This Is Where the American People Stand on Legalizing Gay Marriage
- Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:32pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Tuesday ended up being a disappointing day for gay rights advocates who had hoped to see North Carolina voters reject a state constitutional amendment aimed at legally preventing gay matrimony. The provision, which inevitably passed by a large margin, makes North Carolina the 30th state to implement a ban on same-sex marriage.
But with gay marriage continuing to be a topic of conversation in the sociopolitical sphere — and with legislative battles still raging — it’s paramount to examine where the nation stands on the issue as a whole.
On Tuesday, Gallup released its annual research results that explore the American peoples’ views on gay marriage. Last year, The Blaze analyzed the 2011 numbers, which found for the first time since Gallup began asking questions about same-sex marriage, that more than 50 percent of the American public supported legalizing gay unions (53 percent to be exact).
(Related: Biden: I Am ‘Absolutely Comfortable’ With Same-Sex Marriage)
Considering the ongoing fight for marriage equality, one would expect to see this proportion of support continue to rise. Consider, for instance, the way the numbers have changed over the past 15 years. In 1996, only 27 percent of the nation supported gay marriage. By 2004, this proportion had grown to 42 percent. With last year’s growth, it seemed as though pro-same-sex marriage sentiment was only headed upward.
But Gallup’s 2012 research actually shows a minor decline in this sentiment. While support dropped three points to 50 percent, the results provide a mixed bag when it comes to the overall landscape. Gallup has more:
Fifty percent of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages — down slightly from 53% last year, but marking only the second time in Gallup’s history of tracking this question that at least half of Americans have supported legal same-sex marriage. Forty-eight percent say such marriages should not be legal.
Considering well-known trends, the partisan breakdown surrounding the issue of gay marriage isn’t surprising. While nearly two-thirds of Democrats support legalization and more than half (57 percent) of Independents agree, Republicans are the least supportive. In the same study, which was conducted from May 3 through the 6, only 22 percent of GOP adherents report supporting same-sex unions.
And when it comes to faith — which is yet another stark determinant of opinion on this complex issue — Gallup found the non-religious to be the most accepting of gay marriage (88 percent said it should be legal). Additionally, a pattern of rejection can be seen among churchgoers. The more someone attends a house of worship, the less likely it appears that he or she is willing to say that gay marriage should be legalized.
This research is timely, seeing as President Barack Obama is reportedly slated to clarify his views on same-sex marriage today in an interview with ABC News. While there’s no way to know for sure, many sources are speculating that the president will come out in support of gay unions.
Gallup interviewed 1,024 random Americans for this study, which has a maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 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 414 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 378 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 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 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 (446)
let us prey
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:18pmDisgusting.
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:38pmAmen to that.
Report Post »vox_populi
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:44pmSee that trend line? Get used to it.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:01pmvox_populi
Once a trend is established things can only go one way because it is an universal law.
Something like investigating every gene & gene variant (allele) in the human genome & finding no gay gene would not affect public opinion.
Finding out that some animals are “into” homosexual sex for the most part, because other males have harems & therefore there is a shortage of females, would never ever ever affect public opinion.
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:01pmI don’t trust gallop polls 1024 people is not a huge number to base a nation wide survey on…they may have done this survey in San Francisco Ca…NC just defeated Same sex marriage by a huge margin 20%….
Report Post »koop
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:08pmIt is very simple. If the act of making love between two adults cannot create a child the act and behavior is wrong and against nature.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:24pmMCDAVE
Report Post »I agree. A poll is not to be trusted unless you know how the sampling was done.
sWampy
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:27pmWhat they should ask is educated before the liberals used lies, name calling, threats of violence to have the fact that 99.9% of homosexuality is brought about by acts of violence and abuse, and not a birth defect, or after. Those allowed to know the truth can’t be for it.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:05pmSwampy
If you read “Charlie Wilson’s War”, a Russian POW that the mujaheddin captured in Afghanistan was made gay thru repeated acts of male rape.
Report Post »TLUnrine
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:10pmHow reliable are the Gallup Polls?
From: http://www.life123.com/parenting/education/american-politics/gallup-polls-meaning.shtml
Meaning of Gallup Polls
By: Jenney Cheever
Gallup polls are public opinion polls conducted by the polling division of the Gallup Organization, a company involved in various consulting and statistical research services. Gallup polls are among the most-respected public polls, as they are considered to have a high degree of accuracy. Political analysts, news agencies and other mass-media outlets frequently cite Gallup poll statistics to demonstrate public opinion on a variety of topics.
The Importance of Polling
Polls have been around for generations. The idea behind a poll is that measuring a sample of the population will allow you to estimate the opinion of the entire population. Dr. George Gallup, an American statistician, developed the first Gallup polls in the 1930s. Dr. Gallup was a pioneer in the science of public polling. While his surveys were certainly not the first public polls, Gallup’s polls were notable because he refused to undertake any poll that was paid for or otherwise sponsored by special-interest groups. This helped to ensure absolute objectivity and accurate results in his polls. Over the years, Gallup polls have been conducted about nearly every possible issue, whether political, social or economic. Gallup has even conducted polls about polling.
A Polling Benchmark
Report Post »Gallup polls have been remarkably accurate wh
Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:34pmTLUnrine
Pools are skewed by established polling companies. During one presidential election it was shown that Bush was behind in the 2 months leading up to the election except by one “newer” polling company. Only in the last 3 or 4 days did the other polling companies “catch up” so to speak. They were weighting their polls to influence the voting public, pure & simple.
I really don’t care if Mr. Gallup is or was a respectable person. It is likely that he is retired & a new group of people are running things at Gallup. So arguing what the character of Mr. Gallup matters naught.
Report Post »Favored93
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:27pmThis is a chosen lifestyle not a birth defect. This is disgusting sinful behavior no matter what is said this is disgusting.
Report Post »Marriage is a religious institution NOT a legal contract. Our government got involved in a religious ceremony so that they could charge money for the license and collect taxes PERIOD!
Now all that being said I am apposed to gay “marriage” but not apposed to civil unions. If a person wants to go before a judge and make promises to another person and write up a legal contract I would not have an issue with that. Were MY issue lies is in calling it marriage and the idea that churches are being forced or would be forced to say … “God blesses this union”. That is an absolute affront to all godly morale standards and is totally repulsive. God does not bless sin end of story.
God does love them and is heart broken over the choices we all sometimes make to worship our fleshy sinful junk and not Him. Hell is at the end of the road for ANYONE who does not turn to Jesus and away from sin … **** and heterosexuals alike all go to the same hell. Having a sexual relationship with the opposite sex outside of marriage is just as sinful. It truly is a tragedy when anyone chooses death instead of life.
3monkeysmomma
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:30pm10th Amendment say states have the right to say who can and cannot marry…always has.
Report Post »Federal government needs to take a flying leap.
Favored93
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:32pm@Favored93
Report Post »LOL they bleeped out the word ****-sexual lol I did not cuss ;)
MCDAVE
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:42pm@Tlunrine May be so ,but what about the 30 states who have already said no to same sex marriage…Don’t think they did too much polling here.
Report Post »db321
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:55pmI Call Bull ****! – America is supposedly a Christian Nation – I have never met a Christian that Jesus would even claim to be a Christian that would support anything that God has said is an Abomination. If this poll is true then somebody is watching the wrong news – your being duped!
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:02pmI’m going to save myself a headache and try to avoid reading the majority of the ignorant and bigoted comments here on this issue. I’ve seen them all before on similar articles.
What I want to know is how anyone can justify giving the government the power to outlaw two consenting adults entering into a legal contract – any legal contract – together. I have no desire to change the religious definition of marriage, and I’m all for calling it a civil union (or any other term deemed appropriate), so long as it provides the same legal protections that marriage provides. Since NO ONE can make the behavior illegal, WHY do they think it’s permissible to deny the legal protections granted under marriage? I have news for you, none of you have any clue as to the legal status of any couple you see, and it makes no difference to you whatsoever. No matter what laws are passed against allowing SS couples to “marry”, they can still get 90% of the legal benefits and protections through other legal means. Precisely what does it accomplish by making it so much harder for SS couples to achieve those protections?
These are honest questions. I truly desire to have an intelligent and logical discussion as to what, exactly, is harmed by permitting two men or two women from enjoying these legal benefits. I understand the religious objections, and sympathize with them, but we don’t pass laws that you must observe religious standards. I want to know the secular, constitutional argument.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 10:31pm@B Rad: I have also been looking in the comment pages of the Blaze for ANY compelling, secular argument against gay marriage. So far, only silence.
Report Post »ohnomrbill
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:02amThank God for all the wonderful people you have created in your image. Thank you for the blessings that all individuals have something to offer this society. Thank you for the Heterosexual, metro-sexual, and homosexual in this we pray Amen
Favored93
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:07am@B_rad
Report Post »I have already given you guys the rational argument against SS “marriage” (read my above post). Marriage is a religious institution NOT a legal one. The government got involved to charge money for the license and to collect taxes. This is between the couple and God our government should not have put their noses into it.
Now if SS couples have a desire to go before a judge and make promises to each other and enter into a LEGAL contract I have no problem with that. They are free morale agents and can choose to live in sin if that is what they want. The issue is calling it marriage and demanding that preachers, priests or rabbi’s preform the ceremony and tell the couple that “God blesses their union”.
This is not about equal rights because they already have the same rights I do. This is about religious freedom and a nation calling evil good and good evil.
Civil unions would be just fine. I do not know a Christian that would have a problem with it.
I hope this clears the issue up for ya. :)
johnjamison
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 8:54amObama took the bait, see 57% of independents are fine with gay marriage he saw this as a way of possible getting independent support in 2012. What he didn’t realize is independents see this a social issue not a political issue. Independents don‘t vote on social iisues THAT’S WHY THEY’RE INDEPENDENTS. The only people who vote on social issues are the far left and far right. This little attempt to garner independent votes will do nothing as an independent I vote on cutting spending,removing over burden government agencies and regulations,and increasing my ability to better take care of my family AS A TRUE AMERICAN w/o government assistance.
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:11amB Rad, I can appreciate your inquiry. I am opposed to gay marriage quite simply because it means it will be mainstreamed in our culture and used to indoctrinate children in school. Then, soc8ial pressure to not only accept all that is gay will rule, but kids will be forced to CELEBRATE all that is gay.
I believe some are born gay. I see it as an affliction, much like being a pedophile. Some heterosexuals are afflicted with various human defects too. In other words, we all sin. Such is our condition. Yet, what gays want to do is celebrate their sin. No Go.
Civil unions can work. Then to each his own without forcing it on us. I do believe that which is evil wilol not endure, so if we are rotten, no laws will save us anyhow. The best people I have known in my life figures out that limiting their personal appetites to serve others is the highest calling. And those who selfishly indulge their appetites are the worst people. A person who seeks good knows this is true.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:29amKOOP
“It is very simple. If the act of making love between two adults cannot create a child the act and behavior is wrong and against nature.”
What if a woman or her husband is sterile and can’t have children? Is their love making wrong too?
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:31amFAVORED
“This is a chosen lifestyle not a birth defect.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Report Post »Do you suppose all of these animals are choosing to be gay?
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:16pmJust when they start getting support,some Flamer blows it (Pun Intended) for all of them. A Gay Pride parade.Storming a church.Dry Humpin’ each other in public. It is hard to fight a Stereotype when you keep acting like the Stereotype.That makes it no longer a stereotype.( I used that word 3 times and had to respell it each time…..I need a new word) For every one preacher that says pop your gay son straight there are 100 Vaseline covered,chap wearing,cross dressing,Jesus hating half naked homosexuals in the street screaming. Dang! Be Smart! Get Ted Allen or Anderson Cooper! Do not get Perez Hilton,RuPaul,etc! GEEZ!
Report Post »spirited
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:02pmWill this help?
8^> conventional, orthodox, formulaic, banal, hackneyed, clichéd, trite
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:55pmClichéd seems to fit the bill.Thanks.
Report Post »tharpdevenport
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:14pmThis is what homosexuals and their liberal Hollywood counterparts don’t seem to grasp.
Generally, it’s never been about stopping two people of the same sex from loving each other. It’s never been about forcing them by law to not have a life together. It’s never been about singling out homosexuals for their sexual preference.
It’s always, even though some people have a hard time expressing themselves properly, about our mores, value system of our nation on which we built it, and the Constitution.
Our early settlers and people who fled here escaping tyranny’s and religious persecution believed marriage is a union before their God, between a man and a woman. Being that the country was founded on Christian beliefs and based on them, the Constitution was thus based on God and certain inalienable rights. The “Creator” and other references to Him appear throughout the Constitution, and not just because, but rather that our rights are not granted by men, but God, and thus cannot be taken away or suspended/denied by government.
The Constitution guarantees rights to everyone, and in certain instances where it was abused to construe slavery — which is never did (even the original draft was specific against it) — an Amendment was made to keep further abuse on that from occurying.
All people have equal inalienable rights, freedom & liberty. What homosexuals are asking for is rights bestwoed upon them based on sex. An alteration of our mores. That’ll NEVER H
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:29pmWhat homosexuals are asking for are the same rights as everyone else, what the bible thumping bigots are demanding is the right to be the judge of a secular nation’s morals.
It will be up to the federal courts, like in the 60′s, to protect the equal rights of all americans.
Report Post »People_are_ignorant
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:35pmSo there are no benefits to marriage other than the union itself?
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:43pmEncinomoron – how many times doyou have to be told – every one has the same rights. A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man regardless of their sexual proclivities
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:44pm@ENCINOM
Report Post »They already have the same rights as everyone else. It is not a secular country.
tharpdevenport
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:46pmThey do have the same rights as everybody else. What they are asking for is the government to segregate them based on sex and then grant them rights based on the sexual preference.
They are asking for an alteration of the very system of freedom that protects them and een allows them the openess to be a homosexual, in comparrison to say Iran, where Ahmabeardfacejad said that Iran didn’t have “that problem” (refering to homosexuals), then a month later rounding up and publically hanging homosexuals.
Only libfarts would sling about termonology improperly like “bigot”, “racist”, etc., when they aren’t gettign their way — reverting to children.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:56pmkaydeebeau
Report Post »Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:43pm
Encinomoron – how many times doyou have to be told – every one has the same rights. A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man regardless of their sexual proclivities
________________
The same argument was made to justify the laws that banned marraiges between the races. Its nothing more than recycling old hatred towards a different minority.
Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:01pmNo, they do not have the same rights as everyone else. They do not enjoy the same protections under law that a married heterosexual couple would.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:11pmHomosexuals are not asking for special rights; if men are allowed to marry men, heterosexuals would be allowed this right as well. Any heterosexual could marry a man as well.
Report Post »Leopold
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:19pm@ Encinom
You are a raving lunatic. You really should come up with some better arguments. You are repeating yourself over and over.
All you people cannot think any further then to the end of your nose.
Report Post »Goldwaterite
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:24pm2 points… First, there is no mention of a “creator” in the U.S. Constitution. There is, however, a mention of the creator in the Declaration of Independence, but that is not legally binding. Secondly, there is neither mention of marriage in the constitution, and I believe the 9th and 14th amendments cover the ability for homosexuals to get married, and not be limited by state legislation.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:25pmThere are tax benefitrs, property rights, visitation rights, insurance coverage, etc. that are being denied because Christian bigots believe in a book of myths.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:25pm@ Encinomoron – *sigh* interracial marriage is not prohibited in the Bible – the Dems / leftist of the day supported bans on interracial marriage (btw). Moses married a Middianite (a black woman) Solomon married the Queen of Sheba (also a black woman) Since Moses was given the Word of God (at least the Torah) and since God was very specific on all aspects of leading a righteous and upright life, He did say homosexuality is wrong and silent on race.
And don’t try to throw in the slave card until you study up on your Hebrew. The Hebrew word is servant or worker. I also suggest at least a remedial study of Judaic traditions and customs. An Orthodox Rabbi would be your best source of that info.
I’ll wait a few months to give you time to study – then get back to me. Until then, *yawn* don’t bother
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:26pmBruce P.
Civil Union give the right to inherit, for hospital visits, etc. In those states that don;t it could be amended.
You just want the rest of society to approve and endorse your lifestyle choice.
Where is the gay gene?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:47pmWALKABOUT — “my” lifestyle. I am straight. Though I try to refrain from questioning the intelligence of my opponents, I have no choice but to question your’s, as you often refer to me as homosexual though you have been told in several instances that I am straight.
But that is neither here nor there.
No one is demanding or even asking that you approve or endorse anyone’s lifestyle. If you do not approve, then you do not approve. What we are asking is that you do not restrict people from living the lives they see fit, nothing more.
While we may not have found a gay gene yet, ALL scientific evidence suggests that it does exist. Please cite the scientific evidence telling us there is not a gay gene. Credible sources only, please.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:52pmTHARPDEVENPORT — I have no doubts that if certain forces in this country had their way (as evidenced by some comments on the Blaze), homosexuals would suffer much the same fate as those in Iran.
That is not a “liberetard” point of view, that is a libertarian’s point of view.
Report Post »DiscipleMaker
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:58pmThey do have the same rights as everyone else. They have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Rules are established for a reason. Where is the line drawn? If a man was in love with his 16 year old daughter, should he have the “right” to marry her? Or if a pedophile is in love with a 5 year old little boy, should he have the “right” to do what he pleases with him? Not just no, but heck no! This country was founded on biblical principals and thrived for so long for a reason. Whether you are a Christian or not, you have to admit that the bible sets out a solid set of morals and does not waiver on its position. Its going to crap now because of the lack of morals in America today. And whether you love it or hate it, you have to admit that the direction our country is headed is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended. I, for one, am not a fan…but maybe you are. The fact of the matter is we all get an opinion and we all get to stand up and fight for what we believe in. North Carolina recently stood up for what the majority of the people there apparently believe in. Those that don’t like it have the RIGHT to move somewhere else…which by the way…is how this country was founded in the first place…people fed up with a country’s taxes and decided to branch out and form their own country based on their own beliefs.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:01pmkaydeebeau
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:25pm
@ Encinomoron – *sigh* interracial marriage is not prohibited in the Bible
___________________________________
Sigh, the BIBLE NOR THE KORAN NOR ANY OTHER BOOK OF MYTHS IS THE SOURCE OF US LAW.
WE are not a theocracy, there is little difference in the arguments you are presenting than the ones that are being presented by taliban.
As yes the bible mentions slavery, the bible instructs the Hebrews to purchase and acquire their slaves from neighboring towns.
Report Post »filiusdracul
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:08pm@encinom
You cannot compare homosexuality to race. Homosexuality is behavior based on preference. You would have to compare gays to pedophiles, claustrophobes, alcoholics or chocolate lovers… Should they all have the right to redefine religious terminology too because they feel they are being denied legitimacy by society?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:42pmBruce P.
WALKABOUT — “my” lifestyle. I am straight. Though I try to refrain from questioning the intelligence of my opponents, I have no choice but to question your’s, as you often refer to me as homosexual though you have been told in several instances that I am straight.
***
You protest too much to be straight
There are only about 38,000 genes in the human genome. Scientists know what 20% of them do very well. They have others sketched out as to basically what they are but not all the ins & outs of their function. It is not looking good.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:43pm“Our early settlers and people who fled here escaping tyranny’s and religious persecution believed marriage is a union before their God, between a man and a woman.”
They also believed that witches caused milk to curdle, that comets portended disaster, and that the sun was the center of the universe. So what is your point?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:03pmI listen to & respect people without a BS, MS or PHD in physics, Chemistry or other hard science, because there are different fields of knowledge.
Just because the Pilgrims were wrong on some aspects of astronomy, cosmology or biology does not mean they were wrong on other matters.
If they were so freaking stupid, they would not have so many descendants.
Note the Pilgrims were Puritans. The Puritans were a reaction to the sexual licentiousness of their time. Syphilis was ravaging Europe. The Puritans didn’t say soliciting prostitutes, sex outside of marriage or adultery were good. They looked around read the bible & decided that being monogamous was the way to go.
I can see a gay dude in the 15th century. “Hold on dudes, licentiousness is good. Before you know it man will invent AZT, penicillin & lube.”
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:21pmBruce P
Search for stuff on the Gay gene. Still not finding it.
“Constructing the ‘Gay Gene’ in the News: Optimism and Skepticism in the US and British Press”
Report Post »This article discussed how the political culture contributed to reporting of a study. 15 years & no Confirmation? Oh my!
Favored93
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:03pm@encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:29pm
What homosexuals are asking for are the same rights as everyone else, what the bible thumping bigots are demanding is the right to be the judge of a secular nation’s morals.
Report Post »——-
Sorry but you are DEAD WRONG (as usual)!
Homosexuals have the same rights under the law that I do. It is not lawful for me to marry a man but it is lawful to marry a woman we have EQUAL RIGHTS!!!
I am not opposed to civil unions. If a person who is a free morale agent wants to live in sin they certainly have that right. If they want to stand before a judge and make promises to each other I do not care. Were the issue lies is in calling it “marriage” and the idea that our churches would have to say that “God blesses this union” when He has CLEARLY stated that this behavior is sinful is repulsive and terrifying!!!
Now look we Christians have ALWAYS said that having sex out side of marriage is SINFUL!!! Fornication and adultery will send you to the same hell as the homosexuals and murderers ect. (If you do not repent and turn to Jesus and away from sin.)
The larger point is they do not want equal rights what is wanted are special rights based on their chosen behavior (this is not a birth defect here it is a choice). They have the same right to marry as the rest of us normal people have… to say differently is dishonest at best.
Favored93
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:31pm@Bruce P.
Report Post »Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:47pm
….No one is demanding or even asking that you approve or endorse anyone’s lifestyle. If you do not approve, then you do not approve. What we are asking is that you do not restrict people from living the lives they see fit, nothing more….
…While we may not have found a gay gene yet, ALL scientific evidence suggests that it does exist. Please cite the scientific evidence telling us there is not a gay gene. Credible sources only, please.
—–
Two things… First civil unions would do the same thing as marriage without DEMANDING our churches and presumably God as well saying it is not sinful.
Second I will give you the most reliable source on the planet…. God himself… If this was a birth defect God would not say this is sinful he would just say … “awww poor guy”
Jesus was asked by his disciples after He healed a blind man “who sinned this man or his parents that he should be born blind?” (A birth defect) And Jesus answer was …”no one neither his parents nor this man sinned…”
I encourage you to look it up.
Sin is what we do NOT who we are. Being gay is not sinful but having sex with a person of the same sex is sinful just as fornication and adultery are. Calling it marriage will not change that.
From Virginia
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:54pm@Encinom – if you destroy the meaning of marriage (between one man and one woman) you cannot legally stop any other kinds of unions. Polygamy, child-marriage, group marriage, beastiality, incest – all of these will HAVE to become legal and society will collapse.
Gays can marry just like every body else – as long as it’s with someone of the opposite sex. They also have access to civil unions that protect them legally.
There is one – and ONLY one – reason that gays want marriage. So they can sue and bankrupt churches all over the US. They are not shy about this and have been saying so for more than forty years. Churches must be destroyed for the sin of saying their act is an abomination.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 11:21pm@BRUCE P.
Good to see you, my friend.
I’m not sure who is more disliked; you for being an atheist, or me for being a Latter Day Saint.
Judging by the amount of time we spend defending ourselves, I’d say it is pretty even!
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:57amWALKABOUT — you have exposed yourself as a liar with no interest in sincere debate nor learning. A Google search for homosexuality + genetics (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homosexuality+%2B+genetics) reveals the following webpages, all on the first page, all about the genetic/environmental link to homosexuality…
Biology and sexual orientation – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics …
Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors | e …
A genetic theory of homosexuality. – Slate Magazine
BBC NEWS | Health | How homosexuality is ‘inherited’
Homosexual Behavior Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random …
Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal
Google Scholar lists about 12,500 articles about homosexuality and genetics.
To say you could not find any articles about the links between genetics and homosexuality is an outright lie. Yes, while the exact cause has not been found yet, evidence suggests there is a genetic or environmental factor (possibly in utero) that causes homosexuality. You are a liar.
Funny you keep referring to me as a homosexual. You claim to not be a homophobe, but you are clearly intending it as an insult in order to derail conversation.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:00amFAVORED — no one is demanding that churches be forced to marry homosexuals. If a church, mosque, synagogue, or any one operating under the auspices of anyone, does not wish to marry someone, for ANY reason, then I believe they should have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT not to. No one is asking that the churches be forced to marry anyone, simply that the state recognize homosexual marriage and confer the same rights as heterosexual couples would have.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:52amBrother_ED — I will not hide who I am. Yes, it may earn me some barbs and arrows, but my beliefs are strong enough to endure them.
For the record, your Mormonism is of no concern to me. We may not share the same beliefs in that regard, but I have no ill-will for you in that regard. I will gladly defend your right to believe as you want.
Report Post »RebelPatriot
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:09ammarriage in the United States is a religious freedom. You are not guaranteed this right under the Constitution. What you are guaranteed is the ability to formally join in a contract with another human being.
Marriage- no
Report Post »Civil Union- equal opportunity
Locked
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 8:40amNot debating with the lefties or the fundamentalists here, but a point of clarification:
Civil unions are NOT equal to marriages on a federal level. At the federal level, no union between two men or two women is recognized. The law about this is the Defense of Marriage Act, which says the federal government only recognizes male-female unions.
As a result some rights can be procured by a state’s civil union or gay marriage law (such as hospital visits and inheritance). Others, such as sharing pensions, social security benefits, federal family medical insurance, etc., cannot be procured for gays. Besides the benefits there are also different judicial rules: gays can be forced in court to testify against their “spouses,” as spousal privilege is not recognized for same sex unions.
It is a lie to say that civil unions (or marriage, in the states that allow for them) for gays are equal to marriage for heterosexuals. Federal law expressly makes this distinction.
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:40amAre you Christians practicing Christianity or Judaism? In the original Greek text of New Testament, Jesus never mentions “homosexual” activity, at all. Homosexuality is mentioned in the “REVISED VERSION” but in the original Greek text of the Old Testament, there is not 1 mention of the word “homosexual” or any words meaning “homosexual”. Oh, and Mary Magdalene was never a prostitute. Quit putting your religion on everyone else.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:49pmGeorge Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams all credited Jeremiah 17:9 for providing the principle undergirding the separation of powers. The principles in several other Biblical passages were directly incorporated into the Constitution, including Deuteronomy 17:15 and the Article II, Section 1 provision that a president must be a natural-born citizen. Then compare the Article III, Section 3 constitutional provision regarding witnesses and capital punishment with Deuteronomy 17:6. Or the Article III, Section 3 constitutional prohibition against attainder (that is, against punishing the whole family for the acts of one of its members) with Ezekiel 18:20. And several Founders cited Exodus 18:21 as the basis of republicanism, found in Article IV, Section 4. Ezra 7:24 establishes the type of tax exemptions that the Founders gave to our churches, and there are many other passages that provide a direct influence on the Constitution.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:56pm@ Guntotin…while the word homosexual may not be used directly the concept is clearly described
Report Post »TimeForReason
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:12pmSame sex marriage is “against nature” and an “abomination” according to the Bible. Homosexuals will NOT go to heaven. God loves everyone, but homosexuality is a sin that must be repented of. It is not a “right.” 1Co 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, (10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:15pmThe BIBLE IS NOT A LAW BOOK AND SHOULD NEVER BE THE BASIS FOR PASSING LAWS.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:19pmI do not care what the bible says – this is not a theocracy. I know its very, very hard for someone like you to understand that not everyone in the country is a christian.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:26pmTHE BIBLE IS NOT A LAW BOOK.
Our laws are draft and debated by men, your religious based bigotry has no place in the 21st century.
Your God also approves of slavery and honor killings, he has little moral standing in the modern world.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:30pmThe Taliban also used their holy book to justify the demonization and terrorization of others. Sounds like you have a lot in common with them.
Report Post »the_united_states_of_britain
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:31pmsome people don’t take the bible too literally, the argument that gay marriage is wrong because god said so, will never convince anyone who isn’t religious to change their mind. having a differing opinion is fine, but quoting psalm 12.6.7 does not constitute a valid reason to be against it. maybe on the blaze, but not in the real world. where most people, even those who are religious, take the bible more as a guide then as the gospel, excuse the pun.
oh and sodomy (such a funny word) is not a gay only act. am i going to hell because i like taking my girlfriend to brown town?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:34pmencinom
“The BIBLE IS NOT A LAW BOOK AND SHOULD NEVER BE THE BASIS FOR PASSING LAWS.”
***
aka Step 1
Step 2 is saying that there are gay animals
Report Post »Step 3 is gay marriage & gay adoption
Step 4 is having gays venerated in public schools.
davecorkery
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:38pmThose bibley words were not written by god, but by men. If there is a god,(there isn’t), then homosexuality is proof of intelligent design, since gays would be a natural deterrent to overpopulation. Your particular magical book is just one of many. Good luck with it.
Report Post »Gays should be allowed to marry for one good reason: Why should they have all the fun being single and none of the bull of being locked together? Let them suffer like the rest of us (wink).
self-reliant man
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:43pmThe real question is why is the government regulating marraige in the first place? Why are they even requiring licenses? This was originally performed strictly through churches. If the government hadn’t overstepped its bounds in the first place, we wouldn’t be having this problem.
Report Post »BigAl78
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:45pmHoly hell, I think most of the people here legitimately believe the Bible is where we derive common law from. They can’t seem to grasp that not everyone is Christian, and Christians do not have the right to legislate everyone else’s lives.
Report Post »COMountainConservative
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:59pmTIMEFORREASON – You can not take scripture out of context. Finish reading what Paul is talking about. You can not rank sin! The Bible is very clear about sin. “What so every is not of faith is sin” Look it up. Also you deminish what Christ did on the cross for us. You can not loose your salvation. Again I point you to Paul’s teachings. That being said I do not support Homosexuality. It is sin before God. This only means those who allow this sin in there life to reign will have a different place in Heaven. There are ranks in the resurrection! (Again refer to your Bible and search the deeper things of God, especially Paul’s writings). God Bless!
ENCINOM – Don’t spew Hate about something you clearly know nothing about. The Bible is the Holy WORD OF GOD. If you only took time to actually study it and have an open heart you might actually learn something about it. YES it does have laws!!!! But it is a LOVE LETTER FROM GOD with instuction and mercy, grace… FULL OF LOVE. It DOES NOT CONTRADICT itself! It should be all mans guide for LIFE and PURPOSE. In your unbeilf you have been blinded and refuse to hear. That is okay and you have that choice given to you by God. He would have all men come to a knowledge of him but he knew that all would not. I only hope that when you find yourself lost and desparing of your life that you would turn to Christ and the Bible for answers. It will happen every man does! It does say… “He who wills to know, will know.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:13pmIf you believe God will punish homosexuals upon death by not letting them in Heaven, good for you. Do you think that God will change His mind if we allow homosexual marriage down here?
Report Post »Re-Founding Sons
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:14pmForget the bible…look at the definition of marriage: It is between a man and a woman, pure and simple. There are no (*) stating that a man and man or a woman and a woman can get married. Sorry, that is just how it is, so get over it.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:22pmBigAl78
Report Post »Ya all those Non Christian Asian really love homsexuality too. NOT!
formidable_foe
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:40pm@encinom et.al.
“As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly.” ~ PROVERBS 26:11
My hope for you is that your foolishness will one day cease.
For everyone else, I give you this inspiration:
“Many seek the ruler’s favor, but every man’s judgment comes from the Lord. An unjust man is an abomination to the just; and he that is upright in the way is an abomination to the wicked.” ~ PROVERBS 30:26-27
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:02pmRefounding: Definition of marriage: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Report Post »Peter Yohansen
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:04pm@ENCINOM Martin Luther King Jr. would disagree with you.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:47pm“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Sinclair Lewis
Report Post »John 336
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:49pmencinom
Report Post »You might not think the Bible is your law book now but someday you’ll realize it is the book which will be your judge (Rev. 20:11-15).
Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:52pmdavecorkery
Seems to be that the Bible kept the Israelites alive in a time of temple prostitution. But I suppose you have an argument that bible prostitution was better that Judaic law.
/sarc on
Report Post »That whole thing about incest or coveting your neighbor’s stuff is also so passe. Don’t you think?
Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:15pmBruce P.
If you believe God will punish homosexuals upon death by not letting them in Heaven, good for you. Do you think that God will change His mind if we allow homosexual marriage down here?
Report Post »***
No I think there will be people who were gay in their past life & they will be in Heaven. There is just no point in doing things the wrong way. So why persist in doing things like trying to use the digestive tract as a sex organ? Or engage in in sex that is 1,000 of time more likely to spread diseases like AIDS?
Favored93
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:20am@encinom
Report Post »Read the words of our founders. (I presume your ignorance allows you to read)
Our founders have said that our laws ARE based on the BIBLE!
It used to be in this country that you could not pass law school without a firm grasp of scripture. You could not have an open law book without an open bible next to it because the bible is were we got our laws.
Do a little studying before you speak you will be surprised what you find out.
You either just spout what your communist friends tell you or you are intentionally ignoring historical facts. Either way you are disingenuous at best or a liar. Personally I think you are both.
Favored93
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:34am@encinom
Report Post »Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:26pm
THE BIBLE IS NOT A LAW BOOK.
Our laws are draft and debated by men, your religious based bigotry has no place in the 21st century.
Your God also approves of slavery and honor killings, he has little moral standing in the modern world.
———-
You are truly to foolish to waste much time on. Look up the word “bigot”. Does it mean what you are suggesting?… Websters defines Bigot ” a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”
Yes I am a bigot. I believe in right and wrong. I believe the Bible is accurate and authoritative. I believe Jesus is who he said he is and loves even you. Yes I am a bigot but you are ignorant.
Can’t help you if you are intentionally ignoring the facts.
I do not hate the homosexual but it does break my heart knowing that they are choosing hell over heaven death over life. I can’t in good conscience tell them that the lifestyle they have CHOSEN is not sinful Just as I would not tell a young couple that “shacking up” is ok because they are not gay!
Do as you please that is your right but keep your hands and regulations out of and off my church!
Bruce P.
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:03amWALKABOUT — WALKABOUT
No I think there will be people who were gay in their past life & they will be in Heaven. There is just no point in doing things the wrong way. So why persist in doing things like trying to use the digestive tract as a sex organ? Or engage in in sex that is 1,000 of time more likely to spread diseases like AIDS?
___
You expose yourself again. It is not merely homosexual marriage you wish to ban but homosexuality itself. Along with being a liar, you are undeniably a homophobe.
Report Post »republic2011
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:11pmGet the government out of our lives. Marriage should not be a civic issue, it should be a religious one. The only reason marriage is a topic is because the government makes money off of marriage licenses and marriage tax penalties (and probably some other money making scams). I could care less if two men or two women want to marry. I don’t agree with it, but under the Constitution, I should have no ability to stop it. Put the ideological debate aside and you remove another silly discussion for this year’s presidential election.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:17pmA Voice of reason.That Can be scary seeing on here sometimes.
Report Post »People_are_ignorant
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:23pmExactly…
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:27pmMy goodness – some reason and reality – can you please try to convince the other people here? If not, your party is just going to get smaller and smaller…the tides are not on your side if you keep up with this silly crap.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:29pmEXACTLY. President Obama supports this as a states rights issue, Romney wants to create an amendment.
Report Post »self-reliant man
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:48pmAmen!
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:07pmAmen to that, Republic2012. A voice of reason.
Many here are only paying lip-service to the idea of small government and liberty; when it conflicts with their idea of how others should live, they are all for government interference.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:48pmrepublic2011
Everyone gets a civil union form the government for legal purposes. then they go to the church for the marriage ceremony.
I can see gays still being unhappy if the large churches still do not “marry” gays. The gays will still not have affirmation of the majority of people.
I am thinking about gays I know I am not seeing to many couples. Look at known figures. Dan Savage has a spouse (?). But he is the only one I know. I really expect that to end badly. His beau looks like a Stepford Wife.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:43pmWALKABOUT — doubtful you know many homosexuals to begin with, considering your stereotypes and hatreds.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:37pmBruce,
Report Post »The homosexuals activists are not arguing that they would like the people of state to decide whether or not they want to have same sex marriage. They are forcing their view on to everyone else by judicial fiat. The state must allow same sex marriage. It’s the homosexual activists who are against small government and want government intervention. They want to the courts to dictate to the people that they have to live in a society that allows same sex marriage. You flipped the issue on it’s head.
Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:40pmBruce P.
I know the milieu that Dan Savage inhabited in college. I wish I would have taken notes, if gfor no other reason to compare where they were then, now & the future. I do not remember Dan Savage specifically, but I knew the people around him. What a bunch of dysfunctional group of people.
Report Post »Favored93
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:38amHAHAHAHA I said the same thing up toward the top but I am the religious bigot! lol :)
Report Post »Jim
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:06pmObama is smoking pink… he is announcing his feeling towards gay marriage… so do we all bow to his will? Before you decide… remember Romans 1:26-27
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Report Post »Teabunny
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:56pmHey Jim interesting verse. Have you read the whole chapter? is this a warning against being gay…or against being a religious Jew, deciding you are righteous because you keep the commandments perfectly, and good enough in God’s eyes to deserve the ability to look down on others (you see, the Jews actually had a prayer that said, I am glad I am not a woman, a dog, or a gentile) and what is the natural use of a woman (go on..say sex…) NO…read Genesis (its the first book) we were created as a helpmate (which is why you call us when you can’t find your socks…or Philadelphia…or what to do when SOPA shuts down your business! LOL) so…read the entire chapter…don’t just pull verses out of context. you sound like a mail order pastor.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:21pm@Teabunny – Actually, it’s a warning. It was actually speaking from a historical point of view. When a society turns its face from God and turns to the sins of the flesh (as our society has been doing) then God gives up the people (removes His protection) to the most basest, most deviant behaviors imaginable and unimaginable. It is the decay and death of that society.
Report Post »Individualism
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:04pmso basically people that read a book and believe in fairy tales are against gay marriage while those that live in reality do according to that.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:22pmI believe that book.God gave us free will. That Free will dictates morals,the Constitution dictates rights to exercise that free will and the rights associated with it.Using your generalization I Could easily generalize that you are a Communist. See how generalization works?
Report Post »DexterMorgan
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:22pmI don’t believe that Hazel and Gretyl are real nor do I believe that bears live in groups of three in cottages n the woods for that matter. Or that eggs sit on walls.
Report Post »WashingtonIsMyHero
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:23pmNo it’s just that Republicans and God-fearing people are trying to save America’s moral values. The Left is immoral and uses the federal government to try to legislate licentiousness.
Report Post »Re-Founding Sons
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:19pm@WASHINGTONISMYHERO
Report Post »You’re my hero Dad!
Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:31pmWASHINGTONISMYHERO — I have a question for you. You claim the left is trying to legislate licentiousness. It is more correct to say they are trying to stop government interference of our personal lives. It would be safe to say you support the principle of small government, correct? If so, then how can you support government interference in the personal lives of anyone? Is that not the antithesis of small government principles and the ideals of liberty?
Report Post »Favored93
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:55am@Bruce P.
Report Post »Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:31pm
WASHINGTONISMYHERO — I have a question for you. You claim the left is trying to legislate licentiousness. It is more correct to say they are trying to stop government interference of our personal lives. It would be safe to say you support the principle of small government, correct? If so, then how can you support government interference in the personal lives of anyone? Is that not the antithesis of small government principles and the ideals of liberty?
——
Sorry but your argument does not hold water. We have had a NATURAL understanding in this country that marriage is not an Adam and Steve event and now our benevolent dictator is trying to tell my pastor that he has to preform gay marriages in effect say that “God blesses their sin”!
If that is not Government intervening were it does not belong then what is?
Were does it stop? Can I marry my dog or have 15 wives or maybe marry my neighbors 5 year old little girl? Who are you to say that would be wrong? Follow this to it’s NATURAL conclusion it is disgusting. I hope you change your tune.
am123
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:02pmWhere the American people stand on gay marriage is irrelevant. What counts is where God stands on gay marriage. It is an abomination in His sight and a stench in His nostrils. Legalizing or promoting gay marriage only adds fuel to the fire of judgment that will rain down on this wicked generation and nation.
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:06pmI agree. We are turning away from God and I think we are headed God’s wrath.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:08pmWell I know you would like to live in theocracy but thankfully we don’t. In all honesty what do you think is worse…gay marriage or slavery/genocide and all the other problems this country has had in the past with child labor, womens rights issues, mass pollution. Do you think that gay marriage is more of a moral travesty in gods eyes than that? Seriously, answer that question and then tell me why today god is ready to reign hell fire upon us, but wasnt in the past when things were a hell of a lot worse? I swear, you people live in an alternate reality…
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:09pmHe never said that to me, and I see no real reason to believe those who have claimed that He said it to them. Therefore, where you think God stands is irrelevant.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:11pmActually where your fictional God stands matters not, WE ARE NOT A THEOCRACY. Our laws are made by men and are not the divine. If Christians don’t like gay marraige, don’t have one, but don’t hold hostage the rights of others because you are wedded to your ancient myths and supersitions.
Report Post »People_are_ignorant
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:17pmWe have freedom of religion for a reason, dont trample others with laws supporting your religious views. This destroys liberty and ultimately leads to socialism. If you can do it one aspect it can be done in others because you gave the government precident.
Report Post »the_united_states_of_britain
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:35pmi cannot believe god, in all his wisdom would make people gay for the sole purpose of condemning them. god is forgiving. stop thinking you will ever truly understand what it is that god wants us to do with our lifes.
Report Post »BigAl78
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:47pmUhh… no. God is irrelevant here. Our government is supposed to serve the people, not what Christians think God wants.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:49pmGod spoke on gay marriage?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:56pmMUTINY — being a “Christian” nation or people has never saved them from disasters, whether natural or man-made. Rome was a Christian nation when the Western Empire fell to the barbarians and when the Eastern Empire fell to the Muslims. So, please, tell us how turning away from god is going to hurt us again? Because it sure as hell has never done anyone any favors.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:37pm@Brucep- They were a Christian nation? Really? Because from what I know of Rome is was a decadant sinful place. They were soft and stupid just like he left has made America. THAT is what opened them up to destruction – Just as America is being systematically destroyed.
None are so blind as those who refue to see.
Report Post »Favored93
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:13amWow!
The communist leftist trolls are out today!
For all of you claiming equal rights for gays keep saying it you just sound foolish. They have the same protections under the law that the rest of us do and you know it.
This is not really about equal rights this is about attacking our religious institutions. Enicom and Bruce have made that clear (as if it weren’t already lol ).
Civil unions are fine it hurts nobody and the gay people get what they are saying they want. But rights are not what they REALLY want! They want God to validate their sin. They want us to validate their lifestyle. They want special rights because they say they are a minority. Really? Are they? Does your bedroom habits make you any different from anyone else? If they acted with their “spouse” in public the way the rest of humanity did no one would know they are gay. If they did not spank each other in the streets maybe this discussion would be a little different. (I have unfortunately seen this behavior in SF)
Lets at least be honest about this issue because what is being attacked is truly the heart of this country.
This is not about equal rights and we ALL know it.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:14amFROMVIRGINIA — that would be the Rome of popular imagination, that of the Caesars, the last days of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire. From the 4th Century, Rome was a Christian state (why the Vatican is in Rome…), and continued to be a Christian state until the loss of Constantinople (seat of the Eastern Orthodox faith) in 1453. Yet the faith of millions in Europe and the Middle East did nothing to prevent them from suffering war, disease and conversion to Islam.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:48amFAVORED — communist lefty trolls? If you think everyone who supports homosexual marriage is a lefty, communist or even a troll, you are a rather ignorant soul. Instead of engaging in actual thought, you are rehearsing stereotypes.
And you are wrong. Marriage is a legal contract, in confers certain rights and protections upon the couple. If marriage were not a legal contract and simply a religious institution, then why does one need a judge’s approval when obtaining a divorce?
You further claim our rights come from the Bible. This is complete and total nonsense. Please, show us in the Bible were there is anything resembling our Bill of Rights. There is not. The laws in the Bible are completely antithetical to the rights we enjoy as Americans.
You claim I have attacked religious institutions, that I am trying to destroy them. Please point to where I have made any such statement. I have attacked those who would use religion to deny liberty to others. There is a difference.
Also, you attack homosexuals for not acting like straight couples while in public, in that they show affection, thereby showing the world they are gay.
Sounds like they are acting like the rest of humanity, heterosexual couples. I show my girlfriend affection in public all the time (though not spanking, as I value my hand and do not wish her to remove it). But cannot deny there are not straight couples, far more of them than gay, that engage in behaviors such as “spanking”
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:01pm…and after the Roberts interview, we know where the president stands. His support is awesome! Happy 2012!
Report Post »ACLUHater
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:08pmLet the weeping commence…
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:01pmI’m just glad I was one of those who cast my vote for the amendment. Makes me proud to say I am from North Carolina.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:13pmNothing like the south proving that they need the Federal Courts to move them into the present day. Much like the 1960′s the bible belt is too much in love with their bigotry to change themselves.
Report Post »pwatkins
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:23pmAmen, you and I. Acting on Faith takes much more committment than acting on the wishes of humanity. I’d rather be called a bigot by man than lose my relationship with Jesus Christ. How we chose to vote is ose on the side of God will always win, whether it be freedom is all about….thank God(from where our rights come) for freedom of choice. Man will have many battles in life, but whether it be on earth or in Heaven those that stand on God’s side will always win.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:30pmEncinom Your Generational of the south makes you a Douche.There are 30 other states that have passed the same amendment and only 12 of those are states that I would Consider Southern.One of the Homophobic states is even Commiefornia! In NC the biggest turn out was from Obama Loving Black Churches. NC Did vote Obama in 2008,so maybe instead of blaming southerners you may just want to blame Homophobic Democrats.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:35pmYou should feel proud that you used religious justification to suppress the civil freedoms of others. The Taliban felt the same pride during their time in power.
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:52pmI‘m just glad that I’m not ENCINOM, especially when faced with the final judgement. I am not a bigot, I just know what is right. It goes against nature and God. No one is just “born that way.” If it were natural and acceptable, they would be able to reproduce. Even if you were to try to take God out of it, it’s just not logical. Look at Rome, which had become one of the biggest homosexual civilizations. Or go back to Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. Homosexuality does not flourish.
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:04pmI am very proud, salt. I mean if we want civil liberties, why not just go all out? What‘s wrong with killing someone because we don’t like them? Shouldn’t I have the freedom to take someone out? Or let my kids get blistering drunk or high on cocaine when they are 10 years old? I mean why not? Why can’t I get plastered and drive drunk if I want? Where are the civil liberties in that? Such a totalitarian regime we are under!
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:26pmYou’re exactly right. A piece of paper saying two consenting adults are married will have the same detrimental effects on others just like the other examples you provide. In fact, it may even drive that good Christian divorce rate even higher than it already is. Again, be proud that religious justification was used to impose the judgement of Christians upon their fellow Americans.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:41pmLIBERTYORDIE, it is not something you should be proud of. Even if you do not agree with homosexual marriage, you must realize that you and your fellow North Carolina citizens have set a dangerous precedent for yourselves. Constitutions should guarantee liberties, not restrict them. If popular will can restrict them in this case, it can restrict them in ANY case.
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:51pmWhy should homosexual’s views of marriage be imposed on the MAJORITY(61% of NC voters)? We are a democratic country founded on Christian principles. If you aren’t aware, democracy is rule by the MAJORITY. And the examples I cited are extreme, but the legalization of marriage between homosexuals would be deemed a slippery slope. Yes, that act in itself may not cause riots in the streets, but that opens the door for who-knows-what to be legalized. And where does the divorce rate come in? Who says everyone who gets married is a devout Christian? Not too up-and-up on the comparisons….
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:00pmWell Bruce, popular will is what governs us.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:30pmLIBERTYORDIE — popular will is not what governs us. We are a representative republic, governed by laws. The Founding Fathers knew the dangers of the Mob, which is why the constituted the government they gifted us with, to protect us from popular will that would seek to strip us our liberties. If popular will can restrict liberty in this case, then it can restrict it in any case. Where do you stop? Do not think because there is not now popular will to restrict liberties you enjoy now, that it will not exist one day in the future.
Homosexual views on marriage would not be forced upon the country. If you do not believe in homosexual marriage, you are not expected to endorse or support it. All that is asked of you is that you do not interfere with the lives of others. How can you have “liberty” in your name when you do not wish it for all, but only for some?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:35pmLIBERTYORDIE — as to question asking why, if this is about civil liberties, we do not just go all out and allow murder, drunk driving, etc. The answer is that as such things bring harm upon others, they are not civil liberties, but the antithesis of them. There is no liberty in robbing another of their life, possession or rights.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:38pmBruce,
Report Post »The constitution mandates that redefining marriage is a right? You must believe that everyone has the right to redefine marriage, otherwise your own logic chain dictates that you would be discriminating against polygamists and every group who wants a new definition of marriage. Is that correct?
veruca salt
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:39pmYes. Gays have such a radical idea of marriage that it should never be imposed on the rest of us. They actually believe that you must schedule a date to be married, get a license from the state, go before a holy man or a justice of the peace, take vows, sign some paperwork, celebrate with friends and family, then try to make it work long term. Truly insane.
And you’re correct about the majority. In fact, some of our forefathers fled religious persecution, where the majority’s will was being imposed on them, to come to the new world because they knew they could establish their own majority and impose their wills on others.
U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a true democracy. Ever heard of the Electoral College? If it was a true democracy, most of the South, including N.C., might very well still be operating under Jim Crow.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It’s effective when arguing against non-critical thinkers, but it’s not logical.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:10pmEcinom,
The definition of marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Any man can marry any women he wants. With the prohibition of inter-racial marriage, the government was telling any man he can not marry any women he wants. Thus, inter-racial marriage bans would be unconstitutional.Same sex couples want to redefine marriage.You have committed a category error.
In order for your argument to work, you have to take the position that any one can call any arrangement between people a marriage. Redefining marriage has to be a right for everyone, not just for homosexual couples.
Finally, do not compare same sex marriage to the civil rights movement. It is insulting.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:29pmVeruca,
“Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It’s effective when arguing against non-critical thinkers, but it’s not logical.”
The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy at all. The logic chain to allow same sex marriage dictates the slippery slope. Homosexuals are not putting same sex marriage on the ballot. They are making a constitutional argument. They are being discriminated against because they can not get married. However, that argument is incorrect. The definition of marriage is the union between one man and one women. It is not true that they can’t get married. They can not redefine marriage.
The homosexual argument to allow same sex marriage dictates If redefining marriage is a constitutional right for homosexuals, it must be a constitutional right for all groups that want a different definition of marriage. You must believe that polygamists are currently being discriminated too, right?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:52pmEncinom
Nothing like the south proving that they need the Federal Courts to move them into the present day. Much like the 1960′s the bible belt is too much in love with their bigotry to change themselves.
Report Post »***
You it is all those southerners. That’;s the Problem Earth to Encinom demographics have changed in the South. Some southerners have moved north & some northers have moved south. The black & Hispanic populations have grown. And yet Encinom continues to believe that this is the south of 50 years ago. Get new talking points Encinom. ROFL @ u
encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:30pm@KStret “In order for your argument to work, you have to take the position that any one can call any arrangement between people a marriage. Redefining marriage has to be a right for everyone, not just for homosexual couples.”
Actually, that is my position, that two consenting, adult, individuals have the right to define their relationship as they see fit and seek all the rights and obligations that goin along with such a relationship. Religious values are a individual choice and it is unconstitutional for the State to enforce social norms based on any religious groups beliefs.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:32pmKStret
The homosexual argument to allow same sex marriage dictates If redefining marriage is a constitutional right for homosexuals, it must be a constitutional right for all groups that want a different definition of marriage. You must believe that polygamists are currently being discriminated too, right?
Report Post »___________________
Actually why not, if everybody is a consenting adult. What right those the state have to interfer with the private lives and faith of individuals. Hell, Mitt‘s family wouldn’t have had to fled to Mexico if that was the law.
veruca salt
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:41pmThe DOMA, as of 1996, defines marriage and says states don’t have to recognize relationships between gays that are defined as marriages under their laws. Most states have taken this and run with it by banning gay marriage, but others have not. Prior to 1996, there was no strict definition, and I would guess in the future, as attitudes change, this will be overturned as ultimately, people are being denied the pursuit of happiness based on semantics. That is speculation on my part.
Polygamy doesn‘t bother me as long as peoples’ basic rights aren’t being imposed upon by the relationship. However, it has historically had a strong misogynistic element to it (i.e., Warren Jeffs) and for that, it should be banned.
No matter how you slice it, slippery slope is illogical, even in this case. Gays have a strong argument of being denied basic rights in the area of marriage, and if it is overturned, it’s a stretch to say polygamy is coming next due to the historical problems in the US with polygamy.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:24pmEcon,
“Actually, that is my position, that two consenting, adult, individuals have the right to define their relationship as they see fit and seek all the rights and obligations that goin along with such a relationship. Religious values are a individual choice and it is unconstitutional for the State to enforce social norms based on any religious groups beliefs.”
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If your position is that marriage can only be between two people, You are being a hypocrite. Why do you get to decide what the new definition of marriage is? Why don’t the polygamists get to decide what the new definition is?
On top of that, you just contradicted your own argument. If the 14th amendment dictates that redefining marriage is a right, everyone has the exact same right.
“Actually why not, if everybody is a consenting adult. What right those the state have to interfer with the private lives and faith of individuals
You are equivocating. Responding “why not” is not addressing the issue. If homosexuals have a constitutional right to redefine marriage, everyone has that right.
Do polygamist have the exact same rights that you believe homosexuals do to redefine marriage?
Can a polygamist go to court and have a judge impose polygamy on a culture that doesn’t want it?
You are not going to answer these questions. You will keep equivocating and attempt to change the subject to religion so you can demonize Christians.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:32pm@KStret,
Read before your respond, I guess you didn read both of my posts. Dumb ass.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 8:44pmveruca salt
No matter how you slice it, slippery slope is illogical, even in this case. Gays have a strong argument of being denied basic rights in the area of marriage, and if it is overturned, it’s a stretch to say polygamy is coming next due to the historical problems in the US with polygamy.
***
Report Post »BS. There are Supporters for gay marriage are on record for polyamory. That there are not more saying such might have more to do with strategy than desire.
From Virginia
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:52pm@Walkabout – Not such a stretch. We spoke of the slippery slope 40 years ago hen gays first started yipping about their so-called rights. They said it was a stretch that they would EVER ask for marriage – yet here we are.
I thought they (leftists) would go for the polygamy first – because of all the muslims in this country. But I was wrong. They are going after child marriage. Lefists have been making a lot of noise lately for child molesting being destygmatized and decriminalized.
So stick that in your slippery slope pipe and smoke it. Because as far as I can see there is no limit to the debauchery that leftists will sink to and celebrate.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 10:08pmGo back and read my previous post again, Walkabout. Polygamy is bad if the rights of those involved are being infringed upon. Polygamy in the U.S. has traditionally involved a bunch of young girls who weren‘t allowed to make their own decisions in the matter and that shouldn’t be allowed. Beyond that, if consenting adults are involved and are fully aware of what they’re getting in to, who cares? You may not approve of the situation, but if 5 tax-paying, consenting gays want to have a polyamorous relationship and no one’s rights are infringed upon, how does that affect your life? You probably don’t approve of flag burning either, but it’s protected by the Constitution while marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution.
You’re still slippery sloping this by taking the alleged statements of a few and trying to paint the whole crowd with these alleged statements in your attempt to prove the world is going to end if gays are allowed to marry.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 10:22pmFrom Virginia,
Prove what you’re saying. Give an example where a proven leftist is advocating for the de-criminalization of child molestation or child marriage. I‘m presuming you’re a supporter of the GOP and your new nominee Romney and apparently you don’t know that his family fled the U.S. because they were polygamists and were trying to avoid persecution. That’s not saying Mitt is into polygamy, but I’m not aware polygamy being an exclusively leftist proposition. So, enlighten us, please.
If you can’t, in a slight twist to your own words, “there’s no limit to the ignorant statements that From Virginia will sink to and celebrate.”
Report Post »Favored93
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:28am@veruca salt
Report Post »Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:35pm
You should feel proud that you used religious justification to suppress the civil freedoms of others. The Taliban felt the same pride during their time in power.
—–
This is an attempt to spin this issue. This is NOT a civil rights issue and you know it. Christians and Jews are NOTHING like the Islamist killers and you know it.
They (homosexuals) have the same protections under the law that the rest of us do and you know it.
They (homosexuals) can go before a judge make promises to one another and have the same LEGAL rights the rest of us do. And you know it don’t you. They (homosexuals) do not believe in God so why do they want to go to a pastor and demand he validate their sin? Could it be that this is a fight against God and His institutions and people?
This is NOT about equal rights. This is about destroying God’s influence in this country.
Just be honest about what you want or we can’t have a true debate. What is wanted here is a nation free from morale law and the God who made that law.
They already have what they say they want so the only logical conclusion is what they say and what they truly want are two different things.
KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:45amVS
‘Polygamy doesn‘t bother me as long as peoples’ basic rights aren’t being imposed upon by the relationship. However, it has historically had a strong misogynistic element to it (i.e., Warren Jeffs) and for that, it should be banned’
I didn’t ask you if polygamy bothers you. I asked you if polygamists have the exact same right that you believe homosexuals do to redefine marriage. Your objection that someone might be forced into a polygamist marriage is a red herring. People might be forced into regular marriages too. That is not the issue.
Attempt number 2: Do polygamists have the exact same right that homosexuals do to redefine marriage?
Report Post »Favored93
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:46am@veruca salt
Report Post »Posted on May 9, 2012 at 10:22pm
From Virginia,
Prove what you’re saying. Give an example where a proven leftist is advocating for the de-criminalization of child molestation or child marriage. I‘m presuming you’re a supporter of the GOP and your new nominee Romney and apparently you don’t know that his family fled the U.S. because they were polygamists and were trying to avoid persecution. That’s not saying Mitt is into polygamy, but I’m not aware polygamy being an exclusively leftist proposition. So, enlighten us, please.
If you can’t, in a slight twist to your own words, “there’s no limit to the ignorant statements that From Virginia will sink to and celebrate.”
—–
First that is a false accusation about Romny’s family his grand father was NOT a polygamist. Second did you know that your beloved Obama’s father WAS a polygamist? So look…. you are a leftist communist troll who just spews out the talking points and does not even bother with those pesky facts.
Wow the trolls are out to nite!
KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:55amEcon,
“Read before your respond, I guess you didn read both of my posts. Dumb ass”
I quoted your posts when I responded to you. You first post redefined marriage between two people instead of one man and one woman. In your second post you said“ why not” to polygamy.
You are making a constitutional argument. You can’t shrug you shoulders and say why not. If you believe that same sex couples have the right to redefine marriage, you have to believe that polygamists have the same right. Is that correct?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:10amVS
Polygamy doesn‘t bother me as long as peoples’ basic rights aren’t being imposed upon by the relationship…….No matter how you slice it, slippery slope is illogical, even in this case.”
You just affirmed that there is a slippery slope by your own position on polygamy.
” However, it has historically had a strong misogynistic element to it (i.e., Warren Jeffs) and for that, it should be banned.”
Who are you to tell polygamists that they can not get married?
“Gays have a strong argument of being denied basic rights in the area of marriage, and if it is overturned, it’s a stretch to say polygamy is coming next due to the historical problems in the US with polygamy.”
You own argument dictates that anyone who wants to redefine marriage has a constitutional right to do so. If homosexuals are being denied the basic human right to redefine marriage, equal protection dictates that denying marriage to any group who wants to redefine it is also being denied a basic human right too.
You are a hypocrite. Homosexuals are being denied the basic human right to marry who they want. That is discriminatory. Another group wants the exact same basic human right to redefine marriage and you want to deny them that right?
If you think the slippery slope is illogical, maybe you should take a closer look at your own logic chain.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 8:34amFavored 93,
Here’s a homework assignment for you. Look up how many states allow civil unions and find out for yourself. You say they have the same rights as all of us and they actually don’t. DOMA allowed individual states to disregard these unions and to date, only about 12 have allowed it. So, the absolute statements you’re making are pretty devoid of facts.
You also say gays don’t believe in God. How do you know this? Again, another uninformed generalization on your part. Look up Ted Haggard, George Reker, Eddie Long for a few high profile ones.
It’s a free country. If two consenting adults want to make a choice that will, in your opinion, ultimately lead to them burning for eternity, shouldn’t they be allowed to make that choice?
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:10amKstret,
Polygamists have the same right as gays to challenge the definition of marriage that didn’t exist until 1996. I see no difference in two gays, or four people entering into a legally binding contract that gives them the same civil rights as a hetero married couple. Unlike a lot of religious people in this country, I do not feel it is my place to dictate to others how they live their lives and pursue happiness as long as everyone’s civil rights are respected. Most of these state laws against polygamy and gay marriage are in place due to moral objections and in this country, that’s wrong. Is that clear enough for you?
The slippery slope argument fails, as I have stated two times now, because of the examples in polygamy where a person’s civil rights are violated. If they get that worked out, let them go for it. But, ultimately, why do you even care if there’s a slippery slope if consenting adults are living their lives, pursuing happiness, and no one gets hurt in the process? Who are you to tell people how to live their lives?
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:49amI keep hearing basic right this, basic right that. Marriage is not a basic right guaranteed in the constitution. And by the way, stop saying that “slippery slopes are illogical.” You have no proof to refute they are illogical; whereas you can look at world events over the last 50 years and see a constant trend of cause-and-effect liberalism. Try using logic instead of talking points.
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:52amVeruca Salt,
‘The slippery slope argument fails, as I have stated two times now, because of the examples in polygamy where a person’s civil rights are violated. If they get that worked out, let them go for it.’
You are using the term “slippery-slope” incorrectly. Look it up. I don’t feel like being a college professor and explaining basic concepts.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 10:11amLiberty,
Please be a college professor and explain how slippery slope is not a logical fallacy. I‘d really like to hear what you have figured out that everyone else doesn’t.
In this case, you guys are slippery sloping by saying if this condition happens, then Pandora’s box is open and everything else will follow. I argue that there are problems inherent with polygamy that violate peoples’ civil rights and these problems could derail it becoming the next logical conclusion of the first condition. Maybe, maybe not, but your position of an absolute “it will happen” is no more correct than mine.
So, I call your bluff. Explain how a slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy. I suggest you start by googling “slippery slope argument”.
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:23amDefinition of SLIPPERY SLOPE
: a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another with unintended consequences
First gay marriage
Then polygamy
Then animals
Then inanimate objects
If you open the door to redefining what marriage is, then you have infinite possibilities of what could consist of marriage. It’s a logical progression.
And you mis-used the term again. It isn’t “slippery sloping.” You would be creating a slippery slope. That is the only way it can be used.
-Prof LibertyorDie2011
Report Post »English 101
veruca salt
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:18pmYou’re missing the point completely. You defined slippery slope, but failed to explain why the logic of a slippery slope argument is not correct. Look at your own definition… see the words “seems to lead inevitably from one action to another”. “Seems”? To defend your point, this would need to say “is certain to lead from one action to another…”. See the difference? It’s not a logical progression because the intermediate steps are not certain and need to be proven individually before they can be made valid.
The NRA uses this all the time to scare people. Assault weapons ban? Let them ban assault weapons and they’ll take them all! Not. Assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and everyone may purchase them again. Slippery slope fail.
And, for the record, bestiality is legal in several states already, and probably in some that don’t allow gays to marry, and if you’ve ever ventured into a sex shop, you’ll know sex with inanimate objects is legal too.
Drop the English and take some logic.
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:49pm” It’s not a logical progression because the intermediate steps are not certain and need to be proven individually before they can be made valid.”
So we have to wait and see that all of those things happen before we say “OOPS! We screwed up!”
That defies logic.
And the assault weapons ban was pointless as well.
“Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing ‘post-ban’ assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. The VPC estimates that more than one million “assault weapons” have been manufactured since the ban’s passage in 1994.”[7] Ironically, the AWB was a cosmetic ban.
Along with that being totally off-topic, the ban expired because it did NOTHING. Why go through the legal red tape to reinstate a ban that is pointless?
And why bring up sex? I never mentioned sex. The topic of discussion was MARRIAGE. It is getting exhausting trying to stay on topic.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:26pmLook Liberty, you can either learn something about the slippery slope logical fallacy, or not. It’s up to you. But, the fact is if someone argues without knowing what’s going to happen, that A leads to B leads to C leads to…Z, you cannot assume that if A, then Z. The assault weapons ban was not an attempt to get off topic, but an example to show a case of a slippery slope argument that did not work as the people arguing it intended.
Your statement of waiting to see all these things come true before we say we screwed up is wrong because you cannot assume that they will all come true. Well, you can, but that’s an incorrect assumption. If you continue down that train of thought it is you who defies logic.
Again, I can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink. Have the intellectual curiosity to look up “slippery slope logical fallacy” and do your own learning. It will help you identify the fallacy and challenge it when the other side uses it. It’s an effective argument, but it’s not correct.
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:44pmHaha your first paragraph is from the wikipedia article.
I never said it WOULD lead to the things I listed, I just noted the possibility simply because the door had been opened for re-interpretation.
Are you the mean chick from Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:23pmI prefer “bratty and spoiled” as opposed to “mean”.
I want my golden goose and I want it now.
With all sincerity, have a nice day, sir
Report Post »LibertyorDie2011
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:49pmThanks for the lively discussion. And a good day to you as well, ma’am.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 7:56pmveruca,
If you want to claim that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, it’s up to you to show how it is illogical. You have not done this. Stating that some polygamist might be forced into marriage does not show a logical fallacy. People might be forced in to same sex marriages too. You argument fails to back up your claim. Your own argument dictates a slippery slope.
You assert that homosexuals are being discriminated against. The criteria from discrimination is not being able to redefine marriage. Same sex marriage activist cite the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause as the constitutional justification from imposing same sex marriage on the culture.
If group A is being discriminated against because they can not redefine marriage group B must also be discriminated against because they can’t redefine marriage. Why? Equal protection dictates that if group A has the basic human right to redefine marriage, Group B must also have that same right. The same would be true for groups C,D,E,F, and G.
This your own logic chain and it shows that the slippery slope is not a logical fallacy. The slippery slope is your own position. In order to get around that problem, you keep bringing up the red herring that some people might be forced into polygamist marriages. That is not the issue. The issue is applying your rationale to allow same sex marriage equally. A red herring is a logic fallacy. Thus, your entire objection to polygamy is a logic fallacy.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 8:02pmVeruca,
You are also contradicting yourself. You are stating that the slipper slope is a logic fallacy but then turn around and support polygamy being legal. That is the definition of the slippery slope. You just affirmed that the slippery slope is true.
“I do not feel it is my place to dictate to others how they live their lives and pursue happiness as long as everyone’s civil rights are respected.”
No one is dictating to you that you can’t live with who you want or have sex with who you want. Stating that redefining marriage is not a civil right does interfere with anyone’s lives.
You doing the exact same thing that Ecinom was doing. You are equivocating between libertarianism and fascism. You argue that you want government to stay out of peoples lives but simultaneously hold the position that the government should impose and force same sex marriage on the culture and no one has a choice.
A libertarian would want the government to stop recognizing all marriages. You do not want that. You want the government to force the culture to recognize same sex marriages only. You are tailoring you responses on polygamy to get around the illogical argument to allow same sex marriages.
If you really felt that not being able to redefining marriage is a right, you would be crying for polygamist too.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 8:14pm“But, the fact is if someone argues without knowing what’s going to happen, that A leads to B leads to C leads to…Z, you cannot assume that if A, then Z.’
Q: If redefining marriage is a right for same sex couples it must also be a right for polygamists, correct?
A: Yes as long as no one is being forced into a polygamist marriage but the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.
Legalizing same sex marriage doesn’t lead to polygamy but polygamists have the exact same rights that gays have to go to court and a judge can force polygamy on the culture. What? That makes no sense to take that position and then say the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Your argument is self contradictory.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 12:14amKstret, my point is perfectly clear and just because you don’t understand it, I’m not explaining it further. You’re hung up on same sex marriage being “imposed” upon people and those are your words, not mine. Recognizing that people have the same rights as others is very different from “imposing”. Also, none of my statements ever say a polygamist will be forced into marriage. Again, your words.
I think Encinom is correct in that you aren’t reading, or maybe not comprehending posts before you respond to them. You‘re the one from the start who stated slippery slope is not a logical fallacy and you’re dead wrong. Look it up for yourself as you obviously not listening to me, but denying facts does not make them go away.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 2:24amveruca
“You‘re the one from the start who stated slippery slope is not a logical fallacy and you’re dead wrong. Look it up for yourself as you obviously not listening to me, but denying facts does not make them go away.”
It was your claim that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. In my last post I showed that your logic chain dictates that your position has to be the slippery slope. I also showed that you are contradicting yourself. You say that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy and then turn around and say that polygamists should be able to go to court and impose their definition of marriage on the culture too.
On top of that, your points are all logical fallacies. In objecting to polygamy on the grounds that people might be forced into polygamist marriages you are committing the red herring logical fallacy. Your rationale to dismiss the slippery slope argument is committing the non sequitur logical fallacy.
Here is another logical fallacy:
“my point is perfectly clear and just because you don’t understand it, I’m not explaining it further”
The ad hominem fallacy
“You’re hung up on same sex marriage being “imposed” upon people and those are your words, not mine.”
To put it another way, I am not letting your control the narrative and let you flip who wants the government imposing their view on the culture on it’s head.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 2:29am“Recognizing that people have the same rights as others is very different from “imposing”.”
If everyone has the exact same right to redefine marriage the end result of that view point is a total deconstruction of marriage. Marriage means anything and everything. This is your view.
Everyone has the right to redefine marriage and if you have a problem with that, too bad. You get to decide what is a right, force the fake right on everyone else by judicial tyranny, and everyone should just shut up and let you dictate to them the direction of the culture. That is fascism.
“I think Encinom is correct in that you aren’t reading, or maybe not comprehending posts before you respond to them.”
I am quoting your posts before I respond. You can not say that I am not reading your posts or not comprehending them.
“Also, none of my statements ever say a polygamist will be forced into marriage. Again, your words.”
Really?
” Polygamy is bad if the rights of those involved are being infringed upon. Polygamy in the U.S. has traditionally involved a bunch of young girls who weren‘t allowed to make their own decisions in the matter and that shouldn’t be allowed.”
Are you reading your own posts?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 2:42amVeruca
” A leads to B leads to C leads to…Z, you cannot assume that if A, then Z”
This is a strawman fallacy. The argument is not if we allow same sex marriage that will lead to B.
The argument is if Group A is being discriminated against because they can not do X, Group B must also be discriminated against because they can not do X.
If X is a fundamental right for group A, X must also be a fundamental right for groups B,C,D,E,F,G,H
That is your own argument.
PS stop going to wiki for information. I can post that the moon is made of green cheese and it would appear on the website.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 3:25amFrom the start, Ksrtet, you have denied that slippery slope is a logical fallacy, a fact that everyone but you accepts. So, when the OP posited allowing gay marriage would start the slippery slope to Pandora’s Box, I called them on it.
Anyone who’s a tax paying citizen has the right to challenge any law, even polygamists, as I’ve already stated, but their challenges will need to be reviewed on their individual merits. In the case of polygamy, there are historical issues with this philosophy thtl could keep it from being written into law. Maybe, maybe not, but we’ll see when the challenge is presented.
The slippery slope, being a logical fallacy, could be true, but could also not be true if the intermediate steps are not validated based on their own merits.
Again, I find it hard to believe you’re not being intentionally obtuse if you understand the slippery slope logical fallacy and how it was originally used introduced into this thread.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 3:42amAlso, to use your logic that recognizing homosexuals (or polygamists, if approved) rights to marriage is “imposing” something upon our culture is the equivalent of saying that the civil rights laws of the 60′s “imposed” a black view of what being an American means on white folks.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 3:57am“From the start, Ksrtet, you have denied that slippery slope is a logical fallacy, a fact that …The slippery slope, being a logical fallacy, could be true, but could also not be true if the intermediate steps are not validated based on their own merits.”
It is an informal logical fallacy. A could or could not lead to Z. You can’t just dismiss it.You are using logical fallacies to make your points.
The argument is if Group A is being discriminated against because they can not do X, Group B must also be discriminated against because they can not do X.
If X is a fundamental right for group A, X must also be a fundamental right for groups B,C,D,E,F,G,H
That is your own argument.
You argument dictates that If group A can go to court because they can not do X and the constitution mandates that the court must give them the ability to do X, equal protection dictates groups A,C,D,E,F should get the exact same ruling that group A received from the judge. Thus, you have a slippery slope. You own argument dictates the total deconstruction of marriage.
It is transparently obvious that you are being disingenuous and attempting to avoid your own illogical argument.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 3:59am“Anyone who’s a tax paying citizen has the right to challenge any law, even polygamists, as I’ve already stated, but their challenges will need to be reviewed on their individual merits.”
I am sorry I thought you answered my question instead of playing a Bill Clinton semantics trick.
You believe that same sex couples are being discriminated against because they can not get married. Do you believe polygamists are being discriminated against because they can’t get married?
” In the case of polygamy, there are historical issues with this philosophy thtl could keep it from being written into law. Maybe, maybe not, but we’ll see when the challenge is presented.”
You are equivocating answer my question!
Do you believe polygamists are being discriminated against because they can’t get married?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 4:08am“Also, to use your logic that recognizing homosexuals (or polygamists, if approved) rights to marriage is “imposing” something upon our culture is the equivalent of saying that the civil rights laws of the 60′s “imposed” a black view of what being an American means on white folks.”
Once again, you are making a category error. Telling someone that they can’t vote,can’t eat in certain restaurants, and must live in their own segregated communities is unconstitutional. That is different from not being able to redefine marriage. On top of that, it is a total insult and slap in the face to the civil right movement to compare the two.
Getting lynched is not the same as redefining marriage.
You own logic dictates that voting is a right for black people but not a right for Mexicans. If voting is a right, everyone gets to vote. If redefining marriage is a right, everyone gets to redefine marriage.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 4:26amThe original introduction of this argument, go back and read it, was if you allow A, you’ve now opened the door to “who knows what”.
So A, will lead to B, will lead to C,… Z.
I said this is not necessarily true because any of the steps between B and Z could be invalidated due to their individual merits.
I also said that all these groups have the right to challenge a definition of marriage that didn’t exist until 1996. But, in the case of polygamy, their challenge may not be validated based on the civil rights violations of historical polygamist relationships. If so, the slippery slope has been avoided. It won’t be me making this decision, but the courts.
I never said any of these groups don’t have, or don’t have equal rights to challenge DOMA.
All of these groups are being discriminated against by a narrow definition of marriage, but, for the umpteenth time, if their view of marriage imposes on the civil rights of those involved, it shouldn’t be allowed, in my opinion.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 4:47amMarriage is not mentioned in the Constitution for anyone, hetero or homosexual. States have chosen to take a religious based definition of marriage and impose that view on all Americans with the exceptions of a handful of states. To say two, or five consenting adults can’t enter into the contract of marriage and all the legal rights and stipulations associated with it is discriminatory. Again, so you don’t take my words out of context, if these relationships violate the civil rights of those involved, they should not be validated.
And spare me the indignation, please. The civil rights laws guaranteed all citizens equivalent rights that were previously denied to one group. In this case, tax-paying, consenting adults are being denied the freedoms of estate planning, death benefits, employer benefits, etc that hetero couples enjoy now. These couples are in loving relationships and are as committed to one another as hetero couples, but the rights are denied to them based on the religious objections of the majority. This should not be allowed in the US.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 1:04amV.Salt
“I said this is not necessarily true because any of the steps between B and Z could be invalidated due to their individual merits.”
There are certain fallacies that are always illogical and some that are not. The slippery slope is not always illogical. In some cases A may not lead to Z and other cases it does. You can not simply dismiss the slippery slope on the grounds that it is a logical fallacy. In the case of same sex marriage your own logic chain dictates a slippery slope. I have explained why it is a slippery slope several times and you have not addressed the substance of my argument.
“But, in the case of polygamy, their challenge may not be validated based on the civil rights violations of historical polygamist relationships. If so, the slippery slope has been avoided. It won’t be me making this decision, but the courts.”
You are using the red herring fallacy and the non sequitur fallacy to side step the problem with your own argument. You did not aviod the slippery slope by citing historical civil rights violations of polygamist. Again, the issue is whether redefining marriage is a right.If redefining marriage is a right for gays, it has to be a right for everone.
“I also said that all these groups have the right to challenge a definition of marriage that didn’t exist until 1996.”
I didn’t ask you if groups have a right to challenge the definition of marriage. I asked you if you believe polygamist are being discriminated because th
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 1:19am“Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution for anyone, hetero or homosexual. States have chosen to take a religious based definition of marriage and impose that view on all Americans with the exceptions of a handful of states.”
Marriage has had the same definition since the begin of this country and a long time before that. If you want to change the definition of marriage you have the burden to explain why we should change the definition. You do not get to go ahead and change the definition just because you think that it is a good idea and force it on everyone. That is what you are doing and that is called fascism.
Why don’t you put it on a ballot referendum? Because you know it will not pass. You need to do something else to get around that. They played the standard progressive fascist X is a right card. If X is a right, a judge can implement and impose your political agenda.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 1:22am” The civil rights laws guaranteed all citizens equivalent rights that were previously denied to one group.”
If that is true you must believe redefining marriage is right that is guaranteed all citizens.
“consenting adults are being denied the freedoms of estate planning, death benefits, employer benefits, etc that hetero couples enjoy now.”
You must also believe that a tax paying polygamist who has three different wives and three different homes is also being denied the freedoms of estate planning, death benefits, employer benefits, etc that hetero couples enjoy now too. Is that correct?
“These couples are in loving relationships and are as committed to one another as hetero couples,”
There is the red herring fallacy again…..
“but the rights are denied to them based on the religious objections of the majority. This should not be allowed in the US.”
Religion is also a red herring fallacy. The issue is whether redefining marriage is a right. This is a constitutional argument. Do you think the founders of this country would believe that redefining marriage is a right?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 1:32am“I never said any of these groups don’t have, or don’t have equal rights to challenge DOMA.”
I never asked you that or said anything about that. Again, I asked you if homosexuals are being discriminates because they can not get married, do you believe that polygamist are being discriminated because they can’t get married.
“All of these groups are being discriminated against by a narrow definition of marriage, but, for the umpteenth time, if their view of marriage imposes on the civil rights of those involved, it shouldn’t be allowed, in my opinion.”
Once again, you can say that exact same thing about marriage or any redefinition of marriage and for the umpteenth time, your argument are logical fallacies.
It is transparently obvious that you are avoiding the central issue and you still have not answered my question. Why because you’re either:
1. A hypocrite because you believe that redefining marriage is a basic human right but only for homosexuals.
Report Post »or
2. You are forced to admit that you want the total deconstruction of the institution of marriage.You believe that any number of consenting adults can enter into the contract of marriage but at the same time polygamy has a history of violating the civil rights of those involved, so that should be illegal?You are contradicting yourself. Unfortunately it is very hard to make a case and/ or prosecute a case against that and you can say about any arrangement.
KStret
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 1:40amThis is a constitional argument. You are citing equal protection as your constitutional rationale to impose your view by judicial tyranny. What law is not being implemented across the board? Marriage.
Every man can man any women he wants and vice versa. It is inaccurate to say that same sex couples want to get married. The accurate phraseology would be to say same sex couples want the “basic human right” to redefine marriage. If redefining marriage is a “basic human right” that the equal protection clause applies to, everyone has the right to redefine marriage not just homosexuals.
Again, you would also have to go to the original intent of the founders. Would they believe that redefining marriage is a right? If you answered that question honestly, you would have to concede that they would have laughed at that notion. Once you admit that the founders would not support your position, the legal justification is in the toilet. The constitution argument fails on two points.
1. Redefining marriage would have to be a right for everyone.
Report Post »2. The founders would not have believed that redefining marriage was a right.
cemerius
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:01pmI am sure that the “majority” of these “animals” would be against marriage IF they all experienced divorce! Of course, alot of the “guys” are seasoned divorcees because of their “lifestyle” choice…….
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:05pmAstutely Observed & succinctly put
Report Post »emilyhasbooks
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:00pmYep, that sums it up, Billy- religious “sensibilities” override equality & result in wanton bigotry.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:17pmThe Southern Christian is a bigot hiding his hatred behind the cross.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:08pmEncinom – The atheist bigot is hiding behind equality. That would be you. Why aren’t you advocating for other forms of marriage, hypocrite? Why is same sex marriage more equal than polygamy or incest marriage?
Report Post »Favored93
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:39am@encinom
Report Post »If we are made to redefine what marriage is then why not allow the Muslims to marry a girl at ANY age? Is 4 to young?….. Well now you are discriminating against Muslims!
You are simply not being honest about what this fight is truly about. Or you hate Muslims you pick.
GardenoftheGods
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:00pmWhy marriage? I have no problem with civil unions, rights for gay partners….but Marriage is a sacrament… meaning “Sacred” union. The government needs to take its big, fat, phony nose & stick it into some other issue-like teaching kids to read! Leave Marriage to men & women like God said it should be…nowhere in the Bible does it say “A man will leave his family, & a man will leave his family to cleave unto each other…” Sort of makes me sick in the pit of my stomach…There‘s a reason there’s a difference between men & women.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:16pmJudges and justices of the peace have been performing marriages in the name of the government and calling them marriages since long before any of us were born, and nobody ever had a problem with it until they started to talk about doing it for same-sex couples. There are tens of millions of couples in this country who were married in civil ceremonies without the involvement of any religion. When you trot out the government shouldn’t be involved argument, you are effectively telling them that their marriages aren’t real marriages, so it is really you, not the same-sex marriage advocates who is radically redefining marriage.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:17pmThere will be comments on here praising gay marriage and there will be crude comments against it, but your comments speak to truth. God made us different for a reason and He makes it clear in the Bible that a man and woman are to be joined as one. Government should have no say in changing what marriage is, period.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:29pmNH – not everyone is a christian = what dont you understand about that? If you dont support gay marriage, dont get into a gay marriage…its so simple, what dont you understand?
Report Post »formidable_foe
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:00pm@doseofreality et. al.
Are you saying that it is God’s intent for the words of the Bible to only reach and apply to Christians? The fact is that His word is for you whether you want it to be or not. Dismiss it at your own peril.
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:20pmGarden, your approach is much too sensical for all of these people who NEED to be polarizing in order to feel superior. Your approach is one I have been advocating for over a decade. Why, it can even be shown to be the mathematically equal approach. The claim that marriage between a man and a woman is the same (equal) as between a man and a man, can have one man factored out on both sides of that equation, and that leaves the incorrect, unsubstantial, FALSE assertion that woman is the same as man.
Marriage has religiously, historically, traditionally, LEGALLY, and etymologically always been associated with a female being given into matrimony (HINT: “mare”). Trying to cull that into a FALSE definition is an affront to those with the intelligence and the reasoning power to determine that if two people of the same sex want to live together in love and want the same privileges as two opposite sex people who want to live together in love, then ONE designation (such as civil union/domestic partnership, or hey! let’s have a contest to see who comes up with a nifty designation — I submit “pairrage” ) which covers either arrangement is what is EQUAL (one human being + one human being = one human being + one human being).
Report Post »hatchetjob
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:32pmFORMIDABLE FOE, Perfect answer!!!!
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:00pmIf a gay gene is not found in the next 20 years, the intelligentsia of the press & academia will not be able to convince young people that gay is ok.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:23pmWhy? Even if there is no gene, that doesn’t mean you aren’t born that way. It could be a teratogenic trait. And even if we never find a biological cause and conclude that it is primarily a psychological trait, that doesn’t mean it isn’t okay. Why is it any more deserving of condemnation or in need of correction than any other matter of preference like preferring jazz to rock or classical music, or reading mysteries when others might prefer science fiction or classics?
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:35pmChet – becasue it makes them feel insecure. i think the most vocal anti-gay crusaders are so deep in the closet that they act out like this. Its the only rational explanation I have been able to come up with.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:58pm@ Chet
Report Post »Actually it does mean that. And if it was a teratogenic trait then that would mean that being gay is abnormal and being straight is normal. So I don’t understand how that helps your point.
icecreamcake
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:06pm@ Chet
“Why is it any more deserving of condemnation or in need of correction than any other matter of preference like preferring jazz to rock or classical music, or reading mysteries when others might prefer science fiction or classics?”
Or preferring to have sex with small children. Or preferring one race over another.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:03pmicecreamcake
Or preferring to have sex with small children. Or preferring one race over another.
Acting on a preference for sex with small children is doing harm to others, therefore a crime. Acting on a preference for sex with consenting adults of the same sex is not. You are perfectly free to prefer one race over another as long as you don’t try to hurt anybody.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:31pm@ Chet
Report Post »NAMBLA is consensual. Also those who prefer incest. That’s consensual. Why not make that legal. Just a preference.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:00pmSex with children is inherently exploitative. You know that. The word consensual implies informed consent, which gay adults can give and children cannot. I’ve never heard of any adults who prefer incest other than those who were inducted into it as children. If there are any, it is at least so rare that it wouldn’t matter much if it is legal or illegal for them to have sex. I wouldn’t let them get married because sanctioning their potential production of inbred children would be allowing hem to do harm to others. I realize that’s a purely symbolic distinction because they could have children without getting married or be married without having children, but that is where I stand. Society has a real interest in withholding symbolic sanctioning of incestuous unions but does not have any reason to deny it to same sex couples.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:19pm@ Chet
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:39pm@ Chet
Report Post »And you know just as well as I do that just because you are over or under 18 does not really mean you understand what’s going on. There are kids out there with far more abilities to reason than some adults. Just because you‘ve never heard of it doesn’t mean anything. The point was it’s not right. Also, it definitely does matter if it’s illegal or not.
Society does have a real interest in withholding same sex marriage. If you were actually concerned about how these decisions affect others you would notice how same sex marriage affects children. Don‘t say it doesn’t. It has been proven children develop better with a mother and father. Children need maternal and paternal love in different situations. Divorce has similar problems since both parents aren’t always there. Two men cannot give true maternal love. Two women cannot give true paternal love. You just appear to overlook the problems this causes children, but seem to make sure you argue for it in other scenarios.
icecreamcake
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:42pm@Chet
Report Post »Sorry about the blank post. Something went wacko. Also the health risks associated with that lifestyle are a threat for both parties and for children. http://carm.org/statistics-hiv-aids-health There’s a list of not just physical health problems.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:41pmThere is evidence that children are better off being raised by two parents than by just one. There is no evidence that it makes any difference what sex or sexes those parents are, and some evidence that it does not.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:51pm@Chet
Report Post »Yes there is. And it’s amazing that kids are more likely to be molested in homes with homosexual parents than with not.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 9:57pmicecreamcake
Report Post »Says who? I call bs on that unless you can cite a reliable source.
icecreamcake
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 10:43pm@Chet
Amazing how the burden of proof always lands on us. You are the ones trying to change things and for some reason we are the ones that need proof.
http://www.ctfamily.org/editorial10.html
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/18/why-children-need-a-mother-and-a-father/
http://carm.org/statistics-hiv-aids-health <–Health related issues.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19951123&slug=2154022
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html
There's some. Also amazing how you left a lot of what I said before unanswered.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:07amI looked at all of those links, and I found a lot of opinions that are the same as yours, and a lot of statistics about single parent families, but I didn’t see any actual facts about children raised by same sex couples. The first one even admits “we do not have good longitudinal data on children raised in such households,” though it omits to mention that all of the preliminary data so far indicates that they are no worse off than kids raised by a mother and father.
As far as the issue of mental health problems in the gay community goes, nothing you have cited includes a fact-based discussion of the root causes. If, as seems likely, these problems are rooted in the way that anti-gay prejudice makes them feel about themselves and their sexuality gay, it should be less of a problem in the future when there are fewer and fewer people like you.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:43am@Chet
Amazing how you bash these links because they are filled with opinions. However, the last thing you said was a giant opinion. You have no way to back that up. I guess that’s ok when you do it though. The website that had the health problems such as mental health cited all of their sources. I guess you didn’t read very well. A lot of the single parent problems can be translated over into the homosexual problems. You still haven’t addressed the health issues other than the mental health. You were very concerned about the children’s well being before, so why not now?
Also, most of the opinions were by doctors who have a better idea of what’s going on than you do.
It’s ridiculous that we should change everything for 3.8% of the population. Marriage is for a man and woman. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, then you get a civil union.
The U.S. was set up so that if one state was heading in a direction you didn’t like, you could go to one that you did agree with. So if your state isn’t for it, move to one that is.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:43pmI’ve never claimed that my opinions were anything more than opinions. You claimed that there was evidence that hetrosexual couples were preferable to same sex couples when it comes to raising children, and when asked to produce some, you failed. I never said that the website on health problems such as mental health didn’t cite their sources. I guess you didn’t read very well. “A lot of the single parent problems can be translated over into the homosexual problems,” is an opinion that not only isn’t supported by facts, but doesn’t even begin to make sense.
The one specific charge that is so serious that it must be addressed, is the claim that children with gay parents were at greater risk of child abuse. You appear to be unaware that this is based on data from 30 years ago, and related to gay parents living in heterosexual marriages, not same-sex couples, or that it is based on only five allegations of such abuse. But all of that is true, and you can red about the other flaws in that research here: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html
Since the religious fanatics who fed you that guff didn’t bother to tell you any of that, I suspect that a little bit of research would cast serious doubt on each and every one of their alarming claims, but arguing with you is just a hobby, not my job.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:28pm@Chet
Wow. And that article you presented was full of mostly opinions. Such as this one “Many respondents probably found such tasks confusing (because of their length and complexity) or alienating (because of their content). In addition, it is likely that many respondents did not read these long lists of response alternatives carefully and completely.” Ah, disregard the facts because the people “may” have been too tired.
Yes you are right. You didnt’ say “didn’t cite their sources”, you said “I didn’t see any actual facts” but they were there.
For arguments sake lets say the molestation rate isn’t higher. What about the slew of other probelms that were presented.
Funny how these people use a lot of the same arguments you do, but you are completely against this.
http://bullypulpit.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=867:11-great-arguments-for-incestuous-marriage&catid=46:bully-pulpit-blog&Itemid=70
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 7:47pmThe article I presented did have some opinions, but I didn’t quote those, I just pointed out the facts that you now know to be true. I didn’t say that I didn’t see any facts, I said that I didn’t see any facts that had anything to do with the point you were supposed to be trying to make about the preferability of heterosexual parents over same-sex couples, and I still don’t.
“For arguments sake lets say the molestation rate isn’t higher. What about the slew of other problems that were presented.”
Report Post »What about them? If you grant that one of the claims made by CARM is a bunch of bull, then that establishes that they are not an honest and reliable source of accurate information, so I don’t see any reason to believe any of their claims. Most of the research they cite in support of their claims is decades old and contradicted by other, sometimes more recent, researchers, and none of it distinguishes between the general gay population and homosexuals in long-term relations likely to result in marriage.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 8:31pmBut okay, just to show that I am treating the claims of this religious propaganda site more seriously that they deserve, I looked into the next most relevant claim they advance,”the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population” in support of which they cite a paper called “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications.” I can’t find a site that will let me read that whole paper online, but I did find that it was based on a survey of 1109 lesbians at a music festival in 1985. Leaving aside the facts that things have changed in 27 years, and that the crowd at a music festival may not be representative of the larger population, it seems obvious that any information about gay MEN that someone found in that paper must come from another source, which would have been cited by the authors. Why won’t CARM or Exodus Global Alliance tell us the original source? They must have a reason. Is it even more out of date? Has it been definitively discredited? Did they do something really dishonest like comparing the number of men who are victims of violence in gay relationships with the number who are victims in heterosexual relationships instead of comparing the total number of incidents? I don’t know, but an actual scholarly source honestly trying to disseminate information instead of deceptive propaganda would not raise such questions which should be obvious to any thoughtfu
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 12:26am@Chet
I don’t understand how you decided that was the “next most relevant claim.” I don’t understand how 27 years would change how lesbians treat their children.
Here are some non carm for you. Oh, and you forgot to say anything about the last link I posted and didn’t have anything to say about it being a state matter.
http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html
http://ncavp.org/issues/DomesticViolence.aspx
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmda.org%2FWCM%2FCMDownload.aspx%3FContentKey%3Db4664e47-020b-48e6-88c1-9be2bfcdda98%26ContentItemKey%3D74289346-e1d5-4f34-88f9-e55f9218a0a5&ei=rJCsT8y5JKTA0AHFiqGwBA&usg=AFQjCNFQepDmUYiyrcVj3J_hxiMxPAQYmw
sorry that one’s so big, it’s a pdf
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=37&ved=0CHEQFjAGOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloads.frc.org%2FEF%2FEF08L45.pdf&ei=t5KsT_z4OaP40gGZ77CvBA&usg=AFQjCNED3fce8TrX7xZemPSQRVUdwBeyuA
another pdf
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=58&ved=0CGsQFjAHODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmda.org%2FWCM%2FCMDownload.aspx%3FContentKey%3Dae3bde2f-e651-41c4-b192-d36583c07714%26ContentItemKey%3D039b49e3-fe3d-4c4f-94ee-0c29234bd06d&ei=Z5OsT9bgAYfy0gHf1uDLBA&usg=AFQjCNGP7SPsPUw2VZ23JLZJ8g38V9GdoA
This pdf has a lot.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 1:29am@Chet
I guess my post didn’t show up.
I don’t understand what would change in lesbian domestic violence in 27 years. It’s also well known that homosexual domestic violence is very understudied. Wonder why?
I don’t understand how you decided that was the “next most relevant claim.”
Here are some non carm goodies. The big links are pdf’s.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=58&ved=0CGsQFjAHODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmda.org%2FWCM%2FCMDownload.aspx%3FContentKey%3Dae3bde2f-e651-41c4-b192-d36583c07714%26ContentItemKey%3D039b49e3-fe3d-4c4f-94ee-0c29234bd06d&ei=Z5OsT9bgAYfy0gHf1uDLBA&usg=AFQjCNGP7SPsPUw2VZ23JLZJ8g38V9GdoA
Interesting fact in there, according to a 2011 study homosexual men are 1.9 times more likely to develop a cancer.
http://ncavp.org/issues/DomesticViolence.aspx
http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmda.org%2FWCM%2FCMDownload.aspx%3FContentKey%3Db4664e47-020b-48e6-88c1-9be2bfcdda98%26ContentItemKey%3D74289346-e1d5-4f34-88f9-e55f9218a0a5&ei=dKKsT_fZHNCy0QHEk4zzCQ&usg=AFQjCNFQepDmUYiyrcVj3J_hxiMxPAQYmw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=37&ved=0CHEQFjAGOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloads.frc.org%2FEF%2FEF08L45.pdf&ei=1KKsT-foHsyz0QGH0tyFCg&usg=AFQjCNED3fce8TrX7xZemPSQRVUdwBeyuA
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 1:32am@Chet
Seems like not much has changed in 27 years.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/05/09/opponents-of-gay-marriage-ban-attack-north-carolina-on-twitter-go-kill-yourselves/
Just us redneck bigots telling the tolerant lefties to “go kill yourselfs.” Oh wait.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 1:44am@Chet
IDK what’s going on. It’s not posting what I said. I guess I’ll have to do it in pieces.
I don’t understand what would change in lesbian domestic violence in 27 years. It’s also well known that homosexual domestic violence is very understudied. Wonder why?
I don’t understand how you decided that was the “next most relevant claim.”
Here are some non carm goodies. The big links are pdf’s.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=58&ved=0CGsQFjAHODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmda.org%2FWCM%2FCMDownload.aspx%3FContentKey%3Dae3bde2f-e651-41c4-b192-d36583c07714%26ContentItemKey%3D039b49e3-fe3d-4c4f-94ee-0c29234bd06d&ei=Z5OsT9bgAYfy0gHf1uDLBA&usg=AFQjCNGP7SPsPUw2VZ23JLZJ8g38V9GdoA
Interesting fact in there, according to a 2011 study homosexual men are 1.9 times more likely to develop a cancer.
http://ncavp.org/issues/DomesticViolence.aspx
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 1:45am@Chet
2nd part
http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmda.org%2FWCM%2FCMDownload.aspx%3FContentKey%3Db4664e47-020b-48e6-88c1-9be2bfcdda98%26ContentItemKey%3D74289346-e1d5-4f34-88f9-e55f9218a0a5&ei=dKKsT_fZHNCy0QHEk4zzCQ&usg=AFQjCNFQepDmUYiyrcVj3J_hxiMxPAQYmw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=37&ved=0CHEQFjAGOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloads.frc.org%2FEF%2FEF08L45.pdf&ei=1KKsT-foHsyz0QGH0tyFCg&usg=AFQjCNED3fce8TrX7xZemPSQRVUdwBeyuA
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 5:40amI decided that the item about domestic violence was the next most relevant claim because it’s the only one that has anything to do with the relative ability of same-sex and straight couples to raise children. That was what you claimed and failed to be able to produce evidence about. As for this other crap you dug up, I don’t know who this Dr. Andre Van Mol guy is, but I know that this is a propaganda hatchet job not a serious scholarly article based on any real research because he includes statistics on sexual practices of gay men form 1979, before there was any such thing as AIDS. Any thoughtful reader would have realized that you could never get away with that in an actual medical publication. The other site says “The most recent significant study, released in 2002, indicated that gay and bisexual men experience abuse in intimate partner relationships at a rate of 2 in 5, one comparable to that of DV experienced by heterosexual women” so that doesn’t rally support a claim that there is more abuse in the gay community. They also cite that same study of 1985 lesbians that puts the rate of abuse at about 50%, but remember that these women would have been mostly young, educated, fairly radical feminists who, as you would know if you’d ever met one, view as abusive behavior that straight women often accept as par for the course.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 8:08am@Chet
It didn’t post the other part again. Actually what I orignially said was “Also the health risks associated with that lifestyle are a threat for both parties and for children.” So that includes everything, like AIDS, not just domestic violence.
http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmda.org%2FWCM%2FCMDownload.aspx%3FContentKey%3Db4664e47-020b-48e6-88c1-9be2bfcdda98%26ContentItemKey%3D74289346-e1d5-4f34-88f9-e55f9218a0a5&ei=dKKsT_fZHNCy0QHEk4zzCQ&usg=AFQjCNFQepDmUYiyrcVj3J_hxiMxPAQYmw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=37&ved=0CHEQFjAGOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloads.frc.org%2FEF%2FEF08L45.pdf&ei=1KKsT-foHsyz0QGH0tyFCg&usg=AFQjCNED3fce8TrX7xZemPSQRVUdwBeyuA
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 8:19am@Chet
Report Post »Well now I look like an idiot. All of those other posts just showed up. Sorry for all the extra.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 2:02pmAll right enough of this garbage. I asked you to “cite a reliable source.” You obviously don’t have a clue how to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources of information. An article on a website run by some guy with no reference to prior publication somewhere with some editorial standards is not a reliable source of information. An article that is obviously biased and agenda driven as opposed to one presenting original research and letting the facts dictate the conclusions is not a reliable source of information. If it has footnotes referencing real published articles that sound like they should be reliable sources of information, you have to look at those original sources to see if they really say and man what the crackpot says they do, then see if any other real researchers have reached conflicting conclusions. And I do mean YOU have to do it. You can’t keep wasting my time just because you have no critical thinking skills. THAT’s what you should be researching – critical thinking skills. In addition to reliable and unreliable sources of information, you will also learn to distinguish between fact and opinion, biased and objective writing, and relevant and irrelevant details.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 3:32pm@Chet
Report Post »bahahaha
Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 3:41pmBut here are a few clues to start you out. You should (but obviously don’t) know without being told that any group with Conservative or Christian or Family in its name is as agenda-driven as a group run by gays and lesbians and no more likely to present a complete and objective picture including facts that undermine their premise. But not all activists are so open. You might mistake a group with a name like American College of Pediatricians for a professional organization representing the concerns of all of America’s pediatricians if you didn’t know that the real one is called the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, when you read a sentence like “Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage,” when we all know that there can’t be thirty years of research on same sex couples raising children because they were relatively rare thirty years ago, that should set off some warning bells that would cause you to subject all further assertions by the author to particular scrutiny.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 14, 2012 at 12:02am@Chet
The American College of Pediatricians is a professional non-profit organization. No one ever said they represented the concerns of all of America’s pediatricians.
Just because it may have been more rare in the past, does not mean research could not have been done. It’s still rare anyway. Only around 3% of the population identify as homosexuals.
The great thing is..none of this matters anyway. The people voted and they are against this. If the gays don’t like it, they can go somewhere where they are allowed to marry whoever they want.
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:59pmIt is a “State Issue” do not let the right or left make it a Federal One. Just Follow the Constitution.
Report Post »Re-Founding Sons
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:22pmAmen, follow the constitution!!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:32pmThe 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, the Amendment in North Carolina and in other states violates that equal protection. The Constitution demands that states provide Full Faith and Credit to the licenses and judgements of the other States, North Carolina will be forced to hold legitmate the marriages performed in New York, including the same sex ones, once DOMA is found unconstitutional.
I say lets let the Constitution clean up the mess made by the christian bigots.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:45pmEcon,
If the 14th amendment dictates equal protection under the law, if redefining marriage is a right for homosexuals it must be a right for everyone. You must believe that polygamists are being discriminated against too, correct? Otherwise:
1. You are being a total hypocrite and you believe that only homosexuals have the right to redefine marriage. If that is the case, Your entire argument has collapsed.
2. You want to force everyone to live in a society where marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean.
Which is it?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:43pmKstret,
Actually, I see little reason for the State to interfer with the relationship between consenting adults and how those adults seek to define it, as long as all the parties fully consent, which includes full knowledge of risks, etc. Mitt Romney’s family fled to Mexico, for that very reason, to escape what they saw as religious persecution when Mormon Utah outlawed polygamy.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:57amEcin,
I didn’t ask you what you thoughts are about state interference with relationships. I asked you a specific question about what your position is.
1. You are being a total hypocrite and you believe that only homosexuals have the right to redefine marriage. If that is the case, Your entire argument has collapsed.
2. You want to force everyone to live in a society where marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean.
Which is it #1 or #2?
How is the state interfering with people’s relationships? Are they telling you who can and can’t date? Are they telling you who you can and can’t live with? Of coarse not!
You can go out and have sex with or live with who ever you want. You have a right to do that. However, you don’t have the right to redefine marriage.
The logical end result of believing that redefining marriage is a right is that everyone has the right to call any arrangement they want a marriage and everyone in the culture is forced to live in a society of marriage relativity.
Why do you get to decide what the definition of marriage is and what the cultural norms are? Why doesn’t anyone who disagrees have a say in the direction of the culture or what the definition of marriage is?
You get to say I think X is a great idea, go find a like minded judge, and the judge imposes your view on the culture. That is the government interfering with people’s lives. That is fascism.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:01amEcin,
You are equivocating between a libertarian and fascist position. You frame your argument as a Libertarian while simultaneously believing that the courts can implement your political agenda. If you are libertarian, you do not want the courts forcing same sex marriage on a culture that doesn’t want it. A libertarian doesn’t want the government sanctioning marriages at all. That is not your position.
You think redefining marriage to encompass same sex relationships is a great idea and you do not care how it is implemented or if the rule of law is thrown in the trash.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 10:23am@KStret
I have no problem with the courts making sure that the States behave. States like North Carolina are violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution, civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.
The problem you have is that your bigotry is dying with this generation and you are seeing the change, this is the last gasp of the ignorance.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:50pmEc
“I have no problem with the courts making sure that the States behave. States like North Carolina are violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution, civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.”
You also believe that States not allowing polygamy is also a violation of the 14th amendment? I am reading you repose correctly in stating that you believe that polygamists have the exact same right that homosexuals do to have a judge impose polygamy on the culture?
The courts are not making sure that the states behave. The courts are legislating from the bench and forcing your political agenda on the citizens of the state. The definition of marriage has been the same for a very long time. You want to change the definition and force people to accept the redefinition of marriage. That is not libertarianism. That is fascism.
Why do you get to dictate to me what the norms of the culture are and what the definition of marriage is? Why does your opinion automatically become law by judicial tyranny and anyone who disagrees with you has no say in the matter? Why am I forced to live in a culture where marriage means whatever anyone want it to mean? Who made you the dictator of the united States?
You are not a libertarian. You are not attempting to get the government to stop sanctioning marriages altogether. You want the government to sanction the definition of marriage that you like and you don’t care if you throw the rule of law into the trash to get y
Report Post »KStret
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:59pmEcinom,
“The problem you have is that your bigotry is dying with this generation and you are seeing the change, this is the last gasp of the ignorance.”
Disagreeing with you that redefining marriage is a right equates to bigotry? Not believing that redefining marriage is a right is ignorant? Not wanting to live in a culture of marriage relativism is ignorant and bigoted? You want to force your view of marriage relativism on everyone. You don’t care how your political agenda is implemented. You will break the rule of law and invent new rules to get your way. On top of that, You can not win the argument, so all you can do is lob ad hominem attacks around.
Report Post »NILAP
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:57pmI think Rush Limbaugh has it correct. A lot of folks if asked by a pollster or in the company of others will say yes they support gay marriage but in the privacy of the voting booth will say no.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:55pmGovernment should not be involved in the business of marriage…period!!! Once it‘s out of government then the gays can’t push their agenda in the schools hence they won’t care about gay marriage. BTW, 95% of Civil unions/Gay marriage end up in divorce within the first three years. Get it out of the government, Churches and especially out of the schools. This ain’t about love and marriage, it’s about an agenda pure and simple.
Report Post »Blacktooth
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:52pmLet no one be seducing himself: If anyone among YOU thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile. – 1 Corinthians 3:18-20
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:47pmLEMMINGS: Round em up; Head em out; YahHoo!
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:45pm“Marriage” is between one man & one woman.
If you want to call a homosexual union something else, go ahead.
The word means what it means.
I couldn’t care less if two (or more) people want to enter into a contract with each other, that’s none of my business, but don’t call it marriage.
A slippery slope argument would go like this – Next they’ll want to call dogs people and marry them.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:05pmPer gay logic arguments incest should be legal.
If all parties are 18 or older & both parties consent, then we should not care per gay logic.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:18pmWALKABOUT — no, it does not follow that gay marriage would allow incest. That is complete nonsense. Supporters of homosexual marriage DO NOT support incestuous relationships. Incest is a harmful activity, that not only harms the participants and any offspring produced, but the community-at-large as well.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 5:39pmWhen someone brings up bestiality & the slipper slope argument, the gays say preposterous. They say a homosexual relationship is between 2 consenting adults (a least some of them do. Some are into any size of groups & say so).
Their argument is that a gay relation ship is between 2 consenting adults & FIDO obviously cannot consent.
SO I am using the slipper slope argument only this time with incest instead of bestiality. Two consenting adults have incestuous sex. There is nothing in the gay arguments that prevent this.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:18amWALKABOUT — again, you lie. I dismantled your ridiculous and perverted argument that homosexual marriage would lead to incest being accepted. It does not, as incest is a harmful act.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 1:04am@Bruce P
You didn’t dismantle anything. Explain how it is harmful to the other partner and to the community? What is it the communities business what happens behind closed doors? If children are the ones that are harmed, what about gay incest. You‘re already for the gay part and they can’t have kids.
http://bullypulpit.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=867:11-great-arguments-for-incestuous-marriage&catid=46:bully-pulpit-blog&Itemid=70
Amazing how they use the same arguments you do.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:42pmDamn, I need to go take a shower after reading this.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:52pmDon’t say that too loudly.
Report Post »rotcarpenter
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:41pmThe numbers are fishy. It continues to lose everywhere. How can their be 50% support for it?
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:52pmI agree with you..fishy numbers….Thats why I refuse to beleive POLLS. Government stats our so manipulated its almost laughable that they put numbers out like that..Just look how bad they manipulate the un-employment numbers…THANKS NORTH CAROLINA…NOW get rid of that Demorat Gov Perdue.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:58pmThe gay analysis is this. the older generation is against gay marriage; the younger generation is for gay marriage.
They are of the opinion that as the older generation dies out that the number for gay marriage will increase. Basically, the gay community can’t wait for the old people to die.
I did not see a break down based on age. But as people age, maybe people may get more conservative so that does not take that into account.
Report Post »Durruti
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:59pmNah, more conservative people vote consistently which is why you see it losing. Many people who are in favor of it have given up on the system.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:41pmI stand against it…you want your alternate lifestyles, have your alternate marriages, ie civil unions…why are we pandering to such a small minority of people…is what I want to know…maybe christians should stand up more for their rights…oh I forgot we’re not living for this world…my bad.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:50pmI noticed that the farther away from church people are, the more likely they are to support homosexual marriage. I wonder about the Catholics, though.
The fact that this is gaining support is another sign that our country is becoming more secular.
Time for a spiritual awakening.
Report Post »Carrieann1
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:54pmHey “Godlovinmom” — haven’t you heard? “My bad” has jumped the shark — time to lose it…..
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:01pmYou got that right Brother Ed, spiritual awakening indeed. Speaking of false religions ( catholics) one of the reason I don’t like Romney, he’s a mormon…I find it hard to vote for someone that follows this religion..tho I don‘t think he’s a devote follower, but a follower anyway…Before I get beat up on this, mormonism is one of many religions I don’t agree with, jehovah’s witnesses, southern baptist, luthern, seventh day advantist, and so on….
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:09pm@brother
Do homosexuals go to heaven according to Mormons. I from what I understand almost everyone goes to heaven according to the Mormons. Muslims, Scientologist, Hindu, and gay all get to go to Heaven and avoid outer darkness correct?
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:12pmHey CarrieAnn…I don’t even know what jump the shark means…but your probably right about “my bad”…I still call my husband a FOX once in awhile, so I’m living in the seventies…Love your avatar, and the song!
Report Post »LibertyGoddess
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:22pmgodlovinmom, you are anything but god loving. Give it a break. You are the reason so many people are leaving the world of Evangelicals and Protestants, your tongue only attracts the bitter, mean Evangelicals.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:28pmmeanwhile you “probably” support homosexual marriage, talk about bitter and mean…never in my life have I seen a more bitter crowd than homosexuals, unless you count liberals that is…hows that for mean!
Report Post »Welcome Black Carter
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:46pm“Time for a spiritual awakening”
Ah, don’t expect that to come from the Catholics.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 4:57pmMutiny
According to Muslims almost everyone goes to heaven except for a very few individuals. I think they mean really despicable individuals like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
Those who do not believe in Islam will take longer to get to heaven, but they will get there.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 6:31pm“Godlovinmom” of course Mitt is a devout follow, and has been a leader, in the LDS church. Read his bio. Have to agree with Liberty Goddess in this case though…
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:26pmTifosa…is he?..mmmm…as far as you agreeing with libertygoddess…does that surprise me, no…I’m mean because I give my opinion about our false religions of today and do not agree with homosexuals marrying….so be it…I’m mean…Loving God is what I strive to do…do I fall short…probably…I do know that I will not call evil, good.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 11:04pm@MUTINY
I would say that your statement is fairly accurate, but I hesitate to give such a blanket explanation.
What I do know is that Heavenly Father loves ALL of His children. He sent His Son to die so that ALL may be saved, if they repent and come unto Him.
We believe that Heavenly Father has established a code of conduct for us to follow, one of those being the Law of Chastity, which condemns ANY sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage. This includes; adultery, pre-marital sex, and sex with yourself.
We believe a man must work out his own salvation and that it is between him and his maker. I have no idea for sure what the criteria are for being judged, except that we will be judged according to knowledge that we have. That being said, it is possible that a person who has never heard of Jesus or has not had the opportunity to hear the Gospel may be judged a little differently than those who have had the opportunity and have turned it down.
You are probably aware that the LDS church teaches that there are 3 levels of Glory and there are certain things a man must do to attain the highest degree. The saints are taught the things they need to know to achieve this end, and we spend no time teaching the things required to get into the other 2 levels. We do our best and Christ makes up the rest. It is, after all, only by His grace that we are saved.
I do not speak for the church, others here may have a better grasp on the doctrine than I do.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 11:14pm@GODLOVINMOM
I believe that all men are free to worship who, what, when and where they please.
I’m not sure why you hate the LDS church; We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ…
We invite all men to repent and to come unto Christ so they may be perfected in Him.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:11amBrother Ed…Don’t hate anyone or anything…honestly…Doctinally I don’t happen to agree, is all…Good Mormons?…definetly!
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:49am@GODLOVINMOM
My bad – you did say you don’t agree with, not hate the ‘mormons’. I stand corrected.
I guess it was the part about not voting for Romney because he‘s ’mormon’ that got me on the wrong track.
Last I knew, there are over 1200 denominations of churches that are Christian. They differ on doctrine – baptize as infants? Dunk or sprinkle? Wine or grape juice? Saturday or Sunday? and on and on 1200 different times.
I find it best to celebrate the things we have in common; mainly our love of the Savior and His sacrifice for us. The rest we can agree to disagree on.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:03amBrother Ed…you got that right..probably my worst sin..picking on man’s religions. God Bless my brother in Christ!
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:36pm30 out of 30 states have voted in favor of traditional marriage. That’s all there is to it.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:49pm31 – an activist judge overruled the will of CA voters…..
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:51pmRemember: That’s 30 out of 57.
Report Post »mcsledge
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:53pm30 states have taken an active voice in siding with God’s own commandment on marriage (i.e., a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife (woman)).
Report Post »DexterMorgan
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 3:29pmDon’t you mean 31 out of 57 states? :p
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:35pm…
Report Post »God bless the North Carolina voters.
godlovinmom
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:48pmAmen!
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 2:55pmHE IS!
Track our record since 2010 elections which turned NC to the RIGHT for the first time in over one hundred years.
North Carolinians are awake, praying and voting. By GOD’s GRACE AND MERCY, “you ain‘t seen nuthin’ yet”.
Report Post »hatchetjob
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 7:38pmAmen!!!
Report Post »