Duluth.Talk

By Stephanie

June 13, 2006 07:14 AM | Link to this

Well said!

Britney Spears is allowed to marry someone in Vegas for ‘a good time ya’ll’ but two women who truly love each other can’t marry. It’s rediculous.

By me

June 13, 2006 07:28 AM | Link to this

Pick up the Bible and read a few chapters. Marriage was created for a man and woman not for people of the same sex. Hopefully, the people that we vote into office will remember that this country was founded on Christian values and continue to uphold them.

By Greg

June 13, 2006 07:30 AM | Link to this

I am tired of right wingers who are afraid that gay marriage is trying to teach their kids to be gay or force their lifestyle on them. Right wingers are trying to force their archaic and bigoted fear mongerin on us. Gay people should be able to married. Marriage is a legal matter. I know the relgious right tries to make it religious, but the state gives the license and easily has the power to give gays a marriage license as they should. If right wingers don’t like, don’t attend the weddings and teach their kids to be heterosexuals. The big bad gay man will not go after their child and force them to be gay or hang out with other gay people, or at gay bars. The fear-mongering is so juvenile and stupid. Gay people do not hurt the U.S., fear-mongering and hate from the right do.

By GreatDaneBoy

June 13, 2006 07:31 AM | Link to this

Excellent column this week!

If I have to hear one more Christian say anything about the “sanctity of marriage,” I am going to puke. So far, not one single solitary person that I have asked has been able to explain to me exactly how allowing gays to marry violates the “sanctity of marriage.” What is the “sanctity of marriage” anyway? Does that mean that I have to divorce my wife? Will my kids not be able to marry opposite sex partners? Will my house catch on fire????

People, the only thing that is ruining marriage in this country is divorce. Once we outlaw all divorces (like the BIBLE says!!!), then we can start talking about banning gay marriage. Until then, let’s stop wasting millions of tax dollars paying our lawmakers to sit around and argue about something that doesn’t affect at least 95% of the population.

It’s simple: if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. If your church begins to endorse gay marriage, go to a different church. This is America. Live and let live.

By Greg

June 13, 2006 07:33 AM | Link to this

Sanctity of marriage is basically code, for right wingers are afraid of gays. They hate gays. Especially hetero men, hate gays. They have a fear that if they let them in the military, they would be attacked if they dropped the soap in the shower. I guarantee that a gay man would not go after someone in the shower in the military. The mental thinking of many in the right is simplistic and moronic.

By me

June 13, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this

Why do you attack? I simply believe in the what the Bible says, and you cannot deny that this country was founded on Christian principles and morals. I am not “affraid” of gay people - the Bible says that we are to love all people. I do not hate them, but I do not agree with their morals.

By D

June 13, 2006 07:41 AM | Link to this

Gay Marriage Current mood: calm Category: Blogging

Ok, I am a straight man, but have been very interested in the debate lately over whether gay men and women in this country should be allowed to marry other gay men and women. I am finding the debate particularly perplexing. My first instinct is, why should they not be allowed to marry. Isn’t it in this country’s founding document that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Well if Adam wants to be happy by marrying Steve, who are we to deny him that right? I read in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that even though the Senate couldn’t even get a simple majority to approve the amendment (and they need a 2/3 supermajority anyway) the House of Representatives is going to waste time and taxpayer money to take up the issue anyway. Why? Don’t we have 2 wars going on, an economy in the tanks and $3 a gallon gasoline? Gay marriage has to trump all this? What the hell is wrong with our government now? I thought this was the 21st century. Sonny Perdue wants to waste Georgia taxpayer money to ban it in Georgia even though it is currently illegal. Background for any non-Georgia readers… In 2004, an amendment was put forth to the people of Georgia to do two things: Recognize marriage in Georgia as between one man and one woman and 2) Constitutionally ban the state from recognizing any legal union of two members of the same sex performed in other states. 76% of Georgia voters approved the amendment.

This has brought about a constituitional issue in Georgia because according to the Constitution for the State of Georgia, Constitutional amendments may only address one topic per amendment. The above amendment clearly addressed two issues. A judge in Fulton County said the amendment was unconstitutional and threw it out (this judge has now been labled an activist judge by the Republicans in Georgia). Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the Georgia Constitution says you cannot pass an amendment with two or more issues, and then the state does anyway, it must be ruled unconstitutional. How is this judicial activism? How dare a judge overturn the will of the people, even though it violates the law. The will of the people should always overrule the law, right? The state appealed to the state supreme court, which if they do their job, will uphold the Fulton County judge’s ruling. If they do that, Governor Sonny will call the legislature into special session, at a great cost to the taxpayers of this state so that we can vote again to ban something that is already illegal.

The second part of the amendment also perplexes me. Back in the 1990s, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in response to the Hawaiian Supreme Court decision that the ban on same-sex marriage in that state was unconstitutional (Hawaiians quickly amended their constitution). The second part of the tossed amendment in Georgia alligns with DOMA. Well, according to Article IV of the Constitution of the United States, DOMA is clearly unconstitutional, because all states must give “Full Faith and Credit” to judcial acts from all other states. Simply put, to give two examples, is why I, as a holder of a valid Georgia driver’s license, am permitted to drive in Alabama and visit my cousins, and also why my parents, legally married under the laws of the state of Florida, are still married in the state of Georgia. But according to DOMA, Adam and Steve, legally married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, may not have their marriage recognized if they choose to move to the State of Georgia.

All this aside, I’m not about to go marry another man, but the legal issues here and the moral issues seem too great to keep quiet on.

By Michael E. Williams

June 13, 2006 07:48 AM | Link to this

Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? Who Wants to Marry My Dad? The Bachelor. These are all reality shows that any of you so called “concerned Christians” can watch on broadcast TV that are already violating the “sanctity of marriage”. The divorce rate in this country is over 50%. Im confused here, how can gay marriage destroy an institution that heterosexuals have already ruined?

By George

June 13, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this

Oh Greg stuff it. Quit blamining everything on the extremeists. I’m not a right wing nut or a left wing tin foil hat looney. I’m also not a very religious person but I do believe that marraige should be between a man and a women. It’s biology man. If it weren’t for a man and a women then you wouldn’t be here so settle down here. If your parents were john and Jake, you wouldn’t be here. If your parents were Jane and June, you wouldn’t be here.

Why not create a leagally recognized union for any combination of Janes and Johns that will protect your legal rughts but not butt up against tradition. Kind of a third way that will plow new ground without casusing hate in current society.

All this head butting is only going to get you a head ache.

By James

June 13, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this

Just because this country was Founded on Christian values doesn’t mean these values should forever be upheld! Everyone in this Melting Pot is Not a Christian! Force your values on noone!

By ht burness

June 13, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this

Inner-racial marriage isn’t even on the same level as Gay and Lesbian marriage. You can marry any one you want to, but homosexuality is still an abomination before the sight of GOD. You can’t change GOD, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the ending. I don’t care if they want to marry each other, but I will let them justify their behavior before the throne of GOD. 2 men can’t create, nor can 2 women except through technology. This was never GOD’s intention. The scriptures I read says that. That type of marriage the church doesn’t recognize, no matter what laws man passes. You can selectively take any scripture out of context to reinforce you belief, but I will let you explain that one to the ALMIGHTY, its still against his LAW…

By D

June 13, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this

But, ht burness, it is not your place to pass judgement. Let God be the judge and in the mean time men will make what mistakes they will make on earth. I thought, just to put this in Christian terms, that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of man and that he will forgive the sins of man. This is Jesus’s role in society, not the right-wing bible-pushing sect of our society.

By Tommy

June 13, 2006 07:59 AM | Link to this

ht burness- just what “god” are you talking about? How does some god of yours affect a person’s civil rights? Keep your religion to yourself- it’s pathetic to use it as an argument in this case. Your god does not matter to me-

By ht burness

June 13, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this

If you read my comment, it said GOD will pass judgement, and by the scriptures, homosexuality is an abonomation before GOD, and in his eyes is illegal, no matter how you twist the facts. You can have all the worldly civil rights and do what ever you want in this world, but GOD will judge every body, just read the scriptures. The problem here is, you try to justify homosexuality, but you can’t.

I said you can do anything you want to, but GOD is the owner of everything, even you.

D, Tommy, I will just let you argue with GOD, tell me how you do, Satan did very poorly, by the way.

By Reality check

June 13, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

Two points I would like to make concerns canon law. First point, long story short; MEN (not men and women or God or Jesus) met to decide what BOOKS and INFORMATION should go in the bible and that people will learn and worship as the word of God. Please keep this in mind when you use the bible to back up any claims you make. Second point, when Jesus’s feet were cleaned and anointed by Mary Magdalene people were appalled because they believed her to be a “harlot”. Jesus let it slide and thanked and blessed her. WWJD if a gay person came up to him, would he do the same thing or have the same reaction as most of America? I have always believed that if you walk the same path as Jesus you will get to the promised land. Well guess what? In this case you don’t and when all the gay people go to Hell for their lifestyle guess who will be opening the gate and welcoming them? Guarantee it won’t be Jesus.

By Craig

June 13, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

Personally, I don’t give a rip what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. That is their business and the government needs to stay out of it. As human beings, God loves them just as much as heterosexuals. The problem I have with “gay marriage” is the redifining of the term marriage. If you allow gay marriage, how are you gonna say no to polygamy, or to threesomes of people who want the “benefits” of marriage. What about people who want the right to marry their father or mother because they want the “benefits of marriage” also(no estate taxes). They love each other to right? I know it sounds far fetched and repulsive to most of us, but I guarantee you it will eventually come up. Would we deny those people the right to marry? If we accept the tenants of gay marriage, how can we deny those same “rights” to other groups? We are opening up a can of worms when we change the definition of marriage and before we say yes, we as a society had better think the whole thing through. If we allow this group to get married, who’s the next group to want the same thing; what are we gonna say to them?

By ht burbess

June 13, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this

I Don’t argue with my to justify you homosexuality. I don’t care who or what you marry, but no pastor in their right mind would marry 2 people of the same sex, they have no fear of GOD. If you read my comment, it said GOD will pass judgement, and by the scriptures, homosexuality is an abonomation before GOD, and in his eyes is illegal, no matter how you twist the facts. You can have all the worldly civil rights and do what ever you want in this world, but GOD will judge every body, just read the scriptures. The problem here is, you try to justify homosexuality, but you can’t.

I said you can do anything you want to, but GOD is the owner of everything, even you.

D, Tommy, I will just let you argue with GOD, tell me how you do, Satan did very poorly, by the way.

By BB

June 13, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this

This nation was not founded on merely “Christian Values”. It is true that some values that Christians hold dearly have made it into our civil law, but there are many examples of Christian laws that our government does not recognize. The framers of our Constitution worked very hard to ensure that religion is separated from government. This country was founded based on the belief that people from different idealogies and backgrounds can live together in harmony. Churches have every right to decide who can and cannot marry in their institution, but it is time that the people recognize that our country would be better served by allowing gay couples the legal structure that is afforded to heterosexual couples. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would in no way affect the institution of heterosexual marriage. Nobody has ever even made a coherant argument as to how straight couples would be affected by same-sex marriage, but people continually exclaim that “marriage is under attack”.

By ?? authorities

June 13, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this

Beni — excellent article, well written and very well stated.

I believe you are correct, in a few years time (I don’t know how many years), we will look back at this and ask ourselves, “how were we led so far astray from so many very important issues by this issue?” It will be like inter-racial marriage, you will still have some narrow minded folks who will give you looks and be otherwise hateful, but most people will just walk on by without a second glance (well, OK they might look ;o)

By X

June 13, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

In the Bible the word is homosexuality not gay. Gay is a cover up for homosexuals really not being happy. Tim LaHaye wrote such a book called the Unhappy Gays. If homosexuals were truly happy and believed in what they were doing, then why flaunt and try to gain acceptance from people. The truth is they don’t accept themselves or they would keep their mouths shut. Also, the Bible lists homosexuality along with people having relations with animals. This behavior is sick.
I wish these homosexuals would keep their desires to themselves and leave everybody else alone.

By Reality check

June 13, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this

To ht burbess: Please research canon law. What’s in the bible is canon law, not the word of God. WWJD? What would God do?

By Reality check

June 13, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

To X: Please research canon law.

By Brian

June 13, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

The laws of this country are based on the constitution, not on the bible. Expanding the rights of one group does not diminish the rights of another. Those who believe that same-sex marriage should not be allowed based on the bible seem to have forgotten some of the other commandments, such as the one that those who do not keep the sabbath holy should be stoned! Can’t pick and choose the commandments you want to obey, can you?

By The Other Andy

June 13, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

So if my religion is ok marrying two people of the same sex and all the writings from my religion condone and celebrate marriage between any two consenting adults… does your religion get to trump that because you claim your religious books are the word of God and not mine?

How does that work?

By tish

June 13, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

We must love but more importantly we must abide by what is God’s law about marriage. Is it man and woman or man and man or woman and woman. Read for yourself then decide!

By me

June 13, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

Do you not think that the people who decided what would make up the Bible were not chosen by God? The Bible is God’s word to us. God does not hate anyone - he loves us all. It is the sin that he hates. Jesus would love the gay person but tell them to abandon their sinful lifestyle. Am I perfect? No, not even close. He would tell me the same thing “Go and sin no more”.

By Shawn

June 13, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

Those who think this country was founded on “Christian” values need to re-open your history books. Our founding fathers left England to ESCAPE the fact that the Church was also the government. (And if the Republicans have their way, it would be again in America!) One of the founding principles of our country was to ensure the government and the Church remain separated and not become one.

That said, those that claim being gay is against God’s “law” are forgetting one thing or perhaps are too ignorant to even know this—the SAME God that created you also created ALL GAY PEOPLE-including ME!! I didn’t choose to be gay, just as you didn’t choose to be straight. So, my relationship to my partner of 3 years does nothing to hurt your relationship to your spouse if you are straight—NOTHING!! We do not take anything away from you or your family, but we have lots taken away from us—over 1100 tax and financial benefits to start. All we are asking for is to be able to form our family and recognize it the same way you do and to receive the same rights and benefits as straight people.

We are your neighbors,co-workers and AMERICANS and we WILL NOT back down from this issue. The Constitution should be used to expand rights not take them away and it should NEVER be used to bring Church and State together on any issue…

By D

June 13, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

As a straight man, all I have to say is Well Written Shawn. Never use our Constitution to limit the rights of any American.

By ct

June 13, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

I see many quotes above discussing how this country was “founded on Christian principles and morals.” Perhaps we should educate these people. This country was founded BY christians indeed, but it was founded for FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS persecution as was ocurring in 18th century England. In fact, one of the first state agreements made between the new United States and a muslim country, Libya, included the following line: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” (Treaty with Tripoli, Annals of the 5th Congress, Article 11). Perhaps before we use issues of religion to remove freedoms, we should go back and learn some US history. You are not a patriot by forcing your beliefs on me - you are an 18th century english king. It may also be interesting to note that athiestic, immoral massachusets, with it’s gays and all, has lower divorce rates that our holy and santified 1950’s state of Georgia. So much for sanctity, my simple, simple friends…

By David R

June 13, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

As a religious scholar, I find it interesting that these ‘mouthpieces for God’s word’ are on here are telling everyone to read the bible or scripture.

It’s odd that none are giving examples of that scripture on here. Jesus never once spoke about homosexuality, but he did condemn divorce. The Christian faith is based on love and acceptance, not condemnation by humans against each other. THAT in itself is a greater sin than the one you’re preaching against.

If you’re looking for “abominations” you should understand that it’s also an “abomination” to cut one’s hair or wear clothes of two different fabrics.

The bible doesn’t list homosexuality as a sin any greater than any of these—and it certainly doesn’t list it anywhere near sex with animals.

Please do your research and sincerely open up your hateful heart before you express these bigoted thoughts. Not all Christians are as condemning as most. The Bible DOES give great warnings for those who are judgemental and full of hate.

By Tommy

June 13, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

Funny how some people refer to the “bible” to justify their bigotry, failing to realize, or accept, the fact that the bible was commissioned- it was written by men. It’s a book of stories and fables- that’s all. What moron would take the bible literally? oh wait, nevermind…

By cliff zeider

June 13, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

Hey Beth, It just might be when Hell freezes over. CZ

By Sidney

June 13, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

Why is it that so many people pick and choose which parts of the Bible to live by? If it is the true word of God, shouldn’t you endorse the entire book?

By Jennifer

June 13, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

Excuse me, but Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. As you may know, he is the true author of our Constitution. The rest of the authors, many who were also not Christians, tweaked the document until it became the document they all signed.

@The Other Andy…this is correct. If I am a Unitarian Universalist then my faith allows for the existence of same-sex marriages. Why does your faith get to dictate to mine? According to our Constitution it does not.

By What?

June 13, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

The slippery slope theory is a sad argument to use to defend your position. Gov. can say no to polygamy, etc. just like the gov. is currently saying no to gay marriage. Let the people decide and be done. There are very few true “flood gate” issues and this is not one of them. Usually people use this theory as a last resort when they don’t have a real defense or justification for their position. Try again. This is pitiful.

By borisdag

June 13, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

I’m pleased by the majority of the posts so far! This being the conservative South and all…It seems to me that heterosexuals have done enough damage to the institution of marriage with multiple divorces and having children out of wedlock, etc. etc. If our society is so reliant on the “stability” of marriage why not let the gay folks partake in that? Wouldn’t it just further strenthen our society? If one takes out the bible argument the wingnuts don’t have a leg to stand on! Live and let live.

By Craig

June 13, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

Those of you who are pooh poohing the fact of the influence of Christianity on our government are willfully ignorant of history. Yes, the founders of our country did flee England to escape religious tyranny, but the writers of the Constitution were more concerned with keeping government out of the church than the other way around.(Freedom was, and is a Christian principle.) There is no “Wall of Separation” from church and state that everybody keeps touting. The founders never meant to exclude Christianity from public life like many of you think. They just wanted to keep the government from establishing an official religion that would dominate people’s live’s the way it had done in England. They wanted to allow people to worship or not worship, however they saw fit and they used Christian principles to write that into law. If you want proof, just go to Washington D.C. and look at all of the buildings built before the early 19 hundreds. Virtually all of the buildings have a Christian scripture in their cornerstone. The doors to the Supreme Court have the 10 Commandments carved in them. One of the first jobs of the Speaker of the House of the newly formed Congress was to hire a Christian minister to pray over their deliberations. Do you think it was the founders intention to keep religion out of public life?

By Doug

June 13, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

Last time I checked, gays haven’t been responsible for a single war on this planet, yet historically, religion has been at the root of many. Maybe it’s time we consider a ban on religion instead of gay marriages.

By Michael Keller

June 13, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this

I am so weary of how it has become acceptable in this country to bash gay people…..and this is exactly what is hapenning, don’t tell me otherwise. Honestly, as a gay man, I do not need to be “married” in the religious sense. If the religious conservatives are upset with a definition of marriage, fine let’s define religious marriage. However, let’s also define civil unions to allow whoever chooses to partner do so. I should be able to not have to worry about inheritance issues, health issues, insurance issues, property rights, etc., just because I choose to live my life with another man. This country is based on all men being created equal despite race, religion, sexuality…only it has taken many people a long time to realize this, and many still don’t. We may have founded this country on “Christian” values and I admire that. But that term has been hijacked by conservatives to promote an attack on any cause that they say the Bible forbids (well, I qualify that, since the Bible forbids many things that we allow). Furthermore, there are many people here now who are not Christian and the separation of church and state was created so that one religion does not define law at the expense of another. If we allow religion to govern the basis of our laws, we are no different than the islamic states such as Iran and Iraq. Also, the whole sanctity of marriage argument is hollow, since many other things have done a much better job of undermining marriage. Again, let’s keep it to a religious definition and not a state/civil definition. We must find a healthy balance between freedom of religion and equal rights for all citizens. I admire someone who has given there life to God and follows his teachings. However, although I might be gay and disagree with some of their fundamentalist interpretations, I still think of myself as Christian, and I am ready to be judged when I die, but please let God do that and not you.

By Tyler

June 13, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

Where are the Christian values when over 50% of marriages end in divorce?Straights people are such hypocrites.PERIOD.Gay people are God’s children too!

By For Logic and Reason

June 13, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

The Bible also says a man lived in a whale and you can stone someone for planting the wrong crop or wearing the wrong fabric.

If we can let Brittany Spears and Michael Jackson and freaks like that marry…. then why can’t two consenting adults of the same sex marry? Can they REALLY be worse for the ‘union’ than most heterosexuals?

By John

June 13, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

I’m against same-sex marriage but my gay partner is for it.

By GreatDaneBoy

June 13, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Every one of you who have gone on and on about how homosexuality is a violation of God’s will are all totally missing the point of this article. This column has NOTHING to do with whether God hates gays or not! This article is about a LEGAL ISSUE!!! One has nothing at all to do with the other. This country was founded on the principles of freedom of religion, and that means you CANNOT force other people to live by your personal beliefs just because you go to church. You have no right to pass a law based on the Bible. This land is a free land, and we do not have to be ruled by your religious book just because that’s what you personally want. Nobody here is arguing that homosexuality is wrong or right…that is something only you and your higher power can decide. What this is about is equality. And MONEY…..we don’t have enough in this country to spend enormous amounts of it legislating religion. We need to spend our money trying to win the war we are in and shore up our economy.

And still, nobobody here has explained how gay marriage will hurt anybody else’s marriage. Divorce rips apart families, yet none of the Christians on this board has any problem with that. In fact, I would be willing to bet that at least a few of you opposing gay marriage have been divorced yourselves. Shame on you!!!! You have personally destroyed at least one marriage, who are you to determine what’s best for the institution of marriage. I still maintain that we cannot even begin to have the gay marriage debate until we either outlaw divorce, or ban people who have been divorced from marrying again. Any of you who go to a church where your minister preaches that homosexuality is evil or wrong need to ask your minister about divorce. If your minister will marry a couple who has been divorced before, then you can be sure that you have a hypocrite for a spiritual leader. I’d start looking for another church, if I were you.

By sam

June 13, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

To all you bible believing Christians on the right:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

By Joey

June 13, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

you bible beaters are a hoot…if the laws really were based on the bible most of you morons would have been stoned long ago..especially here in the south where adultery is as popular as nascar. Lousy hypocrites.

By Chris

June 13, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

I have no problem with personal choice, so if someones chooses to be gay I have no problem with that. I just don’t want our government to approve of or to endorse your deviant lifestyle. I have friends who are so callled gay and I tell them their is no way you are born that way….and we are still friends. Basically, just keep your “gay business” to yourself.

By KarenA

June 13, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Beni, You are befuddled if you think the economy is ailing. The opposite is true, unemployment is down, new jobs are up. And you are befuddled if you think that the American people, no matter what party, are fooled by Congress’s focus on the gay marriage issue, while they safely ignore the thorny immigration issue. The federal legislators are all chicken, Republicans and Democrats, and they are all glad to have the diversion. Frankly, most people I know don’t think that the federal government needs to address the marriage issue at all, as it is a personal matter, a sacred matter for churches to address, and a legal matter for state legislatures to address. Beni, if you would get out and talk to a wider audience rather than just listen to and read the popular media, you would see that we are not falling for any ruse, and that may explain why you are befuddled.

By Shawn

June 13, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Chris—your post is a FINE example of the ignorance I spoke of in an earlier post. Your “gay” friends must be very proud of you.

By Jennifer

June 13, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Craig, you sound like a theocratic parrot.

Decide for yourselves:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separationchurchstate2.htm

Theocracy Watch is an organization set up to track actions by religious politics in order to protect against our country turning into a theocracy.

So, here is a website from a religious organization about the seperation of church and state:

http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html

So, read then BOTH and decide for yourselves….

By John

June 13, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Hey Chris,

Sounds like you have quite a few problems bud…and by the way, it’s my Government also.

You people throw out terms like re-definining marriage but you never, ever explain how heterosexual marriage is affected. So please, someone explain how heterosexual marriage changes as a result of same-sex marriage.

And how about if you religious nuts actually respond to the Leviticus question above. How come the other Levitical laws aren’t relavant anymore? Anyone?

By GreatDaneBoy

June 13, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Chris, Who are YOU to decide what’s deviant or not? Are you saying that because you personally believe that homosexuality is deviant that gay marriage should be outlawed? I personally think that Christians who go trying to push their beliefs into the legal system make a bad name for the rest of us good Christians, so they should not be allowed to speak in public. In a free society, like the United States, everyone is supposed to be equal. Doesn’t that mean that my opinion is equal to yours? So, if we outlaw gay marriage, then we should definitely muzzle people like you. I am so ashamed and embarrassed that you identify as a Christian. You are everything that Christianity is NOT.

By Michael

June 13, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Chris, you honestly think we would CHOOSE to be gay when people like you say things like that and we are faced with all these attacks? The only choice is whether or not we accept what we are BORN as. I tried living a straight life like the Bible says. After a nervous breakdown, a failed marriage, and many therapy sessions later, I have accepted what I was BORN as, and that is a gay man. I would never choose to be this way, but this is who I am and I accept it, and I love myself and my life now.

By LHK

June 13, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

I feel the need to point out that this issue doesn’t run neatly along political party lines. I know Republicans who are for gay marriage and Democrats who aren’t. I even know a couple of gay Christian Republicans (a very small group, I’m sure, but they’re out there!).

Regarding religion in public life: I think it’s pretty clear that we do have a public sector that does not ignore religion. You can have a religious club in school. You can bring your Bible to school. If you’re in the state capitol and want to sit down on a bench and say a prayer, nobody’s going to stop you. Our money says “In God We Trust.” Our President often refers to religion in his public addresses. What we don’t have are laws that are strictly based on the Bible. If we began doing that… talk about a slippery slope. If we ban gay marriage on relgious principles, think what else would have to change for our laws to be consistent. No divorce. No businesses open on Sundays. No shellfish. Will this happen? I think not, and I hope not. If some of you folks want to start a theocracy, go claim an island in the South Pacific somewhere and do it. I’ll continue to live here in the USA where I can live relatively peacefully practicing whatever religion I choose to practice.

And, Beni, to answer your original question, I do think gay civil unions will eventually be allowed. I’ll give it ten years. Of course, the backlash will get louder before then.

By ksjoyner

June 13, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

I can’t help but comment on this subject. I am a straight mother of two straight daughters, however, I have taught them that no one is completely right or completely wrong. Sexual orientation is genetic and not learned. All human beings have the right to the same legal protections. Maybe we should change the “marriage license” that you get at the court house to a “civil union” license for everyone, because that is what it is. The license gives you the legal protections afforded by the state, the “marriage” occurs when the religous leader of your choice performs a ceremony. While you can be married by a justice of the peace, many churches do not accept that because you have not been married in the “Eyes of God.” So let’s separate the two.

Further, regarding these adament statements that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Please tell me where GOD or JESUS said that homosexuality is a sin. You quote from Leviticus - which if you are a Christian is not applicable as it is part of the Old Jewish law that was done away with with the New Testament of Jesus. Then others quote from Paul - which is really just one man’s opinion. Paul didn’t walk with Jesus - didn’t talk with Jesus. His letters and opinions are just that - his view of the path that Christianity should follow in those early days. He also said women shouldn’t cut their hair or be leaders in the church. But we don’t follow those, do we? We are a people of pick and choose to what suits us. Please, just worry about your own life and let others live theirs in freedom.

By John

June 13, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

Jennifer,

thanks for those posts…I don’t think people realize how much momentum the theocrats are gaining.

Here’s an example of their holy future: two boys being hung…

http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2006/06/pet-shop-boys-cd-marks-irans-gay.html

By BeachBum

June 13, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

I have to laugh at those of you who blame this on a GOP agenda. Do you not realize that the Constitutional Amendment on the Georgia ballot in 2004 passed by a LANDSLIDE. The demographics of the vote crosse parties, race, gender and age definitions. The people of this country DO NOT WANT same sex marriages. It is time for the VOCAL MINORITY to stop driving the direction that a MAJORITY in this country do not want to go.

By anonymous

June 13, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

To all of you idiots who keep saying homosexuality is against God’s will: Does anyone really know what God’s will is? Does God speak to you and tell you his will? Didn’t think so. Unless you are dumb enough to believe everything the Bible says (and if you read Genesis 4:16, you can see a major flaw), gay marriage is not against God. God made gays and lesbians, therefore He must have a reason for making them. I’m a straight man, but a good friend of mine is gay, and his sexuality does not stop him from being a good, honest man. Just because a person is gay does not mean they can’t still be a good, honest member of our society, and if they are a member of our society, they must have the freedoms offered to every member, and one of those freedoms is the freedom to marry.

By Liz

June 13, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

I always get a kick out of these cafeteria Christians who pick the things they like from the Bible and ignore that aren’t so convenient for them, like divorce being considered adultery, and polygamy being perfectly acceptable. Oh, and don’t forget about slavery and genocide. Why don’t YOU pick up the Bible and read a few chapters, and not just the stories you like.

Whether you admit it or not, the institution of marriage has evolved over time. This idea of “one man, one woman” is very recent. For thousands of years, polygamy was acceptable and even necessary for society. Marriages were arranged by the parents. Women were considered property on the lines of livestock and treated as such in these arrangements. Domestic violence was considered the norm. Girls were married at a very young age. A divorced woman who remarried was committing adultery.

So for those of you so committed to the “traditional” marriage, here are a few questions:

• Did your parents choose your spouse?
• Will you marry off your daughter around the age of 13 or so?
• Have you had the maximum number of children physically possible, since that’s the purpose of marriage?
• If you’re divorced, are you ready to go back to your previous spouse?
• Do you consider children of 2nd marriages illegitimate?
• Are you ready to stone anyone who has divorced and remarried, as they are committing adultery?
• Do you support polygamy?

If you answered “no” to any of the above, then you do not support the tradition of marriage as it has existed for thousands of years. You are supporting a very new and different form of marriage which is nothing like what is described in the Bible.

By God's Will

June 13, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

I’d like a good old fashioned biblical marriage with 3-4 wives and a couple of concubines.

By jack

June 13, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

we raise animals, and when a same sex pair rut with each other, they are sent to market, because they have no further value. You certainly don’t want to keep feeding them because they are useless as a reproductive unit and a continuing drain on the producer. This is not about religeon tho many quote that, it’s about common sense, men and women are built different. deliver me from these Queers !

By time for the truth

June 13, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Ignoring the rather dogmatic, irrational religious reasons, homosexual marriage should NOT ever be allowed. Its undermining marriage and the family and is pushing a shrill homosexual political agenda down the throats of the majority who oppose it.

Even in very liberal states like OR, where the folks were given the choice on the state ballot homosexuals lost the democratic vote and wont accept it!!

It also opens up equal protection issues which will has far wider ramifications for all kinds of perverse demands.

Normal marriage between a man and a woman has been the norm for thousands of years. There is no need whatever to undermine this.

For legal reasons its reasonable that homosexuals should be allowed civil unions which should be designed to give them full equal civil protection which is perfectly fair enough.

If homosexuals are granted something purely because of leftist political social(ist) engineering by unelected pinko judges who are using judicial power to circumvent the laws of the land and the will of the people then a VERY SELECTIVE judicial dictatorship is being imposed.

The most loathsome thing about shrill homosexuality is their obsessive control freakery - they demand not quiet, reasonable tolerance but complete, unequivocal acceptance. Completely uncaring of the fact that many tens of millions oppose their agenda for religious and moral reasons.

6% of the population have NO right to impose their empty gesture sloganising politics on the rest of us!!

By Chris

June 13, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Heck no there should not be same sex marriages. NASTY! What is wrong with you people? They need to ship all of you to Greenland and let all of you live there and do your thing there.

By John

June 13, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

If people don’t like same sex marriage they don’t have to be in one. Just because a majority doesn’t like same sex marriage doesn’t make it right. Imagine if there was a vote here in the south to free the slaves…think that would have happened?

Values change…especially ones that aren’t just…so the minority will continue to press the issue until we are no longer a minority…

It may take awhile but the ignorant will eventually die out and the enlightened will become the majority…hope I’m still around to dance on the graves of all you bigots.

By God's Will

June 13, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

I thought right-wing nuts considered gays and lesbians the source of all evil. Now jack wants to evaluate them like they’re the source of sirloin steaks.

By viktor

June 13, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Time to draw the line, folks. It’s one thing to have to tolerate the lifestyle of the perversion of the human rectum and labia and another to give it legal standing. The next thing you liberals will want is to give legal standing to NAMBLA. As a matter of fact, the ACLU would like to see just that. Enough is enough. Marriage is an institution based on the union of a man and a woman. Keep your sexual deviations out of my face and your hands off my marriage.

By GreatDaneBoy

June 13, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Time for truth:

PLEASE EXPLAIN exactly what you mean when you say that gay marriage is “undermining marriage”. What EXACTLY does that entail? Are you going to divorce your spouse if gays can get married?

I personally have no plans on undermining my marriage if gays get married. I’ll still have the same wife. MY marriage is in MY control! Maybe you should take control of your own life before you try to control others!!!

By The Other Andy

June 13, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

When do I think that gays/lesbians will have equal access to marriage?

When the discrimination against it becomes a moral issue with about half the country. Right now, it’s a moral issue to sustain the discrimination for about half the country and the other half is divided between the legal and moral positions.

Until a majority comes together with a moral argument to remove the discriminatory laws/amendments, we’ll get to keep discussing it.

And even after that majority finally forms — and trends with younger voters indicate that will happen in about 10-20 years — it’ll still take some years to reverse some of the last vestiges of gay/lesbian discrimination.

By Michael

June 13, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Here they come out of the woodwork. We don’t ask for your acceptance, we don’t want to harm your marriage, we don’t want this, we don’t want that…..All we would like is to have the ability to have a union where we are not at any legal disadvantage because of our sexuality. We don’t need a marriage, but a civil union. Remember the difference between church and state people, our “activist” judges seem to.

By GreatDaneBoy

June 13, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Viktor:

Uhhh…who EXACTLY has their hands on your marriage???????

And by the way, I just went to the ACLU’s website to check out your claim for myself. In fact, the ACLU has no ties with NAMBLA, nor do they condone child molestation in any way. Can you please point out the source where you found that information????

By D

June 13, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

BeachBum — see my original post about the Constitutional Amendment. Sure it passed by a landslide, but just because a “landslide” wanted it, doesn’t make the amendment suddenly legal. Chris, is “gross” the best you’ve got at this point? Viktor — how does any gay marriage affect your marriage. It doesn’t, so there’s no hands on your marriage if two men marry each other.

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Hey Religious Right-Wing Zealots!!! There’s a few things you may want to take into consideration before spewing your venom towards people who HAVE NEVER harmed you! #1: The concept of homosexuality was not understood in ancient times (obviously some of you have not evolved and are still stuck in that bygone era). Although there are references to men “being” with men, they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Some passages that have been advanced as pertinant to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19: 1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them “like women,” thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting persons of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise, Deuteronomy 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a “sodomite. #2: If you want to make references to a religious text that, as with all religious texts, deserves the RESPECT to not be selectively quoted or indoctrinated, then you may want to consider such memorable phrases as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. #3: If your own personal lives are that shallow and hollow that you have to attack people who have not lifted a finger to take your freedoms away and employ hatred to make your point, then I would suggest you look inward to your own relationship with God and stop telling everyone else what their relationship with God should be.

By John

June 13, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

I will ask again since none of you have responded:

How does same sex marriage affect traditional marriage? And how is the family undermined?

How about you Time for Truth…how is your marriage changed?

By the way Victor, there are plenty of heterosexual couples that for some reason enjoy “the backdoor”…

By Jeff

June 13, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

Typical left responses. Using emotions to rule their thoughts instead of logic and truth. No to gay marriage, it’s an abomination to mankind.

By D

June 13, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Typical left responses. Using emotions to rule their thoughts instead of logic and truth. No to gay marriage, it’s an abomination to mankind. Um, how. That doesn’t seem logical to say it’s an abomination.

By God's Will

June 13, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Well, Jeff, if you don’t want to be an illogical leftist, why don’t you respond to the logical question of how gays marrying undermines straight marriage? I have yet to see one good answer to that question anywhere.

By Greg

June 13, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

I am so tired of people quoting the bible. They selectively say which things from the bible they want to enforce. We are not a Christian nation in terms of laws. We are a representational constitutional republic. Learn what that means right wingers. Three co-equal branches. There is not tyranny from the majority as right wingers want. It is not a simple popular vote for laws to be passed right wingers. Look at and learn the constitution. I am tired of right wingers saying nobody would be here if we were all gay. Of course not, but most people are heterosexual and it will stay that way even if we allow gay marriage. Gay marriage is not the end of reproducing. That is just another fear mongering tactic by right wingers. Same with right wingers trying to link gay marriage to goup marriages and incest, or worse yet trying to link homosexuality and pedophilia. They are not directly related. I bet there are a lot more heterosexual child molesters than homosexual. It is just that homosexual molesters sell more news rags. There is no reason not to have gay marriage. We don’t even have most of the 10 commandments written in law. When is the last time someone was imprisoned for coveting thy neighbors wife? Right wingers are just dumb.

By Joey

June 13, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Ok Jeff,

Give us logical reasons against same sex marriage…(with arguments to support your position).

“It’s wrong”, “God doesn’t like it”, “It’s being shoved down our throat”, “It undermines the family”, “It will lead to bestiality and polygamy”…blah blah.

The above are statements…they aren’t arguments.

I’m waiting

By Cc

June 13, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

How many gay people do you think there are in this country? And of that percentage of the population, how many gay people do you think are actually going to get married? Now, compare that percentage of the population to the percentage of the straight population who chose to divorce each year. It’s not even close. If the Christians are serious about saving marriage, pass a law banning straight divorce. Make it a crime. I doubt they have the guts. It’s just so much easier picking on gay people. It’s the Christian way!

By time for the truth

June 13, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

where homosexual marriage is allowed the stats show in nordic countrie that marriage overall decreases - which is not good for kids and stability. normal marriage has worked pretty well, at least as an institution for thousands of years.

I note you ignore the points about lefty judges imposing it etc

By Jerry

June 13, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

To all of you amateur biologists”

Currently there is no requirement to procreat in order to get married.

Further, there is no biological necessity that every member of a species reproduce…in fact, given the complexity of homo sapien societies, and that in most non-human societies, only the fittest reproduce, it is actually going against nature that any ole’ male and female human can make a baby.

Most of you ought to thank the homosexual community for taking themselves out of competition. It could be that the small population of homosexuals that opt out of the breeding process, actually help to stabilize the population.

By ATLGAYMAN

June 13, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

As a gay man who has been in a monogamous, loving relationship for 10 years I firmly believe “marriage” should be, and is between a man and a women. Marriage is just one word which has for my entire life has been defined as between a man and a women and I don’t have issue with that. I do have issue that the word appears in laws in an exclusionary manner. Leave the word alone…just ask the law be changed so that every time the word married appears it is followed by or civil union. Gay activist have gotten themselves wrapped around the wheel and missed the point. The issue is civil rights, equal rights and equal treatment…not the dictionary! When African Americans fought for civil rights they did not ask to have the definition of Caucasian changed…they asked the law be changed to include them! C’mon…I don’t think most heterosexual people care if my partner receives state sanctioned death benefits should I pass, they just want to hold on to a WORD that has sentimental and historical meaning to them and I agree whole heartedly…change the law not the word!

By Michael H. Smith

June 13, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

When will same-sex marriage be allowed? Never by law enacted through legislators.

By Greg

June 13, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Atlgayman,

I

By kjsdbvflie

June 13, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

I don’t think God is smiling at you right wing bigots. He probably isn’t smiling at that idiot in the Oval Office either.

By Greg

June 13, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Atlgayman,

I disagree. The reason gay marriage is being pushed to be allowed is for equal rights. Civil unions do not always allow equal rights in terms of spousal priveliges and tax exemptions. Allowing gays to marry evens the playing field and stops the government from discreminating against gay relationships.

By Kev

June 13, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

While we’re debating marriage and God’s blessing, what happened to the days of King Solomon when God blessed Solomon who had 300 wives and 700 other women. Why don’t we open up the entire civil union to allow people the freedom to TRULY do as they choose. Why does the government, whom we elect, have the right to tell us who we can marry or how many wives we can have? We are all responsible for our own moral decisions, not the government.

We have the freedom of speech to argue our point but not to condemn the beliefs of others. I feel like we lose more and more of our rights to form our own beliefs. Is this really freedom?

If we’re going to examine civil unions, let’s examine the entire thing and not just this one aspect. I’d like the opportunity to consider union with more than one woman if I choose to do so. Lions have a pride to raise their cubs and I believe it would be beneficial to have more than one wife to assist with family structure. In a time when children have to spend more and more time in daycare or in activities, it takes more than two parents to earn income and provide for the needs of children. Why can’t I have a wife who is career-oriented and another who is more family-orientated. We join and form a team. Some teams may be larger than others and some teams may decide to construct themselves differently form others. Most teams have more than two players. Why can’t ours? Let’s talk about all civil union and not just those between homosexuals.

By GA_Peach3

June 13, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Hey, Lewis Black hit the nail on the head - if gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, let them!

I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I believe that God made us all - even homosexuals - exactly the way we are and FOR A PURPOSE. Humans wrote the Gospels based on God’s teachings, and I think it’s important to remember that we don’t know everything about God’s plans, what He likes and doesn’t like.

So go get married all you love-crazy kids! My only request is that you love one another as Jesus instructed, that you treat your man or lady with respect and honor, and that you teach all our children how to love people for who they are and not “what” they are.

Now I’ll sit back and wait for someone who has no idea who I am or what kind of relationship with God I have to fling mud at me for not being a good Christian.

By Greg

June 13, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

I love the moronic arguements made by the right wing. Many in the right wing said that the Georgia flag should be put up for vote to the public instead of legislated to its current form. Well some historical news for the ignorant, the old flag with the racist stars and bars was legilated into existence without a popular vote, so why should the right wing get to demand a popular vote now to keep racism in the flag? The answer is the whining about judges legilating from the bench is only done when courts don’t rule in favor of right wing “illegal” policies. If the courts had found gay marriage to be illegal, you wouldn’t hear right wingers whining about putting up to a popular vote. That is the real issue here.

By ATLGAYMAN

June 13, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Greg,

Greg,

Again, what I had said is I disagree with the fact that the word Marriage appears as a qualifier or exclusionary term. If you change the laws or pass a law that says any right and privilege given to married people will equally be given to civil unions all of the tax exemptions, spousal privileges etc will fall under the same umbrella as married folk. The word Married can maintain its significance to those attached to it and gay couples can receive equal rights benefits etc

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

@time for the truth…just where do you get your statistics from. I challenge you to produce genuine statistics with references so that they can be investigated - not just some rhetoric that you heard sometime before, somewhere, from someone. I work in an industry that relies on outside sources to produce statistics and we always indicate the source so that the general public can check on the accuracy of our claims - do the same. What kind of factual data can you present that indicates the reason for the decline of marriages, overall, in Nordic countries (I can’t even begin to think where you pulled this one out of) declines AS A DIRECT RESULT of the allowance of gay marriages? Oh…and “not good for stability” when referring to children? How does an abusive heterosexual relationship affect the stability of a child’s home? How do heterosexual marriages that end in messy divorce affect the stability of a child’s home?

By David

June 13, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

If marriage was defined by GOD. How come Atheists can get married but Gays/Lesbiens cannot? Why is this not in the Constitution?

The Athiests don’t get married in a church, but they do get the benefits of marriage. While the Gays/Lesbiens get nothing!!!!!

By John

June 13, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

TFT,

That’s really a vague, but over used explanation.

The nordic studies are the most manipulated by the anti-gay crowd, but the study you are referring to actually showed a statistical INCREASE in marriage. We can google it all day if you want.

The demographics of marriage and birth rate are changing all over Europe and can’t be traced to same sex marriage, but more to a disinterest in the rigid religious influence that has dominated that area of the world for so long. Good for them I say.

As far as the political points you make…I didn’t ignore them and I dont’ necessary disagree with some of them…they are a different argument and not one I’m really interested in.

It seems though that whenever one of these “activist” judges makes a ruling, you never hear any explanation from people like you as to why they are “legally” wrong.

I don’t see how you can say that normal marriage has worked pretty well, when half of them fail.

I maintain that same sex marriage has no effect on hetero marriage. You still haven’t explained how there is an effect.

By Dusty

June 13, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Marriage is a religous instition. The government only got into the mix because they figured out how to make a buck off the whole thing by issuing marriage licenses. Seperation of church and state. Keep your simple minded religious beliefs out of my government.

It’s quite apparent that the straight folks don’t have a clue about the whole marriage thing, why not let gays have a shot. They should be able to be as miserable as the rest of us folks. I say let them get married and see just how much fun it actually is.

By Athiest

June 13, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Should we not do what a majority of the population has voted for? 70% of the vote was to ban gay marrage, but yet you have the judges who think they are above the people. I think that is the real issue in the debate. BTW, in history marrage was started by the church and then became a legal matter.

By IntownGal

June 13, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

I have been reading everyone’s comments and it is interesting to me how the subject so easily and automatically lends itself to religion. Religion will always send up the sparks. Keep in mind religion is a personal choice, as well as who you want to love in your life. My marriage to my husband is a personal choice as well. Although heterosexuals, we really don’t care about this matter. Why? 1. My husband has 5 siblings 2 of which are gay, now that I am part of his family, I wouldn’t dare tell either of those individuals that they cannot have access to the same rights I do.I would not do that because it is neither my place, plus I care about them as family; they are wonderful people! 2. Lets get back to the original point of the blog, and I don’t think anyone on this post can disagree. There are A LOT more important things going on in our world, namely a very volatile war, fuel prices, hurricane recoveries, and immigration to name a few. We as well as the Bush Administration should recognize that.

By Chad

June 13, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Ugh, don’t we have bigger problems? Iraq, terrorism, crubling public school systems, illegal immigration, a rapidly growing population of child molesters, problems with race (especially in this town), a HUGE national debt, gas prices skyrocketing…..it all matters more to me than this issue.

But I’ll play ball here. I think what two consenting adults do is their business, and what they do doesn’t impact whether I’ll go to heaven or not, same with everyone else. You can’t make homosexuality go away folks, it won’t.

I think that two people should be able to commit to one another on the same level, and be able to reap all the benefits (beneficiaries, tax, etc.) but I would call it something else. I don’t think that a same sex couple would be hurting the term ‘marriage’ with a 50% divorce rate, swingers, cheaters, and everything else that some married couples do, but I would call it something else…….maybe I’m splitting hairs here but that’s what I think. Same benefits, different name, because even if it’s just in name I think you have to separately term man & woman and a same sex couple.

By jim d

June 13, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

While I have no issues with same sex marrige between consenting adults, I do take issue with peoples ignorance regarding the principals upon which this nation was founded, and their continued blathering about it being christian values.

Take a moment to Educate yourself before spreading such lies and coming across as a total a*.

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html

By time for the truth

June 13, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

I’m not interested in your blowhard claims … this data was discussed on the O’Reilly factor with a homosexual activist and the data was not challenged!!

NOt “directly as a result Of” obviously but the stats showed a marked decrease in marriage after this was forced through parliament, its perfectly reasonable to infer that such a major attack on marriage had this CONTEMPORANEOUS effect.

My other points were actually far more valid and I note the liberals have ignored them as they’re far too awkward to address. One example - lefty judges are attempting to impose/dictate divisive social policies that are defeated in ballots at elections or they are imposed by leftist judicical fiat!!

and the even more awkward equal protection problems once homo marriages are imposed aginst the majority wish!!

civil unions yes - homo marriage NO. a perfectly valid opinion. now go back to your Bush hatred!!

By BC

June 13, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

The only this on this blog that is “gross” and an “abomination” is how others are passing judgement on one of God’s children! People we are all in this world together and have the freedom to do and believe as we wish! Thou shall not pass judgement on others as we are NOT God! As for upholding the sancity of Marriage, Divorce has already blew that out of the water. Hence a sign on I-85 stating “Uncontested Divorce for $399” Wonder what God would have to say about that???

By TLC

June 13, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again. As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God — even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don’t compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.

1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 19:9 IN RED: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Will gay people ever divorce if they are allowed to be married? It sounds like you’ll never divorce if given the chance to marry ….

We all commit sin everyday — knowingly and unknowingly (NOONE IS PERFECT). The point is: Repent for your sins and turn AWAY FROM THEM. Just try it and stop making up excuses as to why homosexuality is ok.

And yes, I am a true believer in God and that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

Signed,

MORON

By Greg

June 13, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

I am tired of people saying statistics should dictate how we craft laws. People need to be responsible for their own actions. If you get drunk and you drive. You should be arrested. We shouldn’t stop everyone else from drinking. Just because teenagers have more accident on average than older people, should we ban all teenagers from driving? Of course not. I bet 20 year olds have more accidents than 30 year olds, I guess nobody in their 20s should drive. I am tired of this attitude. We should try to minimize accidents through training and parenting and then leave it alone. No legislation raising the age of drivers licensing. This country is full of wusses. You can’t get a job until 16, can’t have sex until 17 or 18, can’t legally drink until 21. People are not forced to take responsibility and learn responsibility in their lives and then they are pushed directly into the adult world. Real stupid.

By Greg

June 13, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

TLC, Thank you for acknowledging your real name. Even if marriage were a totally religious thing, which it is not, not all religions restrict marrying gay people. So why should we let the majority religion rule what other religions allow. Baptists and other right wingers don’t have to like it, but accept it. By the way, let me say it again. This is not a true democracy as many stupid news organizations and Dumbya keep insisting. We are a representative consitutional republic. The consitution protects rights of the minority against tyranny from the majority, which is exactly what the right wing is trying to do by taking a popular vote on gay marriage. Blacks used to be slaves and discriminated against because it was popular by the majority. The courts should have stood up and protected them. Just like the courts shold stand up and protect gays from the right wing tyranny.

By K

June 13, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Beni, totally agreed that the Republicans trotting out the gay marriage issue in an election year is a misdirection tactic.

That being said, my husband had an interesting idea. He suggested redefining the terminology by designating civil unions as the secular/legal status granting legal rights, and designating marriage as a religious term. In other words, everyone who is now married would become a civil union. If they got married in a church, then they would also be married. On government forms, it would say civil unions. Gays and lesbians could be married by churches that perform such ceremonies. In other words, both sides could have legal recognition, and optionally, religious recognition.

I told him that despite the logical sense of that, it wouldn’t play in Peoria. A lot of people would freak out over having their marriage called a civil union in documents. Folks seem to be mighty sensitive about terminology in this instance.

As for my position, there’s no logical reason that gay couples should be denied access to the same legal rights and privileges under the law. The Bible isn’t a factor due to the separation of church and state cited by previous posters. Biology isn’t a factor given that there are plenty of childless heterosexual couples out there. Nope. What’s happening here is an ugly thing that philosopher John Stuart Mill called “the tyranny of the majority.” It’s nothing new: it happened with slavery as well, for a time. As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

By Amanda

June 13, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, PEOPLE.

By time for the truth

June 13, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

why wont thse homosexuals address the point that state legislatures in many states have banned homo marriage?, that even in liberal states once on the ballot its banned by fair and free votes and that unelected leftist judges are attempting to impose it .., and illegal behaviour in san fransicko by the idiot mayor, as Mr Savbage puts it - and in NY state and other areas where local officials have illegally defied state marriage laws to make shrill homosexual political points.

and then there’s the equal protection issues that arise from extending marriage beyond normal marriage that as an institution (not always individually obviously) has worked fine for many centuries,

its homos activists attempting to impose their 6% of the population agenda that is repugnant. enjoy your civil unions and shut the hell up :)

By BC

June 13, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

TLC, I commend you on your knowledge of the bible and your beliefs. And no I do not think you are a Moron. I just wanted to respond to your question regarding “Will gay people ever divorce if they are allowed to be married? It sounds like you’ll never divorce if given the chance to marry ….” Yes, I think Gay people will divorce if given the chance. However, we are not the ones harping on protecting the sanctity of marriage which was already destroyed by Divorce. We want the right just like all other red-blooded Americans. And, yes marriage is about so much more than religion in this country….

By Russ

June 13, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

It always baffles me that opponents of “gay marriage” (which let’s remember is a term and debate created by the GOP to cast fear upon it’s core religious voters) base their judgment of homosexuals in the misguided assumption that being gay is a lifestyle choice. By the same argument all heterosexuals must at some point in their life decide to be straight. Do you remember deciding that you would be straight? Probably not.

Likewise, gay people are just being who they are. It might appear as if they are struggling with a “lifestyle choice”, but the struggle has to do with deciding to be true to one’s self despite a society that labels gay people as perverted or immoral. It’s not a CHOICE to intentionally deviate from the recognized sexual norm. In fact, it is bravery plain and simple. It takes a lot of bravery to stand up and say. “this is who I am- many people will hate me but I must be true to a part of me that is fundamental to me- as core to who I am as anything else one might take for granted” (like heterosexuality). It’s a hard decision which is often made much easier when that individual finds a community to support them- and better yet when they are able to find another person who loves them for who they are. Imagine being condemned for finding someone who loves you for who you are.

I’m baffled that this, mutual love between two persons, is what our society seeks to condemn, that sympathy for a person simply wanting love cannot outweigh bigotry and fear and ignorance. I’m baffled that love is the target of our aggression in a world where war kills millions.

Are you prepared to wear this badge of dishonor?

By Michael H. Smith

June 13, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Time for an honesty break, isn’t this thing about a government forced social acceptance from the gay prospective?

Personally if the tables were turned and the shoe were on the heterosexual foot so to speak I wouldn’t give a rip about being socially accepted and embraced by the homosexual society – piff!

Lets get right down to it you can’t make social acceptance into a law. As for other issues like taxation and healthcare where discrimination does exist against many individuals – not only homosexuals – there are in my opinion better alternatives to level the playing field without creating a further unequally biased remedy. Universal accessible affordable healthcare for every individual U.S. citizen should take care of one issue and tax reform along the lines of the fair tax should take care of the other. Any other issues I’ve heard of thus far have legal remedies already.

By me, too

June 13, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Hey - “me” - are you trying to say people didn’t get married BEFORE the Bible was written?

By Jack

June 13, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

The idea of the marriage of same sex couples is crazy. This is just a way of trying to normalize something that is abnormal.

By Dennis

June 13, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

When will we stop trying to push our own morals and beliefs onto others. How about we mind our own business until it affects our own lives. And not affects it in that we don’t like or approve what somebody else is doing. Doesn’t it also say in the bible not to judge others ? Stop preaching about religion like it is untouchable. Who is the church to tell us how to live our lives when they can’t even enforce simple child predator laws within their own congregation. I am a heterosexual male and don’t care what others are doing as long as their views are not forced on me. If they are not hurting anyone and are productive members of society where is the problem ? It’s too many busy bodies trying to get in other peoples business. Other people always wanting to judge others. Take those mighty fingers and point them at yourselves and see what you really are. There are plenty of other issues that our gov’t should be addressing. I thought amendments to the constitution were supposed to basically be rights that were to be added. Not freedoms taken away. Why not add to that and keep people from marrying alcoholics, addicts, violent criminals, and anybody else that doesn’t fit a certain mold.

By shadowskeeper

June 13, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

What ever happened to the notion of separation of church and state?
Freedom of religion could also be interpreted as freedom FROM religion. Unalienable rights for life, for liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Oh, I get it…except in the case of two consenting and committed adults that just happen to be of the same gender. Gay people will ruin the “sanctity of marriage”. Too late…hetero couples have already taken that job (and doing pretty good too!) I don’t see the religious right screaming about the perversions of T.V. reality shows like “My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance” or “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?” or “Who Wants to Marry My Dad?” or others like it. Gay people can’t get married, they can’t procreate and that’s “un-natural”. So the hundreds of hetero couples that have brought children into this world via the “un-natural” miracle of in-vetro fertilization or “un-natural” chemical ferility drugs….they shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. Sorry…I too, thought that, not only did God create us in His image, but Jesus died on the cross for ALL of Mankind’s sins. I think I will leave the judgement of my morals, right or wrong, to Him and not the church or a bunch of polititians playing and answering to their supporters and financiers.

By Jeff

June 13, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

We are a nation of the people and people have voted to ban gay unions as marriage. But why do the gay people side step this fact? Why are the judges ruling against the people of the nation? that is the real debate.

So, gay people need to get over this issue until the people are ready to accept it. Let’s instead focus on what really matters like the economic viability of the US and where our country is going in the future.

By Gary

June 13, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

FINALLY, someone brought up the Treaty of Tripoli — for over 200 years it’s been the nail in the coffin to those that claim that we’re built on “Christian values” or as a “Christian state”. It’s right there, go look it up.

That said, as a heterosexual and former “Born-Again” Christian who’s had many gay and lesbian friends over the years (and “seen the light” in a real-world perspective, leaving Christianity far behind), I’ve seen more loving, lasting relationships amongst homosexuals than those who profess the “sanctity of marriage”. At a 50%+ divorce rate, I would assume some of these people should have larger problems to deal with amongst themselves (and those who can already get married free of discrimination).

The “Golden Rule” hypocracy — one of many — from those who would rather strip the rights from their fellow men and women yet complain about “religious oppression” when someone bad-mouths religion never ceases to amaze me.

It’s been time to grant homosexuals equal rights (marriage, among them) — ever since this nation was founded. Anything else is tantamount to giving “second-class human” status to homosexuals, which, to me, is a greater crime than most I can fathom.

Support equal rights for all — not just for those that Christianity and the “moral majority” hand-pick as being “qualified”.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

If state legislatures voted to reinstitute slavery and a judge overturned it, would that be “activist” or “leftist”? If a majority of the people decided that we should execute all Muslims, and a judge overturned it, would that be “activist” or “leftist”?

The Tyranny of the Majority is the true abomination in this debate; a mob mentality that believes that if enough people want something, it will be so.

By jim d

June 13, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

“people have voted to ban gay unions as marriage.”

Really? When was that?

By RWH

June 13, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

Everyone of us should take pride in being a human-being. When anyone of us start to cut ourselves short of that; we put ourselves in a whole new situation(s). We have gone to remodeling things that we should not; and we have put subject matters into the forefront where we have elected to select what is wrong and right about ourselves. We see men marrying men; women marrying women and we have seen countless of problems with (same-sex) doing what they want and want the entire United States of America to accept it. This same sex marriage will be in the arena for countless of years….and there can be no legal way of solving it. If a state agree; it is rejected by the state higher court, and then the federal courts, and so on….! We have come to terms with Man and Woman marrying to create families for our generation to come; we need male as well as females to carry on the growth of this country. Without men and women forming a union with eachother creating more males and females; we are witnessing the stoppage of human-beings in general. Nothing short of it can careate what nature has been doing since this world was created. I do not think it is right for anyone to bash those who are (people who love the same sex as they are.) What remain the problem is; they want all of america to accept what they are doing. We all need to be honest, forthright and just. There cannot be a two-way arena with accepting something that will not help in the creation of this human- being populations. If those who wish to be gay-individuals; that is your on rights you elect to exercise. For those who will not accept the gay-rights issues, that is their on decisions. You cannot solve this issue swaying one against the other and our laws and society will not accept anything short than doing what is right according to the laws and our Fore-Fathers who established the written laws for which this country must conduct itself.

By time for the truth

June 13, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Russ

you are one sorry dishonest moron!!

its not the “love” that is being condemned by me and many others - its the arrogant, illegal imposition of homo marriage by leftist mayors etc. its the leftist judges circumventing the will of the people - as in state legislatures and state ballot rejections of homo marriage

this “straight” term is absolutely pathetic. its homos and their apologists who use terms like this, along with heterosexual … “gay” is wholly a micky mouse term made up to “soften” the factual homosexual ‘description’. no one ever used the term/word heterosexual for centuries, until shrill homos started to.

normal folks are rarely obsessed with announcing to the world their sexuality, unlike so many homos who spend their whole lives obsessing over this!!

grow up!!

By GreatDaneBoy

June 13, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

TLC:

What does one single word of what you have written have anything to do with the debate at hand? What do all of your bible quotes have to do with the legal system???? Save your scriptures for bible study class where they belong. You have no right to force your religion on everyone else.

Time for Truth:

Those “lefty judges” are protecting YOU!!!! The whole reason that the GA gay marriage ammendment was struck down was because it posed two different questions at once: should gay marriage be banned, and should civil unions between gays be banned (two separate questions—that’s outlawed in the Constitution). At the end of your post, you say “civil unions yes - homo marriage NO”. Well, that is EXACTLY what that judge is trying to uphold. Why would you possibly have a problem with someone who is upholding your own views????????????

By Jeff

June 13, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

jim d,

state and local ballots, where have you been?

By Charles Turner

June 13, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Most heterosexual men that are married are cruising the Gay sites trying to pick up men. Women have no idea what their men are up to. its stagering how many quote straight men try to hit on me. If you want to ban gay marringe then refund all of my tax dollars that send you damn kids to school.

By Gary

June 13, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Without men and women forming a union with each other creating more males and females; we are witnessing the stoppage of human-beings in general. Nothing short of it can careate what nature has been doing since this world was created.

Here’s a red herring if I’ve ever seen one. This assumes that all of a sudden millions upon millions of heterosexuals will become gay, thus crating zero or even negative population growth.

That really doesn’t seem all that likely from a sociological standpoint. Homosexuality is a small-percentage demographic that have only been able to become public in the last few decades — and they were under the radar for so long precisely because of this kind of discriminatory indoctrination.

Just ask your neighbors if they’ll go gay overnight and marry another man/woman, but don’t blame me if you end up in the hospital with a broken nose for it. It’s just idiotic and illogical from any standpoint at best.

By Realist

June 13, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Perversion is quite simply, perversion. Those who insist on attempts to make deviant behavior normal and justified are simply fooling themselves. The age old problems that cross the lines of lust and love have been elevated to a new state of confusion, with the goal of today’s Homosexual population, attempting to have their relationships recognized as a legal marriage. You should be careful what you wish for…there is a precise and delicate balance in nature, and attempting to disrupt the configuration or natural order to satisfy lustful needs or longings is akin to opening Pandora’s Box. Society needs to wake up and face the music and acknowledge the fact that Homosexuality is the committing of an unatural act. It’s unnatural and will always be unnatural (The primary design element in all of nature is first and foremost-need, and the purpose and need for sex is to pro-create). Pro-creation resulted in all of us being here, including The Homosexuals. The purpose and need for Homosexuality is desire and desire only, which means that it’s roots are a product of Lust! The natural union between a man and a woman that keeps life going should not be disfigured to satisfy perverse tastes. Husband and Wife is the natural order, not husband and husband, or wife and wife. It even looks and sounds silly to suggest a same sex marriage! It reminds me of the notion that some people feel like there should be Gay Rights! (These are legal rights that are based upon a person’s sexual preference?) Now what rights should a man poking another man have, or a woman lapping another woman have, that a man and woman making love should not have? It absolutely makes no sense. Live and let Live, If Homosexuality is your thing, live your life, just don’t try to alter life as we know it, to suit your desires.

By Gary

June 13, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

…there is a precise and delicate balance in nature, and attempting to disrupt the configuration or natural order to satisfy lustful needs or longings is akin to opening Pandora’s Box.

Explain the legion of animalian species with confirmed homosexual demographics, then? Ducks, penguins, and even primates among many others. It’s an outright lie to Christianity to claim that this is unnatural, because God created the animals, let’s remember. And if there are confirmed homosexual traits found in so many species… I’ll let you draw the logical conclusion.

But hey, that would require real science, and we can’t have that, can we? It might just prove you wrong (as it has, multiple times).

By jim d

June 13, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Thank you Gary,

I really get charged up over the religious right in this country spreading the deciet and lies. They insist we were founded on christian principals and often use Jeffersons words “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man.”

When they see the word “God” many Christians see this as “proof” of his Christianity without thinking that “God” can have many definitions ranging from nature to supernatural.

Yet how many of them realize that this passage aimed at attacking the tyranny of the Christian clergy of Philadelphia, or that Jefferson’s God was not the personal god of Christianity? Those memorial words came from a letter written to Benjamin Rush in 1800 in response to Rush’s warning about the Philadelphia clergy attacking Jefferson (Jefferson was seen as an infidel by his enemies during his election for President).

The complete letter reads as follows:

“To Dr. Benjamin Rush - Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800”

“DEAR SIR, — I have to acknolege the receipt of your favor of Aug. 22, and to congratulate you on the healthiness of your city. Still Baltimore, Norfolk & Providence admonish us that we are not clear of our new scourge. When great evils happen, I am in the habit of looking out for what good may arise from them as consolations to us, and Providence has in fact so established the order of things, as that most evils are the means of producing some good. The yellow fever will discourage the growth of great cities in our nation, & I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts, but the useful ones can thrive elsewhere, and less perfection in the others, with more health, virtue & freedom, would be my choice.

names to objects of any kind after persons still living. Death alone can seal the title of any man to this honor, by putting it out of his power to forfeit it. There is one other mode of recording merit, which I have often thought might be introduced, so as to gratify the living by praising the dead. In giving, for instance, a commission of chief justice to Bushrod Washington, it should be in consideration of his integrity, and science in the laws, and of the services rendered to our country by his illustrious relation, &c. A commission to a descendant of Dr. Franklin, besides being in consideration of the proper qualifications of the person, should add that of the great services rendered by his illustrious ancestor, Bn Fr, by the advancement of science, by inventions useful to man, &c. I am not sure that we ought to change all our names. And during the regal government, sometimes, indeed, they were given through adulation; but often also as the reward of the merit of the times, sometimes for services rendered the colony. Perhaps, too, a name when given, should be deemed a sacred property.

forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.

paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke’s,) which I fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom. You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state. I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it’s effect on our state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection. Adieu.

By Amanda

June 13, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

i really hope that some of you end up with gay children. let’s see how you want to deal with it then.

By Cody

June 13, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

The Republicans don’t give a rip about protecting the “sanctity of the institution of marriage”. If they did then they wouldn’t get divorced at the same rate as the rest of Americans. They are just using this gay marriage amendment to once again proclaim themselves as the voice for moral American values. If they really want to start “protecting” marriage then they should pass a constitutional amendment that bans divorce. Isn’t that what the real threat to marriage is these days? Then we’ll see how many people would be in favor of a constitutional amendment that actually denies an opportunity instead of provides one. Part of the problem is that the Republican party is so overwrought with fundamentalist Christians. Many fundamentalist Christian Republicans seek to use the government to exercise oppression over others whom they consider to not be living by “God’s law”. That’s the problem when you allow the U.S. goverment to be run by people who insert their own religious agendas. Everyone else has to pay for it. I don’t think gays or lesbians care if their marriages aren’t recognized by God’s law. All they care about is that they are recognized by American law. And WAKE UP PEOPLE- the two are DIFFERENT!

By Gary

June 13, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Also, insofar as “special gay rights”, let’s not forget that the “moral majority” is creating “special anti-gay legislation” which in effect is a special law for a subgroup of humanity.

I don’t think ANY group should have rights above and beyond one another, such as Colorado’s Amendment 2 in the 90s, but by crafting anti-gay legislation the “moral majority” has done just that — placed themselves above homosexuals in the hierarchy.

Real cool, there.

By joyce haire

June 13, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Thank you George for a profound answer. Unfortunately no one will listen to you, on either side.

By Gary

June 13, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

jim d, thanks. Too many people spout red herrings and outright lies because they’re afraid of a 5% demographic taking over the institution of marriage and “corrupting” it for — gasp — love and tenderness!

Like I said, with a 50% divorce rate, you’d think Christians have bigger fish to fry, but apparently not. And people wonder why I ditched Christianity post-haste.

i really hope that some of you end up with gay children. let’s see how you want to deal with it then.

I’d deal with it just like I’d deal with my son or daughter telling me they want to become a Doctor or President someday — love them with all my heart and see that they become the most they can be in life.

Why, was there some “deprogramming” method all these parents should be forcing their kids into? Because, frankly, that’s kind of perverted in its own right.

By Gary

June 13, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

BTW, Amanda, that wasn’t directed at you. :)

I’ve seen kids go through such hell as young homosexuals, constantly derided and put down as unequal by Christian (and even non-Christian) parents. I’ve had friends threatened into those “deprogramming” camps before, and frankly the fact they even exist is horrifying.

By yolad'oro

June 13, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

To all of you that keep quoting the bible, Please research the history of the bible. you will be amazed to discover that it has been rewriting, updated, revised to accomadate our social changes thru-out history. Do like I did compare your great-great grandmother’s bible to a modern time bible. It will leave you speechless!

By B

June 13, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Government should stay out of the business of marriage. That is a religious institution and as such has no business being dictated by the state.

Civil unions have no basis in religion and therefore should be the jurisdiction of the state.

Change the government forms, change the government licenses - we replace “marriage” with “civil union”. Problem solved.

If two gay men wish to be afforded all the LEGAL rights - and be recognized by the state - they should be afforded the same rights as anyother couple.

However, If two gay men want to get married - that is an issue between themselves, their Church and God.

By Gary

June 13, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

B —

You bring up my favorite argument and I totally agree with you there.

The only reason marriage licensing was created and the right usurped by the state was to prevent race mixing/interracial marriages in the time of Reconstruction.

Thusly, I advocate State withdrawal from marriage licensing outside of administrative record-keeping. The State shouldn’t be in the business of morality enforcement.

By dawn

June 13, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Well let’s see what is being taught to our children from the hip hop generation they worship. Women are to be disrespected, cursed at, beaten if necessary, sexually used by various men at the same time, impregnated (and left - not married). This is what should scare everyone regardless of political jibber jabber. To each his own. PLEASE STOP LETTING THE REPUBLICANS PLAY EVERYBODY LIKE THE IDIOTS THEY TAKE US FOR. THEY DID IT IN 2004. THEN THEY RAN THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING THROUGH THE ROOF, MADE IT TOUGHER FOR US TO GET FINANCIAL RELIEF, GOT 1000’S OF INNOCENT AMERICANS (MOSTLY YOUNG POOR TO MIDDLE CLASS MINORITIES AND COUNTLESS IRAQIS KILLED, TIPPED THE BALANCE OF PEACE AND POWER OUT OF WHACK, AND ENRICHED THEMSELVES AT OUR EXPENSE. Call me crazy but we need to make some real change and get people in office who do not treat us like ignorant puppets.

By jim d

June 13, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

Good point Gary,

According to the History of Marriage Licenses in America

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

By Chris

June 13, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

What dumbfounds me is how someone thinks that my marriage to my partner will effect their marriage. If they feel that way then their marriage is rocky in the first place. They should look at thier own marriage before pointing fingers at others.

My partner and I were married in Toronto last fall. Hopefully when ever the USA decides that same sex marriage is legal we will already be married.

A big cheer to those in same sex relationships that have taken the extra steps to make their relationship legal.

By Tommy

June 13, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

..religion is for the weak-minded, the gullable, the pathetic fringe of modern society. Arguing with them about religion is like trying to reason with a bible-thumping nut/freak on the street corner. I feel sorry for them…

By Starchild

June 13, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

This country may have been founded on Christian principals but there are many other principals and religions in the country now. It’s time to stop being so narrow minded and open ourselves, along with our shores, to other ideas. Get with it, folks, the world is changing and you need to change with it.

By fedup

June 13, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

Here’s how I see it. The government should stay out of the “marriage” business altogether. The government should only allow “civil unions,” and anyone gay or straight who wants one should be able to get one.

Now, if you are looking for more of a religious twist on your union rather than just a legal arrangement… you get married in a church. Marriage is intended as a sacrament and is a religious arrangement not a legal arrangement. Then, it will be up to each church to decide whether gays in may engage in the sacrament of marriage in their own church.

The “gubment” should stay out of religion before they screw it up like they have the public school system.

By Boscaverde

June 13, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

First, to discuss Beni’s original point, of course there are so many things that are more important to this nation than the perceived threat of gay marriage. For instance, the national debt poses a much bigger threat to the nation’s children than gay marriage…$8.4 trillion and counting. That’s an average over $1,000 out of the pocket of every man, woman and child every year in debt interest. Bringing up the gay marriage subject again was an obvious political move by Republicans. If they say it is not so, then they are lying. No one thought that there was a chance for this to pass, but Bill Frist thought it was important that the votes get on the record. This means that the Republicans want to be able to wave it around in November.

Should gay marriage be legalized? Not really. Actually, government should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave that to the churches. Call them civil unions, or call them something else, but there needs to be some sort of union that is acknowledged by the government that is equal for any couple…straight or gay. Discussing marriage automatically brings religion into the discussion, and breeds arguments.

I’m impressed by the amount of thoughtful discussion on this topic. I did not expect that to occur. Of course both sides also have their share of not-so-intelligent posts; however it seems that the anti-gay group far leads the pack in these. They seem to basically boil down to either ‘because gays are icky’ or ‘because I said so’ (or perhaps I should say ‘because God said so…maybe…sort of…in books actually written by man…but ignore the parts in the Bible that I don’t like such as discussions of slavery and divorce).

Please don’t use the procreation argument. I’m married to a wonderful woman and we’re not having kids. Using this argument, we shouldn’t be married.

Also, please don’t use the ‘majority of the people say’ argument. As it’s been noted, we’re not a democracy, and we expect our representatives to be more intelligent than the people as a whole. If you based the laws of this nation on the opinions of the majority at the time the laws were made, then this nation would be a much worse place to live (For instance, go Google under Georgia and civil rights movement).

By the way, Sonny…if you have a special session of the GA legislature to discuss a gay marriage ban, then the money better be coming out of your pocket. Even if it needs to be discussed, it can wait until next year.

By John

June 13, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Greetings all,

Your comments are diverse and entertaining. It seems as though most of you support the idea of same-sex marriage, and you make some lucid points.

I believe it is wonderful that we can freely debate such issues in an open forum and exchange ideas and philosophies.

I am one of those ignorant, bigoted, unenlightened, homophobic, right-wing Christian Bible thumpers that you refer to. Thanks for the compliments!

Man has debated the issue of homosexuality since the earliest times. At the crux of the issue is agenda: whose agenda do we follow … our flawed agenda, or God’s perfect agenda?

In the beginning, God created man in His own image. God brought Eve to Adam and said it was good. God established the institution of marriage. God established the family. That is the undeniable, inarguable fact.

Then the enemy of God, Satan the serpent, entered the Garden and twisted God’s truth. We fallible humans, with our God-granted free choice, made the wrong decision and screwed everything up.

Since The Fall, we have struggled with sin (which simply means disobedience to God’s perfect law).

God established marriage as a man and a woman because He is all-knowing and perfect. God could have established homosexual marriage, but He did not.

Every time God says, “Thou shalt,” He is telling us to help ourselves.

Everytime God says “Thou Shalt Not,” He is lovingly warning us not to hurt ourselves.

We are all sinners in need of a savior. The only savior that is sufficient is the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the solution to our sin. He alone is our hope for eternal salvation and fellowship with God.

Thank you for considering my viewpoint. In closing, I leave you with a verse from the inerrant, infallible, perfect, pure Word of the Almighty and Living God, who lovingly created us and alone is worthy of all our praise, worship, and adoration …

John 10:10 - “Jesus answered, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”

By jim d

June 13, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Starchild,

Have you even bothered to read the posts above?

WE WERE NOT founded on Christian principals

By Gary

June 13, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

jim d, thanks for the backup there. I really need to find a good copy of Black’s Law Dictionary sometime.

Chris, my best wishes to you and your partner! As a married heterosexual, it’s patently absurd to even think for a minute that your marriage would have any effect on ours. Every word you said was dead-on.

By Rob and Clay Calhoun

June 13, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

We shared our family’s personal story with a previous ajc blog… We are a very loving two-daddy family with a beloved three-year-old daughter and a beloved five-month-old son, both of whom we jointly adopted at birth. We’ve been a very happy couple for 14 years (we fell in love at ages 23 & 24 and now we’re now 37 & 38), and we had our wedding 13 years ago as husband and husband. And, we were legally married outside of Georgia a couple of years ago (even though Georgia won’t legally recognize our marriage license). The two of us are soul mates, very much in love. We were married for ten years before starting our family, for which we jointly adopted both of our children at birth from the same birth mother (who personally handpicked us to be the parents, with each birth fathers’ consent) in a private, open adoption. We are very loving parents and our two children mean the entire world to us. One of us stays home full-time to take care of our kids while the other of us works full-time to support our family. We are so proud and happy to be our children’s Daddy and Dad.

All of this talk of forever banning gay couples and gay parents from ever being able to legally marry in our country— and enshrining bigotry and discrimination into our country’s revered Constitution— is incredibly disheartening and saddening to us. This constitutional amendment would not only be against us as a couple and family, but it would also be against our two children. It would send a message against our two children that the United States government hates us. We believe in our heart that marriage equality will happen in our lifetime in our great country, as it has in Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, and other countries. People who bring up outrageous and hurtful comparisons such as polygamy (or worse) are ridiculous; for example, gay couples have been adopting children for years, and in family law, there’s no such thing as legalized, polygamous adoptions. Marriage for all loving couples is such a basic and fundamental human right. In our eyes, marriage is the most special and joyful freedom in the entire world, a freedom the two of us do not have here in Georgia. We are already happily married in our hearts and we are already married as soul mates, but we are waiting for the day when our marriage will be legally recognized. Our life together is totally focused on loving, raising and nurturing our daughter and son. We love our two children so much!!!!!

Thank you for listening to one family’s story. Take care…

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

In the beginning, God created man in His own image. God brought Eve to Adam and said it was good. God established the institution of marriage. God established the family. That is the undeniable, inarguable fact.

I believe, when you look back, that this is the key paragraph that proves that you are stupid. You see, there are many people who do, in fact, argue and deny this. One must believe the innerancy of the Christian Bible (and there are so many versions to choose from!) in order for this to be innarguable.

See, I think the Bible is hooey. BS. Nonsense. Superstitious garbage recycled by thousands of years of non-thinkers too terrified to take responsibility for their own actions and own morality. So, clearly, I am arguing with your historically indefensible assertion.

By Amanda

June 13, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Gary - I didn’t take it as such. I can see how devout Christians can have a personal problem with homosexuality. The real issue to me, though (as many others have brought up) is that, regardless of your personal issues with it, separation of church and state keeps it from being a government issue. I, too, have seen many young homosexuals live miserably in the closet for fear of rejection from family and friends. It’s so very sad to me.

While people are name calling, I wish they could remember that the people they are bashing are someone’s children (God’s, if you want to look at it that way). And that many of the parents are probably Christian. It’s unfair for society to accept casual heterosexual sex as “the way things are”, and then to turn a cold shoulder to a committed, loving homosexual relationship.

By LG

June 13, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

First, the Constitution was based on the Iroquois National agreement. The tribes were all separate but the agreement held them together as one nation. They weren’t Christian by any means.

If the Bible is the word of God, then why do the gospels contradict each other? The Bible is the word of controlling bishops, popes, and kings.

Do you really think God would give us free will and then punish us for using it. It would be like telling someone that it was okay to pet your dog, and then smacking them upside the head for doing so.

I’m more agreeable to same-sex marriage than I am to a 23 year older wanting to marry a 14 year older. If it’s two adults wanting to get married, so be it who cares what sex they are. My uncle and his partner have a better relationship than my mom and my dad.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Oh, and the difference between me and you, John, is that no matter how ludicrous or foolish I find your beliefs, I believe that you have the right to have them. I don’t want to limit your life, deny you legal rights, or anything else.

You, on the other hand, the understanding Christian that you are, DO want to demonize and criminalize anyone with whom you disagree.

That’s what makes me a decent human being, and you bigoted scum.

By jim d

June 13, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Dear John,

1 Corinthians 13:1-15

By James

June 13, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

The fact that your ‘good book’ is still in print and says that everyone who doesn’t follow it will burn in Hell doesn’t mean it’s true. And for an entire Nation to be held hostage to your political Christian opinion is outrageous!

By X

June 13, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Here is the solution. Send Mexico one Homosexual for every illegal here in the States. See how fast things get legal here and homosexuals keep their animal behavior to themselves.

By To be or not to be

June 13, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

I agree that the GOP is using the gay marriage issue again as a ploy to get voters angry enough to support them, regardless of what shape the rest of the country is in. I cannot for the life of me figure out how the lesbian couple down the street damages or weakens anyone’s marriage. The real scare is the ignorant thought that they will “turn children gay”. If two straight parents do not guarantee a straight child, why would two gay parents turn the kids gay? Most gay parents will tell you, they just want their kids to be happy, regardless of their sexual orientation. Isn’t that what we all want?

The idea of it may seem far reaching to some but who on earth is qualified to judge the actions of another consenting adult? Our country was founded on religious freedom, not Christian values. Our constitution is based on the division between church and state so taking my religious views out, legally I cannot see why they should be denied this fundamental right. If you do not want gays to get married, then don’t marry a gay person. Finally, this issue will not be the one that makes my decision to vote one way or the other. There are just so many other important issues at this time.

By the way, George, although it takes a man and a woman to create a baby, that is not a requirement to raise one. A lot of kids are here who have no parents and need homes. It could be a win-win situation if people would let go their own prejudices.

Ht burness, the issue is not religion. A true Christian is forgiving, not judgemental. Keep in mind that Jesus comes to save souls of the needy, outcasts, poor, etc. so while you sit and judge think about who is really being served and saved.

Craig, good point.

X, gay is not a cover for anything. It is a word that is used the same as homosexual. I don’t have the exact history on the word but it had more to do with not wanting to say the word “sexual” in general conversation. The gays are not trying to get acceptance, there are trying to get their rights. The same rights that all of our forefathers fought for us to have. Big difference.

Chris, I promise you, no one “chooses” to be gay, we are truly the “chosen” ones. But what about the children who were molested, turned gay and not given a choice? How do we help them?

Jack, you are too far gone to even make a comment on. Grow up!

Time for truth, we have been waiting for someone to tell us how gay marriage undermines marriage. Could you explain?
There are times in history when you have to do what is right, not necessarily what is popular. During the 60’s most people did not support civil rights. But it was truly the right thing to do. So the fact that “the majority” did not want this does not make it right. Normal marriage has been one man with multiple wives. Check your history. Western culture decided it should change and did so. Does that mean it should never change again? Finally, you should not quote figures that cannot be proven. 6% may say they are gay but there are millions that practice it and do not consider themselves gay. Have you heard of bisexuals?

Atlgayman, I know where you are coming from but unfortunately, the difference in wording is also a difference in law. If it were to include everything fine. Your example was poor.

By jim d

June 13, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Rob and Clay,

Thanks for sharing.

Your courage and love for each other outweighs anything said by the bigots that condemn you.

By Michelle

June 13, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

I welcome anyone to try to make a legitimate argument against gay marriage that doesn’t contain a religious reference. Maybe at one time marriage was a “sacred religious institution” but in this day of age of Brittney Spears drive thru marriage and annulments while you wait, it’s nothing more than a legal agreement. To deny legal rights to any section of our population is discrimination, no matter what face you put on it.

By Brian Jones

June 13, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

So lets pull out the ol’ history and try to peel some smoke and mirror off this issue. Number one, for everyone that wants to say that America was founded on Christian values, please remember that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were all Deists. The references to god in all original documents make reference to ‘the creator’, ‘divine providence’, and ‘nature’s god’ all of which are deistic appelations to a non-interfering god. No Jehova, no god of Abraham, no Almight, no Lord Jesus, just acknowledgement of the first cause.

Moving on, for those who feel that the biblical god created marraige as a holy sacrement, please note that marraiges existed millinea prior to your religion’s existance, and were used prodominantly as a method for political unification, not love, not familiy, but to join houses for wealth and power.

Now for every one that wants to say that as the bible defines marraige, so should america define marraige, please see the prior statements. Marraige and American values existed just fine without Christian medling, and they can continue to do so. Please remove your scriptures from my courtrooms and hand my lesbian roommates the right to be married and live happily in knowledge that the health insurance of one can care for the illnesses of the one she loves.

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

@time for the truth…you’re a fine one to tell someone else to grow up. homo, leftist, homo, leftist. You think that just because you the O’Reilly Factor you’re a proverbial expert on everything? I watch “Overhauling” but you’re not going to see me volunteering to rebuild and repaint a classic car. You still haven’t provided a verifiable source for your statistics. What’s the matter? Can’t find one other than the voices inside your head? Hate Bush?? Hate is a strong word. I know that I don’t hate the man…I don’t know him personally and am therefore not qualified to make that statement. The opinions I’m expressing have nothing to do with my personal feelings about the Bush Administration at all. As far as Leftist Judges (there’s your tired old rant again)…have you noticed that this issue seems to come up with the right wing approval rating is sliding into the gutter? What does that tell you? Anything?? Grow up yourself!!!

@ GA_Peach3….I truly LOVE your attitude! You seem to have a good grasp of what should really happen!! Who knew that “love thy neighbor” would become such a foreign phrase?

By George

June 13, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

I don’t care if it is called “marriage” or “civil unions.” All I want is the government to allow me to pass the house on to my partner if I die without him having to pay taxes on it. All I want is for him to be able to receive my social security benefits if I die first. All I want is what other people are entitled to when they are in a relationship. But the debate has been tainted by Christian extremists who are only huritng the gay people in their own families. These are the same people who wanted the government off our backs.

By BOB

June 13, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

BENI, I LOVE MY ST. BERNARD, WE WANT TO GET MARRIED. TRUST ME, ITS REALLY TRUE LOVE, I HOPE YOU WILL GIVE US YOUR SUPPORT….WHERE WILL YOU LIBERALS DRAW THE LINE ON MORALITY.

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

@BOB…I wish you and your St. Bernard the best! I bet HE’S a looker!

By Butt Out

June 13, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

These Christians are so quick to quote a book that was written 2000 years ago when it suits their purpose but what about the scriptures that they don’t follow? Leviticus is full of things that you can and can’t do. Do the Christians follow all these scriptures? No. But this one thing they shout from the rooftops about. It is ludicrous. Love is love. God would understand that. And who else remembers that polygamy was a standard of marriage in the bible? Yet polygamy was outlawed also. Christians-do us all a favor and keep your religious beliefs to yourselves. If your god thinks it is an abomination then don’t marry anyone of the same sex, don’t even go to the ceremony. I don’t need you protecting me from god. If he has a problem with my choices let him tell me so. Butt out.

By Gary

June 13, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Well, another point to consider is, given recent polls in the news, if the Republicans keep up the anti-gay legislation fight (State and Federal) soon a majority will approve of gay marriage. It’s switched from mid-60% opposed, and now it’s around 53% if I remember the article correctly. And falling fast.

It would appear all the ranting by the right (and I’m not a liberal, mind you) is giving people reason to pause and reconsider their position due to how outright bigoted it comes off — and is, in reality.

So, keep making it an issue and I’ll remember it along with many others come Election Day this November — you can take that to the bank.

However, what’s even more disressing in Georgia is that the D’s and R’s are falling all over themselves to re-craft this anti-gay legislation. It’s pathetic, and truly a show of how alike they really are in the grand political scheme.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

BENI, I LOVE MY ST. BERNARD, WE WANT TO GET MARRIED. TRUST ME, ITS REALLY TRUE LOVE, I HOPE YOU WILL GIVE US YOUR SUPPORT….WHERE WILL YOU LIBERALS DRAW THE LINE ON MORALITY

Ah, the classics are always the best, aren’t they? Slippery-slope falacy #1 - Gay marriage leads to beastiality.

Well, no Bob. It doesn’t. And gay marriage isn’t a liberal or conservative issue. I do understand that you are most likely incappable of understanding political debate that is not divided into labels and absolutes, however, so I’ll cut you a little slack.

Now, Bob, gay marriage would be the extension of certain legal rights and responsibilities already available to an opposite-gender pair of consenting adults to a same-gender pair of consenting adults. Do you see how that’s just a very small expansion of an existing legal contract to a similar-but-not-identical group?

Having a man marry an animal, on the other hand, would not only require the creation of an entirely NEW legal contract, but would also violate the idea of two consenting adults choosing to enter into a binding, state-granted legal contract with each other.

Now, don’t you see how silly your little all-caps rant sounds, Bob? I knew you would.

By LLove

June 13, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Jesus loves…..sin is sin….he is the forgiver of sin by God. Jesus loves…AGAPE LOVE.

By Nu_to_ATL

June 13, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

I have read much debate on both sides, and have to admit that I am biased as I am a gay man. That aside, why does our government even have to define marriage. A majority of people oppose same sex marriage (both left and right wingers) and want to “protect” the sanctity of marriage, but sanctity is a religious term and should be stricken from the government’s vocabulary. It would be a much better debate and a more level playing field for our government was to only recognize civil unions and let the men and women of faith and religion define marriage. My government has no business in my faith, nor does it have the right to interpret the Bible, Koran, torah or any other religous document. I pledge my life to my patner…something no government can take away from me…something no religion can take away from me. But why do I not receive the benefits and tax breaks that are rightfully mine to have? Let the law manage it like a contract (which marriage is considered in a court of law), and let the religions define the word marriage.

By Jeff

June 13, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

A clever lawyer can create partnerships to confer most of the economic advantages of marriage. Durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance-any of these can be tailored to cover homosexual relationships without the need for marriage.

By BOB

June 13, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

RED HERRING, “GAY MARRIAGE WOULD BE THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES…WHICH WOULD STRENGTHEN THE FLEXIBLE INPUT METHODOLOGY OF BLA BLA BLA…BULL… OPEN THE DOOR TO THIS PERVERSION AND YOU OPEN IT FOR ALL PERVERSIONS. I THOUGHT I WOULD CUT YOU SOME SLACK… GET IT.

By John

June 13, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

I also would like to know how same sex marriage would diminish heterosexual marriage? From what I can tell the religious right and others are using marriage as a weapon in order to legalize bigotry. Remember when blacks and whites couldnt marry?

For my part, same sex marriage is more important for for partners with regard to transferrance of inheritance and making medical and legal decisions.

When I was younger I had a friend whose family had thrown him out of the house at 15 because he “came out” to them. They never spoke to him again. Although he’d struggled and lived on the streets for a time, he succeeded in life. In fact, when he died he had amassed millions of dollars which he left to his partner of 15 years. However, the same family who’d disowned him quickly swept in and took everything. His partner could do nothing about it because his relationship wasn’t legally recognized. So the family who would have nothing to do with him and would not speak to him, inherited everything that my friend had earned in spite of his bigoted and disgraceful family.

Now tell me that his Christian family acted in a Christian manner and then tell me that Christians are do gooders and honest and forthright….

By Just Passing Through

June 13, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Jeff — a marriage license grants that for a few dollars. Your clever lawyer would charge thousands of dollars to re-create for a same sex couple what your few dollars buys in a marriage license. How is that a solution?

By Debbie

June 13, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Why not go the same way that they have in the UK - have same-sex couples able to have a ‘civil union’ ceremony not a wedding. This allows them to have legal rights in the same way as a heterosexual couple has, but the religious “married” aspect has been removed.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

The “lawyer can create it” argument is equally falacious. Can a lawyer ensure the sharing of social security benefits? No. Can a lawyer create the tax breaks of marriage? No.

Sorry, Jeff. Separate-and-not-equal doesn’t cut it.

Um, Bob…try English, OK? If you can see through the spittle on your screen.

By Richard

June 13, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

It baffles me that so-called Christians use the bible to debate against homosexuality. Isn’t divorce a SIN? Will the subject of divorce impact the pockets of the church, because so many Christians have been married 2,3 or 4 times? Marraige between a man and women for years has been a joke!!! I guess the GAYS are causing the divorce rate in America to increase?

By atlmichelle

June 13, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Why does everyone always bring up what is stated in the bible as a valid reason as to why gays shouldn’t marry.

NOT EVERYONE is religious or believes the bible’s views or in the bible at all.

I thinking finding that one person who makes you the happiest in life is the most important thing.

Gays will be able to marry in the future. My generation is coming into the forefront …so stop trying to push your values on the rest of us.

By Michelle

June 13, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

There was a time when inter-racial marriage was illegal, the majority supported it staying illegal for all the same reasons opponents of gay marriage use today, most of which were also based on religious arguments. Today anyone who opposes interracial marriage is considered a bigot, but it still seems socially acceptable to oppose gay rights.

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Hey Everybody!! Bob seems to have his panties in a wad. Just look at the way he’s screaming to make his point (noting the “all caps” typing). I guess the relationship with his St. Bernard isn’t as fulfilling as he thought it would be.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

There was a time when inter-racial marriage was illegal, the majority supported it staying illegal for all the same reasons opponents of gay marriage use today, most of which were also based on religious arguments. Today anyone who opposes interracial marriage is considered a bigot, but it still seems socially acceptable to oppose gay rights

It has to do with the loss of enemies, I think. Some religious groups feel the need to maintain power over their followers, and the easiest way to do so is to give them all a common enemy to fight.

However, there has been a enemy-of-my-enemy mentality emerging of late. Protestants and Catholics now ally on many issues. Evangelicals ally with Israel and Orthodox Judaism because of their eschatalogical fantasies, etc. The traditional enemies are now friends.

The religious fundamentalists and extremists need someone to hate, so why not hate gays!

By keisha

June 13, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Can someone please explain to me why its okay for heterosexual superstars and not so superstar couples to have kids out of wedlock, marry and divorce every 2-3 years, but it’s not okay for me and my partner who by the way have been together for 9 years to marry one another.

By j

June 13, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

No one cares what God has to say, that’s apparent. You can just continue to give him the finger and do whatever you want, but when you stand before him after you die, don’t say I didn’t warn you. Aside from God’s warnings, here are some statistical facts, which I’m sure you’ll be quick to fling aside, and somehow find a way to “sugar coat” or dismiss. But I’ll post it anyway, because I won’t shut up. —Homosexual males avg. lifespan is only 43 years, according to the only known study, conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron. (Note: gay activists trying to discredit this study have failed to post any information of their own regarding average lifespan www.indegayforum.org/authors/olson/olson27.html). Only 2.8% of the population is gay, 1.4% lesbian* —20% of pedophile cases in the New York public schools are by homosexual teachers. (homosexuality&pedophilia) —In 2002, Homosexual males held 78% of the total AIDS cases according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (click here to view), while making up only 2.8% of the population, according to the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Brief in the landmark, Lawrence V. Texas decision Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that ‘committed’ or ‘coupled’ homosexuals are more apt to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices than are ‘single’ gays. As a consequence of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases. The largest study and the only one based on a random sample, estimated that less than half of a percent of Americans have had a homosexual parent. Those who did were more likely to: 1.report having had sex with a parent, 2.experience homosexuality as their first sexual encounter, 3.be sexually molested, 4.become homosexual or bisexual, and 5.report dissatisfaction with their childhood. The various studies,(31) added together, suggest that the children of homosexuals are at least 3 times more apt to become homosexual than children raised by the traditionally mamed. Further, there is reasonable evidence, both in the empirical literature and in dozens of court cases dealing with the issue,(32) that children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle and/or molested. Finally, substantial evidence(31) suggests that children of homosexuals are more apt to doubt their own sexuality, be embarrassed by their homosexual parent(s), and be teased and taunted by their peers.

By dfm

June 13, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Hmmmm… one poster states; “GOD created me too, and I’m gay!” I’ve heard others say; “I was born gay, this isn’t a lifestyle choice.”

Using that same perverse logic; GOD must have also created pedophile’s, so why are we punishing them for behavior beyond their control??? Surely, they wouldn’t CHOOSE a lifestyle that’d put their freedom at risk??? Yes, I realize your lifestyle “CHOICE,” is between two consenting adults, which is a notable distinction. However, to say GOD made me gay is absurd!!!

It’s not my place to judge anyone, as I’m certainly not without sin, so if you CHOOSE that lifestyle it’s your prerogative. However, it’s not being judgmental to want to protect the institution of marriage, which is a religous — not just Christian — convenant between one man, and one woman.

Otherwise, we should legalize polygamy, marriage between siblings, human & animal etc…

Are heterosexual men and women making a mockery of marriage, with extremely high divorce rates; YES! But, it’s not like anyone is condoning that behavior, like you’re asking us to do with gay marriage.

The people of Georgia overwhelmingly voted — roughly 76% — to approve a ban on gay marriage, and one activist judge overturned the will of the people. A U.S. Constitutional Amendment is the only way to prevent that from happening again.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Gee, “j” and “dfm”, I detect a pattern…those who post with meaningless letters as their handles are 85% more likely to post utter and complete nonsense.

By Boscaverde

June 13, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

For all who are using the Bible as part of their argument, I would like to know:

If the amendment/law included ALL of the following: 1. No gay marriages will be allowed. 2. No divorces will be allowed. 3. Adultery is a crime punishable by jail time.

Would you support this in order to prevent the downfall of marriage?

Would you bang on the doors of your representatives until it passed, and refuse to vote for anyone who did not support this bill in its entirety?

If so, then I still wouldn’t support your argument, but at least I would respect it.

If not, then find something other than the Bible to base your argument on.

By j

June 13, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

redherring, You call CDC info, along with many statistical facts nonsense? Right, just resort to the usual shrugging your shoulders and poo-pooing instead of having something RELEVENT to say.

By Richard

June 13, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

dfm, I would say most heterosexuals do condone the divorce rate!!! Can anyone tell me why pastors, bishops, whomever never speak about divorce on Sunday mornings? Because it will impact the financial pockets of the church when so many church-going divorced folks start walking out!!!

By Nu_to_ATL

June 13, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

So I see that the trump cards are being played. First…any and every doctor worth their degree will tell you that AIDS is not a gay man’s disease. Second…children of gay parents are more likely to be tormented in school? They are tormented by children who are raised by bigotted parents, perpetuating the hostility that has no place in school. And children are more likely to question their sexuality? That is a trick question…everyone questions it, but in the end, you are who you are. There are equal studies that show children of gay parents are more likely to excel in education, as well as be more well-rounded and adjusted for society. They are even shown to be in more supportive and loving environments (per capita) with a lower statistic of family child abuse than in straight couples.

By John

June 13, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

j…the life span study you cite has been discredited time and time again…you need to get some current lies. Please read this,especially the postscript. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/factscameronobit.html

Please cite the rest sources for the rest of your “studies”..

eg.The largest study and the only one based on a random sample…blah, blah Please post your source

Time for truth calls someone a blowhard..hahahaha…pot calling the kettle black..

(on Fox News) O’Reilly claimed a study showed that legalized gay marriage in Sweden caused a drop in heterosexual marriages. In fact, gay marriage per se has not been legalized there—only a form of civil unions has been—and other factors explain the declining rate of heterosexual marriages. First, heterosexual couples who are not married nonetheless have the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, thus removing a major incentive to get married. Second, Sweden has no-fault divorces without legal consequences, providing no incentives for couples to work things out. Finally, the declining rate of heterosexual marriage was occurring rapidly long before gay unions were legalized. (For details see: Eskridge et al. Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate. Issues in Legal Scholarship, Single-Sex Marriage (2004): Article 4.) Note that Robert Gagnon cited the same debunked study in his article, Why Gay Marriage is Wrong.

Why didn’t O’Reilly mention that Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, has the lowest divorce rate (lower than all states that have outlawed gay marriage)?

And I wonder why O’Reilly didn’t cite the Associated Press (12/30/99):

Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination, and are more likely to get a divorce than atheists and agnostics, according to a national survey. [See www.divorcereform.org/mel/rbaptisthigh.html]

So atheists and agnostics usually have better, longer lasting marriages than Baptists, the alleged people of Jesus (who was seemingly quite harsh on divorce). Why didn’t O’Reilly mention this? It’s his job as a reporter to be aware of all the relevant (and easily accessible) facts, especially when dealing with controversial issues.

By Mitch

June 13, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

I found this on another blog. I wish I had written it myself.

Homosexuals are destroying the institution of marriage?

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is “Bob Barr…WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York - divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced

So … homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone’s help!

By j

June 13, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Ah, so the who’s who of the doctor’s community will tell you that AIDS is not a gay man’s disease? Where did you get that info from? I’m very alert to news, and I read up on current issues a lot. Never heard of a doctor saying anything like that. Any doctor denying the facts would probably be a hard core gay proponent, with an agenda to skew the facts. Any doctor who would say that is pushing their own agenda. We both have so called “trump cards” from where we get our facts. I get stats from CDC and you get your facts from a biased pro-gay source that would just love to convince people that everything’s just peachy with children of gay parents. Right.

By Chuck H

June 13, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

Legally, marriage is a contract between two adults. To disallow two people this right violates the constitution. If we want to preserve the institute of marriage, then wives should be the legal property of their husband like slaves used to be. Preserving that institution is just as ridiculous as saying same sex marriage threatens marriage.

By ATLGAYMAN

June 13, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

As I posted earlier… passion, venom, and polarizing opinions are being vented and no progress is being made. The impacting issue is equal rights such as taxes, death benefits etc. This debacle has turned into a moral and theological debated because of the WORD Marriage which does appear in several laws as an exclusionary term. The fact that both sides use the term “GAY marriage” proves the point that marriage IS NOT GAY if it were you would not need the prefix “GAY” . If “my people” would stick to the civil inequalities and quick getting baited in by a WORD debate I do not think this would be a hot button issue. If a legal point of clarification was made that stated “Civil Unions when it comes to civil rights and laws will be treated equally to Marriages” I think that would work for both sides.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Actually, “J”, I call those deliberately misrepresented and misinterpreted statistics containing studies that have been debunked by every reputable scientist and containing the name of a man who is famous for his poor methodology and even poorer conclusions.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Seriously, “J”, I doubt you even know what CDC stands for, much less how to read the statistical information there for yourself.

By j

June 13, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

CDC=Center for Disease Control. And don’t just give me crap about how everything I posted was just debunked by “reputable” scientists. Prove it. Prove that these so called scientists are absolutely unbiased with no hidden agenda.

By j

June 13, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Give me names, funding sources, universtities attended of these scientists. I’d like to do some research.

By dfm

June 13, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Yes Boscaverde, I’d agree with all of your statements regarding marriage, and I respect that you still disagree with me.

Most marriages fail due to infidelity anyway, so making it a felony would hopefully prevent some divorces.

Marriage is a life-time commitment, which is why I’m still single at 43, because I haven’t met a woman I’d like to share the rest of my life with. Marriage is entered into far too lightly, which wouldn’t be the case if you couldn’t divorce so easily, if at all.

My church, that you’re welcome to attend, preached on infidelity last Sunday, and has preached many times against divorce. Not doing so would be hypocritcal!!!

By monty

June 13, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

THe very fact that the gay and lesbian coalition has to mount an indoctrination campaign into our schools and cram that stuff down our innocent children’s throats(they’ve basically decided to get them while they are young and impressionable)strongly shows that there is nothing natural about smae sex”love”. If it was so natural and right it would not take such extraordinary measures to make believers. No parent that I know of before homosexuals “came out” ever talked about it with their young children.It was disgusting.THere has been no campaign to prejudice people’s minds against homosexualism. Because it never has been necessary. Now however it is being shoved in good peoples faces. Even though homosexuals only make up 2-4% of our population we have television shows everywhere trying to legitimize it. Movies being made to “normalize it.” It will take much more propaganda from the left wing before it will ever be nomalized. If all the state senators had voted recently with there constituaents we would have had an amendmant ratified quickly. Homosexualism may oneday be the norm for our nation. But that wouldn’t bode well for our country . Remember Sodom and Gomorrah?

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

CDC=Center for Disease Control. And don’t just give me crap about how everything I posted was just debunked by “reputable” scientists. Prove it. Prove that these so called scientists are absolutely unbiased with no hidden agenda

I realize that because you are brain-washed by people who use science to promote an agenda that you are not able to understand that a real scientist is truly objective and submits his work for peer review prior to its publication. Scientists seek truth, they don’t try to make truth conform to their own preconceptions.

The truth is that you will only see what you want to see. You are so narrow-minded and willing to believe the worst that you will dismiss any study that disproves your distortions as “biased”. You’ve been trained to do that by your real Gods - Limbaugh, Hannity, any organization with “Family” in its name, etc.

You simply aren’t smart enough to distinguish distortion from reality.

By Debbie

June 13, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Thanks ATLGAYMAN - at last a balanced point of view… everyone should try to take religion out of this and look at it from the legal aspect. Don’t call it marriage…

By j

June 13, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Yes monty, totally agree with you there. I’m tired of the silent majority. Time to get LOUD, get TOUGH. 76% of the American people said NO GAY MARRIAGE. No means no. If you want gay marriage that badly, go to denmark where it’s allowed and that way nothing is forced on the U.S. people. We’re not forcing you to stay here.

By j

June 13, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Yes monty, totally agree with you there. I’m tired of the silent majority. Time to get LOUD, and get TOUGH. 76% of the American people said NO GAY MARRIAGE. No means no. If you want gay marriage that badly, go to denmark where it’s allowed and that way nothing is forced on the U.S. people. We’re not forcing you to stay here.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Homosexualism

Yeah, you know this isn’t actually a word, right?

Even though homosexuals only make up 2-4% of our population we have television shows everywhere trying to legitimize it

Even if this figure was right, (It isn’t - the 2% figure is yet another product of the religious right and it’s pseudo-scientists creating fictional data) the size of a population does not justify prejudice or discrimination.

THe very fact that the gay and lesbian coalition has to mount an indoctrination campaign into our schools and cram that stuff down our innocent children’s throats(they’ve basically decided to get them while they are young and impressionable)strongly shows that there is nothing natural about smae sex”love”. If it was so natural and right it would not take such extraordinary measures to make believers.

You…call this a rational conclusion? White people hated black people in this country for decades and black people are perfectly natural…it took some pretty extraordinary measures to make “believers” out of the white bigots in the South…I’m guessing those efforts didn’t work with you?

Seriously, people should learn the meaning of the word “Natural”. It means “occurring in nature”. Since same-sex behavior occurrs accross species lines all the time, in nature it is, by definition, Natural.

Does going to church automatically make you stupid, or does it take time?

By John

June 13, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

j- I know for a fact that you are misquoting statistics (which by the way, according to Ralph Reed can be misinterpreted to suit the situation - and since he’s a right winger, he should get your attention). Provide me with the exact location of the CDC statistics you’ve been quoting.

I have statistics that support that roughly 75% of people who identify themselves as devout Christians having a lower than average IQ. And that’s not nonsense, I really have that info.

In your anti-gay diatribe, me thinks you are to voiciferous (that means eagerly) against homosexeuals. It’s been my xperience that people like you are trying to diguise their own homosexuality by condemning it in others.

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

For all those who believe that being homosexual is a choice I have one question. “How on Earth would YOU know?” Scientific (Psychological) study has proven this to be untrue.

Consider the following (excerpt from from an article by Dr. David Myers, professor of Psychology at Hope College):

“The Brain and Sexual Orientation

New research indicates that sexual orientation is at least partly physiological. Researcher Simon LeVay (1991) discovered this while studying sections of the hypothalmus taken from deceased heterosexual and homosexual people.

As a gay scientist, LeVay wanted to do “something connected with my gay identity,” but he knew he had to avoid biasing the results. So he did the study “blind,” without knowing which donors were gay. After nine months of peering through his microscope at a cell cluster he thought might be important, LeVay sat down one morning and broke the codes.

His discovery: The cell cluster was reliably larger in heterosexual men than in women and homosexual men…..”

Now, I realize that all of you may not be convinced. After all, it’s a study being performed by a gay scientist - and I can understand your reticence. But the article furthers with:

“Laura Allen and Roger Gorski (1992) offered a similar conclusion after discovering that a section of the fibers connecting right and left hemispheres is one-third larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. “The emerging neuroanatomical picture,” notes Brian Gladue (1994), “is that, in some brain areas, homosexual men are more likely to have female-typical neuroanatomy than are heterosexual men.”

Now ask yourselves, could they have performed these studies in ancient times? The answer is obviously “no”. This being the case, how can you fall back on teachings stemming from ancient times, written by mortal men, that are condemnal of something they couldn’t possibly have understood. Further, how can you definitively state that it’s a choice? That’s like saying “heterosexuality is a choice”.

It’s quite clear that there’s a great deal of judgement going on about something that isn’t clearly understood by those doing the judging. Trying to get by with snide commentary and vicious attacks on people who are just looking to protect their rights (and Civil Unions do not offer that protection at this time) is actually quite shameful.

Ask yourselves this “Have I nothing better to do? Aren’t there issues that are, in fact, much more detrimental to me than this? How does this REALLY effect my marriage? Can I not find it within myself to at least try and understand that the entire world does not have to be filled with carbon copies of me?”

I’m not asking anyone to condone anything. All I’m asking is that everyone takes a moment to really try and understand what the issue is without polluting it by injecting whatever bigotry (whether realized or unrealized) may exist.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Yes monty, totally agree with you there. I’m tired of the silent majority. Time to get LOUD, and get TOUGH. 76% of the American people said NO GAY MARRIAGE. No means no. If you want gay marriage that badly, go to denmark where it’s allowed and that way nothing is forced on the U.S. people. We’re not forcing you to stay here

Dear ignorant hick.

This is my country, too. I was born here, too. I pay taxes and work here, and was educated here - to a substantially higher degree than you, with your…what? fifth grade education? As my legal rights or standing have nothing to do with you -whatsoever - your opinion as to whether or not I should have them has absolutely no basis.

I do not have to go to Denmark, or anywhere else I choose not to go. We will continue to battle the ignorant trash (that’s you, in case you were wondering, troll) who feel that their personal prejudices should somehow be given legal weight. The tyranny of the majority must not be allowed to triumph.

By j

June 13, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

If I’m not smart enough, then how is it I managed to get on the President’s list last semester for outstanding grades, and do all that while raising 2 kids? How is it I managed to juggle 6 classes, 40 hour work weeks, all while raising a famiy, and still making straight A’s, if I’m so mentally incapable? You resort to the usual fat upper lipped jargon of a pathetic loser who can’t think for themself, instead getting your values from what the popular, PC, world culture wants you to think. You don’t have any brain capacity to think for yourself or make up your own mind, much less any sense of right or wrong. Let’s agree to disagree and you can leave it at that.

By cre8ive1

June 13, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Inter-racial marriage would still be illegal in the south too if we left it up to the majority. As for the higher mortality rate in the gay community, which I question the validity of the study. It is true that gay teenagers have a higher suicide rate and many gays are victims of hate crimes. Maybe gay people could live longer and happier lives if there wasnt so much hate from all you right wing, holy than thou, fanatics. It’s enough to depress anyone.

By john

June 13, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

j

where do you get off calling anyone biased. All of your “info” comes from www.familyresearchinst.org.

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

@I’mARedHerring………..

YOU ARE FABULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Boscaverde

June 13, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

dhm-

Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you and your church take divorce and infidelity very seriously.

However, my question was would you support this law/amendment/etc. if it banned gay marriage, divorce and adultery equally, since these all go against the teachings of the Bible (some would dispute that gay marriage belongs in this list…I don’t want to get into that, but all would agree that divorce and adultery are against the Bible’s teachings). And would you try to get your representatives to support this law in its entirety?

I would applaud you if you did so, as then I believe you would be truly attempting to use the Bible’s teachings to defend the institution of marriage. My problem is with those who are quoting scripture and writing to their representatives about this one issue because it is against God’s teachings. But then they leave out the other issues which, quite honestly, are a far bigger threat to marriage in this country today.

By ron

June 13, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Whether you are religious or not, the thought of sex consisting of fudge packing is sickening. The majority says NO, accept it. So you get your gay marriage, what group do we embrace next under being PC? Folks that do animals?

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Ron…why don’t you just go brush your tooth?

By j

June 13, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

Ya’ll can get as mad as you want I still say NO GAY MARRIAGE. And I WON’T be silenced, and I’ll participate in as many rallies, and call as many senators, and lawmakers as possible. I already called that judge in GA to tell her I didn’t agree with what she did. I’ve said my peace for today and I’m going to go read a story to my children, while existing in my happy, successful, God-approved, wholesome, traditional heterosexual marriage. Ya’ll can go invest in some depends from all that butt-lovin. Causes anal leakage you know.

By Amanda

June 13, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Ah, yes, J, your sources are unbiased. And you’re on a quest for the truth, not to promote YOUR agenda.

By John (the other John)

June 13, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

wee haw…Ron are you married to your sister?

I believe there is an activity that you straight folks do that begins with a “c” and ends with an “s”. Isn’t that sickening? Should straight people be prevented from marrying because they enjoy oral sex? IT’S NOT ABOUT SEX MORON!!

We covered the animal thing much earlier…please go back and read.

Sorry j…I don’t buy the work/school thing. If you were that smart your arguments would be better and you wouldn’t be using such obvious sources…try again.

By Amanda

June 13, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Bloggers, don’t we think God is probably just beaming with pride for His J?

By GayMan

June 13, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Ron, I would be fine without having the gay marriage when they allow me to put my tax dollars where I want them and not to pay taxes to send your children to school. I think they should double your taxes if you choose to have children. I would rather see my taxes go to the gay community and find cures for AIDS that affect all sexes and raciest. After all marriage is just a way to make money on divorces that most straight couple do. I have the same rights in a WILL then I do getting married in a church.

By John

June 13, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

All you religious folks out there, let me ask you this (since none of you saw my previous post):

A friend of mine was cast out of his evangelical Christian family’s life when he was 15 years old. He perservered though and edfter having lived on the streets for years, finally suceeds and made millions, but died suddenly from cancer (not AIDS). His will stated that his partner of 15 years was to inherit his fortune.

Instead his evangelical Christian family swept in and forced the state to void the will and give them all his estate. They didn’t want to acknowledge him or his life while he lived, but apparently gay money is just as good as Christian money when you don’t work to earn it.

Is that how you Christians operate?

By erb

June 13, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

j- Thank you for that well thought out and articulate argument (3:15pm). I do hope that you will print that out and keep it to show your kids someday. Perhaps you could stand up and read it at their wedding to show how strongly you feel about the institution of marriage. I’m sure that they would be so proud.

By dfm

June 13, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Boscaverde,

ABSOLUTELY, I’d gladly support such laws/amendments. But sadly, most of the hypocrites — yes hypocrites — on the right wouldn’t support them. You’re right, divorce is a SIN, infidelity is a SIN! But the hypocrites unite against gay marriage.

I’d say all three are an equal threat to marriage, but that’s just my opinion, and I respect yours…

By John

June 13, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

ron - since the majority of my straight friends regale me with their love of “fudge packing” their girl friends and wives, I can only assume that you wish all heterosexuals the same ill feelings as you’ve stated toward homosexuals….

By BC

June 13, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Everyone, please ignore j’s comments. He is soo off base and soo far gone that his comments speak for themselves. No need to even give someone like that the time or energy.

ATLGAYMAN, I support your comments 100%!

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

You resort to the usual fat upper lipped jargon of a pathetic loser who can’t think for themself, instead getting your values from what the popular, PC, world culture wants you to think. You don’t have any brain capacity to think for yourself or make up your own mind, much less any sense of right or wrong. Let’s agree to disagree and you can leave it at that

Hmm…perhaps you are attending Bible college…that would explain your ability to make good grades. There, you only have to regurgitate information to do well.

No, I won’t agree to disagree with you, because that would give some weight to your utterly specious arguments. You are so anxious to dismiss the credentials of others…yet so reluctant to cite your own sources.

In fact, you include a web link that utterly debunks the study you cite as being factual. Yet, you are so stupid that you apparently don’t REALIZE that this link debunks the study.

Furthermore, any google search for the man responsible for the study will show that he has been roundly and thouroughly discredited.

You cite statistics about child molestors clearly out of sync with the statistics of mainstream science organizations and psychological/psychiatric professional groups.

You make reference to an amicus curae brief that, according to FindLaw, doesn’t exist, one that you suggest indicates the HRC believes that 2.3% of the population is gay. The HRC says nothing of the sort…

In fact, your original post is nothing but a hodgepodge of thrown together facts with absolutely no citations to support them…and you accuse me of not thinking for myself.

By the way, I think you’ll find that the current figure for all cases of AIDS in the US reported by men who have sex with men (please note that this figure actually includes many men “on the down low” who don’t figure in to the overall gay population studies) is about 54%. That’s actually from the CDC, bible banger.

By willing to try...

June 13, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

at least gay relationships won’t propigate any more of this babble.

maybe homosexuality is nature’s birth control. maybe more of us should try it.

just think, more food for “regular” kids.

By My Brother

June 13, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

My brother is a gay man. If marriage or civil union laws pass, I can’t contest the will. I am entitled to his estate and his house and all of his stuff, not his “life partner” - gag. I have children I have to feed. I am blood and that money belongs to me!!

Once laws are passed forbidding marriage, civil unions and and contracts, I can sue and get it all!!!

Sadie Fields can get her grandbaby back and all of her daughters stuff - where it all belongs, if something happens to her daughter. Blood is thicker than life partners!!

By dfm

June 13, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

John, I’ll address your question… Yes, that’s how allot of so-called Christians operate, sadly. However, a true Christian understands there’s only one Judge.

I’d be DEVASTATED to learn a child of mine claims to be gay — notice I didn’t say, is gay — but it wouldn’t stop me from loving him/her, and wanting to remain a part of their life. In the scenario you mentioned, the parents were wrong, plain and simple.

By JackieB

June 13, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

The dictionary defines marriage as the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Marriage was never intended for the same sex. I do not feel that anyone should be discriminated against becuase of their beliefs or morals. Gays claim that people gay bash them, but some of the comments on this page are awful. How dare you judge christians so harshly but can not roll with the punches when give the same treatment.

Yes in America we have free choice, but just like the candidate who received the highest vote get is the only one with the victory. America voted against gay marriages now we have to respect what the majority wants.

Because you don’t agree that gives you no reason to bash people who are against gay marriage. No one said that you could not love someone and if I am not mistaken in a will you can leave any item of value to who you chose.

By John

June 13, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

The fact of the matter is that the religious right wants to mandate every aspect of our daily lives (straight and gay alike). But which religious right organization’s viewpoint will we use? The Catholics (the protestants wouldn’t stand for idol worshippers being in charge)…Baptists (they wouldn’t let you have heterosexual sex standing up because someone might think you’re dancing)? Jews? (do we really need to go there?) Muslims? (Why heavens no! says all the Christians, “the Muslims aren’t really religious! They’re terrorists!) Buddists? Taoists?

You see, this problem, this connundrum is why our founding fathers saw fit (and smartly so) to separate church from state. Our country was based on basic Judeo-Christian principles, but not the supporting theology. By keeping religion separate our country has flourished while other religiously dominated countries are unable to function in the world.

By Michelle

June 13, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Since when does God need anyone to fight his battles? What happened to seperation of church and state? And why do people only quote the bible when it’s convenient for them? God hates a divorcing but I don’t see people trying to ban that. God hates adultery, but cheaters are still prevalent.

Gay and Lesbian couples contribute to society and are entitled to see their money be put to something that they can benefit from just as much as the rest of the world. I have to pay school tax in Norcross I have no children, but I can’t get extended leave from work because my partner is in the hospital. This country is just a bunch of hypocrites.

But no matter. We have nothing but time. And we might not be able to do it now. But we are still having children and raising families and the bigots and haters are getting older. We are raising children to be open, to be caring, to respect others and their decisions.

And just like with slavery and racism, we will have the right to marry and I don’t care if i’m a hundred years old. I will get my legal marriage. You can’t stop progress.

By My Brother

June 13, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

John - that money belongs to the FAMILY BLOOD!! Straight people matter more and deserve more than gays! His family had kids to feed and stuff to buy for kids.

JackieB - that’s what lawyers are for! My brother better not try to leave a dime to his “life partner” because I already have a lawyer on retainer ready to contest the will.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

How dare you judge christians so harshly but can not roll with the punches when give the same treatment!

Imagine if you were to substitute “gay” with “jew” and “Christian” with “Nazi”.

You see, ignorant woman, gays didn’t start it. Christians - and that’s fundamentalist Christians, not all - were the ones who decided to target gays. So…why in the world should I be nice to them? Stop your persecution complex. Christians are the persecutors, not the persecuted.

Yes in America we have free choice, but just like the candidate who received the highest vote get is the only one with the victory. America voted against gay marriages now we have to respect what the majority wants.

If American voted that we should execute ignorant Christians, would you allow me to sever your head from your body?

I’d be DEVASTATED to learn a child of mine claims to be gay — notice I didn’t say, is gay — but it wouldn’t stop me from loving him/her, and wanting to remain a part of their life. In the scenario you mentioned, the parents were wrong, plain and simple.

Right, because saying “is gay” would mean you were being rational and realizing that no one chooses his orientation. As long as you allow yourself to believe this fiction, your bigotry and persecution is justifiable, is that it?

I really hope ALL of your children and grandchildren are gay.

By cre8ive1

June 13, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

By J- Anal Leakage?? Sounds like somebody knows more than they should about butt love coming form such a str8 laced family.

By jim d

June 13, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

I Can’t help but wonder what song people like “j” would be singing if their children turned out to be gay?

Think they’d sound the same? I don’t!

By Jason T

June 13, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

No Man shall lay with another man. Read the Bible you idiots, and be afraid when you are judged!!!

By dfm

June 13, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Hmmm… You hope all my children and grandchildren are gay??? Hate to tell you, but that’s physically impossible.

Thanks for the well-wishes though, GOD bless!

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

@JackieB….are you only reading the comments of the bloggers who are obviously gay? What about all the hatred being spewed by the opponents? Does that not matter to you? Are you so blind? How dare we judge Christians so harshly? WHAT DO YOU THINK WE’VE BEEN DEALING WITH FOR YEARS???? The constant judgement by the heterosexual uneducated!!!! Your commentary is befuddling! Perhaps it’s just that we are sick and tired of being treated like third-class citizens and are speaking out against the cultish ramblings of the Moral (now THERE’S a laugh) Majority that you’re just now hearing about it but this is a struggle that has been going on for a VERY long time - Equal Treatment/Rights.

You also state that you believe we can leave anything to anyone we want to in a will…..Yes, we can. That doesn’t mean that the family of the deceased doesn’t have the power to contest said Will and that a judge, who has the same narrow-minded point of view as most of the more hostile anti-gay bloggers won’t side with the family; leaving the last wishes of the deceased unfulfilled and the grieving partner out in the streets. Think about it! WE’VE SEEN IT HAPPEN.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

No Man shall lay with another man. Read the Bible you idiots, and be afraid when you are judged

Read something OTHER than the Bible, you idiot, and realize that the world is a far more complex place than you could possibly comprehend.

One wonders at the basic intellectual capacity of people who allow their lives to be dictated by the collected writings of a group of men who still feared eclipses and comets as signs of evil.

By Alvin

June 13, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

I am a Black Man who has faced a lot of hate in my lifetime,but I can not see or understand same sex marriage or dating.If it was not for a relationship between a man and a woman or a woman and a man none of us would be here.As far as I see it it is just WRONG,also please stop comparing the Gay and Lesbian struggle to that of Blacks.I feel that homosexuality is not a choice it more of an illness.

By Out

June 13, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

Please go to www.familyacceptance.com

Very enlightening, informative, emotional, and personal.

By JackieB

June 13, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

I’mARedHerring

I really feel sorry for you. You have so much hate in your heart. I shall be crucified for my belief in Jesus Christ. I have a best friend who is gay. I love them dearly and that is because as a christian I believe that you hate the sin and not the sinner.

I am not saying in no shape or form that I am perfect or that I follow all the rules of the bible because I sin daily but God is always forgiving me. He is so merciful and that’s why I have nothing but mercy for you.

And for making the comment about hoping that all of their grandchildren and children turn out gay is wrong.

I pray the opposite and I pray for you that Jesus will come into your life and turn your heart of stone.

Until you have a personal relationship with God and seek ye first the kingdom of God you will never know what God has in store for you.

If you feel that christians are so wrong to say that gays are wrong. Ask God? If you come to him with the faith of a mustard see he will show and lead to what the truth is. I promise you that he has never failed me yet.

May God bless you I’mARedHerring!

By John

June 13, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

My Brother - So your brother who is gay doesn’t have a right to leave his own earnings to whomever he so chooses?

What about you? What if you have a straight brother that you don’t like? Do you not have the right to leave that straight brother out of your will?

Why should a gay man/woman not have the same rights?

What if your parents don’t want to leave you anything? That’s their right isn’t it? It’s their choice…After all, it’s their money…

By ATLGAYMAN

June 13, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

My brother- Why do you feel you are entitled to your brothers things? My partner and I have each accumulated quite a bit of money and property on our own and should I pass before he or vise versa we both agree we want our partner to have it…Now there is an issue of a plot of land his grandmother left him and several family possessions such as furniture and the family bible.

Though he has willed me all of his possessions I have made my intentions clear that the land and family possessions should go to his blood family, but as for items he accumulated of his own volition or we accumulated together (and vise versa) we have willed all of that to each other.

I am only engaging you because I am curious…If your brother had a wife and he passed would you expect his possessions? she is not blood…what if they had no children? Should it go to you because you do? Not judging just wondering

By betc

June 13, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

I do not believe that the goverment should force churchs to perform religious ceremonies for same sex couples. that said I do believe the government should allow same sex unions from civil ceremonies. The people who quote the bible must realize that some things in the bible are outdated. to quote: a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) The bible I read says that Jesus is kind and loving. He sought out the people rejected by society and asked us to include them. I belive he would want us to do the loving thing. Barring that be a good republican and keep government out of people lives.

By John

June 13, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

JackieB and all others - I am a Christian, but I am an enlightened Christian. I don’t believe every single word of the Bible is a nugget of gold and is in and of itself a truth (how do you explain “turn the other cheek” being completely opposite of “an eye for an eye”). If you believe every word is truth, you must believe both old and new testament (because you are all quoting the old testament in here). So it would seem that contrary statements in either old or new are valid - right?

First of all, Jesus said, “Judge not lest ye be judged yourself” and yet each and every Christian on this blog today and each and every one of the Christians in a position of power every day, judges others harshly (i.e. Pat Robertson). So, worry not about me, I’ll take care of myself. You should worry about yourself. And if your marriage is secure and safely, religiously heterosexual, then why should you be concerned whether or not homosexuals are marrying? Does it make your marriage any less secure?

By monty

June 13, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

to the redherring person

It ‘s interesting to listen to you attack and ridicule other’s opinions. You use very hate filled speech. I thought the leftist were known for their championing free speech and toleration. Yeh right! What you don’t seem to get is that racism is taught or learned by observation and practice. Consequently if a person is a rAcist then in order to reform , he has to be indoctrinated not to be one. For example through the teachings of Jesus. You still don’t get the fact that no one has had to be indoctrinated( maybe until recently) to view same sex relations as being perverse.I remember going to a cousins house to visit and one night happened to walk into one of their bedrooms and caught 2 of my cousins(brothers) having anal sex with each other. Now I was only about 11 years old but no one had to tell me that was wrong.It was gross.It was gross that they were brothers and that it was same sex. Both I knew to be wrong.Morally wrong.My parents didn’t have to teach me that. And your problem is that you cant say either one of those things, incest or same sex is wrong. What basis would you use to say incest is wrong? Certainly not on the basis of a higher authority such as God. IS it wrong because the state says its wrong? You can’t use that argument either. THe states say same-sex unions are wrong. Why is it wrong? Because you “feel ” it’s wrong? Man’s feelings are not a very good guide. Is divorce wrong? Sure it is in most cases. And to be frank the Christian church has not done very well on that. But failure there doesn’t mean it’s Ok to fail with same- sex marriage.No one is trying to cram divorce down our children’s throats.And by the way same sex is “unnatural”. Who says so? Not me, check out Romans 1:26-27 “for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the “natural” use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the “natural use” of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men working that which is unseemly.”God through the inspired Aposltle Paul said it is “un-natural” and unseemly.” I know you hate to hear God’s word.I know you can;t change your mind as long as you worship the created and not the creator.I fyou want to be perverse and un-natural that is between you God until you try to go public with it and teach my children the error of your way.And pass legislation trying to legitamize it. Peace and love.

By My Brother

June 13, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

You become “blood” through marriage. So his wife is blood.

I am family. Not some partner. I deserve the money and the house and everything. Of course, if the house is both names, my attorney said that could get sticky but I will get it. I can probably get his life partners money as well if it is in a joint account. It is mine! Mine! Mine! Why do I think I should have it all - because I can. There ain’t a judge in Polk County going to honor that stupid will.

I have kids to feed and clothe.

By ATLGAYMAN

June 13, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Thank you John for being so enlightened. I don’t care to challenge anyone’s personal religion or beliefs and I have long gotten past peoples moral judgments of my life. I don’t need to point out 20 heterosexual divorces to try and validate my 10 year relationship…I know its valid. All I want is equal protection under the law regardless of what you call it. I want to know that the home that my partner and I chose, built and paid for together would go to him should I pass…without any chance of being contested…I want to know that should I be in ICU he will be allowed to visit me…I want equal rights and protection…I don’t need recognition or approval from zealots

By JackieB

June 13, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

John:

Thanks for your opinion I and I do understand where you are coming from, but by having my relationship with God he has given me understanding. Study and show thyself approved.

If there is something that you do not understand related to the new versus the old testament, ask God and he will show you in his word. I have done it so many times.

As to your question:

And if your marriage is secure and safely, religiously heterosexual, then why should you be concerned whether or not homosexuals are marrying? Does it make your marriage any less secure?

Yes it does make a difference… should we let pigs mate with dogs and cows mate with horses no…

How can you get light if you have to lamps and not electric socket. It’s having two opposite that makes the attraction.

I can go on and on about this issue, but my belief will remain the same. I pray for all and your children

God bless!

By ATLGAYMAN

June 13, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Well my brother…I wish you the best of luck…I am sure you will get whats “yours yours yours” be it fiscal or otherwise…your wisdom and dedication are beyond my reproach and I wish you and the judges of polk county all the best

By Just Passing Through

June 13, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

My brother — you are what I fear this country is becoming, selfish, thoughtless, obnoxious, mean-spirited, and increasingly just plain stupid. If your brother’s attorney is any good at all, you won’t be able to touch anything in his house or his bank account. I’m betting that if he and his partner have accumulated enough to get you this riled up, they have a really smart lawyer.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Hmmm… You hope all my children and grandchildren are gay??? Hate to tell you, but that’s physically impossible

If by this, you mean you are unable to have children, I can only say, thank goodness. The less that ignorance and blind adherence to religious is propagated, the better.

Until you have a personal relationship with God and seek ye first the kingdom of God you will never know what God has in store for you.

Typical fundamentalist arrogance…only you are capable of knowing what God wants, is that it?

I really feel sorry for you. You have so much hate in your heart. I shall be crucified for my belief in Jesus Christ.

I really don’t have so much hate in my heart, dear. I have righteous anger directed at those who seek to ruin my life and control my actions.

By John

June 13, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

My Brother - Have you told your brother what you intend to do?

However, if you are correct, I only hope that your brother creates a charitable trust of which his partner is the sole administrator. Then as that charitible trust’s administrator his partner will have complete authority over the funds and you and your family will be COMPLETELY SHUT OUT and unable to touch your brother’s money.

No judge can circumvent a charitible donation….without good cause…and your ignorance and bigotry is certainly not good cause.

For all others out there pondering this situation, I encourage you each and every one to do the same: create a charitible organization and protect your earnings from jealous, pitiless, good for nothings who are unwilling to earn their own money but seek to steal money that is not theirs.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

It’s always amusing when someone like Monty accuses me of not being tolerant. So…you expect that I should be tolerant of people who are persecuting me? You expect that I should be tolerant of people who call me perverted filth, or worse?

I don’t try to prevent you or any of your other gap-toothed, knuckle-dragging, backwater, inbred, mouth-breathing cronies from practicing your primitive religion. After all, the more time you spend handling snakes, the greater the chance that you’ll be bitten, and the less time you spend in public with the sane people. That’s about as tolerant of religious intolerance as I get.

If it makes you feel better, I don’t like your cousins-in-dogma any better. Well, most Orthodox Jews are very nice people and don’t go around telling others how to live their lives, so I don’t have a problem with them. It’s really your close-kin, the Talibanesque Islamic fanatics that I despise almost as much as you Christian fanatics.

By Amanda

June 13, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Alvin- also please stop comparing the Gay and Lesbian struggle to that of Blacks.I feel that homosexuality is not a choice it more of an illness.

If homosexuality is not a choice, then why not compare the two? One’s race is not his choice. Not trying to argue, just to get clarification.

By Tom

June 13, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

I have been reading some of the comments posted here. Forgive my bluntness, but the ignorance of some amazes me. That is not to be disrespectful, but it is to show the ones who are against God that God is who He says He is and that He will ultimately judge all. In response to D & Reality Check, Yes the Holy Bible was written by the hand of man, and yes, man chose which books to be included, but God ultimately chose both. He chose to speak to man through visions, dreams, other people, and even feelings to have His word become our law. God told those who put the Bible together what to write, when to write it, and what to include in the finished product. It was all inspired by Him. God has spoken to me in those ways many times over my christian life. Your issues are issues of faith, not fact. With all due respect, Jesus died on the cross for your right to not beleive in Him just as He died on that same cross for my right to trust in Him and forgive my sins (which are many!) I know I am forgiven and can be for any sins I commit in the future. This was done out of His love for us. That same love has denounced homosexuality. It is a sin, no question. It is up to the individual to believe this or not. The fact that one chooses not to does not negate the fact that God said it, it is true and trustworthy and all of us will be judged by our creator upon the time of our death. It also amazes me that when a christian says this, someone will also give the ultimate statement “only God can judge” or “let God judge them.” The point is that He will (and is). God judges all sin ultimately. It is not my job as a christian to judge anyone else, and that is not what we are doing when we say homosexuality is a sin. What we are doing is calling sin what it is…sin. We can do so because God already judged it to be sin. So the next time you (the reader) decide to make that statement, think about the sin that you are saying that God will judge and get your heart right with Jesus so that I may have the wonderful opportunity to spend eternity with you in Heaven.

By JackieB

June 13, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Amen Tom

By John

June 13, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Pity those who are so deeply religious that all they can spout in a discussion is Bible parables and verses.

It is not a deep thinker (or an intellectual) who can spout verses. It is simple and easy. There is no thought required. Just memorization.

Religious zealots come in all shapes and sizes. All the Jihadists in Iraq and Iran are no different that the Christians posting on this blog. They believe enough in their faith to kill for it. The Christians who use hate speech and “sympathy” for homosexuals in this country are simply just too cowardly to do anything so dedicated as killing and dying for their beliefs.

In all cases however, it is clear: One must have an analytical brain and logic to think through a problem. However, if you’re overtly religious you need only call upon a memorized verse and you’re good to go. No thinking required.

And that my friends is why this country is in such dire trouble. Instead of a “no spin zone” it’s a “no thinking zone”.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

We can do so because God already judged it to be sin. So the next time you (the reader) decide to make that statement, think about the sin that you are saying that God will judge and get your heart right with Jesus so that I may have the wonderful opportunity to spend eternity with you in Heaven

One more time, idiot. Men wrote the Bible, not God. Ok? Get it? It’s called History. I know that History makes you scared because it means that your preconceptions about Eternity are uncertain, but you really should read more.

And to quote Twain: Heaven for the Climate, Hell for the Company.

I certainly feel this holds true for you.

By John

June 13, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

God spoke to the men who wrote the Bible?

God didn’t speak directly to the mother of his only child, Jesus…he sent an angel for that, but he spoke directly to a bunch of guys who lived hundreds of years AFTER the death of his only son?

Funny that the only people on this blog AGAINST gay marriage, etc. are those who are against it on religious reasons….

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.

By Alvin

June 13, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

To John Let’s see what the a deep thinker (or an intellectual)will be quoting on their death bed.Funny everyone find religion on death’s bed

By Tom

June 13, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

I’mARedHerring…notice that I did not resort to name calling in my last post. I respect your opinion without resorting to childish measures. That being said…again I reiterate…it is a faith issue, not a fact issue. I cannot change the fact that you are not a believer. Only you can choose to do this for yourself. I can love you anyway regardless simply because the love of Christ is in me. As I said, yes men physically wrote the words that are in the bible. However, God inspired them and gave them every word that He wanted expressed. It is our manuel for living. One has to have faith in that to beleive and understand it. Hopefully, one day you will my friend.

By Kevin

June 13, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

I am a straight guy. I could CARE LESS if two gay guys want to get married. That’s their business, not mine.

The Bible has no more bearing then the Koran or anything else.

To each his own. Let gay people get married if they want.

By Sidney

June 13, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

If a man wrote a book today because God told him to, we would be looking for the nearest padded cell to throw him into.

Can anyone who is against gay-marriage give a solid reason without spouting words of the Bible, polygamy, bestiality, or “I don’t like it”?

By Kevin

June 13, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

I can’t stand how religious people are SO CONCERNED about how OTHER people are living their lives. Why do you have to shove your beliefs and values on people who are not religious?? Do your religious thing and leave other people who are not religious alone to live their own lives. Why do YOU care if two gay people get married?!?!?! What makes your beliefs so superior then anyone elses??? NOTHING.

By Alvin

June 13, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

To Amanda, I was not comparing read my blog again.No argument here

By The Boss

June 13, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

You people need to get back to work and quit wasting your time trying to make points on a blog.

Plain and simple, all minorities in this country have to pay their dues to society in order to fold into mainstream. That’s where homosexuals are at this point. It’s not an easy process and for some it takes longer than others. At this point, your about 20 years into the process, check back in about 100 years and if you’re still outcasts, you can start complaining.

By John

June 13, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Alvin - I do believe in God, Jesus and in the Bible. However, I do NOT believe that every word in the Bible is TRUTH. Thousands of years ago there was no television, books, etc. The only people who could read and write were the rabbis. Therefore, spoken stories abounded. They were always parables regarding the right way to live your life. Those stories became the books of the old and new testament as they were written down by religious scholars. Does it matter whether there actually existed a Good Samaritan or is the morale of the story important?

My point is…I believe in the stories of the Bible and the TRUTH that they tell. However, I do not believe that every word of the Bible is true.

I am gay. I did not ask to be gay. God created Man in his own image. I am gay, and I am a man. If God makes no mistakes, then how could my sexuality be wrong?

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

As someone who’s faith in God and Christ is unshakable…I cannot fathom where the argument about religion is coming in to the picture. As I said before, at the time that the Bible was written, there was no understanding of homosexuality. The negative connotations come into play when men are performing the act of rape on other men to demasulinize them - it has nothing to do with a committed, loving relationship. And don’t go quoting this or that just to undermine my statement…anyone can quote, selectively, from any number of holy texts in order to try and make a point. The Bible certainly deserves much respect as it teaches many important lessons that should guide us in our interactions with each other and our relationship with God. It should also teach us that God creates AS HE WISHES…it’s not for us to question whether someone is right or wrong for the way in which they are born (and NO, homosexuality is not a choice…it has been proven, through scientific study, to be an anotomical and genetic trait).

I still have yet to hear a valid, thought-provoking viewpoint on exactly how gay marriage would hurt a heterosexual marriage. If the heterosexual person(s) in question are secure in their identities, then whether or not homosexual marriage is allowed should have no bearing on the future of that heterosexual union.

By Tom

June 13, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

kevin…why do I care if two gay people get married? Simple..it affects all of us as human beings whether you see it or not. Allowing sin into our lives and our culture is not only wrong but detrimental to our society. I am not against the homosexual person, I am against the sin involved. It directly affects me (and you) in the spiritual sense. God will then ultimately judge this country as he judged (and destroyed because He judged them) Sodom and Gommarah (Gen 19 I think). That’s why this controversy is so important. It’s because we will ALL be affected in a spiritual manner and our morals and decency will continue to decrease just as they have been on other subjects as well. But let me be clear, we love the person, not the sin. God does not accept sin in any shape or form but he loves the person involved in it and wants them to repent of that sin and return to Him, trust in Him, and love Him. I must admit, this is a hard thing to do at times, but I have learned how to do this. I love my Lord and Saviour jesus Christ simply for who He is and what he has done for me. My life is so much better with Him that it ever was without Him. Praise God!!

By Tom

June 13, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

Gen X Den…Homosexuality has never been scientifically proven to be choice or genetic. You have no basis for that statement sir. With all due respect God does specifically condem homosexuality in the Bible in the old and new testments which were written over 400 years apart. Again, faith issue not a fact issue.

By Kevin

June 13, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

John, we will never come to an agreement on this. I do not believe in “sin”. I do not believe in absolute morals. I do not belive in most of the bible, but I do believe in God—just not the way 99% of people do. The goal of my life is to maximize my happiness without taking away happiness from others. I get scared when religious people, of any type, impose their beliefs on others.

By Tom

June 13, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

Gen X..(continued) And since sin IS a choice and the Bible specifically states that homsexuality is a sin, we have no choice but the believe that homosexuality is a choice. Amen.

By Alvin

June 13, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

To John, I am only human I do not have every answer and I am trying to understand,but John as a Group Gay and Lesbian if put on an island would soon be no more.Gays and Lesbian need heterosexuals.This is true if you believe in God or not that why i say it is wrong.Black,White,Spanish,Asian,etc.will exist with one another or without

By GenXDen

June 13, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

@Tom…I agree with you that we must have faith and trust in the Lord, but if one’s faith is so frail that the validation of a same-sex couple would rattle it to the core then one has to ask themself “Exactly how strong is my faith?” You mention “sin” repeatedly and, again, I know what you are eluding to. What I ask of you, in the most sincere way possible, is to consider the time that the Bible was written. Consider the need for procreation in order to insure the survival of any race at that time (after all, the average life expectancy was not what it is today) and really consider the possibility that, since the Bible was written by mortal men - with mortal biases - could there not be some sort of slant involved? I have a VERY hard time believing that God would create me in any other form than the one in which HE intended. That being said, why is it a sin for me to live according to the truth’s that I’ve always felt? Is it not a sin to live in a state of denial not fulfilling your destiny and presented by our Creator?

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this

Gen X..(continued) And since sin IS a choice and the Bible specifically states that homsexuality is a sin, we have no choice but the believe that homosexuality is a choice. Amen

Circular reasoning for the win!

And Tom, by your blind adherence to the bible and your knee-jerk condemnation of people that you don’t even know, you certainly are resorting to “childish measures”.

As for my calling you names, well. You and your kind have brought that on yourselves. Your obsessive desire to control the lives of others, rather than living your own life and letting others live theirs, has opened you up to name calling. I’m sick of dealing with your kind of subtle bigotry, so I certainly feel no qualms about expressing that to you.

With all due respect God does specifically condem homosexuality in the Bible in the old and new testments which were written over 400 years apart.

And yet again you prove that you are an idiot by suggesting that the Old and New testaments were written 400 years apart. Try a few thousand years apart, you historically challenged nimrod.

Tell me, brain trust, if God inspired each word of the Bible, then why isn’t every translation identical? Why are there contradictions? Why do some denominations have ONE bible and others have another? Why has the Bible changed constantly over the course of history? Why did it take three hundred years after the founding of Christianity to even codify the many books into a semblance of its current form?

You would think that if God were infalible and inspired the writing of the Bible, that He would have gotten it right the first time, hmm?

Oh…sorry…critical thinking and things like historical perspective and the concept of paradox are beyond you, aren’t they?

By Tom

June 13, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

Gen X..thank you for being sincere and respectful. You asked the question “why is is a sin for me to live according to the truths that I’ve always felt?” Well, here is the answer to that question. Because our hearts are evil all the time. As the Bible says “there is none righteous, no not one.” That means that what we may beleive apart from the truth, we may come to idolize and often do. As Christians, we must beleive in the Bible as ABSOLUTE truth because God said it is. If one part of the Bible is wrong then how much of it can we truly beleive? That is why God makes sure to include all the things He wanted to in order to give us the opportunity to make the decision of whether to follow Him. In order to follow Christ, we must beleive in the truth of God’s word in its entirety, not just what we want to beleive. Have the attitude of “I may not agree with this, but God said it which makes it true and God is never wrong, He is perfect in every way and I am not God.” That has gotten me through a lot. My faith is not rattle by this controversy, rather it is strengthned because I, as a christian will be persecuted, as I have been in the past and will continue to be simply because of my faith. Jesus stated that is the price for following Him. the world has hardened their hearts to the truth and we, who know the truth will be chastised (or persecuted) for our beliefs. That being said, my faith is in no way rattle because of this controversy. I am more afraid for the persons who are not yet in the family of God. I hope that all makes sense. Gotta go now..hope we can chat in the future.

By Tom

June 13, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

ImaRedherring….well sir, I must take my leave as I have to be somewhere, however, I still respect your opinions. My knowledge of this comes from years of studying it and the fact that God changed my heart 11 years ago. I know what the truth is. I’m truly sorry that you haven’t learned it yet. Your lack of knowledge in this area proves that, however that can be overcome. It can’t be proven because it isn’t a matter of science. It is a matter of faith, which I hope and pray that you will attain in the future. I am sorry that you appear to be an angry and scared person. All I can do is pray for you about that. I don’t know who you are but God does and He knows your very heart better than you do because He created it. I’ll tell you one thing though, it isn’t a coincidence that you are on this blog responding to these entires. God is in this with you and me. This is one opportunity that He is using to seek you. I hope you find Him soon. God bless you my new friend.

By D

June 13, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this

Wow — I leave for a few hours and it’s amazing where this board has gone. I have seen one person correctly state that the Amendment struck down by the so-called “activest” judge was clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that it, in violation of the Constitution of the State of Georgia addressed two separate issues. So I am left to understand that even if the vote was large, it should stand even though it’s clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That aside, please remember also that the Bible, written about 2,000 years ago, and mind you NOT IN ENGLISH, was indeed written by man and a committe (sounds awfully bureocratic) adopted which books were included. In 2,000 years, do you think there could have been some mistranslations? (For example, Ich will nach Hause fahren. I want to home drive when translated literally, or I want to go home when translated into “proper” english. Just keep that in mind. Mybrother — I can only hope you predecease your brother so he doesn’t have a sticky issue due to your greed — which I believe is one of the seven deadly sins. Go get a job to feed and clothe your kids.

By Alan

June 13, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

Dear Im A Red Herring (F* Boy) Your pseudo intellictual attitude does not fool anyone. All the AJC readers can see your a misguided f* with an agenda, getover it.

By MOT

June 13, 2006 06:17 PM | Link to this

I am a hetero, married for 33 years. During my lifetime I have had some dear friends who were gay. Consequently, our business began running gay conventions and events through out the country. From my perspective, as much as I love my gay friends, I will never support their “right” to marry. Why? For several reasons:

All the debate, headbutting, disagreeing will never change what is true fact. It is what it is. Call what homosexuals are wanting something else but don’t call it marriage, because it can never be-period. Should they receive the same legal benefits as those who are married? I guess that is up to the people, the corporations, the gov’t that have to provide those benefits. Sure go ahead and give legal partners benefits, but it will never be marriage.

a. homosexuality became prominent and followed the pattern of the thinking of the politically correct and homosexuals of our day and age. b. families quit eating dinner together. many would purchase food from vendors in the street. (equivalent of mcd’s of our day and age) c. as a people, the loss of morality-orgies, incest, etc. were the norm.

I could go on, but note that everyone of these items is prevalent in our day and time. You can argue all you want about being fair to the gays, about the religious nuts, etc. but history proves that it is not healthy for the strength and survival of a nation. And we, my fellow bloggers, are on the cusp.

I will also tell you all what I have told my gay friends, and I have had many agree. When we are at these events, I clearly see that many are there experimenting, not really gay, just trying to find a place to fit in. Many are gay because they have been so physically/emotionally hurt by the opposite sex. I do feel there are some out there that have a true in-born proclivity for the same sex, but by and large my experience in the gay world is that most are experimenting, adding spice, or running from pain.

And guess what folks? Gays have the same percentage of cheating on each other, break ups, “divorces” of those who claim to be life long partners, etc as us heteros! So those who think the heteros have done enough damage to the state of marriage, know this will occur in any grouping you try to put together.

Well, that is my blog. I know most won’t agree, but hopefully it will land in some of these many “open” minds and give you all something to think about perhaps from a different perspective.

By troubled

June 13, 2006 06:32 PM | Link to this

This blog is extremely troubling to me. I find the Christian right arguments to be extremely weak and downright frightening. Why? Here are some scary comparisons that I see…

1 - “Homosexuality is a choice” - Are you kidding me? As horrible as it has been for gays to become public about their sexuality and the corresponding persecution that they have suffered makes it increasingly doubtful that anyone would choose to be gay. It just happens. You wouldn’t persecute someone for being born with Down’s syndrome would you? No, you support them and give them the same rights as everyone else, which is what all gays want.

2 - “Homosexuality is a crime against nature” - Whatever. Anyone who has any knowledge of animals and nature should be aware that same sex mating is a common occurence. It is not a perversion - simply nature.

3 - “Homosexuality affects the true purposes of marriage - reproduction and faithfulness to one’s spouse.” - Give me a break people. The world is over-populated so why does everyone insist that marriage is for making more people? And, so far as I can tell, many married people choose not to have children. Are they wrong in the Christian point of view? And finally, why would we not want people to make a binding contract to stay with their spouse instead of just living together?

4 - “It affects the children” - What is more confusing to kids, two same-sex adults living together that are having sex and not married or two same-sex people that are married? Which scenario do you think is more easily explained to a young child? Oh, they love each other but many people think it is wrong so they cannot be married - or -they got married because they love each other?

5 - “Any argument using any scripture concerning the Bible” - The Bible does not make laws. Period. People do. Not everyone believes in the Bible. In fact, some people believe in other religions that accept gay marriage. Now, isn’t passing a law that says two same-sex individuals of one of these religions cannot get married interfering with their religious beliefs? HMM?

6 - “Our country is founded on Christianity” - Perhaps, but we are an evolving country that came here for the purpose of freedom of religion. Times are changing as we get better at being humans, and it seems to me that we are slwoly weeding out that invasive Christianity from our laws and government. It appears to be too, shall we say, intolerant.

7 - “The majority voted against gay marriage” - So. At one point the majority would not allow slaves their freedom, prevented women from voting, encouraged segregation, and banned all alcohol. We all know how those topics got resolved.

8 - “God views homosexuality as a perversion and condemns it in the Bible.” - Again, the Bible is not pertinent in this argument. You can preach all day and it still does not matter what your Bible says. And by the way, the Bible has been used to commit some of the horrible crimes imaginable through the course of history. Why continue to allow this archaic writing to lead the persecution and hatred of certain groups of people? It is wrong, sad, and deluded.

Try to be more than what someone holding a Bible tells you to be people. Stop hating what you fear and try to understand. These people are asking to be treated like people, nothing more, nothing less.

By I'mARedHerring

June 13, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

• I am sorry that you appear to be an angry and scared person. All I can do is pray for you about that. I don’t know who you are but God does and He knows your very heart better than you do because He created it. I’ll tell you one thing though, it isn’t a coincidence that you are on this blog responding to these entires.*

Angry at people like you, and scared of people like you, yes. You are no different than any member of the Taliban…you just haven’t picked up a gun yet.

Interesting you say that God knows my heart because He created it…well, if that’s the case, He created it gay, and who are you to question that? And, um…no, it’s isn’t a coincidence…I’m here because the topic involves me and my life. Duh.

Dear Im A Red Herring (F Boy) Your pseudo intellictual attitude does not fool anyone. All the AJC readers can see your a misguided f* with an agenda, getover it*

Aww…whassamatter…did I use words you don’t know? Poor little hick. Anyone who is more intelligent and more educated than you MUST be pseudo-intellectual, is that right?

*I do not feel that the “marriage of homosexuals” is in the best interest of the nation. And while many of you out there are whinning that there are bigger issues to address, when you pull out the foundation of a nation, then everything falls, so other issues don’t really matter until we get the foundational ones right. *

What foundation is being pulled out? Really…how does extending marriage rights pull out a foundation? You people have yet to be able to answer that one.

I could go on, but note that everyone of these items is prevalent in our day and time. You can argue all you want about being fair to the gays, about the religious nuts, etc. but history proves that it is not healthy for the strength and survival of a nation. And we, my fellow bloggers, are on the cusp.

Maybe you could point out specifics about where gay marriage caused the downfall of society? Oh…that’s right…you can’t.

MOT, or MUT or whatever the hell you call yourself…I seriously doubt you have ONE gay friend, because if I knew you, and you expressed ONE of the things you claim in this diatribe of yours, I would put you on the ground. Yeah. We aren’t all wimps. I would feed you your teeth if you said to my face the garbage you are spewing out. So, no. You don’t have ANY gay friends, you f***.

By ???

June 13, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

reference MOT - What kind of moron bases an argument on a definition from a dictionary? Do you know what will happen when gay marriage is leaglized? All the new prints of all dictionaries will change to say marriage is “a legal contract entered into by a two people to live together as spouses.” Just because something is does n ot mean it will always be. You must have a hard life when times change.

By Greg

June 13, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

I am tired of right wing morons saying gay marriage will end reproduction. No, actually women getting jobs and making money will make the population grow less. They will be more busy, and make more money, and divorce more than when they were barefoot and pregnant like the right wing wanted. Most people will still be heterosexual when gay marriage is allowed across the U.S. Society will not crumble and kids will not be corrupted. This is just right wingers being whinny, especially the men. These are the same men who are afraid of gay men hitting on them, even though all they would have to say is I am not interested.

By Al-Zarqawi's dead as a doornail, Now Assassinate Hugo Chavez (Liberals Upchuck and Die)

June 13, 2006 06:39 PM | Link to this

When will same-sex marriage be allowed?

NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER!!!!!!!

I’m so DAMN tired of these left-wing loons and cooukcs trying to take over the country and force their brand of perverted morality on the rest of the population. Instead of rounding up immigrants, why don’t we round up all of these poisonous defeating pinko liberals (which would include most of the loony left-wing editorial staff at the Al-Jazeera Constitution) and send them to their favorite country that they want America to be like so damn much, EUROTRASH FRANCE…I heard the limburger cheese and underarms smell just great there this time of year.

You wanna trash the morals of a population, go to france where nobody knows the difference anyway, otherwise you treasonous pinko traitors can either go back north or go to hell, either way get the hell out of God’s Country, the great state of Georgia and the South which will be so much better without you atheist commies who dare call yourselves American. None of you deserve to call yourselves “American” which is a privledge reserved only for honest God-fearing citizens, not turncoat atheists out to destroy the country for future generations.