Marriage, as it has been traditionally known, is dead. You will now see triads and straight polygamists push their way through the unlocked door now. It is over.

Sorrow01 on August 3, 2009 at 4:00 pm

You are interpreting this wrong. This whole “Gay Marriage” thing is the world’s biggest waste of time. It is not worth even discussing. I have never seen so many people waste so much time over such a non issue, ever.

THEY ARE NOT MARRIED, PERIOD!!!

Any legal statement (either by a legislature or a court) “recognizing” “Gay Marriage” has as much value as a legal statement making “2 + 2 = 642”. Just like “2 + 2” always equals “4”, Gays can never be married, PERIOD!!!

If the census bureau thinks that Gays are married that just means they are stupid. It does not mean we lost anything except perhaps our educational system, and we lost that a long time ago anyway.

I_AM_ME on August 3, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Your headline, “We’ve Lost:” says it well. Your question of “when do we start counting menages-a-trois as marriages?” is not far-fetched.

In the Netherlands, there is a recognized political party whose platform is legalization of adult sex with children

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1640691/posts

This slithering worm will not rest. You people who say there is no G-d, and no absolutes, no moral laws–here is where we are headed using your thinking:

http://www.nambla.org/

BB on August 3, 2009 at 4:13 pm

Wow !! All of the First Responders on this thread have been awesome. I have nothing to add. Except maybe this:
President Lincoln was once asked: “How many legs does a
lamb have if you call its tail a leg?” His answer was,“Four,
because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” Amen Abraham

RoadsScholar on August 3, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Yeah lets all spew hate at these people who think they love one another, because logically gay marriage means polygamy will become legal (although it was allowed by god in the bible in some places, but we can ignore that). You do remember when people were saying pretty much the same thing about interracial marriage? I mean come on, does some gay couple in New York hamper your ability to live a normal life where ever you are?

Nakruh01 on August 3, 2009 at 6:28 pm

Your stimulus dollars have been spent by the NEA on “the world’s only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla.”

In the sequel (to be funded by Porkulus II) the four men, three women and a gorilla will be married in San Francisco City Hall by Mayor Gavin Newsom who will hail it as a great day for civil rights.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/29/stimulus-funds-art-houses-showing-pervert-revues-underground-pornography/

Kalifornia Kafir on August 3, 2009 at 7:00 pm

So in this country with its separation of church and state, the govt has to look to the bible to see what the position on marriage is?

Nakruh01 on August 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm

People once used the bible to talk against interracial marrige saying God did not want it, it wasnt moral etc..

Nakruh01 on August 3, 2009 at 7:42 pm

Homosexual male, and lesbian behavior and compulsions are deviant behavior and a sexual disorder.

What has take place in the USA and elsewhere is that society has submitted to creating a “moral equivalency” in a sense, between normal sexual attraction and behavior, an abnormal sexual attraction and behavior.

Homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered practitioners should NEVER have been, and should never be appeased and coddled and encourage and supported in practicing their abnormal behavior. Children should not be exposed to such nonsense. Even the children’s movie “Shrek the 3rd” presented a person dressed in woman’s clothes with a deep voice like a man. It was absurd and totally inappropriate for a children’s movie.

Pushing transsexuals, transgendereds, homosexual men, and homosexual – lesbian women on children was once one of those behaviors which were illegal and considered corrupting the morals of a minor, but not any longer.

There is nothing wrong with opposing the distortion of traditional marriage by deviants and their supporters.

A culture must practice healthy mores, morals, and behavior, and not deviant behaviors and actions and pass them on to their offspring. This is good for a culture and society in order to maintain that which is good about that culture, and avoid corrupting influences which weaken that society and culture.

Homosexuals, etc., are not to be abused, tormented, harassed, etc. Many of us know homosexual males and females. Many of us have acquaintances, friends, and relatives who are homosexual. We don’t feel animosity or hatred or impulses toward violence toward them. We merely know that homosexuality is not normal, is a disorder, and is not to be encouraged or supported.

In fact, like unmarried sex and unmarried parenting, it is good to shun homosexual behavior and encourage avoidance and therapy for those who feel the urge.

No. Normal male-female marriage is best for society and culture as a unit. It is better for raising children, offering children a normal imprint of male-female relationships, a mother and father for the children to identify with, and avoids the perversion and deviancy that homosexuality perpetuates in a child’s life.

And, not, being in love with a person of the same sex is NOT a good reason to marry them, any more than being in love with one’s mother, sister, brother, or dog is a good reason to marry them.

Love is important, and good, in a marriage, but for a legitimate marriage, it first and foremost requires one party be a male, the other a female. It is also good if they do love one another.

Another consideration, male and female bodies are designed differently. Males are not designed for sexual intercourse. Their “loving” and their sexual relations does not EVER result in offspring, the fruit of their love.

Females are not designed for sexual intercourse with one another. Their “loving” and sexual interaction never results in offspring, the fruit of their love.

The only sexual intercourse between two human beings which results in offspring is sexual intercourse between a male and a female human being.

No, homosexuals should not be considered married, and the government should NEVER allow homosexuals to be considered legally married, for, in so doing, they are supporting deviant behavior and a sexual disorder.

If that is supported, then we should allow necrophilliacs to be legally recognized, bestiality to be legally recognized – and no, it has nothing to do with consent between an animal and its human sexual partner. Animals NEVER give permission to those who slaughter them for food, but we allow that. Animals never give permission to be used for horrific medical experiments, but we do that to them anyway. Animals never give permission to have their sexual organs mutilated so they cannot reproduce, but we do that to them any way.

Animals are considered as a source of food, fur, medical research for cures for human ailments, and so forth. They have nor real rights, even though PETA and other organizations try to claim they DO.

So, if homosexuality, a deviant behavior and sexual disorder is allowed and pushed and endorsed by the government, then so also should bestiality, incest – why can’t a son marry his mother, or a girl marry her father?

We might as well let Joe, Tom, Barry, Sally, June, Isabel, and Mary marry one another and live as one big happy family. After all, they are all just practicing their right to “love” whoever they wish. Who are we to tell them “No!”?

Let’s not forget all those men who wish to engage in sex, and possible marriage, with young boys or young girls, between 12 and 16 years of age, or even between six days and 16 years of age.

Of course, there are all the women who wish to engage in sex and marriage with young boys or girls as well.

We cannot neglect them, offering special consideration to homosexual men or homosexual women but only if they are above 16 years of age.

The list goes on and on.

Let’s keep families, and marriages, normal and traditional, and preserve our society and culture, and protect our children from perversion, deviancy, and abnormal behavior, including protecting them from homosexual behavior.

Only traditional marriage must remain recognized and supported as a true marriage for the good of the couples, the family, the children, and society.

William on August 3, 2009 at 9:23 pm

Yes because 2 gay guys getting married is exactly like necrophelia becoming legal

Nakruh01 on August 3, 2009 at 9:52 pm

Responding to Nakruh01 on August 3, 2009 at 6:28 pm who said:

“Yeah lets all spew hate at these people who think they love one another, because logically gay marriage means polygamy will become legal (although it was allowed by god in the bible in some places, but we can ignore that). You do remember when people were saying pretty much the same thing about interracial marriage? I mean come on, does some gay couple in New York hamper your ability to live a normal life where ever you are?

Nakruh01 on August 3, 2009 at 6:28 pm”

Love is not the only or most important thing in marriage, and love itself is NOT the reason to marry.

First and foremost there must be one male, and one female.

Many people love one another.

Father’s love their children.

Mother’s love their children.

Fathers do not marry their sons or their daughters, even though they love one another

Mothers do not marry their sons or daughters, even though they love one another.

Normally, in our society, sisters don’t marry their sisters, and brothers don’t marry their brothers, nor do brothers marry their sisters, nor do sisters marry their brothers.

People love their pets, their horse, their car, but they don’t marry them, at least not normally, although with our society being more anarchistic, there are people to go through the motions of doing so.

No, being in “love” with a member of the same sex is not reason to marry, nor is it justification to marry.

Regarding polygamy, if government is supposed to force the population to accept, condone, support, and advocate homosexual behavior and force society to accept the perverted definition of marriage being attempted – two males marrying one another, or two females marrying one another, then who are they, government, homosexuals, lesbians, or anyone else, to tell polygamists that they cannot also “marry” and be supported by society?

It is nuts.

Yes, homosexuality does affect marriage as an institution. It reduces marriage to a game that people can change the rules, who can enter, and so forth. It strips the respect and support for marriage, which has provided an institution supported by society, in which a man and a woman bring offspring into the world, and through which our culture is passed on.

Homosexual marriage also ups the ante on homosexual men and women adopting and raising children. This is NOT a good, ideal, optimal environment to raise children. It reduces children to property and a social experiment, whereas children raised by two loving parents, one a male, one a female, are raised in the best environment, where their sexual imprinting is not perverted as it is when being raised by two homosexual males or two homosexual females. Also, the children have a better chance of knowing their Dad and Mom and passing on family history.

Nevertheless, homosexual marriage advocates have been violent, disrespectful, and aggressive, engaging in harassment, denomination, and disrespect, including stalking of those they hate. Their behavior is despicable and deplorable.

Although dozens of US states’ voters overwhelmingly followed the law and support normal traditional marriage, including one male and one female, homosexual marriage perversion advocates have not respected the outcome, choosing to make life miserable for others, spewing hatred, venom, and just behaving in a malicious manner.

The common man and woman did not bother homosexuals. They tolerated them and their behavior. Toleration was not good enough, however. Homosexuals and their advocates have been pushing their agenda on the rest of society for decades. It was the homosexuals and their advocates who took it to the traditional marriage supporters and continue to attack, like rabid dogs.

Before, with homosexuals and their advocates, it was “just let us be to do as we wish in the privacy of our own bedrooms,” but it has turned into “We were lying. We really want to get in your face and force our way on everyone of you, including forcing our way on your children.”

William on August 3, 2009 at 9:53 pm

You frighten me William

Nakruh01 on August 3, 2009 at 9:54 pm

Quoting Nakruh01 who said, “You do remember when people were saying pretty much the same thing about interracial marriage? I mean come on, does some gay couple in New York hamper your ability to live a normal life where ever you are?

Nakruh01 on August 3, 2009 at 6:28 pm”

I am involved in an interracial marriage.

I am of mixed race. My wife is Chinese from Asia.

My father’s lineage was involved in interracial marriage, including European-Caucasian marrying and having children with a “Native American” Indian.

In “Interracial Marriage” we still have one male and one female. That is the point.

Homosexual men are not sexually compatible or able to reproduce, nor are homosexual women. Their sexual activity with a member of the same sex NEVER produces offspring.

Yes, activity that homosexuals and their advocates engage in does affect lives of married couples.

How?

Today homosexual advocates and school teachers propagate homosexuality in five and six year olds and up. Hollywood has been squeezing homosexuality into children’s films, and what is supposed to be normal, family entertainment.

This is becoming common.

Today we have homosexuals and their advocates harassing and stalking those who voted to support traditional marriage which features one man and one woman.

There is plenty of evidence to show that pushing homosexual marriage and other false dilemmas affects other people’s lives.

William on August 3, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Quoting Nakrhuh01 who said, “You frighten me William

Nakruh01 on August 3, 2009 at 9:54 pm”

You need not be afraid of me. I will do you no harm.

I merely oppose the perversion of traditional marriage by those who push homosexuality as compatible with marriage.

I also oppose the forcing of the rest of society, including children from young ages on through their teen years, to swallow the homosexual agenda, something which is happening with greater frequency through the schools, day care, pre-school, kindergarten, grade school, middle school, high school, Hollywood movies, music, etc.

For example, why would parents have to be surprised to see homosexuality included in children’s movies and in other areas? This has occurred quite frequently.

Also, many families have stumbled across the graphic displays of depravity which are displayed on major US City streets on “Gay Pride” parades. Many families are just walking from the science museum back to their hotels which their children while on vacation, having no idea that they and their children will witness nearly naked or all naked males gyrating and humping one another on parade floats, and the same with female homosexuals.

That isn’t fair to parents or the children.

William on August 3, 2009 at 10:09 pm

Well Debbie if you want to see more hysterical HOMOSEXUAL Insanity watch for the state of Maine. The state legislature passed HOMOSEXUAL marriage and now 100,000 signatures have been turned in for a referendum. When the people of Maine will be the 1st state to overturn their legislature and the Governor on HOMOSEXUAL marriage we will see the same Prop 8 psychosis play out on the streets of Maine. California’s Prop 8 was an overturning of the State Supreme Court.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/maine-100000-signatures-in-favor-of-authentic-marriage/

CaliforniaScreaming on August 4, 2009 at 1:20 am

Re Main, referendum, etc., re CaliforniaScreaming on August 4, 2009 at 1:20 am,

“CaliforniaScreaming,”

That does not sound like fun at all.

I wonder if the “powers that be” will interfere with the wish o the people and deny them their constitutional right to put the issue up for a referendum vote.

I also expect intense hostility and malevolent responses from inauthentic marriage pushers.

If the issue is voted on, and authentic marriage is the choice of the people, I expect various forms of discordant responses, including harassment, stalking, violence, mob activity in the street, disrespect, demonization of those who supported the referendum, Etc., by those who choose to push for the fraud of non authentic marriage, AKA “homosexual marriage.”

No doubt the main stream media will be in “bed” with homosexual marriage advocates, and involved in actively skewering referendum supporters with the normal quakery such as “homophobe” and other unadulterated nonsense.

William on August 4, 2009 at 3:30 am

I wonder if the Slayer Fan community has a high suicide rate?

CaliforniaScreaming on August 4, 2009 at 11:08 am

Perez Hilton is an idiot, in response to your statement.

Nakruh01 on August 4, 2009 at 12:54 pm

It’s good to know that finally – FINALLY – a conservative admits defeat.

Yes, it IS over, Debbie. You and your archaic ilk are falling fast. Gay marriage will happen, is happening, and there’s nothing you and your zombie followers can do to stop it – not associating good people with pedophiles, not by comparing our unions with bestiality or menage-a-tois. Keep up the histrionic battle cry. It appears fewer and fewer are listening.

How can someone as intelligent and brilliant as you are be so stupid? It boggles the mind.

jeffrey on August 4, 2009 at 2:54 pm

Oh, so in other words the census should be inaccurate? Or maybe gay couples should lie? Which is it?

Hey, I’m a straight married guy and there is absolutely nothing religious about my marriage – it is a CIVIL CONTRACT. That’s all it is.

For those of you spewing “traditional” marriage, maybe you should consult your wonderful bible on that one! Incest and polygamy are prime examples. If I’m not mistaken, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Now THAT sounds like great family values!

Dale on August 4, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Wow…
The typical marriage for gay couples means all the restrictions MUST come off?
How so?
That’s only in the hysterical imaginations of those opposed to gay couples legally committing to the responsibilities they have to their spouse and children, eh?

What’s so sad is, it’s impossible to legislate or create Constitutional amendments that actually MAKE or KEEP couples IN their marriages and commitments to their children, isn’t it?
So you think the course then is to KEEP gay adults FROM being as responsible and committed as possible?

Yeah, if you really thought about it, making gay people out to be the enemy of marriage IS stupid.
Guess divorce, adultery, domestic violence, poverty and addiction aren’t doing it enough to legislate right?

And WILLIAM, I can’t think of any laws that REQUIRE that NON PROCREATIVE sex be a condition of marriage restriction. There are no sex police that require all sexual activity be ONLY for the purpose of procreation.
Got that?
It’s NOT LEGAL to ban a couple from marrying, nor does the law police whether a couple can or is having a child.
Got THAT?
And do you see a SHORTAGE of procreation anywhere? Is there a danger of the human population being TOO LOW, right now?
The CENSUS shows that our nation’s population more than DOUBLED in the last two generations, so PROCREATION isn’t a problem.
Got THAT?

You sound like an activist know nothing, trying to legislate from their mouth!

Regan DuCasse on August 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Debbie: “And since this applies to domestic partners, Wisconsin has given people (including straight couples) no incentive to be married.”

Debbie, the domestic partnership registry applies only to same-sex couples. The requirements for entering a domestic partnership are: (1) the partners must be of the same sex; (2) the partners must each be 18 years or older; (3) the partners must share a common residence; and (4) the partners must not be nearer of kin to each other than second cousins.

Although it is possible for two straight men or two straight women to become domestic partners (see http://tinyurl.com/mdza86), domestic partnership is not available to male-female couples and is not a disincentive to traditional marriage.

Tom on August 4, 2009 at 4:11 pm

GOOD NEWS! I arrived at this website from a gay website. As a gay man, I have good news for you! It is THIS: All of your fears about “necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia” etc. ad infinitum are all BASELESS, nonsensical fears that will never materialize. Boy, you anti-gay marriage folks are PARANOID! 🙂

Its been 6 years now since Massachusettes legalized same-sex marriage, and ***presto!*** the worst thing that people of your ilk can come up with is the idea that public schools are teaching children to ***gasp!*** treat gay people with respect. Shiver me timbers!

In all seriousness, though, I wonder how YOUR marriages are doing? I mean, have they been able to stand up under all this stress??? 🙂

Chris L. on August 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm

And why Christians need to stop supporting the GOP and calling themselves republicans. The GOP needs to wither on the vine.

technos on August 4, 2009 at 5:05 pm

While I would love to agree with the title of Debbie’s entry here, unfortunately it’s inaccurate. According to WaPo, same-sex couples will not be added to the official numbers in the manner she claims:

“Continuing current policy, the new guidelines state that software used by Census enumerators will recode answers given by same sex-partners who mark their relationship status as ‘husband or wife,’ to ‘unmarried partner.’ But then, in late 2011, Census officials will for the first time release the raw state-by-state data on same-sex couples that marked their relationship status as ‘husband or wife.'”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/08/census_2010_to_report_same-sex.html?hpid=news-col-blog

What I find ironic here is that the Census Bureau hasn’t made this a “federal issue”, Congress did back in the 90s with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and it is that law which is preventing the counting of same-sex couples on the census in the manner they should be. So much for the argument by social cons about federalism. If we are truly supposed to take a federalist approach to this, a la the Founders as I’ve heard the argument made, then the Feds need to remain neutral by counting these same-sex marriages just like straight marriages in only those states where it is legal. Leave it up to the States? Ok. That means same-sex couples legally married in about 8 states now get full rights under Federal as straight ones do. If not, you can forget your claim to holding to federalism as it is a bald-faced lie.

So cheer up anti-gay activists! You’re losing, but it’s a sloooow loss with many more opportunities to impose your religion on the rest of us!

John on August 4, 2009 at 5:33 pm

BB: “Why is that holding to the traditional view of marriage (one man, one woman) is called ‘hate’ by those who reject it?”

Probably because you seem to believe that you are entitled to impose this view to include CIVIL marriages through force of law upon everyone else. You have every right to hold whatever personal or religious view you wish about marriage or anything else. It’s when you go beyond this to negatively affect other people’s lives who do not share your views that it becomes a problem, nor are you given such a right to do so.

John on August 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm

Good, I’m glad you lost. Marriage Equality is a juggernaut and you can either get behind it or be rolled over by it.

Tony P on August 4, 2009 at 5:49 pm

I’m glad you lost too. Since this is marriage, perhaps all of you who are posting about how appalling this is might indicate whether you are married, and if divorced, indicate how many divorces you’ve had. Then, remember that Jesus himself said that marriages sanctioned by God should not be put asunder.

I doubt most of you who are citing Leviticus on homosexuality know where in the Bible it says you don’t have to pay attention to anything in the rest of that chapter, like eating shellfish, too. Ignorance is comforting, but it’s still ignorance.

Dave in Northridge on August 4, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Hmm:
1200+ state/federal rights granted to man/woman couples
43 of 1200+ rights granted to homosexual couples

Looks to me like SOME rights are being granted. Am I correct that MANY are not granted to them? No matter, as Tom has pointed out that’s not the only thing you got wrong.

Anonymous on August 4, 2009 at 11:34 pm

John,
You are right about one thing, in this world someone is always “imposing” something. My point is that as we have gotten away from G-d’s word, we see more and more deviancy and “imposition” of a new (im)morality.

In the account of when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, the people in Sodom thought like you–they were determined they were going to impose the “hospitality of Sodom” on their guests.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=31

And…for each lawbreaker who goes to prison, someone is imposing on someone (horror of horrors!). So you have one thing right–someone is imposing. Yet, when you call evil good and good evil, that’s where the problems really get you down to the Sodomy level.

BB on August 4, 2009 at 11:46 pm

Like Alan Keyes states:

“Where Procreation is in principal impossible. Marriage is irrelevant.”…

“Between a man and a woman, in principal procreation is always possible. It is that possibility that gave rise to the institution of marriage, in the first place.”

“When it is impossible [procreation], as between two males or two females, because you are talking about something that is not incidentally impossible, it is impossible in principal…”

“If you say that’s a marriage [HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE], you are saying marriage can be understood in principal apart from procreation, you have changed its definition,in such away, in fact to destroy the necessity of the institution.”

“The only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate from the social point of view the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.”

HOMOSEXUALITY has nothing to do with marriage. It is ILLOGICAL.

In lay terms, when heterosexuals have sex the the possibility of a beautiful baby is the end result. What is the end result of HOMOSEXUALS sex … A turd?

TO HOMOSEXUALS raging: Obama gets schooled by Alan Keyes 2004 debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A

CaliforniaScreaming on August 4, 2009 at 11:53 pm

Anonymous: “Looks to me like SOME rights are being granted. Am I correct that MANY are not granted to them? No matter, as Tom has pointed out that’s not the only thing you got wrong.”

That’s right. SOME rights are granted by the Wisconsin domestic partnership law.

The domestic partnership law grants roughly forty rights to same-sex couples who register as domestic partners. The rights are incidental to marriage, not central or “core” rights.

The two most important rights created by the new law are the right to inherit and the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated domestic partner.

While it is true that both rights are also rights of spouses, the rights are also granted to others — parents, siblings, children and so on — by Wisconsin law.

The point of the Wisconsin domestic partnership law is to get domestic partners into the legal mix, so that a surviving domestic partner can inherit property, instead of finding himself or herself out in the cold after twenty or thirty or forty years of living together while a second cousin inherits everything, and so that a domestic partner can be involved in medical decisions for a dying partner, instead of being shut out because he or she is a “legal stranger”.

The domestic partnership law does not grant rights are “core”, reserved to spouses alone, such as the extensive marital property rights granted by Wisconsin law exclusively to married couples, rights to an orderly divorce granted exclusively to married couples, the right to two-person adoption, the right to file joint tax returns, and so on. The domestic partnership law does not impose the obligations of marriage — for example, the obligation of mutual support — either.

I don’t know if 40-odd rights are “many”, but I do know that in comparison to marriage, what is NOT granted by the domestic partnership law is much greater than what IS granted.

Tom on August 5, 2009 at 7:03 am

My point is that as we have gotten away from G-d’s word, we see more and more deviancy and “imposition” of a new (im)morality.

Ok. Feel free to lead the next Great Enlightenment to bring about a change on an individual level. You have every right to convert as many folks as you like to your religious views. Have at it. Yet your rights do not extend to foisting your views about God, eisegesis of the Bible and/or morality upon the rest of us.

John on August 5, 2009 at 9:41 am

“TO HOMOSEXUALS raging: Obama gets schooled by Alan Keyes 2004 debates.”

I see nothing more than one fool talking about another one. For all of Obama’s faults, and Lord knows there are so many to choose from, he at least doesn’t appear to be an unhinged nutjob like Keyes.

John on August 5, 2009 at 9:47 am

Yes, the Census will be doing what the Census should be doing. it will be recoding real data. It is not the job of the Census to record what you would like to believe, but to record what is actually happening.

Same-sex marriages exist. They will be recorded. The Census is doing its job. Good. Unless you prefer to hide your head in the sand?

TRiG.

Timothy (TRiG) on August 5, 2009 at 10:34 am

jillsr, I see you have a problem with biology. Penis and vagina are reproductive organs. Your anus is for waste disposal.

John you couldn’t last two minutes with Alan Keyes. Go by liberal playbook, call them a wingnut and you don’t have to talk about the issue. Instead of rebutting the argument, it is he is a wingnut. Is that all you got?

CaliforniaScreaming on August 5, 2009 at 11:34 am

California Screaming —

Yes I know how babies are made, thanks. My point is that your argument against gay marriage is so simplistic its ridiculous. Because gays can’t procreate through natural means they shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Hell half of my straight friends had to resort to artificial insemination or invitro fertilization to start their families. Perhaps they shouldn’t have been allowed to marry either? What about everyone who cant or doesn’t want kids? When has procreation ever been a requirement of marriage?

You seem to have a very limited view of what a marriage is about — distilling it down to one facet: the ability to procreate through heterosexual intercourse. If that was your only impetus for getting married, then I feel sorry for your wife (if you have one). And to imply that the only purpose of sex is procreation is to have a very limited and unfulfilling view of human sexuality. Sad for you.

Further, have you ever shared your views on anal sex with all the straight people having it? Why is it that whenever a homophobe rails against gay men, he always resorts to the topic of anal sex, even though the majority of straight couples engage in the exact same behavior?

Ah hypocrisy, the lifeblood of the right wing.

jillsr on August 5, 2009 at 12:03 pm

“John you couldn’t last two minutes with Alan Keyes.”

Oh even less than that. I find him to be an irritating and irrational person, not really because of his views but how he presents himself. He’s the Al Sharpton of the waaaaay Right.

“Go by liberal playbook, call them a wingnut and you don’t have to talk about the issue.”

Mr. Pot, call your office.

“Instead of rebutting the argument, it is he is a wingnut. Is that all you got?”

When you can present an argument for public policy that is not grounded in your religious, contrary to the rights all of us are guaranteed under the 1st Amendment, call me. Otherwise, I care very little about how you choose to believe in God. When it comes to public policy I would hope you share this sentiment about MY beliefs about God.

And that, if you haven’t been paying attention, is exactly what this is all about.

John on August 5, 2009 at 12:53 pm

Californiascreaming says gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate naturally. This is absurd for a couple of reasons. First, no couple has ever in the history of the planet been denied the right to marry because they couldn’t procreate naturally, to make an exception for a couple simply because they are gay would be farcical. Second, the presumed reason bigots like Californiascreaming suggest such a restriction is because they see marriage as primarily about raising children. Given this and the fact that 1/3 of gay couples have children it would be rather stupid to deny the children of those gay couples the support of legally married parents. The reality is that despite all the protestations that marriage is about children bigots like Californiascreaming have no problem with harming children or denying them married parents solely because their parents are gay. You’re an evil person Californiascreaming.

Priya Lynn on August 5, 2009 at 2:40 pm

hmm you know the real cause of all this madness? Woman suffrage, our founders knew in their hearts that if women ever got the vote this country would go down hill fast, and boy has it!

I kid, but when you use silly lines like, “The fast revolutions of several Constitutional drafters spinning in their graves. No doubt, the Founding Fathers never intended us to count men married to men and women married to women when they crafted,”

It’s silly on so many levels that I hate to even mention the fact of what the original draft said. Still as landed gentry, I would have a vote and you would not, and my vote would go towards a Yes on gay marriage.

As for those who like to paint gay marriage with funny words, and say it’s not traditional or biblical that’s fine. Our grandparents changed marriage for an important reason, they felt that the arranged marriages were a travesty to freedom and thought that marriage should be based on two people in love, not two people bound by the will of their families or churches. Yes divorce has risen, that was a given, considering that even today in free divorce culture as many as 75% of married partners commit adultery at least once, it’s not hard thing to see why marriages based on love are harder to maintain. Personally I don’t expect any church to have to call gay marriage as “blessed by their god”, in fact I don’t care about that at all, I’m an atheist, but I do expect my government, of whom I”m a funding contributor to find a way to clarify the rights that my relationship has and to make sure that I’m not shut out of the loop for inheritance, hospital care, or spousal benefits (moving my family if I work for the military or the Government) notifying them if I get sick or injured. Things like that, that straight couples take for granted.
as for children viewing my PDA’s deal with it, as long as it’s simple holding hands or a peck on the check, most foreign countries accept this as normal among straights, tell your children we’re european.

Tim on August 5, 2009 at 5:03 pm

First, no couple has ever in the history of the planet been denied the right to marry because they couldn’t procreate naturally, to make an exception for a couple simply because they are gay would be farcical.

Actually that’s no accurate. Impotence is a reason why some Catholics can be denied marriage. Recall the influence the Church once held in predominantly Catholic countries and you’ll see why this was important beyond impacting the lives of the two Catholic unfortunates wanting to get married. Yet again, this is the main point in all of this: we do not govern our affairs by the dictates of ANY religion in this country. Well, at least we are not supposed to courtesy of the 1st & 14th Amendments. I would love to hear the reactions of those here if we are allowed to do otherwise and given that Catholicism is larger than other denomination in this country if ALL the Church’s teaching on sex were implemented into public policy. Forget divorce – for ANY reason (including, for example, if one partner is abusing the other). Forget contraception – for ANY reason (who cares if you are married?).

John on August 5, 2009 at 7:30 pm

John said “Actually that’s no accurate. Impotence is a reason why some Catholics can be denied marriage”.

I find that very hard to believe. Got any proof?

Priya Lynn on August 5, 2009 at 7:42 pm

Jillsr, you obviously didn’t read the qoutes of Alan Keyes:

1. Marriage is simplistic. One man and one woman. Simple.

2. jillsr said “Because gays can’t procreate through natural means they shouldn’t be allowed to marry?” “The only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate from the social point of view the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.”

3.jillsr said, “Hell half of my straight friends had to resort to artificial insemination or invitro fertilization to start their families. Perhaps they shouldn’t have been allowed to marry either? What about everyone who cant or doesn’t want kids? When has procreation ever been a requirement of marriage?
Alan Keyes says “When it is impossible [procreation], as between two males or two females, you are talking about something that is not incidentally impossible, it is impossible in principal…”

“If you say that’s a marriage [HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE], you are saying marriage can be understood in principal apart from procreation, you have changed its definition,in such away, in fact to destroy the necessity of the institution.”

4.jillsr, said, “And to imply that the only purpose of sex is procreation is to have a very limited and unfulfilling view of human sexuality. Sad for you.” No one said homosexuality should be against the law. The definition of marriage for 10,000 years has been one man and one woman. Around the world 99% of the people define marriage as one man and one woman. We have 6.8 Billion people and 99% of the world agree with me. Oh well who is on the wrong side? I guess the people in the third world are too stoopid and unsophisticated to understand the pleasures of the gay lifestyle or anal sex.

CaliforniaScreaming on August 5, 2009 at 9:20 pm

John said that, “When you can present an argument for public policy that is not grounded in your religious, contrary to the rights all of us are guaranteed under the 1st Amendment, call me.”
Again from Alan Keyes, “The only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate from the social point of view the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.” We want an orderly society. Uhh there have been civilization before us. Guess what they got along well without HOMOSEXUAL marriage. Was their civilizations lacking? Plus HOMOSEXUAL marriage is legal. People have the right to have to marry anyone they want in a private ceremony. If a two males or two female chose to have a private marriage will they be prosecuted? No. They are protected under the first amendment. The recognition of marriage is what is the government is involved in. That has nothing to do with the first amendment. Marriage has been recognized as one man and one woman. These were laws passed down from thousands of years of cultural tradition to insure an orderly society. Maybe that is why it has worked for thousands of years. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

CaliforniaScreaming on August 5, 2009 at 9:37 pm

Priya Lynn, again another person who doesn’t understand the concept of marriage. Priya Lynn said, “First, no couple has ever in the history of the planet been denied the right to marry because they couldn’t procreate naturally, to make an exception for a couple simply because they are gay would be farcical.” Yes they have. Homosexuals have never been married before 10 years ago. In case you haven’t figured it out, Alan Keyes says again, “Between a man and a woman, in principal procreation is always possible. It is that possibility that gave rise to the institution of marriage, in the first place.”

“When it is impossible [procreation], as between two males or two females, because you are talking about something that is not incidentally impossible, it is impossible in principal…”

Again it is IMPOSSIBLE for HOMOSEXUALS to have children. NOT INCIDENTALLY IMPOSSIBLE (like being sterile, or impotent), it is IMPOSSIBLE IN PRINCIPAL (two vaginas or two penises can’t create children alone). Marriage was derived through history in different cultures, civilization and religions. All have the same concept ONE AND ONE WOMAN to create children that binds and form a family. Sorry if you have problem with cultures, civilization, biology, and history. They are all on my side.

“1/3 of gay couples have children”. Homosexuals always inflate their figures. I remember Homosexuals said 10% of the population is gay.

“You’re an evil person Californiascreaming.” No I am direct person who doesn’t want someone to shit down my throat and tell me it tastes good. I call like I see ’em.

CaliforniaScreaming on August 5, 2009 at 10:00 pm

“I find that very hard to believe. Got any proof?”

Yep:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM

John on August 5, 2009 at 10:24 pm

“Again from Alan Keyes, ‘The only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate from the social point of view the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.’ We want an orderly society. Uhh there have been civilization before us.”

Indeed. Yet if you want to go back to REAL traditional marriage with Keyes’ appeal here, okay. Women get reduced to chattel again, divorce becomes either the man’s option or denied to both, contraception become verboten, etc.

“Plus HOMOSEXUAL marriage is legal. People have the right to have to marry anyone they want in a private ceremony. If a two males or two female chose to have a private marriage will they be prosecuted? No. They are protected under the first amendment. The recognition of marriage is what is the government is involved in. That has nothing to do with the first amendment.”

Actually it does since your objections stem from your religious views and not much else. Then of course there is that pesky 14th Amendment which requires the government to treat all citizens equally under the law. There is no compelling reason to deny CIVIL same-sex marriage and here’s hoping that Olsen & Boies are successful!

“Marriage has been recognized as one man and one woman. These were laws passed down from thousands of years of cultural tradition to insure an orderly society. Maybe that is why it has worked for thousands of years. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”

So has slavery, at least until about a century ago. So has concubinage, at least until a few centuries ago. So have polygamy, which has a far longer history than monogamy and lasts even till this day. Tradition does not trump equal access and protection under the law.

John on August 5, 2009 at 10:32 pm

“‘1/3 of gay couples have children’. Homosexuals always inflate their figures. I remember Homosexuals said 10% of the population is gay.”

Then you should be happy the Census Bureau is counting same-sex couples, even imperfectly, because we will soon get more accurate figures. 😉

John on August 5, 2009 at 10:34 pm

Again, John we as Americans can bring our beliefs to ballot box. To say we cant believe they way we do and not to vote in such a matter is to deny us our religious beliefs. As a culture if we decide at the ballot box to keep one man and one woman that is the definition of marriage.

As for the 14th Amendment, Homosexuals are allowed to marry just like Heterosexuals. Everyone’s marriage is recognized as long as they are married to someone of the opposite sex. Any person cannot have their marriage recognized if it is someone of the same sex, regardless of their sexuality. I am heterosexual and I cannot get a married recognized if I am to be married to someone of the same sex. A homosexual can get their marriage recognized as long it is of the opposite. We are both being treated equally. We both can have our marriages recognized as long it is of the opposite sex and we both cant have our marriages recognized as long as it is of the same sex. Both treated equally.

CaliforniaScreaming on August 5, 2009 at 10:58 pm

“Again, John we as Americans can bring our beliefs to ballot box. To say we cant believe they way we do and not to vote in such a matter is to deny us our religious beliefs.”

When did I say that you couldn’t?

“As a culture if we decide at the ballot box to keep one man and one woman that is the definition of marriage.”

Here is where your proposition becomes dicey. As a culture we decided long ago to abide by certain principles enshrined in the Constitution. One of these is freedom of religion and equal access/protection under the law. Contrary to what you may believe, you do NOT have the right to deny the civil rights of your fellow Americans whether through the ballot box or other means especially because of your personal religious views. You are no more entitled to have your religious views become public policy than I am.

“As for the 14th Amendment, Homosexuals are allowed to marry just like Heterosexuals.”

Then we no longer have any argument.

“Everyone’s marriage is recognized as long as they are married to someone of the opposite sex. Any person cannot have their marriage recognized if it is someone of the same sex, regardless of their sexuality.”

And here is where you violate the 14th Amendment and resurrect more odious portions of our nation’s history. The same argument was made in favor of segregation and anti-miscenegation laws. Blacks and whites were free to marry, as long as it was to someone of their own race since after all interracial marriage was against the customs, norms, traditions and the laws of much this country at the same.

“I am heterosexual and I cannot get a married recognized if I am to be married to someone of the same sex.”

Actually you can now in 8 states, though since you are heterosexual I wouldn’t recommend it anymore than I would a gay person being fooled by religious “ex-gay” groups into marrying someone of the opposite sex. By what right or falsely assumed power does the Federal government persist in denying legally married same-sex couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual ones?

John on August 6, 2009 at 9:15 am