SCOTUS circus day: Supreme Court declares DOMA unconstitutional; Hardest hit: Bill Clinton

Yesterday the Left decried the activist Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Today?

Strange new respect for SCOTUS after the court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional:

Twitchy will monitor this breaking news and provide reaction throughout the day.

Hardest hit: Bill Clinton.

Update:

Surprisingly, not much of a circus so far. Will the sore winners keep their sniping to themselves?

Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional tweets and the title has been updated.

  • Clete Torres

    Roberts again against.

    Who is surprised?

    • nc

      No, Roberts dissented. It was Kennedy that was the 5th vote.

      • Clete Torres

        I know. My fricking Mac decided ‘against’ wasn’t a real word, and decided to substitute ‘again.’

        Editing my original now…

        I’m starting to hate this predictive text…

    • Jennifer

      If I read correctly, Roberts dissented.

      • Lovejoy

        You read correctly.

      • Clete Torres

        I know, see above, reply to nc.

    • http://redstate.com/ midwestconservative

      Read the freaking case before you spout off ignorance. Roberts dissented, Kennedy was the 5th vote and I believe authored the majority opinion.

      • Clete Torres

        Read my freaking reply to nc, below my original, before you spout off, junior.

        KMA.

      • Clete Torres

        Read my freaking reply to nc, below my original, before you spout off, junior.

        KMA.

    • http://twitter.com/4ever_a_kafir Travis Wolfeil

      No, that was with Prop 8. It was along ideological lines with DOMA (with Kennedy writing the opinion), while with Prop 8, it was Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan who formed the majority. Technically, they didn’t even rule on the merits of Prop 8, just that the defense had no legal standing to appeal, since they were a third party.

      • Clete Torres

        I know, see above reply to nc.

  • Mister A

    Didn’t we see this change of heart about SCOTUS coming? Predictable.

  • Hiraghm

    According to you on the left, we still have no problem oppressing blacks women and defectives…

    • Blake Waymire

      Wait, weren’t all the idiot libs just yesterday screaming that SCOTUS’s VRA decision empowers conservatives to oppress everyone?

      • ObamaFail

        Even though it’s more likely liberal states will oppress conservatives and Christians when it comes to voting rights.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg Booker

    It only applies to States that have voted for gay marriage. It’s a very skewed ruling. The left will now start working to strike off the rest. Enjoy your victory, gay interest groups. Sigh.

    • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

      Basically nothing has changed though. I’m against the ruling, but it isn’t the end of the world.

      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg Booker

        I agree. Trust me, I’m not apoplectic. Life goes on, that’s why reaction has been relatively muted today.

    • Robin Nelson-Herlihy

      Booker, actually, Judge Andrew Napolitano just explained that in states that don’t recognize gay marriage will still have to recognize their rights to have benefits like health insurance and social security survivors’ benefits. He also explained that this will also start controversy with heterosexual, unmarried couples. That (heterosexual couples) they can make the same argument for the same benefit rights as what gay couples can have. And rightly so because a couple is a couple, is a couple, now in the eyes of SCOTUS.

      • Robin Nelson-Herlihy

        Maybe this means that later, marriage won’t seem as important because if heterosexual couples will have the same benefits rights as gay couples, then more hetero couples will see no need for marriage.

  • Hiraghm

    The gloves are off. No longer will I be using the word “gay” to describe homosexuals. From now on, they are “defectives”.

    • FirstNameTooMuchLastNameSwag

      Oh no you diiiiiiiidnnn’t.
      *wags finger*

    • Richo

      Yeah, and the world will lose nanoseconds of sleep that some twitchy commenter is going from rude nutjob to even more rude nutjob.

      • Hiraghm

        Well… ideas are infectious. :) We’ll see if the idea of calling them what they are catches on.

    • Robbie C

      You can do whatever you want. And they probably don’t care. All they wanted was the right to marry. You know, that thing that has absolutely no effect on you.

      • Hiraghm

        They had the right to marry all along. They didn’t have the right to redefine a fundamental institution to suit their mental illness.

        The rest of us are under no obligation to help them pretend that their illness is normalcy. And I’m through doing so just to be polite.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      “Call off the wedding, some dude on the internet has decided to be even more honest about his bigotry now!”

  • nc

    Expect to see two old dudes in those twin tubs any day now. Sigh.

  • walterc

    Without reading the decision yet, I kind of agree with SCOTUS, this is a state issue. Now to see what they decide regarding the people of California’s choice of no gay marriage via Prop 8.

    • Hiraghm

      It’s not an “issue” at all. People suffering from homosexuality are not a 3rd sex. They can get married based on the same restrictions anyone else has. It is not the fault of normal people that defectives are mentally/emotionally ill and refuse to recognize their illness. This is the equivalent of legislating PI to be 3.0

      • DarkKnight2016

        Now I am not a liberal but you lose your argument by trying to state that homosexuality is an illness.

        • Hiraghm

          I’m not trying; it is.
          Sexual attraction and romance exist for the creation and nurturing of young. Just as the lung’s function is to process air, and the stomach’s function is to digest food, the genitalia’s function is to procreate.

          If a person with one set of genitalia is attracted to the same sex, or attracted to lawn furniture, or farm animals, s/he’s defective, and has a mental/emotional illness. It needs treatment, not indulgence.

          • Joe Skinner

            So people whose genitalia are not capable of producing offspring should not be allowed to get married then by your logic. Or anyone who wants to get married but does not want to have children. In your echo chamber you will get tons of likes for this comment, but out in the real world this does not hold up in a court of law.

          • Hiraghm

            Nobody’s genitalia are capable of producing offspring. They require the genitalia of the opposite sex to do so.

            By my logic, the definition of “marriage” should not be changed to accommodate the mentally ill. By my logic, no change to the definition of “marriage” is required for sterile people to marry…. provided they marry members of the opposite sex. A man’s sterility wouldn’t require a redefinition of the institution. In fact, I have already asserted that homosexuals CAN marry… provided they marry members of the opposite sex. In that arrangement, children are also unlikely.

            However, a guy might be in for a lawsuit who hides his sterility from his prospective bride, and vice versa.

            The issue is the necessity of changing the definition of the institution, and the implications of the redefinition of a mental illness into a 3rd sex, based upon the false premise that someone’s rights are being violated. Correction; that some group’s collective rights are being violated (which, as I’ve said, isn’t possible since groups don’t have rights).

            Nice attempt at deflection, however.

          • mark kelley

            was allowing women or blacks the right to vote changing the institution of voting?

          • Bill Person

            its all about the function of body parts!! Nature requires procreation, it allows for fun, but is all about function.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Nobody is stopping you from procreating.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            That would be why no sane person has ever had non-procreative sex, then. Righto.

      • Robbie C

        You don’t suffer from it, sorry. Learn about the word outside your private school.

    • Lovejoy

      What is the federal government here recently ever been in favor of states rights? Only when it suits them.

    • Norm McDonald

      I agree..DOMA was stupid…the Feds have no right to doing anything not enumerated in the Constitution…PERIOD!

  • Hiraghm

    Btw, does this ruling mean that in States which do not recognize marriage to include two people of the same sex, they are required to give equal accommodation as with people who are actually married?

    • journogal

      Where has people been turned away from hotels or other accommodations because they are gay? I am not familiar with that every happening.

      • Hiraghm

        I dunno, I suppose if they’re too gay and carefree they might be too rowdy and rambunctious and be turned away for fear they might damage the furniture.

        But, as for people being turned away because they were suffering from homosexuality, I don’t know, but I could see it happening in OK, where the religious convictions of the owners of hotels/motels might prevent them from accommodating what they considered an abomination.

        • journogal

          That’s discrimination, which can bring tons of lawsuits against accommodations. I never heard of this happening, and very doubtful it will.

          • Wootsauce

            Has happened many times. A photographer was sued for 7000 dollars for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding recently. Then this little old couple lost their bed and breakfast fos refusing service to a gay couple. Easy google will show you.

          • Hiraghm

            Even when it’s based upon 1st Amendment religious convictions? Which trumps which? 1st Amendment rights, or 1964 civil rights act (which didn’t include sexual illnesses)?

            Again, the left uses the judiciary to force people to surrender their own protected rights.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          “suffering from homosexuality”
          Most of the gays I’ve met thoroughly enjoy it.

      • ObamaFail

        I live in Kentucky, and I’ve never seen any gay people here being oppressed. Sure we haven’t legalized gay marriage here yet, but other than that, they aren’t treated any different than anyone else.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          I’ll be sure to tell the gays of the world that they’re just imagining all that discrimination then. “Gary’s never seen it, mustn’t exist!”

      • Robbie C

        That would be a crime and it happens. But the ruling wasn’t about that.

    • chapoutier

      No. Section 2 of DOMA, which covers that scenario, was not affected by this decision. That will probably be the next big legal battle.

    • Robbie C

      It paves the way for it if legislation is brought up for it.

  • http://facebook.com/metalchick007 Lisa Renee’ Jones

    Oh, NOW the celebs come out to play. Seen that one coming.
    Why should Government be involved in ANY marriage?

    • Hiraghm

      Because those bent on the destruction of our society use the judicial system to attack marriage, with the end game being a complete dissolution of the institution.

      • mark kelley

        so wanting to partake in the institution is somehow attacking it?

        • Hiraghm

          I want to partake in the institution. Why are the rules changed to accommodate those afflicted with homosexuality and not me?

          Everyone can partake in the institution. Find a willing member of the opposite sex and marry him/her.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            This sounds familiar.

            “Everyone can partake in the institution. Find a willing member of the same race and marry him/her.”

      • Robbie C

        And all those heterosexual divorces surely don’t have an effect on the sanctity of marriage. Nope, none.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Funny how everyone was perfectly happy for government to be involved in marriages… right up until the point that they started allowing gays to get in on it.

  • Hal Fast

    Well forget the foolishness of man, God will have the last say in the matter, and you cannot overrule God and His will. Good luck those of you for this ruling because you are going to need it.

    • Robbie C

      That is if there is a God. You don’t know. It’s faith, not fact.

  • Kenneth Pace

    Sad day for America…Is equal to the law any kind of morality in Our Heavenly Fathers omniscient mind? History repeats itself…correct? This moral decadence in the Promised Land will bring and is bringing curses upon our nation. We are heading down the same path as it happened in the downfall and destruction of the once great [ I repeat…once great ] Roman Empire. Welcome to history’s repeat my fellow Americans.

    • Catchance

      But we know we are living in the last days.

      2 Peter 3:3: Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires.

      This decision was disappointing, but hardly surprising.

      • Robbie C

        And what happens when 200 years from now, we are still alive and kicking? Will you renounce your “end of days” talk? Probably not.

    • Robbie C

      Please put your Bible down. This country is a melting put on religions. If you are going to make an argument against this, please present fact and not faith as there is no way to scientifically prove it exist or doesn’t.

  • Albert Schmitlap.

    OK, honor Gay marriage, multiple partner marriages will follow (Have to honor Muslims that marry outside the US and bring their wives here to get MORE welfare, etc.), marrying children, No marriage just have kids with whomever is already here so what’s next, Legalize Pedophilia, no wait, they are already working on that, gee nice future.

    • Richo

      Citation please that any of your nutjob predictions have even inched towards fulfillment in any jurisdiction that has had equal marriage for years.

      • Hiraghm

        Oh PLEASE I am so tired of this old crap!
        1983, Geraldine Ferraro predicts, while advocating for feminazi “equality”, that we would NEVER put women in combat; the idea was laughable! And we’d never have unisex bathrooms, that’s just ridiculous.

        and now, 30 years later, we have both.
        When you nutjobs are continually driving to have nutty ideas, usually dangerously nutty ideas, become mainstream behavior, there’s no such thing as a “nutjob prediction”.

        • LtColO

          Exactly. In Colorado, the “Civil Rights Division” upheld the right of SIX YEAR OLD CHILD (let that sink in–SIX YEARS OLD) to use the girl’s bathroom because little Coy Mathis believes he is a girl. We heard years ago it would never get to this point.

          The press, in typical Orwellian fashion, twisted the story right from the beginning, starting with the lead sentence, “Coy Mathis had been barred from using the girls’ bathroom at her local elementary school.” “Her” elementary school. Isn’t the “her” issue exactly what’s under debate in the first place in our culture? The first reaction, esp from the older generation who don’t know exactly what transgendered means, is that a little “girl” (biologically) was barred from using the bathroom set aside for her sex. Language is used to deceive.

          I’m waiting to see what happens when big, burly, 16 yr old Tom Smith decides “she” is a girl and needs to use the girl’s locker room.

          Brave new world, indeed.

      • Albert Schmitlap.

        OK,,,One man One Woman is now non existence, Right? Think about it,,,No more ONE of each,,now we can have multiples of each or Child-Adult (the Man, Woman thing is no more law) Human-Animal,,,(no more Man and Woman). We have some sick people in this country since we are no longer a Religious people,,,and even some of them are sick. Think back 30 yrs,,,if you are old enough,,,(remember, with age come experience) What would you have said about things that are happening now? Think back 10 yrs. Or,,,,,,,just Think!!! It will all come unraveled and our country will be a cesspool of NO law or Standards. If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for Anything.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          Are all rights slippery slopes? I mean, if we allow people to practice Christianity, we’ll have to allow all the other religions too, including the ones that practice human sacrifices. These damn slopes are so slippery that we are apparently unable to judge each of these things on their own merits, we have to allow all of them or none!

          • Albert Schmitlap.

            I like to live by the old sayings of an elementary school teacher I had in the 50s
            #1 Your rights end where the next person’s begin.
            #2 We have a lot of freedoms in this country But, with those rights comes responsibility, and when we are irresponsible you will Lose those Freedoms.
            Words to live by and are SO deep you would have o think for hours to understand the means and scope.

    • Bill Person

      Sounds like standards of behavior to me. From the 60’s forward there has been an assualt on the standards of behavior to the point where there are no standards–anything goes brother!!
      Thank the lawyers out for a buck because there are too many of them—They go to court to test every little line of what freedom and personal rights mean—look at the history from the 60’s forward!!!

  • Bruce Watson

    God is not struck down. Jesus you will face one day. Laugh then!

    • Richo

      LOL!

    • MissJames

      Day of reckoning for all of us. Forgive me for posting this twice ,but I love this song. It’s makes it all very real.
      By Mercy Me
      Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
      Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
      Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
      Will I sing ‘Hallelujah!’? Will I be able to speak at all?
      I can only imagine! Yeah! I can only imagine!

    • MissJames

      Day of reckoning for all of us. Forgive me for posting this twice ,but I love this song. It’s makes it all very real.
      By Mercy Me
      Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
      Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
      Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
      Will I sing ‘Hallelujah!’? Will I be able to speak at all?
      I can only imagine! Yeah! I can only imagine!

  • Ken Reid

    Another win for all the pervs out there! Minority rules now days! But God is still in charge, notwithstanding mans “inclusiveness” ! Judgment day is going to settle all of this! Till then, enjoy your “enlightenment”!

    • Richo

      Yeah yeah, we get it, the next natural disaster that occurs, even if it kills innocent children, even if it is in another country, will be God’s judgment because of this court ruling. Time to get a new shtick. After 2000 years Ye olde house of end time judgment is getting really tired.

      • LtColO

        You don’t need a natural disaster. The Left seems adept at killing countries just fine without those. Witness Europe.

        • Bill Person

          Thats part of them problem, most people have never been out of their home state never mivd abroad–no points of refference or better comparison!!

      • Ken Reid

        Hope you know everything you think you do! But what if, by the wildest possibility of course, I’m right???

        • Bathing Suit Area

          But what if, by the wildest possibility of course, God really wants us to be gay and sends straight people to hell? Seems about as likely.

          • Ken Reid

            If you can live with those terms, so be it! And it seems that you can, if in fact “this life” is the only one you care about!

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Deal. Let us have secular laws in the real world, and you can have whatever God wants in the afterlife.

  • Nadine Faber

    The majority of Americans were discriminated against today and the march on to destroying marriage between a man and woman with the continuation of the family “children” is the intent of this whole thing. Christianity and/or religion on all fronts is being challenged and people who are faithful to God and now this decision has come down, immorality and the most unique relationship of all is going down because of Politics and Financial gains. This is not really about equality, nothing close to it. It is a means to end marriage between a man and woman along with destroying the very foundations of what this Nations laws and freedoms were based on. We the people lost in a big way today because no government made this decision, God did, now they took away a God given right today.

    • Robbie C

      No they aren’t. Nothing was said about heterosexual marriages. Please put down the Bible.

    • Bill Person

      Didn’t the big “O’ proclaim during his first election campaign that eh woudl “fundamentally change” the USA. That is done by destroying either in part or whole the foundations, and beliefs of a society!!

  • Don

    good now lets get some of Obamas legislation knocked down.

    • ObamaFail

      Like Obamacare.

  • TexasDan48

    The Gays are happy……and soon those who want to marry their own children……and someday those who want to marry their sheep, horses or other livestock, issues to be decided in the future.

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      Not yet they’re not–but the lawsuits are coming. THAT’s the purpose of this decision. Anybody who refuses to endorse homosexual relationships–priests who don’t conduct and churches that don’t host homosexual weddings, bakers who don’t cater them, and photographers that don’t photograph them–can now be punished with the full force of the government.

      And that’s been their goal all along.

      • Hiraghm

        Remember, the purpose of making Winston believe that 2+2=5 wasn’t because two plus two actually equals five.

      • LtColO

        Preach it. That’s exactly what’s going on. That’s what’s so contemptible about the sanctimony of those who say, “You’re just overreacting because you’re disappointed.” No, many people saw this coming from decades back and it’s playing out exactly as we thought.

      • TexasDan48

        You are correct…..the gay agenda has the money to take small businesses to court, while a small family owned business could be ruined. However, in at least 37 states which do not recognize gay “marriage” those lawsuits won’t have any legal standing.

      • Bathing Suit Area

        There are still churches that have never performed interracial marriages, and show no signs of being willing to. They have not been sued. Your paranoia is unfounded.

    • Hiraghm

      I’ve already proposed to my Amiga 3000, and it accepted (well, it didn’t say “no”…)

    • Richo

      Um, sounds like someone is thinking a bit too much about his livestock. Way to represent the Texas stereotypes :)

      • TexasDan48

        Yup…..we like our beef on a platter.

  • C-Saw

    Would have been nice if they supported my right to not have to pay a fine simply for being alive (ocare,) as much as i supported their right to get equal protection. The one way street goes on ..

    • journogal

      True…

    • Bathing Suit Area

      It’s not a fine for being alive, it’s a tax for living in the US. There are other countries with smaller governments, if they’re all so great move there.

      • C-Saw

        No, It’s a tax for being alive. Nice try though. How about we stop wasting the sweat equity of the citizens and then come asking for more by clobbering them over the head with the judicial system.

  • Bruce Watson

    People voting to mae a sinful act something right. If a man said It’s right for me tro run around with someone elses wife. The courts would say he’s crazy ansd wrong. So is what you have done Supreme court condemed your selves to Hell and those who stand with you. Jesus saves sin kills Gay marriage is against God. Feel sorry for our leaders when God Judges you.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      There’s no law against running around with someone else’s wife. If you think it’s a sin, don’t do it.

  • Kim

    “sore winners”…..sounds like the alleged small gov’t conservatives at twitchy want the feds to have more power regarding marriage.

    • journogal

      Nope; I want government out of my bedroom (liberals want others to pay for their $9 birth control), my bank, my thermostat, my car, my house, my business, my religion… and let me pursue happiness. If I fail, I fail – not anyone else’s fault if I do. It’s called personal responsibility, something liberals can’t and won’t handle.
      Seems to me, anytime liberals what something, they turn to government to demand it. The government just declared DOMA unconstitutional, thus government getting into marriage, isn’t it?

      • Kim

        If DOMA, hadn’t been there in the first place, there wouldn’t have been a hearing on it today. Seems like a two-way street. When conservatives want gay marriage banned they turn to government, instead of just prohibiting it in their churches.

        • journogal

          Blame Clinton for DOMA, he didn’t have to sign it, did he? Who was holding a gun to his head (oops, I said gun; oh no!) I am a conservative and personally don’t care who marries whom, that a personal choice that I’m not involved with (too bad liberals don’t understand that about responsible gun ownership.) I know it’s hard for you to believe that, since liberals tend not to have an open mind and can see others as individuals but lump them into groups.
          Remember, what the government give, the government can take away too. Seems like you want government decide everything in your life for you…

          • Kim

            Actually, you seem a little too myopic in your political views…there is only conservative/liberal. I am not a liberal but libertarian, so no I do not want gov’t making decisions for me, whether that be who I marry or how easy I can purchase a gun. For someone who claims not to care who someone sleeps with, this decision seems to sting for you.

          • journogal

            Not at all…sorry…anyone can marry who they want to, I don’t care. I am tired of government being involved in every aspect of everyone’s life.

          • Kim

            Something we agree on! :)

          • Hiraghm

            That’s always been the case; anybody can marry who they want to. The problem is, the left want to redefine “marry”.

          • Hiraghm

            This decision has nothing to do with who you marry.
            It has everything to do with what type of person entity you may marry..

            Who you marry is “Bob Jones” or “Susan Thomas”. Homosexual or heterosexual has to do with what you marry.

        • Hiraghm

          If liberals hadn’t sought legal course to get a tail named a leg (to paraphrase Heinlein), government wouldn’t be involved.

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      Because using government power to punish people for refusing to endorse homosexuality is really the small-government position.

  • Franklin Crittenden

    Being Gay is nothing more than a sexual preference, it is not a Civil Rights issue. Calling it a Civil Rights issue should be an insult to every Black American!

    • mark kelley

      I don’t think being gay is any more a personal preference than being black is.

      Is it your personal preference to be straight? Could you wake up one morning and just decide, hey i think i want to be gay today?

      I KNOW it doesn’t work that way. I am curious however, how others can think it does.

      • Franklin Crittenden

        No Mark, I do not believe that a Gay person wakes up one morning and decides to be Gay anymore than I believe a Pedophile wakes up one morning and just decides, hey I think I want to be a Pedophile today, but it doesn’t make it right or normal…

        The problem is that both no more than sexual preferences which does not make them a noble cause or a Civil Rights Issue.

        To say so would be an insult to real Civil Rights issues that actually involve Race, Creed and Gender and the people that are fighting those for those Noble causes,

        • mark kelley

          preference isn’t an accurate description. A preference is like, i prefer the brown tie over the blue tie with that shirt.

          Your sexual orientation is part of who you are, that cant be changed.

          Comparing pedophilia to homosexuality is kind of, well, disturbing.

          These human beings are only asking to be treated the same as heterosexuals. They are not hurting anyone.

          Sexual orientation should go right along with race, gender, and religion when it comes to equal treatment.

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, So you find comparing pedophilia to homosexuals disturbing? Well, I don’t want to ruin your buzz today but many Heterosexuals find the Gay lifestyle disturbing as well.

            You personal opinion of Pedophiles is just that, just your personal opinion. You may mean no harm but a Pedophile might be offended by your obvious discrimination against someone else’s Sexual preference?

            Maybe Gay men and women should be more accepting and tolerant to Pedophiles since they feel like second class citizens just like Gay people say you do?

            Do you see my point, where does this sexual revolution end?

            The next thing you know Gays and other sexual preference groups will want all the Voting Districts rezoned to give them an upper hand on Election Day?

            I am of course just exaggerating to make my point Mark…

            The fact is that we all don’t see every group’s self proclaimed Civil Rights as a Constitutional Right. I have read the Constitution many times and I have yet to find one word mentioned about any Rights covered by the US Constitution involving Sexual preferences?

            Mark, I am no shape or form a bigot, but I am a Conservative, and Liberals and Conservatives just see life differently:

            If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
            If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

            If a Conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
            If a Liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

            If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
            If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

            If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
            If a Liberal is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.

            If a Conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
            A Liberal demands that those they don’t like be shut down.

            If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
            A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

            If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

            If a Liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.

            Mark, Live your life quietly and please stop trying to force the rest of the world to agree with your PERSONAL BELIEFS…

            I wish you well…

          • mark kelley

            a pedophile is a sexual predator of children.

            I am not a liberal, nor am i or gay people trying to force anything upon you.

            I am a libertarian. People should be free to do as they wish as long as they are not infringing upon your rights to do the same.

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Libertarian Party Activists: Inconsistency on Marriage Equality

            “With the Supreme Court poised to release decisions in two landmark same-sex marriage cases, now would be a good time for libertarians to take a hard look at their message on this issue.

            As public opinion continues to move toward extending civil marriage to same-sex couples, one would think that libertarians would be on the vanguard of this winning social issue

            Unfortunately most libertarians are either silent or openly hostile towards this and other gay issues. When they comment on this issue, those statements are usually inconsistent with what Libertarians have advocated for nearly 42 years now.”

            I rest my case…

          • mark kelley

            So someone’s opinion on what a libertarian is supposed to believe proves some point you made?

            Not all libertarians think exactly the same thing just like not all conservatives take the same stance on every issue.

            I think for myself. I dont need someone else to define my beliefs for me.

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, There is no provision in the Constitution that protects the Rights of anyone based solely on their Sexual preference.

            From here on out we will be just arguing in circles and I see no need for either of us to waste our time doing that…

          • mark kelley

            Your right. People are not open minded enough to learn anything through conversation. They dont change their opinions even when the other party has a valid point.

            The constitution didnt protect anyones rights based on gender or race either. That doesnt mean that the way women and minorities were treated in the past was advocated in the constitution.

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, “The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.

            The Equal Rights Amendment

            Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

          • mark kelley

            “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

            So a man and a woman have a certain right, but a man and a man or a woman and a woman do not have the same right? sounds like discrimination based on sex to me :)

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, That means individuals (Male and Female) have the same basic Rights put forth in the Constitution, not that a man married to another man or a woman married to another woman have the same Rights as a Married Heterosexual couple.

            Those decisions are made by individual States, but it now appears that even if the people of a particular State vote against Gay marriage it can be overturned by that State’s Governor,

            I sure hope that all the Governors don’t decide to ignore the laws they disagree with or we might be right back to square one as far as Civil Rights and other important laws are concerned.

            You can’t have it both ways Mark…

            It’s not Constitutional for the majority to rule when it is convenient for certain groups and then not rule when it isn’t convenient…

            Being Gay is just a sexual preference, no more, no less

            I really do not care if every Gay couple in America gets married, I am just arguing the legality of the Gay Community or you thinking that it is a Right under the Constitution because it is not…

            In fact, I believe Married Gay Couples should have the Right to be just a miserable as Heterosexual Married Couples and have to deal with Divorce Courts, Child Custody, Alimony, Child Support and dividing their property just like the rest of us to deal with…

            So Gay community be very careful what you ask for because marriage comes with more bad things than it does good things…

            But there is no mention of sexual preference in the Constitution nor should there ever be…

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Mark, That means individuals (Male and Female) have the same basic Rights put forth in the Constitution, not that a man married to another man or a woman married to another woman have the same Rights as a Married Heterosexual couple.

            Those decisions are made by individual States, but it now appears that even if the people of a particular State vote against Gay marriage it can be overturned by that State’s Governor,

            I sure hope that all the Governors don’t decide to ignore the laws they disagree with or we might be right back to square one as far as Civil Rights and other important laws are concerned.

            You can’t have it both ways Mark…

            It’s not Constitutional for the majority to rule when it is convenient for certain groups and then not rule when it isn’t convenient…

            Being Gay is just a sexual preference, no more, no less

            I really do not care if every Gay couple in America gets married, I am just arguing the legality of the Gay Community or you thinking that it is a Right under the Constitution because it is not…

            In fact, I believe Married Gay Couples should have the Right to be just a miserable as Heterosexual Married Couples and have to deal with Divorce Courts, Child Custody, Alimony, Child Support and dividing their property just like the rest of us to deal with…

            So Gay community be very careful what you ask for because marriage comes with more bad things than it does good things…

            But there is no mention of sexual preference in the Constitution nor should there ever be…

  • Justin Jurek

    Secession time

    • Richo

      Absolutely. Get out!

  • Red

    Libtards are cannibals. They eat their own.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Why are you such an anti Catholic bigot?

  • Norm McDonald

    I am so conservative, I make Ted Nugent look like a flower child…this is a good ruling. The Feds have no business in the …uhh, business of marriage…and a hell of a lot of other crap they have taken over that the 10th Amendment absolutely is clear that the Fed should stay away from.

    • Hiraghm

      Marriage is a business? Do brides and grooms now have to file for incorporation?

      • Norm McDonald

        I used business as a verb…you took it as a noun; you knew that of course. And yes, marriage is business…..you signed a contract. And those of us who have gone through a divorce trying to get out of that contract know very well that the whole process is a business.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          I don’t think you know what verbs and nouns are.

  • Thomas A. Rice

    Having Bill Clinton’s name in the same sentence as the phrase “Defense of Marriage,” sounds a bit ironic don’t ya think?

  • rambler

    Now wait for all the attacks on churches by radicals who want to know which churches will perform the marriages and which ones won’t. This was more about getting to the churches that giving equal rights. There were other routes to take to legalize gay marriage and the lib/progs chose this route. As for the gays…… becarefull what you wish for because it may not be what you envisioned it would be. There are always those unintended consequences which occur and which lib/progs always fail to explore.

  • mikeinmn

    I guess I’m confused. While I support the right to marry, it worries me that a state’s citizens can use the process to legally vote on and approve an amendment to its constitution only to have it overturned by SCOTUS? If it’s truly a STATES issue, shouldn’t the STATES be allowed to decide without intervention?

    • Catchance

      That’s actually what SCOTUS did. They have said that the federal government does not have the right to overturn any state’s decision on same-sex marriage. DOMA was a federal law. In Hollingsworth vs Perry (Prop 8) they sent it back to the district court.

      I don’t agree with it, but it is a state-by-state decision.

  • ee1774

    Looks like the SCOTUS has now cleared the way for Polygamists to prepare their cases/lawsuits.
    Ditto any siblings who fall in love and wish to marry.

    Because (according to the SCOTUS) it all boils down to this:
    2 adult human beings who love each other should be allowed to marry each other.

    It’s a brand-new day, folks……

    • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

      Well if it’s 2 adult human beings than polygamists are kinda out of luck…

      • kssturgis62

        the LGBTQ community paved the way. The Show Sister Wives has been opening people’s Eyes to say look it isn’t bad we love each other. they will Sue, they will get their way, it will happen. The SCOTUS has become an Activist Court. the 14th Amendment was PASSED for one reason to give BLACKS equal Protection under the Law and state they were citizens of the USA. It was part of the Civil Rights Amendments specifically for black americans and because they dont know their history, no one knows history and therefore it has become whatever anyone means it to say.

      • Stephen L. Hall

        Who said it will be limited to “adult” human beings.

    • Hiraghm

      Where did SCOTUS limit it to “two”, “human beings” or “love each other”?

    • Catchance

      Well, no. SCOTUS didn’t say same-sex marriage was constitutional. They said that it’s up to the states to decide individually.

      • Stephen L. Hall

        Really, legally speaking, the decision is a correct extension of the Lake Erie Doctrine which requires the Federal Government to apply substantive state law. So their decision doesn’t surprise me, they left it up to the individual states to define marriage.

        Personally, I think the outcome should have been more fundamental, they could have stated that legislatures, federal or state, do not have the authority to “define” words, such as marriage. It is an assumed power of government not in keeping with traditional common law or Constitutional enumeration of powers.

        • Catchance

          Well said.

  • jenreg

    Nero fiddled while Rome burned!!! Think about it!

  • notenoughtime

    Hang on, because this same group that wants their choice of sex to be legislated, will be knocking on our church doors next. As usual with every traditional institution, they must invade and change it instead of producing their own traditions.

    • LtColO

      You are 100% spot ON. That’s exactly it. They need to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” and the standing witness of others who disagree with their worldview angers them. They won’t stop until those of us who think differently are treated as criminals.

  • Batman

    Love the left’s hypocrisy. :)

  • kssturgis62

    Everything Protected by the 1st Amendment is gone. Freedom Of Speech, Freedom of Religion

    We haven’t seen nothing yet. It is an all out day to Celebrate Sin. It is all out day to celebrate the Removal of the Lord God from everything, morals and Values.

    Pedophilia, Beastiality, Polygamists, Triologists, Watch out for NAMBLA who was riding on the tails of the LGBTQ community. They will push for the Lowering of consent Age. Because after all CHILDREN can make those Consent decisions, and they should have NO RAMIFICATIONS for their actions.

    They will be attacking and looking for any business that wants to Declare Free Association, Parental Rights, or Rights of Conscious. You think Doctors have quit over Obamacare, watch When a Physician says because of his Conscious he can’t perform a Sex Change Operation. Watch them Go After that Dr. Watch carefully, because in California and Massachusetts they already have !!

    Watch for LGBTQ history to be shoved down your children’s Throats, and it will be passed in your state like California that they don’t have to notify you as parents. They have Harvey Milk Day in California and they DO NOT TEACH HE WAS A PEDOPHILE !!! His runaway boyfriend, Jack McKinley, was 16 when Harvey was 33. Harvey was also well known for seducing boys with substance abuse problems at the youth center he ran.

    SB 48, mandating the celebration of LGBT history in all California schools for all children in all grades, is now law.

    If you think that this will not HAPPEN your Blind. This will become the Norms. These Were just Waiting in the wings, thank the Gay community, because the Deviancy that will be pushed on this nation has just begun. This is an all out assault on the Freedoms that we hold dear, on the everything Moral.

    The Lord God will not be Mocked.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      “The Lord God will not be Mocked.”
      The guy still gets around in sandals, I say he’s asking for a good mocking.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Doesn’t DOMA infringe in the 1st amendment rights of churches that do recognize gay marriage?

      • kssturgis62

        Trolls – n Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people.[1]. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory,[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

        • Bathing Suit Area

          Nice job avoiding answering the question.

          • kssturgis62

            I didn’t avoid it, I gave you the answer, Your the one on here trolling. I see you starting to argue with everyone on this thread with your Meaningless statements. I gave you several links from the note posted, I gave you new Links, I gave you all kinds of information. You are showing how pathetic you are by not reading.

            I give you this, I am done. Have a nice day promoting yourself.
            http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025483

  • http://www.successfulliving.me/ Frank Eriksen

    As a conservative Christian, I have to question those that would deprive one person, regardless of sexual preference” the right to leave their money/estate to whomever they choose” without our Government taxing the daylights out of the it.”

    • Steve in Katy

      You ok with me marrying my daughter, Frank? Or do you have a moving goal post?

    • People Corporation

      So leaving someone your property in your will was legal for everyone except teh gays? I did not know that.

    • Hiraghm

      I have no problem with that whatsoever. That’s an entirely separate issue in my mind.

      You should be able to leave your estate to whomever you choose, based upon whatever criterion you choose, in whatever proportion you choose. This does not require marriage, but a correction of the tax code. A truly flat tax, preferably a flat sales tax, would fix it.

      I’ll join any homosexual or heterosexual or celibate in happily opposing the death tax.

    • unklbrad

      It’s more about Social Security benefits and the like.

  • ObamaFail

    It’s good to see not everyone is an idiot. At least some people out there acknowledge that Bill Clinton, a DEMOCRAT, was the one who put DOMA in place. With full support of his wife, we can’t forget that.

    • Stephen L. Hall

      With this and Obama overturning Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and rolling back welfare reform, is anything left of Clinton’s prized “legacy”?

  • Marjorie

    I am so tired of this whole argument. There are so many bigger issues that need to be addressed. This IS a “bump in the road!”

  • Pizza the Hutt

    I could care less what someone does in their own bedroom as how people worship if no one else is harmed.

    • Hiraghm

      I know, I could care a lot less, myself. Because I care a lot.
      It’s that “if no one else is harmed” that’s the tricky bit.
      People are going to be forced to act against their principles and beliefs now.

      • Pizza the Hutt

        No church hopefully will be forced to something they do not want to do.

        • Spinmamma

          That’s the big question, isn’t it?

        • Spinmamma

          That’s the big question, isn’t it?

        • kssturgis62
          • Bathing Suit Area

            I actually looked at that link and found no instances of churches being required to marry gays. I suspect you’re enjoying your persecution paranoia party too much to care though.

          • kssturgis62

            Then I guess YOU DID NOT READ IT, By YOUR Statement You Proved You did not Read it. The Beginning of the Note states the following:

            This is lengthy. I am aiming for the more intelligent among us who will not read briefly and look at the full meaning of the destruction to come.

            So Because you Chose NOT to read the Note, you Missed the Following when it COMES TO CHURCHES

            http://christiannews.net/2013/01/08/massachusetts-pastor-sued-by-ugandan-homosexual-activist-group-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity/

            Churches being harassed

            Churches and religious people have been demonized, harassed and threatened – with no punishment for the perpetrators. Since the “gay marriage” ruling, those who publicly disagree with “gay marriage” or the normalcy of homosexuality – or hold events promoting traditional beliefs – are targets of militant retribution by homosexual activists. Police and public officials have shown no interest in stopping this. We are not aware of a single homosexual activist arrested (or charged with any “hate crime”) for disrupting a religious event or threatening and harassing people at a church. For example:

            In 2012 someone threatened to burn down a Catholic Church in Acushnet which posted the words “Two men are friends, not spouses” on its outdoor sign. The church immediately received a flood of profane phone calls. At least one person threatened to burn down the church. An activist nailed a sign to church’s fence saying, “Spread love not hate.” Activists staged a protest outside of the Sunday Mass to intimidate parishioners with a sign saying, “It is legal for two men or women to be spouses.” Neither the police nor the District Attorney pursued the threats as a hate crime or other offense.

            In 2010 a Catholic elementary school balked at letting a lesbian couple enroll their son. As a result, the school was excoriated in the media and even by the local liberal state representative as “discriminatory.” The privately-run Catholic Schools Foundation then threatened to withhold funding to the school unless it relented. The Archdiocese eventually backed down and the school reversed its policy.

            In 2009 angry homosexual activists terrorized the Park Street Church in Boston while it was holding an ex-gay religious training session inside. They demonstrated next to the doors and windows with signs, screaming homosexual slogans. One of them held a bullhorn against the window outside the meeting, bellowing at the participants inside. Police did nothing to stop them, even though they were standing inside the historic cemetery adjacent to the church.

            In 2006 dozens of screaming homosexual activists drowned out the speakers at an outdoor pro-marriage rally in Worcester organized byCatholic Vote, yelling “Bigots” and disgusting chants. Police did not stop them, even though the rally had a permit. When one of the rioters rushed the stage and started shouting, a rally organizer tried to lead her to the side. She subsequently sued that organizer for assault! He went through a four-day trial and was acquitted by a jury. But no charges were filed against any of the rioters.

            In 2006 a group of homosexual activists with signs taunted and screamed at people entering and leaving the Tremont Temple Baptist Church in downtown Boston, which was holding a nationally televised pro-marriage event inside.

            In 2005 hundreds of homosexual activists terrorized the Tremont Temple Baptist Church with makeshift coffins, screaming obscenities through loudspeakers as the national pro-family group Focus on the Family held a religious conference inside. The crowd was so threatening that attendees could not leave the church for the lunch break. The Boston riot police stood in front of the church doors, but did nothing to disperse the protesters who were also completely blocking the street.

          • kssturgis62

            See People Read things to Learn here is some more you MISSED BECAUSE YOU CHOSE NOT TO READ

            GONE — Religious freedom, conscience rights: Under threat of a $150,000 penalty, business owners and property owners cannot decline to hire or rent to homosexuals, bisexuals, or transsexuals despite an owner’s religious or moral conscience: Homosexuality and bisexuality — AB 196 – Gender Nondiscrimination Prohibits discrimination in employment and housing based on gender non-conformity. Signed by Governor Davis. Omnibus Labor and Employment Non-Discrimination Act (AB 2900) Omnibus Hate Crimes Act (SB 1234)

            http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025483

          • Bathing Suit Area

            That’s commerce, not worship. You said churches forced to marry gays, please provide examples.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            That’s a nice long comment, yet it still contains no instances of a church being required to host a gay wedding.

  • Michael Nappi

    Congratulations. Now can we get that Muslim loving Anti-American Obama out of the white house and into a jail cell where he belongs?

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Why do I get the feeling that you work that into every conversation you have? And are utterly oblivious to how sick most people around you are of hearing you go on about it?

      “Would you like fries with that?”

      “Yes, AND I’d like to get that Muslim loving…”

      • Michael Nappi

        It’s your right to sit idly by while Obama destroys our nation piece by piece, but it is also my right and my choice to talk about it and bring it to the attention of others. If you don’t like it, don’t read it, post back against it or just go look at pictures of warm fuzzy kittens.

  • ERMERGERD

    Don’t… care…

    • Hiraghm

      Then… why… comment… ?

  • Arapahoman15

    This is a sad day for mankind in it’s march into moral oblivion. It is sadder that people who know better helped to facilitate today’s court decisions. Their victory, in the end, will be short-lived. Christ’s coming will end all wickedness including gay marriage.

  • GolfPro

    Most of the people elected to serve and many others need to get their mind from between their legs and take care of business. If these people “fighting for their rights” would keep it in the bedroom where it belongs, no one would take notice. They wish to convert the world to their perverted way of living. It can never be for God set his seal of non-approval upon it. I heard a Rabbi speaking about it make the following statement: He said: “They state we’re here, we’re queer, we’re in your face.” And so it is! I am glad Christ is coming to take us out of this to a place where they can never come…unless they convert, becoming ‘born again.” Heterosexuals do not run the streets dressed like circus clowns, shouting “we are coming out! We are normal! It is our right! We want it this way.” The reason they do not have to do this is because that way IS NORMAL AND THE WAY GOD ORDAINED IT TO BE. It is not expected, or even thought of by heterosexuals. The other way is perverted and they know it, so in their rage eating at them inside, they shove it in others’ face. God will accept them as quickly as any other person if they are willing to change. Get angry at truth if you like. Here is what God says about it: “Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” .

  • neoface

    Not sure why small population of gays have so much power in this country, is it because the liberals always need a victim in their talking point? Will they now fight for marrying your dog?

    • Hiraghm

      I know I will, now.

    • unklbrad

      Um, have you taken a close look at most liberal chicks? They mistakenly believe they need to look like a boy to be taken seriously.

    • Grandma HeadInjury

      It’s already going on in Europe. They call themselves zoophiles. Their argument: they were “born this way.” Sound familiar?

  • Bill Person

    None of this will be settled until gene mapping is completed and a very high level of genetic interaction is undeerstood. Untill then we are left with, at the most a behavior being nothing more than a genetic predisposition. So the question really becomes, can the Federal government really legislate behavior? Agree or not with DOMA this is the larger question.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Hunh? You saying homosexuality is genetic? Not at all environmental? Not at all the product of suggestion and acceptance? Is cigarette smoking likewise a genetic predisposition? It is after all addictive behavior, and the Federal government has been legislating cigarette commercials for years. So I guess the Federal government has been legislating behavior for a long time.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Hunh? You saying homosexuality is genetic? Not at all environmental? Not at all the product of suggestion and acceptance? Is cigarette smoking likewise a genetic predisposition? It is after all addictive behavior, and the Federal government has been legislating cigarette commercials for years. So I guess the Federal government has been legislating behavior for a long time.

  • Not Anonymous

    If they allow same sex marriage, then they are going to have to allow polygamy. While, I don’t subscribe to polygamy, it seems only fair to accept both regimes. I bet we would be surprised how many people out there support Heterosexual polygamy over gay marriage. I believe in freedom as a whole, so I think you should be able to marry a duck, if you get along well.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Bring on the harem! While we’re at it, why have age limits on marriage? I am sure NAMBLA would concur.

      • Not Anonymous

        Polygamy between adults, is hardly pedophilia…

        I was merely pointing out that those two marital regimes fall into the same category in many people’s eyes; so they should allow both.

  • KayGee

    Because just about the only possible way that this ruling can be approached with a positive note on Twitchy is if it’s spun into a Clinton-bashing orgy. Never mind that he keeps publicly stating how much he regrets signing the law, and especially never mind all that pesky Constitutional reasoning behind it being struck down, since that document is valid ONLY when it’s being used to justify and uphold a modern conservative agenda.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Nah. It’s just fun watching the entire Clinton presidency come undone under Obama. And the Bush presidency got a shot in the arm – with steroids (NSA surveillance, Patriot Act extended, Bush tax cuts extended, GITMO still open, escalation in Afghanistan, …).

    • LtColO

      Not to mention Christian teaching is almost universally against divorce whenever possible. Oops. attached reply to wrong comment.

      • mark kelley

        but you arent trying to make divorce illegal?

    • LtColO

      Not to mention Christian teaching is almost universally against divorce whenever possible. Oops. attached reply to wrong comment.

    • http://commentspammersmustdie.blogspot.com/ Kakarot

      Yeah. Who really cares what Bill Clinton DID. What is important is how he FELT about it. Especially five years later.

      • KayGee

        also never mind the congress that voted it onto his desk, either. Because LOL Clinton sux or something.

    • http://commentspammersmustdie.blogspot.com/ Kakarot

      Yeah. Who really cares what Bill Clinton DID. What is important is how he FELT about it. Especially five years later.

  • mark kelley

    So a man and a woman can get up in church and swear an oath before GOD and community to be true to one another, until death do us part and all that. Then go get a divorce and remarry and get a divorce.. Where is the outcry?

    But a gay couple can not get married, its an abomination? It goes against GOD’s plan? Its an affront to your religion?

    I would think christians would be more upset about the people breaking their oaths before GOD.

    Where is the logic? I believe in GOD, I’ve read the bible. I have studied history. Someone make me understand.

    • FlyoverGuy

      So, the choice is to either outlaw civil divorce or redefine marriage?

      It wasn’t traditional Christians pushing easy divorce in the 1960s and 1970s.

      You make no sense.

    • Mickey O’Brien

      Um, Christians ARE upset about breaking marriage oaths made before God. It is YOUR logic that I cannot follow. How does divorce justify same-sex marriage? Are you suggesting that same-sex marriage would be immune to divorce? Or are you suggesting that heterosexuals have so screwed up marriage that hiomosexuals couldn’t screw it up worse? You’ve read the Bible? How about 1 Cor 6:9-10? According to St. Paul, it isn’t just homosexuals who will have hell to pay, because fornicators and adulterers will as well. But he is pretty explicit about “sodomites” (homosexuals). This ruling today was not biblical, it was an interpretation of the 5th and 10th Amendments.

      • mark kelley

        Well, you touched on what my question was in your reply. The “sanctity” of marriage has been destroyed for decades.

        I was wondering how christians can argue that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry based on their religions beliefs when its totally acceptable in our society to marry on a whim, and divorce if you change your mind.

        A lot of christians are in an uproar over this gay marriage issue but when was the last time you saw a protest or any media coverage of christians upset about the prevalence of divorce.

        • LtColO

          How is the sanctity of marriage destroyed? Is the sanctity of life destroyed because of murder? Huh??

        • LtColO

          How is the sanctity of marriage destroyed? Is the sanctity of life destroyed because of murder? Huh??

  • Mickey O’Brien

    First DADT, then DOMA. Poor President Clinton. What next: the EIC?

  • Love of Country

    In other words, John Roberts made Owebamaocare law for absolutely no reason …. clearly no one respected that regrettable malfeasance!

  • Alan Milton

    Actually Bill Clinton is very happy that this portion of the DOMA was overturned. In 1996 DOMA was introduced by Don Nickles (R) in the GOP controlled Senate and by Rep Bob Barr (R) in the House which were both controlled by the GOP. President Clinton didn’t support gay marriage then but was against passing DOMA He had to sign this law even though he didn’t want to as the GOP controlled Congress had enough votes to overturn a Presidential veto. Please check your facts Malkin before posting. OH OH OH I forgot you are with FAUX News you don’t check facts.

    • mark kelley

      Regardless of who controlled congress, no one forced him to sign it. Even if they could have overridden his veto, he should have used his conscience in making a decision on what to do…sounds like a copout to me.

      • Alan Milton

        My point was that Clinton isn’t sad about it at all as was claimed by Malkin

  • Alan Milton

    Actually Bill Clinton is very happy that this portion of the DOMA was overturned. In 1996 DOMA was introduced by Don Nickles (R) in the GOP controlled Senate and by Rep Bob Barr (R) in the House which were both controlled by the GOP. President Clinton didn’t support gay marriage then but was against passing DOMA He had to sign this law even though he didn’t want to as the GOP controlled Congress had enough votes to overturn a Presidential veto. Please check your facts Malkin before posting. OH OH OH I forgot you are with FAUX News you don’t check facts.

  • $4752944

    If government got out of the business of licensing and regulating marriage, this wouldn’t be a problem, to begin with. As is, most laws wrt marriage are some form of Jim Crow law, punishing one group or individual -including men- over another, including gays and lesbians, et al., while rewarding religious traditionalists – and women.

    • unklbrad

      Rewarding us with a higher combined tax rate?

  • $4752944

    If government got out of the business of licensing and regulating marriage, this wouldn’t be a problem, to begin with. As is, most laws wrt marriage are some form of Jim Crow law, punishing one group or individual -including men- over another, including gays and lesbians, et al., while rewarding religious traditionalists – and women.

  • Darren Perkins

    Doesn’t really matter, it wasn’t enforced anywayy

  • billy86

    The American Psychiatric Association, (APA) dropped the “homosexuality” diagnosis (as a mental disorder) from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual in 1973 due to nothing more than political correctness pressure by a couple of powerful liberal psychiatrist editors. Science not required. (financial and pharma-associations are also suspect in the decision)

    • Bathing Suit Area

      On what scientific evidence was it put into the DSM?

      • Bathing Suit Area

        *tumbleweed*

  • ICOYAR

    While I do not like Bill Clinton, he did the right thing here.

  • Damien Johnson

    I think we should do what MSNBC did, when they asked a five year old how they feel about gay marriage. We should start asking kids how would they feel if they were aborted. If they play dirty, we should too.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Remember to ask them how they’ll feel being forced into giving birth, too.

      • cocodrie

        Why? Are you gonna force them to have sex?

        Jesus loves you so much He died for you

        • Bathing Suit Area

          No forcing, but most people do at some point in life choose to have sex.

          • cocodrie

            Yes, but should we be teaching 5 year olds to get abortions?

            Jesus loves youn so much He died for you

  • Whokilledkenny

    I really don’t care, but the brain-washers got me thinking, the
    courts and law cannot change what nature has bloomed. Procreation.So scientifically thinking, what is man made? Global warming or homosexuality.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Laws are also man made.

      • mark kelley

        we all come from nature., men are nature therefore what is created by man is from nature. ants make anthills, naturally, bees make hives, thats also natural.

        Homosexual activity is represented in many other species besides man.

  • Franklin Crittenden

    I believe Married Gay Couples should have the Right to get married and be just a miserable as over 50% of Heterosexual Married Couples are… That way you guys can deal with Divorce Courts, Child Custody battles, Alimony, Child Support and dividing up their family’s property just like the rest of us are forced to deal with in our lives…

    So Gay community, Be very careful what you ask for because marriage comes with many trappings and there just as much misery involved in being married as there is happiness!

    You people don’t realize that you already have the best of both worlds. Take from someone who was cleaned out in a divorce and still hasn’t recovered financially over 15 years later.

    Don’t be STUPID!

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Sounds like you really want to ban straight marriage.

      • Franklin Crittenden

        The way things are going these days Straight Marriage will be a thing of the past with a decade or two.

        You know the old saying, “why buy the Cow when you can get the milk for free”? Well, these days with women pushing for abortions on demand and over 300,000 being performed each year it is a free for all! Take that along with men expecting sex on the first date and getting it and that old saying takes on a whole new meaning!

        The next time you go out for dinner take a look around and see just how many Heterosexuals couples are out on a actual date and then notice how many tables are full of just Women paying for their own dinner and then heading out to a bar or nightclub afterwords? I am telling you, it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the single guys out there!

        Man, In the old days we had to at least buy them a few dinners and take them to a movie a time or two before we could expect anything. These days they actually feed themselves, buy their own drinks until they are drunk and when closing time comes aroung you can just take your pick, LOL!

        God Bless Women’s Lib and Abortion on demand!

        • Bathing Suit Area

          So because we can have sex without getting married, marriage will vanish? Are you suggesting that the only reason anyone ever got married in the old days was to have sex?

          • Franklin Crittenden

            Just telling it like it is Bathing Suit Area:

            I have seen several reports over the past few months that say that fewer Americans are getting married. In fact, married people are now the minority. The prospects are even worse for Black women, with all the problems with finding “suitable” Black men. Furthermore, Americans who do decide to marry are generally waiting longer. But few of the reports dare to mention the real reason behind the decline.

            Fewer marriages are no surprise. It basically comes down to economics. Few news outlets look at the relationship between marriage and money. What is marriage really??? Marriage is basically an arrangement or contract of economic convenience….and it’s been that way for Centuries. This was especially the case up until the 1950’s and 60’s, when fewer women worked (right before the Nuclear Family began to fade). Women were more dependent on men for financial security at that time.

            Recent research show that divorce rate has increase over the years with over 50% of divorce cases in the customary courts. This is alarming.

            Why do couple divorce? You may want to ask. Well, it simply because there is no true LOVE in such relationship. Period. Where is true love between couples such relationship will stand no matter the challenges and difficulties they may face. True love is missing in so many marriages today. In the first place many singles lack this true love, all that runs in their vein is infatuation and lust. Little wonder, break up is on the rise.

  • Hiraghm

    That would be every INDIVIDUAL human being; you on the left don’t think in terms of individuals, but in terms of groups. So you want one *group* equal to another, overlaps notwithstanding.

    SCOTUS has declared those suffering from the mental/emotional illness that is homosexuality as a 3rd sex, and more equal than others.

  • journogal

    Since when do you care about an individual…liberals are all about group think.

  • FirstNameTooMuchLastNameSwag

    They are being granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. That’s hardly “more equal.”

  • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

    Putting aside your ridiculous and offensive reasoning, homosexuality hasn’t been thought of as a mental illness by psychologists for decades. But please, keep grasping at outdated ways of thinking. That definitely won’t contribute to the image of conservatives as science hating backwards thinkers.

  • Robot F. Kennedy

    You all are calling it a mental illness now? Huh, here I thought bigots were certain it was a “choice” or just a “lifestyle” this whole time.

  • Catchance

    It’s important to understand that SCOTUS did NOT declare same-sex marriage as constitutional. Their ruling was that the federal government could not overrule or invalidate the states’ laws on same-sex marriage. In other words, if a state has a type of DOMA law of its own (ie Prop 8) the federal government does not have the right to overturn it and tell that state that they have to allow same-sex marriage.

  • Rightturn

    It’s troubling to see the amount of people who signed on to agree with your comment, as if it were even possible for someone to be “more equal” than another. There is but one degree of equality, there is no ‘more equal’, nor is there any ‘less equal’. It’s really a binary, either equal or unequal.

    I know some of you are likely terrified of grade school textbooks, what with them being littered with such liberal bias and facts that may melt your flesh off, but for those willing to brave it, just open up any 3rd grade math book and you may speedily be all caught up and learned as to the concept of just what ‘equal’ really is.

  • journogal

    Does this go both ways for you, or do rights only matter when it’s your beliefs? If people are liberals, do you believe in their rights?

  • Hiraghm

    They already HAD the same rights as heterosexual INDIVIDUALS. All they need do is find a willing member of the opposite sex in order to get married. That they are mentally/emotionally defective shouldn’t require a rewrite of the laws to presume their appetites healthy. Or even relevant to marriage, for that matter.

  • MissJames

    I’m a conservative and I agree with you. Equal is equal all the time. Can’t pick and choose when it suits you,IMO. They did the right thing .

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “They are being granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. That’s hardly “more equal.””

    No, I don’t have a right to force others to accept my own distinct definition of marriage. They already have a right to marry equal to every other citizen’s rights.

    I guess gender itself is “unequal.” What are you going to do about that?

    I’m sure the leftists will have a plan for that if they haven’t already destroyed our constitution by the time they need it. Perhaps no human will be allowed to have any discernible signs of gender distinctions They will be neutered in the womb when the mothers show up for their application to give birth, required by the state. That will only be necessarily until all of the “gendered” people are dead. Then the state can produce babies in the factory and run the whole thing out of sight of the sensitive citizens.

    Perfection will be here soon. Shangri-La is absolutely possible if we just get rid of those religious people.

  • FirstNameTooMuchLastNameSwag

    Yeah they have the same rights. Accept, of course, not being able to adopt in many states and most states not even recognizing their Civil Union as legitimate. But other than that, yeah they are equal.

  • Hiraghm

    There is no both ways to go. No rights were being violated. The only problem was that sane people were unwilling to pretend that homosexual appetites constituted a 3rd sex.

    Everyone always had the right to marry. All they had to do was find a willing member of the opposite sex. That they were defective in their sexual appetites did not mean that anyone was denying those suffering from homosexuality a right to marry.

    I’m waiting for a computer nerd to try marrying his computer or robot. (Actually, I do love my Amiga… and iirc, I had some pr0n on it when I was young… hmm…)

  • 1972patriot

    It is not so hard to understand that they were afforded equal rights… I have never been able to legally marry someone of the same sex either. Leave it to a lib to throw in the grey, warm and fuzzy until it is no longer recognizable.

  • 1972patriot

    It is not so hard to understand that they were afforded equal rights… I have never been able to legally marry someone of the same sex either. Leave it to a lib to throw in the grey, warm and fuzzy until it is no longer recognizable.

  • Red Fred

    Then I suspect “sodomites” would be really.y.y offensive.

  • Hiraghm

    Good ol’ Christian love of the type that freed 15,000 slaves and stopped the advance of Islam for nearly half a millennium.

    It is not “loving” to indulge destructive delusions. It is loving to intervene and make someone aware of his destructive behaviors.

    Just as it’s good ol Christian love to intervene with an alcoholic or drug addict who’s in denial, it’s Christian love to stop pretending the ill are healthy just for the sake of their feelings.

  • Derek plt

    I’m not against gays, that is their own business, but when they try & force their “lifestyle” on the rest of society it becomes irritating, often arrogant & sometimes even offensive (middle of the day wearing vulgar costumes, parading all over EVERYONE’S city like it’s theirs). They want do distance themselves from heterosexual people in every way imaginable (not all do but a large portion do, like the “flamboyant” ones) so why do they have to hijack the Judeo Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony? why can’t they agree on some exclusive gay union the way they’ve invented the gay clubs, haircuts, mannerisms, dialect etc.

    They already had civil unions that allowed them the same benefits of a hetero married couple so it’s obvious they have been pushing for this just because they are running out of things to fight for, because they’ve been accepted by the majority of society. It’s like in the Middle Ages after a war the soldiers had nothing to do because there was no enemy to fight so they began “inventing” enemies & attacking the innocent for no particular purpose or gain.

    This is just shameful showmanship by the gay community I think.

  • journogal

    Explain, please…Why are liberals concerned with “Christian love,” thought liberals thought worshipping anything but the government was stupid. What do you care what others think? You want to see liberal love, click on the Stacy Dash link and read what liberals said to her for simply speaking her opinion.

  • Norm McDonald

    Hey..I agree with the decision simply because the Fed hasn’t the right to be in anything not covered in the 9th and 10th Amendment. But when the next polygamist decides to get his case to court…or the next sheepherder wants to marry his woolly Montana blond, I want to see the gays and the super supporters of gay marriage get on board with them. And if I see one single gay person attack a polygamist, I call…HYPOCRITE!

  • journogal

    So do you feel this way about conservative groups as well? They should have the same rights as liberal groups, or not? I don’t have an issue with equal rights for everyone, but with liberals, they tend to only want them for liberals. Yesterday, the high court established equal rights for the states, meaning that a handful of states didn’t need permission regarding voting under the 1965 VRA, and liberals went ballistic, not thinking that we haven’t grown and learned from 1965. Hmmm…and now, liberals love the high court.

  • Lovejoy

    I never understood why people who can’t procreate and say they’re born that way have such a strong parental desire.

    http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/gay-marriage-is-a-threat-to-gay-sexual-freedom/

    I don’t agree with him but I like his honesty.

  • Catchance

    SCOTUS ruled that the federal government could not invalidate a state’s same-sex marriage law; they did not that rule that same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, or even constitutional. So if a state has passed its own form of DOMA same-sex couples will still not be recognized there… they’ll have to go to a more liberal state.

    Whether you believe that homosexuality is a choice or innate, it’s still up to individual states to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage.

  • Hiraghm

    I don’t know of any homosexual who is married to a member of the opposite sex who has been denied adoption on the basis of his/her sexual appetites.
    Civil union is not marriage, I see no reason to recognize it as such.
    Certainly two people should be able to contract between themselves. But, said contract would place obligations on the two parties, not the State or state.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Adoption is not a right. One must be qualified. Children do have rights, even those that need adoption.

  • Al Gagnon

    somebody please remind me what amendment affords protection to DEVIENTS , ‘couse my copy of the constitution seems to be missing that amendment

  • therantinggeek

    Give it time. Once human-like robots are commonplace, I won’t be surprised to see something like that happen.

  • Waldo

    Nah, first it has to become hip in Europe

  • Hiraghm

    I’ll tell that to the FAA when I try to get a pilot’s license as a diabetic.

    Maybe I can talk a blind guy into applying for a pilot’s license and a job at American Airlines….

    “Hey, everyone’s equal! You can’t deny me a license to fly just because I’m defective!”

  • Hal Fast

    Missjames, according to God it is a abomination. So ruling in favor of an abomination that is clearly against God’s will is right? The foolishness of man will never learn it seems.

  • thanos0145

    What about polygamy? With today’s decisions, polygamists will now go to court to get thier rights too.

    Pandora’s box is now wide open!

  • mark kelley

    So God came down and told you he hated gays did he?

    There is so much disgust on this page today. Equality is equality. The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place.

    All of this “gays are defective, mentally ill, abomination’ crap is what gives the liberals a legitimate reason to think of conservatives as backwoods, ignorant, bigots.

  • MissJames

    I respect your beliefs .I personally try to live by the Gospel and the Constitution as I was taught,which my be different than other’s interpretations.

  • GaylePutt

    But not everyone believes in God…His word doesn’t hold any water with some folks…so is your belief more valid? If your God created homosexuals, why is it an abomination? And if a diabetic blacks out and crashes a plane he’s piloting, the consequences are disastrous to many. What real harm does gay marriage do to you?

  • Pelagian

    The ONLY reason homosexuality is proscribed is because religion is propagated (and gains its worldly power therein) by increasing the percentage of the population who share that religion. Since homosexuals don’t produce offspring to be indoctrinated from their most impressionable state to adulthood, they don’t serve the purpose of the religion.

  • journogal

    Really? So a few people speak for all conservatives? Then by that account, those liberals that told Stacy Dash that she should fry herself in chicken grease, and the Democrat State Rep in MN, who called Justice Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom,” speaks for all liberals.
    What a small-minded person you come across as; typical liberal that lumps people into groups. Typical.

  • Hiraghm

    I LOVE the way leftists IMMEDIATELY leap from “disagreement” and/or “disapproval” to “hate!”.

    The philosophy of children; everything that doesn’t indulge their every whim is hateful.

  • GaylePutt

    Not all conservatives oppose gay marriage just as I’m sure many liberals feel abortion is an abomination.

  • Hiraghm

    okay, how about you forget the epithets and and refute my arguments?

  • Elson Snider

    God didn’t come down,it’s written in his word!! He said,that it was an abomination,and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for these very same immoral activities!! I don’t have to preach it! One day all will stand before God,and they will see what he thinks about their lifestyle! People think that they will live forever,but life is but a span,and they’ll find out sooner then they think that just because the Supreme Court says it’s OK,doesn’t mean that God has their same values!!

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place.”

    That’s a much better argument than arguing for so-called marriage equality.

    Now what about the children? The state does have an interest, and a vital one, in ensuring there are people to inherit our nation.

    But to avoid hurt feelings, let’s throw all of that out the window. Let the state create children in laboratories and just forget about marriage entirely. Bruised feelings are so…sad.

  • mark kelley

    a few? read all the comments on this page. I didnt say “all conservatives” I’m calling out these haters for being exactly like the ones that jump on stacey dash and clarence thomas from the Left.

    Im not a liberal, and you cant defend people by pointing out that someone else did the same thing..thats like blaming bush as a defense for obama

  • journogal

    Then don’t read them or comment on them. See how easy that is? Disagreement or voicing an opinion that differs from yours isn’t automatically “hate.”

  • Hiraghm

    Please point out anyone expressing hatred. But first, look up “hate” in the dictionary.

  • Derek plt

    You said the few opinions of one or two commenters on here give libturds a LEGITIMATE reason to think of conservatives as bigots. Don’t try to slither out of the leftist box you put yourself in.

  • Hiraghm

    Ah, well there you go. Not being a bigot, I’m not restricted to their conclusions.

    And I’ve called it a mental illness for at least a quarter century.

  • ObamaFail

    Pulling the bigot card. That’s all you libs know how to do.

  • Hiraghm

    Logic is never an outdated way of thinking and yes, I will continue to resort to it.

    The gravitational attraction of the Earth is not 32 feet per second per second due to popular opinion. The value of PI is not due to popular opinion either.

    If “psychologists” come to an erroneous conclusion, they either have flawed reasoning, and incomplete understanding of the facts, or, most likely, an agenda to promote. Just like all those “scientists” that support the hoax of “climate change” in the teeth of factual evidence.

    Note that you have used popular opinion of self-proclaimed “experts” to counter my assertion, but you have done nothing to demonstrate any flaws in my reasoning.

    1) what is the function of your genitals?
    2) from an evolutionary standpoint, why does sexual attraction exist? What purpose does it serve?

    3) why haven’t addictions been bred out of the population by now?
    4) what is the purpose of the powerful endorphin “rush” which accompanies sexual climax?

  • DefCon99

    The change in definitions came as a result of a vote. Another vote could change it back.

  • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

    So if we’re going the “sex feels good because you’re supposed to use it for procreation” route, why is anal sex pleasurable for the person on the bottom? The prostate evolved to be in the perfect spot for anal stimulation, so by your reasoning it’s just as much of an evolutionary necessity as hetero sex.

    But by your reasoning any hetero couple that doesn’t have kids are also suffering from a psychological problem, seeing as your argument seems to be that if you’re having sex that doesn’t lead to procreation it’s a mental disorder.

  • Clete Torres

    In that case, let’s go with that.

  • MissJames

    It would be incorrect. Not all gay men have anal sex . Lesbians certainly don’t. And what about heterosexual couples that have anal sex?
    To me this isn’t even about sex,per se,but about people who love each other and want to create a family ,just like heterosexuals do. LOVE being the critical part,IMO.
    I’m a conservative,but I don’t understand the hate over this issue. For sure ,Jesus Christ would not condone hatred.

  • MissJames

    Not all gay men engage in “that kind of ” sex. My actual use of the term was moderated. Women who are a couple don’t either,so the term is not correct,although I suspect plenty of heterosexual couples engage in “that kind of ” sex.
    This isn’t even about sex,per se ,but two people who love each other and want to be married.

  • MissJames

    big difference if your actions are putting someone else’s life in jeopardy.

  • Richo

    Oh yeah, when I called you an abomination and a deviant I was just “disagreeing” with you 😉

  • mark kelley

    exactly.
    Nope, no hate going on here at all. You must be a leftist if you disagree!

  • Hiraghm

    I don’t recall calling anyone an abomination; I believe I said some would consider homosexuality an abomination… mostly because I live in the real world where at least some Christian denominations and most Moslem denominations consider homosexuality to be an abomination. That’s not hate.

    Might want to look up the definition of “deviant”, before assuming it’s being used as ad hominem.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    It helps to quote when making accusations about what people allegedly say. It enhances your credibility when you do.

  • MissJames

    I don’t care for vulgar displays either,but gays don’t have a monopoly on that . It’s all across our society . A marriage is usually the opposite of a vulgar display. It’s a commitment and the beginning of a family.
    How would this be forcing their lifestyle on YOU ?

  • Robbie C

    They aren’t forcing. They simply just want the same rights. Nothing more. DOMA was making them a separate class which was wrong.

  • Waldo

    Amen!

  • Pelagian

    That would be the first and fourteenth amendments. Because, as far I can tell your definition of “devient” (sic) is based on that mental illness known as religion.
    If your argument is based on it being an unnatural state of being, you’d be using a false premise as homosexual tendencies occur in nearly (if not all) species of mammals, so it IS natural.
    If your argument is based on it being outside of the norm (norm being defined as in lockstep with the majority of the population), then that would make everyone with blue eyes or red hair a deviant in your eyes. Following that line of reasoning, homophobia being a minority state of belief for those not indoctrinated into it by their various pushers of religion, I guess that would make YOU a deviant.

  • Robbie C

    There you go again using a Bible to try to make a law that has no effect on you or the countless religions that this country has.

  • MissJames

    I wish everyone that was gay had the courage to come out so you could say that to someone you’ve probably known and admired.
    Some are even conservatives and within the Republican party .
    Some are military heroes and police officers protecting you. They are popular sports heroes,you just don’t know they are gay.
    Not all gays or gay rights supporters are liberals nor are they deviants .

  • Alasdair Norris

    You spelled deviants incorrectly.

  • kyleco

    Please remind me what amendment defines marriage…because my copy seems to be missing it.

  • MissJames

    Just because you choose to call it that ,doesn’t make it so.

  • Bill Person

    Could it be more a behavioral choice? Isn;t that what Psychologists deal with!!

  • Lyn

    Whether you personally “believe” in God or not, the day will come when EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, even yours! I choose to bow to Him and serve Him now and forever.

  • Hiraghm

    it serves to destroy the most vital and basic institution of society; marriage. It turns it from a serious, sacrosanct institution into a cry for attention.

  • Thomas Darkvane

    There is that thing called “Free Will.” People tend to forget that part.

  • Belinda Henry

    Gayle its a sin to people who believe in the Bible. If gay people have the right to disagree then the same rights apply to people of religion. You understand that right?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “If your God created homosexuals, why is it an abomination?”

    Do you refer to homosexuals as objects?

    “What real harm does gay marriage do to you?”

    It harms children. A lot.

  • Robbie C

    Really? Have you seen how many horrible marriages there are? But yet I don’t see you spewing about that.

  • Hiraghm

    By redefining “a commitment and the beginning of a family” to include “a couple people who want the advantages of marriage and to have their illness validated as ‘normal'”.

    It wouldn’t be forcing their lifestyle on ME if A) they never left their home and B) if the law would never force anyone to acknowledge or accommodate their relationship as a marriage.

    Otherwise, it’s forcing their “lifestyle” on me.

  • Robbie C

    Very different here because that is different species or more than one human being. Polygamy can be practice except on paper. Legally, the head guy can technically be married to only one person. On paper. They can have all the ceremonies they want, but until they try to get legally married to two or more people, that’s illegal.

  • MissJames

    When sheep can talk and give informed consent we’ll address the issue as it comes up. Good grief.

  • Hiraghm

    Not all gaydefective men engage in “that kind of” sex.

    You mean there are some homosexuals who only have intercourse with women? Might want to look up the definition of “sodomy” there…Sodomy according to Merriam-Webster

  • Hiraghm

    Sodomy is not just anal sex.

  • Hiraghm

    I don’t understand where anyone is finding “hate” in this issue. Point to the hate. Disagreement and disapproval are not hate.

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    Jesus Christ did not condone homosexuality. We do not hate homosexuals, we hate homosexuality because it is a sin which Jesus also believed.

  • LtColO

    Calling it “hate” gives cover to dismiss the counterpoint out-of-hand. After all, you don’t have to discuss anything with “haters” do you? And EVERYONE finds “hate” repugnant (unless you’re talking about Sarah Palin or George Bush).

  • MissJames

    Calling people deviants,defectives,liberals with an agenda…….
    We can debate the issue and respect each others views without name calling or making assumptions .
    I hate people who are fighting to insure women can have abortions after 20 weeks. I hate them i don’t just disagree with them. They want to kill babies. I see the same level of hate in some of these comments ,but I don’t think it’s nearly the same .
    I just don’t understand why two people who love each other can’t have the same right to do so that I do.

  • Hiraghm

    Which flies in the face of Article IV:

    Section 1.

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    Section 2.

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    So today’s decision is BS based on BS.

  • Hiraghm

    Just because you choose to ignore reality doesn’t make it not so.

  • LtColO

    I’ve seen the same thing. People are all for “states rights” when it means the advance of their own agenda. Whatever your stance, be consistent.

  • Hiraghm

    So if we’re going the “sex feels good because you’re supposed to use it
    for procreation” route, why is anal sex pleasurable for the person on
    the bottom?

    I would argue that anal sex is not always pleasurable, in the first place.

    I would further argue that some people also derive pleasure from being physically tortured. Bad wiring.

    seeing as your argument seems to be that if you’re having sex that doesn’t lead to procreation it’s a mental disorder.

    That is not my argument.
    My argument is that if you are sexually attracted to something other than a member of the opposite sex, you have a mental/emotional illness. What you do about it is irrelevant.

    In the 1980s, a study was conducted of heroin addicts, since they had the highest rate of recidivism among drug addicts.
    The conclusion drawn was that the “high” achieved from heroin was most like the endorphin “high” from sexual climax.

    This is why addictions haven’t been bred out of us. Sex is a necessary addiction for the perpetuation of the species. It certainly explains why animals are willing to go to such extremes to engage in procreation (even to the point of dying for it), and why humans go to such lengths to maximize the “high” from sexual climax (such as auto-erotic asphyxia).

    So, the pleasure derived from the sex act isn’t relevant. Its function is to help ensure the act takes place.

    Why is it nobody has trouble recognizing that impotence is an illness, sometimes a mental illness brought on by depression or other state, or that pedophilia and bestiality are illnesses, but not homosexuality? That the target of the appetite is willing or unwilling, is ultimately harmed or not harmed, is not relevant to the existence of the appetite. The appetite exists. Why is one appetite “sick” and another “normal”?

    The only appetite that has an excuse for being “normal” rather than “sick” is heterosexual appetite, because of the procreation potential.

    My point being, one either has to accept all appetites, or be shown to be an agenda driven hypocrite basing one’s definition of “normal” upon one’s own appetites (aka, basing it on whose ox is being gored).

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “So if we’re going the “sex feels good because you’re supposed to use it for procreation” route, why is anal sex pleasurable for the person on the bottom?”

    Because they’re deviants.

    “The prostate evolved to be in the perfect spot for anal stimulation, so by your reasoning it’s just as much of an evolutionary necessity as hetero sex.”

    Uh, no. Without chasing down each fallacy, what is the function of sex? Is procreation a vital ingredient in creating descendants? Is it possible to do something that is close to correct but still wrong?

  • Hiraghm

    That would depend on the religion, since some pagan religions actually include homosexuality in part of the ritual.

  • GaylePutt

    And if you think about it…back in the day when the only way one could wield power was to be nobility, the only other way to have any control over the masses was to be a big wig in the church. And the NSA of the age was confession…what better way to know what everyone was up to.

  • GaylePutt

    And if you think about it…back in the day when the only way one could wield power was to be nobility, the only other way to have any control over the masses was to be a big wig in the church. And the NSA of the age was confession…what better way to know what everyone was up to.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “The ONLY reason homosexuality is proscribed is because religion is propagated (and gains its worldly power therein) by increasing the percentage of the population who share that religion. Since homosexuals don’t produce offspring to be indoctrinated from their most impressionable state to adulthood, they don’t serve the purpose of the religion.”

    That’s one theory. There’s also the evidence about what it does to children.

  • Guest

    Who does Sarah Palin and George Bush hate? Enlighten us.

  • MissJames

    I admire both of them,just disagree w/them on this one issue,for the most part. Oh,I also disagree with Bush’s Patriots Act (full disclosure) but I’m a conservative and a Patriot.Love my constitution and the right to bear arms.

  • Unknown Soldier

    Big difference is SCOTUS is placing peoples’ religious rights (that one’s IN the Constitution) in jeopardy. Just ask Hobby Lobby and the Catholic Church about that.

  • Hiraghm

    Oh, yeah let’s go on and explore how the homosexual community was the vector for AIDS in the U.S., and how we wouldn’t take normal quarantine procedures like we did against previous epidemics because it might hurt the feelings of homosexuals.

    Let’s go explore the high level of STDs among homosexuals.
    Then, after that, let’s go into the mental and emotional effect exposure to homosexual behaviors have on inexperienced youth.

    You don’t really want to go there.
    But, I’m glad to hear that we’re all equal… except if exercising our equality endangers others.

    Please explain to me how getting a license or having a job as a pilot puts anyone’s life in danger? At what point did I assert that the blind man would have to actually fly passengers? I mean, this is the modern America where we pay people to sit on their ass (usually in Washington, I admit…)
    He just wants the license and the job, he promises he’ll NEVER use it to become a menace to society… *cough*.

  • DefCon99

    So if a gay man has unprotected sex and they are HIV+, they should be discriminated against?

  • cajun_2

    Polygamists are already screaming for their rights to marry more than one person. Is that ok with you? Pedophiles have been pressuring the APA for decades to define pedophilia as a “sexual identity”. That would give them “normalization”. Then how do you feel if pedophiles claim the right to marry a 5 year old? This is the problem with open ended ambiguous decisions by any court. Its called consequences.

  • cocodrie

    Does AIDS ring a bell?

    Jesus loves you so much He died for you

  • cocodrie

    Does AIDS ring a bell?

    Jesus loves you so much He died for you

  • Hiraghm

    If religion is a mental illness, then we have reason to have Obama and his entire administration removed from office, as they are determinedly forcing the state religion of Earth Worship (AKA “Green”) down our throats.
    Forcibly changing society to accommodate faith-based beliefs that have been continually and repeatedly proven false… clearly a violation of the 1st.

  • HoneyTree EvilEye

    The fact that most animals have homosexual tendencies is nothing to be proud of. It’s just more proof that it’s a mindless, animalistic desire to be indiscriminate with your junk and get sexual pleasure from anything that can get you off. We are not animals, we have common sense, the process of thought, we know we’re going to die. There are many supposed homosexuals that do not live a homosexual life. They lead a straight life and are perfectly happy, then there are also many who do the same but sneak away to bang same sex sometimes. But this movement by the gay mafia is not about equal rights. We’re talking about 1 to maybe 3% of society who want to be “the norm” and make straight the alternative lifestyle. Who want to force their sexual perversions on society and have the government force us to accept it if we aren’t willing voluntarily. Who want to illegalize any speech “anti” to their sexual desires as hate speech and illegal. It’d be no different if people who liked to pee on each other started demanding acceptance. In California where Prop 8 is such a hot topic it was redundant. Gay couples were already protected under common law and given the same rights as a married couple, and there are 8 or 9 states that did the same thing. Prop 8 is just saying marriage is man and woman, there’s a difference. Separate but equal, and it’s true. But people are made that democracy worked. People were asked to vote on a topic and they resoundingly said no. So now that minority group is pissed and doing what all those stupid Lib minority groups do and trying to destroy everyone else’ rights for the sake of their desires. Not their rights, because their rights have not been hurt, their desires to be better than the rest. And to whoever claimed they can’t adopt, man that is new to me because it seems gay couples have an easier time adopting than anyone. Because they’ve demanded special treatment. If they don’t get the baby they’ll sue, and then the company doesn’t want the legal bills so they push them through. Which is exactly what the gay mafia wants. Special treatment. Equal isn’t enough, they’re already equal. It’s the same thing Islamists are trying to do. Pushing for special treatment and trying to move closer to taking over, and putting sharia law into place and turning this isn’t an Islamic country. Gays are doing the same thing. It’s not about equal, it’s about better than.

  • Belinda Henry

    Subjecting your anus to foreign objects is deviancy,male or female . Its not made for that activity . You can bring religion into it if you like but its still unhealthy abnormal behavior.

  • Nutstuyu

    Religion has never been classified as a mental illness. Homophilia was, and pedophilia still is (for now).

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “If your argument is based on it being outside of the norm (norm being defined as in lockstep with the majority of the population), then that would make everyone with blue eyes or red hair a deviant in your eyes. Following that line of reasoning, homophobia being a minority state of belief for those not indoctrinated into it by their various pushers of religion, I guess that would make YOU a deviant.”

    It sounds like you need your own state. Go for it.

    Try out communism. I hear it’s almost perfect for enlightened people.

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    What’s different about it? Same sex marriage is a distortion of traditional man and woman marriage just like polygamy and bestiality are. You’ve now opened that door that says non-traditional marriage is acceptable.

  • mark kelley

    And how do you know that jesus believed homosexuality was a sin? Is there a passage in the bible that quotes jesus referring to homosexuality?

    there isnt.

    Are you one of those that believes everything in the bible was written by jesus or by GOD himself?

    Jesus taught a lot of things, especially about loving one another, not placing yourself above others, not being judgemental.

  • GaylePutt

    That’s YOUR opinion. No one has any proof either way.

  • salvagesalvage

    No, that’s silly.

  • GaylePutt

    I have a few gay friends -male and female – and I know at least a couple of them say in their case, it’s NOT choice…it is the way they were born, their lives have been miserable – it is NOT something they choose. It is what it is and I feel everyone should be able to live the happiest life possible.

  • Waldo

    That’s not politically correct

  • MissJames

    I’ll go there .

    First, We are talking about same sex couples who want to be married,committed ! Not promiscuous .
    I believe (JMOO) that once prejudice against gays falls by the wayside,more will be in open ,healthy relationships,not hiding in back rooms .
    I realize I won’t change your mind and I’m not trying to . I just don’t get the hate.

    The gay community has been hit the hardest with HIV but they also have been the best at learning how to prevent it and following through. Now it’s affecting other populations.

    I was a foster parent when so little was known about how it was transmitted ,few foster parents would take babies that had an HIV positive parent or who tested positive themselves.I was taking two newborns at a time because of the myths that were out there. I also lost a cousin to aids. He was talented and much loved.

    Let’s explore the high rate of STDs amongst our hetero population. It’s scary to have a teenager these days .We live in a highly sexualized society-period.

    Well,for your last paragraph you are starting to sound like someone testifying before Issa’s committee. What you said meant………..? You are the one who said a diabetic or a blind person. My mom had type I diabetes for over 55 years and she drove,UNTIL SHE WENT BLIND FROM IT. Diabetics can have insulin reactions that lead to a state similar to being drunk,then unconscious. That’s what could put someone else’s life at risk if it happened while you were piloting a plane. Your comment about a blind person promising not to use their drivers license is just stupid and is in no way similar to same sex marriage.

  • HoneyTree EvilEye

    Lets not ignore it’s been proven homosexuals lead a lifestyle that shortens their lifespan 20% a straight. That there are no gay diseases but there are disease that are insanely prevalent in homosexuals(anal cancer, AIDS, etc..) That drug use is high in the homosexual community, pedophilia is higher in homosexuals(makes complete sense seeing as how they’re already indiscriminate with their genitalia with adults, age doesn’t matter, nothing matters but their sexual desire). And crying about adoption, which again I’ve see no proof, yet gay marriage vows routinely do not include fidelity or monogamy. Gay marriage, they admit, is not about commitment. It’s basically a business contract where they want financial loopholes, and as I stated earlier, to force acceptance and to be “better”. The govt. has no business in marriage.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/fbi-pulls-faces-of-global-terrorism-ad-because-it-features-too-many-muslims/

    Facts are offensive and unacceptable to the left if it impedes their march towards the future Utopia. It’s just around the corner. Once the conservatives are “taken care of.”

    You can’t teach that two men are unable to give birth, because those “medical challenges” will be “defeated” by all of the research Obamacare will dedicate towards that end.

  • Waldo

    Don’t forget polyamory

  • Webster

    I don’t know that marriage is the most vital and basic institution of society. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but heterosexuals have abused the hell out of the ‘sanctity of marriage’ to the point no one takes the vows seriously anymore.

  • DefCon99

    But if Lyn is correct, consider yourself warned.

  • Lyn

    No, that is a quote from God’s Word, the Bible. You can choose to bow now or later, but every knee SHALL bow. God’s Word never changes. It is TRUTH.

  • DefCon99

    And you have conclusive proof of this?

  • DefCon99

    or Bestiality and pedophiles

  • JettieG

    They don’t care Caj. Disintegration of the moral fabric of society is what they want so there is no right or wrong, just “social justice.”

  • JettieG

    They don’t care Caj. Disintegration of the moral fabric of society is what they want so there is no right or wrong, just “social justice.”

  • MissJames

    We are talking about adults . Heterosexuals are pedophiles ,too. We don’t claim they want marriage so they can marry children. I could care less if someone wants multiple husbands or wives,as long as they are adults.

    Pedophilia is illegal. Domestic abuse is illegal. I know they are often connected to the gays and polygamists,but they exist in the heterosexual community ,including traditional marriages. Look at Coach Sandusky from Penn State . Married for decades,leader in the community and pedophile.

    In Charleston,SC there was another coach and camp counselor connected to The Citadel,Louis ReVille, who was abusing boys sexually for years ! He was arrested just after his wife gave birth to triplets .
    So let’s outlaw same sex coaching .
    No more men coaching boys !!

  • Bathing Suit Area

    The consequences of pedophiles marrying children would be a bunch of molested kids.

    The consequences of gays marrying each other is… nothing.

    Grownups can tell the difference between the two, and we can allow one and not the other.

  • Hiraghm

    NAMBLA is made up exclusively of homosexual males…

  • LtColO

    Too bad you need enlightening because it seems pretty obvious on the face of it. Just look at politics in the USA over the last say, 10 years. Do you notice much angst on the Left over the constant barrage of truly “hate speech” against George Bush or Sarah Palin? What’s that? Crickets? Yeah, that’s what I hear, too.
    For the last decade at least “hate” is OK in one direction: towards conservatives and Christians.

  • LtColO

    Too bad you need enlightening because it seems pretty obvious on the face of it. Just look at politics in the USA over the last say, 10 years. Do you notice much angst on the Left over the constant barrage of truly “hate speech” against George Bush or Sarah Palin? What’s that? Crickets? Yeah, that’s what I hear, too.
    For the last decade at least “hate” is OK in one direction: towards conservatives and Christians.

  • cajun_2

    Yep! The ones willing to destroy a moral an orderly society also have no trouble “redefining” the English language.

  • cajun_2

    Yep! The ones willing to destroy a moral an orderly society also have no trouble “redefining” the English language.

  • JettieG

    Ya. I am sick of this PC crap. A spade is a spade is a spade.

  • JettieG

    Ya. I am sick of this PC crap. A spade is a spade is a spade.

  • GaylePutt

    Belinda… of course I understand that. And every single one of us is entitled to our opinions…for they are just that, opinions. But neither persuasion should be allowed to deny the other what is right for them. If you feel homosexuality is a sin, if it repulses you, then don’t practice it. But what right do you have to deny the practice to others for whom it is natural. If it happens in nature, then you have to call it natural. I don’t see any gays denying you your heterosexual practices. Live and let live. If it’s a sin and you feel they’ll burn in hell, then that’s THEIR problem, not yours. It’s not hurting you.

  • MissJames

    Not everyone who believes in the Bible interprets it the same way . That’s why we have so many different Christian religions based on the bible.

  • MissJames

    Time to get yourself educated so you don’t think your safe because you aren’t GAY .
    The laws around this subject don’t single out gay men with HIV ,it’s anyone with HIV who knowingly spreads it. I recall a talk show that had several older women who were all infected by the same man ,who knew he was positive.

    It’s spread through IV drug use and hetero sex,too.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “So if a gay man has unprotected sex and they are HIV+, they should be discriminated against?”

    Discrimination against what? Discrimination is often legitimate. We call it discernment, judgment, etc. Discrimination itself is not immoral per se.

    Discrimination is “bad” when it’s based on illegitimate motives or some times results. Most discrimination is rational, reasonable and desirable. We would all die very young if we didn’t know how to make legitimate distinctions.

  • MissJames

    Yes He did .He died for everyone,didn’t He? And yes,when you’ve seen a baby so sick from Aids or bury a loved one, you never forget it

  • MissJames

    Like I said,I’m a conservative . I don’t think anyone should be paying for someone else’s birth control ,if that’s what you are referring to. I also believe that religious institutions should be exempt from Federal mandates that the ACA is pushing (providing insurance that includes birth control ).
    No church should have to marry same sex couples ,if that goes against their beliefs. Catholic churches don’t marry two non-Catholics.
    My son does go to a Catholic School and there is at least one family with two moms. The kids have their hyphenated last names.
    Not that long ago people were complaining because blacks were being allowed rights that forced public places to serve them and hire them ,sell homes to them and allow them to marry white people! Can you imagine!
    Yep,trampling all over white peoples rights to keep blacks out of their restaurants and movie theaters,if they wanted to. Sarcasm intended.

  • Bathing Suit Area

    So which religion should get to write the marriage laws?

  • cajun_2

    No where did I accuse only homosexuals of being pedophiles. The truth is that a very high % per population does show homosexuals as interested in YOUNG boys not necessarily children. THAT is a fact among FBI statistics. But the reason is very different. Homosexuals have demanded “normalizing” of sex with younger men and women since they identify with that group. Homosexuals are very narcissistic and arrested adolescence. They are basically “stuck” on being a teenager. To normalize sex with children there must be many areas of justification. How about, gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone? A false predication. Children are being educated in elementary school about homosexual behavior, being told that sexual activity is normal part of child hood development even for 6 year olds.
    How difficult is it for you to figure out that there is another agenda out there?And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
    And don’t simply dismiss my opinions with insults. I am a professional and have worked with many who abuse and assault men, women, and children, and every one of them had a justification for their behavior, legal or not. Legalizing anti social behavior is how to get around having to live within boundaries. Simply change the boundaries. Don’t like to be limited in perverted behavior just make it legal. As congress is doing with amnesty as we type.

  • cocodrie

    So does that make pedophllia OK with you?

    Jesus loves you so much He died for you

  • cajun_2

    98% of the population are heterosexual. Yet over 30% of all child abuse is by homosexuals. Young boys are the most victims but also the most unreported cases of abuse. Even the Crime Bureau of Statistics and FBI rate homosexual child sexual abuse as highly unreported. Coaches are not the problem. All pedophiles will go where there are children especially those who are vulnerable. Like Sandusky starting his own group for “troubled youth”. Opportunity and exploitation are the basics of MO for pedophiles. Here is a clue. Lets change the boy scouts./s
    Change the age of consent for abortion and plan B. Neither requires parental permission which also allows for PP to never report rape or incest nor child prostitution.
    And finally, since basically I’m talking to myself, there is a concerted and coordinated effort by radical activists groups to change the traditions of our society and the value of human life.
    Look at the hypocrisy. Chris Hayes demonized Paula Deen for using a racist term 27 years ago but hails the death of living breathing infants as a “right” of the woman. Did you also know that there is an organization through the British Journal of Medical Ethics that is trying to legalize the “post natal “abortion up to age 2. That means, you don’t like the kid, its disabled, you cant afford it, kill the baby should be legal since its a bother , a burden to the mother. THAT Miss James is the epitome of hypocrisy and narcissism.

  • Nutstuyu

    Yes we’re talking about adults, but what exactly is an adult? The 18yr old marker is simply made up. Who says it can’t be changed?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “We are talking about adults . Heterosexuals are pedophiles ,too. We don’t claim they want marriage so they can marry children. I could care less if someone wants multiple husbands or wives,as long as they are adults.”

    How many adults may marry each other? Why only 2? Why not any number, including 1? What if I want to marry myself? Should I be discriminated against because nobody love me?

    That’s just wrong. At the very least I should be able to “marry” someone that I choose even if they don’t want to. They don’t have to marry me, I just marry them.

    Then the world will be perfect. But we’ve got to count all of those carbon atoms too. Grab your notepads.

  • cajun_2

    I have 3 members of my family who are gay. One has been with many partners in the past year. She beats the hell out of them and lost her job as a COP as a result. The other two are drunks and pot heads, promiscuous, cant keep a job, and not interested in anything but their promiscuous lifestyle and they clearly will admit that. That is not the lifestyle of all gays but dont sell monogamy and legal marriage as a goal. They simply want to redefine “marriage” to suit their lifestyle so they can feel better about their abnormal behavior.

  • Hiraghm

    No, everyone’s been gay at one time or another in their life. A bright summer day at the ball park watching your favorite team play is a gay old affair. To be gay and carefree is part of what makes life worth living at times.

    However, anyone with abnormal sexual appetites (“abnormal” in this instance being an appetite that doesn’t involved heterosexual attraction), are, by definition, deviant.

    And you can’t be conservative and be for special rights for any group, including those suffering from homosexuality.

  • MissJames

    So many homosexuals have to hide who they are,there is no way to make the type of claims you’ve made here.As I stated above,they are our successful professionals ,military,law enforcement,etc….but they feel they have to hide it .And you want to call them narcissistic? Some of these hateful comments ,that are both immature and self centered make me embarrassed to call myself a conservative. Sometimes I feel like Christianity has been hijacked by judgmental hate mongers.

    How hard is it for you to understand that homosexuals who love each other want to be married the same way I’ve been allowed to be married to my husband for 34 years?
    It’s not a hidden agenda for the couples I know.

  • sypia

    In your state a man can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman. I’m sure you know what equality means in human terms. Perhaps you simply need time to overcome a personal hangup.

  • sypia

    Wow, hard to imagine that there’s something out there you can’t understand.

  • cajun_2

    Accusing me of being a bigot does not change the truth nor the facts. And I do not use my religious beliefs as a basis for determining dangers to society. My profession, education and experience does that for me.

  • cocodrie

    Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. For them to be married the same as you, either they will have to marry a woman or you are married to a woman. Same sex and all that.

    Jesus loves you so much He died for you

  • HoneyTree EvilEye

    They don’t have to anything. Nobody makes them hide anything. I don’t know how narcissistic homosexuals are, but you sure as hell are.

  • HoneyTree EvilEye

    They don’t want to be married the same way. Which is why they don’t include fidelity and monogamy in their vows. It’s not a secret that homosexuals are not monogamous. This isn’t about marriage, they only sort of want to be committed to someone which they can do common law. They want marriage under a different definition, and only for the monetary benefits, and to force acceptance on society.

  • cajun_2

    Once again, you make generalizations. No one who has posted hates gays. There are many of us who recognize that boundaries and limits are essential to an orderly and safe society. THAT has proven itself for over 5k years. Remember ROME? Demanding equality for all is a conservative view, demanding special rights for special groups is liberalism and the basis of divisiveness. You and many other liberals criticize Christians but who hates and beheads homosexuals? No one ever criticizes the growing muslim demands in our laws. CAIR has greater support from the liberal media than the TEA Party. What do muslims believe? Sharia law forces women to become slaves, force young girls and women to marry against their will. Homosexuals deserve the death penalty according to Islam. How long do you think it will be before muslims are demanding their rights to practice their beliefs?
    You and others hail marriage rights for gays so they can SHARE the same as others. 75% of all black children are born to unwed mothers. What’s wrong with marriage in the black community? Almost 45% of all white children are born to singe mothers, 35k unborns murdered every year, the majority are black babies. Whats wrong with marriage and family in todays society? All of this moral decay has devalued human life, boundaries and order. Child abuse is at its highest ever, 5 children die a day from parental abuse and neglect, child sexual abuse, sex trafficking of minors and sex slaves is on the rise, child pornography is a billion dollar industry. When there are no boundaries, no limits, there is no expectations, when there are no expectations, there is no achievement.
    The problem is that many are unable to see the incremental steps being taken to dismantle our society. Once we are totally in chaos, it will be easy to insert tyranny.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “So many homosexuals have to hide who they are…”

    Many people choose to hide many things for many reasons. Generally speaking, I don’t care.

    “As I stated above,they are our successful professionals ,military,law enforcement,etc….but they feel they have to hide it…”

    Why does any professional need to reveal their sexuality if they don’t breed children? How about if we cleanse all discussion of sex and procreation from the workplace. Then we’ll be perfectly equal.

    “Some of these hateful comments ,that are both immature and self centered make me embarrassed to call myself a conservative. Sometimes I feel like Christianity has been hijacked by judgmental hate mongers.”

    It’s not hate. It’s love of children over narcissistic sexual deviants. You simply can’t see more than one step ahead. You’re deceived by all of the benign anecdotes and can’t see the true implications about where this leads and what it has done already.

    It’s not worth it. It’s not that there are zero benefits to “gay marriage,” but that the costs are way too high. Way too high. You want to justify it as “loving” by presenting a few sob stories.

    Please.

  • sypia

    For now.

  • Diane Shearer

    By striking down Prop 8, effectively saying the people of a state do not have the right to define marriage in that state as 1 man + 1 woman, how can any other state do so? Every state ban will now be challenged.

  • Lyn

    What I posted above is a scripture quoted directly from God’s Holy Word. How could “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” be construed another way?.

  • HoneyTree EvilEye

    Who said straight people can’t get HIV?

  • DefCon99

    sorry, that’s wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I understand what you are saying. Gays still account for the bulk of new HIV cases and a list of STDs. Health should trump politics. It’s safer for us all eventually.

  • Hiraghm

    I don’t know anyone who thinks they’re safe because they’re never cheerful and carefree. I also don’t know of anyone who thinks they’re safe from STDs because they don’t suffer from homosexuality.

    But, the homosexual community WAS the vector for AIDS to invade the U.S.

  • cajun_2

    LOL, but you will have to wait until the riots are over in Europe.

  • MissJames

    I do spew about that . Plenty .I’ve been married 34 years ,though,so I’m a fan of marriage ,in general. That’s why I believe in including same sex marriage .

  • MissJames

    And you think heterosexuals don’t engage in “sodomy ” ?

  • MissJames

    And you think that’s because they are gay? You do realize that behavior happens with heterosexuals as well,right? Just the way there are upstanding citizens who are gay. It’s called being human .

  • MissJames

    Polygamy was also rampant throughout the Bible starting in Genesis,the beginning of time. That ok with you?

    And Jesus died for everyone,even same sex couples. He also showed us by His example how to love one another .

  • Hiraghm

    More significantly, it has been tacitly define as such since the beginning of this country, and by the society from which this country was born.

  • MissJames

    I never called you a bigot.I also never said you use religion to make your decisions. In several of my posts I’ve said I respect the posters beliefs . I’m sharing my beliefs ,in kind.
    I was asked where I saw hateful comments and I replied.

  • cocodrie

    Polygamy was never approved by God. Whenever it was practiced it resulted in bad news for mankind. Polygamy resulted in the hatred the arabs have for the jews.

    Jesus wants us to love one another, not lust after one another. He also did not change the definition of marriage, neither did He change the verse that says that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Jesus died for homosexuals but did not give His approval to homosexuality.
    You may like homosexuality but God does not

    Don’t get too dizzy from all that twisting.

    Jesus loves you so much He died for you

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Polygamy was also rampant throughout the Bible starting in Genesis,the beginning of time. That ok with you?”

    It’s way better than mono-sexual marriage. My objections to it are purely from the Bible. I can’t make the case any other way. Therefore I have to stand aside if other people want that.

    My objections to mono-sexual marriages are based on the fact that it threatens children.

  • MissJames

    Did you read the post /poster I was replying to?

  • MissJames

    All the men revered in the Old Testament ,including Abraham ,had multiple wives. No twisting here. I’m done. I never expected to change anyone’s mind and no one has changed mine.
    Night y’all

  • GaylePutt

    I really find it interesting that so many people KNOW what God or Jesus wanted or said or did.

    “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” – Susan B. Anthony

  • cocodrie

    Polygamy was wrong then and it’s wrong now. The sins of others does not give us the freedom to sin whenever we want.

    Jesus loves you so much He died for you

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “All the men revered in the Old Testament ,including Abraham ,had multiple wives. No twisting here. I’m done.”

    Loved IN SPITE of their sin. Obviously Abraham was not showing faith in God’s word when he had sex with anyone other than the wife prophesied to have the child by them. It was very specific.

    “Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son … and thou shalt call his name Isaac” (Genesis 17:19).

    He later forgave their lack of faith.

    “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

    You learned about Christianity from the wrong people.

  • GaylePutt

    We can agree to disagree Lyn. It’s not all truth. You believe this why? Because you researched and studied it yourself or you were spoonfed religious views by your parents? Why do you suppose believers are called sheep and Jesus the shepherd?

  • GaylePutt

    I am as convinced she is wrong as she is sure she’s right. Guess we won’t know until it’s our time. I’m not worried.

  • GaylePutt

    You can construe it that way but the Bible was written by men, not God. They say it’s his word. I think religion grew out of ignorance, superstition, and the need for some to have control over the others. You are perfectly within your rights to interpret the Bible any way you like, but don’t tell me it’s truth. It is not MY truth.

  • MissJames

    Lyn,that wasn’t the post I was replying to. Reference to that scripture wasn’t in there. I’m not arguing the Bible,okay?

    My favorite song is by Mercy Me “I Can Only Imagine” because I lost my son (< my pic) a few days after he turned 15 .
    Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
    Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
    Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
    Will I sing 'Hallelujah!'? Will I be able to speak at all?
    I can only imagine! Yeah! I can only imagine!

    It's very real to me ,not just a platitude.
    But it's a fact that there are many different religions ,who fall under Christianity ,but interpret parts of the Bible differently.

  • MissJames

    Lyn,that wasn’t the post I was replying to. Reference to that scripture wasn’t in there. I’m not arguing the Bible,okay?

    My favorite song is by Mercy Me “I Can Only Imagine” because I lost my son (< my pic) a few days after he turned 15 .
    Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
    Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
    Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
    Will I sing 'Hallelujah!'? Will I be able to speak at all?
    I can only imagine! Yeah! I can only imagine!

    It's very real to me ,not just a platitude.
    But it's a fact that there are many different religions ,who fall under Christianity ,but interpret parts of the Bible differently.

  • http://facebook.com/metalchick007 Lisa Renee’ Jones

    It’s discrimination, noone should benefit from a lifestyle choice? Even in the military, you are paid more for the same job if you are married versus single. Same with virtually every Govt. Program and of course, the monsterous tax code, It is really just wrong at any level, even State.

  • GaylePutt

    No more than anyone has proof of an afterlife. But to me, and maybe me alone, an afterlife makes no sense whatsoever.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “No church should have to marry same sex couples, if that goes against their beliefs. Catholic churches don’t marry two non-Catholics.”

    Just wait for the lawsuits. That is the entire reason for crying over distinctions between civil unions and marriage. They want to destroy Judeo Christian traditions and values. Some just want society’s approval, and are dupes of the radicals.

    They’re all wrong. They’re all delusional babies and dupes of class warfare propaganda. They hate actual marriage as it once was. They want to obliterate it by redefining it. It helps them rewrite history. Leftists want to create their delusional future in part by engineering how people think.

  • Pelagian

    Very well said.

  • Hiraghm

    “blacks were being allowed rights that forced…”

    I think you have a misunderstanding of the meaning of “rights”.

    And Yes, trampling all over people’s rights to do business with whom they choose. Let the free market decide. If I only want to do business with left-handed redheads, or want to do business with everyone but left-handed redheads, let the market decide whether that’s a wise business decision or not.

    Any *law* restricting who may do business with whom should be struck down, of course.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “I believe (JMOO) that once prejudice against gays falls by the wayside,more will be in open ,healthy relationships,not hiding in back rooms”

    That’s just delusional. Healthy couples don’t rely on approval from people that have religious or logical objections to having gays pretend they are perfectly “equal” as co-parental teams. Having same sex teams is not equal to having a male and female in the role of co-parents.

    I’d much rather see polygamous marriages that have at least 1 of each sex rather than this absurd pretension that a pair of homosexuals are generally on equally able to raise kids in a healthy environment.

    What about that whole diversity thing? We must ensure diversity in every area of life EXCEPT parenting? Then it’s ok to have “monosexual” parenting?

    The left is so inconsistent.

  • Hiraghm

    How do you know they want to be married, committed? Because they say so? Certainly nothing in the history of the “homosexual community” can lead to that conclusion.

    There is no prejudice against victims of homosexuality. There is only rationality and sanity.

    Yes, let’s explore the high rate of STDs among our hetero population, that has been under a relentless propaganda campaign in favor of promiscuity and against traditional marriage for at least 50 years. And further diluting the sanctity of marriage will reverse this… how?

    I didn’t say anything about a blind person promising not to use a driver’s. It was pilot’s license, because we’re all equal and all have a right to fly, reality be damned.

    But, you’re right, unlike “same sex marriage”, a blind pilot isn’t necessarily an oxymoron.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “First, We are talking about same sex couples who want to be married,committed ! Not promiscuous .”

    Marriage does not make anyone less promiscuous. It might be a deterrent for people who want to avoid the shame of being married to one person while having a baby with another.

    Most people these days have about as much shame as Bill Clinton does.

  • Catchance

    Well, but they didn’t strike down Prop 8… they sent it back to the District Court. What they said was that the defendants didn’t have standing to argue before the Court. They vacated the 9th circuit court’s decision.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “The 18yr old marker is simply made up. Who says it can’t be changed?”

    Majority consensus.

  • mark kelley

    are you saying that if we allow gay people to get married no one will be having children anymore?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    They’re actually proving our point. Dupes are programmed to feel that they’re being hated when anyone disagrees with them. They’re victims of Marxist liars. They really do feel hate. They’re delusional.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Christian” Marxism. The dupe factory.

  • mark kelley

    so calling someone a narcissistic sexual deviant isn’t hateful?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Why do you suppose believers are called sheep and Jesus the shepherd?”

    Because they submit to God’s word. For reasons taught in the Bible. It’s not blind faith.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “I don’t know that marriage is the most vital and basic institution of society.”

    It’s not, but it’s supposed to be. And our future as a nation is threatened because it isn’t. Mono-sexual marriage makes our future as a nation much less likely to happen at all.

  • Hiraghm

    That’s your problem.

    And marriage has been under assault for decades. That “no one” takes the vows seriously anymore (that’s not true) is the result of the assault on marriage. Easy divorce, the removal of stigma from infidelity and promiscuity, the promotion of “alternative” marriage arrangements and “open” marriages have all, over the decades, served to erode the institution.

    Look at the illegitimate birth rate, for example, among the black community, compared with, say 70 years ago. That’s evidence that something has been done to the institution. The cause is 3 generations or more being propagandize in the media and schools as to the irrelevancy of traditional marriage; of the illegitimacy of the the Judeo-Christian system of morality; and above all, the indoctrination into the worship of “equality” above all else. All things are equal, in spite of their differences. Good and evil are just a viewpoint, put forward by Judeo-Christians as a means of persecuting innocent people, and similar relentless propaganda campaigns.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “I have a few gay friends -male and female – and I know at least a couple of them say in their case, it’s NOT choice…it is the way they were born, their lives have been miserable – it is NOT something they choose.”

    And so?

    “It is what it is and I feel everyone should be able to live the happiest life possible.”

    Don’t forget, society is responsible for making me happy too.

  • Hiraghm

    Some people are born with or develop hormonal or biochemical imbalances that cause them to be perpetually depressed, or to flip from happy to depressed to back (“bi-polar”). The answer isn’t to pretend their happy and adjust time-honored institutions to accommodate their affliction; the answer is to get them treatment for it.

    Likewise with homosexuality.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “But neither persuasion should be allowed to deny the other what is right for them. If you feel homosexuality is a sin, if it repulses you, then don’t practice it. But what right do you have to deny the practice to others for whom it is natural. If it happens in nature, then you have to call it natural. I don’t see any gays denying you your heterosexual practices. Live and let live. If it’s a sin and you feel they’ll burn in hell, then that’s THEIR problem, not yours. It’s not hurting you.”

    Recognition of marriage is the relationship between the married people and society. Nobody is threatening anyone and their sexual preferences. If they merely wanted to be left alone we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

    People will sue vendors for not wanting to participate in gay marriage ceremonies. People will sue for all kinds of extraordinary “rights” that they don’t actually have. People will sue to change textbooks depicting gay marriage as exactly the same as “straight” marriage. Kids will be indoctrinated even further.

    It will end up being all about how radical gays and leftists feel rather than about what they destroy with their delusional expectations.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “You can construe it that way but the Bible was written by men, not God. They say it’s his word. I think religion grew out of ignorance, superstition, and the need for some to have control over the others. You are perfectly within your rights to interpret the Bible any way you like, but don’t tell me it’s truth. It is not MY truth.”

    Of course there are skeptics. She’s claiming diversity in the legitimate opinions of believers.

    At some point, you leave the reservation even if you continue to label yourself a believer.

  • Lyn

    You are mistaken. The Bible was written by men of God as they were inspired by the Holy spirit. One scripture says it is God Breathed. It is the Only Truth (truth does not change, circumstances and opinions do) in the universe and Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. God loves you Gayle, and Jesus paid a horrible price with His suffering, death and resurrection, so that you could be forgiven and saved. It’s the best deal ever, totally free just for the asking and believing. I know you say I am wrong, what if I’m right and you’re wrong? You have nothing to lose in believing in Jesus but everything to lose and hell in your future if you reject Him.

  • Franklin Crittenden

    You better hope you are 100% right Gayle…

  • GaylePutt

    And therein lies the problem. Who gets to decide who gets to be happy? Why does it have to be mutually exclusive? I don’t have an answer…just exploring and debating. In regard to your question, “and so?”…gays don’t necessarily choose the lifestyle. No one can help how they’re born. Should people we consider ugly have to cover their faces so you aren’t offended? I can’t imagine how it would be to be considered some sort of freak, to be hated and feared because of something I had no control over. To spend your life, hidden “in a closet” because others reject your lifestyle? It’s cruel. As far as children – I have seen no studies on how children raised in same parent homes fare – will have to research that.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “The ONLY reason homosexuality is proscribed is because religion is propagated (and gains its worldly power therein) by increasing the percentage of the population who share that religion. Since homosexuals don’t produce offspring to be indoctrinated from their most impressionable state to adulthood, they don’t serve the purpose of the religion.”

    There are ways to abuse religious belief. It must therefore be false.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “No more than anyone has proof of an afterlife. But to me, and maybe me alone, an afterlife makes no sense whatsoever.”

    Because you’re unfamiliar with the evidence and you’re confident it doesn’t exist.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Testimony-Evangelists-Examined-Evidence/dp/0825427479

    You’re so open minded that you scoured the earth for evidence but couldn’t find any. Or you just simply want to believe what you believe. You have blind faith that you’re correct even though you have zero evidence.

  • Grandma HeadInjury

    Neither are we, Cupcake. Neither are we…

  • GaylePutt

    Good point. It was a lot easier when they just stayed quiet. But I have to say that one man I knew, a coworker, was the kindest, nicest, most wonderful guy. He worked in my dad’s medical practice as the xray tech and I knew him since I was a little girl. He was a wonderful artist, piano player, raised test roses and was just a really cool man,a real gentleman. He served in the Navy during WWII. I had no idea he was even gay until after his death. He had a partner, didn’t know him well and maybe I was naive but I just thought they were two old bachelors that lived together. It made no difference to me what he was…he was a wonderful man and a great memory from my younger life. So maybe I just have a soft spot for those who just want to live their lives as normally as possible, quietly, being good neighbors and respected. Don’t know that this has any bearing but it felt good to say it….he was still a wonderful human being.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “And therein lies the problem. Who gets to decide who gets to be happy?”

    Not the government. The constitution weighed in on that already. We each have a right to pursue happiness and not have unreasonable infringement. We don’t’ have a “right” to “achieve happiness.”

    When one person’s pursuit of happiness infringes on the rights of others, we need to look to the law.

    “Should people we consider ugly have to cover their faces so you aren’t offended?”

    Putting aside the subjective nature of your example, I’ll say that “ugly people” don’t have a right to demand acceptance of their face as “not ugly.” Feelings are not protected. You are in charge of managing your own feelings.

    “I can’t imagine how it would be to be considered some sort of freak, to be hated and feared because of something I had no control over.”

    Nobody is interviewing people for their desires, or testing sexual preferences. You do have control over how you expect the public to treat you and your PUBLIC choices for sex partners and forming families.

    “To spend your life, hidden “in a closet” because others reject your lifestyle?”

    Hiding a choice is not hiding a person physically. There are lots of feelings and choices that remain hidden by me because I have reasonable discretion. I don’t feel harmed at all by this. I see that you’ve been taken in by propaganda without truly questioning the validity.

    That’s what happens when people form their political opinions from watching dramatic films and hearing silly “persecution” stories. Gays are already protected under the law. The rest is manipulation at this point. In fact, under “certain hate” crime statutes, they’re already protected somewhat better than I am.

    “As far as children – I have seen no studies on how children raised in same parent homes fare – will have to research that.”

    It’s politically incorrect ask the questions. The children that wake up to the lies end up feeling very hurt. If you want to obliterate normal sexual conduct and delegate child production to the state, it’s no problem.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “are you saying that if we allow gay people to get married no one will be having children anymore?”

    Not enough will. I didn’t say zero. We already have a problem with that. This is news to you?

    You want more single-parent families? You don’t see any problem with the message that “it just doesn’t matter what choice you make, follow your desires as if there are no consequences and then ask the state to help support those choices?”

    Abortion rates will go even higher. Just extrapolate the current trends.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Not ipso facto, no.

    Thanks for proving the point about the left.

  • Hiraghm

    No, it’s not. It’s calling a narcissistic sexual deviant what he is.

  • Lisa Wiese

    Holy moly Honeytree, well said! It will be interesting to see if the people like this forced down their throats, as much as they loved Roe v Wade, they are still spitting that bad taste out! And if the Islamists, and gay communities both get what they want, who will be at the top of that heap at the end of the day! would anyone help either side, after forcing their crap down all our throats!

  • Pelagian

    1. Pride is contrary to “common sense” so your statement is self-contradictory.

    2. They do NOT lead perfectly happy lives, they put up happy fronts so that bigots like you will leave them alone.

    3. 3.5% of the population of the United States would like to enjoy equal treatment to their heterosexual equivalents (i.e. the right to visit their partner in the hospital, the right to adopt in all states, the right to to have the crap beat out of them by the small-minded unthinking “majority”)

    4. What people do in their private life is their business. What you discover because you can’t mind your own business is YOUR problem.

    5. I’ll concede the term marriage as being a reference to a union between a man and a woman in origin, which leads to the real problem at hand in this case. Marriage is a religious practice, and as such should not be given special privileges by the government. A civil union, however, fills the same role and has no reason to hold the same discriminatory bias. In the United States a marriage is also a civil union (that’s why the person officiating has to say something to the effect of “by the power invested in my by the state of X”. So the only logical solution is to treat all civil unions equally under the law and take away the benefits afforded just because someone went through a hokey religious pageant during their civil union.

    6.Separate but equal has been deemed unconstitutional since 1964.

    7. One of the rights afforded by the United States constitution is the right of dissent. So saying that people can’t be upset or continue to challenge something simply because a vote was held and they lost is, frankly, foolish. That would be equivalent to running for office, losing and then deciding that you can never run for office again, because you lost the first election.

    8. Their right to equal treatment under the law IS infringed. They aren’t seeking to be better, that is simply the popular propaganda of those seeking to retain their own “superior” status.

    9. Your beliefs about how the adoption system works are completely out of touch with reality.

    10. The so-called “gay mafia” is a non-existent entity.

    11. Your arguments are loquacious, but hollow.

  • Bathing Suit Area

    What is it with you and throat forcing?

  • Bathing Suit Area

    Your eyes were not made for looking at a computer screen, and your fingers were not made for typing. Cease this perversion at once!

  • Pelagian

    Well, gee, I guess I better avoid that prostate exam the doctor ordered. It would make me a deviant.
    As for abnormal, I already explained why that argument doesn’t hold water.

  • cocodrie

    Why depend on what people say about God? Read for yourself what God has to say in the bible.

    Jesus loves you so much He died for you

  • cajun_2

    Sure we can allow one and not the other. Like we did with 22 million illegals, like we outlawed terrorists. Oh wait, we give them free college educations…/s

    Being an adult means the ability to see beyond ones on ideology and look at consequences.

  • Hiraghm

    For one thing, the consequence is a lot of parents having to explain to their children why the sexual deviants are acting toward each other on the street the way mommy and daddy act in private. Being exposed to mentally / emotionally disturbed behavior while at an impressionable age can and will mess up a young mind. Then again, it would be a great recruitment tool…

  • Pelagian

    If the only qualification that bars someone from adopting, all other elements being equal, is the sexual orientation of the person trying to adopt then there is a clear and present flaw in the adoption process. You are NOT protecting the rights of the children by preventing them from having a loving family simply because you don’t approve of who the prospective parents happen to love.

  • GaylePutt

    Lyn….I know you believe with all your heart. But believing isn’t something you can just do. As the Tom Hanks character says in the DiVinci Code…faith is not a gift I’ve received. I’m completely OK with what I do believe. No matter how much you insist on your truth, the fact remains that NO ONE knows for certain. I’ve enjoyed our little exchange but gotta go…moving tomorrow and need to get busy. Good luck to you.

  • MissJames

    I’m very much a conservative,not a leftist. So called healthy couples have been hiding their relationships since the beginning of time,due to class /economic differences,race differences,religion differences,etc.
    There is no shortage of bad parenting amongst heterosexual parents,so that argument won’t fly ,in my opinion. That’s what all of this is ,BTW,our opinions. Great thing about this country ;we still have the right to say our piece and agree to disagree.

  • MissJames

    I just don’t see that it threatens children ,but allowing kids into sports where they all get naked in a locker room with adults of the same sex,present seems pretty threatening to me.
    I don’t even let my kids ride the bus because I don’t trust ANY adult I don’t know well, to be alone w/my child.

  • GaylePutt

    And a rose by any other name is still a flower. Changing the name to make someone feel better doesn’t change a thing except to censor people.

  • GaylePutt

    But what makes everyone so sure the Bible has it right? It’s a book written by men – there are too many indoctrinated people who eat what they’re fed and don’t think beyond that.

  • GaylePutt

    Most 18 year olds are NOT adults in any sense except the legal one. Kids are unable to function as adults mentally until mid 20’s. At 18, they still lack good judgement which is why so many do such stupid things. It really makes it hard on parents when their kids pass that magic number and keep reminding them that they are adults now! Right, then act like one.

  • Hiraghm

    Thank you for revealing the great flaw in democracy and why the Founding Fathers distrusted it so much.

  • MissJames

    I wasn’t referring to ALL posts being hateful. I don’t even believe you or anyone else should change your mind. I’m sticking up for what I believe ,just as everyone else on this site is. I don’t think there is a need for anyone to on either side to be hateful.
    And my husband and I were foster parents for 17 years and adopted 4 of our foster children,3 of them black boys,some who have complicated developmental and medical conditions because of their mothers behaviors before birth. Our youngest was born at 25 weeks . I rail against abortion .
    I’ve seen what has happened to create a culture where marriage is no longer relevant ,up close and personal . I really am a conservative,and perhaps lean Libertarian on this one issue.

  • GaylePutt

    I love how people keep saying what God wants.

  • DefCon99

    If she’s right, don’t try to complain no one warned you. That’s all I am saying.

  • Lyn

    I’m certainly not worried for myself, but I am for you. How can you turn down the nail scarred hand of Jesus reaching to you, scarred to pay for all our sins; yours, mine, anyone’s who will accept that sacrificial payment. That is God’s great mercy, grace and love toward us. I am not religious, never have been. Jesus is not religion, it is relationship. Religion is manmade rules and laws, designed to try and reach God, Jesus coming to earth and dying for our sins is God reaching DOWN, way down to man. Relationship! My blinded eyes were opened when I was 21 and I went from darkness to light, and any of you can do the same through Jesus Christ. The Bible tells me so and the Holy Spirit confirms it in my heart. .

  • MissJames

    I despise the way our country is moving towards socialism. It’s clear as day to me that’s what is happening. That’s not me and my belief is based more on equality under our constitution than on specific scripture in the Bible. Even though my disabled 11 year old can’t understand it,he can recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sings the Star Spangled Banner with gusto. I’m a Navy Brat and proud of my father ,who received the Silver Star .
    I vote a straight conservative line,even if I disagree with this one issue,because I disagree with pretty much all of the liberal agenda ,but for this.I can’t explain why I feel so strongly about this issue,but I do.

  • MissJames

    I despise the way our country is moving towards socialism. It’s clear as day to me that’s what is happening. That’s not me and my belief is based more on equality under our constitution than on specific scripture in the Bible. Even though my disabled 11 year old can’t understand it,he can recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sings the Star Spangled Banner with gusto. I’m a Navy Brat and proud of my father ,who received the Silver Star .
    I vote a straight conservative line,even if I disagree with this one issue,because I disagree with pretty much all of the liberal agenda ,but for this.I can’t explain why I feel so strongly about this issue,but I do.

  • Hiraghm

    “Christian” Marxism is “liberation theology”.

  • MissJames

    Then you must think Mayor Bloomburg is doing the right thing by restricting food choices so his citizens are healthier. gotcha.

  • cocodrie

    Archeological digs continually verify the writings in the bible. None have been found that contradict it. Two examples are the findings of mass graves at Sodom and Gomorrah and the walls of ancient Jericho strewn across the desert.
    There is no proof that the bible is wrong.

    edit – It appears that you are one of those believing only what you are fed by your liberal sites.

    Jesus loves you so much He died for you

  • Hiraghm

    Yeah, a book written by men… a traditional way of passing wisdom down from generation to generation so that we don’t have to keep repeating the mistakes of history (like, for example, the Greeks…)

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    Jesus said that he believed everything in the Old Testament and he directly condemned all forms of sexual perversion which would include homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. I like how you liberals pretend that you know anything about Jesus or the Bible. God wants his followers to spread his Word and part of that is informing people that God doesn’t condone sin. If you see that as judgment then that is your problem, not ours.

    For some reference:
    http://www.studyyourbibleonline.com/theology/did-jesus-ever-address-homosexuality/

    http://crossmap.christianpost.com/blogs/kevin-deyoung-on-jesus-and-homosexuality-by-sam-storms-2773

  • MissJames

    Someone replied to me that I learned Christianity from the wrong people. Wasn’t our country founded of freedom of Religion?

  • mark kelley

    so your answer is to post links to more opinions.

    These are your beliefs and you can have them. Dont force them on others, and dont force the goverment to do so either. That would be very unchrist-like in my opinion.

    Jesus would not have condoned slavery,polygamy, stoning people to death, or any of a number of things advocated for in the old testament.

  • GaylePutt

    Which brings us back to whether someone believes the Bible is really God’s word or the words of men who would control the masses through religion scaring everyone into the desired religious and social behaviors. Uneducated people (we’re talking B.C. here) didn’t understand so much of the natural world. I think they believed in G/gods because they needed to believe someone had some control over such things as natural disasters, illnesses, etc. They sure didn’t. And I think many men of the day used that fear to mold behavior – good or bad – if you follow these rules, you go to heaven…if not, you’ll go to hell forever. I think religions or a belief in a supreme being is one of the biggest hoaxes ever played upon humanity.

  • Hiraghm

    My fingers weren’t made for looking at a computer screen, and my eyes were not made for typing, so, being rational, I don’t attempt either.

    However, my fingers were made for manipulating and my eyes were made for acquiring visual information.

  • Belinda Henry

    LOL eyes are not for looking? Fingers are not made to do tasks? wtf is wrong with you? Here’s a clue charlie an anus is for evacuating ones bowels. Not for the wear and tear of anal sex.

  • Hiraghm

    So you enjoy those prostate exams, do you?

  • Belinda Henry

    Lame,not even close to the same thing.

  • GaylePutt

    Franklin….not a bit worried. I’m as sure I’m 100% right as you think you are. And if I’m wrong, and there is a God who loves me and Jesus died for my sins….why would He want me to spend an eternity in Hell because I don’t have the ability to sincerely believe. In fact, when I finally came to my belief (that when you’re dead…that’s it, period. Nothing more.) I was finally able to quit worrying about it. I will have no awareness of anything, such as before you’re born…I can’t miss people, I can’t grieve, no one can do me harm. I’m perfectly ok with that. I thank you all for your concern – but I’m really, really good.

  • Hiraghm

    “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future” – Orwell 1984

  • Hiraghm

    Yes, and you can thank the assault on traditional marriage and traditional Judeo-Christian morality of the past half-century or more for that bounty of bad parenting among heterosexuals.

    It’s bootstrapping. First you denigrate traditional marriage. You throw in easy, “no-fault” divorce. You remove the stigma of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, add in easy, guilt-free abortion… and then you point to the sickened remnants of traditional marriage as an excuse to further erode the sanctity of marriage.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “I’m very much a conservative,not a leftist. So called healthy couples have been hiding their relationships since the beginning of time,due to class /economic differences,race differences,religion differences,etc. ”

    OK. So?

    “There is no shortage of bad parenting amongst heterosexual parents,so that argument won’t fly ,in my opinion.”

    Don’t worry about making things worse because the world is not perfect.

    “That’s what all of this is ,BTW,our opinions. Great thing about this country ;we still have the right to say our piece and agree to disagree.”

    For the most part. Be careful when you “slander the prophet of Islam.”

  • Hiraghm

    Obesity and diabetes are not communicable.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    No, because Bloomburg is playing politics. He’s no health expert. Health is made more important than politics by empowering the individual to make his optimal health choices until they interfere with the health or rights of others. Any health laws should not be coercive without good reason.

    Limiting food quantity by law is coercive without good reason.

  • kyleco

    In two sentences, one after another, you state you “[do not] have a right to force others to accept [your] own distinct definition of marriage” and follow it up with “they already have a right to marry equal to every other citizen’s rights.” The second statement depends directly on what you denied in the first statement; **your** definition of marriage.

    It is important to understand that if you get a huge, random group of people together, it’s likely you’ll have many different “definitions” of what “marriage” means to them. A week ago it was perfectly legal, anywhere in the country, for a man and a woman who love each other (regardless of religious affiliation or complete lack of religion) to choose to get married at a court house by signing some documents or, perhaps, to get married by a pastor of their church (and many other ways, of course)… Making the distinction between “religious marriage” and “legal marriage” is something everyone needs to be able to do. The government is not in place to make a distinction about this, nor are they in a position to measure this “love” that manifests itself into a position of marriage. Therefore, if the government is affording rights/tax benefits/etc to couples who “get married” on the basis of partnering and loving each other (meaning the two beings have to be capable of this, e.g. inanimate objects and/or animals, etc, are not included), then it is completely irrelevant if it happens to be a man and a woman or two men or two women. My point is the definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman is, in fact, your own definition and, further, is exclusive rather than inclusive. This is perfectly fine if we are discussing what constitutes a marriage in a Christian church, for example, but not appropriate for a government which is not supposed to disallow or qualify people for individual benefits based on religion.

  • Hiraghm

    Well, based on the Obamacare mandate, I’d suggest that the age of adulthood be moved up from 18 to 26… /sarc

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Most 18 year olds are NOT adults in any sense except the legal one.”

    You could say that about many ex-hippies from the 1960s who are now in their 70s. But consensus is that 18 is the age of legal adulthood.

    “It really makes it hard on parents when their kids pass that magic number and keep reminding them that they are adults now! Right, then act like one.”

    Conservatives are trying to fight the root causes of these cultural problems. The solutions are a lot easier than you seem to think, but they can be a little painful for the kids that adsorb leftist culture.

  • Hiraghm

    Actually it was founded upon individual liberty. And the thing about individual liberty is that you’re free to be wrong.

  • Hiraghm

    Putting aside the subjective nature of your example, I’ll say that “ugly people” don’t have a right to demand acceptance of their face as “not ugly.”

    A perfect example. In point of fact, the media’s propaganda machinery has long been at work trying to do just that. Because, again, if you can be conditioned that you can’t objectively judge “beauty” and “ugly” to be different, you can be fed any line of BS and are far more likely to buy it (or at least lack the reasoning tools to refute it).

  • HoneyTree EvilEye

    1. This makes no sense

    2. Good thing you’re in all their heads. I’ve read the stories written by gay people in straight relationships who are perfectly happy so…No, you’re wrong. And your calling me a bigot ad hominem is ignorant, I should stop here because I doubt your “argument” gets any more intelligent or better from here but I’ll give it a go.

    3. It’s rare anyone gay is actually beaten because they’re gay…So again you’re such an ignorant moron I don’t even know how you manage, did somebody type this for you? The rest of this I’m for, if you’re a couple you deserve those rights. However they do have the right to adopt in every state, but not as a couple in every state so again…You’re just too stupid to love like most Liberals. And you continue to make false accusations, and try to make this about what it isn’t. The problems with having the rights of a married couple is again so few gay couples are monogamous. So how many of their sexual partners are going to get these rights? Gay leaders and most gays freely admit gay relationships aren’t about commitment…So…Yeah.

    4. Nobody cares about what gay people do in their private lives. It’s gay people who refuse to keep it that way. They think being out is shoving it in everyone’s face and forcing acceptance. It’s never been exposed because people seek out to find if someone’s gay. It’s public because gay people want it public. So another false accusation/statement by you.

    5. I agree with this. The government has no business in marriage. I don’t care that DOMA was taken down. I will be bothered by Prop 8 because they asked the people, and the people voted a resounding “NO”. But you’re right, marriage existed long before government, and would exist after. Government has no business in it. Except the government has made it a business. And if gays felt this way this wouldn’t be an issue. Because it’s not illegal for them to get married, but they want the business perks. More than that they want to force the government to outlaw any behavior they deem anti them, and force acceptance, and force that they are the norm and the 98% of society that are straight are the odd, and outsiders. So it’s the gays that are demanding the government be in their relationships.

    6. Doesn’t mean it was right. A lot of black people today wish it was still that way. Many races do it themselves because it’s how they want it. So the government can say whatever they want, society makes it so.

    7. Nobody said they can’t be upset, again making false accusations. However having the majority voting for something and the minority bitching until the government destroys the republic process is not okay. The people spoke, a small group doesn’t like it so they’re trying to destroy the voice of the majority. The Liberal/Gay/Jihadist Terrorist way. They don’t agree with you, bitch and attack until you destroy them because they don’t deserve to live. The most intolerant groups out there are the Liberals and Gays.

    8. They are absolutely seeking to be superior because they’re already equal. The way their relationships work almost makes what couples rights impossible because they are very polygamist in their relationships.

    9. If you say so, too bad I see it all the time but you don’t see anything beyond your colon.

    10. Again, if it isn’t in your colon you can’t see it.

    11. What a self serving way to say I say a lot. Was that on your word of the day calender and you had to find a way to use it? Good job. You also completed the holy trinity of the Liberal argument; make false accusations to make the argument about something it isn’t, label them with names ad hominem to undermine them as a person thus destroying their points in others eyes, and finally project.

  • Franklin Crittenden

    Gayle, You mean you are not a bit worried right now… Having been a witness to the deaths of many Atheists over the years the last thing I always see on their face at the very last moment is fear…

  • Lyn

    MissJames, I am so sorry for your loss. I pray for the sweet Holy Spirit to comfort you and give you His Peace. God bless.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “If the only qualification that bars someone from
    adopting, all other elements being equal, is the sexual orientation of the person trying to adopt then there is a clear and present flaw in the adoption process. ”

    Wrong. Kids need a role model from each gender. Denial of this fact is pure ignorance through indoctrination.

    “You are NOT protecting the rights of the children by preventing them from having a loving family simply because you don’t approve of who the prospective parents happen to love.”

    It’s like you can’t comprehend what people say when they disagree with you. This is par for the course when trying to rectify leftist positions.

    As if I personally want to approve or deny couples based on some arbitrary standard I came up with. And I’m not even saying it should never happen. I’m saying it’s wrong to pretend that “gay marriage” is “legitimate” in the sense that they make equally qualified adoptive parents.

    That’s the most dangerous lie of all when it comes to “gay marriage.”

  • Lyn

    I agree that faith is something you can’t just do. I was a scoffer and I just asked the Lord to show me if He was real. I cannot put it here, all the ways He did exactly that. He is my life and my breath. His Holy Spirit comforts me and guides me and never leaves me. The Lord desires a personal, intimate relationship with you as well. He is the best friend you will EVER have and will show Himself to you if you ask and seek him in His Word. You have nothing to lose and heaven to gain as well as a blessed life of peace and joy here and now. No, my life is not perfect and nobody else has a perfect one either, but God has an awesome, wonderful plan for your life. He is the friend that sticks closer than a brother and will always be a very present help in trouble. Once you taste of His goodness, you will never again want what the world has to offer. At least I haven’t. I have failed and fallen short many, many times, but he always picks me up and takes me back. I have been walking with Him since 1975 and He has proven time and time again His faithfulness to me!. He is so awesome!

  • GaylePutt

    Well, Franklin, I’ll have to let you know.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “I just don’t see that it threatens children ,but allowing kids into sports where they all get naked in a locker room with adults of the same sex,present seems pretty threatening to me.”

    It sure can be.

    “I don’t even let my kids ride the bus because I don’t trust ANY adult I don’t know well, to be alone w/my child.”

    Imagine situations like that that last for their entire childhood.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    That’s all perfectly reasonable. We’ve all been exposed to so much propaganda for our entire lives that we have to recognize that our initial gut instincts are not always leading us to the best decisions.

    It sounds like you’re a smart, rational thinker and given enough time and balanced information, you’ll come to the right conclusions.

    It sounds like your child is blessed with a wise parent.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Which brings us back to whether someone believes the Bible is really God’s word or the words of men who would control the masses through religion scaring everyone into the desired religious and social behaviors.”

    Yes, that is the atheist’s theory.

    “Uneducated people (we’re talking B.C. here) didn’t understand so much of the natural world.”

    That’s a broad and deceptive statement. They certainly did not understand modern science. But that’s not to say that they didn’t understand, or were “confused” by the natural world. Plenty of people today are very confused by the natural world. They just know to reject certain discredited theories.

    “I think they believed in G/gods because they needed to believe someone had some control over such things as natural disasters, illnesses, etc. They sure didn’t.”

    OK, but what does that have to do with the Bible? The authors did not invent the concept of god or gods. They presented a radical new theory and wrote instructions on how to authenticate God’s will when it was actually revealed, and how to reject phony claims.

    “And I think many men of the day used that fear to mold behavior – good or bad – if you follow these rules, you go to heaven…if not, you’ll go to hell forever.”

    That also happens. That made them liars, not the authors of the Bible.

    “I think religions or a belief in a supreme being is one of the biggest hoaxes ever played upon humanity.”

    You’re simply conveying the consensus view from the religion of atheism.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    I read that book when I was 7. I look back and realize I was fortunate to find it then.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Our constitution integrates elements of democracy in to our republic. It worked well, while enough people respected the constitution.

    As long as the people controlling the guns respect the constitution, the republic will live.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Agreed.

    My label is less deceptive.

  • cajun_2

    A foster mother. Great. Thank you for your courage and your sacrifice. I was a social worker in cps for 30 years. So many young people lost out there because of rotten parents. And now we live in a society that wants to excuse further self absorbed parents from responsibility. They are destroying our very strengths that provide stability for our kids. Today, 50% of our children don’t even finish high school. The average age of a violent criminal is 14-24. How sad is that?
    We may disagree on some issues. But proud to know you have given 3 children a chance at life with caring parents. God Bless You and your husband.

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    They are not opinions when they have Bible verses to back it up. What you consider un-Christlike means very little to me considering you have proven you know very little about what Christ or God actually wants other than reading a few out of context Bible passages on an atheist website.

  • mark kelley

    I’m catholic . Your relationship with GOD is yours. You don’t speak for GOD or Jesus to me. My interpretation is not the same as your’s, obviously. Your interpretation is not the same as that of my priest’s. We all shall be judged.

    I would suggest treating people as Christ did, as evident in the bible. He did not shun the leper or the women or any other.

  • Pelagian

    ” In general, research has failed to provide a basis for any of these concerns (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (Conger, 1975). Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.” – American Psychological Association.

    I do have to thank you for giving me a small chuckle with the irony of your hypocricy when you assert that I am the one who can’t comprehend what people say when they disagree.

  • Pelagian

    1. Pride is an emotional response, whereas common-sense is a rational interpretation.

    2.Please cite examples. And please clarify how my identifying the bigotry used in your argument is “ignorant”.

    3. I notice you have no actual response to this other than to cast aspersions on the state of my intelligence. A practice you decry several times as a liberal tactic. This either makes You a liberal for using the tactic, or that it is not a tactic used on both sides (and in rather equal measure).

    4. You seem to care, or you wouldn’t be putting up such a vehement argument, thus nullifying your accusations of my statement being false.

    5. I think we can consider this point settled.

    6. Society agreeing in majority doesn’t make it right either.

    7. I’ll concede this point. I interpreted your complaining about their discontent with the result as dismissive of their right to dissent. I can’t be “again” making a false accusation when I have no preceding false accusations. I would, however, like to see your statistics on where the majority of intolerant beliefs lie. In my experience, I observe most intolerance coming from the Abrahamic Faiths (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam).

    8. This argument is simply false in premise. As to promiscuity (despite your referring to it as polygamy), the reality in that matter is more likely that human beings (of any sexual orientation) tend to be promiscuous by nature.

    9. And again, you have no argument, so you resort to making personal attacks.

    10. And again. Gee, for something that is supposed to be a liberal tactic, you seem to use it quite a bit.

    11. And again, with a hypocritical kicker. I have not resorted to personal attacks, but you have done so repeatedly while accusing me of doing so.

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    Christ and God called out blasphemers and that is what I am doing. Homosexuality has no place in Christianity.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). ”

    I didn’t say “unfit.” I said not ideal when suitable 2-gender parental teams are available.

    I never said they should be disallowed. They should be disallowed from claiming that it’s illegal or immoral to prefer 2-gender parenting.

    I hope this time you do understand the point.

  • HoneyTree EvilEye

    1. Thus not relevant.
    There was nothing emotional about my response, but I’d say since yours
    had no substance the false pride is yours

    2.Becaue
    there was no bigotry in anything I said, just facts that you don’t like and you
    tried to call me a bigot you’re an ignorant moron, sorry.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/josh-weed-gay-mormon-nightline-interview_n_1687151.html

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/4688469/Im-happily-married-with-a-beautiful-child-by-my-gay-husband.html

    3.
    No, it’s me accurately labeling you. I
    mean…How can I not point out how incredibly ignorant, intolerant, and stupid
    you are. It’s not name calling, these
    are just facts.

    4.
    Again, absolutely 0 logic in yet another statement by you. How much can you suck in one sitting. Nobody, absolutely nobody cares what anyone
    does in their bed. There are far more
    disturbing things happening in both gay and straight bedrooms than just mundane
    sex. Only thing I care about is your
    idiotic statement that society has forced ourselves into gay bedrooms when
    reality is the opposite. But reality,
    facts, logic don’t seem to exist in your universe only what you believe and anything
    you don’t is terrifying and enraging to you.

    6.
    Doesn’t matter, that’s life in a Republic.
    Deal with it or get the hell out.

    7.
    Almost every accusation you’ve made has been false

    8.
    Lets see…false…and false. That was
    easy. Actually my response to absolutely
    everything you say could just be FALSE.
    Mindless people who are just looking to get laid are promiscuous, but
    people in general more often than not look to pair up and find life mates. We are not animals, we have jealousy,
    emotion. My opinion would be most
    promiscuous people are damaged, just look at the correlation of sexual/physical
    abuse and the porn/hooker/even stripper industry.

    9.
    There was nothing to argue…I also didn’t attack you. More false accusations.

    10.
    And yet again the Liberal tactic of false accusations.

    11. Man you lie a lot, unless you consider being called a
    Liberal a personal attack. That makes
    sense, it would sure as hell offend me so I get that. So stop acting like one and I won’t be able
    to label you as such.

    12. Let’s
    add one, I’m done responding to you because you have absolutely nothing but
    insinuations of me being ill informed and telling me to prove points I already
    have. I have a hammer in the
    garage. My time would be far better used
    just hitting myself in the head with it than “speaking” with you. I mean it’s the same thing really. When I call you dumb, or ignorant, it’s not
    name calling. It’s just true. I mean…How can I possibly not see the
    stupidity in your statements? If I just
    walked up to you and called you stupid that would be mean, or called you
    names. But when I read such ignorant
    nothing statements…Calling you dumb or ignorant or a Liberal…it’s just true.

  • Pelagian

    “Adoption is not a right. One must be qualified. Children do have rights, even those that need adoption.”

    You are correct that you did not specifically use the term “unfit”, however, the statement is crafted in such a way as to lead any reader to infer that same-sex parents are somehow unqualified (which is effectively synonymous with unfit)

    “They should be disallowed from claiming that it’s illegal or immoral to prefer 2-gender parenting.”

    I suppose we could just settle on claiming it illogical and baseless to give preferential treatment to two-gender parenting. Of course, giving prejudicial treatment to one group over another does meet the definition of discrimination, which is technically illegal.

    To requote the APA: “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents.”

    I understand your point, I just do not concede the point based on your choice of linguistic parsing.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “I suppose we could just settle on claiming it illogical and baseless to give preferential treatment to two-gender parenting.”

    Only if you deny all of the evidence. Do you deny that children do better when they have role models? Do you deny that females and males are distinct in gender?

    If you expect the state to take over production of future generations, then your “logic” has some basis.

    “Of course, giving prejudicial treatment to one group over another does meet the definition of discrimination, which is technically illegal.”

    No, discrimination is not illegal. Do you discriminate between the green light and the red light when you drive? Do you discriminate between fresh food and stale food?

    Do you have any food preferences? Is all of that “technically illegal?”

    “To requote the APA: “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents.””

    In theory there will be cases where that might be true. It is only generally true if when looking for superior parents you are looking for parents to indoctrinate the kids to the new Utopian ideals where gender distinctions are passe and the state will take over human breeding.

    Now that’s a brave new world, and you’ve got scientific support for it. Good luck with that.

  • Pelagian

    Of course, for your argument to work YOU are denying the evidence. I deny that heterosexual parents are inherently better role models than non-heterosexual parents. There are many role models. By your line of reasoning, heterosexual parents who physically abuse their children are better than homosexual parents who do not, simply because of their sexual orientation.

    As far as the state taking over production of the future generations, that would have been the case if DOMA had passed, but since it didn’t the state is NOT being allowed to take over that role.

    Once again you parse the language to obfuscate the issue. You are deliberately crossing the definitions of the word discrimination to suit your purpose.

    dis·crim·i·na·tion
    /disˌkriməˈnāSHən/
    Noun

    1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

    2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

    The first applies to this discussion. The second does not.

    So, overall, the evidence is on my side so far.

    You are the one pushing for the government to be in charge of indoctrination (as long as they indoctrinate to YOUR agenda) and “production of the next generation” (which isn’t really the issue being discussed since we have side-tracked to a discussion of adoption rights rather than reproductive rights). Way to go pushing your liberal agenda on the rest of society with your big government.

  • Pelagian

    I guess I chalk this up to a win for me. Since you have made no counter arguments only the same personal attack repeatedly without substance or factual basis.

    By your tactic of continual name calling and deliberate false testimony, I would have to suspect you of being an agent of the current administration.

    Just because YOU refuse to accept the FACTS doesn’t make them untrue. It does, however, make further discussion with YOU a waste of time.

    Libertarian 1 : HoneyTree EvilEye 0

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Of course, for your argument to work YOU are denying the evidence.”

    Correct. Not all evidence is equal. We need to discriminate.

    “I deny that heterosexual parents are inherently better role models than non-heterosexual parents. There are many role models.”

    Children are impressed most by people they are genetically related to. Actually this is due partly because of the emphasis on teaching evolutionary theory. But that’s another subject.

    “By your line of reasoning, heterosexual parents who physically abuse their children are better than homosexual parents who do not, simply because of their sexual orientation.”

    That’s not what I said at all. You’re a liar. Or you’re delusional.

    “As far as the state taking over production of the future generations, that would have been the case if DOMA had passed, but since it didn’t the state is NOT being allowed to take over that role.”

    Again, you’re delusional. DOMA would prevent childless homosexuals from making claims about “rights” that nobody has at this point. It would create a “right to adopt” based on supposedly illegal discrimination about fitness, making it instead about “discrimination based on orientation.”

    I defy you to explain how the DOMA gets the state involved with raising children by declaring that marriage is defined as one man and one women, because marriage is what produces most of the healthy offspring that will hopefully perpetuate our nation. It states that this is the most effective natural way to perpetuate our nation. Please explain how that is not accurate.

    “You are deliberately crossing the definitions of the word discrimination to suit your purpose.”

    I’m actually undoing leftist doublespeak. Discrimination per se is not naturally wrong. Leftists throw it around as if showing discernment is always somehow malicious. My purpose is to clarify. You reject that because it contradicts your indoctrination.

    —-
    dis·crim·i·na·tion: 1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
    2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

    The first applies to this discussion. The second does not.

    ———-

    My point was obviously that discrimination is not always bad. Even you concede that is true but of course you reject that because you want to use it as a shame word that applies naturally any time you use it.

    Discrimination is necessary for life. Unjust discrimination is something that we decide is unjust based on objective standards. You haven’t proved your case that it’s unjust. You want to present it as naturally unjust.

    Me wanting candy when I can’t get it. It makes me cry. Can you see the injustice in that?

    “You are the one pushing for the government to be in charge of indoctrination”

    What indoctrination?

    “…(as long as they indoctrinate to YOUR agenda) and “production of the next generation””

    Marriage produces our heirs already. No need for additional government, or any centrally disseminated indoctrination from the government.

    “(which isn’t really the issue being discussed since we have side-tracked to a discussion of adoption rights rather than reproductive rights).”

    Adoption rights are bundled with marriage and reproduction rights.

    “Way to go pushing your liberal agenda on the rest of society with your big government.”

    No, pushing back against something is not promoting it. My choice would always be for smaller government. Defending something is not necessarily expansion of anything.

    Go ahead. Burn everything down as justification for building Utopia. See how wonderful that turns out.

  • Pelagian

    “Subjecting your anus to foreign objects is deviancy”

    A prostate exam falls well within your stated definition, so the point is valid on the merits of the criterion you established.

  • Pelagian

    But, of course, the belief that homosexuality is a mental illness has long since been disproved.

    If, however, I described the practices of most religions without putting them in the context of those religions, they would easily fall under a broad spectrum of psychological disorders.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Our founders already took care of that.

    Perhaps if new religions emerge that want distinct “marriage” definitions, the state should not get involved in any marriages and endorse simply endorse civil unions. Then private entities can call it anything they want. The point is that the government should not be telling party A that party B now wants to have everyone acknowledge their new definition of some thing or the other when party A disagree on this change. And the state should also get out of legislation that instructs people about what is “right” in adoption unless it has a clear interest in the child, and only in the child’s rights.

    There are no explicit “rights for adoption” other than the child’s rights.

    There are lots of rights being demanded by people who want to be treated as superior based on emotionally-driven claims of past persecution and this takes all of the focus away from their victims; children.

  • Bathing Suit Area

    If the government won’t recognize gay marriages, isn’t that violating the rights of churches that perform them?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Not if it’s policy for everyone. There is no right to marriage, only rights to unlawful discrimination.

    But part of my point was that institutions SHOULD be able to declare someone “married” but gays should NOT insist that it’s equal in the eyes of the law to the the marriage that the state basically sponsors because the state benefits from having stable natural families.

    Nobody is actually saying “gays can’t get married” outside of the context that raises objections to the bogus claim that gay marriage is equal in every way to traditional marriage. That’s why so few people object to whatever civil blessings they get as long as they don’t shoehorn this concept that says if you show any discernment between gay and straight marriages, you’ve supposedly violated the rights of the gays. It’s nonsense. It’s about adoption, cultural hegemony and coercive social engineering.

    Do zebras have a right to be considered equal to horses under the law?

  • Bathing Suit Area

    Last time I checked, Zebras were a different species to horses. Gays are the same species as us.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    We need more folks like you on SCOTUS. Like we need more holes in our heads.

    Way to get to the heart of the matter. Find some non-salient point to make.

    We don’t care about the species distinctions of zebras and horses. If we could get the same functions, we’d treat them the same. They’d be fungible. They’re not because of behaviors and functional distinctions. Not about genetics.