The Same People

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: dvdluvver @ 06/03/2008 5:36:03 PM

    The secular culture has usurped what really is a faithful and religious union. A marriage is a proclamation before God and community of the promise of love and fidelity. Our secular governments have chosen, and rightly so, to award this sacred union with legal rights and benefits. Gay marriage is not marriage. You can call it that all you want, but that's not what it is. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. What it actually is is a Civil Union - sort of. Laws and secular lawmakers can try to concoct a difference between the two, but it is simply impossible to redefine something that is not secular. Marriage is of God, Civil Unions are of governments. Symantics they may seem, but reality it is.

    • Posted By: RationalTim20 @ 06/03/2008 6:10:20 PM

      Supernatural beliefs have no place in a Court of Law. This article was about the inexorable change that is happening in world societies during our lifetime, and it marks some important milestones of that change in America. To deny that it is happening is as crazy as denying that the Earth is warming. Oops, wrong forum.

      I think it's spelled semantics. And I think by boldly declaring it is governed by "God" you have just alienated every religion that does not believe there is a single deity. Careful, your Christian bigotry is showing.

      • Posted By: tomthegator @ 06/03/2008 9:37:09 PM

        Oooo, wrong again. No warming for the last decade. No warming for the foreseeable future. Thus sayeth NASA or NOAH or the UN or one o' them there gubmint outfits. Thanks for playing. Copy of the home game for you.

    • Posted By: suzanne1122 @ 06/03/2008 5:41:39 PM

      Marriage is whatever it means to the people getting married. It means something different to everyone. I've been married and it was NOT a religious thing, it had nothing to do with any "faith" of mine or anyone else's. You do not HAVE to be married in a church, by a church official, and it will still be LEGAL. Why anyone cares who anyone else marries, I have no clue.

      • Posted By: xanabella @ 06/03/2008 5:57:07 PM

        My wife and I were wed in a non-denominational spiritual yet non-religious outdoor ceremony, are we any less married then the couple who wed in the catholic church? That's like saying that a celebrity with a 1 million dollar ring and a five million dollar ceremony has a more valid commitment, and we all know that's not true. No church owns the concept of marriage. It is the product of love and commitment, and the GL community have proven that love and commitment has no gender bias. If you don't want gay and lesbian couples married in your church, fine, you have that right, but no religious group has the right to tell them they can't marry, it's intolerant, bigoted and incidentally, doesn't even follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

  • Posted By: sagopalm @ 06/03/2008 5:45:20 PM

    "Polls showing opposition to gay marriage were proffered to prove that the court had overstepped its bounds, ignoring the fact that the most sacred business of judges is not to ratify the will of the majority but to protect the minority from its tyranny."

    This is the most important statement in the story. The courts decision is not based on popularity amongst the masses. If the courts always went along with public opinion, there would be a long, sad history of lame brained decisions passed that would only have served to keep society rooted firmly in the dark ages.
    Society needs to progress. It's refreshing to read how young people have just come to take 'gay' for granted. It's about time.

    • Posted By: tomthegator @ 06/03/2008 9:33:09 PM

      Anna's column is riddled with nonsense, not least of all the aforementioned interpretation of the judiciary's role in a constitutional society. If it is as she describes, then we should disband all the legislatures, send home the people's elected represenatives, do away with all duties of the executive branches. Anna's willingness to acquiesce to the judiciary effectively eliminates the other two legs of government. They become like home plate umpires: The pitch ain't nothing until the ump says what it is, and then that's what it is 'til the end of time, the strike zone be damned.
      A more rational, serviceable and useful interpretation of the judiciary is for it to know the law, know its relationship to the applicable constitutions (state, federal) and to weigh both in unison against the arguments brought to it by warring parties. You want to change the law or the constitution, have at it. The provisions to do so abound.
      But for the sake of preventing the judiciary from twisting itself all pretzel-like over time as a result of outcome-based bass-ackward opinion manufacturing, it ought to stay the heck out of the courtroom.
      Anna gets one thing right: When sufficient numbers of "neighbors, friends and family members ... make the political personal," then legislators will do what the courts have prematurely taken on themselves. In the meantime, where the California court has gotten is not "out front on [a] social issue," but rather to the treacherous end of an unsubstantial branch.
      That sound? It's the stubborn center-right American majority -- the hillbilly rubes nursing bitterness and "sooperstishun" who also are the undeterred target of condesencion and hysterical ridicule by the staggeringly brilliant, never-to-be-challenged, closed minds of the left -- working their collective saw back at base camp. We have witnessed the ravages of Roe v. Wade (maybe not so much a private matter as the taking of a human life for the sake of convenience?) and we won't be fooled again.
      Oh, yes. Anna's helium-like position on gay marriage will take us down the same unhappy, line-drawing, enemy-making, energy-devouring road that has Americans even now at knife points over abortion. History suggests a consensus was emerging in the early 1970s, but when the SCOTUS pre-emptively assumed the role of supreme legislature, movement was frozen in quick-drying cement.
      If, as Anna suggests is proper, the courts force-feed the American majority another solution discovered -- eureka! -- in the penumbra, we shall certainly see history repeating itself.
      Who needs that? I'd rather exhaust climate-alerting CO2 arguing about the punishments on productivity levied by a corrupted, favor-granting, employment-supressing, activity-coercing tax code. Or drilling in ANWR and off the gulf coast of my beloved but overly dramatic Florida.

  • Posted By: carminejd @ 06/01/2008 4:11:39 PM

    I agree, but now for the REALLY big issue; when can we get past the liberal's requirement of inter-gender loathing? When will inter-gender relationships again be valued? When will fathers be valued again in families? When will women forgive men for not getting pregnant and for the fact that they do? When will the Church and all the churches get up the gumption to stop hating gays and start helping straight people succeed in marriage? I am a professor of twenty years at a women's university, and trust me it is still considered good taste for women to loathe men. When will we just say Alice Walker was wrong and her daughter is right?

    • Posted By: cmonpplthink @ 06/03/2008 9:11:47 PM

      I'm liberal (not extreme, more moderate), I'm a woman, and I do not hate men. I love my father, he was the cornerstone of my childhood. While I enjoy reading mpreg (male pregnancy) stories sometimes, the thought of it happing for real makes me go "eww!", so I'm not worried that men can't get knocked up. Each gender has its pros and cons and just because one can't do something doesn't make it wrong or mean they're insensitive. A woman getting angry about men not experiencing pregnancy is like a man getting angry because a woman can't get prostate cancer.
      And I LOATHED my lit classes where the teacher was a feminist activist. I believe that women are still getting the short end in a lot of respects, but come ON not everything in life revolves around that.
      I don't think your complaint is so much a liberal failing, as it is a tendency for people to be too involved on how *someone* is being unfair to them and refusing to see how things may be for the other team.

  • Posted By: wilsan @ 06/01/2008 4:40:35 PM

    Yes. The debate is over on Global Warming, too.

    Any argument that can't win on it;'s own merits, why, it becomes "the debate is over" for the Liberals.

    Democratic Party Liberals are determined to take away freedom, and to replace majority rule with politically correct dictatorship. This is going to backfire on them big time in the long run.

    Democratic Liberals - the party of " NO Debate ".

    • Posted By: cmonpplthink @ 06/03/2008 9:04:22 PM

      That's funny, I've seen just as many conservatives in this thread pronounce "the debate is over".
      The extremes on both sides of this issue are being hostile and are promoting dictatorships - if the liberals are going for the PC dictatorship then the conservatives are pushing for the theocracy.
      We need to start in the middle and go from there, not slinging mud at everyone who disagrees.
      As for Global Warming, the only people who are still debating that are the politicians. The only scientists who do not admit to climate change (global warming is a misnomer and does not capture the scope of what will happen in different places due to the changes) are the ones being paid or politically motivated to say it "might" happen.

  • Posted By: KingJosiah @ 06/03/2008 9:03:01 PM

    I have read many of these comments and am amazed at the prejudice, bigotry, evil, hatred, intolerance, ignorance, stereo-typing being directed towards the gay community. There are so many references to "God" as if we all believe in the same ???God??? and all live by every ???same??? interpretation of the Bible. Sanctimony runs rampant here. This country is made up of many religions and we all have our own interpretation of who/what "God" is. It seems unfair to push one's religion and judgement's on others and yet many of you are doing just that. Peace begins in each one of us. Peace begins when we turn our judgements over to OUR "God" and live and let live. There are bad gay people just like there are "bad" in any group. I don't like every gay person and I am gay. I don't like every white person and I am white. Personally, marriage isn???t for me. I have a partner now for 4 years and live in California. But I do deserve the right to marry just like everyone else. Just like I deserve the right to freedom like the rest of you. And the right to vote, oh, and pay taxes for other peoples children to go to public school (since I have none of my own). Gay people come from every walk of life, every religion, every political party. Yes even Republican gays. Hard to believe isn???t it? We are every color. We walk, we run, we swim, we breathe, we love. I am your brother, your son, your cousin, your neighbor. I am a good and kind person. My heart is full of love for family, friends and mankind???.but it???s way past my bedtime and I am still waiting for equality.

  • Posted By: dboc_99 @ 06/01/2008 9:51:31 PM

    Before 1960 Marriage was:
    1. One man, one woman
    2. Presumably generative
    3. Permanent
    4. Exclusive

    After 1970 marriage was
    1. One man, one woman
    2. Presumably generative
    3. Non longer permanent
    4. No longer exclusive (think serial marriages, think infidelity)

    As you can see, changing the Institution by 1970 has changed marriage and society for the worse. The long term consequences are felt today. Those in 1965 would argue that THEIR divorce wouldn't hurt YOUR marriage, but of course it did hurt marriage.

    In 2008 Marriage is:
    1. Not one man, one woman
    2. Not generative
    3. Not permanent
    4. Not exclusive.

    See what we have done... and are going to do with "gay marriage" it will become WORTHLESS.

    • Posted By: cmonpplthink @ 06/03/2008 8:58:16 PM

      I disagree... divorce was allowed prior to 1960, but was generally frowned upon (my grandmother divorced in the early '50s when her husband stopped beating her so much so that he would have time to beat her kids). There was non-exclusivity also, people had affairs all the time, it just was considered a no-no to talk about in polite company, and a wife was basically told that if her husband was cheating, obviously it was her fault for not being a good enough wife.
      After 1970, women pretty much decided "screw this, and screw you" when their husbands would beat or cheat on them, and that contributed to the increase in divorce rate. Men got the same idea (they get cheated on too, and some of them will never admit it, but are abused by their wives) and started divorcing also. Children of those early divorces saw that they could bail if they wanted to, and it became socially acceptable.
      Oh, and throughout time, we've had barren women and sterile men, so its more like "hopefully generative". and in 2008, I would think it would still be "hopefully generative" since there are still heterosexuals getting married. Gay women can also be artificially inseminated, so they can still have a "generative" marriage.
      I do not believe that the current acceptability of divorce is a negative thing. Yes, it causes strife and yes its nicer when a child has two parents (though I disagree whether the parents have to differ in gender), but after being a child in a marriage that had gone sour and remained hostile while the parents "stayed together for the sake of the children", it was such a welcome relief when they finally split up and my and my siblings could have peace. If divorce had not been possible and accepted, someone in that household would have died. Divorce is necessary at times, though I strongly dislike casually throwing away a marriage.
      Maybe one day heterosexual couples will get back on track and stay married longer, but in the meantime there's no reason to penalize homosexual couples for the decline in marriage. Hell, given that homosexual couples are more likely to stay together, overall it could be a boost for the success rates in marriages.

  • Posted By: SaywhatuwantImademychoice @ 06/03/2008 7:18:16 PM

    I've read almost half the comments posted up until now, and I've got to say a lot of you on both sides of this argument are hateful. The truth is the question people need to be asking is whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or innate behavior. Personally, I believe it is a lifestyle choice, and as a Christian I choose to believe what the Bible says.Not out of ignorance, but out of fear. Not because of my pastor, or my parents, but out of my own personal conviction. Remember Jesus preached love. Not tolerance, two very different things. I have homosexual friends, and they know where I stand. In all honesty only a few have had the courage to actually sit down and discuss the matter, and even fewer to not scream and rant but actually return the same understanding. In closing, no one including myself (or anyone else who posted), knows what the answer is except God, and to those who don't believe in God. Maybe you need to remember who founded this country, and if you don't believe it, that's fine. Don't tolerate me, just leave me to my so called "ignorance" and I'll leave you to yours (I'll just pray for you when you're not looking.) Last, but not least, leave Bush out of this. No man or woman is perfect. And no politician will make the right decisions for everyone. Maybe Bush didn't do the job we would have all liked, but a lot of us prayed for him, while the rest of you just told him he was worthlessand horrible. And every human being knows how hurtful that can be. So for goodness sake, stop blaming one man for all of our emotional, economic, and spiritual problems. God bless America, God bless anyone who reads this, and God bless George W. Bush and OUR !!!!! first amendment.
    P.S. Remember if you don't have anything nice to say.................

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:26:51 PM

      "Not out of ignorance, but out of fear"

      Exactly. Religion is all about fear and keeping people in line by scaring them.

      • Posted By: Phyta08 @ 06/03/2008 8:37:43 PM

        Seems the fear that you identify is more than likely a fear of the unknown.

      • Posted By: dmcelm1 @ 06/03/2008 7:34:34 PM

        So are politics - without fear-generated support, I'm afraid the Bush administration would not have been able to last as long as it has.

    • Posted By: madtownrunner262 @ 06/03/2008 7:37:51 PM

      When did you choose to be straight? If being gay is a lifestyle choice, being straight must be as well.

      And as far as the difference between love and tolerance, do you really think that you can love someone without being tolerant of them? And if you believe that you have to do "what the Bible says", have you ever worn a shirt that was a blend of cotton and polyester, or eaten pork?

  • Posted By: Phyta08 @ 06/03/2008 7:30:19 PM

    "Moral justification is a powerful disengagement mechanism. Destructive conduct is made personally and socially acceptable by portraying it in the service of moral ends.???
    Albert Bandura

    • Posted By: Phyta08 @ 06/03/2008 8:25:05 PM

      I guess that depends on what you defend as the destructive conduct and the desired moral end.

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:34:49 PM

      Exactly right. People use so-called "morality" to deny gay and lesbians equal rights.

  • Posted By: AbbeytheLibrarian @ 06/03/2008 4:25:46 PM

    . . . and look at what happens when we have a "Christian" in the Whitehouse.

    • Posted By: Yamaha TTR230 @ 06/03/2008 4:29:35 PM

      Look at what happens when we have a "Christian" in the White House.....we have a left wing liberal bleeding heart democratic lead congress mess everything up.

      • Posted By: AbbeytheLibrarian @ 06/03/2008 4:36:53 PM

        we've had white men pretending to be Christians in the white house. Bush got elected on his "christian" values of being anti-gay, ant-abortion, and praying before every every decision.

        yeah, the liberals are completely at fault. that's why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. it's the liberals.

        • Posted By: Boanerges72 @ 06/03/2008 4:40:41 PM

          Pretending to be Christians? Really? So you have the knowledge of other's faith? Wow, you and I need to hit the stockmarket or something...

          • Posted By: AbbeytheLibrarian @ 06/03/2008 4:44:51 PM

            i don't understand your comment. what does the stock market have anything to do with anything? i'm an atheist. i've studied Judaism and Christianity for twelve years of my life.

            • Posted By: Boanerges72 @ 06/03/2008 4:53:44 PM

              With such private, powerful insights you would be a good ally to have in stockmarket, the track, betting parlors and so on. So, you studied Judaism and Christianity for twelve years? What am I supposed to infer from this?

              • Posted By: AbbeytheLibrarian @ 06/03/2008 5:06:55 PM

                first off, is your name supposed to be a phonetic spelling of boner guys?

                i never said i had "private, powerful insights." i just studied. you know, learning and stuff. i went to university, got several degrees. i can read. i'm not illiterate. when i have questions i actually research things, like history.

                i actually still don't understand what you're getting at, although i think you're trying to joke about me speaking to "god" directly. i don't. i actually lost her cell phone number, so, no, i can't bet or anything. you need not respond because i won't respond back. you win. case closed. you hate gays. fine. whatever. go you, boner guy.

                • Posted By: Boanerges72 @ 06/03/2008 8:08:59 PM

                  Did I ever say that I hate gays? As for Boanerges, didn't study Judaism or Christianity too hard during that time, did you? And lastly, why when faced with a losing argument, the internet response is always, "I will not respond."

    • Posted By: Boanerges72 @ 06/03/2008 4:29:48 PM

      When, praytell, have we not had a Christian in the White House :)

  • Posted By: jeffreylebowskijr @ 06/03/2008 7:52:56 PM

    Use some common sense folks: why would someone *choose* to be gay with all of the attendant societal drawbacks? Did *any* of you heterosexuals wake up one morning when you were sixteen and think "hmm...boys or girls?" -- I didn't, and neither did you. Belonging to an organized religion and/or choosing to bigot, on the other hand, is most definitely a lifestyle choice. Just sayin'

  • Posted By: prettypanda84 @ 06/03/2008 6:14:25 PM

    I can see the point that is being made here, but I think that it dismisses the religioius point of view as hatefulness. It's not. Jesus taught that all people are in the same state. We are all sinful. And he taught that we should love and be kind to all people, because we are the same, we are all sinful. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin and not condoned by God. It also teaches that lying is a sin not condoned by God. Am I equating homosexuality with lying? Yes, I am. But sin we are all sinners, I don't see myself as better than a person who is a homosexual, because even though that is not my sin of choice, I sin in other ways. But it would be hypocritical for me to accept some sin and not others, it's not up to me, it's up to HIM.
    It's true that people have taken homosexuality and demonized it way further than it should be and committed the worse sin of not loving your neighbor. I know not everyone ascribes to what I believe, but as a citizen of this country I am entitled to my beliefs and it's my right to not support gay marriage or see it as equal.

    • Posted By: Eliezer @ 06/03/2008 6:31:23 PM

      Man is not "born" a "sinner." Man is born with a capacity to sin. Sin is simply conduct which alienates you from your fellow man and/or your Creator. Neither is one "born" a "smoker," an "alcoholic" or a "homosexual." Otherwise, whereas every human being may commit acts which alienate him or her from G-d and man, no human being is ever born innately a "sinner." The dignity and stature of man is in his ability to take responsibility for his errors and move on. Indeed, if Adam had not blamed Eve and God for his failure in the garden, history would have been written differently. There is a powerful semantical deception in the morphing of ones actions as a descriptive verb, into its calcification as a definitive noun. Whereas a "sinner" must sin, a human being who sins retains the power to choose not to sin as it were. One does not enter into this world to be "saved," but to overcome ones issues in life, as in Jacob's struggle. This is the greatness of evil... It is a test for moral righteousness, not "self"-righteousness.

      • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 6:53:26 PM

        Nice theory. But its all subjective philosophy. I think evil is only something you do that harms someone else. There's no such thing and as a victim less sin.

        • Posted By: fuhrfen84 @ 06/03/2008 7:48:39 PM

          I would love to agree with you, and I thought the same for a VERY long time. But-- in the real world and dealing with a lot of SERIOUS psychos (psych-wards, etc). I refused to believe that there are people born without a conscience. But there are. Meds, tortures, confinements, etc... none of it worked on them. They WERE born that way. I have family AND friends that hate the fact that they're gay, but as much as they've tried to lead "normal" lives, they hated themselves and everything around them. THey know many do not agree with their choice, but they HAVE tried. And they couldn't do it. So how dare ANY of us say they "choose" this? I dare you to ask each gay person if they tried dating the opposite sex and I would be willing to bet my house that 90%+ have and couldn't do it. WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE. None of us created this world. We have no control over others and what they will do in their eternal life. So. Do whatever you have to do in your own religions, beliefs, etc. but leave others alone. Just as one has no right to murder another unless in self-defense, and we certainly have no right to simply punish or ban people for having different beliefs than you. Think you're high & mighty enough to go shoot a Hindu just because you're not of the same religion? Tell me the difference? Because if you think its a choice, then its a belief, RIGHT? THen tell me how it goes when you shoot a Hindu or Jew. Let's see what society does for your beliefs then. Its the same thing. Leave them alone. They aren't harming you.

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 6:31:37 PM

      That's your subjective opinion and you are entitled to it. People are free to form their personal beliefs based on any number of invisible men. However, I don't have to endorse your beliefs either.

  • Posted By: Tenplay16 @ 06/03/2008 6:23:10 PM

    I find it interesting that she mentioned two men getting married in rome wasn't it immorality and social decay that destroyed them well it was nice knowing you America

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 6:26:05 PM

      Rome's fall had nothing to do with "moral decay". It was about empire, and the difficulty in controlling an entire continent.

      If you want to blame the fall of Rome on anything, why not Christianity? After all, the fall coincided nicely with Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity.

      • Posted By: Tenplay16 @ 06/03/2008 6:31:45 PM

        You need a brush up on history Romans no longer cared about the great erwhole "Rome" and only about themselves think sexual sin and deviance AKA Homosexuality they became internally weak and therefor fell to the barbarians and frankly this is where America is headed

        • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 6:50:12 PM

          Nope. You are incorrect. Constantine sanctioned Christianity and THEN it fell. Romans had orgies for centuries during the height of their power.

          • Posted By: Tenplay16 @ 06/03/2008 6:59:31 PM

            Rome was already in decline by the time Christianity was sanctioned in fact it probably extended it Rome began it decline after Emperor Commudus who took over for the last of the Caesars immorality and social decay destroyed Rome and anyone who has taken world history knows that

            • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:06:54 PM

              Nope. It was hubris, not humping that doomed Rome. You need to pick up some books and read, my friend.

              • Posted By: Tenplay16 @ 06/03/2008 7:11:14 PM

                You obviously haven't spent a semester studying classical Rome i know Rome and how it fell

                • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:38:50 PM

                  Here's a good Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

                  As you can see, there are many theories as to why Rome declined, so-called "morality" being just one of them.

                • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:21:46 PM

                  Wow and entire semester! Gee! You must have fallen asleep. Don't feel bad. It is a dense subject.

                  Here's the first article Google brings up when you use the following search:

                  "fall of the roman empire" cause

                  http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22fall+of+the+roman+empire%22+cause&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

                  As you can see, "moral decay" is one of the possible factors as well as defense spending, political corruption, and many others. Also note that none of the examples of "moral decay" given reference homosexuality. Instead, violent crime, largess, and the excesses of the rich are pointed to.

                  This was just the first link that came up. I can imagine there are many more that explore the nuanced circumstances that lead to the fall of Roman prominence. If the only thing you got out of your semester of scholarly study is "Rome fell because of immorality", I shudder to think of the ramifications for our higher education system.

                  • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:31:08 PM

                    I pasted the wrong link. Here's the link. And I used Yahoo instead of Google.

                    http://killeenroos.com/1/Romefall.htm

  • Posted By: riverbumsteve @ 06/03/2008 5:48:56 PM

    MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.......IF YOU CAN NOT PROCREATE YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A COUPLE.....THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT......KEEP RANTING AND SCREAMING AND MAKING NOISE TO GET WHAT YOU WANT.....JUST LIKE A SPOILED LITTLE KID.....BUT KNOW THAT HERE IN CALIFORNIA WE WILL OVERTURN THE COURT BY PASSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION.......WE WILL STAND UP FOR WHAT MARRIAGE REALLY IS!! COUNT ON THAT!!!

    • Posted By: Patrick May @ 06/03/2008 5:57:58 PM

      WE LIVE HERE and We vote too..........there will never be an overturn. Dream on in all CAPS

      • Posted By: riverbumsteve @ 06/03/2008 6:09:27 PM

        WHAT PEOPLE ON THE LEFT DONT UNDERSTAND IS THAT PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH THEM DONT STAND UP AND INTERRUPT PEOPLE AS THEY MAKE SPEECHES......WE DONT MARCH DOWN STREETS.......WE DONT SCREAM AND YELL TO BRING ATTENTION TO OURSELVES......WE GO ABOUT OUR LIVES AND VOICE OUR OPIONIONS AT THE BALLOT BOX........YOU HAVE NO CLUE HOW MANY PEOPLE FEEL LIKE I DO BECAUSE WE DONT WEAR OUR THOUGHTS ON OUR SHIRT

        • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 6:37:48 PM

          Stop shouting, you radical!

          • Posted By: riverbumsteve @ 06/03/2008 6:47:13 PM

            I AM THE CRAZY ONE AND YOU ARE THE ONE THAT HEARS SHOUTING THROUGH TYPED WORDS....LOL.....

            • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:32:57 PM

              "I AM THE CRAY ONE"

              Acknowledgment is the first step towards healing.

        • Posted By: RationalTim20 @ 06/03/2008 6:40:51 PM

          That's right, you don't wear it on shirts, it goes on bumper stickers.

    • Posted By: RationalTim20 @ 06/03/2008 6:23:15 PM

      This just proves my point--it was a bad idea to put WiFi in the Asylums, and now we all pay the price. Someone get him back to his room so he can watch Jeopardy.

    • Posted By: mulliganplummer @ 06/03/2008 5:55:20 PM

      So because my wife and I can not have children, then we can not marry?

      • Posted By: riverbumsteve @ 06/03/2008 6:02:18 PM

        TWIST THE WORDS TO MEAN WHAT YOU WANT.........

        • Posted By: mulliganplummer @ 06/03/2008 6:09:09 PM

          Or is this what you are doing? Just wondering.

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 6:00:36 PM

      I think they should criminalize all-caps posts and apply the death penalty.

  • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 7:32:13 PM

    I will never understand how people that aren't gay....are so sure that this is a lifestyle choice? How do you know? Would you bet your life on it? Please someone help me understand. My GOD teaches = LOVE & COMPASSION. Your GOD must teach exclusion and discrimination. Enjoy!

  • Posted By: GERMANGA @ 06/03/2008 6:15:13 PM

    I'm a 65 year old wife, mother, grandmother. I know many great lesbian couples and believe they should have the right to marry. The sacred marriage concept is too funny when half of
    American marriages end in divorce and unfaithful spouses are all too commom. Don't think my gay friends will topple civilization!!

    • Posted By: God protect me from your followers @ 06/03/2008 6:55:00 PM

      Thank you Grandma! My mom feels the same way too.

      • Posted By: fuhrfen84 @ 06/03/2008 7:30:59 PM

        I agree. And they really can't... we are currently not able to self-reproduce.... so... for those that fear they'll take over, unfortunately science will not allow it. And thank goodness for gay couples that adopt. Shame on them for taking the children of those who mate and don't want the offspring, eh? How about we focus on that horrible concept instead of these people that aren't harming anyone.

  • Posted By: respdude @ 06/03/2008 4:53:52 PM

    here is my two cents for what it is worth. I think america is a moral cesspool. When pornography is a multibillion dollar industry, when people would rather get out the closet instead of cleaning it, when you cannot let your kids play in the front yard alone because someone might stand by and snatch them, when the divorce rate is higher than the success rate, when you can now say words like "B*****" and "A**" on T.V. in the middle of the afternoon, and when people spend more money time and effort trying to getting people to accept their perverse lifestyle, then we do trying to feed starving kids in america...... moral cesspool. I hate to say it, but I could really see america headed towards another civil war over the moral decay. So why is it so important for Gay people to be married? If no one cares that your being Gay as long as you just live your lifes and stay out of mine, why are they so hell bent on being recognized by marriage? Because they want to feel as though what they are doing is normal. Every right they win, every recognition, tells their twisted sense of reality that their perverse lifestyle is o.k. Everybody looks to Ellen, so let's look at her. Every notice how Ellen puts out effort to masculize herself by the way she cuts her hair and dresses, and how her partners is still very feminine? Every notice how in a Gay male couple, one man is what you would consider a normal man, and one is very feminine acting? Why? Because somewhere down deep in their souls, maybe on a subconcious level, they know it really is suppose to be male and female. I for one will vote against any pro-homosexual candidate, any pro-homosexual legislation, and try to remake america into a country that my children will want to live in when they reach adulthood.

    • Posted By: God protect me from your followers @ 06/03/2008 7:26:48 PM

      Wow- As a gay man I feel the same way you do about the moral decay of America. I truly hope that none of your kids are gay. A piece of paper, that allows me to make medical decisions about my partner of 15 years; to inherit money and property and to get the same tax breaks as you really shouldn't bother you nor your kids. Its just a legal piece of paper- it's hookers walking your street or gangster rap music.... ,

    • Posted By: spjon @ 06/03/2008 5:01:23 PM

      That was the most blatant use of stereotyping yet. I have a feeling your contact with gay people is mainly limited to television. I know MANY gay couples and in most of them neither is discernibly gay. I usually have to tell women to leave them alone because they have no idea. Maybe most stereotypes are born on some truths, but I prefer not to believe that. You saw one or two examples of what you wrote and judged an entire class of people on it. That's just sick.

      • Posted By: respdude @ 06/03/2008 5:13:06 PM

        Actually I went to college with lots of gay people, I work with gay people. Sure there may be some stereotyping in what I said, but it still doesn't negate the fact that gay people push for rights and privilages to help them convince themselves that they are normal. Which, they are not.

        • Posted By: bobbyb4n6 @ 06/03/2008 5:29:33 PM

          Rights and priveleges....HA.....only white Christian males should get those! They are the only ones truly created equal. What a bigoted remark.

    • Posted By: bobbyb4n6 @ 06/03/2008 5:20:41 PM

      With all this talk about homosexuality being a choice, it can only mean that you yourself are in fact a closeted homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a choice and I can prove it. I am heterosexual and I can not choose to be homosexual because I am not attracted to other men. People that argue it as being a choice, must in fact, be gay and just be choosing not to act on their impulses. Just come out of the closet and admit what you are. You will be so much happier and not so bitter, as you obviously are.

  • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 7:18:41 PM

    Gay marriage is not a threat to hetero-marriage...Getting married 8 times and divorce is more of a threat to marriage, people. How do you think gay committed couples feel when they see their own neighbors taking for granted their marriage rights and abusing them with 4 marriages per person. Think about that one.

  • Posted By: dmcelm1 @ 06/03/2008 7:13:39 PM

    How does gay marriage take anything away from your life as you know it? Legalized gay marriage only provides the disenfranchised with the same opportunity as their fellow citizens. There are no civil liberties being taken away from anyone, your religion is not being forcefully changed by your government, and none of the rights and privileges granted by the Constitution are being revoked for anyone. In these times of economic recession, climate change and prolonged warfare, there are far too many other issues and problems in this country right now that deserve your attention and your energy.

  • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 6:10:50 PM

    The debate will continue, I'm certain of that. There is still a very large portion of America that rightfully believes that homosexual acts are a perversion of that which is natural. Politicians are afraid to simply say, "I don't believe in gay marriage because it is immoral." We do have sexual standards in this country - the polygamous cult who married off little children are aware of that and are now professing to change their ways. The Supreme Court of California has lowered the moral standards of this great nation and inclined us to give way to further depravity - such as polygamy, adult-child marriage, animal-marriage... you name it. Some might think we'd never sink that low, but that's exactly what everybody thought about gay-marriage only a few decades ago.

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 6:33:29 PM

      Politicians are afraid to talk about it most likely because of the hypocrisy buried in their own heart. See Craig, Larry for a recent example. Plus, how could they outlaw buggery when that's exactly what they are paid to do to the middle class?

      • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 7:04:49 PM

        :-) You're right about that.

  • Posted By: Phyta08 @ 06/03/2008 7:04:21 PM

    What's more worrisome? The issue itself or another example of journalists prematurely calling an outcome as if clairvoyance is their expertise. Sadly, I imagine the measure of a good article is now how much web traffic it draws.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse