Did GOP Rep Really Compare Gay Marriage to Incest?
- Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:03pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Republican Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO) is taking some heat after some controversial comments she made during a speech to The Eagle Forum, a right-leaning organization that encourages college students to stand up for conservative values on campus.
In addressing her opposition to gay marriage, Hartzler used the “slippery slope argument.” If you’re unfamiliar with this debate mechanism, allow me to recap: This is a classic form of argument in which a small or medium-sized first step (in this case legalizing gay marriage) has the potential to lead to a chain of related events . In the end, there is a significant alteration or “effect” as a result of the initial change (i.e. a loss of morality in America).
In analyzing video of Hartzler’s speech, Right Wing Watch claims that she made some egregious comparisons:
…Hartzler compared gay marriage to polygamy and incest, and later argued that we shouldn’t give equal marriage rights to gay couples just as “it’s not a right of a three-year old to drive a car.”
Other outlets have mirrored this charge. While some may argue that Hartzler’s comments were outrageous or over-the-top, they were not necessarily direct comparisons. Instead, it seems she was employing a common debate tool (the slippery slope) rather than directly paralleling the legalization of same-sex marriage with polygamy, incest and other similar behaviors. At one point she explains that legalizing gay marriage could lead America down a road in which a marriage license means nothing. This “road” she refers to is the “slippery slope.”
Disagreeing with her is one thing, but claiming she made direct comparisons isn’t exactly accurate. Watch a clip of Hartzler’s address below and tell us what you think:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 685 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 533 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 440 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 331 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 286 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 293 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 179 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 286 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (525)
Deda1
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:52pmNothing controversal about her statements. The only controversal is the homosexual community spreading disease amongst themselves and wanting the rest of us to pay for it.
Report Post »LaidBackTaps
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 11:46pmScrew Those Forsaken ****!!! Like us and our sins it is WRONG!
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:51pmAgree pretty much with TUMBLE and the like. It comes down to the same old thing that is as old as dirt – or…I mean Adam and Eve. What standard do we have for our laws? You HAVE to have a standard in order to have order, laws, successful, healthy families, society. The wise Founders looked at all their choices & history and came to the conclusion to use Biblical principles. There’s the great bone of contention as always. In the past, most accepted that, generally speaking. As is predictable with humans, we rebelled against that more and more over the years. Then it “progressed” to the liberal, Progressive Presidents who were anti-Constitution, biblical principles. One of the main ones was marriage, sexual laws (against incest, polygamy, beastiality, divorce). This woman’s argument is logical – human nature is to go downhill, not uphill (sorry libs). There are untold numbers of pet lovers, weird people out there — and I can guarantee you there’d be those who would want to marry their pets. If you don’t see the dangers for a society in those things, you’re indeed part of the problem & I‘m afraid we’ve got too many that fall in that category.
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:48pmI consider myself to be a conservative and if you have read some of my posts in other areas I think that you would agree with me. That being said I believe that any Church that refuses to marry a same sex couple because of their religious beliefs should not be in any way penalized. That is their right. At the same time if another Church does marry them, the same goes. It is their religion. I do think that same sex partners should be married in a civil ceremony. One is religious and government should stay out of religions as much as possible. The other is government and their should be equal treatment by the government. And no, I am not gay nor is my wife. We are also unrelated.
Report Post »mauijonny
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:48pmShe wasn’t comparing, she was, as it states, just making the slippery slope” argument and – it’s a good one: I know a woman who takes care of her disabled brother. After the gay union bill passed in here in HI, she commented on how she‘d like to be able to get into a ’civil union’ with her brother so that she could collect the benefits the same way the wife of a disabled man would be able to do. As it stands, she gets none of his benefits…
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:45pmI link it more with bestiality than incest.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 4:52amEither way, they’re all 3 an abomination
Report Post »Scottscobig
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:45pmTwo major reasons why gay relationships are inferior to straight: 1. They don’t produce children, our most precious commodity. 2. As their acceptance progresses, two-parent (mother AND father) families will continue to diminish into a relic of the past (like freedom and too many great bastions of our culture.) This and other distractions and evasions of the responsibility to have and raise children make it ever more acceptable to do anything and everything else besides provide a home for kids. All kids deserve to grow up with a mom and a dad in their homes.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:36pmJust don’t call it marriage. It seems the copyright on that word has been taken. What I would recommend for the folks who pitch for the other team is, call it something different. These are human beings who love eachother enough to enter into a contract that promotes monogamy. The comment this lady expressed has no similarity of what these folks are trying to do.
Report Post »kalli
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:36pmThe only people who would disagree with this Rep are those who have no morals and think they are so above everybody else in the world that they can do anything they want. It’s their life and they do as they please. No matter that this lifestyle is an abomination to God. I believe this country is under God’s wrath for turning away from Him and His commandments, and could be reaching a “state of no return.” We are Sodom and Gomorrah..and we all know what happened to those cities. This country is floating in the toilet bowl of sin, and God is getting ready to flush!
Report Post »Rob
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:34pmReligious nuts always make us look bad.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:50pmBy “us” I guess you mean that I am included in that group?
I’m transgendered M2F and I fully understand what the congresswoman is warning against.
If the government can call it “marriage” under law, they can impose a moral standard on the private observation and practice of any religion and force those religions to in effect “rewrite” their books.
THAT IS DANGEROUS!
Call it anything EXCEPT “marriage”, separate but “legally” equal.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:51pmRighteousness exalts a Nation, but sin brings reproach to any people.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:12pmNo Rob, you’re looking bad all by yourself.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:20pmI agree BoMustGo, this is in fact an imposition of “legal standards” upon religious practice and it undermines the spiritual nature of the nation as a whole.
I used to be just as godless and just as liberal, not all of buy into the radical’s agenda, some of us actually consider our liberties fully and the responsibilities that come with them.
Calling it “marriage” strips religions of the right to govern their own sacraments and teachings, this is a VERY wrong headed idea.
The danger of this is the potential for the imposition of “state atheism” in direct contradiction with the first amendment.
Report Post »inferno
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:01pmReligious “nuts” as you call them, only point to your warped beliefs. Your actions make you feel bad, which they should. Haven’t you ever heard someone say “I feel bad about what I did ?” That’s because they knew it was wrong without being told. It’s the same as looking in the mirror. Sometimes we don’t like what we see, whether anyone is critical of our actions or not. You alone are responsible for what you do.
Report Post »trooper
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:32pmWhen will this utter blasphamy end, men should not marry men and women should not marry women. It’s filthy, discusting, evil and mostly, against gods words. In this particular crime I do believe in the muslime way of taking care of the probem and that’s with a “rope”!
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:40pmWow. Unbelievable. You call yourself a freedom loving American?
That was disgusting. You think your God is proud of your statement? Two consenting adults love each other and want to commit to each other. If he thinks that’s wrong what does he think of the man that wishes to KILL those two for who they are? I’m pretty sure Jesus taught otherwise….. pathetic….
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:48pmFreedom means we are free to do what is right! It does not mean we can do anything we want.
Report Post »ghost-of-elvis
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:57pmvengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord…. enough said
Report Post »Citizen_Joe
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:32pmThis has become the status que for this day and age where the truth as simple and obvious as it is… is concidered to be controversial and inflamitory.
Report Post »Seabee79
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:31pmHey the f.a.g.s and lesbos opened the door. if they want to get married why stop there. nothing wrong with what she said.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:31pmWhat is to say if the government “legally recognizes” gay marriage that they will not say to churches “you MUST recognize and perform these types of services in contradiction of your beliefs or you will lose your charitable or tax exempt status”?
Could you imagine the horrendous effect on charitable giving if say for instance the Catholic church was to lose their tax exempt status because they say no?
I agree with the congresswoman this IS a very bad idea and it IS indeed a VERY slippery slope.
Report Post »CaptainKook
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:28pmComplete nonsense.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:44pmI’ll bite CaptainKook,
What is wrong with a separate but equal legally recognized “civil union” or “legal partnership” as opposed to the term “marriage”, which is a specific RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT between ONE man and ONE woman????
What exactly is the “specific undue harm” imposed on gays and lesbians by calling it anything other than “marriage” but with absolutely equal legal status?
Report Post »CaptainKook
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:51pmYou believe in scary conspiracy theories.
I believe in the First Amendment and the Due Process clause – both of which protect you, too.
Some of the religious so-called “Christian” fanatics here would sooner burn you as a witch than allow you to live among them openly.
Marriage under LAW is a civil contract.
NOT ONE of the objections to same-sex marriage are based on anything OTHER than religious prejudice and beliefs.
The granting of marriage licenses thus must be free of such bigotry.
.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:05pmHas the second amendment been imposed upon through statutes?
How about three four five?
Your argument that this is a “conspiracy theory” is ludicrous and legal history proves you to be absolutely dead wrong!
“Some of the religious so-called “Christian” fanatics here would sooner burn you as a witch than allow you to live among them openly”
THAT is a load of crap, everyone I know is VERY CHRISTIAN and VERY CONSERVATIVE, this lie of yours is absolute garbage.
I only have a problem with one member of my family and one neighbor and BOTH are extremist radical liberal atheist dirtbags just like you!
I used to buy the exact same garbage you have spewed here but unlike you, I grew up.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:22pmCapt’n kook, was the religious practice of polygamy protected by the 1st amendment when Utah entered the Union? No, it wasn’t.
What can be prohibited can also be imposed.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:41pmMissy8s,
While I agree with what you say I do not understand your status. You say you are a “transgendered M2F”, by which I take it that you are a man who has been surgically altered to live as a woman. Surely you are ware that, compassionate as we might be to whatever compelled you to such a course, most conservatives will not recognize you as a woman but as a man, if only a mutilated one. You would not be permitted to marry a man in a conservative church and, due to your obvious intention to live as a woman, would also not be allowed by the Catholic Church to marry a woman.
If you really want to defend marriage then you must defend our created sexual nature and God’s intention for it, which means coming to terms with whatever has alienated you from your own. To pretend you can alter your own created sex is as disfunctional as the liberal claim that sexual distinction doesn’t matter.
If you were born a man you cannot be a woman, ever. Rather than trying to be what you cannot be you should learn how to be the best man that you can be, and we come in all stripes, and all imperfectly.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:34pm@ Islesfordian , Transgendered people do not live thier lives just to suit your vision of the world. I could care less that you cant undestand our status, I am sure there are a great many things you cant understand. I do understand that you have the right to have your religous beliefs and I believe whole heartedly that you should have that right. I am a veteran and I fought for that right. I also understand that same right is extended to me and if I wish to exercise my right in a manner that is not congruent to your beliefs, I still have the right to do so. I do not believe as you do. You have a right to be a Christian, I also have a right not to be one. If you want to preach a sermon, preach to yourself, dont preach to me. I do not share your beliefs and I never will. Why is it though that I do have to live my life limited by your religous doctrine? What gives you the right to force your beilefs on me? Why do I have to live my life observeing your faith when I am not a follower of it? Isnt that the same stuff Islam does when is forces sharia law onto a population? How are you ANY DIFFERENT? My beliefs arent respected or observed now, I have to bow down to yours. I have lived under the American taliban for 49 years now. The same first amendment that gives you the right to your faith also gives me the right to be free of it. Be Christian all you want, just keep it to yourself. I am also transgendered and like it or not, God made me to. I do believe in God, just not your God.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:48pmCherynn, I wasn’t preaching to you. But you most certainly have preached at me.
See any irony there?
You are free to live your life as you please. I’m not stopping you. But don’t expect us to accept your status as reality and pretend that you are not what you were born as, which is how we believe God actually made you. Are you trying to force us to accept your religious and psychological beliefs?
Again, irony.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:50pmIslesfordian
I forgive for your misunderstanding and I defend your right to believe as you do.
I am on very firm footing with God.
We understand each other and that is what matters, you are placing far to much value in the material definition of gender and ignoring the metaphysical for the sake of an argument that favors your position.
I leave you in peace and suggest a rereading of Matthew, Phillipians, John, Jeremiah, 1 Corinthians and proverbs, find your guidance there and then ask yourself again if you are right in this erroneous judgment.
I refer you back to your pastor or priest for further guidance on this issue, I spent twenty five years of my life reconciling my incoherent disagreements with God and we made peace on them.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:52pm@ Islesfordian accepting my beliefs would be fair, you already force yours on me.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 11:24pmCherynn, it’s idiocy to say I force my beliefs on you. I merely state them. You are free to disagree. Yet you say that I must “accept” your beliefs to “be fair”. Do you accept mine? I don’t see how you can. I don’t expect you to accept them untiland unless you agree with them. I don’t consider you unfair to disagree with me, as I disagree with you.
Missy8s, If you want to argue theology and the Bible we can, but I sense you prefer not to. But it would make sense not to call my views “erroneous” if you don’t want to debate the issue.
My point is that you cleary have chosen a postion of defending traditional marriage while claiming to be transgendered. Surely you must be aware that the circles that would embrace your opposition to gay marriage and also accept your reality as transgendered are very small. Acceptance of transgender and acceptance of gay marriage usually go hand in hand because they share similar views of the our created sexual nature. I understand people can hold together contradictory views but a contradiction as big as yours would seem to me to put an awful stress upon your psychological foundation. I can guess that you will disagree with that, but tell me, how big is your support group that will affirm your twin beliefs I mentioned above? Or do you have to keep relatively quiet about one of the beliefs in whatever church you attend?
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 11:50pmIf your religous beliefs are not forced upon other people, why cant gay people get married? Specifically what is the LEGAL reason to prevent them from marrrying? Dont bring religeon into this explanation either,,,,,,,its not being forced on anyone. Give me the reason in pure legalesse. What criminal code does it violate? You take forcing religous beliefs onto people out of the equation and there is NO legal reason to prevent gay people from being married. Religeon used to own marriage, they lost that right as soon as they allowed the government to get involved in it. Does God require you to have a license to get married??? Funny you cant get married without that governement permission slip. If I am wrong, please refer to me to the part of the bible that discussses the licensing proscess and blood tests etc.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 12:05amIslesfordian
The position you are taking is no less preposterous than liberals saying to me that I cannot be conservative because conservatives hate people like me.
My circle of support is VERY LARGE and VERY CONSERVATIVE, my history in my town goes back forty two years and nobody judges me for any part of it, warts and all.
The argument you are making is a classic liberal straw man insomuch as “if you don’t agree with me entirely you cannot be in my club” and that’s just silly.
This is a self serving position and I am very surprised that you would take it as a “conservative”, I haven’t had to have this argument with anyone in 20 years much less with a conservative.
I do not have to hide any aspect of my life present or past from anyone, you’re making an argument to support a belief that YOU hold here on Earth, that is what is erroneous in your argument.
Jesus could see a king in a shepherd boy and an Apostle in a murderer, you have taken his work upon yourself here on Earth and that is folly.
Your argument is akin to telling an aboriginal child with a cleft lip or clubbed foot that seeking repair and healing of their affliction dooms them to hell and that would be utterly ludicrous.
I’m sorry but you are failing God right now in his name and that has a price attached to it, you should know better.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 12:28amCherynn, I must disagree with you on this.
“Marriage” is a religious sacrament for the purpose of joining ONE man and ONE woman for the specific purpose of procreation, the phrase “gay marriage” is an affront to every major religion of the Earth.
Calling it “marriage” is a deliberate assault on religious beliefs as a whole everywhere.
Call it a “legal union” a “civil contract” or a “life commitment” but do not open the door to religious regulation by the state in the name of “defiance” of religious beliefs you do not hold.
I‘m here to argue IN FAVOR of the representative’s argument because I see a clear constitutional concern and a serious concern for mutually independent church and state.
You are correct that it is not anyone’s business what you do or how you live but it is also not your right to simply demand that laws are created to abuse religion for the sake of making a point.
Words have allot of power and “marriage” is one word which should be left to its original purpose and intent, pick another phrase that doesn‘t offend two thirds of the Earth’s population in one fell swoop.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 12:49am@ missy8s I agree with you disagreeing with me. My thoughts were rolling just on the “concept”. I totally agree that marriage is a Christian thing. I do believe it should be sacred to just them. I have no problem with calling it “legal union” a “civil contract” or a “life commitment”. I think it would be perfectly fine. Since the government is in the business of licensing marriage, they should also be issueing licenses to “legal union” a “civil contract” or a “life commitment” partners without objection from any religeous organisations. Those legal unions should also recieve the same legal benefits as a married couple. The unions you should also be recognised as being valid and equal to marriage, just not called marriage. I have no problem with that at all. This is the land of freedom.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 1:27amCherynn
The topic of my gender identity versus my religion hasn’t come up in twenty years and I have lived in the same city near Portland, Oregon for 42 years.
The last time I had this argument was with my former postal carrier when I came out, he was making the same basic arguments Islesfordian is here.
As I said before, I forgive his misunderstanding of this condition he is unaware of the medical specifics and that’s fine, there’s an “ick” factor that many, especially men, will never get over.
I personally would not wish what I have been through in my life on my worst enemy and I would expect that “most” people dem or rep would get that by now but that is something I cannot force.
You’ll probably find it hard to believe but I am a very hardcore conservative and nobody rips on me more for that than the democrats in my life, especially my oldest hardcore socialist brother.
There is a certain “club mentality” left and right that degenerates conversations from “I disagree” to “agree with me or else”, this is a symptom of the country’s big problems as a whole.
We need to disagree but we all have to live together as well and we are quickly approaching a point where I personally believe neither will be possible to achieve without walking the road through hell first.
Very tough times are ahead I pray we can all survive the insanity that is coming at us in the next several weeks or this country will crumble along with everything we know and lov
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 1:54ammissy8s Believe it or not, I am a lifelong conservative also. I believe the Constitution is the ultimate tool of a free people. Being transgender my whole life has been a challange to me also. This was never a “life style” decison for me. I think you’ll agree that its not a decisons you would make. It chose me, its who I am. And its my life, its who I am, not how I live. I also come from a conservative family and have the same HUGE support group that you do. I am still very close and involved with my whole family. I was brought up understanding that everyone was different and everyone had different beliefs that they were intitled to have. It was a big part of my understanding respect. Mostly what I was taught to believe is live and let live, and to treat others as would have yourself treated. I know I am far from perfect and have no right in telling another human being how to live their life. In the same respect, I also do not believe that others have the right to tell me how to live my life. It would be a better place if we minded to our own affairs and let others live thier lives. My beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others and I think all of us should live that way. It funny trying to force people to believe that its not right to force beliefs on other people. But what do you do? I think every one should live thier lives to the best of thier ability and grab as much personal success as possible without reguards to government intervention.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 6:48am@Missy8s
“The position you are taking is no less preposterous than liberals saying to me that I cannot be conservative because conservatives hate people like me.”
I do not say you CANNOT. I merely say that you are in an intellectually contradictory position. You might as well say that you are a free market conservative who believes in Cap And Trade or Obamacare. Conservatives don’t have to agree with each other entirely, but that doesn’t make the meaning of the term infinitely elastic.
But I can see from the rising righteous indignation of your responses that I have touched a deep nerve. I am not surprised. You KNOW you are wrong and lash out at those who point it out. I am sure that you have managed to drive away all friends who do not accept your self-mutilation until only those who won’t challenge you remain.
But why do you come here, then? Do you not know that there are such as I here? Do you think we will say, “Oh I guess it‘s OK to be transgendered because you’re with us on marriage”? I will make an alliance with an atheist like Christopher Hirchens against Islamic fascism but that won’t make me accept his hatred of religion. You come here presumably to argue a position, but your internal contradiction undermines your argument with either side. On one side you argue that male and female matter when it comes to marriage but then you make clear that birth and genitals mean nothing for male and female.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 7:02am@Missy8s
“Your argument is akin to telling an aboriginal child with a cleft lip or clubbed foot that seeking repair and healing of their affliction dooms them to hell and that would be utterly ludicrous.”
Actually, quite the opposite. I am the one seeking to heal their defect, and definig it as a defect. You have diagnosed yourself with a defect, and I do not disagree that you have one. We all have some imperfection. But you have diagnosed the problem being in your genitals rather than in your brain or mind. I am saying you have MISdiagnosed, and rather than fixing the problem have only forced the healthy part of you to conform to the unhealthy.
You are a man who cannot accept your gender. The problem lies not in your gender, but much deeper. You haven’t fixed anything. You have only hid from the pain. I pray that you will gain the peace to face the pain and gain power over it and stop denying what God made you.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 10:34amIsles,
Bullcrap.
Three psychiatrists, four psychologists, two pastors and my entire family aren’t wrong.
In over two years of conversation with fellow conservatives online you are the first one to make this silly argument and the first one I have encountered in twenty years before you.
You are misrepresenting God and conservatives, you are playing a liberal game equal to that of Fred Phelps and his loony bunch and I seriously doubt that you are conservative or Christian at all.
Pound sand.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 11:21am“Three psychiatrists, four psychologists, two pastors and my entire family aren’t wrong.”
They are pandering to you because they know what you are willing to hear and what you aren’t. Psychiatry long ago gave up good science in this regard and politicied their profession. Family usually learn how not to bring up serious disagreements that will cause division. Clearly you have inulated yourself among those who no longer bother to present to you the conservative consenus of these things. Get out more and read more widely.
Your pastor is who is really in danger for coddling a serious spiritual blindness. But I can imagine what kind of church he or she leads.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 11:30amMissy8s, the reason you may not hear these things from many conservatives is because they don’t want to deal with the angry responces you inevitably emote in responce. When people tell that you are wrong and you attack them and accuse them of “failing God”, of lying about being conservative and then tell them to “pound sand” they learn to stop challenging your beliefs anymore. That doesn’t mean they really agree with you. They just know that rational argument is pointless, so why pick a fight. I have no relationship with you and so nothing to lose. S I speak my mind and don’t hold back. You may disagree with me but I have gotten under your skin in a very large way.
Why do you think that is?
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:06pm@ Islesfordian, Transgendered people do not need your permission or approval to exsist. Just like a$$ holes dont need my permission to exsist. Again with forcing your beliefs onto other people and telling them that your god made them perfect. That is just a matter of perspective. It makes me wonder how perfect siamese twins are and if they are perfect,,,,,,why do doctors seperate some of them surgically? Why even have doctors or med schools or healers at all. Aparantly if you are sick or injured it is because God wants you to be sick. Curing the ill should fly in the face of god too, he made you sick and how dare a human healer interfere with that. Apparently God wants you to die from the flu or an infection or he wouldnt have given it to you. YOU are the problem I have with Christianity. I do not have a problem with the Christian religeon, just most of the a$$ holes that practice it. It would be easy to convince me that ALL Christians are like the WBC crowd but I do know that some are not. Small minds hide thier ignorance when they just whip God out at ya to end a discussion. If thats not the true case, why has the vatican spent centuries punishing and hiding scientific advancement and calling their discoverers heratics? Why was Galileo imprisoned by the pope for so many years? Maybe the pope understood that idiots are easier to control and you really prove that point. Why was salvation made a personal decision? Keep your religeon to yourself.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 8:26pm@Isles – you wrote:
Regardless, your question, “How then does it make LOGICAL sense to deny that one may be born with a birth defect, affecting the brain, which interferes with the “normal” gender alignment between brain and genitals?”, presumes that gender is due to the brain and genitals. It is due to something called DNA. That cannot be altered. The Chromozomes which create our gender cannot be changed. While there MAY be birth defects which impede the brain’s proper alignment with the genitals, this does not make changing the GENITALS the right solution. If I had a brain defect that made me see imaginary people the right treatment would be to fix the brain, not to indulge it.
first – are you aware that people are routinely born with birth defects dictated by pre-natal conditions and NOT driven by DNA? or is the child born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in the shape he’s in because of DNA? that alone undermines your point.
second – are you aware that there are a number of intersex condition which DO exist because of a DNA marker? How do you know for certain that the brain/genital misalignment is NOT the result of a DNA marker that is as yet unidentified? Are you willing to judge people in the absence of this knowledge?
Third – are you aware that there is NO EFFECTIVE TREATMENT for the brain side of that imbalance? Here’s one example of what happens when attempted with the best of intentions and resources:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/07/sissy.boy
Report Post »workinghard
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:30pmI’ve argued the same point. If you say marriage is a right to anybody that wants to get married then how do you start saying no to uncle/nieces. If gays have a right does that mean an uncle can marry his nephew under his new found freedom and rights? It is a slippery slope. Mainstream: go pound sand!
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 4:49amWhat a degenerating race we humans are becoming.
Report Post »bluematrix90
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:29pmShe’s right. A lot of people do not know what love really means. Same sex marriage is mocking god, and you don’t mock god!!!
Report Post »Saralynn
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:27pmI agree with her.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:27pmI am a gay woman conservative and the above comments are disgusting and ignorant.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:35pmThe truth hurts.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:37pmHang in there. They don’t realize the hypocrisy of their beliefs…
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:40pmI’m transgendered M2F and I completely agree with her comments.
What is to stop government from imposing requirements on the free practice of religious beliefs if they can impose a standard against their teachings that they must accept under penalty of law?
What’s next??
What if the government tells the Catholic church for instance, “you must perform these ceremonies or lose your charitable or tax exempt status”?
This IS the real danger, call it anything but marriage and the controversy goes away.
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:49pmI don’t have a problem with gays wanting to be committed to each other, in a leagally binding contract if you want. Mairrage is a religious institution, and our religion tells us that gay behaviour is an abomination. Have your commitment to each other, that is fine, but don’t call it mairrage and we can agree. I personally wouldn’t ever intend to try to change gay behaviour, it’s none of my business, but the insistance on being married is an insult to my religious beliefs. Perhaps if gays petitioned for the same rights and benefits as married couples after a commitment ceremony we could stop fighting about this.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:56pmUBETHECHANGE, I’m proud to be your fellow American. Take Care!
Report Post »pscully17
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:27pmTax Exemptions for Churches were established to promote a faith based society, which kept the American society ordered without massive police/government intervention, and at the time, churches were a huge source of charity work and the Government wasnt a caretaker establishment like the dems have villainously turned it into. The Church community established and promoted personal responsibilty, the Government has since taught the last 4 generations that they are a victim, we will take care of you visa vie lawuits for whatever wrongdoing you feel was imposed on you, manditory fees for every aspect of your life will be levied to help pay for the repparations for those who cant help themselves, even those who just choose to be lazy, and a leach of society.
Report Post »Mikhail Kennedy
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:46amI agree with Untameable Kate
Report Post »I couldn’t care less if the gays entered into some kind of civil contract and got the same tax breaks as married people. I do not want my church to have to perform or sanction this unholy union.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:00amChurches are not going to be forced marry anyone they don’t want to. The Catholic Church can still refuse to remarry people who have been legally divorced. If gay people could get marriage licenses almost all of them would be perfectly happy to be married by a judge or by a church that willingly accepts them. If a few people try to forcibly change the policies of their churches, that would be a fight worth fighting and I and most of the other people who are against you now would be on your side,
Report Post »Red1492
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 11:17amBeckwasfox – no, your idiocy is what hurts. Religious fanatics like you is why Obama is going to get another 4 years to ruin our country as all the Libertarians and Independents will sit the next election out.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 12:49pm@untameablekate – marriage long ago ceased being only a religious institution. Civil marriages occur every day.
And though you did not mention the Bible, it needs to be understood that all Muslims, Jews, Buddists, etc enter into marriage as well. This is not a Christian thing. Marriage is the union of two consenting adults, presently limited to one man and one woman.
Report Post »Baberaham Lincoln
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:49pmI agree with you. The comments on this site are generally a bit terrifying, but this particular post has brought out some of the worst. Stick with the libertarians, you’re not going to find any friends in this socially ultra-conservative group.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:25pmMarriage for all should be outlawed. It only makes money for the lawyers.
Report Post »Its Gonna Getcha
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:25pmShe’s definitely out of the loop.
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:31pmWhat loop is that? One in which any one can marry anyone? In that case she is right.
Report Post »Rob
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:52pmShe is Fruit Loops….
Report Post »Butterbean74
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:24pmI would agree, Sin is Sin.
God is not a respector of persons.
Report Post »johnrano
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:16pmshe’s right
Report Post »jacobstroubles
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:12pmbecause homosexual behavior if a vile abomination.
Report Post »randy
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:15pmAmen Jacob!
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:31pmThat’s your opinion and you are fully entitled to that opinion. However, you are not entitled to provide your own group with special privileges while excluding others. Either remove those privileges or allow homosexuals to benefit from those privileges.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:47pmIf one group is substantially different from another group you can most certainly give special priveleges to the one and not the other. We give handicapped plates to people with disabilities, not to able bodies persons. We give medical liscences only to those with recognized medical degrees.
Perhaps you should ask what is the reason and purpose of those special priveleges given to married couples. Why would they need them, and why would the government care? The answer is: children. Homosexuals do not produce children through their coupling. Thus no same sex “marriage” will ever be able to produce children in a natural way. Nor can homosexuals provide children with a balanced and healthy modeling of sexuality so that they can learn what it means to be men and women. To think a boy or girl raised by two lesbians is nopt going to have a screwed up view of sexual relationships is to have your head firmly up your rear.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:50pmMay I inform you, that there are many in our armed forces (whom which I proudly served next to) who have NEVER imposed their lifestyle on me. One of these proud Marines gave their life to the protection of our constitution which gives you the freedom to say what you will, but not to impose your views on others. Do not forget that these are human beings who are not infinging on you personally.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:55pmThe difference is that, although you view homosexuality as wrong, it is not comparable as a handicap person vs a full capable person.
Put four people in a room. One is a female, straight. The other a male, straight. The last two are gay men. All four have a full time career. All four pay equal amount of taxes. All four have never been arrested, not so much as a speeding ticket among the four of them. Why does the straight couple get tax breaks and other privileges while the gay couple does not?
Because of your religious beliefs and bigotry? That’s not good enough to separate two groups, to benefit one and not the other. Not in a free country that we supposedly still have.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:00pm“Why does the straight couple get tax breaks and other privileges while the gay couple does not?”
I answered that. Children. Staright couples produce children naturally through their union and provide those chjildren with the best nurturing environment;
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:05pm“Why does the straight couple get tax breaks and other privileges while the gay couple does not?”
I answered that: Children. A straight couple is naturally disposed to produce children through their union and to provide those children with the best nurturing environment: two parents biologically bound to them. This provides the most stable home. If a government is concerned with the next generation of citizens being emotionally healthy, virtuous and self-controlled it would then have an interest in encouraging those social arrangements which best produce such children.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:01pmSo do you advocate to eliminate the act of adoptions? They are not bound to them by blood. I’ve never lived with anyone gay. I’ve had friend that were. I even severed TWO tours in Afghanistan with a gay guy. He never admitted to being gay, but it was obvious. He still had my back. He still would have drug my ass out of there if I had gotten shot. Just because YOU feel uncomfortable around them doesn‘t mean they don’t deserve the same rights and treatment that every other red blooded American gets.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:05pmHell, if we‘re all going to spout off slippery slope arguments here’s one.
Going along your logic, why don’t we just genetically engineer all our children to be perfect blonde hair, blue eyed angels.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:08pmAgain, going back to your argument, should we ban barren men and women from being married if children is the only reason to be married to receive tax breaks? Why do childrenless couples still receive these tax breaks? Should the state automatically annul any marriage if they don’t have kids within….. five years of marriage? HOW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO LET GOVERNMENT INTERVENE?
For a bunch of freedom loving so-called Americans, you sure do approve of government intervention as long as it suits you.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:09pmAmerican soldier,
1st, there is no logical connection between encouraging healthy childrearing and genetic engineering. Your logic implies that preference for emotional health is the same as preference for blond hair. Are you that stupid or do you think we are?
2nd, having biloogical parents is PREFERABLE to having parents not biologically connected to the child, all things being equal (No fair comparing abusive natural parents to loving adoptive one). But that doesn’t mean that all other arrangments are equal in their inequality. Having parents who can function as biological parents works as a second best. Gay parents cannot do this because they cannot provide a model of male and female sexuality. No child living with gay parents will receive a proper modeling of how men and women naturally relate. Thus the child will grow up with a degree of ambivalence or confusion about his or her own sexuality. Only an insistent belief that there is nothing normative about or heterosexual nature could fail to see this as a problem. Such a belief has absolutely no scientific credibility. Nature does not recognize homosexuality as a possitive. Yopu can point to all the gay penguins you want and I will point to even more instances of whales beaching themselves.
3rd, Infertile couples aren’t infertile by nature, the way homosexuals are. The couple might find a cure for their infertility, or if they are infertile by choice they may change their mind. Gays are naturally barren.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:19pm“For a bunch of freedom loving so-called Americans, you sure do approve of government intervention as long as it suits you.”
Actually, it is YOU who are proposing prying into people’s marriages to see if they have children and qualify for marriage. My scenario is simple: a man and woman go to get a liscence to marry, the state ascertains that they are a man and woman with no legal impediment to marry; they aren’t already married, are of age and mentally competent, and aren’t too closely related. Two men or two women seek the same liscence and are denied because their union is obviously not for the purpose of producing children. You counter, “But look over there at those childless straight couples!”
You see, YOU are demanding that the State go peering into marriages.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 12:02amI think AMERICAN SOLDER (Separate) is the only sane person on this site – with maybe the exception for Bear. You two have made for interesting reading tonight – thanks!! Glad to know there are at least 2 sane people in the world of the right!!! http://wp.me/pYLB7-12S
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 3:46am@Islesfordian – would you limit marriage to only fertile couples then? Would you remove all children from the home of any single parent (or gay parent) and place them with hetero couples? I agree the government has an interest in the welfare of children, but we do not empower the government with absolute authority to act in that interest. rights must be balanced.
Furthermore, you argue this restriction is necessary so that the next generation may be “motionally healthy, virtuous and self-controlled” and yet we see around us today a society with a greater number than ever of children which do not meet that standard – the overwhelming majority of who were raised by heterosexuals. As before I ask, if the current model is not producing the desired results, it is not sufficient grounds to deny others their rights. My standard is that the denial of a human being’s rights is a VERY serious thing and requires a VERY heavy obligation to prove it is necessary. And no, I do not mean “the right to marry” I mean “the right to equality before the law”
And the idea that a child’s only model of normal heterosexual interaction is within their own parents relationship is, frankly, a very weak claim. Unless this family lives in the mountains alone they have a huge number of opportunities to see that relationship (in both healthy and unhealthy examples) all around them. Besides FAR from all heterosexual couples model actual “normal” male/female interaction. Probably a minority of
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 3:56am@MISSY8S – with all due respect, I spent my entire adult life believing as many here do – actively teaching and preaching against the gay agenda (so called) and crying out to god to be delivered from this (so called) “curse.” I only began to realize the fact that God did not hate me for being transsexual in the last five years or so. so i do not speak as one who comes at this from a lifetime of left-wing indoctrination. and i want to submit to you that you are reading this wrong.
the government does not NOW, as we speak, tell ANY church ANY thing about how to practice the sacraments of their church so long as they are not a violation of public safety or health. it does not come into your church or mine or anyone elses and say “baptize this way,“ or ”pray that way” does it?
Why would that change? if a church says, now, today, to an interracial couple “we believe you relationship is sinful and we will not marry you in our church” will that church be charged with discrimination?
NO!!!! Why then do you assume that THIS issue above all others will change that? And beyond that, why do you assume American Christians are so weak that they would stand for it if it were tried?
Look at Fred Phelps. the Supreme Court of the United States has just supported his right to do the most hateful things toward gays – if the country was headed to a place where protecting the gays trumped your Constitutional rights would he be the IDEAL place to start? Please reconsider.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:11am@Kate – indeed, I do agree that gay people ought to be willing to accept having full legal equality without the fight for the word – however, this also requires that the Christians concede them those rights instead of crying “marriage by any other name!!!” – which most seem unwilling to do. As with most issues, it’s the “all or nothing” crowd – on BOTH sides – which makes the conflict go.
you and others though, can take considerable comfort in knowing that not even the mist strident gay rights activist ever considers in his wildest dreams the goal of REQUIRING churches to preform gay marriages. That is nothing but a scare tactic boogeyman cooked up by folks like the AFA in order to leverage political power.
@Bluematrix90 – “you don’t mock god!!!” – Indeed. nor do you need the government to do his judgement for him.
@MISSY8S – we already have a separation between the government union and the religious sacrament. one is Civil marriage and the other is a private ceremony. when i married a couple, years ago, I both preformed a religious function, and then i signed a license authorizing the legal and civil union. I could have done either one without the other and that would not change of gay people were allowed to join in CIVIL marriage.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:17am@Islesfordian – I wondered who was going to give Missy THAT lecture first. Your error is not that you believe differently from Cherynn, or Missy or Myself when it comes to the issue of transsexualism (although you are incorrect) but rather that you allow a viewpoint which is a faith-based view to dictate policy in a non-faith setting. Governments which can be driven by faith-based conclusions, can be driven by a faith OTHER THAN yours just as validly. if we accept that the Christian faith, more precisely the conservative version of it, is a valid foundation for government actions, then logically we have no foundation to criticize governments who act based on fundamentalist Islam. This is dangerous and unwise. Whatever your faith-based view on transgenderism, or homosexuality, the government needs a secular reason to impose on our rights, which is not provided in sufficient measure by your religious views.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:23amAs to the relationship between God and transsexualism, space does not permit me to offer my full case on that question, but consider this: 1. we know that physical birth defects regarding gender occur – there are a variety of intersex conditions; 2. we know that birth defects affecting the brain occur – such as autism; 3. we know that the human brain is gendered and has a key role in gender behavior.
All these are firmly established scientific fact. How then does it make LOGICAL sense to deny that one may be born with a birth defect, affecting the brain, which interferes with the “normal” gender alignment between brain and genitals? By what rational and non-religious argument can we state categorically that it is impossible for a person to be born with a brain gendered opposite to their genital structure?
Science has a reasonably good hypothesis of the mechanism how this might happen, but I’m not even asking you to accept their explanation – just acknowledge the logical case that it MUST be possible. We see most transsexual children aware of the gender incongruity even before they are old enough to be sexuality – this cannot logically all be “perversion” r “sin.”
Thus the question: IF in fact there’s a reasonable logical possibility that people are born transsexual (or gay for that matter) then how DARE we as believers assume that God condemns these people for a physical condition they have no control or choice in? is that the nature of the God you know?
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:37amFor all those who are agreeing with the principle that gays should have all the same legal rights and privileges of marriage as long as they don’t CALL it marriage – will you exercise your citizenship in support of that position?
Will you tel your conservative congressman and senator to support that position? will you vote AGAINST the next state constitutional amendment which bans BOTH gay marriage AND civil unions, or act to repeal the one you already voted for? will you argue for this stated position with your friends and neighbors who don’t believe that gays should have those legal rights (for they are LEGION).
Or will you only support equal rights anonymously on the internet where it costs you nothing? Wake up. virtually every one of the constitutional amendments passed in the various states banned BOTH. how did you vote?
@Cherynn and Missy – you girls seem to have had a better time of it than me. It‘s true I’ve a considerable number of conservative christian friends who accept me, but i also have quite a number who do not – including my own father. I’m glad you two were so blessed. (in the midst of what we all know is an incredibly hard journey)
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:50am@Jacob and Randy – So? Is your faith so weak you need the government to carry the water for it? As has been rightly observed, the truth does not need government backing, only a lie. If in fact you are right (and you‘re not but that’s not the point) – it’s still oppressive to have a government enforce a reli
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 6:25am@Tammy Beth
The rise of emotionally unhealthy childrfen is no indictment to the function of traditional marriage. It IS an indictment to the protection given to that in institution by the state. Easy divorce has eroded the state’s protection of marriage significantly. Gay marriage would be the final nail in the coffin by the state, effectively saying that it no longer cared about marriage as an institution and its role it raising children.
As for My argument with Missy8s, I actually am siding with the GLBT crowd in saying that being transgendered is part of the continuum of non-straight sexual identities and that he is trying to maintain a postion, pro-transgender but anti-gay marriage, which will find little support among either straight or queer communities. Perhaps that argument doesn’t matter to him.
Regardless, your question, “How then does it make LOGICAL sense to deny that one may be born with a birth defect, affecting the brain, which interferes with the “normal” gender alignment between brain and genitals?”, presumes that gender is due to the brain and genitals. It is due to something called DNA. That cannot be altered. The Chromozomes which create our gender cannot be changed. While there MAY be birth defects which impede the brain’s proper alignment with the genitals, this does not make changing the GENITALS the right solution. If I had a brain defect that made me see imaginary people the right treatment would be to fix the brain, not to indulge it
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 10:34am@ISLESFORDIAN I was exaggerating my rebuttal to emphasis the ridiculous nature of all your slippery slope arguments!!!!!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 11:12amAmerican soldier,
You said “going along your logic”. I pointed out how my logic does not go the way you imply at all. There is no logical connection. Your exageration only works if there is a similarity to preference for health to preference for eye color. That you don‘t get that fallacy shows that logic isn’t really your forte.
Report Post »NOBALONEY
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:11pmShe‘s correct that it’s morally wrong.
Report Post »semidisk
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:53pmArguably so, but the representative still put forth a bad argument – albeit not for the reasons cited by Right Wing Watch. Her argument, broadly speaking, is that not everybody deserves the same rights — a three-year old doesn’t deserve the right to drive a car, gay people don’t deserve the right to marry, and so on. The problem is that all she’s really saying, essentially, is that gay people don’t inherently have the right to marry; it’s a bit of a non-argument, really, in that she‘s not saying that gay people don’t have the right to marry (as I presume she believes). She‘s just providing one example of a bad argument for gay people’s right to marry – an argument that hardly anybody would endorse anyways.
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:10pmSure, once ou have thrown the concept out that marraige is between one man and one woman and take the bible out, why not? If marraige is for whoever wants to do it then there are no holds barred.
Report Post »Bear
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:36pmHolly HeLL can you imagine that,,,two consenting adults being with who they want,,,how dare they! And once you throw the Bible out of it,,why then you might get people like Muslims,Hindus,Buddhist,Atheist and the like starting to marry too,,,total chaos! You know my nephew saw a guy teen couple holding hands at a dance,,the next day I found him watching Gay porn with a new boy friend and they were both Humping my Dog,,now all 3 of them want to get their own place and get married,,,Jesus Christ where does it end!
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:39pmAnd that is part of the way to remove barriers to world communism. One of the “45 Goals of Communism” (google it.)
Report Post »ohyaok
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 1:10am@bear
Report Post »“Two consenting adults” like you think thats all it will ever be.
Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:51am@Kate – your comment provokes two separate thoughts: 1. you should not WANT the government to define marriage according to what the Bible says, because the bible is subject to interpretation and it MIGHT be one day their interpretation will make YOU illegal. 2. “Taking the bible out” does NOT rob the individual or the government of the ability to make rational judgements. What does the Bible say about the tax code? Nothing – and yet somehow the government figures out what it wants to do about taxes. Likewise, if there were no Bible, the governments of men would still come to some conclusion about who should – and who should not – get married.
Report Post »Bear
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 5:57pmOHYAOK!
Report Post »If the law says “ 2 consenting adults ” that’s all it could be,period!
Besides the Religious community hasn’t exactly been stellar in their handling of marriage! Christians have a higher divorce rate then Atheist! Infidelity is on the rise,, and married women are out pacing the men! Wow heterosexuals sure get a lot of abortions don‘t they and sorry but aids and STD’s have found a home to flourish in,,the heterosexual family of married couples! I don’t think you and the rest of the self righteous have grounds to claim the only seats at the marriage table any more!
TumbleBumble
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:09pmWhat is so controversial about her statements? What she said is only logical. And truthfully, that is the progressive plan – to usher in the demise of the traditional family and marriage.
Report Post »randy
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:12pmWow, I agree with her……..
Report Post »survivorseed
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:13pmyeah, right before we purposely tank the economy, destroy israel and become a bunch of screaming jihadi muslims. Keep projecting moron
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:22pmThis is why we should take government out of marriage, reduce to zero tax benefits, and make it a verbal contract between to people.
Use contracts if you wish to allocate property rights.
Once you “define” a marriage, you could clearly “define” it differently. So do not define it legally at all, make it a verbal contract.
Report Post »Amos37
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:27pmTo God, incest and homosexuality are one in the same. They are both abominations in God’s eyes.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:28pmSo you think the comparison of two, consenting adult American citizens who pay their taxes is comparable to allowing a three year old child drive a car is logical?!
Why do I need a LICENSE, ASK PERMISSION or PAY ADDITIONAL TAXES in order to get married in the first place?
Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. The ceremony is just that, a ceremony. You can easily get “married” without the ceremony. Make it a legal binding contract, that you can do with a lawyer and if you want to have a fancy ceremony, have at it. You can have the mascot from University of Tennessee marry you, who cares?
If you receive special privileges by the government for being married, then you cannot exclude homosexuals from those privileges. Either remove any and all incentive to be married or allow homosexuals to gain those incentives.
Report Post »PER100
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:29pmits a logical line of thought. it marraige is not specificlly listed as one man and one woman, who is to say that it can not be between one human and one german sheppard. you laugh or scouff now but not too many years ago you would not even have thought gay marraige was a concern (oh, its wrong…its hidden). now people are wanting gay and next poligamy.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:34pm@PER100 The German Sheppard cannot give consent in a legally binding contract, which is what a marriage is.
Simple solution to your slippery slope argument (everyone loves using it on this issue) is to define marriage as a legal contract between two consenting adults. How hard was that? How horrible! Somehow they’ll fool us into thinking that a german sheppard is an 18 year old, tax paying american citizen with a social security and birth certificate! The horror!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:36pm“If you receive special privileges by the government for being married, then you cannot exclude homosexuals from those privileges. ”
This is only logically true if your mean homosexuals getting married to te opposite sex. Since same sex unions aren‘t marriage you can’t logically claim that they deserve the same benefits as real marriages. The State has the right to define things and treat them accordingly. It can define what is a non-profit organization and what isn’t, and tax them differently. It can define who is an adult and who isn’t.
Report Post »Timsincali
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:36pmNothing out of the ordinary for me. Sounds good.
Report Post »pscully17
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:41pmthe gay marriage slippery slope is just one large sign of a bigger DE_MORALIZATION of America. 50 years ago, divorce was tabbo, shunned, as well as unwed pregnancy, swearing in public, having an affair was villified. why? because 50 years ago, we had a strong family, oriented around faith, the christian community kept people honest, churches and GOD we a huge part of our society. Now, decadence has busted down every barrier of moral values. systematically we have devolved into a Caligula society. and soon after that, the roman empire fell, because as Glenn Beck pointed out tonite, the majority of the Roman Citizens were given cake, and circuses(entertainment) to distract the masses away from the collapse of the system. Today, the media/hollywood/tv glorify the lifestyles that were shunned 50 years ago. We have been desensitized to murders, adultery, dishonesty ( lying in Congress, the coverups and expectation to stay in office). so with that, the majority of the public repsonses on the NYTIMES.COM articles pertaining to Anthony Weiners disgusting behavior, they all start with Villifying Andrew Brietbart for exposing the dirtbag… read the comments on any NY times articles, and you will see what happens to a society that has lost all moral, ethical and sense of personal integrity
Report Post »Bear
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:42pmPersonally I do not care what a Gay couple calls living with each other,marriage,civil union I don’t care how they want to define it, its not my house hold or business! Land of the free? Are you really going to stay awake at night because someone isn’t living in the same way your God tells you to live? They are still living together and having Gay sex with each other In the houses they buy,,,somehow that changes when they can call them selves married? Some how your children will suddenly see them holding hands in public because the wedding rings now catch the sunlight and little Bobby and Marsha will notice what they couldn’t see before? If you don’t believe they are Married before a God,,or your God,,then why do you care if a Civil law says they are,,,It really wouldn’t matter or change anything would it??? Just run your own life,,and your families and let others live their life with out your nose in it!
Report Post »CaptainKook
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:46pm@American Soldier (Separated)
Report Post »Sir, you have my respect – great posts.
NUTN2SAY
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:48pmI’ve been saying for some time now.
Marriage between a man and a woman, is ultimately all about the preservation of the human species.
Marriage between a man and a man or woman and a woman, is ultimately all about the devastation of the human species!
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:50pmIf thats she believes than that what she believes!
Report Post »Lots of people believe gay‘s are’nt born gay, I do
also believe if i can find 3 women to marry me WHY not ?
Dont think I need a gov license to have a union under God !
TomFerrari
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:56pmREALLY?
Two consenting adults entering a legal contract is the same as a child trying to drive a car (a deadly weapon)???
Before you go attacking my words. Remember, marriage should have nothing to do with government.
Marriage is currently a legal contract in the sight of our government (sate or federal). As such, it IS discrimination to not allow 2 individuals to enter into such a contract.
A constitutionally bound government doesn’t need to be involved in marriage. PERIOD.
Nor does the federal government have any reason to be involved in abortion.
I believe life begins at conception. However, I also KNOW that murder is a STATE OFFENSE, not a federal offense unless it involves a federal agent, etc.
So, it should be in the purview of the states. The Constitution says so – all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government SHALL BE RESERVED to the states and TO THE PEOPLE.
If you take government out of the picture, marriage would be a holy institution and would be performed by the Church. If your Church believes marriage is only between men and women, then your Church only marries men and women. Freedom of religion. Anybody got an issue with that?
A fair tax would eliminate joint filing and tax breaks, so the government shouldn’t even CARE who is married and who is not.
If it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket, what business is it of mine? – THOMAS JEFFERSON
Report Post »Iowasoccermom
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:57pm@Bear
Report Post »The problem is the gay rights activists don’t let you like and let like. And once homosexual marriage becomes law in a state it is required by law to be taught in our school systems. Thanks but no thanks. And it is a slippery slope without an end.
pscully17
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:00pm2003– supreeme Court abolishes states sodomy laws…to acdomodate the push for GAY marriages!!.. sodomy laws were established why? on the historical moral guidance of the Bilble
Report Post »mill
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:02pmnothing here….move on….
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:08pmdo not back up, keep telling the truth. I agree with her 100%. You can also add in molesting children, rape, having sex with animals. ….. Open the door for one sick behavior, and others will follow.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:10pmI entered this comment below in another post.
“What is to say if the government “legally recognizes” gay marriage that they will not say to churches “you MUST recognize and perform these types of services in contradiction of your beliefs or you will lose your charitable or tax exempt status”?
Could you imagine the horrendous effect on charitable giving if say for instance the Catholic church was to lose their tax exempt status because they say no?
I agree with the congresswoman this IS a very bad idea and it IS indeed a VERY slippery slope.”
Full disclosure; I am transgendered, I know she’s right.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:17pm“Simple solution to your slippery slope argument (everyone loves using it on this issue) is to define marriage as a legal contract between two consenting adults.”
But marriage already HAS a simple definition. If you claim the right to challenge THAT how can you then defend proposing another definition that could not also be challenged? Who are you to say a marriage has to be between two consenting adults? Why not three? Why not children? Why not…. etc.?
Report Post »Timbotim
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:19pmCan we have her teach a remedial class on Constitutional rights to NObama? Maybe after Netanyahu wraps up his remedial course in why standing with Israel is in the United States’ best interest?
Report Post »Tree
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:26pmTo “To God, incest and homosexuality are one in the same. They are both abominations in God’s eyes.”
Report Post »I can’t think of any situations where God forbids incest, especially considering we’re all posterity of Adam and Eve. However in Romans it is very clear that homosexuality is frowned on.”
CaptainKook
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:27pmWhat is to say if the government “legally recognizes” gay marriage that they will not say to churches “you MUST recognize and perform these types of services in contradiction of your beliefs or you will lose your charitable or tax exempt status”?
sigh
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
NEXT.
Report Post »JimCDew
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:36pm@ AMERICAN SOLDIER (SEPARATED) You are incorrect in your definition of marriage. Marriage is the religious recognition of the binding of one man and one or more women to each other for the purpose of procreation and child rearing in a family unit. It is not a contract, but a rite recognizing the unity of the bond and as such is beyond the control of legislative or regulatory modification under the First Amendment. In other words The government can require a license for two parties to enter into a LEGALLY BINDING relationship but it CANNOT define a religious rite.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:39pm“sigh
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
NEXT.”
____________________________________________
Not so simple. The first amendment does not protect illegal behavior. Just ask Christian Scientists who don’t take their children to doctors. If discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation is considered illegal then refusing to perform gay marriages could be considered a crime.
Report Post »missy8s
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:42pmTo CaptainKook:
The first amendment is the point, “if the government can regulate a thing, it can also control that thing” ie use the tax code as a weapon to impose a standard on the free practice of religion.
If the government has the power to define “marriage” it also has the power to define who is “recognized under statute” as performing such “sacraments according to law”.
This is VERY DANGEROUS imposition upon the first amendment.
THINK!
Report Post »*************************
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:42pmIt’s different colors of the same SEX PERVERT CRIME … but the DEATH PENALTY is the same.
Past time for America to enforce RIGHTEOUSNESS before we, too, are JUDGED GUILTY … as accomplices.
Report Post »normbal
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:44pmExactly. Men “marrying” men, women “marrying” women, then incest taboo goes, then species barriers. Why NOT call a woman and her dog a “marriage?” It’s about chaos and breaking down the institutions which, although hard to maintain, codified in law and morals and cultural mores, have always been necessary to continue our species’ success.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:44pm“I can’t think of any situations where God forbids incest”
Leviticus 18, TREE. What was permitted in the days of Adam and Eve is no longer permitted.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:46pmI agree. The only reason people view incest wrong is because of the historic teachings of the Bible, and the Bible also addresses the gays. Therefore the things she said makes perfect sense.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:47pm@TOMFERRARI I agree with you. Take government out of marriage. It’s a legal contract between two consenting adults, whether they are gay or straight. If the church is willing to marry a gay couple, that’s their choice. Otherwise, who cares who weds them? Perhaps it could be a Col. Sanders look-a-like…. that’s up to them how they will have a ceremony for their marriage. Also agree on the flat tax, no exemptions for anyone.
@TOMFERRARI I went to high school in the great liberal state of California and I don’t remember taking a Marriage for Heterosexual class. Did I miss something? When was marriage taught in school, homosexual or otherwise?
@RANGERP Talk about slippery slope fallacy!
1) Molesting a child is illegal, regardless of allowing homosexuals to marry. How the hell did you connect those dots? Something might be wrong with your head, Ranger.
2) Rape, is against the law, and again how does a violation of one’s body, involuntarily, have anything to do with two consenting adults wanting to marry.
3) Sex with animals might be the closest thing you have to an argument. However,it depends on whether you look at an animal as a piece of property. Most states have laws against animal cruelty, and since the animal cannot consent to sexual intercourse.
@ISLESFORDIAN Why not three? Why do I care if someone wants to have 3, 5 or 10 wives? That sound like hell to me! I can barely handle ONE! Children are not able to consent to marriage. Neither can animals.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 7:56pm@JIMCDEW I am an Agnostic. I do not believe in God. When I got married, I got married by a judge. No religious ceremony, no God involved, no prayer, no angels, nothing. Why was I not stopped! I participated in NO religious rite whatsoever, what is wrong with homosexuals having the opportunity to have the exact same thing I had? It‘s not ME who calls it’s MARRIAGE LICENSE, it’s the state, county, city, whomever that issued me that marriage license. I didn’t choose to call it a marriage, feel free to petition a change in name.
@ISLESFORDIAN Are you implying that homosexuality is illegal behavior? Show me the law!
@THABIGPERM Since when are we Switzerland or have ever tried to copy what they do? Also, I don‘t think it’s too far fetched of an idea to allow animals to have representation issued by the state in cases such as abuse. Take Michael Vicks case, imagine the Dogs being allowed to sue him for his brutality. The proceeds going towards animal shelters or rehabilitation centers. I don’t see that as too far fetched at all. But that still doens’t mean the animal is able to give legal consent to perform intercourse.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:01pmI would say they are very similar. Where’s Mr. Obvious when you need him?
Report Post »RoBoTech
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:03pmAmerican Soldier (what a load of crap, you are/were no more a soldier than a duck).
Report Post »Marriage between two entities may be OK for limp wrists like you, but most don’t agree with it.
Look at how many State citizens have voted against it. and more coming lil’ buddy.
Even CA voted against gay marriage.
YOU aren‘t changing anyone’s mind, so why are you wasting your time here?
It’s one thing to speak your opinion, but another to harp on it to a bunch of hard core anti gay marriage folks.
Give it up, it’s only showing that we are right about you being an idiot.
CaptainKook
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:09pmRE:
“If discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation is considered illegal then refusing to perform gay marriages could be considered a crime.”
and
“The first amendment is the point, “if the government can regulate a thing, it can also control that thing” ie use the tax code as a weapon to impose a standard on the free practice of religion.
If the government has the power to define “marriage” it also has the power to define who is “recognized under statute” as performing such “sacraments according to law”.
This is VERY DANGEROUS imposition upon the first amendment.
THINK!”
BALONEY.
The government does NOT intervene in church affairs such as ordering them to perform marriages. That is a RELIGIOUS matter PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment.
The marriage LICENSE is entirely a CIVIL matter relating to seriouis and complex LEGAL obligations and rights unrelated to religion. The US Constitution forbids unequal application of rights and due process, ESPECIALLY when such unequal application is justified by merely religious belief.
The Fisrt Amendment actually MEANS what it says – no church can be ordered to perform any religious ritual such as a marriage.
Report Post »Period.
LetUsReason
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:13pmI think homosexuality is gross.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:19pm@ROBOTECH
Hahaha! I know what I‘ve done and where I’ve been, I don’t need your validation.
Now you’re calling homosexual entities? I bet you believe a fetus is a child from conception, yet you consider homosexuals mere entities?
Even if just one person can at least understand the errors of their way, I’ll be satisfied. You don’t have to tolerate homosexuals or the fact that they just want the same rights as any of us have, but your rights end when theirs begin. How does two consenting American adults getting married…. ok let’s call it Civil Unionized, effect your ability to live your day to day life?
Report Post »Bear
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:20pmIOWASOCCERMOM!
Your worried if Consenting adults ‘ Gays ’ can enter a legally binding relationship that then it is going to be taught in schools,,ha,,I got news for you Mum,,it already is there friend! Your kids have been learning all kinds of sexual information in school,let alone about Homosexuality! And the Gay teens are already out in the open,,have been for a while,, half my nieces soccer team is Lesbian and it is not unusual to see multiple gay couples at high school dances together and the prom,,,I am afraid that argument is out the door the kiddos have already been exposed to it and it does not seem to be turning all the kids Gay,,,Sometimes I think they are being more mature about it then the Adults! And I don’t say that lightly because kids are still kids,openly Gay ones, straight sexually active ones,Religious ones, but thats who they are and telling them to hide it and pretend they are something else is selfish on your part!
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:37pmThe point is: If you can redefine marriage however you like, as the gays seem to be supportive of, then on what basis could you claim that it COULDN’T be redefined to include incest, etc.?
Her argument is logical.
Report Post »psycodad36
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:39pmwhere did she say anything incorrect?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:39pm“Children are not able to consent to marriage. Neither can animals.”
Are they able to consent to anything? Childrern are forced to go to school and do all sorts of things their parents demand. Why not marriage? Who says it has to be a consensual arrangement? Do animals consent to be made pets or treated as livestock?
You want to throw out certain facets of the defin ition of marriage but keep others. But what gives you the rioght to piuck and choose which parts of the definition you keep and “impose” on others? Many societies have practiced marriages involving children. Our definition of adult is very recent.
The definition of marriage we are defending is not one of our making but one that has existed for millenia. YOUR definition is entirely your creation, a product of your whim and choosing. By what right can you claim any authority for it?
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:43pmThis is what I call making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:45pmWhy not take Obama to task for things he has said about the economy, standing with radical Muslims, raising taxes, lying, spending, treasonous acts, arrogance, and so forth?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:49pm“@ISLESFORDIAN Are you implying that homosexuality is illegal behavior? Show me the law!”
No, quite the opposite. Read more carefully. I was pointing out that in our present culture many forms of discrimination are considered illegal even if done within private arrangements, like hiring and firing. I disagree that it should be illegal in those instances but that doesn‘t change the fact that you can’t refuse to hire a black or a Hindu if you don’t like them for some reason. If the same prohibition to discriminate is applied to sexual orientation and classified as a crime the roadmap is there for applying that to churches. The Mormon church was forced to abandon polygamy in order for Utah to enter the Union. The same power could be used to force churches to accept gay marriage. Wedding photographers have already been succesfully sued for refusing to perform at gay weddings. Why not treat clergy the same?
Report Post »Bear
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 8:49pmAMERICANSOLDIER (SEPARATED)
You my friend are making sense! Religious people think they own the legal right of Marriage,,that a God (their God) Gives them the right to approve who can enter a legal,Civil relationship that does not require a person to be religious or to have a Religious Ceremony or to be able to produce off spring! I am an Atheist,,does that mean I can not marry,I do not want kids either so it would be for the companion ship not procreation,,,am I now excluded too??? The majority of people will always have the traditional family,,its in no danger,,,How selfish to say, two consenting adults can not legally bind themselves together and run their own lives and house holds apart from other peoples religious beliefs,,last time I looked we lived in a republic that has dropped many Biblical,outdated standards and kept some that meets all beliefs standards,I am pretty sure we are not subject to MOB RULE Theocracy! As a Heterosexual, If I can quote Billy Joel on behalf of the Homosexual Community in the Republic of the free to all you busy body Religious types,, ” Go live your own life,leave me alone ” !
Report Post »AmericanSince1619
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:10pmLove your Lord God with all of your being and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
A new commandment I give to you, to love each other as I have loved you.
If you can honestly say that denying happiness, companionship, and equal rights to insurance and hospital visitations to homosexuals is Love as commanded by Jesus, then go ahead and do it.
To me it sounds much more like Hate.
Report Post »red1
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:28pmThere is nothing invalid about her argument. If there is no reason to limit marriage to a single man and woman, then there is no reason to limit it in any way. We are often told that the only thing that matters is love. If that is true, then fathers should be able to marry their daughters, brothers should be able to marry their sisters, and men should be able to marry their favorite goat. Goats do not need to give consent because they are property, at least for now.
Report Post »Newsjunki
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:42pmI agree!
Report Post »Newsjunki
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:43pmI absolutely agree with that!
Report Post »proudpatriot77
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 9:50pmBy allowing two people of the same sex to “marry”, you therefore destroy any traditional meaning of the word marriage. I think that the “granny being pushed off the cliff” reference to Paul Ryan’s medicare idea is much more of a stretch than comparing two relatives marrying and two men or two women marrying. Why have we become so afraid of standing our ground on issues?
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:02pmShe is exactly right by comparing them. Gay marriage is a lifestyle choice and is unnatural. What would prevent polygamists, those who believe incest is ok, child marriage etc. to say that it is their right too. By making Gay rights a “civil rights” issue you have opened the door that is a slippery slope to worse things to come morally.
Report Post »Bear
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:14pmRED1
that’s absurd!
Report Post »Where does it end,,,easily answered? 2 consenting adults,,,period! You don’t have the right to tell them they cannot legally commit to each other, or tell them how to live because of your Religion!
And as far as a Father marrying his daughter,,the risk of an unwanted baby that could lead to retardation is a given in most societies ( Even no- Christian ones )
What about animals,,,well they can not consent so that would be animal cruelty!
What about children,,we have child protection laws for those not sexually mature ,,relations in marriage could damage them physically!
What about a man marrying multiple women? Most Countries deem this communal living and not a one on one partnership so legally it would be more of a Corporation,ha then a Civil union or marriage!
Do we all see how silly this is becoming?
There is no slippery slope because laws already protect against the other bizarre unions you claim will also be accepted if you allow 2 consenting adults to marry!
So if the law is only applicable for 2 consenting adults who can enter a legal arrangement of marriage and nothing else is permitted would you support the decision of free American adults in our Republic to enter their own arrangement that has nothing to do with you or your house hold?
MrButcher
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:18pm@Isles
We disagree on many things but I must admit you are very right on this topic and, as always, well-spoken on the matter.
While I support gay-marriage; I moreso support the discussion of what “marriage” is and the attempt to define it. Love, sex, consent, family, procreation, finances, tradition, legal rights, romance, desire, dreams, convenience, religious freedom and individual rights all play major roles in how we define such a union.
And most of these factors are, by definition, undefinable.
But anyone with half a brain understands marriage is really about, in the antropamorphic and socialogical sense, building a “family”.
Ah, a “Family” ….there’s another noun we must attempt to define..
and the debate continues….
—————-
Nature trumps law in this matter.
or does it?
Nonetheless, you said it best.
Report Post »marjorie faye
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:31pmTo American Soldier (Separated):
Need the animals’ consent, huh? So, did you get your dog’s consent when you had him neutered? How about when you had him vaccinated? How about when you forced him to live in the house with you? You get the idea. The argument doesn’t work.
Why should we grant the status of “marriage” to male homosexuals who, studies show (San Francisco, 2010, for one), are woefully non-monogamous, even when “committed” to one another. In general they don’t even expect fidelity of one another, and many have 100s of sex partners in their lifetime. Their sexual practice is fraught with disease and serious medical issues that often shorten their lives. Prove that it’s not. Tell me, why should we grant the status of “marriage” to such an unhealthy practice? Monogamy is one of the most important expectations in marriage — by the couple of one another and also by the society in which they live. Marriage is not just about the individuals involved but about the society as a whole. This applies equally to the heterosexuals who jump in and out of marriage and to those who sleep around and spread disease.
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:36pmI agree with her completely. What it is called is ‘semantic deception’, changing society by changing the meaning of words. “Semantic Deception, covered by George Orwell in 1984, calls for lying through the deceitful use of words” Charlotte Iserbyt. And they make it ‘politically incorrect’ to stand against it making it very difficult to argue about it publicly. AND they do the same thing when pushing for ‘green movements’ which are actually pushing a ‘collectivist’ mindset, which is communism. And they also make the word ‘socialism’ a friendly idea, when in fact it is just a step towards world communism.
Off topic: ” three-stage plan outlined by Stalin at the 1936 Communist International. At that meeting, the official program proclaimed: “Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations.” Charlotte Iserbyt “The Devil’s Seven Prong Fork.
Educate yourselves in the M.O. of our enemies.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 10:40pmThanks Butcher. Yes, though we disagree on many things I remain optimistic that reasonable people can learn to understand one another’s positions if we make the effort and that such understanding can lead to common ground sometimes even if we remain ideologically opposed. One reason I believe this is that I believe in Natural Law. There are truths that exist due to our created nature. They are part of the same reality in which we exist. Many falsehoods are artificial creations, creations of a false ideology. Conservatives should embrace reality and nature because nature, unlike people, doesn’t indulge in delusions about itself. It is what it is.
By the way. I love your icon. Some people misunderstand mine, thinking I am using it as my identity. It is a statement, as I take it yours is, and a balsy one at that. Alahu ack ack ack ack ack, as the Muslim Martians would say. :-)
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 12:09amI agree with her.
Report Post »SonOfaCommunist
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 12:28amYou Go Girl!
Report Post »royalstar
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 12:50amI don’t support gay marriage, but what gives the govt. the right to weigh in on marriage at all. It is a religious tradition based on spiritual principles. It should never be regulated by the govt and should stay out of church matters.
Report Post »Browncoat359
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 1:49am@American Soldier has the right of it,overall. you go to the church to be married in the eyes of God,but if you want your pact to one another to be LEGALLY recognized then you must apply for and be approved for a marriage license.
Report Post »So far as I’ve ever known the government(in the form of most of the state and county) only requires that the parties be of the age of legal majority(so they can legally give consent) and,in many states,pass a blood test. The church can,and does have it’s own set of rules. I recall when my wife and I were looking for a minister to marry us(OUR choice to have one,NOT a legal requirement) we were informed by a Catholic priest that he would not marry us because we weren’t Catholic. Isn‘t that a violation of mine and my then fiancee’s rights by the ‘logic’ some of you here are using?
TruthLover
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:01amWell, you can’t have an actual debate with a lib, because they don’t follow the rules. They misquote you, talk in circles, puke talking points, and in the end, swear, call you names and storm out. If you‘re lucky they don’t punch you. So – for them to be clueless about Hartzler’s debate mechanism…well, we should expect as much. Ever see the movie “Idiocracy?” Let’s just say if you see a kid watering the lawn with a mountain dew, run for the hills.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:21amBecause her logic, and yours, is backwards. And, frankly, anti-freedom. In a free society we do NOT ask “why should the government permit us to do a thing?“ we rather ask ”Does the government have sufficient reason to bar us from doing a thing?”
The speaker’s logic proceeds from the latter view, i.e. “why should we allow…?” but that is not the correct question, the correct question is “why should we bar…?” and if the reason is not sufficient, then in a free society we do not allow the government to bar the activity.
to use the driving analogy she suggested – who do we not allow a 3 year old, or a 13 year old, or a drunk, or a blind person, to drive? Because the government has a legitimate interest in public safety which compels the restriction. Why do we not allow close relatives to marry? the argument is that the government has a legitimate interest in the risk of birth defects from such unions, and so forth.
Therefore, to argue that allowing gay marriage would lead to allowing, for instance, polygamy is unsound – because allowing the former does nothing to mitigate the compelling reason for forbidding the latter. In short, the question is not whether or not “we are committed to each other” is a sufficient reason to be allowed, but rather “does the government have sufficient reason to forbid it?” Looked at from that (proper) angle, the slippery slope fallacy vanishes. Each individual act stands or falls on it’s own merit, one does not lead to the
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:36amMy previous comment was to the original reply. I didn’t realize I could not reply to each post individually.
@LibertariansUnite – i agree that the government should be out of “marriage” which is a private affair. But i will allow as to the necessity of legal written contracts which may be entered into by choice. Call it “partnerships” or whatever. They need not even be applied to a romantic couple, just an agreement between people for certain rights and obligations. and let the private sector handle the ceremony of marriage.
@American Soldier – Hear! Hear!
@PER100 – not too many years ago people thought one of one race and one of another was an abomination too. what “everybody knows” isn‘t always what’s actually sensible. Just because we make progress in a given area doesn’t prove that progress is downhill. Interracial marriage stands or falls on it’s own merits (to wit, “why – for what compelling reason – should the government stop it?“ and gay marriage likewise stands or falls independently of the change that came before it or the one which might be considered after ”Why should the government stop this action?” Absent a compelling reason, they shouldn’t. when the time comes when someone asks “why shouldn’t i be allowed to marry my goat?” i assume that we will be able to come up with a compelling reason.
@ISLESFORDIAN – your reasoning is off. the question is “equality before the law” which is our human and constitutional right.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:41am@Amos – First and foremost, no freedom-loving person should want what God says (according to an individual person or group of persons) to be a matter of law. for if you do, then it‘s going to suck when someone else’s opinion of what god thinks is the majority view and you are the one behind the eight ball. Secondly. What you have been taught as “God’s view” of homosexuality is FAR more human culture disguised in the robes of religion than what God actually thinks. It’s very difficult for most believers to separate what “everybody knows” from what the book actually says. but you only have to look at how different cultures, indeed different groups of sincere believers within a single culture, disagree about the contents to know that “God thinks” is a lot harder to pin down than most believers assume. if various Christian groups can’t even agree on the proper method of salvation, how can we assume any version of “God says” is authoritative?
Ultimately, we will all have to answer to God for how well we acted upon what we understood to be his will. If it is unclear how he would have us react to homosexuality, and it certainly is, then would we rather account to God for loving people he found sinful (which is, ya know, exactly what he TOLD US TO DO in a general sense) or do we want to account for him for judging people he did not find sinful on this point? As for me, I’ll go with the former.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:49am@NUTN2SAY – having been saying it is nice and all, but unless you can demonstrate logically how the intermarriage of some folks which constitute at the most 2-3% of the population (not all of whom even want to marry) will produce this “devastation” your claim is an empty one.
@Iowasoccermom – required by WHAT law? And even if it is taught, you suffer from the mistaken delusion that homosexuality can be “caught” or “taught” – teaching kids not to be hateful to people who are different than them is not the same as saying “come join us in being gay!” That said, i will grant you that some activists work too hard at being shocking to “get in the face” of their opponents and they are wrong for that. but you can stop that without violating the rights of the whole community.
@pscully17 – you said “sodomy laws were established why? on the historical moral guidance of the Bible” – which is an absolutely PERFECT statement of why they are a bad idea. if the government can legislate religion (not morality, all laws legislate a form of morality) – that is, a rule which is supported solely by a religious argument, then it can legislate ANY religion. Are you ready for a government which can REQUIRE you to be baptized a certain way? To go to a certain church? to Pray? what if the church and the prayer isn’t to YOUR understanding of God?
By the way, one wonders if everyone who is against “sodomy” sticks to the entire definition of that word…or just the sort of sodomy
Report Post »jcannon98188
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:56amShe does have a point. If you legalize Gay Marriage as a lifestyle, than you would also have to legalize Polygamy, because it is their sexual preference. Its not their fault is it?
And YES, the State can and WILL force Gay Marriage on churches if it is legalized. Churches cannot stop two blacks from getting married, because that is racist. Likewise they cannot stop two gays from getting married, if it is legalized.
@American Soldier. If we define it as Two Consenting Adults, then what stops it from being redefined further? Why not Three Consenting Adults, or Two and a Child. Why can the government stop Children from doing it too? I mean, after all, Children are people too. Technically, under libertarian principles, Children should be allowed to do everything that Adults do. What is a child anyways? Under 18? Says who, the Government? What gives them the right to say what a Child is or is not.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:57am@Missy – you said ““What is to say if the government “legally recognizes” gay marriage that they will not say to churches “you MUST recognize and perform these types of services in contradiction of your beliefs or you will lose your charitable or tax exempt status”?” – one sort of slippery slope argument is no more logical than the other sort. I agree with you the government would be wrong to compel churches to recognize a union counter to their faith -but if believers cannot fight for their rights in that arena, they deserve that fate. They (WE!) do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others just because we are paranoid the government will someday impose on our own rights.
@Islesfordian – you said “Who are you to say a marriage has to be between two consenting adults? Why not three? Why not children? Why not…. etc.?” – Indeed, that is exactly the question which must be asked and answered each time the matter is challenged. Every time the government acts we should ask the government “For what reason do you need to create this limit?”
I submit to you that when someone asks “Why not more than two?“ or ”why not children?“ or ”why not animals?“ that there WILL BE GOOD REASONS and thus the government will properly be able to say ”this is not allowed for this good reason. ” the question before us NOW is – for what GOOD REASON should the government disallow gay marriage?” And no, “something bad might happen later because the slope is al
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 3:03am@Missy – “If the government has the power to define “marriage” it also has the power to define who is “recognized under statute” as performing such “sacraments according to law”. ” YES. which is why the only Christian and freedom-loving answer to the question is to insist that the government say NOTHING about marriage at all. The government can and should recognize and enforce legal agreements. Period. who is married can and should be as private a concern as who is baptized. Consider, discrimination is illegal but the government has never investigated any religious group for turning away from membership, baptism, or marriage any person based on their race, right? You can bet a gay person would not be allowed to join Fred Phelps’ church and yet he would be within his legal right to reject them. As a transsexual woman I know that many if not all of the churches in my area would refuse me membership – yet they are well within their legal rights to do so.
It would be the same with marriage, even if the government kept on meddling in marriage – because everyone knows there is a civil alternative to get married. Nevertheless, if you are seriously worried about the government forcing churches to marry anyone who asks, then your position ought to be that the government get completely out of marriage as a religious rite, just as they are out of any other sacrament of the church.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 3:19am@islesfordian – “Leviticus 18” – Tree mentioned Romans too. I’ll be willing to wager a considerable sum that neither of you live by, or wish to have the government compel you to live by, all that is taught in either of those books.Selective application of rules is not the proper use of Scripture.
@Robotech – methinks it‘s not YOU he’s trying to convince, but rather, people who are more thoughtful and logical in their reasoning. As soon as you stoop to personal insult, you’ve demonstrated yourself beyond a rational discussion. Just a small suggestion though: flaming the person you disagree with when he’s being reasonable tends to make YOU look like the loser to the bystander. if you want to win the argument, instead of just stamp your feet in rage, you might want to rethink that tactic.
@LETUSREASON – indeed? what does that have to do with the law? It doesn’t sound like a very “reasoned” argument. Perhaps before i‘m done with this thread i’ll provide some “reasonable” observation on why the church probably has it wrong about LGBT people.
@Red1 – “There is nothing invalid about her argument. If there is no reason to limit marriage to a single man and woman, then there is no reason to limit it in any way.”
Here’s a similar statement: “If there is no reason to limit driving to men (i.e. Saudi Arabia) then there is no reason to limit driving by anyone.” Please explain why THAT statement is illogical. then apply the same reasoning to your own stateme
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 3:33am@Marjorie – “Monogamy is one of the most important expectations in marriage — by the couple of one another and also by the society in which they live.” – hows that working out in the heterosexual community? By what right do we impose on homosexuals a standard we fail to meet ourselves?
@Browncoat (LOVE the handle!) – you have it exactly right.
@Truthlover – the only one in this thread to this point who has called anyone names was a right-winger who attacked American Soldier. I’m not sure what thread you refer to.
@Kate – your comment provokes two separate thoughts: 1. you should not WANT the government to define marriage according to what the Bible says, because the bible is subject to interpretation and it MIGHT be one day their interpretation will make YOU illegal. 2. “Taking the bible out” does NOT rob the individual or the government of the ability to make rational judgements. What does the Bible say about the tax code? Nothing – and yet somehow the government figures out what it wants to do about taxes. Likewise, if there were no Bible, the governments of men would still come to some conclusion about who should – and who should not – get married.
@Jacob and Randy – So? Is your faith so weak you need the government to carry the water for it? As has been rightly observed, the truth does not need government backing, only a lie. If in fact you are right (and you‘re not but that’s not the point) – it’s still oppressive to have a government enforce a reli
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:13amWhy does Government need to define marriage when God did thru his Word the Bible?
By replacing God with Government we have allowed Satan to use our freedom laws against us. Government should have never obtained this religious power and by doing so made it secular power.
Homosexuals only want “marriage” for public acceptance and tax breaks that “married” couples have unfairly gotten.
Put God back in charge of marriage and this problem ceases to exist. Render to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God’s. Marriage has always been God’s. Give it to him.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 4:42am@jcannon – please direct our attention to any church that has ever revived government penalty, or the threat thereof, for refusing to marry a couple based on race? It’s true that once in a great while an individual revives public criticism for that view, but that’s not legal penalty. your other counter-argument i have already addressed at great length.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 6:02am@Tammy Beth
“Equality before the law” only applies to individuals and their individual RIGHTS. Marriage is not an individual right. It is recognition given by the state to a domestic arrangement. Individuals are equal under the law, but domestic arrangements are not. And homosexuals have the same rights as heteroxuals to enter into that domestic arragement[traditional marriage]. The right to create another arrangement and call it marriage they do not have, nor do we. I can’t enter in to a non-sexual business partnership with another and call it a marriage and expect the same legal benefits.
You say that the State will offer “GOOD REASONS” for whatever limitation to marriage it maintains. I listed one good reason for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples: CHILDREN. What are the GOOD REASONS for EXPANDING the franchise to homosexual couples? How does it improve society? If we grant homosexuals the right to cohabitate, which is one natural aspect of marriage, what more do they need? Why do they NEED the privileges given to real marriages that normally produce children?
If you look at State recognition of marriage as a form of State subsidy of something then it becomes clear that if the State is allowed to subsidize marriage it is also allowed to define what fits its category for subsidization. The state subsidizes charitable giving through tax deuctions. I don’t have the right to claim the status as a recognized charity unless I fit the standard definition.
Report Post »NUTN2SAY
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 7:52am@ Tammy_Beth
It’s really just plain simple logic.
If you are not contributing to the preservation of the human species by natural reproduction as designed and intended by nature. Then you become an obstacle to the preservation of the human species. By choice you have turned your back on the human species and yet you want the rest of us to respect you. Nature does not work that way!
For those who choose to be anti-heterosexual, you will be what you choose to be…a freak of nature. For those that have some sort of biological imbalance that confuses the gender thought process…then they deserve medical attention!
Report Post »Favored93
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 8:01ammarriage is a religious institution God started it. The reason most conservatives and Christians don’t like it is because it is our faith that is under attack. She is right tho. allow one allow them all. May god help us!
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 8:28amBoth are unnatural and both are immoral….
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 9:13am@American Soldier (Separated)
Report Post »I think I know why you got separated. Folks like you need to be seperated. Sexual perversion is perversion, it comes in a whole lot of forms and varities, and homosexuality is one of those forms. The Bible is very clear in a number of places, including the first chapter of the book of Romans. When a society becomes wicked, it becomes homosexual, along with many other perversions. DADT got repealed, when we continue down the path of wickedness, the next step for the sodomites will be to start lowering the age of consent, along with allowing all sorts of other immorality. Study Babylon, Greece, Rome…. They allowed all sorts of perversions, and then they fell. We are going the same direction/
Itchee Dryback
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 9:33amLibertariansUnite
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:22pm
This is why we should take government out of marriage, reduce to zero tax benefits, and make it a verbal contract between to people.
Use contracts if you wish to allocate property rights.
Once you “define” a marriage, you could clearly “define” it differently. So do not define it legally at all, make it a verbal contract.
___________________________________________
Why bother with all that?
Report Post »If its to change via contract law, why bother with changing the definition of marriage.
Gays should just push for civil unions, which,imo, would be much easier as fewer people would oppose that just to be done with the issue……but solving the “problem” is not what its all about is it? Its about changing traditional values and slamming religion.
Itchee Dryback
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 9:36amAmerican Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:28pm
If you receive special privileges by the government for being married, then you cannot exclude homosexuals from those privileges. Either remove any and all incentive to be married or allow homosexuals to gain those incentives.
_________________________________________________
Who should not be allowed to get married, and why not?
Report Post »Itchee Dryback
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 9:41amAmerican Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 7, 2011 at 6:34pm
@PER100 The German Sheppard cannot give consent in a legally binding contract, which is what a marriage is.
Simple solution to your slippery slope argument (everyone loves using it on this issue) is to define marriage as a legal contract between two consenting adults.
_____________________________________________________
So you have no problem with a father marrying his daughter.
Report Post »That seems odd.
What WOULD the legal qualifications be in your scenario ?
JRook
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 10:24amRight and in the days of ignorance people accepted such wonderfully sounding insights as.. if Vietnam feel to communism, so would the US…. everyone who uses heroin, started with pot (of course they drink milk too)…… everyone who doesn’t agree with going to war as an industry is clearly not a patriot….. and of course let‘s not forget that everyone who doesn’t believe Christianity is the only true and valid religion is the devil and going to hell. Seems to me those who are libertarian want government and any other well meaning group to mind their own business.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 10:27amGiven the comments here I can only conclude that the majority of people don’t seem to understand there is a religious definition of marriage and a legal definition. If those who support the constitution here agree with the separation of church (religion as clearly stated by Madison) and state, then the two are easily separated. I don’t agree with an attempt to alter the accepted definition of marriage, but see no reason why to object to civil unions and equal rights as married individuals.
Report Post »middleclassprophet
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 10:27amThat lady is an idiot.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 10:47amToo many people to respond to, it’s gotten hectic in here. I wish the Blaze would utilize a better form of commenting. THE BLAZE! Please make the comment section into something that resembles a message board or forum, where we can respond directly to individuals and create separate discussions within discussions. This style is rather annoying once a decent discussion/debate happens.
@RANGERP I separated because when I joined, I was a rank and file, neocon Republican thinking that the wars were justified because America is always the good guys, everyone else is the bad guys. I realized while I was in, during deployment, that was not the case. I begun to denounce the war and our foreign policy and I could no longer participate in an unconstitutional war(s). If you can still live with yourself and you actually believe these wars are worth fighting for still, well…. that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. I believe the wars are hurting us and just creating more enemies.
@ITCHEE DRYBACK Honestly, it really isn’t my business. Does that notion disgust me? Absolutely. Marrying your own daughter? Frickin weird. But if the daughter actually wants to do it…. ya know what? Does it ***** my foot? Nope. Sure as hell doesn’t.
To the arguments about neutering dogs, and all the other issues, honestly, I don’t own pets. I’m not a pet person. That is all under the personal opinion of another. That still doesn’t deal with legal binding contracts such as marriage.
Report Post »jackrorabbit
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 11:00amAll she did was describe the “slippery slope”, nothing new here.
Report Post »NHMoldPro
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 11:50amI agree, it is sexual deviance and anything other then male/female relations isn‘t natural and isn’t genetic, it’s a mental disorder and humans are easily influencable and the more you meditate on something you begin to long for it & sexuality is no different. Some people do bad things to animals, is that natural too? What makes being gay natural when natural selection would have killed it off if it was a genetic defect…up until enuf gay psychologists rewrote the books it was always known as a mental disorder. Addiction and similar behaviors based on a self-gratification also work similar.
Its sad people are so brainwashed that they don’t see they are being fed a load of garbage. I was bi when I was younger but now that I understand how the mind works and reality I have chosen to go the way I was created to, being straight. I no longer even have thoughts or anything so I know what I say is a fact, there would be no leffft if it wasn’t for propaganda & facts like this hurt their cause on demoralizing the nation in the name of progress…hasn’t worked very well so far since you can trace the root of almost every problem to progressives on both sides of the isle in DC. There should be no more 2nd chances with them as they flush our once great nation down the toilet.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:46pm@Nutn2say – your logic fails. Here’s why: the question here is one of equality before the law. there are a great many conditions which human beings are born with which inhibit or prevent their reproductive contribution to the perpetuation of the human race and they are NOT treated unequally before the law because of their condition. and yes, it’s patently obvious when you set aside religious teaching clouding your thinking that this is an inborn condition.
however, even if you cling to the delusion that it is a “chosen behavior” – a great many hetero couple choose to remain childless, thus also not contributing to the perpetuation of the species. will you revoke the opportunity to marry for anyone who does not commit themselves to child bearing?
What’s more, a great many hetero couples DO produce offspring and do so irresponsibly, providing neither provision or guidance to these children and producing adults which are ultimately a burden on society – and yet in your logic THEY are better for the future of the race than those who do not reproduce. Where’s the logic in that?
We do not CHOOSE to be “a freak of nature” and you do not impose your restrictions on other natural aberrations (like, for instance, dwarfs, or the blind, or the infertile) – and as to medical treatment, that would be well and good if a “cure” existed.The only good for transsexualism is transition (which by the way has nothing to do with sexual attraction). otherwise, there’s nothing.
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 2:58pm@Islesfordian – you misrepresent “equality before the law.” In individual who is party to a legal transaction out be equal unless the stat has a compelling interest to make it otherwise. What is a civil marriage but a legal transaction between two INDIVIDUALS? Each of whom ought be equal before the law.
OF COURSE the state can and does restrict the nature of legal transactions in the face of a compelling reason, and should. Including the transaction of marriage. the question, as with all government limitations of rights, is whether the reason is compelling – far too often it is not.
You introduce as your reason the subject of children, yet you have not addressed the logical extension of that reasoning, which is that only those who are fertile and committed to reproduction (or at least adoption) should have a legally recognized marriage.
Having the right to enter into a “tradition marriage” is irrelevant. Equality before the law demands that we be free to enter into whatever arrangement WE choose, so long as there is no compelling reason to bar it. the government is not 9or ought not be) in the business of preferring one tradition over another. If it were, then it would logically insist that all civil marriages be confirmed by a religious institution – but it does not and no fan of traditional marriage would argue that they should.
Finally, you pose again the false question “why expand?” – that is not a freedom friendly question – the question MUST be “why li
Report Post »red1
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 3:17pm@Bear
Then why can’t it end at a single man and woman? What is your argument for changing the definition of marriage? You offered no argument in your comment. Do you have one? Why are your arbitrary limits on marriage more exceptable than the traditional view? I showed in my comment that the most often used argument for your position (only love matters) must necessarily also allow any other form of marriage. Your critique of the forms of marriage I listed was pointless. If only love matters, then those forms of marriage are obviously equally valid as they are based on love. Unless you can offer a more compelling argument than “only love matters,” then the reason for your opposition can only be bigorty. Why are you bigoted toward man/goat love?
Report Post »red1
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 3:36pm@Tammy_Beth
There was no logic in your statement: “If there is no reason to limit driving to men (i.e. Saudi Arabia) then there is no reason to limit driving by anyone.” It was a non-sequitor.
To be fair, I think you misstated your statement. I believe what you meant to say was: If there is no reason to limit driving to men, then everyone should be able to drive. I certainly agree with that and its form is identical to the argument I gave. If you were trying to confirm the soundness of my thinking, I thank you :)
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 3:40pm“on the historical moral guidance of the Bilble”
No it was in the Bible because thousands of human history had taught mankind that it was bad for society, always has been, always will be. Freaks like Alfred Kinsey using bad a hypothesis and rigged surveys may have convinced a bunch of drugged out idiots scared of being called names in the 60′s otherwise, but it doesn’t change thousands of years of real science and human advancement.
Report Post »Bear
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 5:28pmRED1
Report Post »I never said it only takes love,, I said it takes two consenting adults legal under the law! You say why not leave it at your Religions definition of a man and a women only being allowed to marry? Because not every consenting adult believes in your Religions view of Marriage or that it is the founder of Marriage!! Moses wrote the first 5 books of your Bible hundreds of years after your version of Creation and Marriage took place! Are you telling me if I do not believe snakes talk I also have to conform to your rules of how adults can legally engage each other in relationships? You are starting to sound like Barack Obama,,, never let a good crisis go to waste,,,generate more fear and use it to get your way only! What are you afraid of,,, If 2 adults of the same sex can marry legally it might show them to be more human? That it might show they can be successful at it,,something your scriptures won’t tolerate! Could end up proving your God was wrong for murdering every one at Sodom and Gomorrah? That‘s an awful lot of hate and Control to let go of isn’t it,,,you can’t afford to let them succeed because then that would mean you were wrong the hole time and so was the Bible,,and we can’t have that now can we!
Bear
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 5:38pmRED1
I guess the simple answer to the question, what gives me the right to re- define marriage?
Report Post »The answer is,, you,,,and your Religion never had the right to define it for every one else to begin with,,especially in a free Republic!
Bum thrower
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 7:14pmI agree with her!!
Report Post »Tammy_Beth
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 8:13pm@red1 – you said: “To be fair, I think you misstated your statement. I believe what you meant to say was: If there is no reason to limit driving to men, then everyone should be able to drive. I certainly agree with that and its form is identical to the argument I gave. If you were trying to confirm the soundness of my thinking, I thank you :)”
that statement is exactly the same as my original statement, only altered in semantics.
You claim was, if stated correctly, the following: there is a reason why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, if that reason is invalid, then ALL forms of marriage must be permitted. that the removal of that restriction then directly creates the absence of any restriction.
In like manner, my analogy said that (to use the Saudi example) “Only men should be permitted to drive. if we remove that restriction and allow women, then there can be no restriction at all on who can drive.”
Are you saying that you agree with that statement? That both of these are true? They are, as you state, identical in reasoning.
Are you really saying that my analogy confirms in your mind the soundness of your reasoning? You believe that if the Saudi’s allow women to drive them must also allow children, drunks, and the blind to drive as well?
Report Post »Bear
Posted on June 8, 2011 at 9:59pmTAMMY_BETH!
Keep given um Hell,,,Decent people need to be treated with their share of freedom the Constitution said we all have,,some seem to think all men ( women ) are not created equal,,,that some get to say what kinda life,Liberty and pursuit of happiness fits all? Usually this has to do with Religion but I won’t knock the idea that there might be a God,,I just ain’t to impressed with his fan club!
Hang in there and don‘t take no **** off the faithful but don’t get to mad at them either,,,their Americans too even when they don’t act like it!
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 12:48am@TammyBeth and Bear
TammyBeth-For the record you are transsexual. I am heterosexual for the record.
I ask you both simply what reason a transsexual would want to be married?
Marriage has always been a man and woman even before Government began issuing the license to marry. Before Government, Churches acted out this joining of man and woman into one unit, a marriage. Thus, marriage has always been a religious ceremony, a religious practice, religious in principle. Do you agree with the history of marriage? Can you provide factual info of Homos being “married” in any civilization?
Marriage should not be determined by Government. It should stay as it was intended, in the Church. As for your comments around Government forcing Churches to marry homos, your incorrect. Government may have yet to force a “Church” to marry homos but Government does have authority to force Churches to do anything it says due to Churches becoming mini Government agencies under George Bush 2′s Church tax laws. So once Government does side with **** marriage it can and will force Churches not to discriminate and Churches will do as told.
Blazers:
Report Post »Take Government out of marriage. If you keep pushing for Marriage of man and woman and **** civil unions, you will regret it as Government can then give marriage couples a tax break of 5% and civil unions a tax break of 10%. Government has no business regulating marriage or promoting either marriage or civil unions.
Okie from Muskogee
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 1:11am@Tammy_Beth
God doesn’t hate you but he does hate sin. Repentance is asking forgiveness of sin and refraining from that sin.
I read your scientific argument suggesting homos were created naturally and I disagree. Indulge me for a moment.
A guy who sends twitter pics to little girls while married is considered by most as what? A pervert. Why? Because it’s abnormal, not the ordinary behavior of a married persons sexual behavior. Even if one isn‘t married it’s considered perverted to send sexual pictures to others because of the abnormal sexual behavior. People who expose themselves are called perverts. People obsessed with sex are called perverts. All are abnormal in regards to sexual behavior.
Homosexuality is the same. It is abnormal of “natural sex”. Homosexuality is a perversion of sex, perverted sex. Homosexuality is humans perverted form of natural sex from hpsuch humans not maintaining control of their behavior just as sexual picture senders don’t control their behavior. If anything science shows homos (perverts) to be less in control showing a weaker mind state. Proclaiming to be **** means one proclaims to have inability to control themselves.
per·vert/ˈpərvərt/
Report Post »Noun: A person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.
Verb: Alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
Okie from Muskogee
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 1:23amSeriously Blaze, why edit the word **** or homos. It is the scientific name for those practicing perverted sex and is not being used in a hateful harmful way. Even if it was I am responsible for my speech and you should not limit it! I will not use a made up propaganda word “gay” to be politically correct. Quit being hypocrites and limiting my speech by censoring ****. It’s absurd and ridiculous. Do you censor hetero? Would our founders censor the word ****? NOPE! Quit being hypocrites and stop censoring speech!
Report Post »*************************
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 4:01amRoBoTech – “American Soldier (what a load of crap, you are/were no more a soldier than a duck).”
Sir Bedevere: Exactly. So, logically …
Report Post »Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck … she’s made of wood?
Sir Bedevere: And therefore …
Peasant 2: A witch!
*************************
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 4:08am@Okie from Muskogee – Seriously Blaze, why edit the word **** or homos.
Don’t bother talking to their hired programming. Rather enforce free speech by writing FÁG or FÁGGOT or PÉRVERTS or any other truth.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 4:32am“half my nieces soccer team is Lesbian”
_________________________________
I very much doubt that — unless your niece lives in Gomorrah.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 4:35amI guess the simple answer to the question, what gives me the right to re- define marriage?
______________________________________________
How about nature???
It’s completely unnatural to make with a member of the same sex and it defies laws of procreation.
Oh and it’s not a “redefinition” of marriage. It’s just a “definition”.
Report Post »By the way… the answer is not “religion” the answer is your Creator. He defined it. Yes, I did say “your” creator. Mine, yours, everyones.
JJ Coolay
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 4:41ammake = mate
Report Post »SEC777
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 8:58amIt’s not logical. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy and should really never be used by our elected officials. If you want to argue against something, then use solid facts, reasoning, and argument. Unfortunately far too many of our elected officials seem to ignore all of the rules of proper argumentation and debate. Might I suggest Aristotle or Sir Francis Bacon?
Report Post »Bear
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 1:05pmOKIE FROM MUSKOGEE & JJ Coolay
Both your questions and statements are self righteous and insulting,,but I will answer them! Starting with OKIE!
Report Post »1)” What reason (would) a transsexual would want to be married? Really?
A transsexual can be loved and make commitments as an adult,they have a right to pusue happiness like you in this country,,imagine that,they may want to get married for companionship,love,protection,financial security and the desire to be with another consenting adult transsexual,man or women that wishes to enter a legal and binding relationship with them! That was very simple wasn’t it!
2) (paraphrasing here) “Marriage has always been a man and woman”,,“Before Government churches acted out this joining between man and woman”,,Thus marriage has always been a religious ceremony,a religious practice,religious in principle”,,”Can you provide factual info of any Homos being ‘married’ in any Civilization?”
You asking these Questions shows how limited you are in your investigation of what the Churches have taught you,,,Why have you not looked this up yourself before you decided Gays are simply “Homos”?? Marriage has not always been between “man and woman” In China’s Fugian region and Ancient European History,,Gay unions were a norm,,no religion involved in many cases,,All this stopped when Rome Politically became Christian! In 342 AD the Roman emperors Constantius ll and Constans Outlawed same sex marriage and ordered those who were so married t
Bear
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 1:24pmOKIE FROM MUSKOGEE & JJ Cool
Report Post »Sorry ran out of room,,,but the Roman Emperors had them executed,,funny too because Some of the most famous same sex marriages in history are of Roman Emperors,, Nero and Elagabalus both had legal Gay marriages! And not all arrangements in History are Religious in origin or principle,,Long before Rome and as old as the Hebrews in culture the early inhabitants of Greece legal practiced which was included in marriage taking in a third lover,,legally and by arrangement!
Now as far as always being between a man and woman only look at your own Bible,,men married multiple women,,marriages were arranged with out asking the young girl if she wanted it,at one point brother married sister and Lot even had sex with his daughters,,,also history shows not just a tolerance but a legal recognition of Concubines and all sorts of arrangements! Is that enough History for you,,you can do the rest yourself friend,,how about starting with all the Churches recognizing Gay preachers and same sex marriages today,,a few Buddhist ( Dalai Lama has said he is neither for or against gay marriage) Church of England,Presbyterian,Episcopal ect….
Who said Governments should force churches to marry“Homos” same sex partners,,,duh,,there are enough Churches already that will do it,,See it is about freedom,,,No one is trying to take yours,,people are trying to protect their own from your control,point of view and your Religion,,Knock yourself out friend!
Bear
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 1:43pmOKIE FROM MUSKOGEE & JJ Cool
If you truly believe that Government should stay out of Marriage then you should stay out of Churches that perform gay Marriages yourself,,A few States recognize them,,aren’t you for giving power back to the States?
JJ COOL!
Doubt what you wish but believe it or not,,,,Lesbians like to play sports too,,I know you may have never considered that before,,that some young ladies are ‘Naturally” attracted to other females,,,,even at a young age because that is who they are,,Wow,,they weren‘t brain washed by the Homosexual Community to like the Same Sex it just ’ Naturally came out of them,,,and they like sports,,Who would of thought! And yes my Niece( who lives in Indiana and not S and G) has had to stand up for her friends against people like you that pretend they aren’t there! Must rock your world to find out a mid-western town has a Soccer team with a lot of Lesbians on it,pathetic!
Report Post »You say Same sex marriages are -Un-natural? “ defies laws of Procreation ” Well you don’t need to reproduce to get married, that is just silly,Even your own Bible says ? Let the young wife of your youths Bossom full fill you through out your days” Sex was for more then just making a few kiddos to populate the world, It was also to enjoy without making offspring,,and by the way,,,I think that filling the earth has pretty much been accomplished,,7 billion people,, How many more does your God need ,, aren’t the worlds children starving enough for your G
JJ Coolay
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 2:22pmBear there‘s nothing I can really say to all of that expect one day we’ll all find out. When you die. When I die. There is a living God that is the one and only true God of the universe and HE set the rules, not me. So my question or comment to you was not self righteous. It certainly does not rock my world that a midwestern state has whatever number of gays it has. The human race doesn’t surprise me, no matter where it is. The number of gays on a single soccer team (50% as you say) does seem to me to be over inflated, but what does it matter?
Report Post »As far as influence.. you’re completely wrong about that. 30 years ago there was nary a child in the country with homosexual tendencies. When I was in high school in the early 90s G&L were unheard of. Since that time there has been untold influence and agenda pushing from the left. Every movie and sitcom had 1 gay and slowly but surely it became more and more prevalent until it was more and more accepted. 5 years later you could see 18 year olds girls making out on shows like “The Real World”. As the youth of today grew, they were HEAVILY influenced and “taught” that being gay was ok. Where was the natural gravitation of gays 50 years ago? Oh let me guess… they were too scared to show it, but they were all there.
Right.
NathanM
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 2:24pmAside from the slippery slope argument about incest & polygamy (which has merit as there have been recent attempts to legitimize polyamorous relationships based on the legitimizing of homosexual relationships), there is a bigger concern. Everybody keeps talking about the “legal contract” and the tax benefits, but a bigger factor in legitimizing homosexual marriage is the affect that it will have (is having) on children – most importantly through adoption. The privilege to adopt used to be reserved only for married couples (an old movie with a good example of this is The Apple Dumpling Gang) for the sake of the children. Statistically, children “do better” in stable 2 parent (different gender) homes.
Back to the slippery slope – if it’s just “two consenting adults” what would be wrong with two cousins getting “married”? Based on the standard arguments, the only reason I can think incest between adults should be illegal is because of the potential for genetic issues with the children, but we’ll just abort them anyway – so no big deal. First “we” turned the other way and allowed pre-marital sex, now adultery isn’t really a big deal, then homosexuality is “just the way they were born”. What is the next sin for which we will look the other way and ignore?
Ok, that was long – sorry.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on June 10, 2011 at 3:15pm@Bear
Report Post »You add a lot to your interpretation of History. Being **** has always been around but has never been considered the normal, always the opposite, perverts, because it is abnormal and only creates destruction not reproduction. Being **** is against nature and against God. Being **** is the inability to control ones mind.
Homosexual=Homos Why do homos find it offensive to be called homos if it is the “scientific” name? “Gay” is a slang name used to make fun of homos for always being fake happy. Ironic homos would rather be called a name used to make fun of them.
You can lie all you want, the only reason Homos want to be married under Government is for tax breaks. For an authority to approve of their sin, subconsciously knowing it’s sin, and looking for acceptance for such sin, when God does not approve. It’s like a kid running from disapproval of father and going to mommy for an “it’s ok”. Even if Government “marries” homos, it’s still sin and wrong.
Churches practicing homosexuality and marriage are false churches and will wilt and pass away. Not very many Churches practice these perverted things as the Bible clearly tells us it is perversion.
Take Government out of Marriage. Homos can go practice anything they desire and hetero’s can practice anything they want. I bet more hetero’s get married by the Church and very few Homos are married and accepted but true Churches know Homosexuality is simply being a pervert and a perversion of sex! Take