Once again, this isn’t about gay rights… homosexuals don’t want special rights not afforded to heterosexuals. This is about equal rights. Unless you’re 100% positive that in an unequal rights scenario, you’ll always fall on the up side, it’s folly to encourage such inequality. And I don’t care who you are or what you do, everyone is a minority in some way.

They already do. I’m not allowed to murder anyone in my bedroom. I’m not allowed to torture anyone in my bedroom. Who said sex had to be in the bedroom? After all, your buddy Cliton said, “oral sex is not sexual relations” so you should be able to do that in public. We can kiss in public and if oral sex is not sexual relations then kissing isn’t either. This is what we have when you make ridiculous arguments to further an immoral agenda.

Yes, there is more talk about what was “taboo” at one time but that is because every day the Liberal agenda is forced upon us and yes, our children do lose their innocence at an earlier age than they used to. While we know it is by “the Liberal” design, we’re against it, even before we were against it.

Nobody can stop you from having anal sex just as nobody can stop you from committing murder or torture. That’s a weak argument. Your decision to oppose and ignore laws implies you will do so no matter what the law is if you feel it’s wrong… to you.

“Go poison someone else’s well.”
Mark, where’s your tolerance or is that just something straight people are required to have?

“Let me know when you learn to debate like an adult.”
Homosexuals are the ones who refer to themselves “girls” when they’re male and how much they like show tunes but make a reference to it and I’m not an adult. I guess we’re on the same level when I do then. Thanks for clearing that up for me because to me, you’re a Nancy. Nancy is a woman’s name I never cared for, including Nancy Palosi, nor do I care for gays. So, I say Nancy. You guys took a perfectly good word and ruined it by adopting it because I guess a long time ago you didn’t like being called queer, which means abnormal. I think queer is better suited.

Marriage is between one woman and one man. You already have a word that says two [or more] men or women are companions. It’s called homosexuality. You don’t need to hijack another word which we hold dear and try to destroy the family, which you are obviously against and I believe your primary goal. If you can destroy the family, the sky’s the limit. Next the argument will be for multiple partners, beastiality, etc. It’s not so far fetched. If the government cannot dictate, then they cannot dictate. So, if I choose to kill some queers in my bedroom, who is the goverment to tell me that I can’t or shouldn’t do in my bedroom? They can’t stop me. Isn’t that the argument?

You’re so hypocritical. You cannot produce life unless you violate the very premise for your argument. You got that? You need us or you have to impregnate women, either through sex or implantation or you [queers] will eventually cease to exist.

Your argument that you need to impose your sexual preference as a reason to need special privileges is a bunch of coffee house crap. I could care less where you stick your member but the last thing I want to do is hear about it and see it on every show on public TV. Yes, we liked you better in the closet. We also don’t care for hearing about any tragedies or any other immoralities, such as pedophilia, rape, murder, etc.

You saying, “I’m gay” is similar to me saying “I like sex with women.” It’s not a topic people care to hear about no matter which side of the fence you’re on. It’s also not a topic to be discussed with children. Children should be children for as long as they can be.

Does one immorality beget another? You already said we can’t stop you, so I guess it does.

Horse$#!t. The fact that folks like you are ramming this garbage down our kid’s throats against our will thru state sponsored edu… I mean, indoctrination proves your disingenuousness.

I am against public education, for this very reason. Don’t assume that just because I support classical liberalism (that is, the free and open exchange of ideas) that I’m a left winger. I’m opposed to government indoctrination, erosion of parental rights, and the whole idea of the “Nanny State.”

Yes, it applies. Again, 100 years ago, the majority of people hardly comprehended what homosexual sex was. 30 or 40 years ago, even the word “homosexual” was spoken in low tones IF it was spoken at all. All those things have changed. If you think that the other immoral lusts are just going to sit by and keep silent, you are fooling yourself. It’s only a matter of time until some liberal minded judge declares that say, a “consenting” 14 year old is fair game.

You need to silence your moral indignation for a minute and actually stop to consider how adult homosexuality and pedophilia differ. Children are not adults. Children are not capable of making decisions regarding sexual contact. Sexual relations with a child is a violation of that child’s rights. They can’t consent, so it is rape. Just because you see rape and homosexuality as sins doesn’t make them the same.

Do you really want the government legislating what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your bedroom? Who you can and can’t be intimate with? If you’re going to advocate for what is essentially a theocracy, you better be damn sure that your view of morality doesn’t ever become a minority view, because if it does, you’ll find that you have become a second class citizen, hung with the noose that you tied.

I see marriage as being a sacred institution started by religions, not something to be dictated by government.

I do believe everyone has the right to spend their life with anyone they choose, and they should get the same benefits. Just don’t try to make it seem that the church is okay with it, or that 2 mommies is natural for a family.

Gooch,
I agree that marriage is not something to be dictated by government, but the state’s idea of “marriage” (i.e. a civil union) is invariably controlled by the government. You just need to realize that when the government talks about “marriage” it is not the same as your idea of marriage, or my idea of marriage, or anyone’s personal/religious/spiritual view of marriage. An ideal solution would be to eliminate the word “marriage” from state use. Call the joining of two people a “civil union” and call it a day. The word “marriage” carries a lot of baggage… and it gives many people the utterly false idea that the state has control of their personal idea of marriage. Thus, when homosexuals want to be civilly united, and it is called “marriage,” people feel that their personal/religious/spiritual view of marriage is being attacked. It isn’t. When people are polled, VASTLY more people are in favor of “civil unions” than “gay marriage.” It’s a semantic difference. They are functionally identical. People just hear “marriage” and “gay” and since many people’s personal idea of marriage specifically excludes homosexuals, they cry foul, even though they’re perfectly fine with the concept of granting a civil union to homosexuals.

In the eyes of the state, all “marriages” are civil unions. The state doesn’t claim (nor should anyone think that they could claim) any sort of religious or spiritual jurisdiction.

I see marriage as being a sacred institution started by religions, not something to be dictated by government.

I do believe everyone has the right to spend their life with anyone they choose, and they should get the same benefits. Just don’t try to make it seem that the church is okay with it, or that 2 mommies is natural for a family.
It’s not!
When 2 guys can make a baby (without the help of some deranged doctor)then I might reconsider my position.
Kids need a mom and dad. I realize that divorce and death can change this, but that isn’t a planned situation.

Yes, it applies. Again, 100 years ago, the majority of people hardly comprehended what homosexual sex was. 30 or 40 years ago, even the word “homosexual” was spoken in low tones IF it was spoken at all. All those things have changed. If you think that the other immoral lusts are just going to sit by and keep silent, you are fooling yourself. It’s only a matter of time until some liberal minded judge declares that say, a “consenting” 14 year old is fair game. An all out assult on the “thinking” of “prudish” people who “don’t understand that people become adults a lot sooner now a days” will take place, just like the assult of the last few decades against people who understand that homosexual sex has nothing to do with “love”, but is all about lust, is a perversion of the worst sort, and is something that once brought out of the closet where it belongs, will permeate and further help destroy a moral society. But then, that’s really at the heart of what liberalistic thinking is all about, “do what thou wilt, we answer to no one”.

There’s no way in hell that’s true. It’s gotta be more like 75-80%.

Who are they trying to kid?? 50% M.A.

The God of Israel has hated a divorcing (Mal. 2:15,Matt.19:8,9). However: Romans 7:2,3 makes an exception as does 1st Cor.6:9-11 by death or adultery respectively.

“It was a question…it’s a moot point.”

OK, Moot point.

“If I want to teach my children that homosexuality is natural, you can’t stop me just because that is against your morality. Nor can I stop you from teaching your children that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion.”

Horse$#!t. The fact that folks like you are ramming this garbage down our kid’s throats against our will thru state sponsored edu… I mean, indoctrination proves your disingenuousness. As far as your last point is concerned. I’ll paraphrase John Wayne:

“Just because we’re neighbors, doesn’t mean I have to be neighborly”

Isn’t that magical?

National Catholic Register

May 21-27, 2006

by the Editors

Our cardinals and bishops want your help.

In June, the U.S. Senate will vote on the marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which will define marriage as between a man and a woman. The U.S. bishops are asking as many Catholics as possible to participate in the Knights of Columbus’ drive to contact their U.S. senators.

To participate, print out the Knights’ response form at KofC.org or write your own letter using the information here. Find their names and addresses by typing in your Zip code at Vote-Smart.org.

Why homosexual “marriage” is wrong, and not just for Catholics.

Read all the article here:

http://www.ncregister.com/articulo4.php?artkod=NDg4

Answer: I think that “Render Caesar’s things to Caesar” pretty much sums up the Christian position. Unless the State’s doctrine is in direct violation of God’s law, you obey the State.

“Therefore what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

So it would be in violation of God’s law, according to the Bible. A certificate from the state doesn’t make you married in a Christian state, nor does the lack thereof make you unmarried.

Straw man. No one suggested a mandatory birthrate…that is a consequence of birth control. I thought that was made clear.

It was a question… I was asking how you avoid negative consequences of birth control without interfering with people’s private lives and individual freedom. If you can’t, then it’s a moot point.

BTW, Using your logic…My morality says that because I am bigger and stronger than you, I can kill you, take your woman and enslave your kids. Cool huh?

No, because you’ve violated my rights in doing so. We’re talking about two consenting adults… no one’s rights are violated by that. Coexistence of people with different morality doesn’t mean that rights are out the window. If I want to teach my children that homosexuality is natural, you can’t stop me just because that is against your morality. Nor can I stop you from teaching your children that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion.

mark jadith: Answer me this: without a certificate from the state saying that you are married, do you believe you can be married? That is, do you grant power over your concept of marriage to the state?

Answer: I think that “Render Caesar’s things to Caesar” pretty much sums up the Christian position. Unless the State’s doctrine is in direct violation of God’s law, you obey the State.

mark jadith: “Are people required to reproduce in some sort of reverse-of-China situation? If people want to have 10 kids, go at it. If they don’t want any, who am I to say that they must reproduce?”

Answer- Straw man. No one suggested a mandatory birthrate…that is a consequence of birth control. I thought that was made clear.

mark jadith: “Morality is subjective. My morality is not your morality. Our country was founded on principles that were meant to allow the coexistence of people with different morality.”

BTW, Using your logic…My morality says that because I am bigger and stronger than you, I can kill you, take your woman and enslave your kids. Cool huh?

Gay marriage coupled with “Hate Speech” laws means that (1) The Gay lifestyle will be promoted big time in Sex Ed in public schools (already happening in Massachusetts) and (2) it will be illegal to speak against the behavior because it will have achieved the ultimate in “normalcy.”

Public schools shouldn’t exist. And if you care about your kids, you shouldn’t let them go to one. And I don’t know what’s going on in Canada, but down here we have this thing called free speech.

Good luck in trying to convince your children not to try it for themselves.

Cafeteria-style sexuality? This isn’t marijuana or skateboarding… something you just “try.” This is a fundamental aspect of one’s self that cannot be changed on a whim.

Freedom of speech is disappearing in the US too with our “Hate Speech” laws and campus codes and McCain-Feingold.

And I oppose those things. But they’re tangential to the matter at hand.

Mark… If you don’t get it, then you have no morals.

Go poison someone else’s well.

Literally think of the argument, “I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT MY SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS AND I SHOULD BE AFFORDED SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR SAME. NOW, LET ME ACT LIKE A NANCY WHILE SINGIN’ SHOW TUNES.”

Let me know when you learn to debate like an adult.

A few years from now, your exact same statement will be said concerning pedophiles…

Children are not adults and are not capable of making decisions about sexual matters. We’re talking about two consenting adults… your slippery slope argument doesn’t apply.

Mark Jaquith: For me, it’s a matter of following things to their logical conclusion.

The following ideas look pretty good on its face, even necessary. Welfare, birth control, and civil rights are great ideas, right?

Not welfare. But civil rights are absolutely a good idea. That doesn’t mean that I have to be happy about “reverse-discrimination” or affirmative-action or race-baiting scum like Jesse Jackson. Yeah, the consequence of birth control may be a reduced birth rate, but so what? Are people required to reproduce in some sort of reverse-of-China situation? If people want to have 10 kids, go at it. If they don’t want any, who am I to say that they must reproduce? You’re thinking like a socialist… this whole concept of group rights and what’s best for the group.

Morality is what binds our culture together. It is what made us great.

Morality is subjective. My morality is not your morality. Our country was founded on principles that were meant to allow the coexistence of people with different morality. Freedom of religion, free speech, freedom from unwarranted search.

Why would we destroy its most sacred institution? Yes, it WILL destroy it by making it irrelevant. What is one single benefit of making marriage a empty word? None.

I take it by your use of the word “sacred” that you are a religious person. Answer me this: without a certificate from the state saying that you are married, do you believe you can be married? That is, do you grant power over your concept of marriage to the state? This seems a very strange thing for a religious person to do… I would think that state control over a sacred institution would be avoided. As for me, I believe that marriage is a deeply personal, even religious sacrament that the state can never touch. I’m engaged to be married at the moment. If the state of Florida decided that it wasn’t going to offer legal marriage anymore, would I call off the wedding? Of course not! There is a distinction between one’s personal concept of marriage and the idea of a civil union as granted by the state. You seem to be using your personal idea of marriage and applying it to the state’s concept of marriage. They are two separate entities. The gay marriage debate isn’t about changing your personal idea of marriage. Gay people get married in churches already… that’s not what’s at stake. What’s being debated here is the state’s concept of marriage.

Imagine a baby or toddler about to be adopted by gay parents.
[...]
Imagine the ’stork’ talk, imagine the kids horror in sex-ed class at about the 4th grade(yes they start about then). Talk about messed up, wait for the stats to roll in on these kids in 20 years.

They already are being adopted by homosexuals. And the long term studies are already in… the kids turn out fine. And they’re no more likely to be homosexuals themselves, in case you were wondering. At any rate, they’re not your kids, so unless they’re being abused (unlikely… heterosexual males are the biggest abusers of children), it’s none of your business.

Without an accepted moral standard, or society standing for the right of parents to train thier children according to thier own moral standard, our society will fall apart in about 2 more generations.

Which one? You talk about “an accepted moral standard” (i.e. forcing people to conform to one standard… yours?) and “the right of parents to train their children according to their own moral standard.” These are two opposing schools of thought. Fascism vs individualism. Conformity vs freedom.

The main argument here seems to be that homosexuality doesn’t agree with your idea of religion or morality. You’re not quite ready to outlaw homosexuality (or maybe you are?) so the best that you can do to make society conform to your idea of morality is to limit the legal rights of homosexuals, and by doing so, keep them in the shadows, where their lifestyle won’t offend your sensibilities. In a lot of ways, it sounds like standard left-wing thinking: “you don’t have the right to offend me.”

michelle in 08???

And where did this notion of fascism being a right of center ideology come from anyway? (cough libs cough cough) Fascism is about state control and is basically the same as communism in that if ya don’t like it you’re off to the gulags. Fascism is also about everybody being the same. Stalin, did he or did he not murder just as many if not more minorities than Hitler and El Duce combined? He’s more known for killing ethnic Russians than minorities ’cause libs want him remembered in a more favorable light (you know, ’cause it’s ok to kill whites!)

Tell your lib friends to turn off American Idol and read a freakin’ history book once in a while!

Condi for President
Ayaan for Florida Gov

Scenarios: Your 14 yo daughter is raped by her high school teacher, but it is not rape because she consented. She elects to give the child up for adoption and has full control and signs over custody. You have no input because she is an “emancipated minor” since it has to do with sex. The adoption agency assigns your grandchild to a couple of gay men.

Your son is on the wrestling team and the coach he has admired for years, who teaches his values along with good wrestling technique turns out to be on his 6th gay marriage. Your son admits to being confused about his sexual orientation.

Your 15 year old daughter comes home an announces she is marrying her 18 yo girlfriend and they are adopting a daugher together when they are 18. You as a parent have no input because since homosexual marriage is OK and she is an “emancipated minor” everything is OK in the land. You speak against it and Children’s services removes your daughter from the home because of your “abusive”, hate-crime, homophobic, behavior. It is thrown out of court but costs you 50K in legal costs.

You learn that all year your son’s 3rd grade teacher has been talking excitedly about the new baby he and his male partner are getting ready to adopt. Your son can’t understand why you have a problem with it. He and his friend andy were talking about doing the same thing when they grow up.

Without an accepted moral standard, or society standing for the right of parents to train thier children according to thier own moral standard, our society will fall apart in about 2 more generations. The Judeo-Christian Bible that our country and laws were founded on was not considered by our founding fathers to be enforcing religion. Implied in the fabric of the documents is the assumption that the standards of our Creator were absolute truth. This assumption is rapidly being destroyed while we worry about “higher priority” items like borders and taxes.

The lack of morality is why laws don’t even work in this country any more and we are being forced to protect our borders with with guns. Soon we will be protecting our children from teachers with guns, becuase the laws won’t matter anymore.

All the issues of conservative concern are related — we are holding our fingers in the dike of Leftism which seeks to destroy our way of life; from subverting our Constitutional freedoms, to the destruction of our capitalist economic system and to our Judeo-Christian values.

The fact that the polar opposites of Marxists/Leftists/Secularists are Islamic fanatics does not stop the Left from aligning with them because they share the desire to destroy the U.S. and all Western Civilizations.

Every thing these people do is done to undermine our society. Environmentalism is now the home to extremists — the better to undermine corporate entities; the ACLU works tirelessly to obliterate any vestiges of Christianity from public life; the Peace & Justice crowd speak right out of the Communist Party USA playbook (check out the CPUSA website to see how well-matched their talking points are with every peace group). The universites, and even Catholic colleges, are “owned” by the hard Left. The U.S. media are similarly biased.

We get so used to the surrounding propaganda that we get numb to its effect. Little by little we feel more and more constrained about what we can say aloud; that’s not accidental. We no longer feel shame about being obscene or using foul language in public, but we cannot call sins by their proper name. The former license just causes us to be coarse; the latter makes us cooperate with Evil by our cowardice.

Besides, it’s not about the children, it’s about the feeeeelings of gay people who are being unfairly subjected to Nature’s homophobic demand of a male-female union for procreation.

Mark Jaquith says:

Gay people are still going to have sex with each other, and be able to hold hands and kiss in public either way… just like all us heterosexuals. I really don’t understand why this issue ranks so high among heterosexual Conservative hotbutton issues, when it has no effect on them, and when there are so many more important issues out that that do affect them. Imagine if conservatives got this hot and bothered over eminent domain or tax reform.

My response: this is exactly what i was talking about in my earlier post. Conservatives are wasting precious time when they could be doing MUCH MORE VALUABLE work. i understand the “then they’ll ask for bestiality, polygamy, etc.” arguement. But puuuuleeeeze can’t our Congress focus on something more important? i agree with earlier posters that if we conservatives (and yes, i AM a conservative) got all hot and bothered about tax reform and social security reform, that SOMETHING, ANYTHING might get done!!! Our slippery slope is not necessarily granting homosexual unions equal protection, it is our inaction over things that are REALLY important, like fiscal responsibility, controlling our borders, tax reform, social security reform. After all, that’s what the government SHOULD be doing. Instead, they blow a bunch of hot air and waste their breath on things like marriage. That was the point i was trying to make. sheeesh. If our useless congress can fix everything else first, THEN BE MY GUEST and work on the gay marriage thing. First things first.

The following ideas look pretty good on its face, even necessary. Welfare, birth control, and civil rights are great ideas, right? I think so too, but there are a myriad unintended consequences and opportunities for exploitation by the unscrupulous scum of our society.. Consider the flip sides of…

WELFARE: Results- Skyrocketing illigitimacy, divorce, broken homes, promiscuity, crime(due to no parental supervision and men free from responsibility), lifetime welfare recipients, and above all…an ingrained feeling of entitlement, lowered self-esteem and lazinessness, not to mention increased taxes for the folks who actually DO work and the accompanying resentment.

BIRTH CONTROL: Results- Non sustainable birth rate resulting in loss of country and culture, lowered or no respect for sanctity of life, fantastic rise in immorality, adultery, divorce, freedom from responsibility and its degrading effects, partial birth abortion, and violence.

CIVIL RIGHTS: Results- Riots, forced integration(does not work), sense of entitlement, affirmative action, ridiculous lawsuits, angry whites, angry blacks, divisiveness, pimps and race baiting scum (jesse jackson and farrakan), shakedowns, ebonics, terrorism, entire races being indoctrinated that non-whites are born victims and whites are born racists(discrimination in its purest form), unfair school and job quotas(dumbing down effect), thought police, illegal alien invasion, and OJ.

Welfare, birth control and civil rights are great ideas. They are, IMO and their faults notwithstanding, needed. The point I make is that besides being ludicrous beyond belief, same sex marriage is not needed whatsoever. It will usher in a slew of problems, not the least being a crushing blow to morality.

Morality is what binds our culture together. It is what made us great. Why would we destroy its most sacred institution? Yes, it WILL destroy it by making it irrelevant. What is one single benefit of making marriage a empty word? None. Same sex marriage is a terrible idea.

I just think marriage is an American institution that is seen as something that needs to be broken by the liberal agenda. It’s like the communist manifesto- get rid of traditions, culture, etc.

I also think it’s sad to have to base your entire identity on what you like to do in bed.

Imagine if the polygamists marched in the streets in SF and Ford gave them a free car for doing it! Nope, Warren Jeffs (sp?) is on the top 10 FBI most wanted list… why doesn’t the ACLU protect polygamists like they do NAMBLA? Simple, the values of polygamists, while very questionable in many repects (especially the child-sex stuff) still resembles American pioneering spirit and values.
Controversial, I know, lay it on me…