAdams
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 3:15am

      @Detroit:

      Just think of your declining years: sphincter flaccid (amongst other things), Depends™ (now in fashionable grey) to catch the a nal leakage. Sounds like a grand time to me.

      Report Post »  
  • poverty.sucks
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:06pm

    When Paul went into Corinth, there wasn’t a single Christian among the Corinthians. While Paul resolved to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

    Report Post » poverty.sucks  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:06pm

    I don’t care if gays want to consider themselves married, no matter how hard they try it won’t be considered a marriage in my eyes anyway. However, tax payers should not be forced to fund local, state and federal government benefits to the gay lovers of employees! We can’t afford it. If a private company wants to offer it, fine and dandy, that is up to them and their stock holders.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:21pm

      “However, tax payers should not be forced to fund local, state and federal government benefits to the gay lovers of employees! We can’t afford it. If a private company wants to offer it, fine and dandy, that is up to them and their stock holders.”

      And here is wher eyou lose your arguement. If the government is confering a benefit, it must do so for all. You are making the argument for dscrimination. It is not hte role of the government to determine who consenting adults have relationships with.

      Beck as usual is wrong, you can not boil down human interactions into math problems.

      The proper argument is what role those the government have in regulating the private behaviour between adults.

      Report Post »  
    • UNBOTHERED
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:30pm

      It is…always was….and always will be about money money money with Republicans.
      But Naturally…….. Money is the route to ALL EVIL.

      Report Post » UNBOTHERED  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:38pm

      Wrong again dunderhead.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • NSDQ
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:51pm

      “If the government is confering a benefit, it must do so for all”
      Why? Where is this written aside from the backside of the liberal brain stem.
      Should 4.0 GPA student financial aid be marginally reduced to accommodate the 1.0 GPA students
      Should all people has access to food stamps regardless of income?
      Should all people get EIC’s regardless of taxes paid?

      “It is not hte role of the government to determine who consenting adults have relationships with.”
      Relationships? no Obama hasnt gotten around to creating a ‘Relationship Protection Dept” just yet.
      The topic is MARRIAGE not relationships, pay attention

      “Beck as usual is wrong, you can not boil down human interactions into math problems.”
      So then just like God, personal responsibility and presenting cognizant counterpoints to an argument; You don’t believe in statistics either?

      “The proper argument is what role those the government have in regulating the private behaviour between adults.”
      Again the issue is MARRIAGE which is a PUBLIC status of two individuals, nothing to do with private behavior.

      Your arguments like your spelling and grammar are weak madame

      Report Post » NSDQ  
    • LondoMollari
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:59pm

      Exactly. If gay relationships are so great and wonderful, then all the activists like LiberalMarine have a constitutional right to take money out of their own paycheck and give it to gays.

      If they want to invest in gay relationships, they should do it themselves and quit trying to force it on the rest of us.

      Of course, from a religious standpoint, I think that homosexuality is a grave sin.

      Report Post »  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:02pm

      Glad you brought this up.Actually a very high member in the political circles involving the gay issue stated that this was one of the main reasons for the push forward of the gay marriage agenda.He advised against doing so.Please keep in mind he himself is gay.He’s advocating not to adopt gay marriage for this reason.I wish I still had the link for verification.I’ll see if I can find it in my hodge podge and post it.The guys right on the money.
      He stated he started looking for the reasons why they wanted to push it-considering every other facet can be legally taken care of without marriage.He discovered that was the reason.

      Report Post »  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:05pm

      I think the real question should be “should straight couples be given benefits at the expense of all other unmarried people?” Since all taxes are collected at the point of a gun it is essentially, why does does the state of marriage trump the property right of other individuals? Marriage is a private contract between individuals that does not confer any positive rights onto the spouses. There should be no laws regarding marriage and the rule of law should not be any different for a married individual than for a single individual. Any and all agreements between the spouses should be handled in private marriage contracts. If we privatize marriage, the issue of gay marriage disappears. Any individual may freely enter into contract with other individuals, and no one may use force to restrict entry into contract.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:55pm

      UNBOTHERED

      Money is an exchange mechanism, which is superior to barter except when the government inflates fiat money or when an oligarchy determines your wages & not the market.

      You are not bothered by much because you as obdurate as a rock.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:10pm

      @UNBOTHERED says:

      “Money is the route to ALL EVIL”

      You might have something there.

      Quite a few liberals I have met, get their kicks……on Route $666.00

      You might have to ask your parents to explain that one.

      .

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:44pm

      Or maybe even your Grandparents.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • boundforglory
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:50pm

      @unbothered
      Money is not the root of all evil, the LOVE of money is!! God doesnt hate gays, He loves them, He hates homosexuality! God hates sin, but loves the sinner.

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 3:18am

      With Obamacare, ‘benefits for spouses, significant others, etc.‘ wouldn’t be necessary. Or shouldn’t…..

      Report Post »  
  • kunman
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:04pm

    My dog and I have thought long and hard but could only come to one conclusion. We should get married. All the reasons that gay right advocates argue to accept their unions are there: I love her – she loves me. We are both consenting adults, etc. etc. And forget that fact that I have a human wife.

    Report Post »  
    • saranda
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:20pm

      If you are communicating on this level with your dog you have more serious problems than whether you can marry it. That is the problem with the animal and inanimate object argument, there can be no mutual consent unless you are intellectually challenged in which case you are not legally able to make those decisions for yourself anyways. The discussion stops at marriage between consenting adults unless you are an idiot.

      Report Post »  
    • Togger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:44pm

      If your dog were a male Saranda would be ok with it…

      Report Post » Togger  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:13pm

      I caught your tongue in cheek humor.Will your wife act as best man women?Shes already a mother.No ,I don’t mean that mean.Animals are like children ,in so many ways.She now has two kids and dang it ,they are marryen each other.Poor Poor thing.I want to know where y’all are honeymooning at, after dealing with you two, I’m sure mom needs some time off.In case you haven’t caught on ,I’m joking with you ,well ,except for animals and men to be like kids.
      Don’t let it catch on here at the blaze that anyone has a sense of humor.We will be tarred and feathered.Its a sin remember.

      Report Post »  
    • 2776
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:19pm

      The animal marriage and pedophilia argument is insane and holds no merit. For one, I don’t care if you marry your dog…2 pedophilia will never ever be excepted by the people.

      I can create an insane argument too, in favor of the fact that christian fundamentalists are big government socialists… It starts out by using the courts and the federal government to regulate our lives, saying that gay marriage and the perverseness of people is destroying America so gay marriage should be constitutionally banned. Over time, we are still perverse and adultery is on the rise…so we ban bright colors, and perfumes that turn us on. But this doesn’t help because our significant others are going nuts over muscle bound athletes of the opposite sex, so we ban working out. And all competition must end because the winners are able to commit adultery more easily than the losers. Soon we are all walking around in a socialist utopia where nobody is offended, and every aspect of everybody’s life is %100 equal.

      Report Post »  
    • MS Patriot
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:32pm

      Unfortunately your dog can not communicate that she does love you, other than licking your face. She can not sign the marriage license either. Plus she may be underage in most states which means you may have charges of pedophilia added to those of bestiality added to your rap sheet.

      Report Post »  
  • Godfather.1
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:00pm

    Wait, isn’t Glenn Beck a libertarian? If so, he shouldn’t care if gays are allowed to marry. If gay marriage is not recognized, that is just more government control. Furthermore, he says that government should be out of marriage, but then says that we can’t have gay marriage. Well, if the government is out of marriage, gays can be married. You can’t have it both ways.

    Thus, Glenn Beck again shows his true colors – he’s a moron.

    Report Post »  
    • jasmer
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:10pm

      Looks like you didn’t read the piece – and maybe don’t understand Libertarian philosophy in the bargain.

      Beck clearly identified the problem as being Gov’t defining a religious and moral tradition, and that it would be better were the Gov’t to be completely out of such. Don‘t blame Beck for the fact that people don’t want the djinn back in the bottle.

      Report Post »  
    • Seth Levy
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:11pm

      I think it is more a case of two personal viewpoints clashing. Nobody is perfect and often time people follow more than one ideology and train of thought. One day one or the other will win out IF he cares enough about the issue. I hope that he realizes the liberty path, that the government should 100% be out of marriage and that all of the legal benefits a marriage has should be transferred to a civil union as government sanctioned marriages are put to an end. I just got married and it was pretty frustrating to me that I had to pay the government for the ‘right’ to marry.

      Report Post »  
    • JPDevuyst
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:43pm

      @Godfather — seems like another dummy never read the article before commenting…

      Report Post » JPDevuyst  
    • DuckHawk
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:44pm

      No, if the government was not regulating marriage then it would be up to the church. Marriage is a religious ceremony showing the commitment of a man and a woman under God. Therefore the only way a gay couple could marry would be to find a church or some kind of religious group to do it for them. Since we are aloud to believe what we want, then no church could be slammed anymore for not performing a ceremony that they do not agree with. I‘m going to say that if there weren’t benefits associated with marriage then they wouldn’t even be this loud about the issue. It’s not about the commitment, it’s about the money. You are the one who is not making sense in your argument. The U.S. does not prohibit anyone from loving each other. I do have a question though. If homosexuality is something you can be born with then it would have to be a weak trait? Correct? Therefore over time, the trait would die off since they can not procreate. Whether you believe in evolution or just survival of the fittest. Sure, you may have one pop up every now and then, but you couldn’t have a flourishing society of homosexuals.

      Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 11:27am

      Did any of you read the article? He said he wants government out of marriage but in the same breath said that we can’t change the law. Thus, he is saying that the government should get out but that it also shouldn‘t and that we shouldn’t change anything.

      Just like Blaze reporters, Beck fails to remember what he just said in the previous sentence.

      If Beck doesn’t want the government telling him what light bulbs to use, then why does he think it‘s ok for the government to tell you who you can and can’t marry? Either way it’s government control. But then again, anti-government conservatives aren’t really for a smaller government, they merely want it to regulate different things.

      Report Post »  
  • Komponist-ZAH
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:59am

    “I have exactly the same opinion on gay marriage that President Obama has. Exactly. Unless he’s lying.”

    Wouldn’t be the first time…

    Report Post »  
  • sWampy
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:58am

    The local talk radio station said he was wrong, they want him to just lay down, and say homosexuality is lost, it’s now considered normal. My parents did that in the 60′s with sex, in the 70′s with abortion, and again in the 70′s with homosexuality. Did the liberal say ok we won and stop their attempts to take our freedoms and enslave us, no they step it up a notch and started replacing the ropes with chains. It’s not a time to admit defeat, it’s a time for bold stances and confront our children and show them that the lies they have been taught in school are just that lies.

    We have to get over our fear of being called names. All the twin studies were done on homosexuality in the past, the data is still there, it’s 100% learned behavior, 0% genetic. We just need to go to the stacks pull out the books where the librarians, professors, scientists hide them in the 70′s for fear of being called names.

    The numbers are all there on abortion showing that planned parent hood lied, that the problem wasn’t a problem, it was an agenda. We need to demand the truth be told, and ignore their shouts of sexists, stick and stones may break bones, but words really don’t hurt you.

    The numbers are clearly there on sex education in schools, they said all these bad things would disappear if we only allowed them to teach it in schools, well it didn’t, they skyrocketed.

    They convinced our parents that the great society would end poverty, it didn’t it cau

    Report Post »  
    • deeberj
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:05pm

      I agree. Once a liberal gets what they ask for they want more. Never satisfied. Because they want everyone to agree with them on everything. Not be tolerant but agree.

      Report Post » deeberj  
    • UNBOTHERED
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:41pm

      I am going to help you conservatives out. This is the reason so many independents are afraid of you all. You have noooo problem saying something with no back up or proof. I would like for you SWAMPY (Because you are known for spewing comments with no references or back up) But I am going to give you the chance to explain to us, what proof or study proves homosexuality is learned.

      That is the most stupidest thought I have heard. Why would someone practice or learn to be gay. And how do you learn to be gay. Do they teach it somewhere. Is it taught in school. I hope you are not dense enough to think that a child becomes gay, by looking at other gay people. If looking at a person, turned you into that person, then why isn’t the entire USA Heterosexual. I mean aren’t there far more heterosexuals than there are gays. I have a friend who tells all of us, that she was gay at the age of 4. She never liked dolls, or her hair to be in braids or anything. She has never felt a liking for men. Only an arrogant bigoted smug Conservative would think that being gay was learned or taught. ONLY A COMPLETE MORON WOULD THINK THIS

      Report Post » UNBOTHERED  
    • RIGEL_ORION
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:25pm

      Bothered,

      Let’s take it the another direction. What is your favorite color? Why? What is your favorite food? Why? Do you prefer White Chocolate or Dark? etc. etc.

      We all are composed of thousands if not millions of preferences that make up who we are. Some of these are based in logic, but the majority are not. They are seemingly random preferences we all have selected at one point in our lives.

      Seriously, sit down and think about why you picked a color or food or anything like that? I doubt you can find any real reason other than the fact that you ‘just like it’.

      Are you proposing that I’m genetically predisposed to dislike curry, like the color blue, etc? Of course not, who we are is not genetic. Homosexuality/Heterosexuality is a preference we make at some point. I have no clue when or where or why. You say that you want a conclusive study that Homosexuality is learned. How about a conclusive study that its genetic. There isn’t one. If it truly was genetic, it would obviously be recessive due to its small percentage. Blond hair and blue eyes are true recessive genetic traits. Oddly enough, these traits have been getting rarer and rarer through the generations. Homosexuality, not so much. Doesn’t really seem to be genetic.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:31pm

      UNBOTHERED

      Actually I have seen studies/theories that look at nurture. Part of it was voice imprinting at a young age.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:39pm

      Unbothered

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_theories_of_etiology_of_sexual_orientation

      So far the only biological theory I have seen for gayness is xq28 & so far it has gone nowhere in a generation.

      The study was done in Italy. Italy is also a country noted for not really having much of a birth rate.
      The problem as Time magazine has pointed out is that Italy is a socialist paradise. The senior citizens get to retire to “La Dolce Vita”, which cause their grandkids to feel stressed out due to the high taxes. Being under much economic stress, the grandkids put off having kids. The stoopid drooling grandparents can’t figure out why they have so few grandkids. The reason is that they vote Socialist. That same economic stress probably leads to an increase in gayness.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:58pm

      @WALKABOUT

      Love the Italy story.

      I think even democrats might see the rationale in there.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • HAPPYRWE
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 2:26am

      Unbothered….. my best friends grandmother dressed his father (her son) up as girl because she didn’t get the baby girl she wanted, feminized him in many ways, then he turns around and takes his first born son to gay parades, feminizes him etc. etc. Many boys and girls were/are sexually molested and never receive counseling. Many of these children loose sight of their identity because of this and are now inspired and guided toward this lifestyle.
      These facts and countless stories are covered up and denied by the gay alliances.
      Most little girls don’t dream of becoming p rn stars or prostitutes, they came from broken homes, no love and sexual abuse……..
      Alfred Kinsey and other “scientists” sexually molested and tortured hundreds of babies and children all for the sake of “science”, but Hollywood and the Liberal gang won’t tell you this.
      If you don’t want to know the truth you will remain in the dark.
      Socialism and Communism are the enemy, just do the research….

      Report Post » HAPPYRWE  
  • Steve Neiling
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:57am

    I think heterosexuals need to shoulder some of the blame for the gay marriage debates. With a huge divorce rate, marriage itself has been somewhat cheapened. Many of the old concepts of the sanctity of marriage lie smoldering on the ash heaps of so many broken families. The epidemic of pre-marital and extra-marital sexual activity has also contributed to the dilution of the concept of marriage. In many ways, our society is at fault for the slow erosion of the relevancy of marriage.

    Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:25pm

      So the failures of married couples are responsible for two gay people wanting marriage? That is a new one. How about putting blame where it belongs. The two gay people wanting to get married, change the definition of marriage, are at fault here.

      From the beginning of time marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman. It served a purpose, two individual of the opposite sex to enter into a bond and to procreate. There is no other reason. Now, lets fast forward to “the coming out” phase of homosexuality. Now you put two males or two women together into a bond, so far so good. However when you bring in the natural time to procreate their is none. Two men – two women cannot procreate naturally. If they decide to have children they either need, in the woman’s case, come up with a sperm donor or adopt. On the men’s side, they either need to find a woman surrogate or adopt. This is not what God intended. However, lets take God’s law out of the equation as we know gays and lesbians do not believe in God or have God in their lives. Nothing changes. Men with men and women with women can’t procreate naturally.

      The gay marriage thing only came about because they want to reap the benefits of marriage; it does not necessarily mean they are committed to each other. Change the minds of the IRS and/or companies to receive heath benefits, to be recognized as a legal partner with all the rights and benefits? Why do they not do this, they want to redefine marriage, that is

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • RIGEL_ORION
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:25pm

      The only blame hetersexuals have is in letting Progressive’s shame them from speaking out against moral decay because they themselves have not been perfect in their marriages/lives. Accepting additional sin doesn’t relieve you of yours, it just makes you additionally responsible for the decay of the youth you allowed this new society to corrupt.

      Report Post »  
    • Steve Neiling
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:29pm

      @Cofemale
      No, I’m just saying that the failure rate of heterosexual marriages has cheapened and/or diluted to some extent the institution of marriage. I believe this has provided an impetus to the gay marriage debate. I did not say it causes the sin of homosexual behavior nor somehow legitimizes it. I simply think the deterioration of the traditional institution of marriage has helped create a sort of moral vaacuum, that’s all.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:48pm

      It think a society with high taxes contributes to broken marriages as does time away from home.

      One hundred fifty years ago an Englishman noted that the wives of traveling salesmen had a higher than normal rate of cervical cancer. Fast forward to today & look at people who spend significant portion of their life away from home, truckers, sailors, soldiers & salesmen. Were these inherently bad people when they were 18, who thought I know I’ll get married screw it up & then get divorced.

      I would bet as we have more short haul trucking rather than long haul trucking, we get a decreased divorce rate in families where one spouse is a truckers.

      If we re-elect Jimmy Carter as President, we’ll get 15 month deployments again instead of the normal 6 month deployments & we will have higher divorce rates in the military.

      Some of the factors of the divorce rate are high taxes & industrialization not that people have inherently gotten worse.

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 6:18pm

      Actually the path was open when the division between legitimate and illigitimate children ceased to exist. Once a parent has to pay child support for children he sires outside of marriage-marriage loses it’s import.The power [economi,social ,] of the nuclear family dwindles till it’s a free for all. Today it’s gay marriage, tomorrow it’s polygamy!

      Report Post »  
  • Eliasim
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:54am

    Guess what. The government shouldn’t be regulating on what qualifies as marriage. And people shouldn’t be getting tax-breaks because they are or are not married.

    Report Post »  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:27pm

      Yeah I couldn’t agree more.For what its worth even the treasury agreed with us just forty to sixty years ago.I’m trying to get interest in a tax bill that would simplfy the tax code.Its called 531.YOu would only be taxed at one percent of earnings if you below a certain amount going to 3then 5.Its based on your earnings not your marriage or child status.
      The whole premise is based on what a individual or company earns.It can’t go any higher than five percent period for individuals or companies.I don’t have space here to explain all the benefits to it,
      It would be put into place instead of what we currently have, not on top of it.

      Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:51am

    “The equation Beck is referring to involves the notion that one man plus one woman inevitably (and historically) equals marriage.”
    ““Our laws were based on God’s laws. If you don’t like that, fine. Fine. That’s totally cool,” he said. ”

    Uh. Our laws are grounded in the Constitution, which has Judeo-Christian influence but is secular in nature. Coming from a religion (Mormonism) with a history of polygamy (and let’s be honest, Christianity has the same history; just in the OT, not the NT), I find Beck’s revisionism laughable. Historically, marriage is a man and a woman in the US. However, legally marriage is whatever the people decide it to be. Right now there’s a federal law stating only one type of marriage is accepted by the US government, and that’s one-man, one-woman. However, there’s nothing in the Constitution on the topic.

    He’s right in that the Constitution has to change if you want to make it clear. Either you leave it open to the states (which is the current state of things, and will happen federally as well if DOMA is challenged and overturned), or you mandate it one way or the other (which will happen if a Constitutional amendment is brought up and passed).

    Report Post »  
    • jasmer
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:07pm

      Uh, Locked, FYI Beck is a relatively recent convert to LDS. Sounds a little like you’re using the “magic underwear” sneer to discount his position.

      Report Post »  
    • Andy Cooper
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:13pm

      Christianity did not exist in the Old Testament. Christianity has been monogamous since the Pauline missions, in other words, since the time the Gospel was offered to the gentiles. Gay marriage was and is wrong, and that is a cultural norm. Our culture is Judeo Christian. The root of culture is cult, Latin for religion. Our law is based on a shared set of values, and those values are found in the Bible. Those who go against our shared values are perverted, and wrong.

      Report Post » Andy Cooper  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:31pm

      @Andy Cooper

      Are laws are written by men and have evolved through the years as we as a people have changed and evolved. The Goat Herders Book of Myths is not relavent with matters of law, laws are divine. The game of Baseball and Corporate Greed are our shared values, more than ancient supersitions and myths. As is typical with COnservaive Christians, you forget that the Nation is secular and not all people beleve n the same made-up Sky Father.

      Report Post »  
    • Lordchamp
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:32pm

      You are incorrect. Our Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian concepts but also what’s called natural law which the Founders were very familiar with. The concept of our rights coming from God also comes from natural law. So with that in mind, it‘s very hard to justify that marriage is anything except between one man and one woman since man and man or woman and woman cannot procreate which is the reason for marriage in it’s most base meaning. The continuance of the species.

      Report Post »  
    • JPDevuyst
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:48pm

      @andycooper — it is true that christianity didn’t exist in the OT, but the history of Christianity has very large roots there.

      Report Post » JPDevuyst  
    • escape_from_socialism
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:53pm

      Wow, now Beck and his team blindly supporting Santorum. Bachamn is out, Cain is out, Perry packing, but didn‘t return room’s key yet. Gingrich a progressive, Romney GOP establishment. O, and Ron Paul. Pat Grey throw a fit and is treating Glenn.
      Well GOP field doesn’t look good.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:37pm

      @Jasmer
      “FYI Beck is a relatively recent convert to LDS.”

      I’m not sure how that changes the history of the Mormon religion. None of us were alive 2000 years ago; we’re all relatively recent converts to Christianity. Fact is, Mormonism had a firm basis of polygamy for years. As did the Old Testament of the Bible until the time of Jesus.

      @Andy Cooper

      “Christianity did not exist in the Old Testament.”

      That’s nice. You may have had a point, but you failed to make it. Christianity follows the Bible, made up of Old and New Testaments. Are you saying that the Bible does not have a history of polygamy?

      @Lordchamp

      “Our Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian concepts but also what’s called natural law which the Founders were very familiar with.”

      Could you identify the definition of natural law in the Constitution? The Constitution itself does not deal with marriage. The men who wrote it and signed it were primarily Christians. Their values (in their personal writings) often reflected those of their religion. But more important than what it’s based on is what it, and our laws, say. That being my point.

      Report Post »  
    • dlmarsh
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:47pm

      Actually most people don’t know that the US Supreme Court has ruled on marriage and so has the US Congress when several western states joined the Union – including Utah. The US Congress made it a stipulation that the state of Utah couldn’t join the Union until it made it state law or changed the Constitution for the State to say that marriage was between one man and one woman. WND.com had articles about this years ago with cites of specific cases and the situations of the states joining the Union. So the marriage issue has already been ruled on in precedent by the Congress and US Supreme Court.

      Report Post »  
    • jasmer
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:00am

      @Locked – nice strawman. We’re all fleas in geological time, so your claim that Beck‘s making these assertions because he’s a Mormon somehow remains valid?

      Report Post »  
  • Steve Neiling
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:49am

    Sometimes a thing is defined, or described, by its physical properties. We call two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen “water.” It’s safe to drink and necessary for life. I guess, using the logic of the gay marriage advocates, we can call one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of chloride “water” if we want. However, since its physical properties define it as hydrochloric acid, I would not suggest imbibing in it.
    My point-marriage is defined by its physical components: one man/one woman. You can mix the sexes together in any number and any gender you want but the resultant combination will not be marriage even though you may call it that.

    Report Post »  
    • deeberj
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:02pm

      Love your post.

      Report Post » deeberj  
    • PATRIOTMAMA
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:36pm

      @ Steve Neiling

      Amen brother. I love your simply put logic. Enter into a civil contract if you like but it doesn’t make it marriage. Well said!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • NOBAMA201258
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:00pm

      @Steve Neiling Well spoken ,thank you

      Report Post »  
  • yzf75044
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:47am

    Actually according to Merriam-Webster bigotry Definition of BIGOT

    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    Marriage in the past has had a whole host of meanings, definitions and characteristics.

    Report Post »  
    • Sirfoldallot
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:59am

      U sir r trying 2 change marraige to a perversion of who u feel. 1 woman 1 man is how the formula IS .!Freedom is allowing u 2 perform ur choice not redefining 4 all ur way of how u feel.

      Report Post » Sirfoldallot  
    • RIGEL_ORION
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:13pm

      Sounds a lot the definition of a gay activist.

      Report Post »  
    • NOBAMA201258
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:22pm

      Why don’t all you gaytheists just STFU and start your own civilization? Let’s see how that goes. We straight folk will have our descendants check in on you in a generation or two, hello? hello? You people better start practicing bending those knees,oh that’s right you gays are probably pretty good on your knees,but I don’t think the “Sky Father” approves of that type of kneeling! Wake up ,God is real!

      Report Post »  
    • RiggerMan
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:57pm

      @YZF75044 – Thanks for clearing that up. I have been witing for someone to give an honest definition of the liberal point of view….on everything.

      Report Post »  
  • LukeAppling
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:47am

    “gay marriage” is the equivalent of the “abortion” argument: “abortion on demand is simple ”let’s have sex with whomever we want and if a pregnancy results we will kill that result” it came our out the 60′s sluts who wanted no responsibility with their free sex. Homosexual marrriage is exactly the same
    “ let”s have sex with as many as possible and claim we want to be married to give the illusion of us being responsible”this came straight out of the bathhouses in San Francisco where you didn’t have to even see your partner and that is homosexuality in a nutshell.

    Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:51am

      You have no idea what you are talking about. That is the truth in a nutshell.

      Report Post »  
    • UNBOTHERED
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:52pm

      A few points here.

      Why do people keep saying that gay people are trying to change the meaning of marriage. First of all if you want to get technical…Heterosexual people have changed the meaning of marriage. I though marriage was supposed to be between two people. But how many marriages have nothing but cheating going on at alarmingly high rates. And divorce…Lord, please don’t let me get on the high divorce rate. So tell me people, do you think heterosexuals deserve to have benefits when they can’t even manage to stay faithful like God wants them to remain. Why is Santorum not constantly talking about the many marriages who are riddled with infidelity, while reaping the government benefits. This is just another attempt at certain people in the country being racist, bigoted and hateful towards people who are not the type of people they like or identify with. It’s about certain people wanting to tell others what to do and how to do it. Conservatives and their hypocrisy really disturbs me. They HATE HATE HATE Government in citizens lives, except when it benefits them. Like Abortion…Gay marriage. The right to sell and purchase contraceptives. It is really insane.

      Report Post » UNBOTHERED  
  • justangry
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:45am

    Talk about smoke and mirrors. Why is this such an important issue at this point of time? I personally think homosexuality is disgusting, but when picking my battles; it’s at the bottom of the list.

    Report Post » justangry  
    • sWampy
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:02pm

      They said this about abortion, they said this about the income tax, they said this about the epa, global warming, some time you have to stand up and fight, before you get buried to deep to dig your self out.

      Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:09pm

      Perhaps you’re right. But consider your own logic. They also said it it about the Brady Bill, Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. All out assaults on the Bill of Rights are more important to me.

      Report Post » justangry  
  • Biddle
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:44am

    Were the founding fathers Christians? Or were they Deists? Masons? What were they building here?
    Anyway, Beck makes a good point, if infact the definition of marriage is to be understood as he states.

    Report Post »  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:14pm

      many were masons (which dosen’t mean anything other that the were seeking truth- masons were from all religions and are highly spiritual), christians, jews, athiests, deists and subscribed to a host of philosophies. they were trying to build a country that was unafraid to seek truth and enlightenment. it seems we have left that view for the more traditions fear through dogma approach.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:44pm

      fangbanger

      Lying again. Atheist cannot become Masons. You have to believe in a higher power, period end of story. You cannot say there is no God or are no gods & become a Mason. Militant atheists need not apply to a Masonic lodge.

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 3:37am

      The Masons’ god is Lucifer. The Great Architect. It’s just one of the branches of the Illuminati(although ‘Illuminati’ is a name that’s phasing out.) Just for men, though. If you’re a woman and you want to worship Satan, you can join the Order of the Eastern Star. Hilary Clinton is a Grande Dame.

      Report Post »  
  • Eliasim
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:44am

    Glenn Beck really makes me laugh the way he talks about people in the Mid-East making people submit to their cause with the sword, all while Glenn Beck supports bombing Iran to make them submit to Glenn Beck’s cause. And Glenn uses that as a verbal sword against Ron Paul. At some point someone has to be the bigger person, and not make someone submit.

    Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:50am

      You’re if I may be so bold, pretty much the same way they are over there, except that they use the sword to spread religion, and you use it to keep your life-style. Then again, Mormonism does have it’s root in polygamy.

      Report Post »  
    • Baikonur
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:04pm

      Eliasim,
      Are you a Sufi, or Greek Orthodox by any chance? Sometimes you post very profound, esoteric thoughts.

      Report Post » Baikonur  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:01pm

      They want to make you submit, you want to make them submit, and neither one will end up submitting. Well, just get it over with then, and that way many, many lukewarm people will disappear quicker, and then all the righteous and the meek can walk with God again.

      Report Post »  
    • scuba13
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:11pm

      Why do you talk to yourself all the time?

      Report Post » scuba13  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:14pm

      Baikonur,
      Nope, neither of those, and No I’m not Muslim either, although their feet washing does fascinate however inaccurate their reasoning for it may be.

      Report Post »  
    • Baikonur
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:16pm

      @scuba13
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:11pm
      ‘Why do you talk to yourself all the time?’
      *************
      Eliasim is not talking to self. i like to read Eliasim’s posts.

      Report Post » Baikonur  
    • Baikonur
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:37pm

      @Eliasim
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:14pm
      ‘Baikonur, Nope, neither of those’
      *************
      OK, not Sufi, not Greek Orthodox, that only leaves Hindu or Jain. Yes?

      Report Post » Baikonur  
    • Vindex.Dogood
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:26pm

      “My solution is take government out of marriage entirely.”
      Hmmm, sounds like Ron Paul.

      http://youtu.be/aHAUilm5VjY

      Glenn Beck and the clowns on his show are easy to vehemently criticize Ron Paul on his foreign policy stance but rarely point out issues that they agree with Ron Paul. Especially when Paul is the only GOP candidate that supports the position. A listener may come to their own conclusions and we can’t have that.

      Wake up people. This is not journalism or even an honest opinion outlet. Beck is no better than the rest of the MSM that nudges their audience to take a position. And don’t dare to disagree with theirs. You will never get by their call screeners and will be shouted down by his clowns if you do.

      Report Post » Vindex.Dogood  
    • escape_from_socialism
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:49pm

      Vindex.Dogood
      I have the same conclusions. This middle-east wars don’t make any sense if you try to apply Glenns/Bush/Cheney logic. We are fighting 19 century small country with 21 century weapon for 10 years. Now we are provoking another oil rich country. Last thing what our administration/globalists want is to have peace with Iran. I think Iran is a key to middle east, not Israel. Get control over Iran, you have control over middle east, and Iran is a door to Asia.

      Report Post »  
  • yzf75044
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:43am

    Why does everyone thing that two comitted people will create a flood gate for MORE than two people to get married. I agree that the government should indeed be OUT of marriage. But I disagree that it wouldn’t still equal one + one equals two. AT THE extreme it COULD be 0.8+1.2 = 2. I still think it is the same 1+1=2. 1 apple+ 1 apple = 2 apples. :)

    Report Post »  
    • SurfinRallylizard
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:03pm

      ?? Because the argument is consenting adults should be able to make their own decisions and government can’t intrude on their choice… so if two men can “marry”, it’s then irrational to argue against any combination of consenting adults. Every argument you make for gay marriage applies to polygamist marriage as well. What people do in their own home, love between consenting adults, not a choice but born that way… go down the list. The real question is why does everyone care about (or want) governments involvement in marriage of any kind? If marriage was left between individuals, their God(s) and their church/group, this would be a non-issue and we could, just maybe, focus on our crumbling economy,

      Report Post » SurfinRallylizard  
  • love the kids
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:43am

    Why are there words like “texting” or “Sexting”, or “mobile phone”, aren’t they really “writing a letter, or sending a naked pic of yourself, or cordless phone? Funny how every other name gets created to define something, but for marriage, they want to change the meaning of the first word.

    Report Post »  
    • Baikonur
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:14pm

      @love the kids
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:43am
      ‘Funny how every other name gets created to define something, but for marriage, they want to change the meaning of the first word.’
      *****************************
      To most people, marriage means two consenting adults who love each other so much, that they make a lifetime commitment in front of family and friends. I don’t see what gender has to do with it.

      Report Post » Baikonur  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:36pm

      @BAIKONUR

      Would that be “most” Western Europeans like yourself that you are referring to?

      If so, you are probably correct.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • KAdams
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 3:45am

      @love

      That‘s the ’magic’ of the English language. It makes things that aren’t necessarily good, sound better than they really are. I’ll give you some examples:

      ‘Gay’ used to mean happy. Now it means homosexual.
      ‘Queer’ used to mean strange. Now it means homosexual.
      ‘Bear’ used to be an animal you’d find in the woods. Now it means homosexual.
      ‘F a g o t’ used to be a bundle of sticks, as meant for kindling or firewood, with the possibility of burning at the stake. Now it means homosexual, and has since been deemed ‘hate speech’. I never understood that one… unless the homosexual themselves were the ones to be used for kindling… Oh. Yes, I see now.

      Report Post »  
  • jriv88
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:42am

    notice how these liberal kids just want to shout him down instead of taking part in a discussion…so typical of liberals

    Report Post »  
  • love the kids
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:39am

    Let’s say Gay marriage became law, do you then think you will never hear complaints from the gays again, no, they will then go after the next thing. It won’t end.

    Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:44am

      I know, and since they aren’t really people anyways, who cares what they think and who cares about their civil rights?

      Report Post »  
    • Caniac Steve
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:45am

      I agree totally

      Report Post » Caniac Steve  
    • yzf75044
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:55am

      Oh dear goodness what will the gays go after next? To be equal with equal protections, equal tax codes, equal insurance – What will they want next tsk tsk tsk – I use sarcasm. This is what happens when the govt gets involved with marriage to begin with determining who should get benefits and such. They inserted themselves with IRS, Social Security, Health Benefits, allowing companies to offer benefits – had they stayed out to begin with – would any of this have been an issue.

      Me personally this is an example of Big governement needing more government to explain and regulate the big government. If you want to take away the “powers” gay seek by desiring gay marriage – then remove ALL govt benefits, rules regulations, stipulations tied to straight marriage. I think you will find that a great number of gays still want to marry and make public commitments of their devotion to each other.

      One last thing though – When will Santorum or Beck try to Outlaw Divorce except for the listed reason in the Bible? To protect marriage we should remove legal divorce.

      Report Post »  
    • mholliday
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:14pm

      @Godfather.1…. you don’t really believe that homosexuality is a civil rights issue do you? That’s simply not the case. It’s a selfish, self-serving issue regarding personal choices people make. Homosexuals are an extremely small percentage of our population, yet this topic and their ’cause’ has been forced on the rest of as something that affects a huge percentage of our population. This is the nature of the radical homosexual movement.

      Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:13pm

      They’re never going to be satisfied.

      Report Post »  
  • schroeder123
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:39am

    Does G B really want another candidate who will start another War ???

    Report Post » schroeder123  
    • justangry
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:51am

      I think he’s still trying to sort it out. His love for the constitution, morality and Isreal are conflicted. I still believe he’s a good man. Give him a chance to sort it out.

      Report Post » justangry  
  • dsind
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:39am

    One Man + One Horse=Fuzzy Math?

    Report Post »  
    • saranda
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:42pm

      Horse cannot give consent unless you are an idiot. Stupid argument.

      Report Post »  
    • dlmarsh
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:56pm

      Actually there are already Polygamy “rights” groups and bestiality “rights” groups that have already said they are going to push for their “marriage rights” also, so to say that gay marriage wont open floodgates to other forms of “marriage” also is a complete lie

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:10pm

      I asked my horse “how would you like to have sex with me?” and he said “nay,” so I left him alone. I asked my dog “how would you like to have sex with me?” and he said “rough.” That sure sounded like consent to me.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:20pm

      dlmarsh

      You are right. The Hawaii Free Press reported on supporters of the “Beyond Marriage” initiative supporters where for polyamory

      “Beyond Marriage The Confession: Hawaii Gay marriage advocates let the polyamorous cat out of the bag”

      http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2398/Beyond-Marriage-The-Confession-Hawaii-Gay-marriage-advocates-let-the-polyamorous-cat-out-of-the-bag.aspx

      Of course the whole Beyond Marriage movement makes sense when you look at the story of Nancy Pelosi giving the news to a gay couple that the Australian lover won’t be deported. What kind of situation is that? How is that 1 guy has AIDS & the other does not? One of them was screwing around. One of them catches AIDS & they have been together for 19 years. That tells me gay marriage won’t be any better than straight marriage & non-religious psychology tells me it will be much worse..

      Report Post »  
  • Godfather.1
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:38am

    Where is the Constitution does it say that marriage is between one man and one woman? Unless it says that, there is nothing in the Constitution that needs to be changed to allow gay marriage. Again, Beck swings and misses.

    Report Post »  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:44am

      exactly. as well as his point on having more than one spouse. if it is between consenting adult then its really nobody elses business.
      i do agree with beck that govenment really shouldnt be involved in parriage. they should recognize civil unions of consenting adults, but marriage is not governments business

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • Caniac Steve
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:51am

      he doesn’t miss based on the argument as it was and has been presented by the Gay community as a whole and in talking with several people of the gay community in my own community I have had the veery same conversation and they were stunned as they are the nicest folks to taslk with about a wide range of topics..but when their personal value system came into play..it was like someone turned on a light in a dark room…and they got thecpoint of the issue…and since then and while we still disdagree ..we can now talk about ANYTHING without anyone getting ugly or letting one’s personal predjudices showing for all to see…that’s progress baby…have a good week end..

      Report Post » Caniac Steve  
    • Brian
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:55am

      The Constitution doesn’t spell out a lot of things. He’s talking about historical precedent. One man, one woman marriage has been the norm since the country was founded (and much earlier of course). Therefore, an amendment would be needed to change that. The Constitution didn’t say alcohol was legal but it still took an amendment for Progressives in Congress to make it illegal. I agree that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, but as long as they pass laws based on marriage, such as tax laws, there’s no way around it.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:34pm

      If anything the Constitution is clear that DOMA is unconstitutional, full faith and credit clause.

      Report Post »  
    • DogTags
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:11pm

      The Constitution is silent on marriage. Therefore marriage is a 10th Amendment issue. It is not unconstitutional to deny a man from marrying a man. States have the prerogative on marriage. That is the constitutional law answer.

      The ultimate answer is that God is sovereign over his creation. All government authority comes from God. God instituted marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Therefore, goverment does not have the authority to redefine marriage to include one man and one dog, or one man and one sheep, or one man and one blow-up doll, or one man and one man.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:37pm

      DogTags
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:11pm
      The Constitution is silent on marriage. Therefore marriage is a 10th Amendment issue. It is not unconstitutional to deny a man from marrying a man. States have the prerogative on marriage. That is the constitutional law answer.

      The ultimate answer is that God is sovereign over his creation. All government authority comes from God. God instituted marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Therefore, goverment does not have the authority to redefine marriage to include one man and one dog, or one man and one sheep, or one man and one blow-up doll, or one man and one man.
      ______________________________
      Wrong, our Governments authority comes from its people, not God, he has no role in law making. Keep your made up Sky Fathers out of this.

      Second, if the government is going to give benefits, like tax breaks, or rights to property, the 14th Amendments equal protection clause demands all are treated equally. The government can not discriminate between different groups. Also DOMA is unconstitutional, a marriage in New York between two Men, which is lawful, must under the full faith and credit clause, must also be lawfully in Texas, Alabama and Kanas.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:05pm

      “Second, if the government is going to give benefits, like tax breaks, or rights to property, the 14th Amendments equal protection clause demands all are treated equally. The government can not discriminate between different groups”

      so you think pedophiles should be treated the same way as the gays…no surprise there.

      Report Post »  
  • BurntHills
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:36am

    if air comes out of obama’s mouth, he is lying. he‘s been placed in DC as the soros puppet who’s exceeded his handlers expectations, and he’s only waiting to completely destroy America. there will be no decency or ‘marriage’ if he is re-elected. there will be only more deviate degeneracy and communism and sharia law, all =he thinks= regulated under his thumb as der fuhrer..

    Report Post » BurntHills  
  • glutamine.sr
    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:15pm

    no you’re nuts! and you should really not be heard from. your tiny minority needs to shut it

    Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 13

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love