Its a bunch of darn hooey... I have known a few drunks in my time.. and they had many different colors of eyes! This is some stupid study that was paid with millions of dollars of taxpayers hard earned money! How much did they pay to watch a shrimp run on a treadmill?? This is nothing more than bilking American's..by charlatan's that get away with it! We so need to all be Tea Partier's! And sink Washington and our lawmakers!
DLV. You are young. It could depend on what you have tried.
I have blue eyes and am over 50.
I have no chance of becoming alcohol dependent until after I take my first taste of it. Until then, I don't think it has anything at all to do with the color of my eyes.
 July 2, 2015 at 9:03am
Maybe not yet but I’m seeing it will happen soon
 July 2, 2015 at 8:52am
 July 2, 2015 at 8:50am
I absolutely agree. Yesterday we saw someone try out polygamy. Soon it’s gonna be legal for pedophilia incest maybe bestiality and marrying an inanimate object. I’m calling it now. It will happen because as the bible says the mind is desperately wicked above all else. And of course with all this stuff churches will be forced to do these marriages throwing the first amendment completely out the window.
Children, animals, and inanimate objects have never been able to enter legal contracts in the US.
Maybe not yet but I'm seeing it will happen soon
If anybody thinks those stupid Ted movies are just metaphors for gay rights, think again. They are propaganda for the whole gamut of perversions. As usual, the propaganda starts soft and then escalates.
DLV - I disagree. Adult humans have always been able to agree to contracts in the US. The recent SCOTUS ruling only expanded what contracts a group of adults can sign by applying the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. I see this as expanding freedoms of the people the Constitution already protects. You may see it as a loophole. Either way, the Constitution does not protect animals or inanimate objects. It does protect children, but it also protects children from their immature selves.
Pat marriage is a union between a man and woman. Who can create anther LIFE . Two gays can not create a new LIFE. They can pretend to be a family but they are JUST PERTENED. And letting sexual Devent's sexual mutualed them selfs is Wrong, Evil. No matter how you look at it.
shsmnguy – you are free to believe certain actions or people are wrong or evil. The US government however does not have that freedom. The US government, bound by its own Constitution, must treat everyone equally. This means that people can yell hate speech, protest, fornicate, drink alcohol, tattoo their bodies, eat bacon, etc and, as long as they do not harm anyone, the government cannot prevent them from doing so. You have your reasons for thinking homosexuality is wrong. In my experience, I find no reason to think this way. I disagree with your assessment but respect your freedom to say it. However, once you stand in the way of two people living their life in a non harmful way, then I and the US government are forced to stand against you.
@Pat, if you notice that ages of consent can be changed in law (I think there are some states that allow marriages down to age 14? I think Mexico has an age of consent of 12 years old, and we have a lot of people moving wholesale from Mexico) There is nothing in the constitution that lists an age to enter marriage or contracts. Those follow legislation and court cases which can be changed in an instant. Basically, never say never. Nothing, not even the Constitution is “written in stone”. Eternal vigilance is required.
Pat,neither has gay marriage.
Cavallo - I agree that anything could happen. However I think it is a leap to say that just because adult same sex couples now receive equal protection, that children are mature enough to enter into the same adult decisions. I know same sex marriage was unthinkable to most years ago and that it would have been a "leap" as well. But allowing adults to live their lives is not the same as allowing children to make decisions for which they are not ready.
Even as we speak, a parent may consent for their CHILD to marry.
Even as we speak, an animal owner has the responsibility of 'keeping' their 'pet'.
Even as we speak, a human has dominion over a blow-up doll.
Even as we speak, human agency abounds.
Where there are 'children' in any of those scenarios home life, the SC just said that we as a society cannot have those kids brought up to feel that their surroundings are anything but normal. Why would you traumatized the kids in those home life's described by telling their parent they can't marry the love of their life?
WEBWITHDEB - I understand that you wish to point out extremes because you indeed feel that two adults in a committed relationship is an extreme. However, loving an inanimate object does not mean it is afforded the protections of the US government. Loving an animal does not mean it can enter into a legal contract. Children are protected foremost by their parents, but when their parents are providing direct harm to their children, it is the right of the government to protect those lives.
In the case of children being allowed to marry with parental consent, the law does set age restriction on that as well. The idea is if a 17 year old wants to marry an 18 year old and their parents agree their child is mature enough to make this decision, then the state should not stand in the way. While the ages may be arbitrary, in the interest of protecting an 8 year old being sold into child sex trafficing, the state has set a minimum where children cannot be married even with parental consent. I find this a fair compromise between the government protecting children and staying out of the family affairs. Adults, however, are free to make their own choices and enter into contracts as they please.
You have no understanding of me whatsoever if that drivel was any indication.
Adults CAN ENTER into contracts on behalf of others, and do so ALL the time.
Now, my question, which was NOT addressed by your verbiage IS:
In any home life where a child is being brought up in these types of scenarios, why would you traumatize those children by controlling their parent's love life in stating that what those children are experiencing is different and not allowed 'Marriage' benefits/privileges?
Pat, It’s not much of a stretch. Just redefine “children”. Like you said, it seemed ludicrous several years ago that marriage would be redefined to mean any consenting adults. Just as it might seem so now that we might hear “Sexual rights for children!” or “Sexual rights for young americans!” today. Just takes a few laws here and there to get the ball rolling and a few media blitzes.. Knock it down to 16.. then 15.. then 14… then … no restrictions at all. Parent’s rights to decide what is best for their children has already been under assault for decades. If your 13 year old daughter wants to get jiggie with a 35 year old man, what kind of bigot would deprive them of that “right”? Seems completely ridiculous now, even offensive.. but look what is already happening in public schools with sex, and abortion, etc etc…
WEBWITHDEB - I apologize, I'm sincerely am not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if a person is in love with an inanimate object that we are compelled to tell children living in that household that their parents are normal? If so, I would say no. No one is compelled to tell a person that they are right or wrong. But the government is compelled to make sure that laws protect everyone equally. Again, I apologize if this does not anwser your question on my views.
Cavallo - the "redefinition" of marriage as you call it is not the issue in my opinion. Adults can and should be able to make choices for themselves and the government should protect them. Now, the definition of an adult is admittedly a hard thing to pinpoint and the current age of 18 is admittedly arbitrary. It has, however, worked for us so far but am willing to hear evidence arguing its change. However, assuming a 5 year old has an understanding of what marriage and sex is is surely a leap.
Why don't you define 'marriage equality' in your own words, so that the concept you are defending can be understood, o.k., Pat.
Further, why don't you tell us how many 5 year olds you have interacted with in the last 5 years such that you are able to base such claims on your experience, K?
WEBWITHDEB - I define marriage equality as the legal rights, responsibilities, protections and privileges the government provides to married couples cover all consenting married couples regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
My 5 year old nephew and 7 year old niece do not seem capable of the full comprehension of marriage. This is of course anecdotal but you asked what 5 year olds I have interacted with. The adults I have interacted with who are either married or engaged, do seem to understand what a marriage contract entails.
Thanks for clearing that up. Now I have a more vivid picture:
You base the surety on your position on two kids’ interaction with you as your examples.
You show no consistency whatsoever (upon viewing your comments on the guy wanting two wives article) as to what ‘marriage equality’ IS.
WEBWITHDEB - I answered specifically which 5 year olds I have interacted with recently as you requested. It is not my only basis for my opinion of what an adult is, but that doesn't matter. The government, in terms of law, is responsible for separating adults from children. Currently the best, or at least easiest measure of this is age, as it is scientific fact that babies aren't adults, but full adulthood can vary from person to person. By determining an adult age the government can decide who can legally enter into contracts, who should be tried as an adult, who can make adult decisions (smoking, sex, etc.). My understanding of your argument seems to be that "if not 2 men, why not children"? My answer to that is that adults can make adult choices and children can't. I do not agree that an adult's decision is only valid if the decision they choose is considered right by someone else. More specifically, a man choosing to enter into a contract with another man is as valid as a man choosing to enter into a contract with a woman. However, a child choosing to enter into a contract is invalid regardless of the decision they choose.
"You show no consistency whatsoever (upon viewing your comments on the guy wanting two wives article) as to what ‘marriage equality’ IS."
I believe I have been consistent - at least in my views although perhaps not in explaining them. I stated "I define marriage equality as the legal rights, responsibilities, protections and privileges the government provides to married couples cover all consenting married couples regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation." I probably should have said "people" instead of couples. It's a hard habit to break. I believe that if 2 or more people want to consider themselves family, then they have the right to. However, most marriage law is written in a language that assumes 2 people. Ie, in the event of a divorce, the spouse making more money must pay alimony to the the spouse making less. If for example, 3 people married to each other, then does the middle spouse have to pay alimony? What if 2 wives are considered married to 1 husband but not each other? For polygamy to be legally recognized I feel we need to fix the language in or amend marriage laws to clearly protect those involved (since laws are there to protect those involved). If the language of law cannot currently handle that, the language of law should be updated. Polygamists should not be denied equal protection. It does not make sense to me to deny them because the law is already too complex.
Don’t you love questions? See how much more fluid your definition of “marriage equality” JUST NOW comes into focus for you?
So now in your understanding, you have expanded marriage to any number of people; apparently you don’t consider children “people” (perhaps that is why you have such limited exposure to them?), but you are enthusiastically open to making any number of marriage ‘laws’ which facilitates your idea, yet cannot grapple with the thought that that expansion of availability should be made for anyone else who wants their concept of what “Marriage” is to them be given any parity whatsoever, right?
WEBWITHDEB – I consider children people, just incapable of making adult decisions.
When it comes to marriage equality, I am not advocating for more laws. I’m advocating that the most number of people be covered by legal protections. I can understand that others may want to restrict that definition to a man and a woman, or only 2 people, or only people of the same race, but to me that limits the freedom of choice from adults. Any people who can enter legal contracts should be able to enter the legal contract of marriage.
Then what you are saying is that “Marriage” should not be restricted in any manner. I find it completely disingenuous of you to try to ‘define’ that in your limiting manner.
One more time, an adult can contract on behalf of a child. Should the parents of any of those kids you are never around have as a cultural belief that they may betroth their children in marriage to another adult, you have given absolutely no rational, consistent, logical, or meaningful reason as to why this SC opinion — which gave deference to ‘other than what was heretofore normal’ home life so as to not traumatized any children in any ‘alternative’ arrangement — would not give the whole gambit of variety in what ‘marriage’ is to ANY INDIVIDUAL, credence.
WEBWITHDEB - I am still not sure what you are asking so I will leave you with my basic philosophy.
Adults can make adult decisions. Parents are to protect their children. If a parent is harming their child, the government should protect the child from their parent. Adults have the right to live as they please as long as they are not harming others.
Happy (early) Independence day!
pat68 - They/agents of Lucifer will have the adults sign the contracts for the youngsters, it is legal in other countries, I pray that never happens in the U.S. & +Jesus God+ returns before the evil ones try anything like that, in +Jesus + name I pray Amen.
Whether your ignorance is feigned or not, you are certainly under no obligation to me to try to deflect that definitive statement I made (which I said summarized your position based upon your words, here) such that, had your comprehension been anywhere attuned, you would have realized I was not asking a question of you at all.
 July 1, 2015 at 10:13am
Gaykk clever. Love it
 July 1, 2015 at 9:03am
Yes but at least they have the common sense to fight Isis and kick out the Muslim brotherhood gonzo. I’ve been impressed with them recently
I wonder if the average black youth even knows who he is.
Andrew Young, God bless you!
A voice of reason in all this madness.
Andrew Young... bringing it home and focusing on the facts.
Too bad he'll be labeled an Uncle Tom by progressives and might have to deal with IRS audits now.
Stay strong and to the point Mr. Young. Your words are sorely needed.
I agree. As an overweight Conservative insensitive white male with a job I'd like to add a few things:
1. Don't do drugs.
2. Raise your kids.
3. Get a job.
4. Work at your job.
5. Forget about everyone else, worry about yourself and your family.
6. Don't listen to Shartpon or Obama or Holder or any other race baiting moron.
7. Maybe try going to church.
8. If you disagree with something, fight it at the polls.
9. Don't riot, loot, or engage in any unlawful assembly.
10. Be skeptical of anything that you're told. Educate yourself.
11. Surround yourself with people that have similar values.
It is evening in Sodom - covers it all...http://www.gracechapel.net/media/detail/its-evening-in-sodom
KayDee found a good video, very interesting ^
Andy always tells it as it is...and now it is time for ALL Black Leaders to see the truth and wisdom in what he has said and to start working on the 93% instead of focusing on the 7% and ignoring the 93%.
Americans do not have lapse of remembering this:
Nevertheless, the push is on to have all Confederate symbolism removed from Stone Mountain Park in Atlanta. Once this is accomplished, the carvings of Jefferson Davis and Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson will come under attack.
I am, but it really has been a crappy week.
Good to see you DLV, it has been a while. I hope all is well.
 June 24, 2015 at 1:04pm
The problem I have for other life as it relates to Christianity is that Jesus died on the cross for the race of Adam how would it be fair to live in a cursed universe based on Adams actions and then of course how would those aliens be saved? A lot of questions.
The angels long to look into our salvation. The angels that fell will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. There is no Grace for them. I can't understand what many always look to God to be "fair". We are His, created by Him. Who are we to question the Potter for what He does with His vessels. It seem clear to me that god didn't care for the race of hybrids formed by the Sons of God that went into the daughters of men. The race of Adam were formed in His image, but fell into sin. Jesus proves His love for us and us only. The Nephilim found in Genesis 6, IMO, are not human and were killed off by the flood and later by war. Remember the "Grasshoppers" that took Canaan. If Cain was "marked" by God, could not other creatures be "marked" for death by God. It could be in our DNA that someone like the shooter in Charleston can be so emotionless? If you are going to tell me homosexuals are "born that way", then why can't lost heathen murderers, have a genetic marker that dooms them? The Bible says many types of sinners will not see the Kingdom of God. God called the Jews to kill EVERY man woman and child in their conquest of the Promised Land. Could it be that they were genetically defective and of no consequence to God? If Noah found grace, but it says he was "perfect", could that mean he carried the Adam genes that God was cultivating? Grace usually means you aren't perfect. These are just questions that present some possibilities that no one has explored.
perhaps whatever works for elephants or whales, also works for alf or chewbacca.
 June 23, 2015 at 9:25am
Ok so you wouldn’t mind if that was Hilliary instead of Ted. Same thing right?
June 22, 2015 at 1:14pm
Milquetoast- that’s still an issue because popes throughout history have disagreed
 June 22, 2015 at 8:10am
In honor of Batman Arkham Knight coming out tomorrow which I’m beyond pumped for, it looks like these two officers could have used some Bat assistance.
Scarecrow you’re goin down tomorrow!
[-2] June 19, 2015 at 1:51pm
The complexity shows that God is amazing and well beyond our understanding. It gives us a glimpse of who he is and his power
 June 19, 2015 at 1:35pm
I’ll agree that people looking to conspiracy theories on mass shootings are insane
 June 17, 2015 at 2:10pm
I can bet that Christians won’t kill over it cough* cough*
June 14, 2015 at 12:46pm
You know mental illness is technically a birth defect right? You proved him right
 June 6, 2015 at 8:58am
I think it was one lone Egyptian court. I get the feeling the Egyptian people are quite sick of terrorism
That's true they did remove Morsi but you don't want to give those Islamists an inch. And an Egyptian court overturning a decision naming Hamas a terrorist organization is a move in the wrong direction for Egypt and us in the long run.