Behold the Obama economic groundscrew frenetically running all over the field with the goal posts in hand trying desperately to keep the lipstick on Hogzilla’s snout: President Barack Obama’s economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest G…

Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote

Get a clue, NGLTF. America believes marriage is a hetero institution. Find some other bandwagon to jump on.

It’s better to teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM

+10

As a Mormon, I love seeing this quote.

When will the hatred end?
In the aftermath of the vote that made homosexual marriage illegal in the state of Maine, the hatred can be felt from coast-to-coast. For instance, consider this quote from election night:
In a defiant speech to several hundre…

Their GLBT “Alliance” fractures when Bi-Sexuals insist the inability to choose is natural, but Gays attempt to tell them they must choose only one of their partners/genders to marry.

To you being gay is about the sex, for an actual gay being gay is about relationships.

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM

It’s not wanting to retain God in their knowledge and giving into their lust. Relationships is way down the list, pal.

To you being gay is about the sex, for an actual gay being gay is about relationships.

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Maybe you should seek psychiatric assistance instead of rationalizing your behavior as normal.

Explaining his opposition to gay marriage in 2004, Obama said, “I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Words matter

And therefore is in a clearly different human subgroup than a guy who wants neither because he’s “gay”, right?

But what about someone who would have them both at the same time, or someone who doesn’t want a one-night-stand at all? Those behaviors are just “whims”. Why? Where’s the labwork to prove it? I have yet to hear of any study proving the difference between a gay man living a lie with a wife and kids, and a bisexual swinger, is anything but behavior and self-conscious attitude. If gender theory is true there should be some real difference…

Chris_Balsz on November 5, 2009 at 3:27 PM

The decision to have a one night stand is a choice. However, the attraction isn’t. Advertising campaigns will use sexy women to convince men to spend money–just sample the banner ads across the web or study the click-throughs. Scientists have studied pheromones for a long time, as have perfume companies because, like ad companies, they know that small stimulations of the senses can trigger emotions in the brain.

What did that sentence have anything to do with anything?

Nonfactor on November 5, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Vance was pointing out the basic fallacy of your argument: The “Born Like This” lie.

It has been proven already that there is no “Gay Gene”. You aren’t “Born” as a homosexual, homosexuals are made, not born. It is a psychological disorder, not a genetic trait.

We do not, as a society, give out rights based on disorders. There are not special kleptomaniac rights, for example. Thus it makes not sense to give homosexuals special rights based on the delusions and psychoses they suffer from.

It makes sense to care for them, to pity them, and to give them aid and assistance in overcoming their affliction, but to encourage the illness via legal means is cruel in the extreme. Not only is it damaging society, but it permanently locks these people in a destructive lifestyle with no chance of escape.

Gays marrying is clearly a threat to a whole bunch of other things than just making gays feel better (which it won’t, I guarantee it–they’ll come up with something else to push for). The current gay activists have shown absolutely no inclination that they wouldn’t punish anyone who stands in their way for the grand, gay utopia where NAMBLA is king. Sure, most gays don’t subscribe to that view, but the ones pushing the changes sure do. The ones wanting to destroy my faith or church or get me fired give me ample cause to fight them.

See, here it is: gay activists preach gay marriage as “no big deal, just a formality and it won’t hurt anyone. Why could anyone possibly be against it without being a bigot?” In reality, gay activists behavior, history and tactics are promising that as soon as they possibly can, any and all forms of dissent or attempts to disagree will be crushed under force of law. Don’t want your kid to be seduced by some creepy perverted teacher? Tough luck! Want to give up your kid for adoption? Gonna go to the gays first! Want to avoid spending millions of dollars for your employee’s STD? Can’t, because they are gay and that would be discriminatory. Bankrupt yourself first!

Gay activists threaten anyone who disagrees with them with losing taxes, access to the public square, loss of free speech, etc. It’s not just a “harmless little change.”

A straight guy sees Scarlett Johanson standing next to an 80-year-old woman, and is told he can spend the evening with one of the two. My guess is there is no need for a conscious choice because something physical and instinctive has already provided the answer.
dedalus on November 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM

And therefore is in a clearly different human subgroup than a guy who wants neither because he’s “gay”, right?

But what about someone who would have them both at the same time, or someone who doesn’t want a one-night-stand at all? Those behaviors are just “whims”. Why? Where’s the labwork to prove it? I have yet to hear of any study proving the difference between a gay man living a lie with a wife and kids, and a bisexual swinger, is anything but behavior and self-conscious attitude. If gender theory is true there should be some real difference…

Yes, nonfactor, It’s racist to discriminate against behavior!

You’re not discriminating against behavior; you’re discriminating against people. It might help you to think that you’re doing the former and not the later, but the truth of the matter remains. If you were discriminating against behavior you’d be campaigning in favor of laws outlawing homosexual sex, not in favor of laws denying gays the ability to marry.

Why, every pro-marriage person knows that if those uppity blacks had just stopped being black…

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 2:45 PM

What did that sentence have anything to do with anything?

O wait. Skin color is not a behavior. Shoving your penis up someone else’s rear end is.

We regulate behavior all the time. Except as I recall, liberals and gays think that the only behavior worth regulating is things like praying in school, or hate speech (defined as disagreement with a liberal philosophy), or private charity.

Actually taking responsibility for doing dangerous things? Nope, not in a liberals vocabulary. Or being punished–as Mumia shows, you can kill a cop and be celebrated but offer a prayer to God and you are a bigoted, racist hatemonger who should be driven out of public society or burned at the stake.

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Bravo. Well said, from one fellow LDS to another.

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM

You’ll be glad another LDS member agrees. Well said Vanceone.

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 2:22 PM

So no answer then?

A straight guy sees Scarlett Johanson standing next to an 80-year-old woman, and is told he can spend the evening with one of the two. My guess is there is no need for a conscious choice because something physical and instinctive has already provided the answer.

dedalus on November 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Yep.

If he has any taste or sense at all, he spends a lovely evening of dinner, a movie, and a quiet sit by the fire and a talk with the 80 year old woman.

No one is stopping same-sex couples from committing to each other.
They just want us to ‘accept’ them.

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Marriage is a legal right for straight people, according to the courts. The question is whether gay people form something that can be considered a marriage.

Personally, I think marriage is about raising kids and see couples who are married without kids as having something different. It’s a distinction the state doesn’t make.

My support for gay marriage or unions stems from knowing gay couples with kids. It might be better for the kids to have hetero parents, but they, like the rest of us, don’t get to choose their parents. For the kids benefit, I think the state should give the gay couple the ability to jointly own property, to provide survivor benefits and to take advantage of the unlimited marital deduction if one should die.

The modern theory that biology imposes the five genders on people, but frequency and intensity of commitment to sexual partners is just cultural choice, is the bunk. I’m saying it’s all choice.

Chris_Balsz on November 5, 2009 at 1:37 PM

A straight guy sees Scarlett Johanson standing next to an 80-year-old woman, and is told he can spend the evening with one of the two. My guess is there is no need for a conscious choice because something physical and instinctive has already provided the answer.