It ain't what you don't know that hurts, it's what you know that just ain't so.
Gay marriage is not a fundamental civil right.
I am not a Christian, and I have no problem with gay people. One of my best friends is gay.
But since when has marriage between people of the same sex been considered a "fundamental civil right"?
Answer: Since gay people decided it would be a shortcut to "acceptance"--just get the law to SAY it's so, and wheee! Everyone will accept gay people as equals.
It's a lazy, embarrassingly dishonest attempt twisting reality to fit a model that has never, ever existed in any society.
This is the definitive word on gays and gay marriage/civil unions.....
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
How can you 'know' something that isn't true? But even if it were true, you're right - we still have a clear right to bear arms which precedes and trumps any gov't law or action.
Gay people have exactly the same rights as I do. They can marry anyone they want, so long as the other person is of the opposite sex.
My pickup truck is blue. But I say it’s red, and I want a law forcing everybody else to call it red.
“Gay Marriage” is the same thing. They can call their relationships anything they want, but that won’t make it a marriage. Don’t try to force me to call your relationship something it ain’t.
The gay bishop is not only a self-centered malignant narcissist intent on destroying his church, he's an idiot too.
Liberal tripe.
I know that tough gun control laws save lives and make our communities safer, for example,
One cannot know what is not so. One who does not know the difference between knowledge and belief is not to be trusted in his opinions.
Gay people have exactly the same right as hetero people to marry a person of the opposite sex and to spend the subsequent years trying to figure out how something so very different from oneself could still be, nominally at least, human.
http://folsomstreetfair.org/photos/folsom-2008/index.php?page=2
Sorry Eugene, dressing up anal sex with flowery civil rights language does not work anymore.
See the gay “marriage” annual convention above.
This is their favorite canard and obviously Gene 'Grouper' Robinson has swallowed it hook line sinker and boat.
THEY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. The constant cries of discrimination and second-class citizen status are red herrings. Loving v Virginia involved a MAN and a WOMAN.
We don't call a hand a foot. We don't call a foot a hand. Language is the outgrowth of man's attempts to interact with and describe his environment. Marriage is marriage because it provides the potential for procreation and - not to be dramatic - literally the survival of the species.
The battle is on two fronts: the usual gaggle of leftists who believe that a court's decision can change minds and hearts and a subsegment of the left that believes a court decision will somehow magically translate into societal acceptance.
Even 'less do it cos we're nice peepul' writers like Gene Robinson acknowledge that societal acceptance is the goal, not equal legal standing, insurance, etc.
Last but not least is the constant trumpeting of the longevity of gay relationships. 'I've been with my partner for 18 years etc.' IRRELEVANT. Emotions do not a Constitutional argument make although plenty of people are attempting to engineer one.
This “guy” being a bishop pretty much explains why church attendance in New Hampshire is among the lowest in the nation.(only 24% attend church regularly).
Well, that's the nub of the issue.
SOCIETY DOESN'T APPROVE.
And, furthermore, as far as compelled approval goes, 51% just doesn't cut it. For the full force of the government to compel adherence to some moral and symbolic gesture, a huge supermajority should be required - like 2/3 of the Congress, and 3/4 of the states.
Anything less destroys social cohesion and engenders tyranny.
When I was in graduate school, I saw a letter to the editor of the college rag that pretty much summed up what the whole push is for gay “marriage.”
A girl was complaining that because she’s a lesbian, her family doesn’t accept her. If only it were possible for her to “marry” her partner, she opined, then her family would realize that her love for her partner is perfectly normal, and they would accept her.
Of course, if she would have applied some logic, she would have realized that even if she got a legal document saying she’s “married” to her girlfriend, her family would still be reacting to the fact that she’s mentally ill... no document can change that.
With such a stunning display of anti-intellect, one wonders how she could get by in college.
Take the contractual aspect away and leave the sacrament alone.
That would eliminate the "issue".
Let courts decide property rights based on individual cases.
But marriage is an institution that is defined and exists outside of the State. I accept that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. That means that gays cannot “marry” each other anymore than I can marry my pet cat.
If one reviews the claims made by homosexual groups (like www.hrc.org) as to why they should be allowed to “marry”, most of them are centered around issues rooted in the tax code. This is the unintended consequence of giving government the job of defining who is married and who is not. This is just one more reason to remove that function from government.
While I strongly suspect that the real reason that gays are clamoring to “marry” has more to do with their inability to gain approval for their behavior from the rest of us, the issue of gay “marriage” may help us to have more clarity on the proper role of government.
When gay “marriage” proponents successfully challenge a law in court, they are able to ratchet up their claims of “equality” for behavior that directly conflicts with the historic institution of marriage. This leads directly, for example, to where we are today in Kalifornia’s public schools teaching that homosexuality is just an alternative “life style”. Parents are thus almost powerless to prevent their children from being continually indoctrinated.
And thus we come full circle: social conservatives have long used government to intrude into areas of personal morality. Now that social liberals (er, “progressives”) have seized that power, we see that the sword of government's power cuts both ways. I think the case can now be made that we must take that power away from government lest even posts like this one should one day become a criminal act of a “hate crime”
Believe it or not, often I can see the other side of an argument.
Uh, I sense that you are a mindless liberal. I don't buy it.
I know that tough gun control laws save lives and make our communities safer,
The only "people" made safer by tough gun control laws are the criminals, who will never obey any kind of law, and who will be better able to exploit an unarmed, law-abiding citizenry.
Thinking about some issues involves discerning among subtly graded shades of gray.
Liberals habitually live in a world of gray, choosing to ignore the fact that in many, actually most, instances black and white value judgments do exist. This is how they're able to contort the Constitution into construed grotesque forms.
... granting full equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans, which ... [is] a long-overdue imperative, one that the nation is finally beginning to acknowledge....
The same smoke and mirrors that the gaystapo consistently bombards the unthinking masses with, that this is a "civil rights" issue. Repeat a lie until enough folks believe it, and everything else falls into place.
I'm concerned here with the way the law sees the relationship, not the way any particular church or religious leader sees it;
You're a bald-faced liar. The whole target of the homosexual agenda is to reshape society's thinking in order to exact acceptance from every corner of society, whether by persuasion or by FORCE. No one should be naive enough to believe that Christianity (not religion, the homo-activists love religion) will be untouched and not compelled to recognize and celebrate this utterly despicable perversion.
What about the rights of the children to be raised by a mother AND a father?
The State recognizing “gay” marriage puts an end to the best circumstances for raising children and dooms them to a life without one or the other influencing their lives.
“I know that tough gun control laws save lives and make our communities safer, for example, but I also see clarity in the Second Amendment.”
I’d like to thank the author for putting this bullshit statement at the beginning of the article. As soon as I read it I knew whatever followed wouldn’t be worth reading so I skipped it and saved some time that would have undoubtedly been wasted
This is just stupid. "Same-sex marriage" is a parallel institution as well. "Same-sex marriage" can never be a real marriage as marriage requires a man and a woman.
"Same-sex marriage" is functionally different from traditional marriage.
At the heart of this fight is the desire of the deviants to pretend that they are exactly like normal people. They want to force societal and governmental acceptance of their perversion.
Yet government can't change reality. "Same-sex marriage" can only be a cheap counterfeit. It can NEVER be the functional equivalent of traditional marriage, because men and women are different, and you need one of each to get a real marriage.
The homosexualists are setting up their own parallel institution anyway.