MSNBC’s Matthews on gay marriage: “At least Democrats believe in evolution”

posted at 12:41 pm on May 8, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Help me out here: can the Obama White House possibly boast of a more useful stooge than this guy? Of course, Chris “thrill up my leg” Matthews has made no secret of his infatuation with the man, the myth, the legend that is Barack Obama, but at first, I thought he had his tongue in his cheek. Upon closer examination, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case — I think the gentleman is in earnest.

Really? “Evolution” is just a handy-dandy term being used by President Obama’s messaging team, because it allows him to hold hard decisions on the issue at arm’s length while implying that gay-marriage advocates can readily hope for something better in the future — all without ever actually committing to anything. Matthews’ doesn’t seem to have been listening to what his own guest says earlier in the segment: there aren’t many who really believe that President Obama is personally undecided about gay marriage and that his hesitation is anything other than a practical political matter. It’s just another rhetorical tease from the Campaigner-in-Chief, but Matthews buys into the White House’s narrative perfectly. Oh, but you say that the president is open to new ideas and actively thinking about the issue? The joy! The rapture! What infallible conclusions will he come to next?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: that Chris Matthews’ show is called “Hardball” never ceases to amaze.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Genetic predisposition has nothing to do with this.

And polygamy? I assume you must think we have to accept that, too?

Polygamy, at least, has a long history in our culture and most cultures. Gay marriage has no history in any culture, at all.

And communes of 5 men and 8 women? That’s gotta be a “marriage” too. If they are all genetically predisposed to love many others, then who are you to deny them the official legitimacy of a marriage license and the government and corporate bennies that go to “married” individuals and their partners?

For you, marriage is meaningless and you get mad that people who believe in the sanctity and importance of the biological couple are offended by your attempt to demean the concept and institution until there is nothing left of it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:43 PM

So Democrats think that gay marriage will eventually lead to two men or women conceiving children without someone else’s sperm/egg? Now that would be evolution!

Spliff Menendez on May 8, 2012 at 12:45 PM

and they shall be called “butt babies”, and it was good

jan3 on May 8, 2012 at 1:44 PM

See this circular argument of yours is what makes the whole issue so absurd. You whine about pro-traditional marriage imposing their views yet who are you to say that pedophilia or beastiality is wrong. Are these not natural urges just as homosexuality? Why do we carve out a special place in society for sodomy but not beastiality? Who are those demanding same-sex marriage to deny others the love they might have for their goat?

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Try alittle common sense.

Which of these situations is better?

A traditional marriage where the father is a drunk and never home. The child rarely sees his dad and when he does it’s not a good side to see.

Or a gay couple raising a child in a loving environment? They read to their kid every night, take him to practice, help him with school, help get him into college.

Which scenario is better?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

No, and you don’t either. Please don’t speak for Him.

BacaDog on May 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM

What if God tells someone to speak for Him? Who then would you be to pretend that you know the mind of God so well that He wouldn’t do that? And that we all should heed your personal, intimate knowledge of God gained through…wishful thinking?

How does anyone know the mind of God if we constantly disregard His wishes, His will and His Word? By talking about Him while not listening to Him?

C’mon. Stop being such a hypocrite. God does call some people to speak for Him, and when He does, you are the last person whose attention He’ll try to give that assurance to, because you aren’t listening to Him anyway. Which is why He calls people to do it.

Besides, I find it hard to believe that He would create a gay being and then turn His back on them.

BacaDog on May 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Since God turned His back on His Own Son when He was carrying the sin of the world, why wouldn’t He turn His face away from anyone whose sin has not yet been forgiven?

Seriously, your “It’s not my/his/their fault they are this way” perspective has totally distorted your moral worldview. Eternity lasts a lot longer than your next relationship.

rwenger43 on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

totherightofthem on May 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Spawn is casting his first vote this November. While he’s been raised ‘right’-his big issues are the economy and national security…not same-sex marriage.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Well, gay marriage is the surest way to STOP evolution

PJ Emeritus on May 8, 2012 at 1:46 PM

For you, marriage is meaningless and you get mad that people who believe in the sanctity and importance of the biological couple are offended by your attempt to demean the concept and institution until there is nothing left of it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair

I am going to keep asking until I get an answer

How are gays getting married, going to demean marriage and its “sanctity” more than the current divorce rates and broken families?

Its patently obvious than divorce, broken families, etc does far more damage to marriage than gay people ever could.

So why is preventing gay marriage the priority over preventing divorce?

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Genetic predisposition has nothing to do with this.

And polygamy? I assume you must think we have to accept that, too?

Polygamy, at least, has a long history in our culture and most cultures. Gay marriage has no history in any culture, at all.

And communes of 5 men and 8 women? That’s gotta be a “marriage” too. If they are all genetically predisposed to love many others, then who are you to deny them the official legitimacy of a marriage license and the government and corporate bennies that go to “married” individuals and their partners?

For you, marriage is meaningless and you get mad that people who believe in the sanctity and importance of the biological couple are offended by your attempt to demean the concept and institution until there is nothing left of it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Yes it is genetic. Study biology and open your eyes, you might learn something.

What does the Bible say about divorce??

How do you feel about it? SHould people stay it bad marriages just to preserve the sanctity of marriage??

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I am going to keep asking until I get an answer

How are gays getting married, going to demean marriage and its “sanctity” more than the current divorce rates and broken families?

Its patently obvious than divorce, broken families, etc does far more damage to marriage than gay people ever could.

So why is preventing gay marriage the priority over preventing divorce?

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Very well said. THe whole anti gay marriage thing is about religious people imposing their views onto others.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Spawn is casting his first vote this November. While he’s been raised ‘right’-his big issues are the economy and national security…not same-sex marriage.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Right there with him.

totherightofthem on May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Hate to break it to you: homosexuality is genetic. Gays can’t help it. They can’t marry someone of the opposite sex b/c they aren’t attracted to them and never will be.

Just provide the objective, scientific proof that unevolved folks like me read, to believe your argument.

Ever seen obviously gay men? The ones that sound like girls and are very feminine? Or butch type women…. you know like Elena Kagan? Pretty obvious that it’s genetic.

No, I have never seen any of these people. I’ve heard homosexuals tell me over the last 40 years that there is no way anyone can “tell” if someone is a homosexual.

To tell them they can’t get married is ridiculous, it’s bigotry.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Actually it would be explaining to them what the legal definition of the word marriage means.

TugboatPhil on May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM

TugboatPhil on May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM

THen you’re either a liar or you don’t get out much.

You haven’t seen one person who’s obviously gay?? You have to be kidding me. It’s not an act, it’s the way they are.

If it’s a choice, why would someone wake up one day and say I feel like being gay? Why would they want to endure the ridicule, often being disowned by their own families..etc? Just for fun???

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Hate to break it to you: homosexuality is genetic. Gays can’t help it. They can’t marry someone of the opposite sex b/c they aren’t attracted to them and never will be.

Oh. I didn’t know that the much-sought-after “gay gene” has been isolated.

Ever seen obviously gay men? The ones that sound like girls and are very feminine? Or butch type women…. you know like Elena Kagan? Pretty obvious that it’s genetic.

I’ve made the foolish mistake of assuming someone was gay from the way they talked. I have been wrong more than once, and have learned not to make these kinds of assumptions. Some heterosexual men I’ve known sounded effeminate due to the fact that they were raised among a gaggle of women with no male figures in the immediate family/household.

To tell them they can’t get married is ridiculous, it’s bigotry.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

There is nothing ridiculous in believing that marriage should be reserved for those who at least have a chance at procreation. Marriage between a man and a woman is a social norm that came into being because it makes sense for humankind.

See the previous block-quote where you stereotyped people based on the way they talk. I’d be a little less hasty throwing around the term “bigotry” while engaging in same.

That said, this is an issue that isn’t even on my radar, and the only reason it is being pushed by the media is the desire to further their leftist agenda.

hillbillyjim on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Its patently obvious than divorce, broken families, etc does far more damage to marriage than gay people ever could.

So why is preventing gay marriage the priority over preventing divorce?

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:47 PM

The same progressive agenda that is trying to shove same sex “marriage” down our throats, is the same agenda that wrecked marriage laws in this country.

Going back to the pre-progressive marriage laws, I’m all for it. But as my Grandma used to say, “two wrongs don’t make a right”, bad marriage laws don’t make same sex “marriage” right.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

You can justify sodomite activity all day long, but the fact of the matter is, sodomites are predators. Worse, they bring the wrath of God on the society that tolerates them. (Read Genesis 19 for details. Talk about a “negative impact” on that whole region!)

Second, “raping little boys” is exactly what sodomites do, like it or not. Sodomites are NOT “gay;” that’s simply a camo for their agenda. They have corrupted our language by stealing a word that has nothing whatsoever in common with their vile affections. To the innocent, “gay” sounds familiar. But if a sodomite had to ID himself as a sodomite, the kid would ask, “What’s a sodomite?” And then the cat would be out of the bag. Be not deceived! It may not be bestiality, but the devil inspires all sexual perversions. And God’s wrath falls on the abominable.

If you have no problem with sodomites pretending to be normal, have it to yourself. But when you stand before the Lord to account for your agreement with the children of darkness, don’t tell Him you weren’t warned!

Gordy on May 8, 2012 at 1:53 PM

How are gays getting married, going to demean marriage and its “sanctity” more than the current divorce rates and broken families?

There’s a big difference between some people violating the rules of a game and just throwing the rules out.

You really don’t understand this, do you?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I thought he had his tongue in his cheek.

No, that was just Chrissy giving Barry another BJ.

GarandFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Try alittle common sense.

Which of these situations is better?

A traditional marriage where the father is a drunk and never home. The child rarely sees his dad and when he does it’s not a good side to see.

Or a gay couple raising a child in a loving environment? They read to their kid every night, take him to practice, help him with school, help get him into college.

Which scenario is better?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Apples and oranges bananas.

Are you implying that there are no gay couples in which one or both are alcoholics?

What a silly comparison.

hillbillyjim on May 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Very well said. THe whole anti gay marriage thing is about religious people imposing their views onto others.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM

There’s more to it than that. If you allow gay marriage, the lawsuits will follow. The polygamists will demand it. Men will demand to marry their sister, women will demand to marry their father. Don’t think for a moment they won’t, for whatever reason. How are you going to stop all of that – by discriminating against everyone except homosexuals?

jan3 on May 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Yeah, Chris is the go to guy on evolution. That’s why he works for a “news” organization that is going extinct.

Charm on May 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM

TugboatPhil on May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I think homosexuality is a combo of nature and nurture. I didn’t wake up one day and deiced that I liked guys rather than other girls. It just always was. Husband thinks that people that are …sexually abused are more likely to become homosexual or lesbian.
My dad was not the…nicest person-won’t elaborate obviously-so if my husband is right it’s possible that I could’ve gone lesbian. I didn’t though.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Yes it is genetic. Study biology and open your eyes, you might learn something.

So what? You can say that just about every single bit of personality and intelligence is genetically based. Where does that lead you? Whether or not homosexuality is genetic has nothign to do with whether we should change the definition and meaning of marriage to include any group of people who want to be called “married”.

What does the Bible say about divorce??

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I’m not religious, you blithering idiot.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Hate to break it to you: homosexuality is genetic. Gays can’t help it. They can’t marry someone of the opposite sex b/c they aren’t attracted to them and never will be.

Ever seen obviously gay men? The ones that sound like girls and are very feminine? Or butch type women…. you know like Elena Kagan? Pretty obvious that it’s genetic.

To tell them they can’t get married is ridiculous, it’s bigotry.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Your first assertion is baldly false, and I wish it were true because if we could point to a “gay marker” rest assured it’d be pretty easy to split the pro-abortion feminist wing with the pro-homosexual normalization wing of the Democrat party.

But let us take it seriously and assume that a homosexual predisposition is primarily genetic. So is predispositions to alcoholism. Should we then subsidize alcoholic beverages for alchoholics on the basis they can’t help it? Let us say we do, and we say because they need alcohol to be psychologically stable, society must pay for it and recognize alcoholics can’t help themselves.

And when they drink and society suffers from the ramifications of sating their predisposition, should we then call the people affected by the fulfillment of their predispostion bigots?

If the inborn alcholic kills someone in a drunken driving incident is it bigoted to point out we shouldn’t have given public recognition and support to their predisposition?

But then you haven’t really thought through your argument, because you don’t place any value on marriage at all. The only reason you care about marriage is to inflate your own personal opinion of yourself and your own morality relative to the people you believe are hopelessly bigoted.

Your opinion is about as valid as the arsonist’s opinion of the job the Fire Department is doing.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

There’s a big difference between some people violating the rules of a game and just throwing the rules out.

You really don’t understand this, do you?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair

I totally understand. I understand that social cons would not bat an eye at a heterosexual family being devastated from divorce, but will get worked up over gay people marrying.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Hate to break it to you: homosexuality is genetic. Gays can’t help it. They can’t marry someone of the opposite sex b/c they aren’t attracted to them and never will be.

Ever seen obviously gay men? The ones that sound like girls and are very feminine? Or butch type women…. you know like Elena Kagan? Pretty obvious that it’s genetic.

No evidence that it is genetic. More likely prenatal hormonal issues.

To tell them they can’t get married is ridiculous, it’s bigotry.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Who is telling gay people they can’t get married?

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 1:59 PM

When is Obama coming out of the closet?

BuckeyeSam on May 8, 2012 at 1:59 PM

If the inborn alcholic kills someone in a drunken driving incident is it bigoted to point out we shouldn’t have given public recognition and support to their predisposition?.

BKennedy

Except in your example, alcohol is legalized, so therefore it is given public recognition as something that should be legal.

Even with all the deaths that result from it.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:59 PM

bad taste in their mouth
theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 1:03 PM

shove … down our throats
Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:05 PM

pass the smell test
Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:09 PM

when O goes down
magicbeans on May 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM

From the list of phrases to avoid on Hot Air threads about gay marriage…

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM

There is nothing ridiculous in believing that marriage should be reserved for those who at least have a chance at procreation. Marriage between a man and a woman is a social norm that came into being because it makes sense for humankind.

See the previous block-quote where you stereotyped people based on the way they talk. I’d be a little less hasty throwing around the term “bigotry” while engaging in same.

That said, this is an issue that isn’t even on my radar, and the only reason it is being pushed by the media is the desire to further their leftist agenda.

hillbillyjim on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Keeping marriage only for those with a chance at procreation is playing the moral police. Let individuals live as they please, period.

Stereotyping? I’m just pointing out the FACT that there are obviously gay people. Most everyone has come across them at some point. Let’s not bury our heads in the sand and say it’s stereotyping to point it out.

ANd this issue is really on my radar either. I’m a conservative b/c of the fiscal insanity and I believe in a strong defense and limited gov’t. THose are my core beliefs.

It amazes me though to see so many people who believe in individual rights to be so against gays getting married.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Hmmm…you don’t seem to see any examples in the animal world of same-sex sex partners for life…..wonder why? If gay/lesbianism is a genetic pre-disposition, why is it only happening in humans?

oldroy on May 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM

A traditional marriage where the father is a drunk and never home. The child rarely sees his dad and when he does it’s not a good side to see.

Or a gay couple raising a child in a loving environment? They read to their kid every night, take him to practice, help him with school, help get him into college.

Which scenario is better?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

What a stupid strawman. I’m against society normalizing sodomy, that doesn’t make me the moron even though your side constantly disrespects any opposition by declaring it religious bigotry by ignorant Christians (all the while bleating about respect for all).

Could not that child be raised by a loving nuclear family? Are you really saying that all gay couples create loving environments? Gays can’t be mean drunks too?

Nice try LevinFan. Of course one situation is better than the other but sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with either. You simply can’t declare that gays make better parents and expect that you’ve made a point for the pro-sodomy crowd.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

See this circular argument of yours is what makes the whole issue so absurd. You whine about pro-traditional marriage imposing their views yet who are you to say that pedophilia or beastiality is wrong. Are these not natural urges just as homosexuality? Why do we carve out a special place in society for sodomy but not beastiality? Who are those demanding same-sex marriage to deny others the love they might have for their goat?

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Fact: Polyamory was in the Old Testament, and back then God didn’t seem to mind it.

Fact: Many heterosexual couples practice sodomy too.

Fact: Marriage, in the legal sense, is a contract between two people, when you come down to it. Who can legally enter into a contract? Only adults who have reached the age of consent. This does NOT include minors, goats, or inanimate objects. So the tired “slippery slope” argument about this ending up in people marrying houseplants falls flat.

TMOverbeck on May 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I totally understand.

No, you don’t.

I understand that social cons would not bat an eye at a heterosexual family being devastated from divorce,

Specific case.

but will get worked up over gay people marrying.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

General rule.

That’s not how logic works. Try again. And don’t say that you understand something right before you give an example demonstrating that you don’t understand. It makes you look really silly.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Oh, so the sodomites were “born that way,” were they? Prove that by scripture, please.

You can’t, because it’s not true. Everything that God created always — ALWAYS — brings forth fruit after his own kind. Just read the first two chapters of Genesis and believe it. Either that, or join the crowd of fools denying God’s existence.

No, kiddo, Christians don’t try to “impose their views” on others. All we do is repeat what God has already said. We tell you HIS views. The fact that we Christians agree with God is beside the point. The truth is already on record, and we just repeat it. Please don’t expose your ignorance with suck laughable posts.

Gordy on May 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

It amazes me though to see so many people who believe in individual rights to be so against gays getting married.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM

It amazes me that someone who calls themselves “LevinFan” is apparently unaware that Mark Levin is against same sex marriage.

I’m smelling “Moby” here.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Yeah, Chris is the go to guy on evolution. That’s why he works for a “news” organization that is going extinct.

Charm on May 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Matthews and many of these liberals–Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, et al.–are Catholic. Don’t they believe in creationism? Or is that a belief relegated to the unenlightened mouthbreathers?

BuckeyeSam on May 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

But then you haven’t really thought through your argument, because you don’t place any value on marriage at all. The only reason you care about marriage is to inflate your own personal opinion of yourself and your own morality relative to the people you believe are hopelessly bigoted.

Your opinion is about as valid as the arsonist’s opinion of the job the Fire Department is doing.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I can say it’s genetic just as easily you can say it’s not. There’s no proof either way. Common sense though tells me it’s genetic.

Again you view gays as inferiors. You’re comparing them to drunks which is insulting and disingenuous. Just b/c a man has sex with another man he should be looked down upon?

And who are you to speak for me? How do you know why I care about marriage? I’m a loving husband who takes my vows seriously. I’ve never cheated on my wife and I’m a devoted father. How many Christian hypocrites are on here railing against gay marriage while at the same time they’ve cheated on their wives, hit their wives, or don’t play an active role in their kids lives? Oh wait it’s ok right, b/c they’ve asked for forgiveness??

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM

TMOverbeck on May 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Polygamy is still legal in Judaism, though it has not been practiced in thousands of years. Gay marriage has never even been seriously contemplated.

So, you people ought to try to get polygamy legalized first before you start out on the fantasy of gay “marriage”. But gays are against polygamy. Why is that? We all know why but I’d like to hear you say it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM

The Bible also strongl condemns divorce.

# of states voting on banning divorce – 0

# of states voting for divorce amendment – 0

Cherry picking the Bible to justify bigotry – many

Hypocrisy, thou name is the GOP.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I totally understand. I understand that social cons would not bat an eye at a heterosexual family being devastated from divorce, but will get worked up over gay people marrying.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Er, where are you seeing these conservatives crusading for the advancement and promotion of divorce? Isn’t our host Ed himself involved in some kind of volunteer marriage counseling?

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Keeping marriage only for those with a chance at procreation is playing the moral police. Let individuals live as they please, period.

No one is saying here that individuals cannot “live as they please.”

Keeping marriage as it is is not “playing the moral police.” It is a continuation of a societal norm that goes back ages. It is a way to give members of the next generation the best chance of growing up with a mother and a father; which is proven to be the best option.

hillbillyjim on May 8, 2012 at 2:09 PM

It amazes me though to see so many people who believe in individual rights to be so against gays getting married.

LevinFan

It amazes me to see so many people in this thread who would ostensible be for small government and the government not doing for people what they can do for themselves, that suddenly want the government getting more involved in peoples lives.

Its why I think social conservatives are just the flip side of the coin from social liberals. BOTH want greater government involvement promoting a set of values, its just there is a vast different in the values. Neither social libs or social cons want people to just live their lives away from government intrusion.

Both of them are happy for more greater government involvement, when it is the right kind of involvement. When its not, then either one will demand for the government to get away.

Its interesting – social liberals think I am a social conservative because I do not agree with them much, and social conservatives think I am a liberal, because I do not agree with them much either.

Its just that I do not trust government to promote values, considering how messed up government has been for so long. If i cant even trust government with much of anything, why I am supposed to trust government when it comes to values all of a sudden?

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

No one is saying here that individuals cannot “live as they please.”

Keeping marriage as it is is not “playing the moral police.” It is a continuation of a societal norm that goes back ages. It is a way to give members of the next generation the best chance of growing up with a mother and a father; which is proven to be the best option.

hillbillyjim

It must be such a social norm, considering how many people are trying it 2, 3, 4 even 5 times!

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

What a stupid strawman. I’m against society normalizing sodomy, that doesn’t make me the moron even though your side constantly disrespects any opposition by declaring it religious bigotry by ignorant Christians (all the while bleating about respect for all).

Could not that child be raised by a loving nuclear family? Are you really saying that all gay couples create loving environments? Gays can’t be mean drunks too?

Nice try LevinFan. Of course one situation is better than the other but sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with either. You simply can’t declare that gays make better parents and expect that you’ve made a point for the pro-sodomy crowd.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

It’s a good argument b/c many religious whackos would be against gays having kids at any cost. They would rather a kid suffer in a bad situation with a nuclear family instead of being raised by a gay couple. That’s how asinine they are, it’s the same thing that drives their strong opposition to gay marriage.

I never said gays make better parents. Of course their are bad gay parents, just like their are plenty of bad straight parents.

Question for religious crowd ganging up on me: are you for or against adoption of kids by gay couples?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

This may have been said already but don’t you have to procreate in order to evolve? Am I missing something here?

iceman1960 on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Hypocrisy, thou name is the GOP.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM

The topic is about the democrat party not accepting the same sex “marriage” issue.

Please try to kepp up.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I have no problem with civil unions, benefits, inheritance, etc., but gay couples cannot be “married” any more than men can be mothers.

In all the long history of human society, even in places where same-sex couples were not only tolerated and accepted but celebrated and even ruling an empire, NEVER have same-sex couples been regarded as equivalent to heterosexual couples.

Not even Alexander, Nero, or Elagabalus redefined the institution, though as absolute rulers they had the power to do so. (While Emperors Nero and Elagabalus “married” multiple male partners and dared anyone gainsay them, they did not extend such liberties to the proletariat.)

Gay-marriage advocates simply need to find another term for the arrangement. (Why would you want to be associated with an institution with a 50% failure rate, anyway?)

You can put flippers on a dog and teach it to quack, but that don’t make it a duck.

skydaddy on May 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Keeping marriage only for those with a chance at procreation is playing the moral police.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Actually it’s more like playing the grammar police. Marriage is a word. You will find it in dictionaries – though to be safe, I’d look for it in editions that are more than 10 years old. It means something. Two men or two women cannot be “married” any more than the moon can be a star. It’s a conflict of definition.

Nobody’s trying to outlaw sodomy, after all, just trying to defend the Truth.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

I understand that social cons would not bat an eye at a heterosexual family being devastated from divorce, but will get worked up over gay people marrying.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

That is an unfair generalization that simply demonstrates how the pro-sodomy crowd argues out of position of bigotry and intolerance without even making a pretense of understanding why others object to legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle.

Seriously. You really think that people who are against same-sex marriage don’t bat an eye or care about the societal ills from divorce? You folks really are an intolerant lot. Besides understanding the problems of divorce in heterosexual couples here’s a few other things I know-

Black children in urban environments would be doing a whole lot better if they had decent schools and fathers/ male role models instead of a bunch of half-siblings and baby fathers.

All children would be doing better if we didn’t have a society that tolerates, even expects, underage sexual intercourse followed by a trip to the abortion factory for any consequences. Public schools are supposed to be a place of education not a dispensery for condoms and leftist propaganda about sexual orientation and what is proper behavior when it comes to sexual intercourse.

There is no compelling reason why homosexuals need their unions to called a marriage. It is as if the pro-sodomites have hijacked this term to attack those whose religious views do not include embracing sodomy as a legitimate lifestyle choice.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Marriage between a man and a woman is a social norm that came into being because it makes sense for humankind.

Marriage is religious in nature and the legal part of it is civil unions.

Problem solved see we do evolve!

And frankly, I couldn’t possibly care any less, except for the part where one of the 2 wants to leave money/property, visit them in a hospital or something of that nature and they cannot because of some stupid rule. Beyond that it is between themselves and God.

I have enough splainin to do Lucy.

landowner on May 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

are you for or against adoption of kids by gay couples?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Are you for forcing all adoption agencies being forced to treat a gay couple or a commune of 7 guys and 9 gals the same as a normal married couple?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

It amazes me that someone who calls themselves “LevinFan” is apparently unaware that Mark Levin is against same sex marriage.

I’m smelling “Moby” here.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I was waiting for someone to say this!

So just b/c I call myself “LevinFan” I must parrot and agree with everything Mark says right??

People can’t have reasonable disagreements on issues, no we must all think the same!

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Try alittle common sense.

Which of these situations is better?

A traditional marriage where the father is a drunk and never home. The child rarely sees his dad and when he does it’s not a good side to see.

Or a gay couple raising a child in a loving environment? They read to their kid every night, take him to practice, help him with school, help get him into college.

Which scenario is better?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

hillbillyjim has the first point right that this is a riduculous comparison. In fact it’s actually harmful to your argument because you need for the normal relationship to be flawed to even hope for the homosexual one to be preferred.

But more to the point: The first child has a bad father who teaches him all the wrong lessons (or serves as a warning).

The second child never has access to a mother (or a father if the couple is a lesbian couple) at all. Purposefully. To the aggrandizement of the adults in the relationship at the expense of the child’s development.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

If homosexuality is genetic, you’d think it would have mostly worked its way out of the gene pool by now.

The Rogue Tomato on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Fact: Polyamory was in the Old Testament, and back then God didn’t seem to mind it.

TMOverbeck on May 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Except that it led to disaster in virtually every case, e.g. Abraham, David, Solomon… aside from that you mean?

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

It must be such a social norm, considering how many people are trying it 2, 3, 4 even 5 times!

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Some married people are not faithful to their vows, so let’s make gay marriage legal? The divorce rate is a sad fact, but it has nothing to do with this issue.

hillbillyjim on May 8, 2012 at 2:17 PM

“Hate to break it to you: homosexuality is genetic. Gays can’t help it.”
The same can be said of pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, sociopaths, copulsive liars, serial killers, and Bill Clinton

Bevan on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Are you for forcing all adoption agencies being forced to treat a gay couple or a commune of 7 guys and 9 gals the same as a normal married couple?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Adoption agencies should treat a gay couple as equals to a straight couple. The decision should come down to who provides the best home, the gay couple should not be disqualified for being gay.

The commune no, that’s ridiculous.

Just using common sense. No that I answered YOUR question after you avoided MY question I’ll try again:

Are you against gay adoption? Yes or No?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Talk about evolution… I think I saw Chrissy just starting to walk semi-upright.

mr_west on May 8, 2012 at 1:05 PM

That means only one thing:

THE BAR RAN OUT OF SCOTCH.

I used to ride the Acela down to DC a lot and he would often be on it. When he wasn’t drinking heavily and hitting on women, he was asleep – snoring loudly with drool running down his chin.

Resist We Much on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

There is no compelling reason why homosexuals need their unions to called a marriage.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Sure they do.

You can’t sue someone over a “civil union” or force them to cater to the homosexual agenda.

It’s all about mandating acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, through the force of the government.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Even if you don’t look at it from a biblical stance. Homosexuality is unnatural.

iceman1960 on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Adoption agencies should treat a gay couple as equals to a straight couple. The decision should come down to who provides the best home, the gay couple should not be disqualified for being gay.

So you’re all in favor of forcing Catholic and other religious adoption agencies (the ones who have long done the bulk of adoption services) to violate their beliefs in order to satisfy your perversion? You must be happy when those agencies have to close shop because people like you demand it.

You are great. Really. And decent.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM

It amazes me to see so many people in this thread who would ostensible be for small government and the government not doing for people what they can do for themselves, that suddenly want the government getting more involved in peoples lives.

Its why I think social conservatives are just the flip side of the coin from social liberals. BOTH want greater government involvement promoting a set of values, its just there is a vast different in the values. Neither social libs or social cons want people to just live their lives away from government intrusion.

Both of them are happy for more greater government involvement, when it is the right kind of involvement. When its not, then either one will demand for the government to get away.

Its interesting – social liberals think I am a social conservative because I do not agree with them much, and social conservatives think I am a liberal, because I do not agree with them much either.

Its just that I do not trust government to promote values, considering how messed up government has been for so long. If i cant even trust government with much of anything, why I am supposed to trust government when it comes to values all of a sudden?

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Yeah it’s funny, people are calling me a troll and a libera for supporting gay marriage. I think for myself, period.

Have you read John Stossel’s new book: “No they Can’t, why gov’t Fails and Individuals Succeed?”

Great book. I”m saving it for when my daughter is old enough, it’s required reading.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM

The commune no, that’s ridiculous.

Why? They were born to want to live in that sort of arrangement. Who are you to judge? What are they doing to you?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:21 PM

@Tim_CA

Highly trained??

Yes. In some of the early Hardball shows, chris the wonder monkey (old stage name) would sometimes ride a unicycle and juggle small teddy bears when there was a few minutes left at the end of the episode. He had the cutest little fez that he wore, too.

GrassMudHorsey on May 8, 2012 at 2:22 PM

It amazes me to see so many people in this thread who would ostensible be for small government and the government not doing for people what they can do for themselves, that suddenly want the government getting more involved in peoples lives.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Yeah, this guy named “firepilot” thinks we need the government interfering with the meaning of dictionary words, issuing certificates of endorsement for imaginary same-sex “marriages”, the court system bogged down with lawsuits on behalf of a new invented protected class seeking their “benefits”, not to mention a new social security entitlement and a new Obamacare provision forcing Catholic employers to swear loyalty oaths to Dionysus or something.

I wish some of those fake conservatives would just leave well enough alone.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 2:22 PM

If there is a gene that produces homosexuality then scientist can identify that gene. And if that is so a woman could choose to abort a child that has the homosexual gene. Well, well, isn’t that going to produce a dilemma for the left… let the games begin!

iceman1960 on May 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM

There is no compelling reason why homosexuals need their unions to called a marriage. It is as if the pro-sodomites have hijacked this term to attack those whose religious views do not include embracing sodomy as a legitimate lifestyle choice.

Happy Nomad

Interesting how many of you constantly equate gays getting married, with sodomy. Guess what, lots of heterosexuals practice it too. Interesting though how many of you apparently think about gay sex a fair amount, when it comes to gay marriage.

Should sodomy or sex that will not result in procreation be illegal for anyone then? That would be consistent then.

I have to have a compelling reason to deny anyone rights, and the attempted hysteria that gays getting married will bring about the downfall of society, is not enough.

Even better, would just be that government only legalized civil unions, and if you want a marraige, you can go to your particular church and have them bless it.

Getting government out of the marriage business could be the best solution. Then then have less of an excuse to get away from doing real things, like coming up with real ideas for the future.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM

“Hate to break it to you: homosexuality is genetic. Gays can’t help it.”
The same can be said of pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, sociopaths, copulsive liars, serial killers, and Bill Clinton

Bevan on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Exactly right. If everything “natural” is not only good but mandatory, well then I guess every married man out there is “living a lie” by not committing adultery.

Right, liberals?

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Question for religious crowd ganging up on me: are you for or against adoption of kids by gay couples?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Don’t try to back away from the lie you told. You did too make the claim that gays make better parents. You left no room in your strawman for the idea that same sex couples can be failed parents too. One example, and a big reason why I am against gay marriage at this time is in the courts right now. Couple of lesbians “married” in New York and adopted. Now, a year later, they are getting divorced with a brutal custody battle.

Now I’ve seen enough of the crap you post to know that you are about to point out that a heterosexual couple could find themselves in the same battle. That is true BUT the problem here is that the couple who married in NY, moved to Maryland where they do not yet recognize same sex marriage. There is nothing in family law that helps with issues like custody when they are not even legally recognized as married.

That alone is reason enough to think twice about gay adoptions. But of course, you’ll just attack Christians as bigots. That’s the fallback position when confronted with legitimate reasons. Which only makes me that much more opposed to supporting gay adoption.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:24 PM

So you’re all in favor of forcing Catholic and other religious adoption agencies (the ones who have long done the bulk of adoption services) to violate their beliefs in order to satisfy your perversion? You must be happy when those agencies have to close shop because people like you demand it.

You are great. Really. And decent.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I think adoption agencies SHOULD treat all couples the same. I’m NOT for gov’t forcing them to do anything.

Will you answer my question? Do you see anything wrong with a gay couple adopting a kid?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I don’t care what gays do in their own homes. I’ll applaud their committed relationships, buy them an anniversary gift, but I will not say it is the same thing as traditional marriage because it isn’t and can never be.

redmama on May 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

rights
firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM

That word… I don’t think it means what you think it means.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Getting government out of the marriage business could be the best solution.

Our immigration laws are family-based. Get a clue, man.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM

The Bible also strongl condemns divorce.

# of states voting on banning divorce – 0

# of states voting for divorce amendment – 0

Cherry picking the Bible to justify bigotry – many

Hypocrisy, thou name is the GOP.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM

The fiscal conservatives also stronll(sic)condemn overspending.

# of federal budgets with a surplus – 0

# of federal budgets balanced by “fiscal conservatives” – 0

Cherry picking your beliefs on order to win elections- many

Hypocrisy, thou (sic) name is the GOP.

I guess all you so-called “fiscal conservatives” are just a bunch of hypocrits, too.

Or, maybe, like social conservatives, fiscal conservatives have to take up the battle where it is and have to work to get to the preferred point. When the enemy is at the walls of your capaital, spending all your time on the last city they captured is rather counter-productive.

(Also, you might want to look up this thing called “covernant marriage”. It’s part of the effort to take on the easy divorce…)

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Don’t try to back away from the lie you told. You did too make the claim that gays make better parents. You left no room in your strawman for the idea that same sex couples can be failed parents too. One example, and a big reason why I am against gay marriage at this time is in the courts right now. Couple of lesbians “married” in New York and adopted. Now, a year later, they are getting divorced with a brutal custody battle.

Now I’ve seen enough of the crap you post to know that you are about to point out that a heterosexual couple could find themselves in the same battle. That is true BUT the problem here is that the couple who married in NY, moved to Maryland where they do not yet recognize same sex marriage. There is nothing in family law that helps with issues like custody when they are not even legally recognized as married.

That alone is reason enough to think twice about gay adoptions. But of course, you’ll just attack Christians as bigots. That’s the fallback position when confronted with legitimate reasons. Which only makes me that much more opposed to supporting gay adoption.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I NEVER SAID GAYS WERE BETTER PARENTS!

Stop making crap up and putting words in my mouth! Just b/c you interpreted it that way doesn’t make it so.

I’m for individual rights and limited gov’t, while you are for gov’t regulating morality.

Good job.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM

It’s about the economy. We’re not stupid.

claudius on May 8, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Will you answer my question? Do you see anything wrong with a gay couple adopting a kid?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

If the parents and adoption agency want to do that, then good for them.

Why are you blowing off the fact that in places where gay pretend-marriage rages, religious adoption agencies are forced out of business if they won’t violate their beliefs and consider gay couples and communes for adoptions? Do you just like to pretend that this hasn’t been happening, or do you just not care?

And answer me as to why you are so anti-polygamy and anti-commune? WHy are they inferior to gays?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:31 PM

For the religious right:

If you’re against gay marriage due to moral reasons then you should also be against:

1. Divorce – where are the state laws banning it?

2. Sodomy – where are laws (is it still illegal in Texas)?

3. Having sex not for procreation. How many good Christians in here have sex for fun??

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Marriage between a man and a woman is a social norm that came into being because it makes sense for humankind.

Marriage is religious in nature and the legal part of it is civil unions.

Problem solved see we do evolve!

And frankly, I couldn’t possibly care any less, except for the part where one of the 2 wants to leave money/property, visit them in a hospital or something of that nature and they cannot because of some stupid rule. Beyond that it is between themselves and God.

I have enough splainin to do Lucy.

landowner on May 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Civil unions seem to be the best solution to this issue, but the vocal, militantly gay crowd want to change the language and change century upon century of tradition born out of logic and common sense.

That said, it should fall to the states to decide their own policy on this issue since there is no Constitutional basis for the federal government to get involved, and there is no overarching need to even consider a Constitutional amendment addressing this nonsense.

Enough of this distraction, folks. Gay people may live as they please, and I’ll not bat an eye, nor make moral judgments; however I see no need to change neither our language nor our Constitution.

Let’s focus on the real problems that this nation faces, especially the ones that if left unattended will ensure our economic demise.

hillbillyjim on May 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I can say it’s genetic just as easily you can say it’s not. There’s no proof either way. Common sense though tells me it’s genetic.

Again you view gays as inferiors. You’re comparing them to drunks which is insulting and disingenuous. Just b/c a man has sex with another man he should be looked down upon?

And who are you to speak for me? How do you know why I care about marriage? I’m a loving husband who takes my vows seriously. I’ve never cheated on my wife and I’m a devoted father. How many Christian hypocrites are on here railing against gay marriage while at the same time they’ve cheated on their wives, hit their wives, or don’t play an active role in their kids lives? Oh wait it’s ok right, b/c they’ve asked for forgiveness??

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM

First, I never attacked your marriage, I can only tell how you think of marriage as an abstract concept based on your arguments. Second you’ve backtracked substantially on your initial claim – it’s quite hard to be bigoted against an optional behavior.

And in any case even if the predisposition isn’t optional, the fulfillment of it is. Given than sexually active homosexual males have their life expectancy shortened more than male smokers, there are a multitude of bases where I could dissapprove of the practice. I choose the most basic biological one, which is that something is messed up in your head if you’re using genitalia in ways they are clearly not designed for on persons whose only benefit would be short-term pleasure.

Not having the drive to procreate and using your genitalia in errant places could be described in many ways. Normal and Healthy are not among them. I hardly need to endorse everything someone feels predisposed to do – and the thrust of my argument was in the subsidy, endorsement, and protection of the disposition.

You see like alcholism, most people draw the line at allowing alcoholics to drink without subsidizing it or endorsing the practice through civil benefits that have no public justification. In the same way most want homosexuals to do whatever they please, they just don’t want a fundamental institution of society modified to normalize that change, because that change obliterates that institution’s value and reduces it to benefit granted by the public with no overarching purpose.

Marriage in the civic sense is not only a pact with a partnet, it is also a pact with the government. And since it is a matter of public benefit, the public should decide its definition and application.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM

If the parents and adoption agency want to do that, then good for them.

Why are you blowing off the fact that in places where gay pretend-marriage rages, religious adoption agencies are forced out of business if they won’t violate their beliefs and consider gay couples and communes for adoptions? Do you just like to pretend that this hasn’t been happening, or do you just not care?

And answer me as to why you are so anti-polygamy and anti-commune? WHy are they inferior to gays?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I’m not for forcing adopting agencies to do anything. That’s not my argument.

If people want to join communes and do polygamy, then good for them.

I’m not viewing anyone as inferior, like you are with gay people.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I’m for individual rights and limited gov’t, while you are for gov’t regulating morality.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM

So you are for communal marriages?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:37 PM

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Yes-if there are qualified male-female couples available.
I also have an issue w/singles adopting. My never-married sister-in-law adopted a little girl from Ethiopia. While my sister-in-law is a good mom who makes a good living and while ‘Amy’ is an adorable little girl-a child needs a mom and a dad. My sister-in-law should have never gotten off of first base when she started the adoption process.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 2:38 PM

while you are for gov’t regulating morality.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I, for one, am for morality regulating government.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 2:38 PM

This stupidity is nothing more than the liberal morons looking for a touchstone, some magical theme to use to cover over the liberal ineptitude on nearly everything so they can win a second term and finish this nation off.

Mathews wants a gay marriage with obama I think, therefore everything he says is to be disregarded or filed under ‘puppy luv stupidity’ of a news spinner with a man crush on a rediculously marxist moron.

/middle finger to the lot of them.

Wolfmoon on May 8, 2012 at 2:38 PM

If people want to join communes and do polygamy, then good for them.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM

And they should be officially recognized marriages, right?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Right?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:42 PM

In the same way most want homosexuals to do whatever they please, they just don’t want a fundamental institution of society modified to normalize that change, because that change obliterates that institution’s value and reduces it to benefit granted by the public with no overarching purpose.

Marriage in the civic sense is not only a pact with a partnet, it is also a pact with the government. And since it is a matter of public benefit, the public should decide its definition and application.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM

The reason you and those who agree with you don’t want to allow gay marriage is you view gays as inferior and sinners. You said it yourself that “something must be messed up in your head to use genitalia in a way it’s not meant to be used”. So by that logic having these inferior people get married cheapens marriage.

I don’t view gays as inferior, so to me it doesn’t cheapen marriage in any way.

Also if something is messed up in your head to use your genitalia in a way it’s not meant to be used, is using condoms wrong? Is having sex before marriage with a serious girlfriend wrong? Is having sex for pure pleasure wrong? What about oral sex?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:42 PM

For the religious right:

If you’re against gay marriage due to moral reasons then you should also be against:

1. Divorce – where are the state laws banning it?

2. Sodomy – where are laws (is it still illegal in Texas)?

3. Having sex not for procreation. How many good Christians in here have sex for fun??

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM

In answer to your question:

1. Struck down and repealed long ago and the battle is joined (covenant marriage) but will take a long time to move the battle lines BACK there.

2. Struck down by the supreme court. I am, however, not in favor of state or federal laws banning sins that do not harm anyone other than the participant(s).

3. Your premise is false. Having sex is not ONLY for procreation. However, marriage is not about sex. It is about a stable basis for a family and (the government’s interest) a stable basis for a society. It is about creating a stable environment for progeny.

(Cue the “BUT WHAT ABOUT HETEROSEXUALS WHO CAN’T HAVE CHILDREN!@!!!!11!!!??? screaming.)

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 2:44 PM

It must be such a social norm, considering how many people are trying it 2, 3, 4 even 5 times!

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Why is this ever a legitimate argument? Should we legalize violent crime because we can’t seem to prevent it?

People are not perfect and never will be. And I am much more interested in trying understand why divorce happens and figuring out ways to prevent it then I am in throwing my hands in the air and giving up on the institution as it is defined today.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 2:44 PM

And they should be officially recognized marriages, right?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Sure, why not.

It doesn’t cheapen the sanctity of marriage anymore than the multitude of divorces.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I’m for individual rights and limited gov’t, while you are for gov’t regulating morality.

Good job.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM

There is a huge difference between opposition to sodomy and the idea that government is regulating morality. Not one state has legalized gay marriage by popular referendum. Seems that the government is doing what the people want on this issue.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:46 PM

And I am much more interested in trying understand why divorce happens and figuring out ways to prevent it then I am in throwing my hands in the air and giving up on the institution as it is defined today.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 2:44 PM

How do you go about finding out what causes divorce? And then how do you prevent it?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Tingles!
.
.
.
it’s the ECONOMY stupid…!!!

KOOLAID2 on May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Thanks. You should be honest with people when you make this argument and admit, at the start, that you are in favor of communal and polygamous marriage, even if you might not be fighting for those right now. THere’s always tomorrow …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

There is a huge difference between opposition to sodomy and the idea that government is regulating morality. Not one state has legalized gay marriage by popular referendum. Seems that the government is doing what the people want on this issue.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I respect the way our gov’t is supposed to work. Even though I’m for gay marriage, if the voters of the state vote against it then that’s the way it is. I’m against some activist judge in CA going against the votes of the people.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

The reason you and those who agree with you don’t want to allow gay marriage is you view gays as inferior and sinners. You said it yourself that “something must be messed up in your head to use genitalia in a way it’s not meant to be used”. So by that logic having these inferior people get married cheapens marriage.

I don’t view gays as inferior, so to me it doesn’t cheapen marriage in any way.

Also if something is messed up in your head to use your genitalia in a way it’s not meant to be used, is using condoms wrong? Is having sex before marriage with a serious girlfriend wrong? Is having sex for pure pleasure wrong? What about oral sex?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Homosexuals are sinners. So are all the rest of us on this earth.

Opposition to gay “marriage” has absolutely nothing to do with how “worthy” gay people are. It has to do with the fact that gay marriage supporters (yourself included) plan on using government sanction to bludgeon Christians (and other religions) into granting the appearance of acceptance. This will be done through lawsuits, fines, and imprisonment. I don’t have to extrapolate because it is already happening in those countries where the homosexual lobby has achieved legislative power (for example, Canada.)

Your position is not a “live and let live” position. It is a “force those stupid bible-thumpers to act the way I want them to act!”

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Thanks. You should be honest with people when you make this argument and admit, at the start, that you are in favor of communal and polygamous marriage, even if you might not be fighting for those right now. THere’s always tomorrow …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Have you ever had sex for fun or just to procreate??

Ever had sex before marriage?

Ever had a divorce?

Ever committed a sin?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4