Gay-onomics and the Marriage Debate

Despite the tough economic times, no one's talking about profiting from the legalization of same-sex weddings. Perhaps they should be.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 3, 2009 | Updated: 7:08  p.m. ET Jun 3, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: RutherX13 @ 06/06/2009 3:17:07 AM

    God made a man for every woman and a woman for every man. everyone should go and find that special someone that is out there for them and stop trying to have a false, unholy relationship with someone of the same gender.
    Also, the economy is not a good enough reason to justify a sin as great as this. Pray for an answer to the economy, and He will show us the right way to do so.

  • Posted By: gayfollowerofchrist @ 06/04/2009 5:43:16 PM

    As a GAY CHRISTIAN, it seems to me that, as a society, we have a constant need to enforce our will and our opinions on others. First it was women, then it was blacks, now it's gays. I served in the armed forces for 10 years. I defended this country overseas and am a Gulf War Veteran. I have personally fought for the freedom to love who I want. The Christian coalition could help this economy a hell of a lot more by putting their money in other places besides the trampling upon of my civil rights. The biggest problem with religion is the church and zealots running it. I am a follower of Christ. He died on the cross for me. I am a sinner but NOT because of who I chose to love.

    • Posted By: olemisscowboy @ 06/04/2009 5:50:08 PM

      GAY CHRISTIAN = oxymoron. And just because someone else who claims to be both gay AND a priest tells you it's okay...guess what? It's not.

      • Posted By: gunsandbush @ 06/04/2009 5:58:05 PM

        GAY CHRISTIAN = moron

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 11:49:17 AM

          "Judge not, lest ye shall be judged"

          • Posted By: RutherX13 @ 06/06/2009 3:07:57 AM

            if you dont judge sometime, you will accept everything, which means you believe in nothing. acceptance and tolerance are not always the right way to go. and haven't you heard of "Judgement Day?" we will be judged, so we should judge others. i say this with all good intentions of helping people make sense of things

        • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/05/2009 11:11:12 AM

          your screen name is "gunsandbush" and your calling someone else a moron?

          check yourself....

          leave the judging to god, thats his job after all... he didnt give you that task did he?

      • Posted By: jesusfreek @ 06/04/2009 6:37:49 PM

        I think you have some pages missing out of your "Bible", but mine says that homosexuals (along with liars, cheaters, adulterers, fornicators, murderers, homosexuals) will not inherit the kingdom of God. We all fall short, but don't deceive yourself. God says love the sinner, not the sin. There is no allowance for homosexuality than there is for cheating or lying, murdering, fornicating or all the others. If you really believe that your lifestyle is ok then talk with your "god" and ask Him. If nothing happens then you've been deceived, otherwise Jesus will answer you one way or another, I guarantee it. Repent and receive His perfect love, not what man has perverted.

        • Posted By: Ren27 @ 06/05/2009 4:32:09 PM

          Find a Bible printed before 1930 and read that vice list in it. Homosexuality is not on the list.

        • Posted By: nan4947 @ 06/04/2009 8:25:34 PM

          YEAP that is what it says. I read it too. nan4947

          • Posted By: Mjb1313 @ 06/04/2009 9:08:10 PM

            In the same passage the Bible says homosexuality is a sin the Bible says that eating shelfish and touching a woman who is on her period is a sin. How can you calll yourself a Christian and choose which passages you wish to follow and those you don't want to follow? I thought sin was sin, no matter what the sin was. I've bet you have lied atleast once today. If so, then you have the same likely hood of going to Hell as a homosexual.

            • Posted By: nan4947 @ 06/05/2009 9:57:25 AM

              TOOTSIE THAT IS NOT IN THAT PASSAGE LOOK AGAIN.

              • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 11:51:57 AM

                It is too. I've read those Leviticus verses several times. No shaving the beard, no shellfish, no contact with a woman on her period, in addition to the anti-incest laws. Go look.

              • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/05/2009 10:28:25 AM

                doesnt matter if its in the bible or not.

                lying is a sin on par with any other sin or deplorable act. there are no varying degrees of sin. just sin. and we all do it.

                i suggest you leave the judging to your god and leave people alone and worry about your own salvation.

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 11:50:43 AM

          Jesus was the mortal part of the Trinity, and I rather disagree with Church teaching that he - or anyone else who lived a human life bound by flesh - was perfect.

          In any case, I'll take "what man has perverted" any day over a bunch of very, very human people who think they have the right to tell me what to do.

      • Posted By: gayfollowerofchrist @ 06/04/2009 5:56:07 PM

        The only moron here is the one that believes Jesus ever said it was wrong for me to be gay. I challenge you to find me the chapter and verse WRITTEN IN RED.

        • Posted By: alljoy @ 06/04/2009 6:06:53 PM

          i believe the statement is "lay with your own kind".......We are all sinners AND if your lay with your OWN KIND you are a sinner as well.

          • Posted By: nan4947 @ 06/04/2009 8:00:50 PM

            The right description in * YOU ARE WHO YOU RUN WITH*. nan4947

            • Posted By: jllevy123 @ 06/05/2009 3:52:10 PM

              Actually, Dick, I believe the saying is 'You are what you eat'. Get it, Dick?

          • Posted By: nan4947 @ 06/04/2009 8:02:35 PM

            Yes we are all sinners because we all fall short of the glory of God. Lokk at the ten commandments and see whick one you broke today. It is a good place to start. nan4947

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 11:52:26 AM

          Way to go. Stand up for your rights.

        • Posted By: rlc224 @ 06/04/2009 6:06:39 PM

          Jesus said I forgive, go and sin no more.

          • Posted By: TGDelta @ 06/04/2009 6:43:11 PM

            The people who jesus interacted with already knew that outward wrongs they had the old testiment to tell them that. it was the things in their heart and mind that he clarified. If Jesus had came now he would be hanging out less at the churches and more at gay peoples houses

            • Posted By: nan4947 @ 06/04/2009 7:58:51 PM

              Ha Ha Ha Ha. Read the book. It----- is------ in------- the book. He will hang out with sinners then comes repentence and then judgement. If you want to stand before a mighty God and ask what are you doing?, you go right ahead.if not READ THE BOOK! HA-HA-HA-HA nan4947

              • Posted By: LouZamo @ 06/04/2009 9:28:00 PM

                The book that was written by prophets and old men. God made man with the greatest gift Free Will and the desire to use it. God also made man in his image, so aren't we all perfect in God's eyes in spite of our faults.

      • Posted By: jesusfreek @ 06/04/2009 6:02:21 PM

    • Posted By: migden @ 06/04/2009 6:51:12 PM

      If you are a Christian then refer to yourself as one. If you are a Gay then do the same thing but you CANNOT be both. The teachings of the CHRISTIAN BIBLE forbids this lifestyle. If you say you are a Christian then you must be BORN AGAIN i.e to be" born of the Spirit " is that which took place at your conversion,as the Holy Spirit brought you to Christ and performed the work of regeneration within your heart and life. This was what Jesus told Nicodemus ( A Jewish Teacher of the Law) In 2Corinthian 5:17" Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away: behold, all things become new." We were born into a already fallen world where Adam willingly gave the position to Satan because of disobeying God's command in the garden of Eden. God gave him the authority to have dominion on the earth and to populate it and use his creativity gifted talents that God gave him etc. Then came the curses starting from Adam,Eve,Serpent, read Genesis 1- 3. God created a beautiful world and our beautiful ancestors
      who were created in God's image and God's likeness,(Gen 1:26). When you are born again or born of the Spirit you
      are reinstated back into the position God intended for Adam and Eve before the fall. This is why Christ came to earth
      so that by the shedding of His blood we are bought back and reconciled back with God.Now that you have become a child of God, the Lord has a perfect Will for your life. In other words you are very important in the Kingdom of God, and the Lord will treat you accordingly.In as muchas you have given Himyour heart and life. He will now open up the Kingdom of Godto you and your place in that Kingdom (John 3:3) One of the works of the Holy Spirit in your heart and life is to bring about " the Will of God" for you (Rom 8:27). In other words, the idea is that your will be swallowed up in the Will of God, which is the best thing that could ever be. If you will allow the Holy Spirit to have His Way in your life, He will bring aboutthe Will of God, and help you to walk in that Will, doing what the Lord wants you to do.

      Actually, the Lord has a perfect Will for every Believer and that means you. What He has for you, cannot be done by anyone else. So you are to seek the Will of God, and you will find beautifully and wondorously, the Holy Spirit making Jesus more and more real in your heart, and bringing you to the place in which God desires that you be.

      Jesus loves you and so do I.

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 11:53:25 AM

        I don't think conservative Christianity knows what love is. It seems to be taken as a synonym for "I should tell you how to run your life because I know better than you".

        • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/05/2009 12:13:26 PM

          Heh. Thats liberalism you are describing, not ''conservatism''.

          Else we would not be seeing liberals construing the 2nd Amendment as a ''collective'',vice an ''individual'' right which demands that the lives of Americans be ''run'' in the manner that these approve regarding this important portion of the Bill of Rights, as observed by Jon Meacham of NEWSWEAK who uses level criticism to call liberals on their hypocrisy when these maintain a ''hands off'' policy with ''womens bodies'' and gay rights but demand that they can tell other Americans what to do regarding an amendment written in plain language. Actually, ''seperate but equal'' continues to flourish in the region of affirmative action, that denies Asians and white males advancement due precisely to a ''separate'' condition, often being, the ability to score higher on certain eligibilty tests than their minority peers. Allegiances to ''racial redress'' are used as preface in order to tell other Americans what they can and cannot do.[which is an odd platform regarding Asians as they were forced into concentration camps here in America long after black sufferage, but are punished as being ''too smart'',another ''separate but equal''condition as it applies to academia].
          Big Brotherism is not only inherent in the ''conservative Christian''. We witness this new species of Internet law as crafted by leftwinged legislators in Congress that would tell Americans what they can and cannot say on the Internet,backed by the threat of federal imprisonment [ Sponsor: Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D-Ca]. Obviously HCL is another means of dictating thought coupled with action, as always, unevenly applied even in states that have already codified such laws into their own state constitutions. Indeed, with shrinking ''conservative Christian'' populations as observed by this NEWSWEAK and growing secular ones, [ arguing for a more ''left-of-center'' nation], the threat to civil liberties will eminate from this quarter.

          • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:45:17 PM

            Lee, I fully support the Second Amendment, and more to the point, your post is just another opportunity for you to complain and bitch about everything you disagree with and doesn't have anything to do with the topic we're discussing. I would point out to you that Asians and white men are, in general, doing just fine in the job market, but I won't because it'll just drive you further off topic and even more grumpy and cranky...

            • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/05/2009 2:51:49 PM

              Yeah? Then explain this.

              The Bureau of Labor Statistics Feb. 02,2009: ''Greater Impact On Males From Recession''

              The Dallas Morning News Feb.10,2009: ''Big Layoffs Leave More Men Out Of Work''

              New York Times Feb.02,2009: ''Men Bear Brunt Of Recession''

              Labor statistics displayed when unemployment at the national average was at 8.2% display this:

              Men, Unemployed 62%

              Women,Unemployed: 44%

              This figure is now at 9.4% with the GM/CHRYSLER layoffs of over 25,000 workers in the auto industry alone and does not factor [ next months Labor report will do just this], job losses in automotive service sectors predominated by male workers that include managers,salespeople, and mechanics.

              Thus your claim is specious.

              www.labor.gov

              • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 4:23:09 PM

                Tell you what, Lee. If you actually post something that has to do with the article, instead of bitching and whining about all your grievances du jour, I might take the time to respond.

                • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/05/2009 5:05:40 PM

                  You engage in honesty then,and we will not have to waste time diverting from the message of this board.

                  You tar all ''conservative Christians '' with the same brush,

                  and yet,

                  VIGILANCE: 12:21 Posting:

                  ''It is unfair for you to judge everyone by the actions of some people''


                  Hypocrite,remove thy mote.

                  The court is now in recess.

                  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 9:26:29 PM

                    Fine, Lee. Consider my comment to only apply to those conservative Christians who say "Jesus loves you" after explaining why your actions are immoral and sinful, then.

            • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/05/2009 2:29:57 PM

              You are being dishonest, another of your dubious traits. I would not have had to even pen this response missive had you not acted in such a kneejerk fashion, no differant whatever than the actions of those who you decry, making you this much more hypocritical. It matters not whether you approve of the 2nd. Rather,that you took all ''consertvative Christians'' and placed them into one basket for you to apply uneven judgement. I merely corrected you on your error.

      • Posted By: midwester @ 06/05/2009 7:00:52 PM

        Migden, your comment says two things about you: you may know the Bible, but you don't know Jesus Christ. I doubt that you love yourself which makes you incapable of loving others which allows you to make statements like this about someone YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW regarding their relationship with our Saviour. I too am GAYand CHRISTIAN and I no longer care what people like you think or say. But God does, you can be sure of that.

      • Posted By: midwester @ 06/05/2009 7:00:50 PM

        Migden, your comment says two things about you: you may know the Bible, but you don't know Jesus Christ. I doubt that you love yourself which makes you incapable of loving others which allows you to make statements like this about someone YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW regarding their relationship with our Saviour. I too am GAYand CHRISTIAN and I no longer care what people like you think or say. But God does, you can be sure of that.

  • Posted By: mahalapril @ 06/04/2009 11:16:29 AM

    Gays are lustful multiple sexual partners and anal-penile sex practicers in bathouses until Aids forced them to become monogamous to avoid extermination. They are the weak result of evolution because they are permanent parasites of the heterosexuals because they can't propagate on their own in isolation. We gave them civil unions where love is not prohibited but they became greedy,arrogant,aggressive,vile,violent and want to impose gay marriage on the majority just for their own financial selfish interest to get more money for their lusts not even about love.They will go ahead with gay marriage which is opposed by the majority, knowing fully well that it will damage and confuse our children's and grandchildren's future. Next they will want to marry animals,have FATHERS MARRY SONS,BROTHERS MARRY BROTHERS,FATHERS MARRY GRANDSONS. WHEN AND WHERE WILL IT END.

    • Posted By: LouZamo @ 06/04/2009 7:02:51 PM

      "Next they will want to marry animals,have FATHERS MARRY SONS,BROTHERS MARRY BROTHERS,FATHERS MARRY GRANDSONS. WHEN AND WHERE WILL IT END."
      Can you tell me why all you zealots go straight to this when in a conversation about same-sex marriage?
      Women can be gay so its not all "penile-anal."
      And if it doesn't harm you what does it matter. They aren't hurting you by getting married. Don't you think that straight people a lustful as well? Straight people get AIDS (not aids, its isn't a secretarial pool) now a days now too. How many gay Ethiopians have you met?

      • Posted By: RutherX13 @ 06/06/2009 2:40:25 AM

        "And if it doesn't harm you what does it matter?" is this the mindset that we are always supposed to be in? maybe straight people are trying to help gay people out by helping them to change their ways so that they can make it to heaven. ever think that we (straights & Christians) are trying to help, not harm, all of you?

    • Posted By: bluray77 @ 06/04/2009 4:50:54 PM

      ignorance breeds fear and hatred. you fear and hate gay people. therefore you are ignorant.

      • Posted By: smelly @ 06/04/2009 4:57:52 PM

        Ignorant? open your eyes and see through the eyes of someone that doesn't want this immorality in their community, the immorality people like you are imposing on us. Be careful when you use words like ignorant and narrow minded to describe people that don't think like you. Truth is the majority doesn't think like you, i believe you have hatred for straight people, is that any different than the hate a straight person can have for a gay? I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you people, I'm just trying to keep yours away from me and my family. You can go be all the gay you want, just take it somewhere else.

        • Posted By: bluray77 @ 06/04/2009 5:15:44 PM

          First of all, you assume I am gay. There are straight people who support gay rights you know. Second, you admit you have hatred for gay people. What have they done to you? How are they forcing their beliefs on you? Do you have to get married to them? If a gay couple moves next door, will you get sick and die? If you hate gay people so much then maybe you should move to a place where no gay people exist... of course that means you will have to go to some uninhabited island. Just you wait until one of your children , or one of your close friends or relatives turn out to be gay. I bet youd be quick to disown them. So much for equality and freedom for all, in the minds of people like you, it only applies to your kind.

          • Posted By: smelly @ 06/04/2009 5:31:16 PM

            First, clearly you are gay (read your comments) and i have said nothing directly negative toward you nor am i attacking you personally, i have no reason too so stay on the topic, second I don't like the imorallity of the subject. you on the other hand get all up in arms because of that, you have all this pent up hatred for anyone that doesn't agree with you, where does it come from? I have to tolerate you in my community so why don't you try and tolerate us. you don't have to accept straight as a way of life; you just have to tolerate the peopl that don't see things the way you do.

            • Posted By: Suebop @ 06/05/2009 12:14:56 AM

              If you can't even spell i-m-m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y correctly you are hardly in a position to determine who qualifies as immoral and who does not. Speaking as a straight, married person, I'd say that the people I have the hardest time "tolerating" in MY community are the judgemental people who try to reduce the phenomenon of homosexuality down to a moral issue (which it is not - it may be hereditary/biological or environmental - it may be many issues but it is not a moral one). Are you still just "tolerating" people of color too?

              • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/05/2009 2:17:16 AM

                Explain how homosexuality isn't a moral issue. And if it is not, then is anything?

                • Posted By: nguerre6 @ 06/05/2009 2:51:00 AM

                  Homosexuality is not a moral issue because it involves two consenting parties (e.g. male A and male B or female A and female B). Moral issues involve one party taking/keeping something from an unwilling party (e.g. murder involves an immoral person taking someone else's life against their will; stealing is someone taking something from an unwilling party, etc). Run through the gammut of supposed sins, and you'll find there is a sore thumb in the pattern.

                  • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/05/2009 6:37:26 AM

                    What about this scenario-two consenting adults form a suicide pact. How does that fit into this paradigm?

                    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:39:25 PM

                      In a suicide pact, people are harmed and die. In a consentual homosexual relationship between committed partners, they don't. Period.

                      • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/06/2009 12:12:05 AM

                        So again I ask-the only requirement to make anything morally justifiable is needing two consenting adults? Where does the basis of their morality come from to justifiy whatever they do? Again, this kind of thinking will justifiy near any and all behaviours. Ever heard of moral relativism? What is good for you may not be for me and vice versa. Although, heavily practiced in society, I am not sure that it has worked out all too well considering the mess the world is in. How about we try amoral irrelativism-where nothing is right/wrong and whatever we do has nothing to do with anything. Wait a minute. Looking around, I say we are already there.

                  • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/05/2009 3:00:59 AM

                    If this line of reasoning is true, then, can not two consenting adults consent to just about anything and be justified in their actions.. I mean, if the only requirement for homosexuality (and anything else for that matter) to not be immoral is two consenting adults, then we have a lot of moral people in this world, and we all know that that is not true.

            • Posted By: msmerymac @ 06/04/2009 7:00:22 PM

              Oh gee, maybe because it's not just a difference of opinion. I'm sick of being told I should tolerate the "opinion" of someone who wants to legally classify a certain group of people as SUBHUMAN.

              • Posted By: mechancete @ 06/04/2009 10:17:59 PM

                And maybe because there are some straight people that think that when applying the word tolerate to gays, it just means to not beat them quite so bad. Personally, I haven't heard of any groups of gays beating up on straight people for holding hands. That sentence isn't true any longer if you switch the words gay and straight around.

                • Posted By: themtb2007 @ 06/05/2009 12:15:47 AM

                  But i certainly Have heard of GAYS MOLESTING BOYS IN FAR HIGHER SCALE THAN STRAIGHT MALES MOLESTING GIRLS. How many Priests molest GIRLS

                  • Posted By: Suebop @ 06/05/2009 1:13:59 AM

                    Again we see toxic spew from someone who is factually completely incorrect. In point of fact, if you do any research into social work and sexual abuse cases, you will find that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY (something like 98%) of child/ minor molestation cases and other sexual abuse cases involving minors are perpetrated by HETEROSEXUAL MALES against GIRLS. So your point is completely off the mark and you are talking entirely out of your hind end. (It is indeed troubling to see the degree of ignorance and fear mongering displayed by so many of the comments here.)

                    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:41:37 PM

                      For a great number of conservative Christians, their first and only exposure to homosexuality is via pedophilia in the priesthood. Sadly, it seems a great number of them also stop there and assume there's nothing more to be learned.

                  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:40:39 PM

                    I'm sorry that the only experience you've had with homosexuality is by the example of repressed, self-denying pedophile priests. But it exposes the ignorance of conservative Christian America as far as knowing anything about what homosexuality really is.

              • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/05/2009 2:12:16 AM

                Subhuman? Why, because you need to have a marriage license/ceritficate to join the human race? I didn't know that, and I am a happily married heterosexual male. I would think that when I went to get my marriage license, that I would have been informed at that time, I was now a part of humanity. Must have slipped the mind of the person issuing the certificate. Perhaps they was unmarried themselves and didn't know of the clause. Great, can't wait to tell my wife that we need to get "remarried" in order to become human. Going to be hard pressed to get her to marry me again, LOL.

                • Posted By: Velvet2021 @ 06/05/2009 3:29:34 AM

                  At least they let you have a marriage license. That makes you superior to gay people. Forcing gays, by passing Laws, to live in a world where they are not allowed to have the same rights as you makes them unequal. While you may not understand the "subhuman" comment maybe you can understand that society deems them inequal by not allowing them the same rights you and your former wife are granted simply because you love someone of the opposite sex. That makes you "superior" or "human". Then making gays less than you or "subhuman". Do you understand now?

                  • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/05/2009 6:33:49 AM

                    I quite understood the comment. Obviously you didn't understand mine since you think I am separated/divorced. I am not. Nevertheless, I don't in any way think that someone who practices homosexuality is subhuman. My point was that in order to feel human you have to have a piece of paper telling you so? I would think as a human you would have the capacity to come to that conclusion on your own without the state or anyone else having to quantify it for you.

          • Posted By: vivi20 @ 06/04/2009 10:30:06 PM

            There is nothing better than a HOT DOG on a good BUN. Not a HOT DOG on a STINKY HOLE FULL OF FECES or BUN rubbing another BUN.

            • Posted By: jllevy123 @ 06/05/2009 2:01:40 PM

              But this conversation isn't about hot dogs. It's about PEOPLE.

          • Posted By: themtb2007 @ 06/05/2009 12:13:55 AM

            THEY PUSH THEIR CRAP ON US BY ASKING IF A BEAUTY CONTESTANT IS PRO GAY AND WHEN SHE SAYS NO THEY CALL HER THE B WORD ON YOUTUBE....YOU PUSH YOUR CRAP ON US WHEN YOU MAKE GAY CLUBS IN HIGHSCHOOLS!!! AND ATTEMPT TO HAVE ALL GAY HIGHSCHOOLS!!!!!!

            • Posted By: jllevy123 @ 06/05/2009 1:58:09 PM

              "WE" (or "YOU") don't "make gay clubs in high schools. GAY KIDS make those clubs.

            • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:50:25 PM

              I support gay rights, but I thought the way Miss California was treated was just awful. She expressed her opinion well and politely and was treated unfairly for it.

              Please, for the love of God, don't take Mario Armando Lavandeira (Perez Hilton) as a good representative of the gay rights movement. He's a shallow gossipmonger with no regard for personal privacy. I'm surprised his forced outings of closeted celebrities hasn't gotten anyone hurt or killed.

        • Posted By: jllevy123 @ 06/05/2009 1:57:12 PM

          You don't get to choose WHERE gay people can be. If you are against same-sex marriages DON'T ENTER INTO ONE. I think ignoramuses like you ought to be outlawed but you have the constitutional right to spew your garbage so I am willing to 'live and let live'. Won't you do the same?

    • Posted By: utrph77004 @ 06/04/2009 5:07:42 PM

      Being gay does not mean being incestuous. Go back to school and learn the difference.

      AIDS is by far a HETEROSEXUAL (not gay disease) if you look at the population of the entire world. Worldwide, more than 75 percent of all adult HIV infections result from heterosexual intercourse. So again, go back to school, and please pay attention in class or else you will fail again.

      http://www.healthsquare.com/aids_stats.htm

      • Posted By: Bulldy75 @ 06/05/2009 12:51:19 AM

        AIDS started in the homosexual male population. Specifically, San Francisco in the U.S.A.
        AIDS was spread to the heterosexual community by GAY men donating blood and by bi-sexual men.
        AIDS is not inherently a heterosexual disease, I have heard that syphilis came from sheep originally.
        AIDS became more rampant when GAY men had sex with multiple partners and that is how it spread!

        • Posted By: jllevy123 @ 06/05/2009 3:44:56 PM

          So are you saying that sypphylis spread due to all the straight cowboys in Wyoming and Montana having their way with sheep?

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:31:31 PM

          No, it didn't. It started in Africa, and probably got transmitted to humans by hunters eating bushmeat.

        • Posted By: Suebop @ 06/05/2009 1:08:03 AM

          Your ignorance is nothing short of breathtaking. AIDS began in Africa as early as the 1950s. It is widely believed int he scientific community to have been a disease among our genetic RELATIVES (i.e. primates, monekys, chimps, gorillas, et al) that mutated sufficiently to jump species and was transmitted originally the same way Ebola often is (eating of primate meat, blood contact etc.). You need to educate yourself. I pity you because it is apparent that you know NOTHING of value - including basic biological facts that could one day save your life.

      • Posted By: TGDelta @ 06/04/2009 6:23:40 PM

        HIV is a promiscuity disease. most people that get it take part in behaviors that they shouldn't be. And it WAS first a homosexually defined disease. thats why in the early 80's when it made its way into the heterosexual population people didn't beleive what they had because "only gay people had it" It was those that did both shane and jane that introduced it to the mainstream population. of course above person did fail to mention that straight individuals are also multiple partners anal penile blah blah blah to and are also depraved individuals

        • Posted By: Ian Blokesworth @ 06/04/2009 7:41:19 PM

          Promiscuity is clearly a factor. With the average homosexual collecting 500 different sexual partners over a lifetime, it's no wonder that HIV is concentrated in that population.

          • Posted By: jllevy123 @ 06/05/2009 2:04:51 PM

            Careful now, your hypocrisy is showing. On the one hand you claim that gay men have, on average, 500 sex partners in a lifetime (not true for most of us) and then on the other hand wish to deny us marriage which would sharply lower promiscuity rates, whatever they are.

          • Posted By: dbtmellis @ 06/04/2009 11:01:57 PM

            500 sexual partners? ive only had 1! Either I am a prude or there are ALOT of promiscuoisus people out there!

            • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:25:23 PM

              I think it's more that you apparently will believe anything anyone tells you.

          • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:21:24 PM

            Please start providing some sources for your statistics. I know several unmarried gay men and couples, and none of them have had "several hundred partners", as far as I am aware.

            Do I recognize the existence of the Miami South Beach or Palm Springs orgy scene? Sure. It's awful. It leads to a lot of unfulfilled, and frequently physically sick, gay men. But it's not something that every gay man does, and it is unfair for you to judge everyone by the actions of some people.

            That really is the biggest problem with conservative Christianity these days. Far from being forgiving and treating everyone as an individual - which I would have thought had some Scriptural basis - the attitude is more like "if one person does something wrong, treat everyone who is in that person's demographic as having committed the crime".

            It works for gays, violence in the inner cities...just about anything conservative Christians disagree with.

          • Posted By: Ren27 @ 06/05/2009 8:03:26 AM

            No surprise that (a few, some, many, most, all ... pick your term) gay men would have 500 partners in a lifetime, since society does not give him permission to Settle Down with one significant other and Marry him.

            You may be for gay marriage, you may be against it, but one thing is for certain: homosexuality is not going away.

          • Posted By: Suebop @ 06/05/2009 12:17:48 AM

            The average homosexual has over 500 partners in a lifetime? Where are the facts to back that up? Cite a source please. And while you're at it, please consider that your remark smacks of only two things: hatred and JEALOUSY.

          • Posted By: tatertot1974 @ 06/04/2009 9:44:16 PM

            HIV is not concentrated in the gay population. It's concentrated among str8 African American before anyone else. If it's such a homosexual disease, then why are lesbians almost completely devoid of it?

            • Posted By: themtb2007 @ 06/05/2009 12:11:28 AM

              Black are also HIGH % in JAILS and Hidden Gay men..."down low" after Getting OUT..Also DRUG USE from Hookers.... Those same MEN will sex cruise for sex from other men in bathrooms.... the rest is sex history

          • Posted By: Morgan's Bard @ 06/04/2009 10:57:32 PM

            So, where exactly did you get this number? If you're going to toss out figures as fact, then site your sources. What orafice did you pull this from?

          • Posted By: tatertot1974 @ 06/04/2009 9:44:13 PM

            HIV is not concentrated in the gay population. It's concentrated among str8 African American before anyone else. If it's such a homosexual disease, then why are lesbians almost completely devoid of it?

      • Posted By: Bulldy75 @ 06/05/2009 12:43:25 AM

        I don't know how old you are but obviously not old enough to remember the late 70's and early 80's as an adult.
        AIDS started in the homosexual community, specifically San Francisco area.
        AIDS is NOT inherently a heterosexual disease.
        It was spread innocently by Gay men when they gave blood and also by bi-sexual men into the heterosexual community.
        I remember only having to worry about getting the venereal diseases of the day when I was a young man in the mid 70's. Then came AIDS in the early 80's, at first only affecting GAY men.
        And the highest percentage rate is still in the GAY men community.

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:14:35 PM

          "AIDS is NOT inherently a heterosexual disease"

          Why don't you go tell that to sub-Saharan Africa, where homosexuality is absolutely not condoned and yet the infection rate is something like 20%?

          AIDS is not a "gay disease". It's a disease that can strike anyone who has sex with an infected partner. There are straight women out there who got it the first time they had sex. Ignorance will never, but never, solve this crisis.

      • Posted By: Ian Blokesworth @ 06/04/2009 7:38:53 PM

        However, in the United States and Europe, HIV is a disease overwhelmingly concentrated in intravenous drug users and homosexuals. The conditions of Africa are obviously very different.

        • Posted By: Suebop @ 06/05/2009 12:19:05 AM

          Ah you're forgetting China, Russia and the (hypocritical) Islamic world, where HIV is RAMPANT, but hardly discussed, and is OVERWHELMINGLY heterosexual.

      • Posted By: themtb2007 @ 06/05/2009 12:08:53 AM

        this is a lie. Its like saying STDs is Not a spread from fornication because a married man gave it to his wife!

        GAYS BROUGHT IT TO US. AND SPREAD IT TO US THROUGH DRUGS AND BISEXUALITY... DO YOU THINK WE WERE NOT ALL HERE WATCHING THE GAY POPULATION DROPPING LIKE FLIES IN THE ONSET?!?! YOU THINK WE ARE BLIND LIKE YOU!?!?!

      • Posted By: nan4947 @ 06/04/2009 7:41:38 PM

        Aides heterosexual? I got just the book I could give you to help with your wisdom. Let me know if I can help.Please. nan4947

      • Posted By: freespeak @ 06/04/2009 6:35:05 PM

        anal sex is a practice that spreads aids.

        • Posted By: LouZamo @ 06/04/2009 7:13:14 PM

          And you can get aids from oral sex, vaginal intercourse and from sharing needles.

          • Posted By: Ian Blokesworth @ 06/04/2009 7:40:01 PM

            Overwhelmingly, HIV is spread by intravenous drug user needle sharing and anally receptive sex in the USA, Western Europe and Japan.

        • Posted By: msmerymac @ 06/04/2009 6:57:41 PM

          Yeah, and only homosexuals have anal sex...

          All sex can spread AIDS.

      • Posted By: BradleyBlueLimaOH @ 06/04/2009 7:34:21 PM

        aids may be more rampant in hetrosexual population but maybe thats because there are more heterosexuals...i mean hiv was originally called g.r.i.d gay related immune disorder because it was intially found overwhelmingly in the gay community...and someone bisexual spread it to the heterosexual community....i would normally not defend someone as smug as the guy who first brought it up...but that is a fact....you should be with who you wanna be with but dont change facts to suit your own cause be honest about it

    • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/05/2009 2:09:09 PM

      careful, looks like the sky is falling in your sad little world....

    • Posted By: jllevy123 @ 06/05/2009 1:55:23 PM

      If we allow Xtians to set policy based upon their so=called bible, next they will want to TELL A WOMAN SHE HAS NO RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT GOES ON WITH HER OWN BODY, MEN WILL MARRY MULTIPLE WOMEN, SLAVERY WILL BE LEGALIZED, PROHIBITION WILL RETURN. WHEN AND WHERE WILL IT END?

    • Posted By: science-comments @ 06/04/2009 9:00:38 PM

      Dear mahalapril,

      You should be thankful that there's a limit in number of words for posting because I want to shred your false arguments to quadrillion pieces. But I will focus on important ones. (2) To get money for their lust not even about love. You have been blessed to be a heterosexual (I assume) and yet you don't know what love is at its core. Love can exist between mother and child, father and son, sister and brothers, lords and servants, masters and slaves - all are human beings, and so it must be said of between men, between women. All HUMAN BEINGS are capable of expressing this single most fundamental attribute, even those that society condemned to death. It's just that you narrow understanding of human beings can't fathom this. To whom it is directed (I said whom) is what you find unsettling, and I would say horrible. If loving another human being (of the same sex) is unsettling from your perspective, it is yours alone to make. But do not IMPOSE this perspective on others. (2) "Go ahead with gay marriage...that it will damage and confuse our childrens..."Aren't you the one confused here. Where did you get the idea that their main purpose for having their wedding is to damage your children's future. Is that foremost in their mind or it is your way of arguing an issue: argue using the element of fear. And why would it damage your children's future? Is it the sole determining factor on how your kids will succeed in all spheres of life? Aren't you going to send your kid to a liberal school, provide for his education, upkeep, teach him the value of friendship, sports, perseverance, honesty, industry, financial, time management skills and instill in him that no matter your station in life you can freely express your love, be it of the same sex? (3) Oh what a conjecture, projections into the future can make. It was once divined that the world will end in 1998, 2000. Well it's their world that ended, not of the others, not mine. I just don't know how you can divine the future with such accuracy (well pardon me, divine and accuracy don't gel very well). You are just so confused, very confused here. Hey anyone out there asking for fathers marry sons, brothers marry brothers, marry animals? Is your mind so twisted enough it can't find the thin line between fantasy and reality, of fiction and nonfiction, of what's out there and what's pure fabrication. At least the DNA in the chromosomes, having been twisted more than a million times, can still unwind and find its way to furnish a human being. Maybe if you have the time and a little patience you may find out that at the molecular level, we are all the same, sapiens or not, and may be a little compassion and understanding to those who are not so fortunate enough to fall into the ingrained narrow definitions that we all live our lives in. CHEERS!!!

      • Posted By: Moman1313 @ 06/05/2009 12:41:08 AM

        Boooooooo! Nicely said but wrong.

    • Posted By: vivi20 @ 06/04/2009 10:32:34 PM

      There is nothing better than a HOT DOG on a good BUN. Not a HOT DOG on a STINKY HOLE FULL OF FECES or BUN rubbing another BUN.

    • Posted By: bill Bigsby @ 06/04/2009 10:26:28 PM

      nicely put

    • Posted By: TGDelta @ 06/04/2009 6:13:20 PM

      actually I hear that more straight couples practice anal sex than gay couples. I'll need one you the gay ranters to actually conferm this. anyways while some of your points are vary true and this simply is the progression of the depravity that is humanity. angry rants hurt our stand so please tone it down

    • Posted By: olemisscowboy @ 06/04/2009 5:51:29 PM

      Great post, mahalapril.

    • Posted By: Breathmor1 @ 06/04/2009 5:39:17 PM

      When and where will it end??? At the gravestones of people like you when your life has slipped silently away in old age and the next generation can take over. Hate breeds hate. You spew venom and bile like its a normal thing for you. Don't you ever get tired of just hating? Whatever religion you are... go back to church or change churches. God and his Son NEVER preached hate. Ever. Not once. Ever heard a passage called "Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone"? Seems to be a whole lot of stone throwing going on. You are not mankinds judge. Let it go.

  • Posted By: USA-GONE @ 06/04/2009 6:14:43 PM

    Leviticus 18:22. ???You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.???

    Leviticus 20:13 ???If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.???

    When we look at what the Scriptures say about homosexuality, we find that it is not ???an alternative lifestyle??? or some­thing on which we can simply ???look the other way.??? God says, ???If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.??? How strongly did God feel about this sin? There were some sins listed in the Bible that were worthy of death in God???s eyes. Homosexuality is one of those sins. It was an abhorrence in God???s sight, and to His original plan of marriage, family, and the home. God understood the destructive nature of such practices. When people degrade their morals in such a fashion, it will not be very long until they turn away from God and the morals of Christianity altogether. Thus, God said ???These people deserve to die.??? It ought to be a crime against society today when people commit lewd acts such as those involved in homosexuality.


    • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/05/2009 11:32:33 AM

      there is no reasoning with religious fanatics... let them rant and quote scripture all they want, no one is going to be able to change they're opinions. thankfully in america, it doesnt make a difference one way or another, we all get the same rights, priviliges, and opportunities. sooner than later (it is obviously happening at a fairly decent pace) homosexuals will be able to receive EVERY single benefit enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. and in the end, there is nothing a religious hardliner can do about it besides b!tch and moan when they should be worrying about they're own souls and they're own sins and leave the judging to god.

      period, game over, your religious views are waning on the general populace and its apparent with all of this legislature being passed. none of which will be the last legislature of its kind, it is sweeping the nation and making people rethink old stigmas and philosophies and myths.


      and there is nothing you can do about it.

      if god hated homosexuals so much, why is he not raining down fire on homosexual weddings? when a gay priest is marrying 2 gay men and the wedding goes off without a hitch, i would love to hear somone babble on with the cherry picking quotes...

      • Posted By: RutherX13 @ 06/06/2009 1:44:38 AM

        God isn't raining fire down on gay weddings because He gives us the choice, and He expects us to make the right one; the one that is right with His word, the Bible.

    • Posted By: Suebop @ 06/05/2009 12:47:31 AM

      'Scuse me there Biblical Scholar Extraordinaire! Can you please show me EXACTLY the part in the Bible where JESUS CHRIST specifically mentions homosexuality and his sentiments on precisely the topic of homos? You can come back and participate in the discussion again when, as a "Christian", you can demonstrate a knowledge of the New Testament as detailed as your knowledge of the Old one. Until then, please continue studying.

      • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/05/2009 4:12:47 AM

        Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality per se. It was already well established in the Old Testament. His audience would know that homosexuality was an abomination before God. It was a given. No need for further explanation. Just in case you missed it, though, the New Testament does speak clearly about homosexuality (along with others) in the Book of Romans.

        • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/05/2009 10:45:52 AM

          did you know that many prominent roman leaders and philosophers practiced homosexuality and sexual orgys? even during the time when romans was written....

          • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/06/2009 12:37:44 AM

            Your point being.

        • Posted By: Ren27 @ 06/05/2009 8:28:05 AM

          Find a Bible printed before the 1930s and look up Romans again. You may be very surprised.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 11:48:03 AM

      You're going to be one sad camper as the new millenium rolls in. Get your Bible out of my government.

    • Posted By: Ren27 @ 06/05/2009 8:27:18 AM

      The rules in Leviticus were to advise the Hebrews how to behave when they entered into the Promised Land. The whole point was to seperate them from the people already there and to help them remember that God was their God.

      Christians who attempt to apply Leviticus to America thousands of years after the fact attempt to do so ala carte. Which is to say, no more pork, no more sleeping in the same bed with a wife that is on her period, no more women cutting their hair, and on and on.

      The real issue is that Jesus established a New Covenant to allow everyone, not just the Hebrews / Isrealites into the Kingdom of Heaven. You cannot cling to Leviticus and still accept that Jesus established a New Covenant. So who are you going to believe? Moses who wrote Leviticus or Jesus the Son of God?

    • Posted By: tatertot1974 @ 06/04/2009 11:08:12 PM

      You shall not eat shell fish or pork either. So you eat a ham sandwich, I'll screw my boy friend, and we can meet up in the rock pit bright and early.....see you there!!!

      • Posted By: Moman1313 @ 06/05/2009 12:53:33 AM

        Gross I wouldn't let you near a young boy sicko!

    • Posted By: themtb2007 @ 06/05/2009 12:04:04 AM

      You are a jehovahs witness. clearly your dialect gives you away. ONLY THEY know all that

  • Posted By: vrd959697 @ 06/04/2009 10:55:12 PM

    " If you believe that there is a God, a God that made your body, and yet you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the fault lies with the manufacturer." -Lenny Bruce

    • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/06/2009 1:18:22 AM

      Why and how does fault lie with the manufacturer? If anything, it lies with us for misuse of original design intent. Can a car seat be used as a ladder? How about a keyboard as a shoe? The list can go on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

  • Posted By: rdeanc2000 @ 06/04/2009 5:41:44 PM

    Do any of you freaks that hate gays have any friends or family members that are gay? I do, and can honestly say that they are hands down some of the best people to be around!!! We love our gay friends, and neightbors!!!

    • Posted By: Ian Blokesworth @ 06/05/2009 2:48:43 AM

      Gayness is the mark of the superior being.

      • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/06/2009 12:52:58 AM

        Which, I suppose, is why so few have attained it?

  • Posted By: jeffrey1234 @ 06/04/2009 10:31:48 AM

    Way to go Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and the other states that believe in legal equality!! Liberty, equality, and justice are the American way. Marriage equality laws for all is just the next step and it is not coming soon enough. Anyone not believing in liberty, equality and justice for all certainly do not embrace the American values our country was founded upon. Way to go New England, way to go!!

    • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 06/04/2009 3:37:37 PM

      I believe in gay marraige and will vote in favor of it when the chance arises in texas, however New Hampshire and Connecticut did set up gays of those states for a major let down since ram roding the law through without any public input or vote will surely lead to some sort of prop.8 backlash! People who believe they live in a democratic society (as wrong as that truely is in the U.S.) seldom stand still and mostly take a serious negative reaction to authority!

      • Posted By: bluray77 @ 06/04/2009 5:02:04 PM

        let me just say that no one. NO ONE, should be able to vote on another human being's civil rights. Freedom and Equality applies to ALL, you cant vote to take equality away from one group just because you dont agree with their lifestyle.

        • Posted By: thomasgty @ 06/04/2009 6:04:21 PM

          wake up to the reality!
          There can never be TRUE EQUALITY in a democratic country. maybe in a SOCIALIST COUNTRY it is possible.

          • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/06/2009 12:17:50 AM

            Unfortunately, we are well on our way to that reality-socialism.

        • Posted By: chacker @ 06/04/2009 5:19:15 PM

          I agree COMPLETELY! The United States was founded on equality and yet it seems every chance Americans get they are trying to blame a minority group for problems and take away their rights.

          • Posted By: imasuperallstar @ 06/04/2009 7:09:19 PM

            marriage isn't a civil right. im getting so sick of people playing the racial card when referring to gay marriage. Stop comparing yourselves to the times of black supression. race is completely different from sexual orientation. I could care less about who you love and spend your life with, but you DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF A TERM TO MAKE YOU LOVE THEM MORE. That is all that's happening, chaning the definition of marriage from man and woman to man and man/woman and woman. Why don't we change it to man and cow too while we're at it.

            my point is, this is not about civil rights. I think you should have the same rights as married couples, which is what californial already has. domestic partnerships have all the state rights that married couples have. That needs to be changed at the national level, but the definition of marriage does not have to be changed in the process. And here's the ironic part....by doing this it takes away rights of those that don't believe homosexuality is right, and it will be taught to their children in school whether they like it or not, and a LOT of other things that would take away rights of others that feel it is immoral. Marriage is not a right, it's a privledge.

            • Posted By: tstratton @ 06/05/2009 2:33:24 PM

              The issue in California was not merely legal marriage "rights", but equal protection under the law. This is the clause that the Supreme Court used to determine a homosexual marriage ban unconstitutional in California in the first place. Marriage is more than just a legal contract, it is a social one. By excluding homosexual relationships from these social foundations, these relationships are being placed in a "second class" remniscent of Jim Crow laws of the previous century.

            • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 11:55:14 AM

              Actually, just like the days of "separate but equal" drinking fountains, the civil union agencies are underfunded, fraught with legal entanglements that married couples don't have, and in practice are absolutely unequal to the framework around traditional marriage .

            • Posted By: trickmg @ 06/04/2009 8:06:34 PM

              Same sex marriage isn't denying you of any rights. You still have the right to marry whomever you want. You also still have the right to your opinion. However, what I think I hear you saying is that same sex marriage denies you the right to deny other people their rights. Which is more than a little frightening coming from someone that lives in a country that has a Constitution that supposedly ensures equal rights for all.

          • Posted By: nan4947 @ 06/04/2009 7:48:48 PM

            Does being gay or stright denote equality? I have copies of the documents that the founding fathers created based a firm foundation Of freedom of speech, right to bear arms and so forth. Did not read if you are gay and someone disagrees with you that you are not treated with equality. Know what you speak of before you speak this is the beginning of wisdom. nan4947

            • Posted By: 1983gm @ 06/04/2009 8:59:12 PM

              to nan4947,who are you to say whats right or wrong based on a book that was written by a man,yes a human man,cernturies ago based on their idea of right & wrong how is the bible any more accurate than old scrolls or writtings on a tmple wall,what others call mythology,in fact the story of jesus's birth and resurection in based on eygption mythology,from centuries earlier. besides the issue was on civil rights not religion. any everyone is equal and should be treated as such.

              • Posted By: tatertot1974 @ 06/04/2009 10:14:21 PM

                NAN...Sweaty, most of the founding fathers were of Unitarian /Universalist affiliation. And to this day, the UU's have produced more presidents than ANY other church. In second place is the Episcopal Church (which includes the religious right's precious George Bush Sr.) and they marry gays and ordain them as priests. The reason why we have a constitution that can be amended and changed as society progresses is because none of those founding fathers and MOST of our presidents have never affiliated with a religious organization that made them check their brains in at the front door. Hence why we have NEVER had a fundamentalist in office.

                • Posted By: nan4947 @ 06/05/2009 9:48:33 AM

                  Information here the bible was written by many men inspirted by the Holy spirit over a period if more than a few hundred years. I believe somewhere around 40 different authors.Shall i mention the New Testament. Get it right. Just as the founding father of this country did also. Did not take one day and there was more than one man. GET IT RIGHT

          • Posted By: nlsnmak @ 06/04/2009 7:55:51 PM

            What about values and morals? Our country was found based on that too.

            • Posted By: brunettealibi @ 06/04/2009 8:21:38 PM

              I've never met an immoral gay person with no values. I don't believe they exist. My point is, morality is the basis that you are doing that which is right. I don't mean anything having to do with what religious doctrine says, either. Living your life in a legal manner as set forth in the law of man. Since the beginning of man, there have been morals, I'm talking about beginning of cro-magnon. Also, as for values... aren't values just things that you believe and would defend to the bitter end? I haven't met a gay person who wouldn't fight for something that they believe. Therefore, immoral gay people with no values do not exist.

          • Posted By: Ian Blokesworth @ 06/04/2009 7:35:53 PM

            Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals to marry a person of the opposite sex. Same sex marriage advocates are campaigning for an additional privilege that heterosexuals do not have: to marry someone of the same sex.

            • Posted By: aduncan2 @ 06/04/2009 8:01:52 PM

              what an idiotic comment. The difference is that straight couples have the right to marry the person they love romantically, and gay couples do not.

        • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 06/05/2009 11:07:39 AM

          Everyone has the right to ignore facts, and the fact is that this issue has gone to the supreme court and if they say it isn't a human rights issue, it isn't a human rights issue, period!

          Sure you have every right to pout, cry and make up your own mind, but that is just your perception not reality!

        • Posted By: smelly @ 06/04/2009 5:09:04 PM

          Under the California constitution you and I have the same rights. I couldn't marry another guy if I wanted to. majority ruled.

      • Posted By: ally47tr @ 06/04/2009 5:09:01 PM

        Hopefully, the Constitution in those states can't be changed by a simple majority like in California.

        • Posted By: msmerymac @ 06/04/2009 7:06:37 PM

          Nope. California is, uh, unique in that. Which is unfortunate for the residents of California. :-(

          The people already had their say in electing a legislature which passed this law. We live in a representative democracy, or republic. This means we DON'T get together in a meeting hall and vote individually on every issue. We have people who do that for us, hopefully well, since they tend to be more informed.

    • Posted By: wberesford @ 06/04/2009 6:26:43 PM

      Blow me

    • Posted By: LouZamo @ 06/04/2009 7:08:05 PM

      Hear, hear!

  • Posted By: dustinbrk @ 06/04/2009 5:31:24 PM

    How is this a "gay rights" issue? Straight and gay citizens have the same rights when it comes to marriage. A man, whether gay or straight, can marry a woman; a woman, whether gay or straight, can marry a man. It's not an issue of "rights", but preference. At least be intellectually honest and call it a "gay preference" issues... because nobody has had their rights denied.

    • Posted By: science-comments @ 06/04/2009 5:56:05 PM

      So the homosexual person'sl right to marry only exists if he decides to marry a person of the opposite sex and it doesn't when it is of the same sex. In effect you have effectively barred him from exercising that right based on that definition knowing full-well that a homosexual "preference" is that of the same sex. What if I change the definition, and say that marriage can only be contracted between people of the same sex, whether you are straight or gay. Where will that put you?

      • Posted By: dustinbrk @ 06/04/2009 8:50:02 PM

        My point is, it's not an issue of "rights." It's an issue of preference. I hear people comparing this to Civil Rights and Women's Rights. Its not even close to the same thing.

        • Posted By: harufairbanks @ 06/05/2009 8:27:29 PM

          I understand where you are coming from but it is about rights. Like Straight men and women rightfully getting each others health insurance or if your husband is dying and you as the wife gets to make the decision to pull the plug. If A gay couple is in a car wreck and one is going to die. Their partner isn't asked what to do if there is no legal paper work.

  • Posted By: davusmc2001 @ 06/05/2009 8:31:06 AM

    NO B.S., let all homosexuals marry, BUT they should not be allowed to use any outside assistance to become pregnant. I also believe they should be able to adopt, because every child deserves a good home. WHY do I say this, because if homosexuality were truly genetic then in a couple of generations, there would be significant drop homosexuals throughout the United States. Further, more it would prove that homosexuality a life style choice. If I???m wrong the homosexual community will have won its genetics argument prove to the world that YOU ARE BORN THAT WAY.

    • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/05/2009 6:50:14 PM

      Is eugenics? Like funnyman Hitler suggest?

      Uday curious: Why davusmc feel is so perfect is can tell other peoples what to do?

    • Posted By: Ren27 @ 06/05/2009 5:34:43 PM

      I have heard that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is nature's way of population control. -- True or not, it is an interesting concept.

      However, allowing gays to marry would not significantly reduce homosexuality in a few generations. That statement is incorrect because whatever biological factors cause homosexuality would show up in the population at whatever rate it does now. As far as I know, most gay and lesbian persons have straight parents.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:12:44 PM

      "WHY do I say this, because if homosexuality were truly genetic then in a couple of generations, there would be significant drop homosexuals throughout the United States. "

      ...what?

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/05/2009 6:40:19 PM

    Not much to go on. From what we can see, gay marriages where legalized show divorce rates no differant than their hetero peers. Sweden, more than heteros. Denmark and Holland,precisely the same. [The ADVOCATE [ GLTB publication ]Apr. 12,2005].
    Incidence of domestic violence is the same as it is in hetero relationships with lesbians,showing a higher incidence of violent beatings than gays, who have a higher incidence of sado-masochistic violence leading to injury/arrest than either lesbians or heteros [ Walder and Haugrud 1996,Rezetti and Milley 1997 and The FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2004]. Thus gays, as is instantly observed, are no differant than anyone else in these areas, and will show long-term relationships exceeding ten years that will be no differant than their hetero peers. However, of the three groups, only lesbians maintain more dominant-[ or ''butch''] and submissive [ or ''queen''] relationships than do either gays or straights, which may account for the higher incidence as observed by WALDER in violent domestic abuse,where one party is physically outmatched by the other.

  • Posted By: TGDelta @ 06/04/2009 6:30:01 PM

    I want someone who is gay and wants to get married to answer this question. Divorce rate in this country is more than half for FIRST marriages and jumps about 15-20% for each subsequent marriage. If this occurs in a practive that has been around since the beginning, why does the "gay community fight for something that they will most likeliy fail at doing. not saying that as to ride on the whole gay thing but statistically speaking

    • Posted By: Purelupine @ 06/04/2009 6:35:57 PM

      its not about it... it is about being told you cant do something. It was once that white people could not marry black people, thankfully that chaged... and now this needs to change. If you were forbidden from doing something that was your right as a human, you would want it changed.

      • Posted By: TGDelta @ 06/04/2009 6:57:05 PM

        firstly many people still hate interacial marriages they just can't kill you now without worrying about the possibility of jail time. secondly i still want an answer to my question. I dont see women fighting for the right to impregnate another women but best believe i would say that they cant

        • Posted By: tatertot1974 @ 06/04/2009 10:26:27 PM

          sure they can. Lesbians and turkey basters will ensure the survival of the human race. And think about this. Gays plan very in depth when it comes to having children. We don't have "mistakes" that heterosexuals seem to be having. Unwed mothers are at an astronomical high because of the irresponsibility of str8 people. I'm quite confident that when you go to public housing and low income neighborhoods, you wont fined the gays there collecting welfare. Were too busy designing expensive cloths for your christian ministers to spend your hard earned money on. If the Mormon's had 8 million dollars to spend on Prop. *, then they should have fed the homeless with it.

          • Posted By: muffles @ 06/05/2009 5:35:15 PM

            I have a very close friend who just recently broke up with is partner. If gay marriage was legal in Nevada, they would be married. If one of them was a woman, they'd have kids. But his partner told him one day that he "just fell out of love" with him, and that was it. You can't say homosexual relationships have better staying power than hetero. It all comes down to the individuals.

          • Posted By: Ian Blokesworth @ 06/05/2009 3:16:51 AM

            "Unwed mothers are at an astronomical high because of the irresponsibility of str8 people. "

            Unwed mothers are at an all-time heigh because government benefits are maximized in the absence of marriage. Unwed mothers are overwhelmingly represented in lower/zero income brackets. It is nonsensical for a woman to share the income stream and household of a low wage earner when the same income can be monopolized.

        • Posted By: LouZamo @ 06/04/2009 9:05:23 PM

          The right to impregnate another woman? What does that have to do with anything?

    • Posted By: silverbonn @ 06/05/2009 6:41:52 AM

      TGDelta,
      I'm gay (a lesbian, to be exact), with *no* intention of marrying, however (am an "old time feminist" as well). In fact, I didn't give a WHIT about the gay marriage issue... until the Prop 8 debacle. That said, I'll attempt to answer your question based on what I know from others, in my "Family."
      Have you considered many "het" marriages fail because of the (unknown) assumptions both parties may be under? I know girls often imagine who they'll marry, what kind of a wedding they'll have, etc., from a very early age. (Perhaps boys do the same, but I suspect it's social conditioning.)
      Men and women frequently marry w/out *any* discussion whatsoever of the "big" and "little" issues realtionships bring. Perhaps *she* wants kids and he doesn't. Maybe *he* had expectations of *both* he and his wife working while she (especially if she comes from a "traditional" family) never even *entertained* the idea of doing so. Such (big) issues need be settled *before* vows of "til death do we part" are made.
      "Gay" people who "marry," however, tend to discuss *everything* about their relationship/s. Without "gender roles" to pattern one's relationship on, without such "givens" such as *she* does the dishes while *he* takes out the garbage-- there *are* no clearly defined roles and the (gay/lesbian) couple need discuss them.
      The same applies for children born to gay couples, btw. Whether the child is adopted, the child's father is a "turkey baster" or a "close friend and/or 'brother,'" lesbians and gays who have children together do so (as another poster stated) after *much* discussion and planning.
      Speaking for my*self* now, when I first realized my propensity for loving a woman and the *shock* of the realization wore off (thank *goodness* I'd been a "straight activist for gay rights" or I'd have been unable to look myself in the *eyes*), my partner and I quickly realized we were in "uncharted territory."
      Both of us came from traditional families where gender roles were clearly defined. My partner and I discussed *everything* from cooking to cleaning to mowing the lawn, car maintenance, etc.

      **Not to confuse the issue, but *here's* an interesting stat. Did you know the *longest* lasting of *all* realtonships (a man and a woman, a man & a man, a woman & a woman), the *lesbian* relationship is the longest lasting? (The Hite Report.)

      I hope I answered your (excellent) question... and *thanks* for asking! (*Not* going to cite the adage about what happens to those who ASSuME! [Should be *obvious* from all the hatred, here...])

    • Posted By: Ian Blokesworth @ 06/05/2009 3:13:47 AM

      While I don't support same-sex marriage, only time will tell if homosexuals are able to sustain a lower divorce rate. American women have figured out that they can have two marriages. The first produces children and supplemental income for child support (also alimony in disguise). That income stream augments their lifestyle while they seek money and favors from another man, of which the relationship may culminate in marriage. Homosexuals are not faced with unequal child custody settlements, so the incentive to divorce is different that in heterosexual marriages.

      • Posted By: Velvet2021 @ 06/05/2009 3:53:36 AM

        TGDelta:

        Answer this question for yourself: Why did (or do) you want to get married? Answer for yourself and you'll know why a gay person would want the same.

    • Posted By: brunettealibi @ 06/04/2009 8:36:10 PM

      That statistic of a 15-20% failure rate of first marriages is based on heterosexual marriages of couples between the ages of 19 and 35, and is also from the late 90s. I remember reading it in high school.

  • Posted By: brenniewinters @ 06/05/2009 5:21:44 PM

    Has anyone read Kosher Sex in judasiam 101 lately? It really helped me.

  • Posted By: muffles @ 06/04/2009 6:44:01 PM

    This is just another "yes gay marriage/no gay marriage" debate. No one is talking about the article. I just have to point out that yes, more marriages will spark more revenue for a while, but how about when it comes to filing taxes, and now all these single people are filing as couples? And adopting kids and get tax breaks on that? Debate the issue as you will, voting it for economic reasons is very short-sighted.

    My thoughts on the Eternal Debate are just that first, marriage is not a right. The Constitution says nothing about it, go check. The government does legislate it, like saying a 10 year old can't get married, you can't marry a goat, you can't have multiple spouses, etc. Second, I'm against it, but not because I think gay people are evil or don't deserve to be happy (they already live together and get all the benefits of couples), but because I'm thinking of the next generation: kids need a mom AND a dad. Sorry, it's in our psychological makeup. We look for different things in each of our parents (or find a substitute figure if one is not around).
    And lastly, EVERYONE votes their beliefs. Don't try to tell people not to "impose your views on the rest of us". That's what a vote is for! Whether you agree with someone's reasoning behind their opinion or not, what we DO allow in this country is for people to vote their conscience.

    Now let's all be civil with each other. That is all.

    • Posted By: mgianopoulos @ 06/04/2009 7:00:53 PM

      "Kids need a mom and dad."
      What supports this statement? Psychologists in general have concluded that children can be healthy and happy in any family structure such as a situation with a single parent, gay parents, or non-parent relatives. Kids just need a family. It's healthier for a kid to be raised with parents or a parent or any guardian than to be in an orphanage or foster care. Check your sources before making claims.

      • Posted By: muffles @ 06/04/2009 7:17:17 PM

        MMhmm. No, my comment was not based on politically-correct "findings", it's based on empirical evidence. This is not to say that ANY mother-father combo will produce better offspring than any other type of relationship, but I'm talking about just in general. Foster care is, of course, not the best option for a kid. If that's your concern, let's make adoption easier and cheaper for people who really deserve it.

        • Posted By: Ian Blokesworth @ 06/04/2009 7:54:23 PM

          Which sources are available for these claims?

          • Posted By: muffles @ 06/04/2009 8:25:39 PM

            Do you know what "empirical evidence" means?

            • Posted By: Suebop @ 06/05/2009 2:16:05 AM

              Do YOU? You certainly haven't cited any sources for attribution.

              • Posted By: muffles @ 06/05/2009 4:01:32 PM

                Empirical evidence means experience and direct observations. Just FYI, so you can understand what someone is saying next time you hear it.

                It used to be okay to admit that a single-parent family was not ideal. That offended too many single-parents, so it's no longer acceptable to say that. I'm not saying that single-parents aren't good people, great parents, and trying their very best, but that doesn't mean a child wouldn't benefit from having both mom and dad around. (And as I said earlier, they look for a replacement figure somewhere else) I'm sorry if I'm stepping on toes here, but I'm all about calling an apple an apple.

                But back on topic, I'm just saying children learn and seek different things from their mothers and fathers, and that they need both. Since we don't have much research on children with gay parents, it's hard to have an example to hold up, but anyone who thinks it won't have an effect on society is just indulging in wishful thinking (don't feel bad - even the so-called experts don't know why things happen the way they do or what makes a society tick).

                • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 4:21:21 PM

                  Your personal experience does not constitute empirical evidence. You need a study, or statistics. Trying to pass off your own personal experience (and nothing else) AS empirical evidence qualifies as scientific illiteracy.

                  Basically, you've said what you think is the case, and assured us it must be backed up by statistics. I think you're just another person who thinks you're right, and that everyone else is wrong.

                  • Posted By: muffles @ 06/05/2009 4:31:00 PM

                    "1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
                    2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
                    3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>"

                    I haven't said anything about statistics. I'm stating my opinion, as everyone else here is. Unfortunately, I don't have the time/room to explain everything in my life that has led me to that opinion. And yes, I think I'm right, as everyone else here thinks they are right (I wouldn't be spouting info I didn't think was right). There are other people's opinions on here that I think are wrong. But then, they have a right to their opinion, I have a right to mine, and as long as people can be respectful about it (RESPECTFUL people!), then that's how it should be.

                    Thanks to everyone for posting. I'm outta here now. Let the Eternal Debate rage on.

                    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 4:57:10 PM

                      In the context of discussing social groups and policy, one person's experience does not qualify as empirical evidence. The sample size isn't high enough, so to speak.

                      To put it another way: your personal judgements and opinions do not constitute "evidence". There's no scientific rigor to it. You haven't defined what an "observation" is and how it can be compared quantifiably to other observations. You haven't cited any numbers, you just make a bunch of statements and don't even pull up any specific experiences that someone could pull a fact from.

                      What you described is subjective experience, not empirical evidence. It's opinion. It's expository, not descriptive.

                    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 4:52:02 PM

                      I think you have very narrow ideas about what successful parenting is, but since you're leaving, I won't bother to expound on it..

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 4:19:40 PM

          I'm the child of a single mother and I turned out fine. Stop laying your expectations on everyone else.

        • Posted By: brunettealibi @ 06/04/2009 7:33:00 PM

          Make adoption easier and cheaper for those who deserve it? I agree, wholeheartedly!
          The children are the only ones who deserve adoption. I don't agree that one side "deserves" the right to adopt over another. I believe that the only argument should be "how soon can we get these kids homes?"
          Make adoption easier on chilldren who deserve to be raised in a loving enviroment, and cheaper on their emotional well-being so they no longer have to wonder when they are going to leave the revolving-door lifestyle that is being a foster child and have a permanent and secure home.

      • Posted By: meorplipprunby @ 06/05/2009 3:13:21 AM

        Simply by the fact of how we are created. I mean, we are still male and female in this world, are we not? Or are things in this world so far gone that we no longer are male and female, but androgynous, unisexual, and amoral?

    • Posted By: TGDelta @ 06/04/2009 6:48:23 PM

      The smartes commenter I have seen on this page. my Hat goes off to you

  • Posted By: Ren27 @ 06/05/2009 4:41:29 PM

    Back to the article ...

    Most of what I have read states that homosexuals make up about 10% of the population. If that is correct, and if gay marriage was legal in all 50 states, it doesn't seem that 10% of the population is going to make that much of a difference in the recession overall. ... Though I am sure that wedding and honeymoon industry types would get a nice boost for their services.

    And the article is right, the states who allowed gay marriage earlier in the game are going to make more money than those that dig their heels in or sit on the fence.

    From that point of view, the article is correct ... at least some people would benefit from gay marriage being legal, besides the gay people getting married themselves, that is. Too bad there are so many people who insist on their being right in a relgious debate to get that there could be any benefit at all.

  • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/05/2009 2:17:41 PM

    give it up with the religious arguments. they hold no water in a court of law, or in regards to the constituion that protects all of OUR rights.

    i have no problem with religion, please, continue to attend church and be as spiritually religious as you please... just dont try and tell my friends that they cant be equal in marriage like they dont have a right to be in love. they arent telling you to abandon religion, dont tell them to abandon they're life.

  • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/05/2009 2:16:39 PM

    give it up with the religious arguments. they hold no water in a court of law, or in regards to the constituion that protects all of OUR rights.

    i have no problem with religion, please, continue to attend church and be as spiritually religious as you please... just dont try and tell my friends that they cant be equal in marriage like they dont have a right to be in love. they arent telling you to abandon religion, dont tell them to abandon they're life.

  • Posted By: jllevy123 @ 06/05/2009 1:53:21 PM

    To all of you who use your so=called bible to justify discrmination, please remember that is is YOUR bible and doesn't meana rat's ass to many of us and in no way should it be used to create laws.

  • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/05/2009 1:34:44 PM

    there is no reasoning with religious hardliners. period.

    but thankfully, there is not "reasoning" with our constitution either.

    gay marriage will be legal in every way shape and form and equal to a hetero marriage soon enough.

    funny thing is, these religious folks think they can continue to quote scripture to justify why it should be illegal, which, in the face of the constitution, is completely and utterly moot. and they continue to dig themselves into a hole every time they quote the bible. your only making the case worse for yourselves, theres nothing you can do to stop it, so stop wasting energy and concentrate on your own salvation, your own life, your own problems, and above all, your own damn sex life.

    it WILL happen and your god apparently isnt stopping it, nor is he smiting any homosexuals, raining fire on gay marriages, or destroying san fransisco.

    sucks, but its all true. sorry god, you lost to mad made rule, law and thought.

  • Posted By: lvfalcon @ 06/05/2009 2:23:02 AM

    Why is it that when someone opposes gay marriage or homos they are labeled as some kind of "Christian" freak? Did anyone ever think that one might just think that it is disgusting and unnatural for one guy to do something sexual to another guy? Then right away, one would me labled a homophope. Then everyone joins in and says that one should not judge. Funny thing is our country is full of judges. Are we not supposed to "judge" murderers, thieves, rapists? Thing is we do judge, but not their souls.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:55:26 PM

      Why don't you stop regulating other people's sex lives? Gay men and women don't care how "disgusting" you think it is, you have no right to regulate what goes on in anyone's bedroom.

    • Posted By: Velvet2021 @ 06/05/2009 3:10:14 AM

      It's not "unnatural" to be gay. There are many species of animals that have gay relations. In fact here is the link to a recent article about a pair of GAY PENGUINS in a German zoo: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/04/international/i112715D88.DTL&tsp=1. Not all sex is for reproductive purposes. Do your research about gay animals in the wild- you'll see how "natural" it really is.

  • Posted By: Ren27 @ 06/04/2009 5:42:00 PM

    How about getting rid of marriage completely? After all, marriage very much crosses the line between church and state ... church sanctioned, state approved. If everyone had the right to a civil union, and you could only be in one civil union with one person at a time, problem solved.

    For those who keep going to the kids / animal aspect ... kids and animals cannot give legal consent, so that's out.

    For those who keep going on about the procreation aspect ... kids are not a requirement for getting married now. If they were, I know a few people who would have to divorce due to their inability to procreate. (And thanks to sperm banks, lesbians can procreate anyway).

    For those who keep bringing up incest, with few exceptions (Egyptian pharoahs come to mind), most of history has caused rules and regulations against incest not because of the sexual act itself, but because of the genetic fallout that occurs. I believe science is going to win that arguement, and that any group pushing for incest rights is going to be dramatically overruled.

    For those who keep bringing up pediphilia, most pediphiles are, essentially, straight. They just like to have sex with children. Some prefer boys, some girls, but the problem is still the same ... a child cannot give legal consent for sex. Again, I think society is safe.

    Homosexuality is not a choice. It is going to exist with or without your approval. What you need to worry about is if it happens with a hope of society accepting it in a committed relationship, which will benefit society, or if it is closed off from any possibility of being accepted, in which case destructive behaviours will ensue.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 12:08:24 PM

      It would be great to get government out of the marriage business. Our current marriage laws were enacted early last century as a way to spur population growth...I don't think they've updated appropriately for the times.

    • Posted By: TGDelta @ 06/04/2009 6:07:38 PM

      You are so misinformed. Firstly Jesus died so that we would not have to sin. Salvation is not just a get out of hell free card. you should be above acting on impulses that drive you to the same sex. Its people like you who cause such division in the church. you say that your a christian (and your statement hints that to be true) but you still lead a sinful lifestyle. It is a slap in his face for you to live like this. Read Romans. it clearly states that that behavour is unacceptable. And another point. I do wish that those who wish to live alternative lifestyles would stop grouping yourselves with womens sufferage and black civil rights. You think that you are treated as second class citizens. lets not forget that black people were treated like property and only considered 3/5 human.I have multiracial cousins who's white grandparents dont even acknowledge there existance. Just to show that people so focus on race our president is Mixed. But to the General public if your part black your all black. and i know many people who would want nothing more that to see a bullet go through his head on national television simply due to that fact. So dont tie yourselves to the struggles that have gone on for CENTURIES

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/05/2009 11:59:36 AM

        I don't give a DAMN about your holy book or what power you think it has to regulate gay rights.

        I support gay rights - and if you get up in my face about it, you can take your book of Romans and throw it out the window, or burn it, the same way conservative Christians have burned anything that frightened them (books, or people) for two millenia.

        The book of Romans is not holy to me, and I don't have to treat it as holy. You can think whatever you want to about that, but stay the hell out of regulating lives that - whatever your Church may have told you - don't belong to you, OR Jesus.

      • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/05/2009 10:41:51 AM

        so homosexuals havent been struggling, hiding from society, fearing for they're life until today?

        last i checked they have been prosecuted for the way they live for thousands of years, the moment someone decided it was wrong. was wasnt it wrong before god came along and the bible was written hmm???

        why did god choose to show himself for the first time to abraham? humanity has been in existance MUCH MUCH MUCH longer than the bible would make you think... millions of years. where was god then? why wasnt there a bible 20 thousand years ago? why didnt god come down and smite all the non monotheists?

      • Posted By: Ren27 @ 06/05/2009 8:51:36 AM

        Okay, lets see if I can answer all of this:

        First, Jesus died to give people a direct line to God. It isn't about the religion, it's about the relationship.

        As far as Romans go, find a Bible printed before 1930 that says homosexual in that vice list and we'll talk.

        And you are incorrect, African Americans were never considered 3/5ths of a person. The actual compromise stated that five slaves were equal to three free people and it was for population purposes for the House of Representatives. You see, those sneaky rich Southern planters wanted to have slaves as property, but also wanted to count them as part of the population for more representation in the House. Sneaky and effective, but ,ultimately, slaves cannot be both property and people.

        As for your personal story, I am sorry that your grandfather refused to take responsibility for his actions.

        And the last part, about civil rights and slavery ... slavery has been around as long as the human race. So has homosexuality.

      • Posted By: Suebop @ 06/05/2009 1:52:59 AM

        "Jesus died so that we would not have to sin." Newsflash! If that is the case, then he really threw away his life. We were quite capable of NOT sinning before he came along and remain so now. Nonetheless, there have been people all through history who in some cases were quite resistant to temptations to sin and who in other cases were Mega-Sinners. Your Jesus is entirely IRRELEVANT in this discussion so please stop trying to insert your antiquated superstitions at every turn.

      • Posted By: lvfalcon @ 06/04/2009 6:20:03 PM

        TGDelta - wow TGdelta, you obviously have all the answers, a few more questions. Please tell, what is the meaning of life? What came first, the chicken or the egg? Where and how did the universe start. I know people say the "big bang theory", but where did the "stuff" that led to the big bang come from? How did a single cell organism develop into millions of different complex creatures through evolution? Evloution is an ongoing process, where are the 1/2 human or the 3/4 humans right now?
        Thanks

      • Posted By: Wally Larsen @ 06/04/2009 6:13:49 PM

        TGDelta,

        You make an excellent point -- for leaving religion behind.

        Regarding the "centuries" of abuse suffered by others, I assume you believe there were no homosexuals around prior to about fifty years ago?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse