Katrael,
She is not being given anything because she is gay. she is only being provided equal protection under the law. What part of that don’t you undertsand?

Did you know that I could have ny current girlfriend covered under my health insurance?
We are not married. Would you deny her that coverage and then use some flimsy excuse that you are contributing to something you don’t believe in?

I am also having a bit of trouble understanding your argument about what this costs you but that aside.

Maybe you would deny her, I don’t know after all we are living in sin acording to some religious beliefs. But maybe, just maybe you would only deny these very same options/benefits to gays and lesbians.

You should realize that what your espousing is actual persecution and discrimination against gays and lesbians.
I’m not sure whether I should say its “Very un-Christian of you” or it is “Very Christian of you” What do you think? Though after reading some of your comments I’m not really sure I care!

Do you have insurance with a private company, one that isn’t run by the government? They have the right to write a policy on whoever they want to as long as that person meets the company’s guidelines. They can also deny a policy if their guidelines aren’t met. If they don’t cover a person that meets their standards then by law they can be forced to cover that person. That’s business. So, like you said it’s a matter of law and not sexual preferences…that is as long as there isn’t a clause in the company’s rules that prohibit it on the grounds that the practice might be considered unacceptable insurance risk; that could be a company’s right.
You should find another company that will cover your girlfriend or get married if that’s the reason they won’t cover her. It’s their right to set the rules by which they will issue a policy.
And yes I do discriminate against someone for being a practicing homosexual. I have a right to discriminate if I want to. Where would we be if we weren’t allowed to make judgements? That’s what discrimination is about, making judgements.
As to what it costs me? Maybe nothing, it depends on what we’re talking about. If it’s a simple matter of a private insurance company paying a claim then it’s not a problem but, if it’s the government providing tax payer’s money to support somebody who practices what I consider indecent behavior then it does cost me. The government doesn’t generate those funds; it comes out of our pockets and they may not need to collect as much if they don’t provide gratuities to everyone for anything.
I consider the governments willingness to give away money to be a form of vote buying. Smart politicians do that. Most ignorant people don’t mind being bought.

One other thing Ted G: yes I would deny her benefits if it were my insurance company. This is the land of opportunity; create your own insurance company and provide coverage for as many girlfriends you want. There are enough people such as yourself that don’t have a problem like I do. I believe in marriage and that it’s a union between one man and one woman.

Ted G. I couldn’t tell for sure if you had said not or could insure. That’s great if you got insurance for your girlfriend. I don’t have a problem with that.
What difference does it make if I’m a Christian or not? My attitude towards homosexuality isn’t necessarily based on what I believe about god. I have sound reasons against this practice based on good information that has nothing to do with religion. Read my next response. I do however believe in that higher authority and his prohibitions against this kind of behavior.
Yes the government should discriminate against homosexuals and they should go as far as to dismissing them from their jobs and possibly much more.

I think you missed my point entirely. All insurance co’s already do allow for my girlfriend to be covered even if we are not married. So most of your recent post is moot.

Based on our laws of equality for all, the government (our government) is not allowed to discriminate, period. in any way.
Now if you read a previous post of mine you would see that I try to point out that what you are are suggesting is for the active discrimination and persecution of gays and lesbians using the power of law.

You are certainly allowed to discriminate on a personal basis. You are not allowed to actively discriminate with any power of the law or government.

This isn’t about vote buying at all where does that come from, have you even read the US Constitution?

Maybe you would be more comfortable in Iran or some other islamic country where they hang homosexuals just for being homosexuals.

Ted G. our government doesn’t discriminate when it should. I’ve given much thought to this issue. Law is a form of discrimination. It sets the guidelines for proper and improper actions. That’s a form of discrimination. I’ve also given much thought as to the same sex sexual question and the ability for the government to discriminate against it. There used to be plenty of legislation against immoral behavior and it was put there for good reason.
The constitution was meant to be an inflexible body of law, one the people could always rely on. The ability for people to change the definition of what they consider to be immoral behavior is a threat to a stable nation.
There is more than enough evidence that immoral behavior is what has led the the current infection of over a million people, in this country alone, who are currently infected with HIV and who will go on to develop aids and die from it. What about those people who die from aids and their rights? Many of those people are innocent. Does this mean that every gay person is guilty of murder? Can you know which ones are the ones actively spreading this deadly disease? No you can’t and that applies to heterosexuals who are promiscuous. Is it you that is promiscuous? How about your neighbor or your family? Are they actively spreading these STD”s. Government has an obligation to address these immoral behaviors and to discriminate against it as it is harmful to the general public.
A good moral law protects everyone from immoral deadly behavior.
Now, if a person wishes to practice this vile degenerative behavior that’s their own business as long as they stick to one partner and don’t go public with it because the public has a right to protect itself from a potential threat. I’m not talking about pre crime punishment. If a person admits to homosexual behavior they are guilty of it.

KATRAEL, YOU WROTE-> “Law is a form of discrimination. It sets the guidelines for proper and improper actions.
……Then the GUV can’t lose, you want them to provide healthcare for HIV victims, when the GUV also promotes/supports Gays in all walks of life.

The GUV supports the biggest voting block of aids victims!

Angel Wannabe, my point? The law SHOULD discriminate against anything that poses a threat to the common people. There are a million people infected with HIV and all because we stopped discriminating against the practices of: homosexuality, promiscuity and drug abuse. ALL, and I mean ALL of those that are infected are infected because we, and the law stopped discriminating. Many of these people are victims of a heinous lifestyle that is an abomination against humanity.
The law was designed to discriminate against practices that pose a threat to the common people. How do we know that the things I’ve listed above are a danger to the common people? Because many are dying from the disease that is spread by those behaviors. All STD”s will practically go away when people begin to discriminate about their behavior and begin to do the right thing. Husbands of one wife who is the only intimate partner they’ll ever have the rest of their life.
I’m for punishing those who practice improper, immoral behavior. I won’t say here what that punishment should but it has to be harsh enough to discourage people from doing them.
The word “discriminate” basically means make a judgement about something but, it’s become a dirty word in our society. We have to discriminate in order to protect ourselves.

I think you should simply re-read my posts. You’re all over the road here. The bottom line is that your positions if taken to the next level ie overt action are in fact illegal under our laws.
You continue to try to lecture me about morals etc who are you trying to convince yourself?
Maybe you should rethink your philosophy. And it doesn’t make a difference if you are Christian or not until you imply that anyone without a belief in God cannot be moral.

I will not discount a rational argument from an intelligent individual just because they are Christian any more than I would from the same individual if they were an athiest. But the argument has to make sense without invoking God’s name in support or justification.

I believe in equality for all without pre-conditions. You apparently do not. Maybe we should just leave it at that!

Ted G. I don’t have to convince myself that the practices of same sex sexuality, bestiality, promiscuity (both heterosexually and homosexually) and drug abuse are the cause of many ills in this country. People have forgotten how HIV was introduced and spread in this country. Now there are about one million people infected with HIV. Eventually many of those will go on to develop AIDS and die from it…many who are innocent.
The government was established, under the law, to protect the people from common threats to their welfare such as this. BY NOT DISCRIMINATING, we have allowed these practices to spread a deadly disease that wouldn’t have gone anywhere had people behaved themselves and stayed true to one partner. And I mean one male with one female partner for life. These diseases would die out in the human population if they would stick to this rule. WE have to permanently isolate those who practice this abomination.
We need to PUNISH people for killing other innocent people. The penalty has to be high enough to be a permanent deterrent for those caught and found guilty and as a reminder for those who want to consider this behavior that engaging in immoral and improper behavior brings serious consequences.
Notice that until now I haven’t even used the word god? Now I am. There are warnings that He made to all people about engaging in behavior He told us not to engage in. We ignored those warnings and now we have a million individuals in this country alone who are infected and many of which will end up dying prematurely from the disease. It’s far worse in Africa where I believe that one in four are infected. The disease probably had it’s origin there and probably came from a man or a woman having sex with primates.
Maybe you don’t feel connected to this problem yet? What does it take for that to happen? Will it take, perhaps you or one of your loved ones to become a victim of this before you decide that something else needs to happen to protect others?
I think you are far more cruel and far more heartless by taking a pro homosexual position. Maybe you are one??? That would go a long way toward explaining your attitude.

Hey Ted G, I’ll bet you don’t like to invoke god because you’re afraid he’ll hold you accountable for your behavior? Maybe you’re hoping that by denying him he won’t exist?

Wow, I have been communicating with a religious zeolot haven’t I.

Katrael, your comments have convinced me that you are a bit unhinged and incapable of civil discourse.

You should talk with you priest or pastor about all this hatred you have inside of you. Its really not healthy.

Teg G. Religious zealot? You betcha. Unhinged? Quite possibly. Hatred? Only towards what some people practice that harms innocent people. If hating an activity that has infected a million Americans with a pathogen that could turn into a potentially deadly disease is bad then I’m bad. And I’m not even addressing the numbers the past who suffered and died from this, those who have had to contend with a disease that had it’s origins in this country by one man who immigrated here with that infectious disease causing pathogen. One man and if he’d have behaved properly then we might not be having this conversation. I don’t hate the person however, when they engage in risky behavior which leads to somebody who’s innocent being harmed then they need to be stopped. Don’t you believe that these people know that what they do may spread those deadly pathogens? Why would a sane man do such a thing? I might be unhinged but those people are dangerous to you, me and mine. And sir,what’s the reason you seem to want to skirt around the real issues and won’t address the reality of this situation?
I’m not accusing you of anything; I’ve only asked you questions. Do you really want to excuse those who are guilty of causing the deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people?

Spoken like a faithful American Taliban. But you’d want government up a woman’s private parts. You want your roads, you want government to act when Lopez crosses the border. You want to be free from contagious diseases, you want assurances the food you buy meet certain standards. That the medication you take wouldn’t make howl at the moon, scratch, grow woolly hair on your ears and make you want to chase cars.

But I understand, the best government is less government, why not just say so?

deerinwater___I just did!

No you did, you said, “-Then get your damned Government outta my life!!!!!!”

You will find the world works better when we say what we mean and mean what we say.

Than you think you can, provide your own? What… you live in a valt, As long as you stay Criminal; the Government will take care of you…
Yet: Social Security: Is an account Filled by people that deposited into it! Untill the Politicans used it as their Pork Barrel, Borrowed from it, with no intent to repay
Where are the people that didn’t deposit any of their income in to an account for their retirement. Life insurance companies have got wealth from suckers.
I’ glad I paid into S.S.!!!
You be the fool!

i think you have it backward, It’s people that “provide” Social security, ~ I’ve contributed a little over a million dollars, little less then 1.25.

Now I will never get it all back, not in my life time. But I will get some and I will help carry the load for people that did not give as much, ~ I will carry the load of pilfering and loss and administration cost. ~ Fair? Well? They call it “Social Security” for a reason, ~ as it assist in securing a social framework to where some “standard of social fabric might be maintained” for children that has lost parents, for people that lost their ability to work prematurely and a aging population.

They don’t call it a “Fair Deal” , Many conservatives hate it, and will be first in line to file at 62, or go out early with a partial disability. There is some attempt offered by the administration to cast an illusion of fairness. But attempting to satisfy everyone or give everyone what they think is fair is totally impossible.

Paying forward is not a new concept, but it does seems like few here understand the concept.

Most here, seemed to, ~ just one day, fell from the sky, owning no one nothing.

Well, Bert thank you for your reply. I also paid into this monstrosity and wasn’t given a chance to make my own decision about it. I’m retired at the age of 60 and don’t draw a penny from it and don’t plan to. I made decisions when I was a young man that put me into a position where I could retire anytime I wanted. However, I still work but, on what I want and not what everybody else thinks is important. Am I a fool for that? Well, you’re entitled to your opinion. As to depositing money in an account for yourself, I don’t believe the system was originally intended to support everyone and that we weren’t paying in so much for ourselves but, for those who were currently on it. Am I a fool? I’ve been called worse. As to your point about the government using the funds in a way that I think we consider illegal: that only proves my point about the government. They create programs that eventually grow out of proportion to their original design mandate. 46 million on food stamps? Is the government going to decide to feed everyone now? How will they pay for it? And what about health care? We’re facing a program that will eventually do what all government programs do, it’ll eventually grow to be unmanageable as this country’s population continues to grow older and as the next generation becomes sicker due to SAD.
Am I a criminal? If having an opinion makes me a criminal then so are you. Don’t complain Bert, you’re getting your’s but, what about the next generation after mine? Will they be able to draw from it? You can’t answer that as that day hasn’t yet arrived and I don’t believe you have a crystal ball and I don’t believe you’re a prophet sent by God. The only way either of us will know is to live to see it. Have a great day Bert.

Dearinwater: I’m glad that you got into an investment that is taking care of you…
If I could have put $100.00/Week in Ford Motor Companys Stock … I could have Retired on that & not need S.S. Or Government $.
But: I joined a Labor Union, Going through the steps to be Loyal ! We had tough times… Government Giving our jobs to non union foreigners, beacuse they got lots of $ for the Land, the Government Gave to them. My loyality to United States, has been with out a blemish! My Struggle For Civil Rights has taken much of my Time & $.
Maby I would have it easer now if I would have crawled in the rut, till it was safe… But, I did my part to make things Right, “better”. Looking back … If all I did, was only for me, than so be it… I am at peace with my self.

The answer is, no, deer. Conversely, however, you seem more than willing to permit less then 2% of the population’s perversion to have substantial meaning, and that their perversion be imbibed by society, through force of law, if necessary! Less than 2% of the population screaming at the world, attempting to place their mark on it!

It was written by: Homosexuals, if inflamatory, speak to the writer(s). I just wanted to expose the stated agenda.

Laus Deo
Semper Fi

“It was written by: Homosexuals, if inflammatory,”

It ‘is” extremely inflammatory, I could tell only that it was written and directed toward the heterosexual community as to suggest it was written by a homosexual, exactly how do you know was indeed a homosexual? Because they stated that they were? They claimed to be? Do you know them personally?

Maybe it was, ~these issues has inspired them to commit suicide in numbers well about what is considered average. So the passion is there and something that they live with daily. There friend taking their own life could inspire both sorrow and anger. Yet such a manifesto does nothing to advance their standings in a heterosexual world and why I suggest that it’s bogus. They are many things but stupid is not one of them.

But then again, the passion is high on the other side of the debate. If someone like Charles Manson could inspire his follows to butcher Sharon Tate and her unborn child along with several other people in some twisted effort to inspire race wars between whites and blacks do you think this same kind of thinking is somehow only bottled up in Charles Manson and does not exist still today? The Ruse? The bait and switch, the Trogan horse?

Simple minds are simple to lead. I am not arguing in the defense of Gays, I’m looking for the truth while many find no interest in looking at all.

If you had paid the least bit of attention it tells you in the vid, who, when, why and were you can get a copy.

Laus Deo
Semper Fi

It is true FreedomFighter, I did not give the article 100% of my undivided attention. If I’d known you would press the issue and I left to offer “what if” perhaps I should have.

It was blatant “in your face” trash talking, “you mother wear combat boots” in nature and content. Fairy’s have no intentions or desire to take over anything but their own lives.

I called it pure “crap” early and only the efforts of a sick mind to made some people “ACT”.

I simple refuse to oblige and you should consider it as well.

Deer, the author of the article/manifesto is Micheal Swift. Micheal Swift never denied writing it. In 1987, Michael Swift wrote the gay manifesto, published in the Gay Community News and the Congressional Record.

Deer,
Yet you support the murder of unborn children here in your posts all the time. Abortion? does that make you WORSE than Manson???

I support personal liberties and people’s rights to privacy. I believe the government has no business up a woman uterus. If you wish to believe the government does a poor job at just about anything that it does, why would you demand government get into the God business? Do you think that matters of the church and God too large to handle and they need help from Government?

What is you interest up a woman that you never met uterus? What is it that places you business there? Are you willing to accept all responsibility there or just partial responsibility? Exactly how did you perceive this invitation to enter another human being body.

Am I as guilty as Charles Manson? According to you and the way you think, it’s a possibility.

Did you ever support the W Bush administration? If so, by applying your twisted thinking, you carry more guilt when one person can bear in the deaths many thousands, many completely innocent of anything but being born.

” Michael Swift wrote the gay manifesto, published in the Gay Community News and the Congressional Record.”

Thanks Jay.

Well, ~ can we agree that it was a foolish thing to do and very self defeating for the Gay community. Not to mention that it’s totally outside the realm of any reality and will never happen even in the darkest of times. Homo’s are a larger threat to themselves then anyone else and they know this. High Risk behavior carry’s a large price and sadly the price is shared by all, so I don’t know exactly how much sympathy they might expect to receive in the public domain.

In this case, Micheal Swift played right into the heterosexual communities hands and gave them something they can use to validate any and all resistance to equal rights status.

“never interfere with the enemy when they are destroying themselves” I forget who said that, but it applies well here.

But normally I don’t consider the Gay Community the enemy, so see what Micheal Swift has done? He’s got even me referring to them as the enemy.

Actually, I don’t consider them at all and that’s perhaps one of the problems. I don’t want to and neither do you. Yet i maintain that the notion that all person are born with certain inalienable right is a Goal, something we should all “aspire to make so”. I do so with offering some tolerance.

You missed the point entirely, deer. The issue regarding abortion is not one of; privacy, a woman’s uterus, God’s business, or government, rather; the murder of an innocent, unborn baby’s life. You clamor for the rights of gays, women, black, martians and whatever else you liberals consider to be your cherished pets; but why, pray-tell, do you deny the unborn, the right to live? You pro-choice, pro-gay-rights-activist crowd; are nothing more than hypocrites, racists, and bigots of the highest order! You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Jay, I am a pro leave people alone and mind your own damn business.

I offer no pretense of being some God sitting in Judgement with power over people.

Which seem to 180 degrees off for your pious self righteous position while In I see

you fly under some banner of champion of civil liberties and personal freedom while in fact opposing them.

If you really want to open up a family size can of worms for the heterosexual world at large, force this notion of “Person Hood” on the people and see how that works for us.

If you don’t know the difference between a chicken and an a egg and wish to call an egg an unborn chicken, that up to you and again, none of my business until which time you make it impossible to ignore with your “big government”, trying to sell it as small government.

The air is thin in the nose bleed section, why not come down off of your lofty position and get a closer look at whats really going on and get more oxygen to the old brain.

Jay, I am ashamed for all of us. If you want to address such matters, the church house steps and not the court house steps is where you need to look. It’s has always been a matter for Church & Family to address, it inside there court of play. Why now do you attempt to push it off on a governing body of elected officials that can’t agree on how to spend a dollar and more then willing to dance with the devil at first opportunity if they think no one is watching?

Let’s watch jay try to define the argument in a backhanded way: “The issue regarding abortion is not one of; privacy, a woman’s uterus, God’s business, or government, rather; the murder of an innocent, unborn baby’s life.”

Actually it IS an issue of privacy. The uterus is inside the woman’s body. When you are in your house do you only accept that you have privacy fromthe outside in only part of it? No, you are inside your castle.

What goes on inside a person is private. It’s that simple.

And, for the sake of argument, if you have someone in your home you don’t want there you toss them out. Why should any woman be denied that which you claim for yourself?

Rob

Joe, I am not a hater, but there are people that I just don’t want to be around. I am Sorry for any little one born with this in there blood and have to pay the price the rest of there lives, because of what someone did to them, before they were born. Getting a blood Transfusion, can be a early death decree for some people and I feel sorry for them. And the Government had NO Business in giving the Homoseexual any Special Right’s at all, because they are Killing people. I don’t believe in Killing Baby’s before or after they are born and some day this Country will half to pay for all of there Immorality.

Ken B. Like you I don’t hate them and I definitely don’t want to be around practicing homosexuals. On the other hand: most people agree that there are some behaviors that are right and wrong. Most reasonable people feel it’s wrong to commit murder as this is a destructive behavior. What they don’t see is how homosexuality can be destructive. Is it destructive. I believe it’s a slow process but it leads to a gradual decline in moral standard to where anything becomes appropriate. Our creator knew this and told us not to practice this type of behavior.
There may be some who are born with this malady but, I think that a person develops a strong preference toward that type of behavior the first time it is experienced and that shuts out the natural heterosexual preference. In other words: when a person experiences something that stimulates sexual pleasure then they want to keep repeating it. I don’t care what someone says to the contrary because they can’t prove it; they can only parrot what they’ve read.
The only way to change this unfortunate trend is for those of us who hate it to continue to speak out against it.

katrael – It doesn’t matter how much you speak out against it; it will never go away. Homosexuality has been around forever and ain’t goin’ nowhere!

I thank you for your comment. I thank that it would be a good thing, that before someone can run for Office, is that they have to read and understand the Constitution of the US and pass a test about it First. Because I Don’t believe that some of them Know much about anything about the US Constitution. Just the Expansion of there own Pockets. There First job is to LOOK OUT for America and the American People, NOT me,myself and I.

TML, well you probably have me there. My belief says that homosexuality is far from normal. Does it happen that animals practice bisexuality or homosexuality? I’m sure it happens but if that animals preference is solely toward homosexuality it will not be able to reproduce. Since I consider it to be anti-species I don’t want people to spread what I consider a disease to others; most notably a formative mind of a child and I don’t want to see this vile practice become generally acceptable as a life style. And I do openly campaign against a gay couples right to adopt. Let them live their life as they wish but, let them keep it to themselves.

Karolyn, so what if I didn’t. The fact is that I have. I never rejected the man just his practices. The thing was this man had made a decision not to practice what he felt and I could accept him for that. He struggled with it but, he never made any advances toward me. We talked about his problem and I never tried to give him advice because I couldn’t; all I could do was give him support and try to show him compassion for his struggle. None of us are perfect. Now, he knew just how I felt about the subject because I never tried to hide it and that I couldn’t accept his actions if he began to act on a desire to practice homosexuality. I meant it when I said that I wanted their kind to pass away from the earth but, I’m not afraid of them. What they have in my opinion is a sickness. My friend will pass away and with him his desire.

Ah yes, playing the race card. Classic liberal strategy. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

samurai – Jay brought up race first.

The days of the Stonewall riots and A.C.T.U.P. are now ancient history. Under the Human Rights Campaign, the strategy has been to present the public image of ‘just like you’ — a plethora of LGBT lawsuits say they want to get married, they love children (strictly Platonic), and they want to be accepted as clergy and church members.

The ‘LGBT’ NGO’s didn’t manage their world wide apotheosis on their own. Larry Kramer of the 1980′s radical activist “AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power” (ACT-UP) said he left the organization he helped found when he realized they were acting like the “fascists” they were acting against.

The choice of the “powers behind the throne” is strictly utilitarian. Bertrand Russell and LeonTrotsky both wrote of the need to eradicate the nuclear family and clans because they are the fundamental binding factors of society.

Take one more look at the Corporate Partners that have underwritten the exaggerated power of the LGBT faction. Atheism is the next ‘slam dunk’ .

Now we’ll witness an all-out assault on Christianity in the US on par with what’s already happened in the UK and Australia.

So Samurai that must make it a Classic Conservative strategy.Right?

Robert, it’s not an issue of what they do in privacy; it’s about what they are trying to push down our throats. They can practice what they want even if it is evil. Remember, homosexuality is a choice and they make it. Society doesn’t have to accept their behavior and no it isn’t normal by any means.

robbie,
You talk of treatment of gays and how we treat them yet you are doing the very same thing to Christians. I think that makes you a biggot!!!

And this coming from a racist, biggot, Christian basher, liar, innuendo specialist, rhetoric specialist, hetero-phobe, gay loving, baby killing, marxist? Can we say hypocrite? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

P.S. This counts smilee on this evaluation.

Seek help Samurai before you explode!!

Actually Rob is the sick one here, but you aren’t that far behind him Ed. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Here’s Joe H. with another lie… Well gramatically he’s sorted it, but he’s still implying a lie and name calling to boot: “You talk of treatment of gays and how we treat them yet you are doing the very same thing to Christians. I think that makes you a biggot!!!”

No Joe. I’m not denying you the right to marry someone you love.

I’m not denying your chosen partner benefits offered to others for doing the same job who have partners they love.

I’m standing in YOUR way as YOU aggressively go after other Americans for a “sin” of being diffferent.

Yours is bigotry and hate. Mine is being a freedom and equality loving American.

Rob

deer: More then you might possible know!

Naaw, less then 2%, deer, insignificant numbers really; but it seems they have friends in high places, thus giving the illusion of, as you say, many. I would recommend to all, the movie “Ants”, wherein, a whole colony of ants are controlled, and oppressed by a mere few locusts, until of course, they come to sudden realization that they are greater in numbers, and systematically expel their oppressors! Correct perception, is the most effective weapon against propaganda!

2% of 325 million people is a substantial number of people Jay.

i loved the movie Ants as well, one of my many favorites.

Along with Ice Age and the power in the collective of the “herd”

But what makes you believe I’m “more then willing”, I see you and I being dragged into it. You would except me to think and act exactly as you? What is it that requires that of me?

Why not accept the fact, you act your way and I’ll act mine? I depend on you to be “you”, but you want me to be different?

And it’s not all 2% that is screaming at the world Jay, just one person probably wrote that manifesto and it would not surprises me in the least that they were heterosexual.

We must stay alert. People do things like that Jay. Those words and statement does very little to advance the position our American Fairies fight for today. Think about it.

Robin Williams Popeye was a great political satire, but few ever got it. It’s addressed Taxes, over reach of government, bullies, stealing, senility, purity, abandonment and being yourself not matter what while recognizing society for what it’s comprised of.

http://youtu.be/F8TRoMSG-5I

2% of 325 million people is a substantial number of people Jay.

J: Substantial in what terms? Certainly not in terms of majority.

i loved the movie Ants as well, one of my many favorites.
Along with Ice Age and the power in the collective of the “herd”
But what makes you believe I’m “more then willing”,

J: Your posts, make you appear to be more then willing, deer. Are you not aware of the efforts you put into your rather lengthy posts?

I see you and I being dragged into it.

J: I speak for myself when i say; no one is dragging me into this, i participate willingly.

You would except me to think and act exactly as you? What is it that requires that of me?

J: There is no indication in my rebuttals that suggest you should think and act exactly like me; where did you get that idea?

Why not accept the fact, you act your way and I’ll act mine? I depend on you to be “you”, but you want me to be different?

J: Again, how did you manage to read that in my posts?

And it’s not all 2% that is screaming at the world Jay, just one person probably wrote that manifesto and it would not surprises me in the least that they were heterosexual.

J: In 1987, Michael Swift wrote the gay manifesto, published in the Gay Community News and the Congressional Record.

We must stay alert. People do things like that Jay. Those words and statement does very little to advance the position our American Fairies fight for today. Think about it.

J: With respect to the gay/manifesto, there can no doubt it was written by Mr.Swift. If you can produce evidence that suggests otherwise, i would be more then happy to study it!

Robin Williams Popeye was a great political satire, but few ever got it. It’s addressed Taxes, over reach of government, bullies, stealing, senility, purity, abandonment and being yourself not matter what while recognizing society for what it’s comprised of.

J: Agreed!

J: Your posts, make you appear to be more then willing, deer. Are you not aware of the efforts you put into your rather lengthy posts?

Hmm?, Some people do puzzles, work on passion cars, currency trade, collect butter flies, build model planes, fly bar stools, watch and bet on sports.

I enjoy debate as a past time, if it’s to be found laborious , it’s one of love and passion. It’s relaxing. And thank you for being so generous Jay. .

Sometimes I have the time and sometimes , I don’t. ~ I run a circus loaded with entertainment and amusement. It’s a nice Sunday morning and my kitten is laying on the couch reading a book, i think I shall interfere.

have a great day.

Actually “voting” on rights is un-constitutional. We can’t “vote” slavery back in. We can’t “vote” women not being able to vote.

Even the prohibition of alcohol was horribly WRONG (all America got out of that was organized crime).

Sadly it’s when small people with small interests want to inflame the American public they sometimes succeed.

Are their lives so shallow they have to bother others?

Rob

What you say is not true. A judge has no business ruling in favor or against someone based on their sexual preferences. They set legal precedence when they do. They either make legitimate or illigitimate a practice by such rulings; then someone is able to turn around and point out that a court rules in such a manner and the ruling becomes law that way.

Smilee, another point, since when does the constitutions speak specifically about gays and their preferences? The courts have no business going there.

katrael59ganaiden says, “A judge has no business ruling in favor or against someone based on their sexual preferences.”

The judge didn’t rule “in favor of” her sexual preferences… he made a ruling against legislation that abridged the rights of an American Citizen to provide equal protection of the law concerning health care insurance.

katrael59ganaiden says:
February 24, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Smilee, another point, since when does the constitutions speak specifically about gays and their preferences? The courts have no business going there.
———–..
…No State shall…deny to any person within in jurisdiction the equal protectio of the laws. . specifically gays are persons and therefore it speaks to rhem

Wrong again smilee (Kang)! As we have told you losers many times that the 14th Amendment does not pertain to gays, but does apply to former slaves and their children. It is addressing race, not perverted behavior. Haven’t made that popping sound yet? You either TML? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Smelly,
They HAVE equal protection under the law!!! They can marry anyone they choose of the opposite sex!!! What they want is SPECIAL protection under the law. What’s next smelly, if they love their goat they deserve to be able to marry AND add them to their insurance??? I know he loves his Parrot so we HAVE to let him marry him?her! notice I included the parrot of the same sex so THEY wouldn’t be left out as well!!1

“They HAVE equal protection under the law!!! They can marry anyone they choose of the opposite sex!!! What they want is SPECIAL protection under the law.”

Yet, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was already passed to the contrary, therefore the judge offered not special protection, but equal protection, by not enforcing a law whicn abridged the natural right of an individual… even if that right, is the “God given freewill right to “sin”"… (in religious view).

TML,
Then, under your thinking if a man wants to marry his daughter, that would be ok??? the equality was already there as I have said!!

Joe H says, “TML,
Then, under your thinking if a man wants to marry his daughter, that would be ok??? the equality was already there as I have said!!”

I’m not sure a matter of incest is an equivalent example, so I’m not sure what you mean by that.

These people who dont understand the intracasies of what they are saying are doomed to darkness,Jay.You cannot give sight to these folks.They are blinded by the god of this world.
Let them live where they choose to live and pray for them.
To debate with them is folly.-CC.

Robert Smith, I’ll try to answer that one. Monsanto should have the right to make genetically modified wheat and corn even if it’s proven that those things are bad for mammals which includes humans; that is as long as their genetically modified trash doesn’t get into the environment and poison people who don’t want to eat their trash. The government then has an obligation to provide relief from these things by stopping Monsanto from poisoning the people. This has to be proved in a court of law. WE should take up the flag against them but, then we have to be willing to pay for the cost of proving our case. That’s law, innocent until proven guilty. Is there a consensus as to whether the genetically modified organisms are truly bad for us? You said so so show proof. By the way, I do believe that their stuff is poison and that it’s escaping into our environment and they should be forced to stop their experiment. I’m willing that my tax money should be used for the purpose of this. I’ll even contribute to a fund to help prove it.

As a matter of fact, robbie, YES I will take up THAT flag!! NO ONE should be able to sell poison as food, and have the government PROTECT them! Monsanto not only produces this poison, they sue and win suits against organic farmers for NOT using their products in a field near by! It’s WRONG!

I’ve expressed my views regarding Monsanto in previous posts, Robert.

what robbie no wind in your sails now???

TY, Katrael59ganaiden! Yours, are words of wisdom…

Jay, I’d say you’re welcome, and you are, but, if these are words of wisdom they come from our creator. Thank Him also.

Right on! Right on! Another God fearing patriot! Keep up the good fight for this country and our Christian founding. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

From the present until the 2012 U.S. elections, you will hear a media drumbeat about Christian persecution of gays and atheists promoted by the Human Rights Campaign.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) began in 1980 and is the capstone NGO of the global LGBT movements. Their National Corporate Partners include, Chase Bank; Bank of America; EXXON; BP; Shell and Chevron oil; Micro$oft; Dell; MGM; Starbucks and more. That includes every corporation that the global giants own. That’s everybody.

The president of HRC is Joe Solomonese. He’s the top gay activist in the world. HRC’s priorities are embedded in six crucial areas of society.

1. Financial – (The Federal Reserve flew the LGBT rainbow Flag to Honor Gay Pride Month. June 2011)

2. Military – (“don’t ask don’t tell” repeal)

3. Government (multiple gay issues legislation , ongoing)

4. Spiritual (Includes ALL religions from Christa churches to Wicca, and everything else to do with human questions of the existence.)

5. Education

6. Science

All of these departments are now openly supporting the LGBT wish list. There is one exception: the legislatures. There are still many politicians who identify themselves as “Christian”, mostly “Fundamentalist Christian” and a few Catholic ones. Most of the other big mainstream Protestant denominations have already been on board long before the government and military.

The transformation of culture from nuclear family clan-based to promiscuous horde required over half a century. The “Lady Gaga” generation was born during the peak of Madonna’s career in the late 80′s.

American society has been re-defined to treat 2.5% atheists, 2% LGBT as the new normal.

A plethora of lawsuits contend the small percentage is why the ‘orientation’ of the vast majority of citizens must be overruled by legal force. With Gay Pride month underway, LGBT activists lobbied Capitol Hill to demand ramming through a national gay marriage Act while Gay Pride Month media pressure was applied to the President to sign it.. There are several more bills in the queue.

The reason? Same sex-marriage fails when put to public vote. It has to be forced either by Act of Congress, or Supreme Court decision.

The back door pressure and promises of HRC lobbyists last month got results. On June 28th New York state’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed in the “Marital Equality Act”

The California legislature just mandated Gay history in schools. Democrat Jerry Brown has 12 days to sign it. As of July 7th, Brown is stalling because he knows the bill would be defeated by public vote. California public education is already in the midst of low achievement scores and bankruptcy.

Many California students can barely pass standard history finals. The LGBT lobby always wants it both ways – they lobby for bills saying a politicians sexuality isn’t important, then demand the sexuality of homosexual historical figures be taught in school.

As California gays and lesbians celebrate programming other people’s children by statutory force, Houston’s National Cemetery banned Christian funerals. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs officials and Houston National Cemetery director Arleen Ocasio banned the words “God” and “Jesus Christ” from funeral services at the Houston V.A. cemetery.

http://www.henrymakow.com/atheist_media_blitz_taken_from.html

It has everything with the question at hand; total obliteration/corruption of the family unit, and society, as we know it! Another words, total corruption, and ultimate redesigning of human-nature, and culture; the destruction of civilization, aka. population control!

One percent? Looks as if I’m not so much against homosexuality. I’m one hundred (100) percent against it.

And this coming from a hetero-phobe, bigotted, racist, Christian and God bashing lib, gay loving, baby killing, marxist? Can we say hypocrite? Not liking their lifestyle is not bigotry. God doesn’t like it either, so do you and your heretic (Spong) disagree with God on this? I invite you to try to bring him into this conversation. FOR GOD AND COUTRY!

R:Or john he is a great American who understands equaity under law and who is going to make sure that a bunch of religious nuts aren’t able to deny that equality to someone they are bigoted agains.
Your call.

J: Or rob, he is a bought and paid for, corrupt judge; a homosexual, or a pedophile perhaps.
Your call.

The judge that originally overturned Prop 8 was gay and in the middle of a 10 year queer relationship. He should have recused himself or been dismissed from the bench due to his unnatural lifestyle. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Well there you go Samurai…no bias there?

Not according to the left wing wackos, Jay. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

The 14th Amendment deals with former slaves and their children, so stop lying. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

P.S. Remember, gays were thought of as being abominations in those days, today as well. Gay marriage then was thought of being punishable by death. God still says so in Leviticus 20:13.

Although the Fourteenth Amendment uses the terms “all persons” and “any persons”, the primary original intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment was to specifically give the newly freed slaves citizenship and the rights and privileges of citizenship.

When Congressman Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and John Bingham of Ohio offered their proposed amendment to the Constitution on January 12, 1866, neither Congressman had in mind; women, homosexuality, homosexual marriage, Indians, Chinese or Mexicans. It is clear from the actual debates that their use of the word “all” and the “any” pertained specifically to African Americans and not necessarily to “all” other ethnic groups, and to others who have since been included in the “all” and “any.” We believed this to be true based on Section Two of the June 28, 1868 Ratified version of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the arguments that took place during the debate regarding who specifically would be covered by this law.

Section Two of the Amendment, specifically excludes Indians not taxed and includes only males ages twenty-one.

Congressman Stevens, the brainchild of the Fourteenth Amendment devoted much of his entire career working on behalf of African Americans. Not only did he support the efforts of the Abolitionist, he personally participated in the Underground Railroad. People of his day say that he was an “Abolitionist,” long before the word was universally known. Under the first proposed plan submitted by both Stevens and his colleague, Robert Dale Owens (the son an English reformer and philanthropist), the plan called for “civil rights for the Negro, a penalty for the whites who denied suffrage to the Negro after five years’ preparation; forfeiture of the Confederate debt, and the admission of the Southern states upon their agreeing to provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. (pg 268 Thaddeus Stevens).

Despite the later broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the United States Supreme Court, Congressman Stevens’ proposed amendment was not written to cover all other ethnic groups born in the United States (“anchor babies”), nor was it written to cover women, or married couples (gay or straight), his focus (as well as the supporters of the law) was on African Americans. It is clear from the debates that the word “all” and “any” was intended to make sure African Americans weren’t excluded, but not necessarily designed so that other groups would be included.

Well said Jay and historically accurate. Keep up the good fight, fellow patriot! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Considering how precise the intent of laws can be in the case of: “Despite the later broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the United States Supreme Court, Congressman Stevens’ proposed amendment was not written to cover all other ethnic groups born in the United States”

In that light whey didn’t he just say “negros” instead of “all?”

The intent of ALL is clear.

You lose. They could have used the word negro but didn’t. They used “all.”

Rob

The difference between a gay man & herterosexual man is not love. It’s the sex. I love my bud Bill. I will live with him. I will play basketball with him & hang out with him. So I can say I’ve known Bill for 30yrs & love him, but I don’t have anal intercourse with him. That’s the disgusting thing I despise. Any man can have sex with another man or animal (as just allowed by law in the military -beastiality) & I don’t care as long as I don’t see it & it doesn’t influence my kids. The gay movement is pushiing to impose their values on my children now at a younger age. This I despise. Only in SF, it is legal to walk nude in public in some areas in front of children. It’s so corrupted there that they just passed an ordinance forcing nudists to use a towel when they sit down in a restaurant. Just watch the gay parade. Women with dildos hanging out, guys with their asses hanging out. Gay pride? What is that? A perverted sex show is what I saw on TV. If you allow 2 people to get married instead of a man & a woman because the gay community despises judeo-christian values, what’s stopping incest? If a brother & sister;(who has her tubes tied), love each other, why can’t they get married? Most people, even gays agree this would be sick & disgusting. However, if the brother & sister use the “Gay argument” they can get married. The incestual couple can say “who are you to impose your values on us?” “We don’t believe in God & believe we come from apes.” Therefore, we have our own values. And since we cannot reproduce children, the whole genetic mutation argument goes to the waste side. As it was disguting for christians to see 2 men having un-natural anal sex(definitely not made for sex, but for defacating), the thought of family having sex is equally disgusting. They only need to get a vasectomy or get their tubes tied to satisfy the deformity argument that liberals use. When I bring this argument to gays, they always say that’s different because they could have deformed kids. Then I say, well if they can’t have children, then your ok with it then right? They usually reply … no. It’s just disgusting & wrong. Why? Who are you to impose your christiain values on the family?

Andy – You don’t think there are homosexual couples living together and not having sex? It’s NOT all about sex. It’s about love. Why else would they want to get married? It’s an emotional thing. I’ve known gay couples who were together for 20 years and stopped having sex a long time ago just like old married hetero couples.

Your sick Andy and ought to be committed. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

robbie,
This time when you assume you make an a$$ out of YOU! I don’t go out of my way to harm ANYONE! I don’t treat anyone any different than i would anyone else. I just don’t believe in their CHOICE of lifestyle, and I never will. you always talk of equality under the law, yet what you want is SPECIAL protection under the law. We already HAVE a law against assault yet a gay has a “hate” crime, SPECIAL! We already have laws against murder yet the gays have, again, a “hate” law. i can’t include a friend on my insurance yet the gays want to include a “partner” on theirs. SPECIAL!

Let me see if I have this correctly Jay…

J: I doubt it!

On the extreme right you have folks like you, samurai, etc., calling gays evil, perverted, and not in your holy book as anything positive.

J: Wrong! I call the gay agenda, and liberal, gay activists; evil, and perverted. As well, puppets, and pawns, simpletons, and near-do-wells, who haven’t a clue they are being used to destroy society, and themselves. So, not only are they evil, and perverted, they are ignorant, as well!

And YOU are objecting to some guidelines designed to get the general public to NOT be afraid of gays as you go thrashing about being nasty to them in any way you can.

J: The general public is not afraid of gays, robert; the general public find the idea of forced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, by force-of-law, unacceptable. As well, that the insistence of the homo-sexual-maniacs, that it be presented to our impressionable progeny as normal and acceptable, nothing short of child abuse!

Does that sumeraize what you are objecting to in the book?

J: Hardly! But I realize the plain and simple fact; that one cannot draws fresh water from a poisoned well, or a reasoned response from a half-wit, however many times he may try.

One can only hope!

Jay: D’oh! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

From Andy: “The difference between a gay man & herterosexual man is not love. It’s the sex.”

Wow is that a big fat pants on fire lie.

What is it when a soldger throws himself on a grinade to save his squad? It’s a love for his fellow soldgers and his country. I’ll guarantee there ain’t no sex in that boom boom.

Rob

Actually he was found in his living room by a couple of friends. It could have been suicide.

Please tell us WHY it is relevant that he died any particular way? How is that part of an issue where the right is advocating denying equality to some Americans?

Rob

I don’t know robbie, perhaps it’s because the very first case of aids in the US was from a gay flight attendant who liked to frequent the gay steamrooms in frisco at night so they couldn’t see the sores on his body. He knew that he was sick and possibly contageous yet he risked the lives of thousands to get his jollys off!!

Another lie from Joe: “perhaps it’s because the very first case of aids in the US was from a gay flight attendant ”

Wrong again Joe, and if I remember right I corrected you about this months ago. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas

“Robert Rayford has since been confirmed as the first documented victim of HIV/AIDS in North America,[10] having died at age 16 in May 1969. He reported having experienced symptoms since 1966.”

Further Joe: “A November 2007 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences dismisses the Patient Zero hypothesis and claims that AIDS transited from Africa to Haiti in 1966 and from Haiti to the United States in 1969.[8][9]”

The joke was how tough it was for Rock Hudson to convince his parents he was Hatian.

Rob

katrael59ganaiden says, “The government has no business passing any rights benefits onto these people as it was not set up for that purpose.”

Uh… the Bill of Rights, genius. You should be utterly ashamed of your ignorance.

This is the one cited for the case.

14th Amendnment – “…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

TML, there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that grant anything to homosexuals. They have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness but those rights end where I should be forced to pay for them. Homosexuality is a decision based on a desire by an individual and the government forces me to pay them when the government tax(burdens) me and uses those funds to support somebodies preferences. The government has no business providing monetary benefits based on sexual preferences. That’s not what the Bill of Rights were written for.
As far as marriages are concerned, the laws were set up with the generally accepted definition of marriage at the time they were written and the accepted definition of “married” meant a marriage between a man and a woman. Here again, to marry or not is a decision based on the desire of individuals and the government has no business being in support for or against such decisions and I should not be forced to pay for somebodies preferences. One persons rights end where another’s begin. Our system has become perverted and the door has been thrown wide open; It may be possible that we will be forced to provide benefits to almost anyone for any reason.
TML go back and fully read the Constitution and The Bill of Rights and tell me where it says the government should provide benefits to anyone based on preferences. And I mean anyone.

K……
Maybe you can answer a question for me that no one ever seems to be able to answer. Why would anybody CHOOSE to be discriminated against, hated, shunned, and abused? IT IS WHO THEY ARE! Try talking to a lesbian or gay man sometime. Oh, sorry, I would imagine you wouldn’t associate with them.

Well said Katrael59ganaiden. They just don’t understand that marriage and behavior are not covered in the Constitution, so beng gay is a choice and not a right. I also wish they would quit the lies about equality. No one has taken any of their God given rights (The Bill of Rights) as are said in the Constitution. What they want are special rights, not equal rights. You libs need to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

P.S. Gays are not really married, so they get no benefits.

samurai, perfectly right, nobody has tried to take away their Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just don’t force me to pay for their pursuit.

samuari – If their state says they’re legally married, they’re legally married. What’s so hard about that. And it has nothing to do with God; it’s a legal matter.

katrael59ganaiden – “ there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that grant anything to homosexuals.”

I agree; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not “grant” rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were design for the purpose of restraining government from infringing upon rights which preexist and supersede man-made law, by nature of their humanity.

katrael59ganaiden – “ They have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness but those rights end where I should be forced to pay for them. Homosexuality is a decision based on a desire by an individual and the government forces me to pay them when the government tax(burdens) me and uses those funds to support somebodies preferences. The government has no business providing monetary benefits based on sexual preferences. That’s not what the Bill of Rights were written for.”

So your objection is to the welfare state, and not necessarily gay marriage ruling. I concur

karolyn,
Let them stay in their state and not try to force their lifestyle on the other states that have ruled it illegal!! If they live in a state that doesn’t allow it then MOVE!!

Wrong answer Karolyn. God does have something to say about it. Just read the Bible and you’ll find out. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

P.S. It is still illegal here in Indiana. We’re also going to be reinvestigating the eligibility of Obama bin Laden.

Still calling the President names I see. Is that typical of Conservatives or are you trying to be a lone maverick?

Sheesh Ed, do we have to do this again? I respect the office, position, and job of the president, but there is nothing saying I have to respect the person or their policies. Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Oh, I see robbie you are right and the majority of the people are WRONG??? Remember, gay marriage has been voted down EVERY time in that bastion of degradation and liberalism known as California!!! BY A LARGE MAJORITY!!

Its illegal in Indiana. Also, they have passed legislation in the New Hampshire House that overturns their passage of gay marriage. Soon it’ll be on the governor’s desk to be signed. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

The majority of Americans also accepted slavery as normal until enough people stood up for their rights. Stop looking for excuses for hating Homosexuals.

The majority of Americans accepted slavery…wrong eddie. And you well know that that is a lie! Show proof.

The burden of proof would be on you since it was legally accepted

eddie,
no at the time it was the law and the majority of people were against it! ONLY A CHOSEN FEW supported slavery. This is just your hopeful BS of trying to bring back slavery as a reason for the civil war and it ain’t huntin’, son!!!

Rather disappointing that you would post such misinformation, eddie.

Sheesh Ed! My students could tell what you said is a bunch of BS. Does this make a bunch of high school students smarter than you? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Joe claims: “ONLY A CHOSEN FEW supported slavery.”

Really?

What about the 3/5 issue? Ohhhhh, that didn’t relate directly to slavery but it simply counted blacks as less than other human beings.

Sheesh… The hairs you try to split are so so so thin that they break as soon as anyone takes a look at them.

Slavery was REAL, and it was VOTED on and when it won in a vote it was WRONG just as it is WRONG when same sex merriage is voted on.

Rights and equality in America are NOT voted on.

And those who would try to do so simply aren’t Americans who want equality for all in America. I think that’s kinda sick.

I wonder if there is a right wing nut job gene that forces some to be nutzo in their efforts to deny others. Maybe if it’s understood THEY don’t have a choice they will understand that gays and others don’t have a choice about who they are.

Rob

Robert Smith, There is no threat to me or anyone because of this disgusting habit, that is as long as the government neither supports or condemns this practice. These kind of people have the right to engage in any activity that they desire, which includes living together but, that doesn’t make them married in the traditional sense and meaning of the word. These people will all go the way of the dodo because they can’t reproduce. The government has no business passing any benefits onto these people because they are or aren’t anything and that includes the right to adopt as a married couple. Marriage has always been defined as a union of a male and a female and the courts, government, does not have the right to change that definition, therefore it doesn’t have the right to recognize a same sex marriage.

katrael59ganaiden says, “as long as the government neither supports or condemns this practice. These kind of people have the right to engage in any activity that they desire, which includes living together but, that doesn’t make them married in the traditional sense”

This part I can agree with… the government should neither support nor condemn this practice.

The problem is, when you start thinking that a government shouldn’t recognize the marriage (Civil Union – whatever), or should deny them the same rights or the same privileges you have based on that practice. It’s mutually exclusive idea to think the government should neither support nor condemn the practice, while wanting legislation that forces the government to define a religious term, in a subjectively religious traditional sense, for the purpose of denying rights or privileges to American citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation or preferences.

k…..You make me laugh. Saying “these people” will go the way of the dodo because they can’t reproduce is hilarious. Have you heard of a way for gays to stop being born. (And they ARE born that way – ask one.)

karolyn,
Again I say PROVE your statement! Prove they are born that way! In other words show me proof of the “gay” gene!!

Joe – I prefer to believe what I hear from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. When somebody tells me she felt different from the time she was a little girl, tried to partner with guys and was repulsed. What other conclusion can one come up with? And this particular person grew up in a loving family of 2 boys and 2 girls, the other 3 happily hetero. My other male friend says the same thing, and he came from a large Christian family of 4 boys and one girl. It just makes perfect sense to me, as does the theory that lack of enough testosterone in utero for a male creates gay men and too much for females creates lesbians.

The ongoing debate about whether homosexuality is inborn or somehow chosen can be confusing. Contradictory studies are published. There seems to be no clear-cut way to distinguish a homosexual person from a heterosexual one. If there is a biochemical marker that would be responsible for homosexual behavior, what would be its characteristics? How would it be recognized as a real indicator? For research on the origins of homosexuality to be more reliable, it needs to implement each of the following.

The populations being studied need to be defined clearly. There currently is no clear-cut distinction between “heterosexual” and “homosexual.” The most commonly used scale for categorization has seven gradations. Most early studies did not do a scale ranking. In contrast, the 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study on brain structure included a Kinsey scale and used only “maximally heterosexual” and “maximally homosexual” subjects (those scoring at one end of the scale or the other; there were no subjects with intermediate ratings). This type of care in subject selection will be necessary in order for any meaningful data to appear.

The marker must be reproducible. Different teams using different techniques should all get the same results. Using different techniques eliminates the possibility of having a measurement error in any specific method. To date, none of the research looking for any marker has been reproducible, except for studies that show a slight genetic influence, and that finding can be explained away.

The marker needs to distinguish the populations clearly. No marker to date is seen clearly in the homosexual population or in a significant number of the non-homosexual population. Brain structure studies show considerable overlap between the two groups.

The research should allow no chance for observer bias. A neutral observer should be able to look at the data and draw conclusions based solely on the scientific evidence and not on any personal agendas. The two major areas of research, unfortunately, have been clouded by a certain amount of personal bias.

Both Hamer and LeVay are open about their own homosexuality. Hamer, to his credit, knows his personal bias and recognizes the limitations of his research.

In a November 1995 interview in Time magazine,28 he states, “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 to negate the psychosocial factors.”

LeVay, on the other hand, resigned his research position, returned all his grant money, and helped form a gay activist organization within a year after his paper on brain structure was published. His writing to date focuses on broader issues of interest to the homosexual community and he is no longer doing lab research.

Care to cite a source on them being born that way? Stop with the same old refuted and worn out nonsense. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

There is no proof Joe, or a gay-gene, for that matter. It is only wishful thinking on the part of the gay community that there might be some pre-determined, biological marker. There is none! But the mantra goes on, “born this way”; like Goebbels, these people believe that if you repeat unsubstantiated lies long enough, they, and others, will eventually come to believe it.

“Joe H says:
February 24, 2012 at 6:16 pm
karolyn,
Again I say PROVE your statement! Prove they are born that way! In other words show me proof of the “gay” gene!!”

LOL! it’s not a gene issue Joe , not in most cases anyway. It is true however, that some persons are born with both male and female attributes and this would be a gene issue.

It’s the Spirit that “host” the body that determines sexual orientation and preference.

I know it’s hard to accept, but can you attempt to imagine how hard it was for them? Probably not.

Christians often speak of the “Spirit” and matters of the Spirit world, I prefer to simply call it the “Divine”. Since matters of the Spirit is not a new concept to them perhaps there is hope they might grasp and understand the nature of the Spirit better.

The Divine manifest in all things, both live and dead. For “dead” is not really dead. The Divine moves about or can Dwell. In each human form there dwells a Spirit. When or how this takes place, i JUST DON’T KNOW. wHAT DETERMINES what Spirit goes into what body, I simply don’t know that either. I’d like too though. Spirits are very durable and probable immortal, they are the part of you that lives on, long after the body they hosted has turns to dirt.

Early man knew and understood such things and went to great length to tap in and harness this power in many different way. Some quite bazaar. Some got it more correct then others while they battled with self image and personal ego.

Today, like yesterday, there is a lot that we don’t know and don’t fully understand. personal ego’s still get in our way and cloud our views and understanding.

But I can live with not “knowing” better then I can, thinking that I do.

If you are the kind of person that requires an answer for everything, I’m not sure that Christ and Christianity provides it. For as well all know so well, the foundation of Christianity is rooted in “Faith” and not “fact”, in what you “elect” to believe.

How many centuries did it take for the Conservatives to realize that the world wasn’t flat? How many homosexuals did the Conservatives put to death to make themselves feel better. Stop spending so much time attempting to discriminate against someone because they aren’t exactly like you.

Interesting hypothesis deer, unfortunately, it cannot be confirmed by science! Good try!

Eddie, you are just fishing, and grasping at straws, throwing everything at the old proverbial wall, hoping something will stick; its genetic, its the conservatives, its the Christians, ect…no, its perversion, eddie, pure and simple!

Sorry, Deer,
but your seive doesn’t hold water!! If it is from birth, it has to be genetic! No way around it!! It is either a learned or chosen path!!

Joe H says:
February 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Sorry, Deer,
but your seive doesn’t hold water!! If it is from birth, it has to be genetic! No way around it!! It is either a learned or chosen path!!

So Joe, you are offering us three possibilities; that heterosexual behavior is either learned or a conscience choice. That you had to learn to like little girls long ago and decided to do so, in spite of her differences and you could have went either way.

or there is no such thing a “Spirit”

or if there is “Spirit” it’s a material inside the gene, making it a part of the physical world.

Okay Joe, if you can live with that understanding and feel comfortable with it, I’ll not hold you back.

“Jay says:
February 25, 2012 at 10:52 am
Interesting hypothesis deer, unfortunately, it cannot be confirmed by science! Good try!”

Nether can God Jay,

If we took God out of the picture, we could remove matter of the “Spirit” and it would be easier to work with. But at this point I’m not prepared too.

Deer,
you only serve to prove me right!!! Of course I didn’t have to “learn” to like girls, it is only NORMAL!! They in turn DO have to learn to like the same sex as they are not of the NORM!!! If there is no genetic factor involved, then it is a learned response!! On the other thread you, I believe, said that if you were born with one leg, it would be your normal. YES it would be but just like a two legged person, you still have to learn to motivate your body from one place to another.

If we took God out of the picture, we could remove matter of the “Spirit” and it would be easier to work with. But at this point I’m not prepared too.

I’m sorry deer, but your statement makes no sense. Why/how would it be easier? And why is it so difficult now? Is it possible that you bit off more then you can chew, and painted yourself into a corner?

LOL! why would you say something like that? You hear a concession speech? Don’t mistake my kind nature and willingness to hear you out for anymore then what it is.

I enjoy hearing all the different views and without any judgement. Why this insidious desire to think only you might hold all the answers?

I enjoy hearing all the different views and without any judgement. Why this insidious desire to think only you might hold all the answers?

J: Ah, so that’s what this is all about; i rained on your parade! I made inquiries, and criticted your statements! My intention was not to offend you, deer, my intention was to shine a light on things that were being overlooked. I had no idea you had so much skin in the game.

If they were born that way, then why does God call it a sin and be punishable with hell fire and brimstone? Since this is the punishment, why would he make them gay? Deer and Rob are not good examples of Americans. It is adjutators, like these two, that are keeping this country divided and heading down the wrong path. BTW, show me where marriage, benefits, or gays are mentioned in the Constitution. I’ll give you a hint, they are not there. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

“Deer and Rob are not good examples of Americans. It is adjutators, like these two, that are keeping this country divided and heading down the wrong path.”

Well Samurai, I can deal with the fact that I’m not on your Christmas Card list but for the record, I vote , I serve at the polls, I help get in the vote, I pay my taxes, I currently employ 4 other Americans and one Mexican National, I’ve raised 4 children that all vote and pay taxes, I served my country, receiving all the standard accommodation along with 3 bronze stars and Honorable Discharge. I have bled for my country and made others bleed for theirs, I support my local church while sometimes I might not agree with some of their views and nonsense.. I defend your rights and freedoms while you would deny me mine if you thought for a single minute it in your power to do.

I work to neutralize all the damage that a loud mouth Lynching Mob like yours attempts to create with your wild and crazy zealot notions about Christianity and Righteousness. Rather then working to elevation your ideas by their own merits and sound thinking , you parrot a biblical verse , pass harsh judgement and try to tear people down. That just about sums you up Samurai.

I do a fair job of neutralizing you and many of your friend here, on “your own” playing field where you have a distinct “field advantage. But It’s not about you or your friend, it’s about the direction of the nation. I see some greatness in many of the ideas you offer and I too will support them, but this dark road of blurring the line between separation of church and state I shall never support.

“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal with “certain inalienable rights” Do you believe that Samurai? Well ~ do you?

Well , ~ I don’t believe that it’s a natural occurring event, but only a direction, a path, a purpose, a goal to aspire too. It is a very high bar to jump over and clear but just because “you can’t”, we should lower the bar?

I will not permit you or anyone else to lower the bar Samurai. I will not allow you to cherry pick who you think is best qualified and most deserving of the most basic of human rights afforded to free citizens by our Constitution.

Do you believe that the founding fathers set this bar too high?

I offer no claim to being “Good American” or a good anything, but I ask you, what have you done to hold claim and title as ” Judge ” of me or any other American. Tell us what you possess that we don’t have that makes you worthy of such a powerful position.

Here goes Joe again, as if his demand is going to change anything: “Prove they are born that way! In other words show me proof of the “gay” gene!!”

As I”ve posted to you several times there has yet to be discovered a “gay” gene.

But, the compelling mix of genes, hormones, and circumstances of which there is not yet an understanding, is REAL.

Being gay is NOT a “choice”, lapse in charictor, or even a “sin” except in some slim poisinous brutal right wing religions.

For someone who is gay it is simply who they are and they have no more power to change that than they would to change the color of their skin, eye color, or how tall they grew to.

Why do you continue to try to convince folks of the LIE that gays have a choice?

Rob

As i have offered many times, it is not in the geno but the “Spirit” , which decides (not all but most of) this “abnormal” sexual orientation.

BUT!!!!!

If I am wrong! I can tell you with some certainly when “They” will discover this Homosexual gene.

It will happen when they discover the heterosexual gene.

Allow me say this one more time differently, Such a GENE does not exist but if by some odd chance that it does, this gene will offer understanding to both male and female sexual orientation.

So until you can supply proof of a heterosexual gene, why demand proof of the other?

Some collected data that we do know, I cope and paste for your amusement (you might buckle up and hold on to you hat)

Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth. Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else; gender expression refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice, or body characteristics. “Trans” is sometimes used as shorthand for “transgender.” While transgender is generally a good term to use, not everyone whose appearance or behavior is gender-nonconforming will identify as a transgender person. The ways that transgender people are talked about in popular culture, academia, and science are constantly changing, particularly as individuals’ awareness, knowledge, and openness about transgender people and their experiences grow.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same. Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction to another person, whereas gender identity refers to one’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else. Transgender people may be straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or asexual, just as nontransgender people can be. Some recent research has shown that a change or a new exploration period in partner attraction may occur during the process of transition. However, transgender people usually remain as attached to loved ones after transition as they were before transition. Transgender people usually label their sexual orientation using their gender as a reference. For example, a transgender woman, or a person who is assigned male at birth and transitions to female, who is attracted to other women would be identified as a lesbian or gay woman. Likewise, a transgender man, or a person who is assigned female at birth and transitions to male, who is attracted to other men would be identified as a gay man.

Here a good one, Sex & Gender are not one and the same.

What is the difference between sex and gender?
Sex is assigned at birth, refers to one’s biological status as either male or female, and is associated primarily with physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and external and internal anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women. These influence the ways that people act, interact, and feel about themselves. While aspects of biological sex are similar across different cultures, aspects of gender may differ.
Various conditions that lead to atypical development of physical sex characteristics are collectively referred to as intersex conditions. For information about people with intersex conditions (also known as disorders of sex development),

Where is it covered in your bible? NO “cleve” or laying with. Where is the word “marriage” in your allegedly great book?

Rob

Samuri says, “Show me where marriage or behavior is covered in the Constituion.”

“The Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law … by, without substantial justification or rational basis refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse”

14th Amendment – “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;… …nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Wrong TML! The 14th Amendment covered former slaves and their children, not the gays. Remember, the 14th Amendment deals with race, not behavior. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

P.S. Since “gays” are not really married, how can this person draw benefits? A marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. No exceptions! No excuses! No straying from the straight and narrow path!

samurai says,“The 14th Amendment covered former slaves and their children, not the gays. Remember, the 14th Amendment deals with race, not behavior.”

I disagree… the 14th Amendment states “…citizens of the United States…”, not former slaves and their children, nor anyone based on their behavior… equal protection to all ‘citizens of the United States’.

TML,
you say there is no EQUAL protection under the law?? They are free to marry whom they want of the opposite sex the same as you or I!! EQUAL!! to allow them to marry same sex is SPECIAL protection under the law!!

“you say there is no EQUAL protection under the law??”

No, I didn’t say that.

“I disagree… the 14th Amendment states “…citizens of the United States…”, not former slaves and their children, nor anyone based on their behavior. [The Constitution states] …Equal protection to all ‘citizens of the United States’.”

Yes, it is dealing with former slaves and their children and race issues. You can’t take something that has one meaning and try to add tons more, it doesn’t work that way. Gay marriage would require special rights, as Joe H said. What do you mean equal prtection under the law? If they assult someone, they are charged with assult. If someone else assults them, they are charged with assult and a hate crime. The hate crime gives you more time in jail, so who is actually being given more protection? Just let gays have a civil union, but leave marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman. No exceptions! No excuses! No straying from the straigh and narrow path! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

1 Corinthians 7,verses 1-9
the apostle Paul wrote,”1Now about the questions you asked in your letter.Yes it is good to live a celibate life.2But because there is so much sexual immorality,each man should have his own wife,and each woman should have her own husband.
3The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy,nor should the wife deprive her husband.4The wife gives authority over her body to the husband,the husband gives authority over his body to the wife.5So do not deprive each other of sexual relations.The only exception to this rule would be an agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from sexual iintimacy for a time so they can give themselves more completely to prayer.Afterward they should come together so that Satan wont be able to tempt them because of their lack of self control.6This is not meant to be an absolute rule,it is only my suggestion.7I wish everyone could get along without marrying,just as I do.But we are not all the same.God gives some the gift of [marriage],and to others he gives the gift of singleness.8Now I say to those who arent married and to widows–its better to stay unmarried,just as I am.9But if they cannot control themselves,go ahead and marry.Its better to marry,than to burn with lust.

There you go Smith…….
Cheers
-CC.

Similarly,not that the apostle talks of physical union,not a legal contract.
Hope that clears things up for you….but somehow I doubt it.
-CC.

The main debate here always has been over definition.
To legally change an ancient definition,is a presidence that once set,will come back to bite this nation.The act of bringing two bodies together in phyical union,cannot be redifined.
Because then the law which redefined it will be deviant,as is the physical act of homosexuality.To make deviant law,is to subvert the laws of God.
There will be no greater presidence for declaring our laws deviant than this particular one.
The harm it will do to the laws of this nation will be irrepairable.Having made deviancy,a legal normality will set presidence for future deviany to be claimed as normal behavior.
Cannot anyone with good sense see that?
The term”marriage”is the union between to opposite parts.
Two same parts cannot be married.It is a physical impossibiliity.
Bringing two opposite sexes together has always been the definition of marriage.
To legally change that definition is harmful to humanity.
It would mean redefining relationships perpetually.
Man and woman are specifically designe to be intimate facing one another.
That design is unique in nature.
Not one other species is designed like we are.
How can that be a quirk of evolution?
Only a simpleton would come to that conclusion.
We are designed by our creator to be married in an intimate fashion,with both the male and female capable of orgasm.No other species can make that claim.
To believe otherwise is just idiocy.
But to legally establish that two same parts can be married together is absolutley ludicrous.
That is the situation that is being attempted here.
To make normal what is deviant.
How can this be done without causing great harm?-CC.

samurai says, “Yes, it is dealing with former slaves and their children and race issues.”

The intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was expressly for the purpose of restraining government from infringing upon the rights of people; rights which preexist and supersede man-made law, by nature of their humanity… even if that right, is the “God-given freewill right to “sin”.

While the 14th Amendment was indeed to solve a problem that dealt with discriminatory issues and former slaves, the text was written with ultimate intent mentioned above, to encompass all citizens, all persons.

samurai says, “You can’t take something that has one meaning and try to add tons more, it doesn’t work that way. Gay marriage would require special rights”

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a violation of the 1st Amendment, because it is legislation meant to respect an establishment of religion, by forcing the federal government to define a religious term, in a subjectively traditional sense, but for the purpose of denying rights or privileges to American citizens based on sexual orientation. It is DOMA that offers special rights, therefore the judge in this case, offered not special protection, but equal protection under the law and jurisdiction of the state, by not enforcing a law (DOMA) which abridged the natural right of an individual… even if that right, is the “God given freewill right to “sin”.

cawun cents says, “1 Corinthians 7,verses 1-9…”

We don’t live in a country under religious law. I understand the many possible reasons you oppose or even abhor same-sex marriage, which is your right. But you cannot legislate morality when it violates the equal rights of an individual. Even when one of those rights, is your “God-given free-will right to ‘sin’”.

Wise man once said, “Rightful liberty is the unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add, “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the equal rights of others.”

Smith asked where the term marriage was found in the bible TML,I was merely showing one particular reference for him/her.As for the Constitution,there is no mention of defining personal liberties by government definitions.
I suggest that it would be seen as a personal choice of particular states to decide.
Whenever governments decide personal liberty issues,you get situations like in Europe,where those who wished to live under their monarchies were forced to live under their rules of personal liberties,a condition which caused those who wished to decide for themselves to leave Europe and come here to form the colonies.
I do not wish to have a government decide my definitions of personal matters,do you?-CC.

Joe H claims: “to allow them to marry same sex is SPECIAL protection under the law!!”

Nope. YOU can marry someone of the same sex if you want.

Why do you need a law to keep your kids from marrying someone of the same sex? Are you afraid you didn’t put enough fear into your kids?

Roib

Cawmun wants to talk about Corinthians

Let’s go to: http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/7-9.htm

Which version?

New International Version (©1984)
But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
New Living Translation (©2007)
But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.

English Standard Version (©2001)
But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

International Standard Version (©2008)
However, if they cannot control themselves, they should get married, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But if they do not endure, let them marry. It is beneficial for them to take a wife rather than to burn with lust.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
However, if you cannot control your desires, you should get married. It is better for you to marry than to burn [with sexual desire].

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But if they cannot have self-control, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

American King James Version
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

American Standard Version
But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

Darby Bible Translation
But if they have not control over themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.

English Revised Version
But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Webster’s Bible Translation
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Rob

cawun says: “To make deviant law,is to subvert the laws of God.”

So? You and your attempt at an American Taliban will not get by me with your bible babble.

How do you explain that atheists can marry legally in America?

Rob

TML,
On the contrary, you said on the 24th at 1:35PM that Doma is illegal because it violates her rights of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. She already had that as she was free to marry ANYONE of the opposite sex she so chose! to grant her the right of same sex marriage is special coverage under the law.
also you say that it did so by forcing the government to recognize a religeous act. Well the DOMA only serves to clarify an act that the government would reconize as LEGAL for two hundred years when the only marriage the government would recognize was one presided oover by a “preacher”!!! later on, the act of living together was recognized in some states as “common law”!!!

Wrong TML! Since gays were an abomination then, as well as now, they would not be covered under the 14th Amendment. It dealt with giving citizenship to former slaves and their children, along with giving them equal treatment and protection under the law, reguardless of their race. You can’t add any other group onto that, for doing such changes the meaning of the Amendment. I wish you and smilee would stop lying and really study what it is truly about. Enough said! Don’t answer this post if all you two are going to do is lie. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Smith,
I know many atheists,and none of them are homosexual.They do not deviate from design any more than Christians do.Design is there for a reason.People with deviant minds can make up any story that they want about the matter of sexuality,but it doesnt change the design of man and woman.Sound reason dictates that the way we were designed is to have male and female intimate interaction.To perform the sexual act any other way would then be considered deviant,correct?Each organ has its particular function,just like in the rest of nature.For a man to palook another mans waste disposal unit is deviant,no matter how you try and make it seem normal.That particular practice would lend itself to disease,wouldnt you think?It is like rolling your sexual member in fecal tissue,correct?
How can this not be seen as deviant behavior?
What form of inept thought processes has gripped your mind?
To be warped is one thing,but to force that form of deviant thought on another individual,to see a law passed making your deviancy seem right in the letter of law,is simply wrong.
There can be no other way of self agrandizing your deviancy than to harm everyone by making it a law,in your eyes.Therefore it is up to the sane to say no.
No I wont make your deviancy a law.
Anyone who decideds to make your deviancy a law,has made law deviant.
Law will no longer represent the people then.
Then it will be established(by those who wish to remain sane)that all [like] laws are deviant,and cause doubt in our legall system opening a Pandoras Box of legal disemmination.
The result will be pandemonium,and those who make laws think they are protected from the people,so that they can get away with these laws.
But eventually their subjugation leads to violence.
It happens every time.
Their,”let them eat cake”attitudes are seen as pompous and arrogant and the people revolt.
Check your historical references and see for yourself.
No country is above the natural way of sexuality and the knowledge of Gods laws.
To put themselves above these things is to invite disaster,no matter how those who work to subvert are inclined to believe.
But what do I know?
Apparently very little……..
-CC.

It should also be noted that though some words differ in various translations,the Biblical intent of what is actually said remains constant.
To believe otherwise is to perform ones own eisegesis on scripture,and then cast dispersions on it by touting them to others.
But that is the end game of deviants,to cast derision on everything that doesnt line up with their deviant way of thought.When some see wisdom in ancient ways,and others decide they will forsake those ways in the pursuit of what they term progress,there is a tendency to make up what they believe are new ways of thinking(how arrogant is that)and force them on others through deviant laws.
When in Rome……..
Cheers!
-CC.

cawun cents says, “Smith asked where the term marriage was found in the bible TML…”

Ah, sorry I missed that

cawun cents says, “As for the Constitution, there is no mention of defining personal liberties by government definitions.”

I’d ask you to elaborate on that, but I will suffice to say…

cawun cents says, “I do not wish to have a government decide my definitions of personal matters,do you?”

No, I do not… that has been my position.

TML,
Gen_2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife H802: and they shall be one flesh.
What can’t be understood here? A man, male, leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife, female, and they are one. No, there isn’t a word here that says marriage and I have to point out that this was originally written in Hebrew and not English so the word marriage doesn’t appear here, but a study of this would reveal that this is exactly the intention of our Creator.

H802
נשׁים אשּׁה
‘ishshâh nâshı̂ym
ish-shaw’, naw-sheem’
The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).: – [adulter]ess, each, every, female, X many, + none, one, + together, wife, woman. Often unexpressed in English.
Oh well, people who practice degenerate behavior want to justify that behavior so the push for definition changes, then law changes and soon their behavior becomes legal, but, sadly for them, not moral.
No benefits should be paid to this woman and that’s moral, but maybe not legal.

Joe H says, “She already had that [equal protection under the law] as she was free to marry ANYONE of the opposite sex she so chose!”

Naturally she does have that freedom. Hence, DOMA defines marriage in a way (respecting of a religion), on a federal level, that would prevent her from receiving equal protection of the law regarding health care insurance, the same protection you have to your spouse, when you get married. So the judges decree to not enforce DOMA under the 14th Amendment, within state jurisdiction, is a constitutional ruling… and I think a good one.

Joe H says, “ to grant her the right of same sex marriage is special coverage under the law.”

Again… she naturally has the right of same-sex marriage, and the Bill of Rights does not “grant” rights. So I don’t see anything that is giving “special coverage”.
I will say; I do not agree with legislation that would provide inequality of the law, or special privileges, to gay and lesbian marriage, anymore than I would support the same against them.

Joe H says, “also you say that it [DOMA] did so [violate her equal protection under state law] by forcing the [federal] government to recognize a religeous act.”

Yes… DOMA violated her equal protection under state law by forcing the federal government to define a religious act.

Joe H says, “Well the DOMA only serves to clarify an act that the government would reconize as LEGAL…”

Yes, it defines an act in a way that respects a religious establishment definition at the federal level. There is no reason other than religious bias to suggest federal government should deny rights, by defining marriage in a way that excludes citizen based on sexual orientation.

Samurai says, “Wrong TML! Since gays were an abomination then, as well as now, they would not be covered under the 14th Amendment.”

We are not in a country under religious law, so be bible’s reference to, and the religious belief that, gays are an “abomination”, is irrelevant. Congress is expressly forbidden from passing laws which respect an establishment of religion in this way.

Samurai says, “It dealt with giving citizenship to former slaves and their children, along with giving them equal treatment and protection under the law, reguardless of their race. You can’t add any other group onto that, for doing such changes the meaning of the Amendment.”

Maybe this will help…

“The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying ANY PERSON “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to ALL AMERICANS and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.” (Emphasis Added)
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html

katrael59ganaiden says, “TML,
Gen_2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife H802: and they shall be one flesh.
What can’t be understood here? A man, male, leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife, female, and they are one. No, there isn’t a word here that says marriage and I have to point out that this was originally written in Hebrew and not English so the word marriage doesn’t appear here, but a study of this would reveal that this is exactly the intention of our Creator.”

I do understand that… but we do not live in a country under religious law, and so where the legalities are concerned with our government, such a definition does not provide equal protection of the law. The bible definitions, or religious beliefs, are irrelevant. DOMA is a Defense of Marriage Act designed to respect an establishment of religion, and by so doing, violates gay and lesbian citizens’ rights to equal protection under the law.

TML, we may be saying the same thing: the government had no business passing a DOMA in the first place. These are matters left to the individual and the community they live in. If a person doesn’t like the prevailing attitude of their community they have several options open to them and you already know what those are but, the central government was not originally meant to involve itself in those matters. I still stand by my comment.

katrael59ganaiden says, “No benefits should be paid to this woman and that’s moral, but maybe not legal.”

Is your spouse eligible for insurance because you are married? I can’t even add my girlfriend to my insurance unless we are ‘married’. The lesbian couple was married, and so they deserve that same privilege we have. I don’t agree with the welfare state, but if insurance is available to our spouses, because they are spouses, then that same right should be equally protected for same-sex marriage. You would like the definition to legally exclude same-sex marriage, so that the marriage is therefore not recognized by the government, and therefore denies them the same rights you have?

One other thing TML, insurance companies are a part of private business and if they don’t want to provide benefits for same sex marriages then it’s none of the governments business. Period. Maybe they can be forced to abide by a legal contract but, they shouldn’t be compelled to provide for things not found in their own rules.

Samurai says: “Since gays were an abomination then,”

I think ritualized canabalism is an abomination. Iknow that for you it is a choice because you can’t show me a “christian” gene.

Rob

First of all, how many times do we have to tell you that the 14th Amendment does not cover gays TML? You need to stop lying. It was written to give citizenship to former slaves and their children. It also dealt with how they should be treated, reguardless of their race. Behavior is not mentioned or covered in the Constitution. Gays would not have been covered then and you cannot insert them (eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww!) into something that does not pertain to them. Do not post that lie again, since you have no sources or facts to back up what you are saying. Second, SSDD eh Rob? No need answering your posts, since they bear no resemblance of an intelligent life form. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

“Do not post that lie again, since you have no sources or facts to back up what you are saying.”

I’m getting the feeling you would deny the truth if it came up and bit you in the a$$. In fact, I posted you a link which supports my position, from a credible source, to debunk your exclusive idea about the 14 Amendment, but I suppose you will resort to the argument to ignorance by simply repeating your assertion over and over again, hoping someone believes you. Have a good day

Amazing… Another effort to deny health care to folks.

If we had universal health care this question of health benefits would be moot.

Tell us right wing… How can one deny health care and proclaim themselves to be “pro-life?”

Looks to me like another demonstration of the selfishness and bilent nature of the right wing.

Rob

That’s the whole point and nothing but the point Sirian and Samurai. If you are a committed couple and have made vows to each other then you deserve the same rights and protections under those laws that govern being together. Some states even give more rights to a heterosexual couple who live together and who aren’t married than to a homosexual couple who want to be married or have a civil union. Some of us actually practice the concept of Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all not just a select few. Some feel it is a right to discriminate because of personal hang ups that they carry in their hearts. Some want to divide America up in tidy little packages in who is good and who is not so good when we are all Americans with the same equal rights.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. No exceptions! No excuses! No straying from the straight and narrow path! Rob, free healcare is not the issue here. Its about a lesbo that wants something from the government that she is not entitled to, understand? Here is something dealing with Obama bin Laden Care that you like so much Rob.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/21/planned-parenthood-will-get-richer-thanks-to-obamacare/

FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

P.S. This is a violation of the Hyde Amendment, ergo illegal.

samurai, you’re right. Again her right ends where it infringes on my rights. Nobody should be forced to support her decision to be something that most people don’t agree with. I don’t think the government has any business providing those benefits in the first place to anyone.

Right on K! Keep spreading those true words, I love to hear them. BTW, I know for a fact that the libs on this site lack the capacity to understand what you are saying. Keep up the good fight, fellow patriot! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

In a case where health benefits were granted samuari in a failed effort to control the argument claims: “, free healcare is not the issue here.”

It sure is. Well, actually it isn’t. It’s about equality of benefits for government employees.

samurai points out: ” Its about a lesbo that wants something from the government that she is not entitled to,”

Really? And just why isn’t the one she’s in love with and wants to be married to and maybe have a family denied the same benefits any other government employee gets?

BTW, take two girls and two boys. If the boys marry the girls it’s TWO couples. I doubt you have a problem with that. However if the boys marry each other as can the girls it is still TWO couples. There isn’t anything “extra” taken from the benefits package.

And like I said, if there was universal health care the point would be moot.

It appears to me that “pro-life” is another whopper big ile from the extreme right as you are looking for any excuse to deny health care to people.

Sure looks selfish to me samurai. Is that what your jesus really wants you to do?

Rob

katrae gets into health care even though samurai doesn’t want me to bring them up. Oh well, another double standard from the right is clearly demonstrated. Let’s watch: “I don’t think the government has any business providing those benefits in the first place to anyone.”

If they are NOT party of worshiping YOUR brutal god you are stepping on their religious freedoms.

I didn’t want to pay for the Bush wars on a moral basis bur if I denied my taxes I would have gone to jail, as should you if you deny paying your taxes that are for the benefit of ALL Americans, not just your right wing politics.

Rob

samurai says to katrie: “I know for a fact that the libs on this site lack the capacity to understand what you are saying.”

Oh, I know EXACTLY what she is staying. She wants to impose HER religion on the rest of America because she doesn’t think people of other religions should be able to have and act upon their beliefs here in America.

I consider that to be unAmerican, samurai.

BTW, you still haven’t told us how you can consider yourself to be “pro-life” and deny anyone health care at the same time.

Rob

SSDD, eh Rob? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

I suspect that when Jay yammers about some sort of “master plan” he is projecting.

After all, the iluminati and other such organizations are very fringe and vague.

The church has PROVEN itself with crusades and inquisitions, and yet again with this birth control thing where they are trying to force THEIR beliefs upon those who aren’t members of their religion that THEY are the dominant and controlling ones.

They claim it denies them freedom to practice their religion (which is to deny non-members of their religion birth control) is an infringement of THEIR religion.

What about all those who aren’t members of their religion? What gives the church the “right” to dictate what their birth control options are?

A very deft changing and playing with the foundations of freedoms in America in an attempt to turn the tables IMO.

Rob

Yes robbie, calm down, boy! We all know you hate religeon! you have reminded us here ad nausium!!! Perhaps your parents SHOULD have been gay, then we wouldn’t be burdened by you. No abortion, no birth control, no rythem method, you just wouldn’t exhist!!!

SSDD, eh Rob and smilee? By how much they back each other up, I’m surprised they aren’t asking for these rights for themselves. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

I suspect that when Jay yammers about some sort of “master plan” he is projecting.
After all, the iluminati and other such organizations are very fringe and vague.

J: You got me there, Rob. Now that the cat is out of the bag, you should know that we’re coming after you, and your boy-friend smilee.

The church has PROVEN itself with crusades and inquisitions, and yet again with this birth control thing where they are trying to force THEIR beliefs upon those who aren’t members of their religion that THEY are the dominant and controlling ones.

J: Ah, still fooled by religion, hey Simpleton. You still don’t get it, do you? Religion is just a tool to us. We, the banking cartel/satanists, will use any means at our disposal, whatever is necessary to accomplish our goals, and squash society into submission to us; religion, race, economics, homosexuals. Ah, the homosexuals, perhaps the easiest to control and manipulate, since they have been effectively blinded, and made hopelessly addicted to their perversion; and we did this with the use of pornography, mostly. Are you yet unaware, dumb dumb, that all pornography, is homosexual, and that eventually all purveyors, and those that embrace it begin their long, and twisted journey to homosexual, adultery, fantasy-island, abandoning their wives, and children? Add to this, our clever, and relentless marketing assault on the family-unit, through all the media formats that we own out-right; through which, we ridicule the family, demonizing the parents, making them look ridiculous, convincing the children that their own parents are the enemy, and that, we, the one’s who wish to destroy them, are their friends, and will protect them. Protect them? Ha ha ha, we wish to liquidated them, and their parents as well. For we understand all to well, strong families, build strong societies; and this, is odious to us, since it makes it impossible to control a strong society, supported by strong families as its foundation. This, must not stand!

They claim it denies them freedom to practice their religion (which is to deny non-members of their religion birth control) is an infringement of THEIR religion.

J: You Robby, and dumb dumbs like you, help pave the way to tyranny for us; useful idiots, indeed. We shall keep your faithful services for now, and make full use of your time, and energies, until the day you are no longer needed, at which time, we will simply dispose of you.

What about all those who aren’t members of their religion? What gives the church the “right” to dictate what their birth control options are?

J: Because we control your churches, and we control your government. We also control what you see, hear, believe, speak, and fight for. You Rob, are our finest example!

A very deft changing and playing with the foundations of freedoms in America in an attempt to turn the tables IMO.

J: What would you know of freedom slave; you, who beg for our leash? Get back to work!

“Joe H says:
February 24, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Yes robbie, calm down, boy! We all know you hate religion!”

I don’t believe Robert or myself hate your religion Joe, while we might hate your attempts to apply it on others and demand compliance when it restricts freedoms and liberties afforded to every citizen by the constitution.

Like you, I take comfort in my choice of religion but have no plans to force it on you. It’s personal and it’s mine. Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as the Holy Ghost and “YOUR OWN PERSONAL” Savior?

The world is not yours, Joe. It was never promised to you.

Deer,
I believe that robbie has more than proved he hates religeon, the same as coal miner has. I didn’t mention you so I do not see your attempt to take umbrage!!

robbie! You ARE dense!!! the church isn’t dictating to ANY that are not of their faith, bubba!!! they only speak to those of their religeon. They are not denying birth control to ANYBODY not of their faith. They are only asking to not have to supply it against their beliefs! The same way, I might add YOU are asking for gays to be accepted by people not of their lifestyle!!! Hipocrite????

Joe H lies again. Let’s watch: “We all know you hate religeon! ”

Nope. I hate YOUR presentation of that there brutal right wing christian god you so violently want to impose upon the rest of America, but I’m resisting the American Right Wing Taliban.

Is your argument soooooo weak you have to lie so much? BTW, isn’t that a violation of that there brutal god’s big ten rules?

Rob

Here he goes with another lie: “I might add YOU are asking for gays to be accepted by people not of their lifestyle!!! ”

Nope. I don’t care what you personally think about gays, blacks, women, American Indians, or any other the others so viciously hated by the extreme right in the name of their sad brutal god.

All I’m asking is that they be treated equally under law. Something YOU are denying them in marriage and now health benefits.

Rob

“We have created you male and a female…so that you may know one another.””

Hmm? well clearly this creation process experiences occasional short comings.

To assume the process of “appropriation” 100% accurate, 100% effective, 100% of the time in being very naive and short sighted to the ways of nature.

If it were so, there would be little need on a DNA strain, 48 feet long, repeating a long sequence of 5 letter characters, over and over and over again and again offering a blue print for replication and little possibility for error.

there is no short coming in design.-CC.

Again, an interesting angle, deer. So let’s take it a bit further; If the DNA be corrupt, or some genetic anomaly be the cause/sexual/disposition/determinant, what guarantee, therefore, your intellectual acumen, perception, discernment, concerning the issue discussed, be not equally corrupted. And what is there left to say regarding choice/will? Are we to cherry pick, where choice/will is volitional, and where choice/will, is not, at one’s disposal? Where does choice/will begin, and at what point, is it rendered inoperative? If there be a genetic predetermination/corruption, as you say, what else could be genetically predetirmined; pedophilia, a penchant for crime, conservatism, liberalism, a penchant for war, bestiality, lying, alcoholism, religious beliefs ….? To all those, and many more, we would unanimously agree with a resounding, NO! Yet, in regards to homosexuality, you are more than eager to assign as its cause, genetic corruption, a quirk, as it were; the works of a less-then-perfect, Creator; who, at the end of all His created work, when considering all that He created, exclaimed; and it was good, and not with a;oops, boy did i mess that up! This will not do, deer, nor, can it be taken seriously from a scientific, intellectual, or logical position! Do you see how your argument is unraveling/disintegrating? You need to go back to the drawing board, and re-think this; and know, that your efforts are appreciated!

As I have asked many times here, deer, show me PROOF of the “gay” gene!

“Joe H says:
February 25, 2012 at 3:38 pm
As I have asked many times here, deer, show me PROOF of the “gay” gene!”

I will Joe~!

as soon as you show me proof of a heterosexual gene. LOL!

I’ve attempted to offered my explanation for this anomaly of nature as best as I’ve understood it and went on record, saying there still much that I fail to know or understand.

You have done likewise telling us, it is personal choice and that you know and understand it rather well. In some cases, I know for a fact that you are absolute correct but I would not label these persons as HOMO’s while you see little need to distinguish the act for the actor.

There was a time, I knew ” much”, not unlike yourself and life was a lot simpler. There is much to be said for “simple” and I envy you that in a big way.

As the story go, God forbid his garden children to eat from the tree that grew the “fruit of knowledge” for if they did, they too would forever suffer the burden of guilt and judgement and be like small gods. The story suggest that God didn’t want man harness with such burdens. It’s a interesting story told long ago when man was young and free of guilt and shame.

cawun cents says:
February 25, 2012 at 9:51 am
there is no short coming in design.-CC.

If you really believe that Sir, you would accept the notion of a random radical element that exist in all living things. Living being anything that has boundaries and offers control over it’s own space.

The random factor has been described as the God particle. A loose term perhaps but appropriated.

My name is Darwan, and I approve of this message.

I too believe in the inherent design, I too believe in bad ideas and prototypes.

Evidently , it’s not in everyone’s design to reproduce if you look at the data before us.

deer,
If twenty people tell you a bee sting hurts, and two tell you it doesn’t are you then going to put out your hand and pick up a bee?? now do me a favor and don’t wander on this just give me a straight answer.

Hey Joe, if “intelligent design” is so smart how’s come your brutal god ran the sewer through the playground?

Rob

Temper temper, robert, being the chief reason why you always sound like an imbecile. A better question; why did God give an imbecile a tongue, and the ability to speak?

There is no gay gene, you idiots. Being gay is a choice, nothing else. Care to cite a source showing that they have found a gay gene? Try to sound rational and not ask for a heterosexual gene. It shows less intelligent ways of thinking. Deer drinking yellow water and Rob are just trying to play us patriots. They have no real knowledge of the subject and just wish to stir the waters. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Joe, samurai, and other right wing extremists demand: “As I have asked many times here, deer, show me PROOF of the “gay” gene!”

As has been posted many times before there are several genes and gestational circumstances that can create a compelling predisposition, towards homosexuality. It has been admitted many times that there is no specific gene or sequence discovered YET.

However there are many genetic and gestational hormonal circumstances that have been firmly established that are known to cause compelling homosexual urges for those involved.

For example, there is no “alcoholic” gene although there are several genes that contribute to a predisposition to alcoholism. I’m sure that most around here who are over 50 know someone who died because they just couldn’t live their lives without excessive alcohol. Other addictions are similar. No gene, but the presisposition is so strong that they can’t save their lives to get away from it.

There is strong evidence that homosexuality falls into that catigory. It’s several genes or hormonal mixes in vitro that shape folks to be homosexual. There is NO “choice” involved. It is simply who they are.

And now is when pedophiles, etc. are brought up that they should get a pass because alcoholics and gays get a pass for genetic differences.

Absolutely NO. A pedophile, unlike a homosexual person, goes after KIDS, not another consenting adult. An alcoholic commits no crime for simply being an alcoholic, but when they get behind the wheel or beat the wife they’ve committed a crime that they should be put in jail for.

Again, when gays love and play with each other it’s among CONSENTING adults. That isn’t a crime in America. In fact, except for having a love for the same sex they are generally pretty much the same as most Americans. They get up, go to work want kids, and some go golfing on Saturday morning.

And for some extremists having gays in the world (even though they are still created in their god’s image) is an excuse to hate and persicute them.

Which one is really the sicko? The gay person who has no choice about who they are and who is loving another, or the religious nut who wants to spread hate in the name of their brutal god?

Rob

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=24403.php

Be of good cheer, there is a search in progress.