« Nader: The Little Engine That Could | Main | Bush tells Florida about Castro's Devious Practices »

July 14, 2004

Same-Sex Marriage Ammendment Bites The Dust

Republican Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment that will ban same-sex marriage failed today. This is a setback for Bush, but Senator Brownback of Kansas insists that, "marriage is a union between a man and a woman". The republicans plan to keep on fighting. Their mission is to ban same sex marriage.

Current presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massacheussets opposes the ammendment. Kerry initially said he does not support same-sex marriage, but Kerry admitted that he is against a US Constitutional ban on gay marriage. Is that too politically correct?

Post a comment and tell us what you think.

Posted by Wild Bill at July 14, 2004 07:44 PM

Comments

States rights rules....each state should decide this issue. Morality issues should not be forced on the American people. I am a Christian and, thus, oppose same sex marriage. However, I don't need the federal government telling me what is morally right or wrong. If fellow Christians oppose this as well, then they should work on spreading the gospel and not worry about changing the constitution. Hearts are changed one at a time...not by a federal law.

Posted by: Tom at July 14, 2004 10:42 PM

We have a clear choice:

Vote Kerry if you wish our society to be more like Hollywood's vision (anything goes).

Vote Bush if you want our society to be based on traditional morals and values.

Posted by: R. Seubert at July 15, 2004 01:32 AM

As a gay man, I am sickened by the relentless insistence that gay marriage needs to be banned, as if homosexuals are some sort of plague that's growing out of control and preventing us from getting married will stop the rapid infection. Why am I not allowed to marry the man that I have loved and shared a life with for the past ten years? My relationship has already outlasted many straight marriages and we're still going strong. Is it too much to ask that after ten years, my partner and I be granted a little protection under the law? Exactly who is it that we are harming? I get so tired of hearing how homosexuals are an abomination and that our existence as married couples would undermine the sanctity of marriage, like the sanctity of marriage hasn't already been undermined. Turn on your tv on any given night and there's someone getting married or proposing to someone they hardly even know for nothing more than money. Marriage for straight people is so convenient. Look at Britney Spears; she runs off to Vegas and gets married and divorced in a mere matter of days. Gays are capable of being healthy, loving, monogamous couples with our without the certificate. So who would it hurt, exactly, if we were allowed to be married? I guess I already know that answer to that. But why is this even an issue? Are we still living in the dark ages? It would be nice if the hypocritical right-wing religious finatics would climb down off of their high horses long enough to take a glimpse at what's really important here...LOVE. Isn't that what marriage is supposed to be about? Isn't that why we're supposed to get married in the first place?

Posted by: Smith Burkhardt at July 15, 2004 04:01 AM

I am so glad to see that this ban on same-sex marriage is not as popular as Republicans and right-wingers would like to see it be. Although I am a straight, young, caucasian female, I have done several months of working with groups like the Human Rights Campaign and have tabled at gay pride events. I see these people as PEOPLE like everyone else. Their decision to marry the person they love is no different than myself marrying the man I love. And in the long run, who is it hurting? We can't choose who we love, it's biological. Have a heart, Fred Phelps. All human beings deserve the respect and rights just as everyone else. This is a principle America was founded on, so why are we oppressing the very ideals we claim to honor? Diversity is such a blessing, and I'm tired of conservatives trying to abolish it.

Posted by: Sarah Williams at July 15, 2004 01:08 PM

who cares who marry who if people stay in his or her buisness the world would be better.Bush need to work on a law to get those children home and dam who marring who

Posted by: rhonda johnson at July 15, 2004 01:30 PM

The idea the government should be able to dictate who is allowed to be married is ridiculous! If Bush is all about spreading freedom throughout the world through war, which is rather ironic, should he support our freedom at home! When the constitution was initially written there was important part that the "brainwashed" like to look over- it's called the seperation of church and state. Believe it or not Christians, it's for your own safety! It is not the administration's job to tell people how or who to love. You should care about that like your gun rights. America is suppose to be a democratic society not facist! Secondly, it isn't ancient times any more. We need to start excepting people as people! Homosexuals are not going to cease to exist. They are probably here for some reason like you and me. Get over the whole devil thing and enjoy each day of your life to the fullest. Who knows if there is a heaven or hell. All i know is that we are given life and then you will die. How do you want to be remembered? Humanity is about acceptance and understanding of the world, people and all. Without that, your already in hell.

Posted by: Romano at July 15, 2004 02:09 PM

I completely agree with you Smith. Love is what marriage is supposed to be about. So many self proclaimed Christians are very quick to judge others in such a harsh light.Is this not contradictory to the Christian religion in general? Who are we to judge? I myself am not homosexual but to all people who claim it is an abomination to the way god intended marriage to be; let me say this, not all people believe in the Christian god, and as we are all Americans, have the right to think and believe what we like. And, as far as gay marriages being a discrace to a holy union, someone please inform me of the current divorce rate? I say if any two people can find love,happiness and make it last in these days.... Good on ya!!

Posted by: Rachel at July 15, 2004 02:45 PM

It is not a matter of anyone's opposing gay's or Britney Spears' marriage, which wasn't. She is not a follower of Christ.
God made a man, and it was good, He then took a rib from him and made a woman for a companion, thus multiply the population...He alone ordained marrage in which He tells us to leave our mothers and fathers and that we are to be one.
He alone tells us what is sin and give us instructions on how we are to live our lives....
He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Sin is sin, "God's Word" is what we as christians strive to live by. But we all (each and everyone of us) have choices, and it is not His will we do not read His words and follow Him. Sad, some have never read a scripture, let alone studied God's word. This is our choice and ours alone...and the wages of sin is death. You may or may not agree with any of this, but on Judgement Day, He'll be there to tell you Himself. He loves you and wants only the best, which was His Son on the cross for our sins paid the price.

May you have a blessed day.

Posted by: Bib/Christlike at July 15, 2004 02:55 PM

Bib, this isn't a Christian nation, it's an American nation, for freedom of *and* from religion. Your god has no right to dictate what any other human being does on this planet. You have no reasoning for opposing gay marriage (as no one does, it's a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution so people are trying to change our perfect document). So, please, stop being ignorant and use reasoning. If you oppose gay marriage, you aren't using reasoning.

Posted by: Adam at July 15, 2004 04:27 PM

We cannot uderstand the mind of the creator.
Why he designed one man and one woman for reproduction and not differant variations is a mystery? Why is the sanctity of marriage between a one man and one woman a Holy Union versus other combinations? We can try to find answers on our own. However, I believe the best way to understand who we are is through scripture.
I hope the Vicar of Saint Peter, Pope John Paul 2 will post some insight into this mystery on this blog. If not, any insight is welcome. Please educate my small mind.

Posted by: Paul at July 15, 2004 05:43 PM

Just so everyone knows what they're arguing about; I believe the amendment was intended not to ban gay unions, but to keep the meaning of the word "marriage" the way it traditionally was intended.
Otherwise, what would stop me from "marrying" a chicken? or "marrying" 3 women and a man?
Gays and lesbians currently have protection and benefits with "unions" so why do they need to get "married"?
And I agree that people like Britney are attempting to destroy the sanctity of marriage, but do we need to make the definition even more vague?

Posted by: Robert at July 15, 2004 06:45 PM

marriage in the united states is a contract. sadly it is said to require a church as a final "stamp". under the constitution all are seen as equal under the law. therefore any two individuals may enter into accord. just because your religion states homosexuality is wrong does not mean that creed should become law. if our government caters to a religion why christianity? why not satan worship? if christians can ban gay marriage, why shouldnt satan worshippers be allowd to make sacrifices a national requirment? make an argument that doesnt depend on religion, we are not a theocracy like iran. if you want law to be based on religion why not move there and leave this wonderful SECULAR country.

Posted by: john smith at July 15, 2004 07:39 PM

I oppose Gay Marriage because I feel homosexuality is a Heath Problem and the fact back this up. When the APA took Homosexuality out of their book and no longer listed it as a disorder they claimed that Homosexuals would have normal relationships and healthy lifestyles. ( I am Summarizing) This was the FURTHEST thing from the truth. How many gay men die from Aids each year from their normal healthy relationships? Did the APA consider gene research? Nope. They took it off as a disorder for political reasons. Once this happen in 1973 we begin to see a movement. It has moved from tolerance to now acceptance. I do not have to accept Homosexuals. This does not mean I hate you. I just think you need help. The APA in my opinion has done the wrong thing. If the APA had done more research they could have found ways to treat this disorder. This would have possibly reduced the number of Aids deaths with homosexuals. We would not be debating about books that our schools want to teach our children, like Sally has two Daddy's. We would not be hearing about Homosexual Marriages. Companies would not have to pay out benefits to Homosexual couples. Etc. Homosexual are a minority with an undiagnosed disorder. That is my opinion. Treat homosexuals with thearapy and not acceptance. I know many will disagree but are you going to say pedophilia is not a disorder? Currently pedophilia is not treatable and right before the APA removed Homosexuality in 1973 as a disorder, Pedophilia was right next to it. The only difference between the two was one was considered to be between two or more consenting adults.

Some websites you may want to check out.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/medconsequences.html

http://www.narth.com/menus/goals.html

Posted by: Ted at July 15, 2004 08:24 PM

I think the issue that most of you are missing is the end result compromise that the amendment was going for were 2 things.

1 - marriage is between man and woman = keep the title marriage rooted in its religious herritage

and

2 - give states power to determine civil unions = gays, or any couple that did not want to be married could have legal benifits of living together as partners.

I think this was the right decision and would have made pretty much everyone happy. Exept peeps that don't like the thought of the title marriage being preserved as a religeous sanctity or whatever.

Posted by: matt at July 15, 2004 09:23 PM

The "brainwashed" ones are the ones who actually believe that there is a clause in the constitution that says there must be a separation of church and state. Look it up. If you find it, post it here.

Posted by: Paul at July 15, 2004 09:29 PM

The constitution is an instrument of protection of basic rights not to be used to take them away.

Posted by: dave at July 15, 2004 09:31 PM

It is so sad to see our nation following in the path of others that have failed because of no morals. If we study history, we can see what happened when men decided to "do their own thing" without regard for the Creator. Homosexuality is wrong, whether 40% or 90% of people approve it.

Posted by: Mary Anthony at July 15, 2004 09:56 PM

i am not a religious person, have only been to church for weddings in my life. i dont claim to know if god exists or not, but i am not a disbeliever either. bottom line though is this country was founded with christianity at its core. far left folks will try to dispel this fact but it is plain and true. i have a hard time understanding why it is so important for a gay couple to call their union a "marriage" if this fact offends the majority of americans. apparently from polls appx. 68% of americans believe marriage should be one man and one woman, only 32% feel otherwise. why does the country need to cater to this minority? if we have no definition of marriage then the slippery slope quickly takes us to an inability to restrict a brother and sister, father and daughter, 40 year old and 12 year old, 3 men and 5 women, etc from entering a "marriage". Is this really what we want in our society? I am a pretty much "to each his own" type of person, but lines must be drawn somewhere. Define one man and one women as "marriage", define 2 gay people as a "civil union" and provide them their rights, do not allow the other examples like 3 men married to 5 women in some 8 way absurdity. we need definition in a society that has clearly changed a lot since the framers founded our nation. if we refuse to define it, the courts will allow the examples i listed under "equal protection". because all states are required to accept a marriage performed in other states, this unfortunately can not be delegated to the states unless a law is passed which allows states that reject gay marriage to not recoginize the marriage. to do otherwise would impose the views of an out of the mainstream state to impose its ideology on an entire nation.

Posted by: brian at July 15, 2004 10:57 PM

It says in Malachi, in the old testament of the Holy Bible, that God created marriage for Godly offspring. Man and man, woman and woman cannot create any type of offspring, except by adoption, or other means.

People who choose the "gay" lifestyle are often people who have been abused as children, or even as adults, by someone of the opposite sex, or raped and sexually abused by people of the same sex as they are.

People who choose the 'gay' lifestyle are not at all the real definition of "gay", which has always meant "happy". They are mostly sad individuals who have some very deep hurts, and they need to be reached out to with love and compassion, not pushed away.

The bible clearly calls homosexuality "sin" in Romans chapter one, in the New Testament. The act is sin, but the people who choose it are not to be hated, or looked down upon. They are to be loved, prayed for, and brought to a place of restoration and healing, so they can come to the understanding that there are better, healthier choices to make for their lives.

In every person's heart, deep down, regardless of what they show on the outside, they know when what they are doing is wrong. There is always the absence of peace when going against the natural laws that God has set in place, from the foundation of the world. Many times the need to fight for what they believe in, or to prove that they are right, stems from the lack of peace within their own hearts about what they have chosen to do.

Many people are under the mistaken impression that they don't have a choice about what type of person they are. That is something that has been introduced to society through the media. It is simply not true. Every day, we have new opportunities to choose a different path than the one we are on.

The definition of marriage is clearly what is under attack, and what President Bush is seeking to safeguard.

Posted by: Jemila at July 15, 2004 11:03 PM

Do a man and man fit together? Do a woman and woman fit together? No, because they weren't created to fit together. Usually, when you are in love, you want to 'seal' that love with a child. When you have a male organ and another male organ, or a female organ and another female organ, how do you expect to have a child?? You order one from a doctor; conjure it up from a potion of sperm and egg. When that child grows up, how will you explain how it came to be? You are right, homosexuals ARE people and they should be treated with respect, but that doesn’t mean that they should get special privileges that a MAN and a WOMAN get. Marriage between a man and a woman is natural; they were naturally made to be together. A marriage between people of the same sex takes away the 'sacredness' of marriage, not to mention the tradition. Homosexual marriage may be your "rights" but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is right, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be accepted. If we accept homosexual marriage, then we should accept underage marriage, close relations’ marriage, and all the other kinds of marriage. I mean after all, if they really love each other then why can’t we accept those, also?? Also, I don't understand why liberals and democrats always criticize conservatives and republicans for saying that homosexual marriage is wrong. Most liberals and democrats believe in peoples ‘rights’, right? So then why is it ok for homosexuals to participate in marriage, but then you say it’s wrong for underage marriage, that it ‘strips’ away the underage person’s rights. And close relations marriage…i mean these people ‘love’ each other, also. Actually, I would think that the other types of marriages that are not acceptable in American society would be accepted over homosexuality because at least it’s members of the opposite sex and not of the same sex. At least a marriage of opposite sexes can fulfill the calling to marriage…a child. Also, when did America start letting minorities rule? i say that our goverment should go with the majority.

Posted by: Kay at July 15, 2004 11:11 PM

Every individual should ask themselves the following questions before deciding on the issue of same sex marriage:
1) Am I gay?
2) If gays are allowed to get married, will take away from my heterosexual marriage or my opportunity to marry the opposite sex?
3) If gays are allowed to marry, will I be required by law to force my children into same sex marriage?
4) If gays are allowed to marry, will my religious and/or spiritual beliefs suddenly dissapear?
5) If gays are allowed to marry, will I no longer be allowed to raise my children and teach them the values that I believe in?
6) If gays are allowed to marry, will I no longer be able to get an education, pursue a career,start a family, buy my dream home and watch my children grow old?
7) If gays are allowed to marry, will God hold me accountable inspite the fact that I have always preached his gospel about homosexuality being a sin while at the same time respecting God's decision to afford all men free will to decide their own fate with him?

If you answer yes to any of these questions than you should support President Bush. However, if you answered NO to all of the above questions, than you know what to do.

Remember, only God will judge his children.

Posted by: John The Baptist at July 15, 2004 11:36 PM

this county was founded upon God and based upon our Holy Bible. this nation has been blessed because of this. why should corrupt people try to change it. Just look at the history of the wonderful country, it is all based upon God. And as you can see by the last election God does have the last word. his choice was President Bush.

Posted by: Kimberly at July 15, 2004 11:56 PM

I agree with Ted. 95% of homosexual males in prison were found to be raised without a male influence in their lives or raised with abuse by a male (Raising Positive Kids in a Negative World by Zig Ziglar). In fact almost all of the homosexuals I knew when working in various places were raised with no fatherly influence or their parents divorced. Granted that almost half of "straights" parents divorce, too, why and how does that influence a person to "turn" gay? By the way, I don't buy into the crap about gays being "born that way." If they were "born" that way, I think the Bible would have addressed it. In fact it did in several areas only not in favor of gays. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexual relations are acceptable. It only speaks of such relations as being an abomination.

I do accept gays as people. Never did I intimidate, make fun of, ridicule, or even reject a gay based on his/her orientation. Jesus teaches us to love the person while avoiding partaking in sinful practices such as a homosexual act or even allowing such an act to thought of as acceptable. Therefore, we, Christians, are not "gay-bashing;" we are being misunderstood on our position. We should continue to show our love for the unsaved by talking to them, quoting scripture to them, PRAYING for them, and in any other small gestures that the Holy Spirit leads us to do. That doesn't mean you can expect us to lay down our crosses, our beliefs, and our directives against this act that God is calling an abomination. Personally, I don't really care, but God says that I should and must do what He wants of me so that I can make a difference not in my life, rather in the lives of others. And I agree with Him. I will not conform; I will not be accepting of gay marriages; I WILL pray for individuals who God leads me to because He can make a difference in your life, not me, not fancy words, only His Spirit in His time.

So, it's not necessary to "Christian-bash" because we disagree with what you're doing or what you support. We are still (or should be) rooting for you to overcome this sin. I still struggle with sin, too, and always will. And God says that sin is sin, there is no weighted scale in His presence. Therefore, we Christians do not think of ourselves as better than you; we're both in boats on the same sea. Only we're going in different directions.

Posted by: G at July 16, 2004 12:11 AM

Banning same sex marriages is not the same as forcing moral rights on citizens. Marriage is originally a religious ceremony and homosexuality opposses Christian ideals. Americans have the freedom of religion, speech and countless others, including the right to be homosexual. Having that right however does not grant special privelages. As stated above, marriage is intended for a man and woman to be united. This is both spiritually and legally. Just because some choose to live a life of homosexuality does not mean that others should sacrifice their beliefs by supporting what they believe to be wrong. You ask what it hurts? What it hurts is every God loving American because of a multi colored smudge mark accross a once beuatiful tradition.

Posted by: Doug at July 16, 2004 02:13 AM

I cannot believe that Americans are even debating this issue. This is completley ludicrous. If gay couples are living monogomous lives together and are "in love," or whatever, why do they need a marriage license? What is the point? In Sweden, many heterosexual couples never marry. They live monogomous lives together and never question the validity of their relationship....clearly they have one.

Americans need to wake up and consider the important issues....Iraq, Korea, education, and, of course, where is osama...does anyone care?

Posted by: ann at July 16, 2004 02:45 AM

It's amazingly strange to see the obvious difference in rhetoric between the right and left. It's almost like one side is typing in such rage that they loose all grasp of what they learned of the english language. A helpful hint to keep your point strong in print: type it in a word processing program first, then copy and paste it into the comments box. That way you can at least eliminate basic spelling errors and gramatical snafus.

Signed,
A hopeful grad student who wants to see each side presented equally

-Anonymous, in this case, stands for "Terrified of Big Brother"

Posted by: Anonymous at July 16, 2004 03:02 AM

Why do the members of the left think they are smarter or deeper then the average person.
Self Proclaimed members of the Liberal Elite are among the most condescending and judgemental people you will ever meet.
Lets keep that breed and their twisted values in graduate schools and out of the highest levels of the Federal Government.
Vote Team Bush

Posted by: Paul at July 16, 2004 11:25 AM

I think this issue is being seen by a lot of people as a religious issue and not a simple issue of basic rights. I have been out of the closet for about 15 years, I am in a commited and monogamous relationship, and my partner and I are adopting a child soon. We both feel that if the "right" has a problem with the word "marriage" then don't call it that. Call it a civil union as long as the 1049 basic marriages rights apply to civil unions and those civil unions are recognized in every city in every state of the US. The majority of gays and lesbians in this country are US citizens who are being denied basics rights that even illegal aliens are afforded. We are tired of doing our part as Americans but being treated as secon class citizens!!!

Posted by: Tara at July 16, 2004 12:18 PM

Gay marriages should be banned because it is impossible for a gay couple to procreate. Gays are notably promiscuous and not monogomous for any considerable length of time. Granted, the present state of herterosexual marriages in our society are not as stable as they should be (mainly because our society/media teaches us to be self-centered and not sacrificial), however,these are not the kind of values (gay marriages) our children should be taught as being "normal".
If you want to be gay, go ahead and be gay. You need to assume the risks and consequences for your behavior. But do not expect the same rights and priviledges as an institution (marriage) that has historically been exclusively herterosexual.

Posted by: David at July 16, 2004 12:30 PM

This is about equal rights under that constitution. I referrence all of you righties to the constitution and our bill of rights. My point, SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I find it unbelievable that you righies actually think that if people that don't practice religion on a regular basis have no morals or values. This is exactly why our country is divided right now. The fact is, is that the righties use the crutch of religion to guide them through their lives. How many time have you been let down? How many times have your prayers not come to fruition. Our president is not a religious leader. This is a bigitted amendment and stomps on equal rights. Oh by the way, their are more women dying of AIDS than men worldwide. Homosexuality is a public health issue you need to read medical journals not right wing rhetoric.

Peace.

Posted by: Gmonet at July 16, 2004 01:11 PM

If people promote morality and christianity as a basis for banning a homosexual marriage, they need the blessing from our savior more than anyone. Anyone who chooses to judge and forsake another, has gone directly against what the bible teaches. It teaches tolerance, love thy neighbor, forgive. Teach love not hate, once we can love each other as a society, the one step closer we jump from violence, promiscuity, drugs and all the other social aches that arise from hate and misunderstanding. Worry about the problems in your life before you try to fix someone elses. The bible has many passages in it, but for some reason, people are only going crazy about this issue. Let it go, let the lord enter your heart and let the hate leave. The bible is for you to read and feel good, not to read and judge thy neighbor, or to read and get angry, I sincerely do not believe that the lord made the bible exist to enrage society.

Posted by: Herman Rodriguez at July 16, 2004 02:39 PM

i dont understand what the big deal is here ??.. Let homosexuals be ALLOWEd to get Married ! >.. i mean they have the same rights as any American and they are normal human-beings as any other person. What are people so scared of? .. gay-marriages are not hurting anyone ? i repect people who say that this goes against the bible but the thing is that its their own beleifs and thingking and should not interfere with other's way of life. Bush is a Christian and has his beleifs but should not mix religion into how he runs the country. Religion and state should be separate cause not all people are christians, not all people share the same beliefs. Why cant people just be accepting !>. why are people so scared of what is different from them?

Posted by: liz at July 16, 2004 02:43 PM

did somebody ask what'll stop us from marrying chickens? come on. lets think realistically here. gay couples want to get the same benefits that married couples get, also they want to be treated with respect as they should be. Isn't this the country that the religously persecuted flocked to? The word "marriage" is what freaks people out because it is a term used for a religious sacrement. What about straight couples that don't believe in religion, they are allowed to get marriage benefits are they? Possibly, Bush is using this as a tactic to make people forget about the things that actually matter, the things that Bush isn't very good at.

Posted by: reason at July 16, 2004 03:03 PM

I believe that these Liberals of this world will take us down!!!(Kerry, Ted Kenney and Bill and the hole bunch of them) and God's word said so. In the end time there will be things like this and people that will be immoral and I see the signs coming. The Devil will have his way and if the people don't stand up for moral things we will go down with all of them. Believe it or not God will have the last word and you will see in the end. I can not believe that you Gay people are not ashamed of your self . I can not believe you came out of the closet I would be so ashamed to come out of the closet and admit that I was Gay. My shame would be so great that I would go strait for ever. I know this may seem like a little thing to some of you people but if we keep going like this and allowing these kind of things to happen we will be no better than Sodom and Gomorra in the Bible and God will destroy this place. Like it or not. If you people think you are greater then God then you got another think coming, like it or not. God will have the last word. It won’t be long and Murder will be legalized and the ski is the limit after that. No the ski is the limit now. It is just a little bit at a time. You can believe it or not but some day you will say Oh I guess they were right but then it will not matter, so good reddens. Keep your old same sex marriages you will be the losers. I hope that raises a question in your minds. Some day God will say enough is enough. He will only allow this to happen for a season and then he will say it is enough. I could argue about this thing all day and not get any where because you people just want to do you thing no matter who you hurt.

Posted by: Allen H Card at July 16, 2004 03:07 PM

Oh intolerant ones, please wisen up! Not since a certain Nazi regime that was in power in Germany from 1933-1944, have we seen an administration use fear and preach ignorance and intolerance of others, in order to stay in power as the Bush team has. I am actually mortified with myself that I voted for this man in 2000! I've always considered myself a moderate and thought Mr. Bush had a level of decency about him that he would NEVER think to attack individuals of this country for his own political gain...Boy was I wrong. In all my years on this planet, I have never met a gay person who was not a wonderful addition to any conversation, job team, family member, group outting, sporting event, sit-down meal, etc., etc. and cannot believe that some of you are so ignorant to think that homosexuals are diseased and harmful to you in some way. You should be ashamed of yourselves and really question your own faith, since I do believe you are going against the very teachings of Christ with your horrible beliefs and judgements of others. Don't we truly have enough horror and terrible people running around in this world, than to spend our time and our tax dollars on such a ridiculous "witch hunt" going after homosexuals who harm noone?!? I personally feel that if indeed, we as a supposed "Free Country", in any way succeed in limiting or preventing the civil rights of homosexuals, we will have blasted ourselves back into the Dark Ages, and your ignorant thinking would be responsible for it! Our Countries Founding Fathers would also be rolling in their graves...

Posted by: gail hootten at July 16, 2004 03:35 PM

i am gay, i really don't care what you call it, its my right to have the same rights as anyone who wants to marry straight or gay..
call it a marrige, call it a union call it whatever, ITS MY RIGHT!!! if you look at statistics, HETRO marriges are certainly not the Marrige Model that is spoken of in the constitution or the bible for that matter..
and you are the ones who say its a sacred vow only between men and women... what a joke you are... I wouldn't want my vows to stand for what you call a marriage..

Posted by: sandy at July 16, 2004 05:17 PM

Gail, I agree I never met a homosexual that was not a divine unique lovely soul created in God's image.However, the sanctity of a marriage must be protected for reasons that are beyond our understanding. Judgeing is wrong as is not acknowledging our spiritual selves.

Peace and Love to ALL

Posted by: New Jersey at July 16, 2004 05:58 PM

Sandy, your gay and you have a behavior disorder. What you should seek is help and treatment. Homosexuality is not normal. I would advise you to spend some time researching this behavior disorder on the Narth website. What your trying to do is make other accept your behavior disorder and this is the wrong thing to do. It should be treated just as any other sexual behavior disorder.

Http://www.narth.com

Posted by: Ted at July 16, 2004 11:55 PM

Marrige in any dictonary a union between a man and a woman. I would say evolved as an economic agreement first before any of the religions in which we fight for were even a philosophy. I think it kept going for procreation and wealth sharing in families, love is a notion that was brought into the equation last century at the earliest. I believe what gay couples want is the economic ties of the marrige, but I really don't know because I don't know any gay couples that want to get married. If we are going to change meanings of words, equal would fit. Because we're not and they say we are.

Posted by: Athos at July 17, 2004 01:36 AM

Paul,
The words "there will be a separation of church and state" do not actually exist in the Constitution. However, Article VI (that's a 6 in Roman numerals) Clause 3 states that no religious test shall be used as a qualification to hold public office or trust. And, of course, most of us who passed ninth grade civics class know that the first amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Paul, this means the government cannot have a preference. Just thought you might want to know this so you don't look stupid anymore.

Posted by: Rexie at July 17, 2004 02:23 PM

OH MY GOSH. WHY DO YOU PEOPLE CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO. MIND YOUR OWN BUISNESS. IF PEOPLE WANT TO BE GAY LET THEM BE GAY.

Posted by: Danny at July 17, 2004 02:43 PM

Rexie the Con Law Expert
Is Secular Humanism a religion?
How about Liberalism?
What is the Seeger Test?

Posted by: Just Curious at July 17, 2004 04:06 PM

First of all, I just want to say that this whole amendment thing is total bs. If homosexuals want to marry, let them. Doesn't the Christian religon say that God will be the judge of people? Who are we to judge others that just want the same rights as hetrosexuals. If you're a Christian and oppose gay marriage, you're a hypocrit, simple as that (don't worry, you're not the first and won't be the last). Secondly, nowadays, marriages are a joke. They mean nothing. Look at all the celebrity marriages that last oh all of a couple months. If the President were concered about the "sacrety of marriage" he would propose something against multiple marriages. But he doesn't, he just using this to gain the support of the religous puppets.

Posted by: Jirai at July 17, 2004 10:34 PM

Thanks "Rexie" for verifying that "seperation of church and state" doesn't exist in the Constitution, and I'm so glad that you understand Roman Numerals. I hope you pass ninth grade soon. (I once knew a dog named "Rexie." He wasn't too bright either.)

:^)

Posted by: Paul at July 18, 2004 05:21 PM

Jirai, when some person/individual wants to marry his dog will that be acceptable to? What he does with his Dog is his business and he is not hurting anyone. Or how about Gay Men who want to marry more than one guy? You have to draw a line. Being Gay is not Genetic. It is a BEHAVIOR DISORDER.

Visit the Narth Website and read about it.

http://www.narth.com

Posted by: Ted at July 18, 2004 09:14 PM

Yes its a behavioral disorder to want to marry a dog. It is also a behavorial disorder for someone to compare marriage between 2 consenting adults to an adult and a dog or a chicken. There is no comparison. You people compare homosexuality to beastiality or pedophilia, there is no comparison. This sharing love between two consenting adults, not hating a group or promoting hate. Lets promote love between two people and stop making judgments that are not ours to make, Romans 2:1-- read it. Pick up the holy word for love not for hate.

Posted by: Herman Rodriguez at July 19, 2004 10:55 AM

Again... WHY DO YOU CARE? GAY MARRIAGES DO NOT AFFECT ANY OF YOU IN ANY WAY!!!

Posted by: Danny at July 19, 2004 12:09 PM

Herman Rodriguez, how is it hate when I am prescribing treatment for Homosexuals? Homosexuality is not normal. It is a Behavior Disorder that can be treated. 2 Humans can love each other but getting married is for Man and Wife. It is a foundation. What you don't get is the effect for allowing homosexuality to go untreated. Because the APA removed homosexuality in 1973, because of Political Pressure not Factual Data, as a disorder the cause has been an AIDS epedemic, teaching kids homosexuality is a lifestyle and acceptable and this is creating another social problem called GENDER CONFUSION but that is a different subject. Most GAY men do not seek marriage. They want as many partners as possible. I think if you spent some time reading about Homosexuality on the NARTH website you would learn that it is a Treatable Behavior Disorder.

Posted by: Ted at July 19, 2004 02:18 PM

The issue of same-sex marriage has never been and never will be the purpose of humanity. Wouldn't one ever ponder the thought that there were two genders created, not one? One for the other; now revert back to the same. Nobody in all of creation would have ever made it this far if it wasn't for MAN and WOMAN; thus the facts, the blatant truth will always be that HE was created for SHE. The contrary is HIM for HIM and HER for HER. This is a lie. Completely contradictory to God's original intent for man. Keep marrying men to men and women to women - you WILL eradicate the entire human race. For those who question who this may be hurting - take a look at global preservation. Can't you see where it will lead? Guys on guys doesn't produce any fruit in the womb. Say hello to world wide abandonment. We won't have each other any longer and will no longer be United - as this was the founding fathers' cry. Wake up America! We can love the people who are involved in homosexuality however, if those who don't have strong resolve and conviction as to what God wants to do with these brave states and we don't stand up and voice our hearts upon the matter, this country is in for a nation wide catastrophe. The statement stands true. The most uncommon thing among our brethren is common sense.

Posted by: Wes at July 19, 2004 06:01 PM

Ted. Why do you care about what people want to do.

Posted by: Danny at July 19, 2004 09:18 PM

I see two ways to solve this issue:

1) Allow same sex marriages.

2) Keep governemnt from sanctioning marriage and issuing licenses and thus allowing "tax breaks" for being married.

If we want to allow same-sex marriage then allow it and go as we will. If we want to disallow it then government needs to get out of the process of issuing "marriage licenses" and let churches do as they will. Not to say that it will happen, but if we get government out of the picture, then the Lutheran, or any other church for that matter, can allow two men, or women, to wed and recognize it as such, but no governmental benifits shall be attributed to such a union. If private insurance companies, or any other private institution, wishes to recongize a marriage in a way as to reduce premiums, or any another financial benefit, then so be it. As long as government is not the instrument to determine the legality of such a union, then it is of no consequence to those who desire it one way or the other.

Posted by: Ken Bridges at July 20, 2004 12:57 AM

You knoiw while reading this ... I have some points that need clearing up ...
A). would think Same sex marriges never have happened in history or why did Pierre De la palude in the 11 century write why the church could not marry Same sex couples
B). that the first amend. means that there religous Belives should be enforced somehow
C). that Some How this nation was based On chirstian values ... Sorry folks read Some history this Nation is Founded on the Ideas of Classic Liberalism and the elightenment Which ARE NOT RELIGOUS ... they were very secular.
And finally D). Somehow people think that Religous theology has a part in this conversation ... First Legalizing same sex Marriages is NOT a religous Discussion they are not forcing Churchs to marry them ... this is a LEGAL discussion on weither or not We should allow people to enter a A contractual relationship Based on their gender ...

and a finally Note ... there is a law that makes it so that Same sex marriages do not have to be recognized by every state ... it's the Federal DOMA law ... it litterally says that New Hampshire does not have to recognized Mass. same sex marriages if they don't want to ...

Posted by: Sed at July 20, 2004 03:26 PM

I dont hate gays nor dislike them, but I am against gay marriage. also all this "gay power" and "gay pride" sickens me. Its friggen obvious what is wrong and what is right. I sin but im not proud of it. Just like people who are gay shouldnt be proud of it. and if your for gay marriage or not against it than your moral compass is broken. Than some one might say "who are you to judge me?" but that word is usually not used properly and way over used. If you want to get technical you would be judging me by telling me not to judge you. Also, gays are always like "you should accept us for who we are." and I say again "your judging me and I dont have to accept you being gay because its a free country." The "Its a free country" speech is also way over used and not used properly. Truthfully i except gay people as being people but i dont except the act of being gay and nor do I have to accept it. I really dislike gay people with gay pride. Sure God didnt care about gay sex marriage than maybe I wouldnt mind either. But he does and it is my job to hate the sin just as God hates the sin. Is all if that makes any sense. For most of you non-christians who try to use the bible against us, please read the bible before doing so. When you say things like "doesnt your book teach people not to judge others?" and other stupid things like that all your doing is making a fool of yourself. Oh and i just thought i would like to add that Jesus is proven to be god. Even most non-christians know that jesus was a real person but just dont believe he was God. But whats funny is that even though Jesus fulfilled over 100 prophesies and some that he couldnt even prevent from happening (thats if he was human) people still refuse to believe. Even the bible is proven to be real. The bible and Jesus come as a package. So if jesus isnt God than the bible isnt real. and same goes the other way around. All non-Christians watch for this through the news, that the Isrial country and all the jews will never be destroyed for it will always be protected by God for i believe it is prophesised in the bible that God will always be with those people. Sure you non-christians can either call it a lie or say maybe jesus did fulfill all the prophesies but its all a coincidence. Or you can open your eyes and see the truth.
oh forgive me for the misspelled words and what not... i was kinda in a hurry.

Posted by: Jeff Sosnowski at July 20, 2004 07:01 PM

The choice is clear. If you believe there should be as many definitions of marriage as there are States then vote for Kerry. If you believe Marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, then vote for Bush.

Posted by: kate at July 21, 2004 10:32 AM

See how all the Christians try to influence their views?

See how all of them ignore my post saying: WHY DO YOU CARE.

Posted by: Danny at July 21, 2004 12:06 PM

Gay people no longer have any diffent rights then the rights that are afforded all U.S. citezens.If a Gay man wants to marry I say let him marry. If he wants to settle down with a nice girl and marry great he will be using his rights. But if he wants to marry an ant, no its not lawfull for any man in the U.S.

Posted by: Troy at July 21, 2004 02:07 PM

Since the life expectancy is about 75, give or take. If the homosexuals get their way....In about 80 years there will be no one to give a damn either way! Just think about it!

Posted by: Don Crisco at July 21, 2004 03:46 PM

Like so much change is good...I think not. If gays/lesbians want to marry their "mate", so be it. Why does it have to be a marriage and not a civil union that offers the same (marriage-like)priviledges. Most religous people do not like it, and find it offensive. So another minority liberal group wants to make it acceptable, mostly because they can make it a political issue, in spite of overwheming disfavor. I just think it's more of the liberal sludge (disguised as a legal issue) being driven down the throats of the quiet majority and conservatives.

Posted by: Ordinary Male at July 21, 2004 05:33 PM

What will stop us from marrying our dogs? Ted, are you serious? That's the worst arguement I've ever heard. This is not an issue of letting everyone do anything they want. This is just an issue to let people be treated like human beings despite their sexual preferance. And if being gay is a "behavoir disorder", then why don't we just put everyone who is not strictly hetrosexual into an asylum. Or better yet, we don't we just put everyone who doesn't believe in the Christian ideals into asylums. Just goes to show how disillusioned some people are.

Posted by: Jirai at July 21, 2004 08:03 PM

If our country was based upon the decision(s) of a small group rather than a majority, we'd be a Monarchy...not a Democracy. Homosexuality is wrong and those who want to be open enough with their decision as to be "united" should not even have the opportunity to have the same rights as a man and a woman brought together by marriage. What is our country coming to? I guess next it's going to be okay for one man to legally have more than one wife? Open your eyes, people. In the "good ol'e days", people were looked down on and beaten up for being a queer, and now it seems like the popular choice! Where did we go wrong?

Posted by: JB at July 21, 2004 08:09 PM

Oh by the way Ted, that little "arguement" you had about guys marrying their dogs is acually called slippery slope fallacy. If you would like to read more, please refer to the following link:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Also, using only one biased source to back up an arguement just isn't going to cut it.

Just thought I would help.

Posted by: Jirai at July 21, 2004 08:23 PM

Saddly I think you miss the Point ... this is NOT a Religous Matter ... It's a Matter of Law ... this does not say a church has to Proform a Marriage of two men or women ... It's a Matter of Contractual law ...
Second ... I don't care who you judge ... Nor do I care at all about anyways Personal Morality that is NOT the issue with gay marriage I think people need to realize this ...Btw ... I judge people all the time I think it's a morally correct to judge someones Actions ... Because if you can't judge then you can not Praise either ... And who wants that ?
Anyways Back to the point Gay Marriage is a secular decision it shouldn't be made on the Basis that your religon condemns it Becuase it has no place in such a discussion ...
and Made any words I misspelled ... I just can't spell well ...

Posted by: Sed at July 21, 2004 08:32 PM

The fact that Bush is pushing for a constutitional amendment seems to imply that banning same-sex couples from marrying is unconstutitional.

Posted by: cierra at July 21, 2004 09:55 PM

JB, my sources are highly credited Psychiatrist with no agenda but to see people who have a behavior disorder be treated and cured. Do you know why Homosexuality was removed from the APA book of disorder? Not because of scientific data but because of LOBBYING from Homosexuals. They removed it due to political pressure from Homosexuals. Many of the Psychiatrist who voted to remove it were also GAY.

Take your blinders off. Most Gay men do not want to be married. They have a disorder where they want to have sex with other men and as many men as possible. This spreads HIV. Your attempting to force people to accept this Behavior Dissorder. It is Not NORMAL. It can be cured and should be research more vs accepting it and teaching our kids its ok and why don't you try it out and see if your gay.

Posted by: Ted at July 22, 2004 11:51 AM

Amid all these arguments, the main point of the issue is being overlooked. What we should be concerned about is the fact that non-elected out of control judges are making unauthorized decisions and changing laws as well as creating new laws to force their agenda against the wishes of the people.

Posted by: Lincoln Cries at July 22, 2004 12:22 PM

i just read through this entire series of posts and everytime someone mentions that, "this argument is based on legalities and debates whether contract rights should be allowd to any 2 consenting adults, NOT religion," the rebuttal refuses to address this key point and starts arguing about whether THEIR god would approve or not. if any of you have taken debate this is what is called "nontopical." even if the pro-gay rights group conceeds that the bible says homosexuality is wrong, and conceeds that followers of christ don't like homosexuals, it doesn't end the actual argument. this whole thread consists of liberals arguing why gay marriage should be allowd, and conservatives arguing why in their religion gay marriage is bad. those are two seperate topics. and who do we have to thank for the religious debate not affecting the legal one? our founding fathers. washington was a mason (a group preaching secularism) and refused to see a priest on his death bed. thomas paine in "the age of reason" (pg. 8,9) states that he doesnt believe in any religion. Jefferson stated that the christian doctrine was wrong in "Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim" (pp. 246). in addition to madison and franklin being against religion in the government there was also the matter of the treaty of tripoli which was passed unaminously and printed in major newspaper without outrage and stated, "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." so in conclusion, liberals: stick with the debate until the conservatives finally begin to debate the legalities and not the theology of the argument. conservatives: stop preaching and start arguing the legal questions.

Posted by: ciaran at July 22, 2004 12:26 PM

hmmm this is where it is all messed up. christians always put their religion first and non-christians are never gonna accept just as christians are never gonna accept gay marriage. So non-christians shouldnt blame christians for bringing up their religion on things like this and christians just need to realize that non-christians dont care about the christian religion. but just for all you non-christians who do blame us for bringing up the bible on this kinda subject, to bad. If God hate that act of being gay than it is a christians job to hate it as well. same goes for any other sin. I know most non-christians will laugh or insult or even disagree. But telling a christian to quit bringing up God is just pointless. God always comes first in a christians life. people say "why do you care?" i say i care cause God cares. And dont tell me to leave God out of this... thats an insult even if you dont mean it. but than again im insulting you cause you dont believen God. Hmmmm its so confusing :/ I think it is said in the bible that Christianity will slowly be seperated from the world, or something like that. But now i see why.

Posted by: Jeff S at July 22, 2004 03:17 PM

In response to: Wild Bill

You said "Morality issues should not be forced on the American people. I am a Christian and, thus, oppose same sex marriage. However, I don't need the federal government telling me what is morally right or wrong. If fellow Christians oppose this as well, then they should work on spreading the gospel and not worry about changing the constitution. Hearts are changed one at a time...not by a federal law."

You know, this is exactly the kind of attitude I like to see. I myself am an agnostic liberal and so I don't agree with your faith and would probably be quite annoyed if you tried to convert me, but I can agree with you that we should act as ourselves more and stop trying to change the government to enforce an opinion or 'what's right'.
I don't think you can legislate morality, and I am for right to free speech, so go and spread your word, talk your fellows into doing it with you. I think it's the right attitude.
This is America and we can differ in opinion, or faith, or race, but we are still of the same nation, we can share the same patriotism.
(Personally, I also want to whine at liberals who pushed for laws mandating you have to be safe. I mean wearing a seatbelt is a good idea and I can understand a law for secured child seats, but that everyone has to wear a seat belt? What's next, banning bunk beds because accidents happen with them?)

Posted by: Eric at July 22, 2004 05:26 PM

Ted i agree with your last statement. I think most gays know what they do is wrong. But i dont know why they try to justify doing it. I could be wrong but it seems to me love between two gay people is about the same thing as a little school girl crush that a student has on a teacher. Its not true love. i could be wrong. but i know for sure im right on the fact that it is wrong and nothing anyone says can justify it. I agree with Ted that it is a sickness and you are not born gay. If its not a sickness than how come gays turn straight all the time? You just need will power. I think most gays just are sick of hiding their feelings and don't feel like taking the time to change so they come out of the closet convincing themselves its ok to be gay. It is way to easy for people to give into their urges. But i think deep down most gays know its wrong and i will pray for them.

Posted by: Jeff S at July 22, 2004 11:24 PM

Why don't we let the people vote on the issue of same sex marriage? Why does a liberal supreme court have the right to making this decision? law. The last major decision that was decided on from a liberal supreme court was Roe vs. Wade, and the country is still fighting over that one. Let the people make the decision and the majority rules.

Posted by: Steve at July 23, 2004 07:54 PM

This is to Adam, and all others who are ignorant to the fact that God is not just for a particular person. He created you, He should be your God too. He ordained marriage between one man and one woman. Homosexualty is an abomination in his eyes. Read Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:27.

Posted by: D. Green at July 24, 2004 10:36 AM

Hey D Green. Your a moron, not everyone believes in God buddy (like me).

Read Religions 101.

And why do you care if gay's want to get married. HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOU?

Posted by: Danny at July 24, 2004 04:03 PM

"this county was founded upon God and based upon our Holy Bible. this nation has been blessed because of this. why should corrupt people try to change it. Just look at the history of the wonderful country, it is all based upon God. And as you can see by the last election God does have the last word. his choice was President Bush."
Kimberly

"God" did not choose President Bush. The Very Conservative Supreme Court (With Six out of nine justices appointed by either Reagan or Bush) choose that little terrorist rat. Also Understand that you conservatives always seem to be quoting the Bible, even thought this whole "controversy" has nothing to do with religion. already saying that The United States is biult on religion, but it's not true, The United States was and still is being built by the cooperation of different races, religions, and cultures.

Posted by: J. Clovie at July 24, 2004 08:44 PM

First , please forgive me for listing the following quotes from this discussion without properly giving credit for each. However, I find the line of thought common to these posting to be worth restating.

"Just so everyone knows what they're arguing about; I believe the amendment was intended not to ban gay unions, but to keep the meaning of the word "marriage" the way it traditionally was intended."

"marriage in the united states is a contract. sadly it is said to require a church as a final "stamp"." (I would like to point out that the second part is wrong – there is no legal requirement for a church to be involved in a wedding at all – any Judge or Justice of the Peace is capable of performing a wedding)

"marriage is between man and woman = keep the title marriage rooted in its religious heritage"

"civil unions = gays, or any couple that did not want to be married could have legal benefits of living together as partners"

"Marriage is originally a religious ceremony ..."

"Call it a civil union as long as the 1049 basic marriages rights apply to civil unions and those civil unions are recognized in every city in every state of the US."

"I am gay, I really don't care what you call it ..."

"... this is NOT a Religious Matter ... It's a Matter of Law ..."

There are quite a few more, but these make the point very well. This whole issue is simple one that deals with the definition of a single 8-letter word: marriage. Further, it deals only with the legal definition, not the dictionary definition (these two are often not the same, as most people believe).

The legal issue boils down to this: If two consenting adults choose to publicly enter into a committed, long-term, monogamous relationship, does that couple deserve certain legal rights?

As it stands in the US now, if that couple is heterosexual, the answer is YES, and the relationship is termed a marriage.

If the couple in question is homosexual, the answer is generally NO (with some exceptions).

Personally, I feel that the answer should be an unqualified YES in both cases. Should the legal term for the relationship be 'marriage' in both cases? That is debatable, and is what this discussion is really about.

This is (or should not be) about political agendas, religious dogma, reproductive issues, health concerns, or dogs and chickens living in sin.

I think the question should be, would a term such as 'Civil Union' or 'Domestic Union' be acceptable in the case of a homosexual relationship, provided the legal rights are IDENTICAL to those granted under the term 'Marriage'?

Posted by: Frank Sandefur at July 25, 2004 10:07 AM

To Danny,

If you do not believe in God than why did you capitalize his name? Whether you choose to believe or not, He is real, He is God, and He did create man in His own image. I would far rather be termed a "moron" and know where I am going when I die, then to die and go to hell. Are you all afraid of the truth. My prayers to you.

Posted by: D. Green at July 26, 2004 05:35 PM

I am sadden to see all of the bitterness and hostility that many professing Christians have been saying. I will say in love, I pray for all sexual deviants the same. I have friends that choose to be gay and I pray for them constantly. There are many Biblical principles that cannot be overlooked. Thruough out the Bible God says that homo-sexuality is an abonination and a sin. When He talks about homo-sexuality, He has mentioned it in the same sentence as murders, liars, theifs, cheats and all other bad people. If you change the Bible to say that homo-sexuality is ok then all of these other bad things must be ok to. The Bible is the living Word of God, you do not get the opportunity to pick and choose which words you like and which you do not like. Either they all are good or none of them work. I have heard many people talk about the Lavitical law that talks about homo-sexuality. The liken it to the same book when it talks about dietary practices. These dietary things were made obsolete by the new covonant when Christ died for al of us on the cross. However, the moral principles that are mandated in the book of Liviticus are not different than the moral laws that God mandates for us today. You can think what you want, but if you look back through our history as a nation, we are and always have been a Christian nation. We were founded on Christian beliefs. That is a proven fact. The seperation of Church and State is not what many people would have you believe. It is just saying that the State cannot mandate which denomination that you choose, not that a person in a public office cannot have a Christian influence when he or she makes a stand on something. I applaud President George W. Bush for having the courage to stand up for his personal beliefs. I know for a fact that I would do that very same thing if I were in his position.

Let me say this in closing: GOD DOES NOT HATE ANYONE, but if you do not have a living faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ it is impossible to enter the KiIndom of God. By having this faith in God, you must take the ENTIRE Bible as the living Word of GOD. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. His morals will never change. THe Bible speaks only truth and the ENTIRE Bible is filled

Posted by: Jason at July 26, 2004 06:00 PM

If you are Gay or Lesbian I couldn't care less. That being said,I don't want you teaching my kids or grand kids that this is an alternative life. God said marriage is between a man and a woman.... Go argue with Him. As fo me and my house I stand on the Word and will "REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER" those that voted the amendment down, reguardless of Party. No bias here. Just a promise. I also will stand with and vote for George W. Bush a man serving God.

Posted by: ED at July 27, 2004 12:16 AM

"God has blessed this nation."

What a bunch of simple minded hooey. This nation was lucky enough to sit on top of abundant resources and rich land. This nation was fully able to utilize that luck because it believed in freedom. Freedom is what allows a people to fully manifest their resourcefulness, not god.

Religious control is what Europe tried, until the United States made an example of the benefits of Freedom. Things have been improving in Europe ever since they followed our lead, but they do not sit atop the resources we do. Nevertheless, they are doing quite well, thank you.

So, bag the religious fear mongering that somehow we're going to magically lose our prosperity if we don't do what god supposedly says.

Dezaad

Posted by: Dezaad at July 27, 2004 11:40 AM

D. Green,

I'm not afraid of the truth. I'm afraid of YOU.

It's people like YOU who are who keep trying to influence YOUR views on the rest of the nation.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN gOd (happy the way i spelled it?)

Just because I capatilize it doesn't mean I believe in hIm.

But thanks for praying for me, I feel safer at night now that you do.

DID YOU KNOW THERE WAS THIS SAME ARGUEMENT A FEW DECADES AGO? BUT IT WAS ABOUT INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES!

Danny

Posted by: Danny at July 27, 2004 12:06 PM

I don't want you to be afraid of me, I want you to reverence God. As far as "people like me", the polls show that the majority of the American people believe the way I do, so I am in a big crowd. When I left my comment on this web site, I did not mean to start a words war with you. As a christian, I should not do that. I do apologize, and ask for your forgiveness. I am praying for you and myself as well.

Posted by: D. Green at July 27, 2004 05:26 PM

Do Christians believe that god approves of a nation due to the laws a it chooses to have, or do they believe that god approves due to the hearts of the people in that nation?

If the nation consisted of people god could approve of, then why would we need laws? If, in fact, we do need laws, then, why does god approve of us suddenly. We wouldn't be following the laws for his sake, but because of fear of earthly punishment.

I submit that the laws of a nation have nothing to do with the "godliness" of the nation, for that is a function of the love or fear (take your pick) the individuals have for their god. The laws of a nation are meant to establish order, and must be argued for on that basis alone, not on the basis of how appealing we collectively make ourselves to god.

Dezaad

Posted by: Dezaad at July 27, 2004 07:35 PM

Do you know what, all of this discussion is moot. Americans Liberal And Conservative, Rich and Poor, Tolerant and Intolerant, are without fail individualistic. The second you start to infringe upon even perceived rights, the defiance from 'ordinary' Americans is incredible. Just look at 'The War on Drugs', most everyone agrees that drugs are bad but you know what 25% of our population still gets high, or look at the Social Security Crisis EVERYONE agrees that without intervention the lack of benefits for retirees 15 to 20 years down the road will crush our economy but is there any fix to be had (even a compromise one)? Nope!

This fixation upon the "Moral Ideological, and Sexual Character" of 'Others' is part of our national makeup and WILL NOT CHANGE for the next 20 years or so (until this is a nation of four distinct minorities; white, Hispanic, black, Asian) at that point my (now) three month old son half Black, half Asian will be part of two minorities and wield relative power in the sociopolitical processes of HIS time. To a tiny minority of Americans this is terrifying. And they are now attempting to stack the deck (actually set up a cold deck) against any one else whom can upset any number of easy political calculations based upon historical precedents. Is this WRONG? Or is it just human nature. I'm not sure it matters but with regard to gay marriage I would say to conservatives 'get over it'. The genie is out of the bottle, and unless you want to Alienate, Control, and Dictate lifestyle modalities for 10-15% of the World's population you have...lost.... this.... battle.... Period. Expend you energy upon the things that Christianity is renown for. Compassion to the poor and sick, protection of the weak, aid to a neighbor in need. Focus upon these and people will not only listen to you, but will hear you as well. Dictate and Demand and you will only become the opposite of meek. If my memory of the bible from Redeemer Baptist (in Culver City, CA), St Peter's (in Washington, DC), and Los Angeles Baptist High School (in Northridge, CA) serves me correctly they who are not meek do not inherit the earth.

Gay people are Americans, and as such they ARE able to do ANY thing, any other American is able to do. That is the strength of America and I pray it does not change EVER, for the source of our greatness these last two hundred and some odd years is that WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. And as shurely as there was a Rome,

United We Will Stand, Divided We Will Fall.

Posted by: heinlein at July 28, 2004 02:52 AM

As a history proffesor, I would like to remind everyone that MAN dictated what was to be in the Bible and it has been proven to be translated at LEAST six times by various kings, czars and so forth leaving out some things we will never know. Christianity, Judaism and Islam (combined only 42% of the worlds religions) are the ONLY ones which condemn homosexuality. To attempt to suggest that one religion is better than the other is an attempt to control. People in these religions are particularly afraid of what they do not understand. The highest rate of suicide amongst teenagers in this country are among homosexuals. Until this persecution stops more will continue to die needlessly. My uncle is homosexual and therefore I know what a horrible thing it is to live with. Its genetic. Homosexuals have enough to deal with so leave them alone. There is NO evidence god wrote the bible. There is an abundance of evidence that MAN scripted it to further his own goals of the time. I pity those who have fallen into this trap.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2004 11:15 AM

The Taliban and Iran is what results when religion and morality is forced on people. I applaud people who want to lead a Christian life, but morality has to be self imposed. I don't think it means much if someone is prevented from sinning. They have to be confronted and choose not to sin.

America is not a Christian nation. We are a secular nation composed of Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, Christians, Cathlics, Muslims, Hindus and many other diverse groups. We don't need our own version of the Taliban pushing their views through laws.

Posted by: ED at July 28, 2004 11:43 AM

Seriously, nothing will happen to any of us if Gays are allowed to marry. This is just Christians trying to influence their views on people.

I'm not gay, but I know people who are. And if they got married it wouldn't affect me in any way. At all.

Just because you don't think it's moral doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Who cares. STOP MENTIONING THE BIBLE. NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE BIBLE. ITS CALLED SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

ACCEPT PEOPLE FOR WHO THEY ARE.

Danny

Posted by: Danny at July 28, 2004 12:00 PM

The Holy Bible says that if a man lies with another man, it is a wicked thing. God does not tolerate homosexuality, God does not tolerate pagan religions, God does not tolerate unholiness, God does not tolerate those who are different or those who choose to rebel against the societal norm. This nation was founded on strict Calvininst, Protestant Christian fundamentals. In the 1700s, the people began demanding democratic rule, but the church leaders pointed to their bibles and said "No, God says the king rules by divine right." In the 1800s, people began demanding an end to slavery, but once again the church leaders pointed to their bibles and said, "No, the bible says that God approves of slavery." In the early 1900s, people wanted to give women the right to vote, but again the church leaders pointed to their bibles and said, "No, the bible says that women are inferior." Time and time again our leaders have warned us about straying to far from God's word, we have laughed in his face with liberalism. God has punished this nation, for its mockery, and we should return to the bible.

Posted by: henryclay at July 28, 2004 05:40 PM

Well lets look at the facts here marriage defined in the bible is a union between a man and a woman god created marriage not the us government and gays who are not people of god are fighting for something created by god. but they dont believe that cause they dont know what they are talking about they think the government created marriage. marriage is about family not just love u can love anybody doesnt mean ur goin to go out and marry them marriage is not only about love. u get married to someone u know u can start a healthy family with not to get some benifits from the governent thats all gays are fighting for and they dont realise they do too have the right to get married just not to another guy or girl in a lesbians case. so what are they really fighting for all i have to say is they need to shut up and figure out what marriage is really about. theres a reason why god didnt want same sex relationships is cause it hurts family values parents raise kids by support and example and when they lead an example of a life of sin who knows where that childs goin to end up in life.

Posted by: nathan at July 28, 2004 06:02 PM

Nathan, I respectfully ask you to stop your blasphemy of God's word. The bible tells us that King Solomon and King David each had almost 200 wives. Nowhere in the bible does it ever say that marriage is between one man and one woman. That is a lie being spread by the liberal media. The bible tells us that women are the legal property of their husbands.

Posted by: henryclay at July 28, 2004 07:19 PM

WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER--GET USED TO IT! SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WILL BECOME A REALITY, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME. THERE IS NOTHING THAT RELIGIOUS NUT-JOBS CAN DO TO STOP IT. SEE Y'ALL IN MY RAINBOW WEDDING DRESS!!

Posted by: Shannon at July 28, 2004 07:56 PM

Tony.... that hurts... im gonna try not to insult you... but saying the bible is proven a lie is the dumbest thing ive ever heard... no offense. I believe if the bible was proven to be a lie it would be known in all the churches and pretty much everyone would know about it. there would be more christians turning away from christianity than people turning christian, and the fact is more people turn christian than turn away from christianity. And actually there is evidence supporting the bible exsists. Example... Most people know that Jesus did exist. Even most non-christians know that. Now whether he is the son of God of just a phony is the main arguement here. There have been many people through out history claiming to be God but none of them fulfilled all the prophesies in the Bible like Jesus did. He fulfilled over 100 prophesies and some of which he had no control over(from a non-christians point of view.) obivously to a non-christians view he could have escaped if he really wanted to. If you want some physical proof i heard a few years ago some people found some wooden parts from a boat believen to have been Noahs. The wierd part is the pieces were found in the middle of a desert.(i could be wrong on some of the detail, but i know pieces were found. If someone wants to correct me that would be nice :) K and last if there was proof that the bible was a lie than why dont you tell a scientist or something... i know that most scientists are trying to prove God to be a lie but none have ever found any evidence. Its funny your the first to say the bible is proven wrong. like i said there are people comming to God more than there are people turning away from him. Oh and dont forget Christianity is the most populated religion on earth. So its as simple as this, the bible has supporting evidence that it is the truth and it has no evidence proving its a lie. Just some people dont want to look at the evidence. They would rather believe we came from nothing than from something. Sure you can ask "where did God come from" but thats just because on earth there is a begginning and ending to all things, so people think there has to be a beggining and ending in heaven and for God also. But that is a human thought and thats why we are nothing more than humans who think we know everything and have to know everything. Ill tell you one thing though. To me it sounds less crazy believing there is a creator than to believe we just popped out of know where. Oh think about this. If i am wrong and God doesnt exist than i got nothing to lose. But if I am right than you do have something to lose while i have something to gain. Both ways you lose :D

Posted by: Jeffro at July 28, 2004 10:34 PM

HenryClay,

You mean conservative media right?

Danny

Posted by: Danny at July 29, 2004 12:59 AM

HenryClay,

I don't believe in God. I don't have to follow what you think.

Danny

Posted by: Danny at July 29, 2004 01:00 AM

HC The operative word for Solomon and David is wives. They were women not men. God DID NOT approve of the numerous wives. The Bible does say that "the Bishop is to be the husband of one wife" In Eph 5:25 it states: Husbands love your wives even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it" Matt 19:5 ..for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.
19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Man is the head of the house, but husband and wife are one.

I do not want my kids being taught that homosexualty is OK. It is an abomination. Homosexualty was one of the main reasons that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

As for Danny, I shuddered when I read your statement that nobody cares about the Bible. I am really afraid for you.

Posted by: c.gearhart at July 29, 2004 02:37 AM

NEWSFLASH

Seperation of church and state was instituted to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Just do a little check on the national buildings in Washington D.C. You will find the ten commandments, Moses and the disciples in many places. On VERY important buildings. Our forefathers were afraid that the government would start tampering with the church where they had no business. Exactly what is happening today.

Our nations freedom was based on religious freedom, but it was freedom to serve Almighty God. (Baptist, Methodist, Protestant, etc...)

Posted by: c.gearhart at July 29, 2004 02:45 AM

Everyone is confusing the religious observance of marriage and the legally binding marriage contract from the government. They are two different things. Marriage rites and practices in religion are purely the domain of the individual religion and they can recognize who can get married however they want. The current debate does not affect that in the least. What we are talking about here is the legally binding government contract...nothing else. So PLEASE confine yourself to the issue at hand. How you choose to (or not to) observe God is your own business.
Now as to the legally binding contract...the concern that most rational law makers have concerning the definition of the marriage contract goes to the heart of how that particular law is interpreted across the board. The problem being, if you expand the definition, there will be literally TONS of legal documents that will have to be modified at an astronomical expense. It also concerns itself with procreation and how those offspring are treated under the law, etc. No matter how you view it, two gay men CANNOT procreate. There has to be a female involved and vice versa. This can all be easily solved with simply enabling gay couples to apply for a legal union that recognizes their rights and responsibilities in the relationship and carries definite protective rights for dissolving the union, the rights of adoptive children who may be involved, etc. After all, isn't the goal here to ensure that all have equal protection under the law? And that no legimate right is denied (ie tax benefits?)
SO instead of trying to change an existing identification that has ALWAYS been understood to apply to a man and a woman and involve producing offspring, etc....why not simply define a legal union for other types of unions. Maybe if everyone would remove the large chips off their shoulders we could actually move forward with understanding and love instead of constantly bashing each other....and that goes for ALL sexual orientations.

Posted by: Edmond Smith at July 29, 2004 09:00 AM

The US Constitution is all about extending freedom. The right wing should remember that the Pledge of Allegiance that they cherish so much says that our nation stands for "freedom and justice for ALL." The right wing is threatened by diversity, because it violates their cushy, protected universe.

The US Constitution should be used to extend freedom, not limit it.

Prohibition, the limiting of freedom in the 18th Amendment had to be corrected in the 21st Amendment. Limiting freedom is a mistake. If we "correct" the Constitution to suit the threatened right wing again, we will just have to correct the mistake in the future.

Leave the Constitution alone!

Posted by: David at July 29, 2004 10:33 AM

AMEN David.

Posted by: Danny at July 29, 2004 11:22 AM

And I said nobody cares about the bible, because the bible should have NO SAY in the decisions of our government.

Danny

Posted by: Danny at July 29, 2004 11:23 AM

For all of the ultra-religious, you must remember that God did not make marraige. Marraige is a man-man ceremony. Yes, the Bible does say that a man shall leave his parents and join with a woman. But the Bible does not address the the issue of a man leaving home for a man, or a woman for a woman. That doesn't mean that God didn't intend it to happen. God doesn't talk about urinating and deficating in the Bible, but we don't think it is wrong. These people need to start reading the whole Bible instead of picking and choosing.

Posted by: Michael Saripkin at July 29, 2004 12:19 PM

I have read most of you, voicing your part on gay marriages. Why do you think, it is ok for the same gender to unite in marriage? Well, this my version and God's version. When you read the first chapter in Genius. God did'nt make two Adam's or two Eve's,he made man first and then a woman. For reproduction between man and woman. If he did'nt want anyone else in the world he would have just made men. But instead he made a man and woman. To love and share their lives together. Later on they had children that was also put on this earth. Able and Cain. That is just like us we also was put together as man and woman. Then we have children that fills our life with joy! We unite in union as God put us together,Let no man put us under. I feel if that is the life you want to live then more power to you. The choices you make in life is what we all have to live by and answer too. But leave it out of the courts. There is wrong and there is right. Ask your self if it is the right thing to do? Why destroy the real meaning of marraige that has brought us together by God! The world is a hard place to live today,why put more promblems into the courts and with the taxpayers money. In the days of Sodoam and Gomora, God destroy the city because of their sins. We will be destroy to, if we turn our lives over this type of sin. We cannot put our sanction
on this type of life style and our country to be bless by God!

Posted by: Lori at July 29, 2004 12:34 PM

Excuse me Michael, but the Holy Bible addresses homosexuality very clearly, it states that "if a man lies with another man, it is a wicked thing".

Posted by: henryclay at July 29, 2004 12:48 PM

It really amazes me how conservative Republicans manage to quote just the parts of the Holy Bible that apply to whatever political agenda they are attempting to forward. Evangelical republicans are the worst hypocrites. They pretend to care for their fellow man while all the while slipping a stiletto into the backs of those people who are not white, upper-middle class or higher or want to live in their cookie cutter "Leave it to Beaver" world. Morality can not and should not be legislated under any circumstances. Homosexuals should be extended the same rights as heterosexuals. Anything less changes the preamble of the Constitution from "We the people" to "We the people who have power over the others...".

Posted by: Bob E. at July 29, 2004 02:15 PM

Our nation was founded by christian values if u dont believe me look it up about 95 maybe a hundred percent of the people who signed the constitution were christian and every law created was intended to coincide with the ten commandments to make sure whether it is constitutional or not nobody knows this because people are brainwashed by society in the school's textbooks who take out just about all references to god and christian values. with this whole misinterpretation in the first ammendment with the whole seperation of church and state even though it doesnt really say that at all its just a big misinterpretation that censors our american history so people think this nation was founded by athiests which it wasnt i can guarentee u just look take a look on our nations real history in how it was founded in a text book about the time before our beloved president roosevelt who started the whole censorship thing on christianity in schools when christianity is basically our whole history.

Posted by: nathan at July 29, 2004 03:16 PM

Lori, I don't know where you found your Bible quoute, but I know it wasn't from Jesus because there is NOT ONE quote from Jesus stating that homosexuality is wrong. Go ahead, look it up! I DARE YOU! IF you claim to be Christian, then you should be quoting Christ.

Posted by: Steve at July 29, 2004 04:55 PM

The liberal media has lied to you, this nation was founded by God fearing Christian men. As republicans we have to be distrustful of virtually every major media news outlet, the only one we can trust is FOX News, and conservative talk-radio. The liberal media tells the American people that Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams were all NON-CHRISTIANS. They tell us that they were deists, that they did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, that they based the constitution on the ENLIGHTENMENT, an intellectual phenomen that was sweeping Europe at the time. They tell us that they did not base the constitution on the bible at all. Well, as a Christian, I am offended, and I am doing my part to take back this country.

Posted by: henryclay at July 29, 2004 05:08 PM

We need to meet on common ground both the right wing and the left wing, the Christian and the nonChristian, the straight and the gay. This country was not based on Christian principles but on principles that came through history through the Age of Enlightenment: Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

People would be shocked to learn about the religious principles of the founding fathers of this nation. They were "Deists" who believed that God created a good universe, but left it to man to use it wisely. The universe is a well-oiled machine that gets fixed by Him when it needs fixing. In a way this was the best type of people to establish this nation: people that believed that the rights of all people regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion, or political views might be.

Gay people in this country have felt left out of the Democratic process for many years. Just this past year of 2003 the Supreme Court affirmed their right to exist as responsible citizens under the law. They are entitled to "equal protection of the laws" of this nation guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence states that every person has the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." The right principle that governs this nation is and ought always be that I should be able to live, be free, and pursue my happiness as long as it does not infringe on another's right to live, be free, and pursue his or her happiness.

Christians should be allowed freedom to voice their beliefs that homosexuality is contrary to God's will, but they should not restrict the rights of those who have religious beliefs to the contrary. It is contrary to the great freedom and justice that we have in this country to impose the religious beliefs of some on others--even if those who hold the religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong are in the MAJORITY. The majority rules, but under our great nation of freedom and justice for all the minority has rights.

All people in this nation should have equal freedom and justice whether gay or straight.

Posted by: David at July 29, 2004 05:57 PM

Nathan,

It doesn't matter what religion the founding fathers were. It matters what the consitution says.

Danny

Posted by: Danny at July 29, 2004 07:59 PM

Without making this a religious issue or debate what about the fact that. There is no Gay Gene? Nobody is born Gay? That Homosexuality is a Behavior Disorder that can be treated? There are homosexuals being treated for this behavior and living normal lives now. Are you going to debate that Homosexuality is normal? Lets take a close look at the Majority of Homosexual Males. Most do not want relationships. Most just want to have sex with as many men as posible. HIV and other STD's Spread faster in the Gay Male Community. Male Homosexuals have a higher suicide rate compared to heterosexuals. So again why do you think Homosexuality is normal and Healthy? Its not. So why are you accepting it vs trying to get the Homosexual community treatment?

You will want to visit the Doctors who are now treating this behavior disorder.

http://www.narth.com

Posted by: Ted at July 29, 2004 07:59 PM

TO EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES HOMOSEXUALITY FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS: That still isn't your business to say whether 2 people, homosexual or not, cannot marry. There is a separation between church and state for a reason, and you can see why if you take a gander at past civilizations corrupted to extinction.

TO EVERYONE WHO THINKS HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DISEASE OR MENTAL DISORDER: It has been genetically proven that homosexuality is a genetic variation. Call it an abnormality or what you will, it is UNCHANGEABLE. Although some people who were formally straight who were sexually abused by the opposite sex in their lifetime may consider themselves gay too. Others, formally "straight", may not have explored their sexuality before to the point of realization.

TO ALL WHO THINK HOMOSEXUALITY OCCURS ONLY IN HUMANS: I have a gay dog. I'm completely serious. Furthermore it has been found in nature that other animals are gay too. And I don't think it's a "corrupted mind" with him for his lack of sentience (You should also see his sweet face!)

TO ALL WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES: I'm thinking you missed the point, as it was "Civil Unions". Marriages are religiously based and that's the church/synagogue/mosque/place of worship's matter if they are going to marry them. The legal term "Marriage" should be changed to "Civil Union" to accomodate this. For both gay and straight ties.

TO ALL WHO SAY IT'S THE STATES' MATTER: If civil unions is a basic right for straight people, it's a basic right for gay people. Otherwise, that's called discrimination. If the whole of our country is going to take the anti-discriminatory path and not have certain states undermine laws, that is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory.

TO ALL WHO SAY THAT GAY PEOPLE ARE PROMISCUOUS ANYWAY AND THAT THEY DON'T WANT MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS: Straight people would be more promiscuous too if there was no such thing as marriage for them. Gay people want just as much as a monogamous relationship as straight people. Why? Because the only thing different about them is that they sexually prefer the same gender.
Furthermore, if gay people had a legal monogamous relationship to look forward to, there would be less spreading of the STDs that you talk about.

TO ALL WHO MAKE THE COMPARISON THAT A CIVIL UNION BETWEEN 2 GAY PEOPLE IS ON A LINEAR PATH TO MARRYING A TREE, OR A COW, OR 2 PEOPLE, OR WHAT ELSE YOU CAN THINK OF: Wrong. It is natural, and it is NORMAL, for humans to have monogamous relationships with each other. It is also seen in our closest relative, the chimpanzee. As long as the civil union is between 2 consenting adults, then it should be legalized on the grounds of anti-discrimination. Only a few decades back, people didn't want interracial couples marrying as well.
TO ALL WHO DON'T WANT THE SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE TO EXIST, OR ARE CLAIMING IT DOESN'T: It was true, this nation was founded by Christians. Very wise ones as well. George Washington's IQ alone is estimated at 150. And they were just as wise to provide that very separation. Question the separation and you question their motives. Question if you are really all that wise compared to a houseful of people who created the constitution over a matter of years. Furthermore, question your hypocracy if you are alloting to standing beside traditional values of the founding fathers yet are dishonoring one of the major pillairs of their democracy. Furthermore, next to nothing was known about homosexuality back then compared to what we know now. If the signers of the Declaration were to stay true to their own pillairs, they would allow them as civil unions. This nation was founded by Christians, but meant for all to live peacefully in, with the same basic rights.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Now, with these things in consideration, you are allowed to take a swing at me. I'm a caucasian, straight, 15-year old girl, and I was baptized by a gay priest in the Episcopal Church, who also happens to be the father of one of my good friends(who is straight as well). If you are still of a different opinion about homosexual civil unions yet were gracious enough to read through this all, please challenge this upstart teenager and I'll try to respond.

Posted by: Lisa K. at July 29, 2004 08:43 PM

Okay, many have submitted responses to others and only frustration and anger results as I can see from the "heated" responses. For those who say that we must not judge, I ask "aren't you judging us" You assume that we are judging. We are mearly stating what God says in the bible. These same individuals also say that we are imposing our morality on you. However, aren't you imposing your morality on us by telling us we are wrong?? And as for tolerance, you are not tolerating our beliefs either. If a person stands for everything, he stands for nothing(reference: John Kerry and his i want do whatever is popular at the time so i look better). Bush, never deviated from his committment to funding troops in Iraq, unlike Kerry. Also for those who oppose the war, let me ask you If you are a parent, if a stranger walked your house holding a gun and threatened you and the lives of your kids, if you had the chance would you take down the intruder? Bush (for now) is the "father" of our country and is doing everything in his power to keep the intruder at bay. Post responses I wish to hear your comments; however, I am not attacking anyone but those who do not seem to believe they are doing what they are criticizing. And Kerry of course, (what man gets botox, just can't trust a man who talks out of both sides of his mouth).

Posted by: me at July 30, 2004 12:47 AM

Steve to answer your statement on the Bible quote on homosexuality. I want you to look up in Romans 1st chapter and it clearly tells you that a woman to another woman and that is aganist nature. Also a man leaving the natural use of a woman, burned in their lust one toward another; I would like for to read the 28th verse in Romans one, it will plainly will tell you that God will turn you over to a reprobate mind. In other words it means he will let you beleive what you want. God is a loving God and merciful, but he hates the wickedness of the world. I'm not trying to hurt anyone, but try to understand the way God wants us to be. I hope I help you. Have a good day and May God Bless.

Posted by: Lori at July 30, 2004 04:15 AM

Lisa your telling some lies now. Please tell me the doctors name who has found the Gene? What do they call this gay gene?

Guess what Lisa there is no Gay Gene. Homosexuality is not Genetic. It is a development in the brain and it is a Behavior Disorder. It can be cured.
www.narth.org
Homosexuality needs to be treated!

Is There a "Gay Gene"?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is ? from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.

Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.

Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}

More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}

Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.

Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.

Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.

How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."

But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.

What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.

Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.

With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

{4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.

{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books.

Copyright ? NARTH. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by: Ted at July 30, 2004 09:14 AM

Amen Lisa!

Posted by: Danny at July 30, 2004 10:35 AM

The Constutional Amendment proposed by the Bush Admin. was only an endeavor to induce some fear of the so-called "homosexual agenda" into the less well informed populace thereby creating another wedge issue for the Republicans. Since they can 't compete on the merits they resort to the three G's (Guns,God and Gays)over and over to sway poorer voters in a party basically representing the rich. Too bad the masses are too ignorant to see how they are being exploited.

Posted by: David Reed at July 30, 2004 11:21 AM

Though I do not oppose Gay Marriage, I find it disgusting. The main problem I have is what doors this opens for others. I have read a few comments that have to do with marriage and people are saying that "Love is what marriage is supposed to be about" but the problem is regarding not the "normal" man and man or man and woman or woman and woman type relationships, but it is when you start adding others into it like man-boy, 2 man-1 woman, should those be allowed too? Now of course you are going to say that is crazy but there are people and organizations that are just waiting for gay marriage to go through so they can say "you changed the law for them, now you are discriminating against us". Don't think it won't happen, they said that about gay marriage 20 years ago. One more item, gays stop saying you want equal rights based on who you are, you have chosen to be that way, you were not made that way. Try putting yourself in the shoes of a group that really had or has no equal rights like the Native Americans who were slaughtered, lied to, stolen from and had to deal with genocide by your ancestors.

Posted by: jeff payne at July 30, 2004 01:30 PM

same sex marraige must be legal every where in America. America is the land of freedom and liberty, where regardless of one's sexual orientaton every one must be given the right to get married and live like any other citizen. American government can't and won't follow what bible teaches since there is a seperation between state and religion.

Posted by: Kasim at July 30, 2004 03:14 PM

I guess that all of you gay people think that someone who has sex with a dog or other kind of animal shouldn't be discriminated against. I am sure that person loves that animal. Should they be allowed to marry? Either way you look at it, it is still wrong. If gay marraiges are allowed, it just opens the doors for the rest of the sick people to start calling themselves minorities and to not be discriminated against. Somewhere there needs to be a line drawn, and President Bush is doing the right thing. As for getting the same benifits as a married couple, I hope you never get it. If I can't get my girlfriend on my insurance without marrying her than you shouldn't get it either. You people are sick and demented, and are in need of some serious psychological help.

Posted by: MP at July 30, 2004 03:33 PM

its just sad that we are even having this debate i didnt realise that gay people were just this ignorant. for one we are at war and to vote for someone for mainly domestic issues at a time when are country needs a strong president to defend our country from terrorists is wrong. and two if it were genetic i would think it is wrong for gays not to be allowed to marry but its not its a sin and a terrible choice and is very unhealthy and promotes to kids that its okay to be gay. when its not. i can guarentee u that there is no such proof that it is genetic theres more proof that it isnt then that it is. for example people do go from being gay to straight proving that gays dont stay gay. and being gay is about sex not relationship and thats a fact too cause thats all it is is a sexual preference. which is very desgusting and proving there ignorance cause woman are much much better looking. anyways lets just get our priorities straight. read the bible and make ur judgement for urself. dont promote ur anti christ crap to me or anybody. so just end this debate right now and lets just let people move on with there lives not having to worry about our nations families in the future. families are what make our nation strong or weak. a good family makes good people a bad family usually makes bad people so just think about that and i know that gay people well the majority will not have a good future family cause i know kids are goin to hate the fact that there parents are gay or they will love the fact that they are gay and become gay themselves cause there daddy's are gay as well.and dont tell me there's nothing wrong with that i know everybody knows being gay is wrong.

Posted by: nathan at July 30, 2004 04:47 PM

MP,

Don't compare humans to animals. That's sick.

Danny

Posted by: Danny at July 30, 2004 10:26 PM

the republicans aren't trying to ban same-sex marriage so they can becomemore popular; that's obvios espicially since it's election time and they know the entire media industry is going to fight against them.

The Republicans are fighting for the sanctity of marriage because they are acting on thier own convictions; convictions that are shared by those who elected them into office. If you don't belive in the bible or Jesus then don't vote for them, but don't ridicule them for representing those who put them in office

Posted by: Ben Spencer at July 31, 2004 10:48 AM

Aren't domestic issues important? Why shouldn't we vote according to morals and what we belive is right? Or is that against the "Constitution" as well. Morality is the number one reason I vote because I belive It is impotant to represent Jesus in every area of my life. Vote for God first, not for your own sinful and greedy desires.

Kerry has made a whole lot of promises; half of which I doubt would come to pass if he were elected. I just don't belive him, and it sounds like he is just saying what everyone wants to hear.

With Bush, however, I have Actually seen him do the things he has said, specifically about morality. I trust him. I pray God would preform another miracle and bless us with another term with Bush; this time setting the stage to grant God more freedom in america for the years to come.

Posted by: Ben Spencer at July 31, 2004 11:01 AM

Bush telling the TRUTH? KEEPING HIS PROMISES? LOL! That's a good one.

Hmm, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Uraninum and Plutonium in Africa, Promising a smaller government, Al kaidea and sadaam hussein links, sending troops to iraq.

What happened to his morality there?

Danny

Posted by: Danny at July 31, 2004 07:06 PM

Hey Danny im not gonna respond to your last message. i dont need to. but what you need to do is go through the board and you will find your answers there. Whether you believe them or not is your own problem. Example, you say bush lies about weapons of mass destruction. Well ive seen maybe over 20 messages stating things like If Bush is a liar because of the WMDs than so is Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, and the United Nations. That is what i have noticed with the dems. they repeat already proven wrong messages. Also if you look at most messages you will find that most of the soldiers in Iraq knew why they were there and they knew what they were doing and most of them support bush. But instead of looking at the other messages proven your points wrong you will find you werent the first to make your stupid points. And everytime i see a dem make a point it seems to be proven wrong by a republican. The only thing most of you dems have against bush are just unprovened theories. Example "Bush went to war just for the oil". Prove it!! I say hes in Iraq cause of "Iraqi Freedom" and there is more evidence supporting this than your stupid dem theories. Example... We dont own the oil in Iraq like most of you dems predicted. It still belongs to Iraq. They have a new president for Iraq and he hasnt asked us to leave because he know why we are there and that we are actually being a big help. just ask any returning soldier from Iraq. they will tell you the same thing. Some have even left messeges on this web-site, but most of you dems seem to ignore what they say. It figures. thats all yo dems do. constantly repeat yourselves on your unproven theories while constantly being proven wrong by a democrat. But you ignore the proof. all you dems are so repetitive on this board... a lot of this stuff on this board is getting old because its the same b^%$#!&* theories being provened wrong again and again. Now there are a few things that i dont know about. like what exactly the seperation of church and state means. no one seems to have any real proof of what it means. It seems it all depends on how you look at it. But i know the republicans are winning the arguement just like Bush is winning the poles. Come up with something new. I give credit to those Dems that actually come up with proof supporting their theories. but it seems everytime a dem does come up with evidence a republican comes up with evidence saying that a dems evidence is wrong. but at least some of you dems actually try to find support for your evidence unlike most of you dems who just put up the same unproven b^%$#!&*. ok im done... im starting to get repetive :)
(Edited)

Posted by: Jeffro at August 1, 2004 12:12 AM

Oh and one more thing. ill admit it that the republicans do it too.. they ignore some of the evidence supporting the dems theories. but truthfully i see Dems doing it a lot more than Reps.. maybe a ratio of like 5 to 1... give or take... But sadly you guys know it... your losing... you guys just dont have enough to win. Please don't hate Bush with out any proof of his wrong doing. I mean "PROOF". Also remember in America Your innocent untill proven guilty... that should also go for Bush also. and i would like to say that i am not sure what to believe about the Al kaidia links... ive heard both sides of the stories. But i do know that you need more than that to prove Kerry is a better man to be president than Bush. I havnt witnessed Bush doing anything wrong besides hearing the same stupid unprovened theories, but i have witnessed Kerry flip flopping on subjects. To me that is what a president shouldn't be like.

Posted by: Jeffro at August 1, 2004 12:24 AM

1. Bush isn't winning the polls.
2. See Fahrenehit 9/11.
3. Bush lied to the public of WMD's. Why wouldn't the public believe him if he told them? He's the president he's supposed to tell the truth.
4. I didn't say anything about oil, but since you brought it up, Bush owned a oil company who's prominent investor was the Bin Laden family (don't believe me? look it up)
5. Iraqi freedom? You do know that there are countries in WORSE condition than Iraq ever was with worse dictators? What happened to "freeing" them.

Posted by: Danny at August 1, 2004 10:37 PM

I may have become a liberal (a.k.a. Democrat) but I am afraid of the frontal lobotomy that is necessary to have those thoughts!!!!

Posted by: Jeff Payne at August 2, 2004 12:41 PM

lets all worship micheal moore's propaganda film farenheit 9/11 who only showed one side of the story and turns out his side was completely bs but to those ignorant people who are goin to actually believe that crap u need help i think it would be more fair if u look at both sides before u make a judgement but be ignorant all u want i dont care.

Posted by: nathan at August 2, 2004 09:06 PM

Danny,

With all of the "knowledge" that you seem to have regarding the constitution, I triple dog dare you to read a book called "America's God and Country" compiled by Federer. Read the quotes from speeches of our founding fathers and then make the statement that this country was not based on the Bible. It will jerk the rug right out from under you.

Posted by: D. Green at August 2, 2004 10:22 PM

Since when is the role of the Federal government to legislate moral issues? Every Christian, Democrat and Republican alike opposes this type of union. It is not the position of the government to impose this issue by amending the United States Constitution. This should be handled at the State Level and voted on. When is President Bush going to stop trying to re write our constitution hasn’t he done enough with the Patriot Act and removing many of our civil liberties already! Wake up AMERICA! This far right conservative movement is way out of the main stream in this country and its time it is stopped by removing every person from Washington that continues to push this agenda starting with the President and all of the way trough the House and Senate.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 4, 2004 11:09 AM

Gay marriages are such a huge "problem" for the christians of the U.S. Just because we want "same-sex civil unions" does not mean that we want to get married through the church. This is the land of the free right? Then you can't discriminate an entire population of people, and trust me there's more gay people than you think, because of a religious value that the president posseses. I would like to have rights to healthcare and will rights and the rights to be able to spend the rest of my life with my fiance but it is not an option. I see people around my community that yell and beat their kids and it kills me to know that those people have a hell of a lot more rights than I do as a homosexual. Who the hell would choose to be a homosexual? It's people who are ultra-religious who have no idea what it is like living a day in our shoes, being discriminated against, having hate crimes done to us, having people stare and tell you you're going to hell. I can't help that I'm gay and it's unchangeable. Church and State are seperate and for the government to deny the rights of people is not what the U.S. stands for in the first place. Everyone needs to realize that this isn't a religious issue, it's a rights issue.

Posted by: megan at August 4, 2004 12:42 PM

Hey Green,

I don't CARE what our founding fathers were. They could have been buddist cows for all I care.

Doens't make a DIFFERENCE. JEEZ.

JUST BECAUSE YOUR CHRISTIAN DOESNT MEAN YOUR VIEWS ARE RIGHT.

Danny

Posted by: Danny at August 4, 2004 04:21 PM

Megan,
YOUR RIGHT!

Danny

Posted by: Danny at August 4, 2004 04:23 PM

This is not a rights issue. This is about a Behavior Disorder that is going untreated because some want to see this Behavior become acceptable. It is not Genetic. The Animal excuse is a lame one too. There are animals that eat their young should Humans make that acceptable too? Of Course Not. This is nothing but a Behavior Disorder. There is not a shred of scientific data that says people are born Gay. It is a BEHAVIOR. So why should special rights be granted to a group that have a Behavior Disorder? The only special right should be treatment and therapy. People should not be encouraged to be Homosexuals. It is not a healthy lifestyle. Stop making this a Rights Issue for people with a Disorder.

WWW.NARTH.COM
Read up on what Homosexuality really is by Professionals who treat this disorder with succesful therapy.

Posted by: Tedy at August 4, 2004 05:14 PM

It is very much a religious issue. God called such conduct an abomination. Green is right, and you Danny are afraid to take on Green's challenge. It matters a great deal what our founded fathers believed, because this country would not be without it. If you don't "CARE" then leave.

Posted by: c.gearhart at August 4, 2004 05:32 PM

Let me see, have I got this straight?
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good....
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad....

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Recession under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - Bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...

Saddam in custody - bad...

Posted by: D. Green at August 4, 2004 09:58 PM

Continue to pray B. Spencer

Posted by: D. Green at August 4, 2004 11:35 PM

Danny,

Afraid to take my challenge? I am right, Almighty God says I am right.

Posted by: D. Green at August 5, 2004 09:12 AM

D. Green,
Your arguements are stupid.

1. You compare two COMPLETELY different things.
2. Bush spent 87 billion on a war with no reason.
3. Entire world did not say WMD is there. THE ENTIRE FREAKING UNITED NATIONS SAID NO. JEEZ LOOK UP YOUR FACTS.
4. NOBODY IS SAYING SADAAM BEING IN CUSTODY IS BAD.
5. STOCK MARKET CRASHING IS NOT GOOD. I thought you were a man of morals?
6. Nobody said recession is bad.

This isn't about comparing bush with clinton, this is about gay rights. I dind't agree with a lot of what clinton did, but i think bush should go to jail.

Maybe you should actually look up the reasons why we bombed Serbia (which i also think arne't too good) and then looking up reasons we went to iraq (which are... none actually)

Your just afraid to question your religion because you are stuck on blind faith like so many Christians are.

Posted by: Danny at August 5, 2004 06:18 PM

Perhaps you should look up your facts regarding the past history of Clinton, Kerry, Daschle etc... regarding the threat of Iraq, and their comments and voting record. I did not get insulting with you. Your insults to me prove your integrity and intelligence. My little bad/good thing was meant to be politically "funny". And, basically the entire world did agree that Saddam was a threat. They just didn't have the guts to stand behind it. If anyone actually believes that terrorism against the United States has not been funded by Iraq is a blithering idiot.

Posted by: D. Green at August 6, 2004 09:55 AM

Tell the Truth! (TEOCS)
=======================
> Here's where President Bush got his marching orders:
>
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
> That is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear.
> We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass
> destruction program."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great
> deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
> nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the
>! greatest security threat we face."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times
> since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>
> "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
> U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
> appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond
> effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons
of
> mass destruction programs."
> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
> Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
>
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the de! velopment of weapons of mass
> destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and
> he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
>
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building! weapons of
mass
> destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
>
> "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
> programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs
> continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
> Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using
the
> cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that
> will threate! n the United States and our allies."
> - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
> others, December 5, 2001
>
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
> threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
> mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
> and the means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
>
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
> weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to
> deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is
> in power."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
> developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
>
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
> confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
> biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to
> build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence
> reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
>
> "I will be voting to give the President! of the United States the
> authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because
&! gt; I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in
his
> hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
> aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
> weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
> always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
> weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
> every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
> destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and an! y nuclear
capacity.
> This he has refused to do."
> - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
>
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show
> that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
> weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program.
> He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al
> Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam
> Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
> chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
> Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
> capacity for the p! roduction and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
> - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.! 8, 2002
>
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
> murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
> particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
> miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his
> continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
> destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
> destruction is real."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
>
> SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
> WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR
> UNECESSARILY !
>
> TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.

Posted by: D. Green at August 6, 2004 12:16 PM

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

Posted by: Danny at August 6, 2004 03:05 PM

You are running out of arguments. Michael Moore? Come on, you actually believe that hollywood idiot?

Posted by: D. Green at August 7, 2004 12:30 AM

Danny

You said:

3. Entire world did not say WMD is there. THE ENTIRE FREAKING UNITED NATIONS SAID NO. JEEZ LOOK UP YOUR FACTS.

I think you need to look up your facts. They agreed unanimously on the UN Security COuncil that Saddam had WMD. They just refused to agree to go into Iraq with us, which by the way, was a last-minute backstabbing by the french who had already said they would vote Yes.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 8, 2004 06:57 PM

D. Green,

I'd like you to find 1 fact. Just 1 fact. That is wrong in Fahrenheit 911.

That's right, THERE ARE NONE. NOBODY HAS DISPUTED HIS FACTS.

Sure his opinion is his, but the FACTS ARE THERE.

I BET YOU HAVENT EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE AND YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER IGNORANT CHRISTIAN WHO THINKS HE'S A LIAR.

Your the one running out of arguements.

Posted by: Danny at August 8, 2004 10:15 PM

Btw, F911 was backed up by 3 seperate groups of lawyers (no sides, just checked the facts). And 9 individual fact testers.

It is the most well backed up movie in HISTORY.

NOT EVEN BILL O REILLY COULD COME UP WITH A WRONG FACT IN THE MOVIE.

If you don't believe the "consiparcy" then don't. But Michael Moore isn't lieing, and he's a lot smarter than you and me.

Posted by: Danny at August 8, 2004 10:17 PM

I believe D Green that you prove your point to Danny! You could have not said it any better... Michael Moore is an idiot!!!!! Thankyou!

Posted by: Lori at August 9, 2004 12:02 AM

If there was a "conspiracy", then the UN, and all of congress were in on it. The United States simply put into force what the UN as a whole should have done. Continually Hussein laughed in the face of the UN inspectors. Gonna let them, not gonna let them, etc... Clinton did not have the guts to enforce the UN sanctions. Bush did. Facts? Moore said Bush lied, he most certainly did not. He may have been misinformed by many other nations intelligence, but he did not lie. He was also backed by congress. MANY democratic senators supported what Bush did. As far as O'Reilly, he asked Moore numerous times to appear on The Factor. He refused. As in all other journalistic situations, questions were obviously approved by Moore before he would agree to come on.

Moore is certainly not smarter than I am. Danny, it is called PROPAGANDA.

I have not seen F911. Did not want to give that moron my money. But, I will agree to go see it if you will go see The Passion of The Christ, and both of us go with an open mind. Up to the challenge?

To Lori, thanks for the support!!!!!!!!

Posted by: D. Green at August 9, 2004 09:24 AM

okay well i just thought of something how about all the democrats(socialists) since they hate this country so much just leave we are a christian nation live with it or leave it. and take micheal moore with u he's a traitor along with john kerry who claims to be this hero when only serving for 4 months gets a little cut from shrapnel and he's awarded the purple heart. wow!!!and then he goes out in protest like a little panzie and i feel bad for all the vietmanise people who felt that this nation was doing the right thing fighting for there freedom but having to here mr. john kerry tell them how he is ashamed of his country and how its trying to fight for freedom. john kerry is a traitor and should be treated like one so all u liberal socialistic communists i mean democrats just leave if u hate this country so much once again this nation was founded by christian values live with it or leave.

Posted by: nathan at August 12, 2004 04:18 AM

Green,

It isn't propaganda, it's TRUTH.

BUSH GAVE PROPAGANDA FOR GOING TO WAR!!!!!

Nathan,
Just stop talking. We aren't a Christian nation you ignroant moron.

And democrats aren't socialist. Next time look up the word.

Protesting is the most American thing you can do.

Hmm, how about we talk about Bush's "war cuts", hmm, there seems to be none... oh YEAH! HE NEVER WENT TO VIETNAM.

So just stop talking nathan.

Posted by: Danny at August 12, 2004 04:46 PM

love it or leave it i certainly love my country the only thing i have to complain about is the people in it who take it for granted and just try to screw it all up with there socialistic veiws.

Posted by: nathan at August 12, 2004 05:31 PM

I believe you need to get your head out of the sand.

Afraid of my challenge?

Posted by: D. Green at August 12, 2004 07:33 PM

You have also been watching biased news like CNN or NBC. You need to watch more Fox News.

Moore's film, I have read quite a bit on it, is most certainly propaganda. The truth? not even close.

Posted by: D. Green at August 12, 2004 07:37 PM

all I can say is look at the recent vote here in Missouri 6-1 to ban Same Sex Marriage hell even the California Supreme court ruled those 4000 license are void

Posted by: D. Walker at August 12, 2004 09:02 PM

Back to the main topic...

I would just like to say, if it is about
'fair and equal rights' for 2 adults to promise,
too each other, under the law, to care for each other, for the rest of their lives, and the term 'marriage' is the big problem...

Why now put all this effort towards changing the laws of 'civil unions' to equal that of current day's 'marriage' rights, under the law ????

Since we go round and round on how gay's are or are not going to hurt or not hurt 'marriage',
and some say, gay=sick and other's say gay= as normal as straight, why all the fus about this.

Let's put forth an effort to change the laws for
'civil unions'.

Civil Unions is what basically every straight couple gets, when everyone says marriage!!!

It's a civil union basically.

I'd really like to see the responses to this.

Thanx, Zyx

Posted by: Zyx at August 13, 2004 01:19 PM

Missouri post-mortem

World Magazine

Gay marriage activists are wondering what went wrong in the campaign to allow homosexual marriage in Missouri. After all, opponents of the constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, spent $450,000 to defeat it. Supporters spent only $19,000. The amendment passed with 71% of the vote. The turnout for a mid-term primary election like this one is usually between 15%-25%. In this election, 43% of voters went to the polls. The gay marriage activists are racking their brains about how they can do better as similar referendums come up in at least nine, and maybe eleven, states. Will spending more money or having better commercials or better political organization do the trick? Or do Americans have some bedrock convictions that they are not going to let themselves be talked out of?

The states that will be voting on definition of marriage amendments are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississipp9i, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. Ohio and North Dakota might have amendments ready in time for a vote this fall.

A good quote from columnist Kathleen Parker, obvious and yet profound: "The fact that so many voters, both Democrat and Republican, turned out in Missouri suggests that Americans want to have a voice in the marriage debate." Now if only their courts and their governments will let the people have their say.

Posted by: Paul Hicks at August 15, 2004 02:50 PM

D. Green,

Are you telling me that Fox is NOT BIASED? You need some medicine. NO WONDER YOU THINK IT"S PROPAGANDA.

HERES A LITTLE FACT FOR YOU GREEN, GUESS WHOS THE HEAD OF FOX NEWS? ROGER AILES! HE WAS GEORGE BUSH SENIOR'S ADVISOR!!!

GREEN YOU ARE SO BLIND. YOU THINK YOUR LITTLE WORLD IS PERFECT.

Plus, you don't know what I watch so stop talking...forever.

THERE IS NOTHING MORE AMERICAN THAN ASKING QUESTIONS.

Afraid to take my challenge?

Posted by: Danny at August 15, 2004 08:01 PM

If the liberal notion of separation of church and state is as strong as they claim it is, I find it difficult to understand why they are turning to the government to grant them the blessings of a religious institution?

If, as the liberals cry, there is a seperation of church and state, than no government official should be allowed to oversee a "marriage", and civil unions should be the rule of law for any who seek a union outside the boundaries of church.

I am in favor of civil unions for not only gay couples but also for heterosexual couples who do not wish to be a part of a religious institution. The institution of marriage is a religious order, involking the blessings of the supreme being, in every religion. Calling any relationship a marriage without invoking the Supreme being is a fallicy.

I know this sounds cold, but I believe that history is on my side in the arguement. In every culture of antiquity, the belief and invocation of a Supreme Being played a role in the vows exchanged and as such, the vows were exchanged between the two individuals and a belief in a God or system of gods.

It removes the debate from a purely Christian viewpoint (which I am) and moves it into the secular world which the liberals choose to embrace.

The truth is that they understand the "sanctity" of the term marriage and they believe, subconsciously or otherwise, that a "sanctity of blessing" on the relationship in some way legitimizes the relationship, which is another reason so many have sought acceptance within in church ordination process while disregarding the Bible as absolute truth.

Marriage is an institution that should remain an institution of the church with blessings only from within the walls of a church, synagague, mosque or any other place of worship. Outside of that, the civil union, with all the same rights of marriage should be made available to all, heterosexual or homosexual. The government needs to get out of this, right wing and left wing. Leave marriage to the church and stop the blessing of marriage for any civil employee, mayor, governor, president or judge.

That would be ethical, moral and allow the right that the government make no laws which promote or supress a religious belief.

If any couple, gay or heterosexual, is married within the confides of a religious service the government should only recognize the marriage but the rights granted through the marriage are honored only through the civil union.

In other words, marriage would be recognized as civil unions by the government, not as marriages, but a civil union would not be recognized as a marriage since it lacks the element of religion.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 16, 2004 12:54 AM

Danny,
I'll just pretend u didnt say what u just said anyways well socialists believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor and a prosperous middle class and closing the gap on the rich and poor so maybe u should take a peak at socialism and figure out what it really is

Posted by: nathan at August 16, 2004 01:42 AM

and by the way danny protesting is a right yah but it doesnt make it american and patriotic it just means u cant stand living in america cause u cant stop complaining so love it or leave it thats all id like to say again. this nation was founded on christian values u should really look up ur real history and stop buying into the liberal media and our liberal school systems we have today who completly took christ out of our history when it had everything to do with our history

Posted by: nathan at August 16, 2004 01:47 AM

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun - let His Kingdom come"

Samuel Adams
Father of the Revolution
[Adams made the above statement as the Declaration of Independence was being signed]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Patrick Henry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the Supreme Courts Justices...

"... Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

"National prosperity can neither be obtained nor preserved without the favor of Providence."

John Jay
first Chief Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice ... We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions] ... It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law ... proven by the volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of utterances that this is a Christian nation. We find everywhere a clear recognition of this same truth."

Chancellor Kent
the great commentator on American law,
Chief Justice to the Supreme Court of New York

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the Supreme Court(s)...

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation (State or National) because this is a religious people ... this is a Christian nation."

United Sates Supreme Court - 1892

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being ... When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe ... We find no Constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion to and to throw it's weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."
United States Supreme Court - 1952

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Christianity is a part of the common law of the land, with liberty of conscience to all. It has always been so recognized ... if Christianity is a part of the common reference to the principles of right and wrong ... it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is there basis. Remove this and they would fall."
South Carolina Supreme Court

Posted by: nathan at August 16, 2004 01:53 AM

This is not about "civil unions."

It's about families having and raising children.

I would argue that one of the purposes of a one man and one woman union is to produce children.

And a child needs a dad and a mom.

Bob and Hank can have sex, but they can't make children or be a mom and dad.

Marie and Melissa can have sex, but they can't make children or be a mom and a dad.

Listen boys and boys and girls and girls, it's about the kids.

Posted by: Gary at August 16, 2004 07:52 AM

Democrats believe in
paying off blacks to get there vote
letting in illegals to get and giving them drivers license so they can get there vote as well
and also letting minoritys get jobs or go to colleges over someone who really deserves it im not against them being accepted for jobs and such im just against the fact that they have lower standards on getting accepted to colleges or getting jobs then whites do i think it should be the same for everyone if ur qualified u should be accepted not if ur of a certain race.
also democrats believe in taking christ out of our nations history take danny's comment for example "We aren't a Christian nation you ignroant moron." thats what our fellow democrats believe in
also they like the idea of taking money from people who worked hard for there money and giving it to people who dont deserve it.
They make people dependent on welfare checks so they're is always someone in need of welfare so they will always have something to complain about.
just think if everyone in this nation was sucessful there wouldnt be a democrat party cause they cant survive when all they fight for is welfare weak defence taking from the rich giving to the poor. so thats why they make our welfare system to where people become dependent on it and never worry about progressing and making there life better they just take what they get and keep getting it and as long as we keep that system our good old democrats our here to stay.
and because of social security and the other welfare systems we have today we are moving closer and closer to a socialistic type of government that hates people who work hard for there money so they take it from them and give it to people who dont work quite as hard for it which is why they really dont have it in the first place

Posted by: nathan at August 16, 2004 06:05 PM

and with this universal healthcare plan u know whos goin to be paying for 98 percent of it its goin to be the top ten percent wealthy people in the nation and who is it goin to mostly benifit yes its not goin to benifit them its goin to benifit the people of lower incomes and they wont be payin a dime for it. and health care prices are always goin to rise and rise so the taxes will also rise and rise making it impossible to ever lower taxes ever again.

Posted by: nathan at August 16, 2004 06:09 PM

"This is not about "civil unions."

** But it should be **

By trying to break down, what something has always
been, (marriage) they are trying to change the rules, to suit their needs. (Gays)
Boys have boy scouts, girls have girl scouts. They are seperate from each other,
but offer the same kind of things.

This is why Civil Unions is the way to go.

Don't go with the saying 'seperate but equal' b/s
now either. A boy couldn't join the girl scouts.

"It's about families having and raising children."

** True

"I would argue that one of the purposes of a one man and one woman union is to produce children."

** What about a straight-couple, that can not naturally, have a child? Or a straight-couple,
that chooses not to have a child?

They shouldn't be allowed to marry?

"And a child needs a dad and a mom. "

**True, but there's thousands of un-wed ,
single mom's and dad's out there now...

"Bob and Hank can have sex, but they can't make children or be a mom and dad.

Marie and Melissa can have sex, but they can't make children or be a mom and a dad."

** True, the bible said "Adam and Eve"...
not Adam and Steve... lol

Listen boys and boys and girls and girls, it's about the kids.

That's of high concern to me as well.
With all the choices out there, for the younger
generation, we are adding into the mix, gay marriage now too.

Between, choosing friends, drugs, drinking, etc.
Now when mom and dad sit down with junior,
to have 'the talk' about the birds and the bee's,
they will now 'be forced' to add to it...

"Listen son, your mother and I have to talk to you. You have some options here. You can date girls and have sex with them, or you can date boys and have sex with them. It's all up to you and what makes you happy. Which ever you decide,
your mom and me will always love you."

Can't imagine having that talk with a son...

Posted by: Zyx at August 17, 2004 10:17 AM

Danny

No my world is by no means perfect, no one has a perfect world.

It is obvious what you watch and listen to, (I obviously hit a nerve with you). Fox reports the good and the bad. You obviously have not watched it either. What challenge? You have not made one, but you are obviously afraid of mine. You are afraid to read "God and Country". You claim that this is not and has never been a christain nation, yet you are afraid that you will be proven wrong so you won't even read your history. Not anything that I say, but direct quotes. Can't dispute that

Danny you claim to not believe in God. Have you ever stopped to wonder how The Holy Bible has stood the test of time. Because God's word cannot die. The Bible also says in Psalms 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good".

And no, I will not stop talking. You want to have your say, but others like myself and Nathan are supposed to be quiet. I don't think so

To Nathan,

Thanks for the quotes, obviously from "God and Country"

Posted by: D. Green at August 17, 2004 04:02 PM

Secular fundamentalists are constantly claiming (falsely) that the United States was founded on the principle of "Separation of Church and State," a 19th century metaphor that is not found in the Constitution nor in the deliberations leading up to the Constitution or the 1st Amendment. What they never discuss is that the 1st Amendment was written to limit the Federal Government, not the individual States. Now comes a fascinating piece of research by William Federer writing in World Net Daily. The Constitutions of each and every one of the 50 States contain specific and for the most part very strongly worded references to God, and they are clearly referring to the God of Judaism and Christianity. This is our true history..

By William J. Federer
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama ... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ...

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ...

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ...

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ...

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ...

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ...

Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution ...

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ...

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ...

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ...

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ...

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution ...

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ...

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction ...

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ...

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution...

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ...

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work...

Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ...

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this Constitution ...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ...

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ...

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ...

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings ...

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ...

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our
common ...

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ...

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences ...

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ...

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ...

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution ...

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ...

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ...

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we ...
establish this Constitution ...

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ...

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ...

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ...

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ...

Posted by: nathan at August 17, 2004 07:00 PM

To Nathan,

Thank you!!! What I have been saying all along. The so called separation of church and state is to keep the government out of the church, not the church out of the government. There was never any intention for Bible study, school prayer, etc.... be removed from our school systems, court houses, or any other state or federal building. If all references to the Bible, Christ, Ten Commandments, disciples etc... were removed from Washington, every building there would have to be destroyed. Including the supreme court building.

We have someone who has posted several comments here that continues to claim that our nation was not founded on Godly/Biblicle principles. But, this same person refuses to look at proof, in black and white, to the contrary. You have just done that. From the quotes from "God and Country" to the first few lines of all of the state constitutions.

Again, thank you. God Bless

Posted by: D. Green at August 18, 2004 08:58 PM

D. Green.

This is from moby.com :

"Dear President Bush,

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

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

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

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

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it crates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his life by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Homer J. Simpson"

So please, don't be a hypocrit and state the bible.

Posted by: Danny at August 18, 2004 10:26 PM

Danny,

My heart really goes out to you.

All of what you stated, or quoted from someone else's interpretation is in the Old Testament and under the old law for the Hebrews/Jews. I could try and explain all of it, but will only respond to one.

The sacrifice. Under the law sacrifices were given to God once a year to cleanse of sins for that year. It all had to be done a certain way. The sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish, it had to be perfect. The Hebrews were saved for another year by their sacrifice to God. It was all a type of Christ. Christ who was and is perfect was a living sacrifice for the Jew and the Gentile. When Christ died on the cross the old law was needed no more. He was the ultimate sacrifice. We are now under Grace. We do not need to offer a sacrifice to God. God supplied the ultimate sacrifice for us. When Christ died and rose from the dead it was no longer necessary to offer a sacrifice every year. Christ is eternal. Christ loved each and every one of us so much that he gave Himself freely to die for us. For YOU and ME. He loves you Danny, whether you accept it or not is your choice. He will not push, but he is there for you if you only believe. In Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Posted by: D. Green at August 19, 2004 10:51 AM

It's good to see that Bush's daughters are showing their support for the gay marriage ban by attending a gay wedding.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-twin19.html

Posted by: Josh at August 19, 2004 02:34 PM

okay well now that we have come to the conclusion and it is obvious now that the proof is on this very website now that this is indeed a christian nation there is no room for same sex marriages sorry debate over case closed. marriage is about family not sex or tax reductions or whatever benifits u want for being married its about family and raising kids.

Posted by: nathan at August 19, 2004 03:58 PM

As you can see, there are MANY different interpretation.

I'm glad jezus loves me lol ;) ;).

Thanks for proving my point :-).

Posted by: Danny at August 19, 2004 11:23 PM

No there are not many interpretations. Only one. And whether you choose to mock God and laugh, Jesus does love you. He loves us all. That is the only point that I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Posted by: D. Green at August 20, 2004 12:21 PM

There's seems to be a debate going on here about biblical interpretation so let's set some ground rules, especially concerning the laws of the Old Testament.

God is unchanging but God recognizes that our needs change. As such, certain things forbidden, according to Old Testament times, were forbidden for the safety of the Jewish people. Being a nomadic people, certain foods were forbidden because of health reasons. Later, in New Testament times, when methods of preserving these foods were found, God allowed ofr them. This isn't a change of view but a lessening of restrictions.

Incidents of mixing crops, was also for their protection. Some crops don't work well together and can harm the land.

By stepping outside the culture and not looking at the negative influence of culture on the purification of the Hebrew people, some of what God seems to be saying sounds cruel. Yet God's warning are for the safety and security of future generations. By allowing other cultures to influence the Hebrew faith, the faith would be compromised trusting more in the laws of man than in the laws of God (the problem with today's interpretive view of scripture). This corruption of God's law in turn would affect future generations. The stressing of death was to demonstrate the severity of challenging the authority to God, which is the point of many of Christ's messages.

Also, the Old Testament concerns more with the salvation of Israel as a nation while the new Testament is about individual responsibilities to God. The Old testament seeks to protect and preserve the purity of Israel until Christ arrives and then takes the national purity to a personal level and becomes concerned with the individual's salvation. This must be kept in a contextual framework and so much of what we, in the western world understand, is very different from the eastern world and has brought a lot of confusion to the debate.

For every law that condemns, there is a example of the grace of God extending forgiveness but forgiveness only comes after acknowledging that what we did was wrong in the first place.

In the issue of homosexuality, it is condemned in the Old Testament as ritual impurification and in the New Testament as both ritual and personal impurification. That God extends his forgiveness and grace is clear because God can forgive any sin but first we have to agree with God on the sin debate before we can be forgiven.

Once we agree with God and his standards, obediance to those standards becomes easier but as long as we act in disobediance to God and reject his standards obediance will be more difficult.

God is more concerned with the immortal soul of all people and God, in his grace, has given us guidlines of right and wrong behavior. WHen society, or nation rule elevates man's interpretation above the clear and simple rule of law, God's plan has always been to remove that societies influence from the world so it will not be instrumental in leading others down a wrong path. This is about love and his desire to be with us for eternity, not about wrath and anger on a vengeful God.

Some things are good for us, some aren't. The bad things hurt us in more ways than we can understand and hurt generations to come because every single one of us will have an impact on the future, first upon the individuals we meet and then upon society as a whole.

In the end, it's really about love and not about vengeance.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 20, 2004 03:12 PM

hello?! doesnt anyone care about anything else but what is right in front of them? there are so many other issues not discussed that are getting worse as we speak. Hunger? Disease (west nile virus??) obviously not...we as americans are supposedly living in a free nation where everyone is alloted rights regardless of who they are? we were debating this way not too long ago...and that was over inter-ratial marriages! yeah, we DO need to wake up! there are way too many people who have nothing better to do than create arguments...is that how you want to be remembered. gays, or anyone else are PEOPLE with feelings...i dont think that is 'right' or 'wrong' but rather healthy or unhealthy. and that, can only decided by the individual person...not the government or the public...if homosexuality was a behvior disorder then how come no one performs hate crimes against alcoholics? Sure, there are some people who think and act like they're homosexual, but are not...i think they are confused with those who really are...
Secondly, i dont think that gays were quite ready to 'come out of the closet' when the bible was being written (even though it was revised many times) if people were being stoned to death for small crimes...you cant choose you gender...gays and lesbians cant choose their sexual orientation...

Posted by: anonymous at August 20, 2004 04:08 PM

To J.R.

My apologies. My intention was never to get into a Biblical debate. That is the reason I only responded to the sacrifice issue. You are right, God is unchanging. That is the reason I stated "the Old Testament law", for the Jews. God did not change. He simply gave the ultimate sacrifice, to forgive us of our sins so that our immortal soul can live eternally with Him, through Jesus Christ. His love for us is unchanging and eternal.

Posted by: D. Green at August 20, 2004 05:20 PM

Gays are people too i understand that what i dont understand is why u wont leave this issue alone. this is a christian nation thats how this nation was founded on and thats how it will lead on in the future it has to or else it will fall. if we take god out of our country this nation will indeed fall swallow up ur pride and have u know that its not about me and u its about the future of our kids and this nation god protects this nation daily and if the people dont want him there he wont be there and our nation will in deed fall so for my sake and others who would like gods protection please just stop worrying about taking god out of our nation and pushing for immoral practices to corrupt the future kids of this nation. united we stand devided we fall. so just swallow up ur pride please. stop complaining about how our nation doesnt allow those practices sowly cause it is indeed a christian nation so just live with it and if it does change our nation is doomed to fall cause god wont want anything to do with a nation that doesnt want anything to do with him. just think about that alright.

Posted by: nathan at August 20, 2004 09:52 PM

D. Green,

Your one of the most ignorant people I've ever seen.

It's your opinoin that your interpretation is right, but I think it's wrong. So who decides who's right? You yourself said that people interpreted the bible to say that having slaves is okay.

Just because you think something doens't mean it's right.

Sorry, your not perfect.

I don't care if jesus loves me or not, and i don't care enough to care why i don't care.

If you want to preach the bible (which I BELIEVE is fiction)

I BELIEVE the bible is fiction, you believe it isn't, we have TWO different interpretations. Neither one of us is wrong!

Danny

Posted by: Danny at August 20, 2004 10:41 PM

I was driving down the highway and saw a wonderful billboard message. It said "Be careful, if you are too open minded all your brains will fall out." I once lived a life very different from the one I live now. I was promiscuous, abusing drugs and alcohol, and dropped out of school. At the time I would have told you that it didn't matter what other people thought about my lifestyle...it made me "happy". I know firsthand how deceptive "emotions" can be. Just because something feels right doesn't mean you should do it. Just because no one is stopping you from doing it doesn't make it right either. I view homosexuality just as I viewed my old lifestyle, deceptive and destructive. I know many of you will disagree with me, just as many of my old friends can't understand my new life. That's fine with me. On the idea of gay marriage, my support for the amendment hinges on this. Why is it so important for homosexuals to be "married", a term which conjures up religious ideals, when many of them continue to balk at Christian moral standards? Funny how people use religion when it suits them, and rebuke it when it treads on their feelings.

Posted by: Frances at August 21, 2004 12:52 AM

Anonymous,

Have you noticed the heading for this blog? It about the same-sex amendment so that's what is being discussed here. If you want to talk about other issues try another category. You might want to check out that view that the Bible has been "revised" many times over the years. While there are many versions, it is more a matter of placing the original language in a tongue the reader can understand that it is a matter of changing what the Bible says. The original laguage is used for these versions and they remain as faithful as humanly possible to that translation. Scrutiny of original language and modern translations show little to no change in actual text.

D.G. - My intention was only to attempt to clarify some issues. If we are going to bring this into the arena of Biblical interpretation
then we need to stay in the realm of the entirety of scripture. Your comments are worth noting.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 21, 2004 12:56 PM

Gays being born gay is total b/s its a choice and has nothing to do with genetics. what proof do u have that supports gays being born gay. anyways the gays argument is if u love someone u should be able to marry them okay well people love there families people love there friends does that mean they should be allowed to marry them too people love there pets what about people that want to marry there animals thats what this all is goin to lead too cause ur using the argument for the equal protection law and they will use it too. just watch the poligamist are already starting to fight for a right to marry more then one wife all cause of this gay marriage movements. its just terrible when u think about it marriage is getting spit on and thrown out the door cause of these little gays who cant shut there mouths cause there pride over comes them

Posted by: nathan at August 21, 2004 03:30 PM

Danny

D. Green has only tried to reach out to you. He or she has not name called or slammed you in any way. Who is ignorant? Not D. Green. D. Green is right.

Posted by: c.gearhart at August 21, 2004 10:15 PM

Your a grade A a** Nathan.

Don't compare gays to incest and animals. Makes no sense whatsoever. I could compare hetrosexual marriages to everything, you didn't make any point.

Why is it terrible? It's only because you believe it's terrible.

Posted by: Danny at August 21, 2004 11:44 PM

C,gearhart

Do you even know what ignorant means?

Danny

Posted by: Danny at August 23, 2004 09:41 PM

danny

lacking knowledge - uninformed about a specific subject - can also mean informal rude, discourteous. I would venture to say that you are a very unhappy person. You refuse to believe the truth. Therefore you insult others because of your lack of true knowledge.

Posted by: c.gearhart at August 25, 2004 11:46 AM

No, it never means informal rude and discourtneous.

And you have no backup to support anything you say. And there IS NO backup.

Danny

Posted by: Danny at August 28, 2004 11:50 AM

oh yes it does. I do have backup. Do you know what dolt means?

Posted by: c.gearhart at August 28, 2004 08:14 PM

i think gay mariage shouldn't be banned and it our first amendment right to speak out about this and i also think it is very wrong of bush and other people to ban same gender marriage although i am very straight and i have particapated in the day of silence in my high school supporting same gender marriage and i see nothing wrong with same gender marriage. i think g-d would forgive us if a man marries a man or a wwoman marries a woman don't you? i am sorry if i go against some peoples opinions but their OPINIONS we each have our own no one should force us to change them.

Posted by: bob at October 17, 2005 07:05 PM

all you non- christians assume you know everything and that all christians are scum and hypocrits. and so many of you christians are quick to damn everyone not like you to hell. i don't care if someone's gay or not, it's their decision and God will judge them not me. However, i damn sure don't support the ability to marry a sexual fetish. homosexuality is not something you're born with, it's a sexual fetish PERIOD. gays should not be allowed to marry anymore than my neighbor should be allowed to marry his goldfish. and as for you punks that go on to say "this isn't a christian nation, it's an american nation" shut up, because this "american nation" was founded on the belifes and concepts of christianity. now i'm sure you're quite aggitated at me but take a breather because i'm not done. the next thing i'm going to pose to you is a VERY simple question, but you people (not targeting gays... the ignorant people in general who are going to read this and get pissy) i'm sure are going to find it hard to take in. if gays are saying that the sanctity of marriage is already ruined and that marrige is already a joke THEN WHY DO YOU CARE?! you're just trying to prove a point and gain power that you don't need. there are more important things going on in the world than the epic gay marriage battle of america. let the government worry about important things now and they can get to you in a few years when we AREN'T INVOLVED IN AN INTERNATIONAL CRISIS. once again, i have nothing wrong with gay people, it's there decision not mine. so when you reply to this, don't bother calling me names or trying to put me down because i made you feel stupid. just sit back and let what i've said soak in... because if you REALLY love somebody as much as you think you do, why is that title so important? i have guy friends i grew up with, and i love them like brothers, i'd do anything for them. but i don't screw them. there are those of you out there that do, your call, but don't act like you know more than: 100's of elected officials in your "american nation", a VAST majority of the worlds religions (some of which, i might add, would just kill you for concepting the idea of gay marriage), and, to top it off, you're saying that you more about it than educated scholars who flat out say "people are not born gay". as my closing statement, i'd like to say that i'm not trying to change anyone else's opinions. your opinions are your own, but these are mine. and i would appreciate it, if you took the time to take it into consideration because i took yours into consideration. i'm not trying to say the whole country has to listen to the teachings of the bible or die, because in truth MOST christians forget one really important thing. WE ARE'NT SUPPOSE TO PRESS OUR RELIGION ON OTHERS. Jesus himself said that our job as a christian was to go out and spread the word of Christ and let God do the rest. we aren't suppose to bash others into our belifes. in all honesty, it's every real christians wish for the whole world to belive and follow Christ. but that's only because we don't want anyone to suffer pain, we want all of existance to live in paradise. and while you may not belive that, we do. so there you go, my message to the ignorant. have a nice day.

Posted by: Don at October 20, 2005 03:43 AM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: