So you don't believe in the sanctity of gay marriage. You believe that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Fine. But give gays a civil union where they can go down to city hall, pay some fees, sign some forms, and be able to make legal and medical decisions for each other. But you seem to have a big problem with that too. The Bible I have has a guy named Jesus who talks about loving your neighbor. I can't find anywhere in any of the Gospels where he says "Bash the queers, except closeted ones like Mark Foley and Ted Haggard."

You're on the losing side of that, though. More and more states are allowing civil unions, most recently New Hampshire which had actually banned gay marriage a few years back, and they did it through the legislature, not through the courts. In 2006 Arizona voters defeated a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, civil unions, heterosexual cohabitation, and probably heavy petting.

You talk of Obama as being divisive, but no one is more divisive than the right--the right that constantly bashes larger and larger chunks of the American people. Nonwhites, feminists, labor, non-evangelical Christians, uncloseted gays, the environmentally conscious, intellectuals, the creative, the young, scientists, single women, urbanites, the list goes on. Who's left?

Mark for starters the definition:

Moral- pertaining to right conduct or duties; ethical; virtuous; chaste; discriminating between right and wrong; esp. concerning sex-relations; habits

That is according to Webster's Dictionary.

This now leads to interpretation by the reader. We covered this last week and you felt that it was just absolutely immoral.

French Student, AO and myself brought to you points that countered your argument. With all that was written nothing was solved. Homosexual relations are not immoral and when AAR start with the beastiality and incest you will have to fight with yourself.

This is not about being tolerated, but about equality for all and not to bring forth legislation for provides for one group and not all (tax relief for the rich, married couples, inheritance law, hospital visitation rights, and the list goes on).

Mark, lets look at it from this point of view.

left: Hey, we should make straight and gay couples equals.

religous right: sorry cant do that, it would go against our faith.

left: but what harm could it do?

right: its against _our_ faith, so cant be done.

left: so it wont do any harm?

thats basicly how the argument really goes (yes both sides constantly beat the same argument, because there doesnt seem to be any other...)

The long standing traditions argument is completely and utterly pointless. its been a very long tradition to have slaves, to beat your wife, etc. We abandon "traditions" on a regular basis to reflect modern morals, so when you come up with an argument thats not based on religion (eg, how can it hurt someone if 2 gay people get married?) no ones going to listen....

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked,"

We have evidence of that from our resident religious proponent, Jeremiah.

These are just a few of numerous divisive comments posted by him; there are too many to quote now, so this is a condensed version of the type of thing to which Mr. Obama is referring:-

--------------------------------------------------

YOU (A liberal of course) KILL FOR CONVENIENCE!!!

YOU FOOLS!!! YOU FOOLS!!!

Posted by: Jeremiah at November 14, 2006 11:32 AM

--------------------------------------------------

The grass is always greener on the other side, like, you know the CONSERVATIVE SIDE!

This war is about GOOD vs. EVIL and those who practice the teachings of Jesus will triumph over evil!
God allowed this war to happen because he seen the worlds distress as Christians everywhere were experiencing persecution for their beliefs!
Make NO mistake about it! God is going to protect His chosen people, Many people confuse Gods chosen people solely with Israel, Truth is - God's chosen people are ALL those who believe - in His one and ONLY SON Jesus Christ - there are Christians worldwide! But sadly many countries will not accept Christianity as the NORM so to speak! To many countries - it has to be Mohammed or some other false god or religion as the dominant! and any who fall outside the bounds of THEIR religion will be persecuted and put into bondage for disobeying the countries rules of the pre-dominant god.

This war was meant for a reason?
Almighty God, is looking out for HIS PEOPLE.
...And I can guarantee you God's WILL, is JUST!!

Thanks be to God - We have a president at the present who is doing just that - God's WILL

Posted by: Jeremiah at September 1, 2006 11:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------
Liberals hate Jesus!

Is that enough proof? or do you need more...

Posted by: Jeremiah at December 10, 2006 04:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------

The Communist democrat liberals are taking the imposition that all life should be murdered that does not suit their so-called perfection, and EVIL mentality! What is the world coming to????

Only one thing comes to mind when thinking about this: THIRD-REICH NAZI'S.Who was the leader? Hitler! and he describes our Communist democrats to the Tee!!!

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO AMERICA? JUST SIT AROUND AND THINK IT WILL ALL GET BETTER ALL BY ITSELF?

WHY CAN'T WE JUST STAND UP AND SAY - THIS IS IT, WE'VE HAD ENOUGH, WE'RE GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS NON-SENSE! AND WE ARE'NT GOING TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN ANYMORE, PERIOD!! THIS IS A JAW-BREAKING OUTRAGE!!WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!

WHY CAN'T WE DO SOMETHING???? THIS HAS WENT ON FOR TOO LONG!!!!!!!!! AND IT'S GETTING WORSE!!!!! ALL BECAUSE WE DON'T STAND UP TO THESE HATE-FILLED, BLOOD-THIRSTY, COMMUNIST, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!THE DEMOCRATS ARE OUT OF CONTROL, IT'S INSANE!! WHAT THEY ARE DOING!!!!

Posted by: Jeremiah at November 6, 2006 12:45 AM

left: Hey, we should make straight and gay couples equals.

Until you can figure out a way for 2 men to conceive a child together or 2 women to conceive a child together without outside help, that's gonna be a tough challenge.

The Left's view of equality, particularly equality of outcome, is one of the things I detest most about modern Liberalism. There are simply some things that cannot be made equal no matter how hard you try or how much money you throw at them.

One of my favorite quotes puts equality in perspective:

Sorry, not sure why it dropped off the quote:

That's weird, it did it again:

"The vice of capitalism is that there is an unequal share of the blessings; the virtue of socialism is that there is an equal share of the misery." - Winston Churchill

Until you can figure out a way for 2 men to conceive a child together or 2 women to conceive a child together without outside help, that's gonna be a tough challenge.
Retired Spook

Well now, what do we do with heterosexual couples that have to use artifical or outside help to conceive? Do we take their marriage back and make it just a civil union? I am not sure I understand the rational!

I am not sure I understand the rational!

Well, rockville, let me see if I can help you out. When a heterosexual couple is unable to conceive, it is a medical problem, often, but not always, with a medical solution. The fact that a homosexual couple cannot conceive is a biological problem for which medical science has, so far, not been able to find a solution. There is a design compatibility problem that would seem to be insurmountable.

"L: "You bigots!!!""

It just shows that procreation is possible and not everyone wants kids or have the need for them. Even with medical science heterosexual couples still may not get what they want. The point, it's not the only reason to marry.

It's about the relationship of two individuals in love.

Spook, I can't see where gay marriage is an example of equality of outcome. It seems to me to be more a question of equality of opportunity. And as a general rule, I don't have a problem with equality of opportunity.

My parents were required to have two wedding ceremonies -- one for her family and one for his. See, my dad was Catholic and my mom was Presbyterian, and neither side would set foot in the other's church. It was an episode that caused my mom continuing disappointment.

Interestingly, when I was in college I got serious with a woman who happened to be black. And she went nuts over that. My dad was fine with the concept, but she couldn't cope with the idea that her beloved son might end up marrying a black woman. It didn't matter that she was smart, beautiful, exceedingly out-going, and a devout Catholic. To be fair to my mom, though, her parents freaked out even more. And that is what eventually broke us up. Apparently it was okay for her to go out with a white guy occasionally, but get serious about one? No way. Go figure.

Marriage to me is much more about foundation principles like love and commitment, and less about superficial issues like religious affiliation, race, or gender preference.

But give gays a civil union where they can go down to city hall, pay some fees, sign some forms, and be able to make legal and medical decisions for each other.

Well, Jaybird-turd, if you paid attention here, you might find that the majority of B4B'ers have no problem with civil unions, and, as evidenced by recent votes, the majority of Americans have no problem either. But since you only pay attention to what suits your sick, twisted agend, you don't know this.

Hey Jaybird-turd, I think those guys who did the anthrax attack were a gay couple who were angry because they couldn't get married...

Well, Rico, the great thing about you and me is that we can disagree on this without calling each other names. I fall into the group that, as keefer notes, has no problem with civil unions, but the radical gay activist community has an in-your-face agenda that won't be satisfied with civil unions.

I just see elevating gay marriage to the same level as what we know as traditional, heterosexual marriage, is a can of worms best left unopened. But I'm also enough of a realist to believe that it'll probably happen. In the long battle between secular humanists and people of faith, secular humanists have a long string of victories. Doesn't make them right, just successful.

Nature has set up means of preventing anamolies.
Very few animals can be bread across different lines, IE cat-dog.In the few instances that can be the young are sterile.

Men were not formed to be with other men. Our bodies are not developed for this. Homosexuality is a mental disorder and has ALWAYS been considered so by the medical, and legal associations until the marxist "awakinging" of the 60's.

Our culture, (Christian-Judeo) has brought this nation to be the greatest empire in the entire history of mankind. This has ben accomplished by faith in the Christian GOD and his teachings.

I make no apologies for the Bible or the rejection of homosexuality as an accepted/PROTECTED "lifestyle".
NOTE I didnt say we rejected homosexuals personally it is the flaunted forced in your face lifestyle.

As for obama.........WHO?
a 1st term senator from a gerymandered district for POTUS? great just great!

I think the "in your face agenda" is baited by not you Spook, but by the individuals that are the name calling type from your group.

I am not sure what can come from the can of worms, expect ???? I truly don't know the answer.

I am not sure what can come from the can of worms, expect ???? I truly don't know the answer.

Neither does anyone else. My fear is that, if gay marriage comes to pass, we'll have one of those "what-the-hell-were-we-thinking" moments down the road. Like much of what modern Liberalism has foisted on us, I just don't see it as improving our civilization. When you see "equality" as of the utmost importance, the long-term ramifications don't much matter.

Civil Unions have broad support among conservatives. It's the gay community that is divisive and unsatisfied with unions and continues to force the marriage agenda.

That being said, and considering the current state of world conditions, shouldn't we be trying to come closer to God and his teachings rather that finding more ways to part from them?

What is really funny is that you lefties, instead of considering what I've written, have just gone straight into the "you bigots" part of your mantra.

Don't you see? Its not we on the right being divisive - it is you, with your crude insults to those who disagree, who are dividing us. You bring in something new and when we don't immediately agree to chuck aside all we know in favor of your position, we're bigots. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way - you have to PROVE to us that your novelty is in accordance with right conduct and conducive to a well-ordered liberty. Once you do that, we'll gladly go along with you because we will always do what is in accordance with right conduct and a well-ordered liberty.

Until then, just leave off the bigotry - don't divide us; unite with us for the betterment of society.

Until then, just leave off the bigotry - don't divide us; unite with us for the betterment of society.

Posted by Mark Noonan at June 24, 2007 12:32 PM

And yet, Mark, you continue to embrace and celebrate the sick and twisted thinking of religious commentators, such as Jeremiah, who spews bigotry with every post. ?????

- you have to PROVE to us that your novelty is in accordance with right conduct and conducive to a well-ordered liberty.

Mark, who is the judge as to when this is met? That is the problem. It is left up to interpretation (laws, constitution and the Bible).

And yet, Mark, you continue to embrace and celebrate the sick and twisted thinking of religious commentators, such as Jeremiah, who spews bigotry with every post. ?????

CO, please point to the specific example where Mark "embraces and celebrates" comments from Jeremiah.

Secondly, your

Mark, who is the judge as to when this is met? That is the problem. It is left up to interpretation (laws, constitution and the Bible).

History is also the judge rockhead. The following was also part of Marks debate.

"Look, we've checked carefully on this and it seems that in our faith and in the long-standing traditions of our society, there is no provision for same sex marriage.

I think this is what Obama was referring to in his speech:

"[The] feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - Pat Robertson

"...the acceptance of homosexuality is the last step in the decline of Gentile civilization." - Pat Robertson

"god hates homosexuality" - Jerry Fallwell

Someone must not be afriad to say, 'moral perversion is wrong.' If we do not act now, homosexuals will 'own' America!...If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will leterally crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way...and our nation will pay a terrible price!" - Jerry Fallwell

"Militant homosexuality is fundamentally opposed to religion, family, and anything that presupposes a natural moral order, a transcendent God, or something else higher than ourselves. The activist homosexual agenda and worldview are fundamentally incompatible with Christianity or any form of true religion, because homosexuality is ultimately narcissism" - Family Research Council

"The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers - the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel." - David Chilton

"Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity." - Tom DeLay

"The long term goal [is] the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them. If we argue that abortion is murder, then we must call for the death penalty." - Gary DeMar

"Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it. ... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory." - Jimmy Swaggart

Well, Rico, the great thing about you and me is that we can disagree on this without calling each other names. Retired Spook

Neocon,

you are a prime example why in your face agenda is present. To have a civil dialogue would be to much of a strain.

And to your point that history is also the judge, it has also been shown that there were errors (slavery).

keefer: Well, Jaybird-turd, if you paid attention here, you might find that the majority of B4B'ers have no problem with civil unions...

Is that true? Forgive me, but I got the impression it was more than just a question of semantics. So, most everyone here thinks it's fine to give homosexual couples all the legal rights associated with marriage as long as you don't use the label, "marriage"? That's all this controversy is about?

Now even neocon has signed on. How interesting. I guess I haven't been paying attention. I thought the controversy involved a lot more than what the acceptable term was for something that otherwise walked and quacked like a duck. I still find it hard to believe it's not.

....you are a prime example why in your face agenda is present. To have a civil dialogue would be to much of a strain.

Again your HISTORY preceeds you. You have made so many assinine and personal-attack remarks on this site that civil discourse with you requires an effort I am unsure I want to make.

And to your point that history is also the judge, it has also been shown that there were errors (slavery).

Who ever said history was perfect? And the institution of marriage between a man and a woman has much more longevity than the institution of slavery. But nice attemtpt at a complete non-sensical comparison.

So, most everyone here thinks it's fine to give homosexual couples all the legal rights associated with marriage as long as you don't use the label, "marriage"? That's all this controversy is about? - rico

Yea pretty much rico. If you would actually listen to conservatives rather than assume what they say and go into a reflexive combative position, you might learn a lot.

Civil Unions, and all of the afforded rights are acceptable. The institution of "marriage" should be allowed only for the traditional union of man and woman.

Conservatives, and particularly those of faith, more often choose to hate the sin, but love and embrace the sinner. We will never condone their actions but will accept and have compassion towards them as children of God.

I guess I haven't been paying attention. I thought the controversy involved a lot more...

Rico, I think, in the not-too-distant past, it did involve more. I think for many mainstream Conservative like me, the issue HAS evolved. I haven't seen any recent polling numbers, but the vast majority of people I know, of all political stripes, don't have a problem with civil unions.

I do believe, however, that like most Liberal fads, this too will run it's course. If you look at the socialogical history of homosexuals, you'll see that the liklihood of them staying in a long-term, committed relationship is miniscule. I recall a study a while back (possibly as long as 10-15 years ago) that concluded the average heterosexual male had around 6 or 7 secual partners over a lifetime, while the average homosexual male, over a much shorter lifespan, had upwards of 100 sexual partners. That demographic doesn't bode well for long-term unions, civil or otherwise.

"I recall a study a while back (possibly as long as 10-15 years ago) that concluded the average heterosexual male had around 6 or 7 secual partners over a lifetime, while the average homosexual male, over a much shorter lifespan, had upwards of 100 sexual partners. That demographic doesn't bode well for long-term unions, civil or otherwise."

It would be interesting to see what the rate for females is. I hknow at least three couples who have been together for at least 10 years. All lasted longer than either of my brother's first marragies.

Neocon,

You flip-flop all over from being civil to just rude. History will also show that I have never set out with name calling, but responded to those who have agitated (called me names first) me.

The point about history is that it has to start somewhere. Do we start it today or wait 50 years until society is more accepting? The point should be made that there are more states placing the definition of marriage as a man and a woman to prevent gays for having any type of equality.

For centuries marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman.

In an effort to pervert this cultural tradition and scriptural mandate the left wishes to redefine this as between any two adults.

Why stop there, why not between:

1. a man and multiple women
2. a women and multiple men
3. multiple men and mulitple women
4. an adult male and a child (male or female) because who is to say what the age of consent is.
5. and adult women and a child (male or female)
6. a man and a goat
7 a mand and several goats
7. a womand and a donkey
8 a women and several donkeys
9. a man and a blow-up doll
10. fill in the blank.

Where do we draw the line leftists, and why????

From this debate, it sounds to me that if we reserve the term "marriage" to describe the commitment between a man and a woman in the eyes of the church and the state, and we use the term "civil union" to describe the commitment of two adults of the same sex or opposite sex in the eyes of the state alone, for the purposes of preserving equal protection under the law, we don't have a problem any more.

Now if we can just bury the hatchet and shake hands...

Now to your point Mark - that it's really the liberals who are driving the wedge - come on now... perhaps Obama has misidentified the culprits (evangelical leaders) seizing upon these wedge issues, but there is no doubt that the right has masterfully exploited them to its advantage from 1999 up until the most recent elections. Even the most jaded democratic partisans have had to tip their hats to republican strategists for the effective way they've employed issues like gay marriage, gun control and out-of-control secularism to generate voter fear and outrage. Can you really say it's the liberals who are dividing us with a straight face?

CO, please point to the specific example where Mark "embraces and celebrates" comments from Jeremiah.

Posted by: neocon at June 24, 2007 12:47 PM

Perhaps, neocon, the word 'condone' or even 'support' would have been a more appropriate description, as is shown in this specific example.

Gavin and CO,

Jeremiah is just bearing enthusiastic witness to you...the really cool thing about it is that it is now up to the Holy Spirit to do the heavy lifting...you've gotten the word, and now as time goes on you'll be ever more pressed to make that choice. You both seem clever enough to make the right choice, though it could take some years before enlightenment comes to you.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at December 10, 2006 05:47 PM

The point should be made that there are more states placing the definition of marriage as a man and a woman to prevent gays for having any type of equality. - rockhead

Wrong (again). They're protecting the institution of marriage. Why is EVERYTHING preceived as an affront to the gay agenda?

You flip-flop all over from being civil to just rude. - rockhead

I wasn't the one who felt offended, you were. I will be civil with those I deem worthy, sorry, you don't fall into that category.

Jeremiah is just bearing enthusiastic witness to you......-CO

That's the best you could come up with? I will give you condone, just barely.

Jeremiahs heart is in the right place. Unlike Islamists whose "enthusiastic witness's" tend to lose their heads.....literally.

Spook and neocon, so you're saying that if the state you live in were to pass laws to grant same-sex couples the same legal rights and obligations as heterosexual married couples so long as their union was not called a "marriage", you would be fine with that? And if the federal gov't were to do the same thing, you'd be fine with that, too? And you really believe that most folks here on B4B are of the same opinion?

How about you, Mark? And what do all you other people think?

Wrong (again). They're protecting the institution of marriage. Why is EVERYTHING preceived as an affront to the gay agenda? Neocon

I am not offended and would never give you that satifaction. I also do not need to sank to your level.

You want to make this about the gay agenda, but tell me how is the institution of marriage in trouble with gay marriages? Watch out everyone is waiting for your response.

Watch out everyone is waiting for your response. - rockhead

What the hell is this suppose to mean? As if there is some taboo answer.

The institution of marriage between and man and a woman is sacred and recognized by many faiths to be blessed by God. That should not be compromised and God DOES NOT condone same sex unions. Just FYI. I am surprised I even had to answer that question, but considering the person who asked the it maybe not.

neocon, so you're saying that if the state you live in were to pass laws to grant same-sex couples the same legal rights and obligations as heterosexual married couples so long as their union was not called a "marriage", you would be fine with that? - rico

Did I not make myself clear the first time? What is it with liberals always needing clarification? I guess they're so use to spin they have trouble recognizing an honest answer the first time around.

So as long as it is a man marrying a woman then the institution of marriage is intact?

Forget the arranged marriages for religious reasons, I married the girl cause she is pregnant, my parents made us get married or my favorite I was drunk on a trip to Vegas.

Are you getting angry Neocon?

You don't have to go to the church to say I do there is city hall. Does that not count?

Ricorun,

In actual fact, most of the legal conveniences of marriage are already obtainable by same-sex couples simply by executing a few fairly simple legal documents. For instance, before I was married to my wife, we had already set up a trust and she was empowered to make medical decisions for me if I was incommunicado. For the rest of it, mostly in terms of health insurance and tax benfits, it becomes a bit more tricky - we can't just allow any two people to say they should get health insurance or tax benefits. There has to be some control otherwise everyone will take advantage for personal reasons what was set up in order to advance and secure marriage and family creation.

For people who are living in what we used to call a common-law marriage, I think we can make some provisions, even if they are of the same sex. Perhaps if they have lived together continuously for a year or two and have executed necessary legal documents to comingle their assets and liabilities, we can then set up a mechanism awarding them tax benefits and other things which accrue automatically to the married state - this, though, would be done merely to be kind, not as a matter of rights.

You see, we apply to marriage various privileges and immunities not because we think a new married couple is cute - we do it because we recognise the vital task which families perform. Applying tax benefits to two well-off gay men because they are "married" is a negation of the reason we apply benefits to marriage - Marriage and family are sacrificial tasks worthy of benefits; just being two guys living together isn't at all sacrificial and provides no worthwhile service to society.

We don't, you see, just do something because someone thinks we should - and refusal to agree to change is not evidence of bigotry; for there to be bigotry, one would have to make such a strong case for the benefits of an action that to oppose it can be demonstrated as pig-headedness. What I'm tired of - and, I'll bet, most of my fellow conservatives are tired of - is this rank assertion by liberals that if we don't agree to the latest liberal fad, then we are bigots. We're tired of the divisiveness of American politics, and we'd like to see people - in this case, stating with Obama - cut it out and try to work with us for the common good.

extra,

No, it has been you on the left who have started it and drive it ever downwards into the muck. Some of us are old enough to remember what Kennedy did to Bork, ya know?

CAIndie,

Who the heck is Gary DeMar? Please at least stick to conservatives whom more than ten people have heard of. Never heard of the Chilton character, either...and I'm a pretty well informed guy, ya know?

kiwi,

Gay and straight are already equal as regards marriage - what you want to do is introduce the novelty of same sex couples. To do that, the onus is on you that it is right and beneficial to do so.

Applying tax benefits to two well-off gay men because they are "married" is a negation of the reason we apply benefits to marriage - Marriage and family are sacrificial tasks worthy of benefits; just being two guys living together isn't at all sacrificial and provides no worthwhile service to society.

Mark I have issues with this statement.
1. Not every gay couple makes these substantial numbers.
2. Many gay couples have children either through adoption, artifical insemination or from previous marriages/relationships.

That being said, you can you this blanket statement. These sacrificial tasks are voluntary and are a wonderful part of society, but everyone should have the same advantages.

Are you getting angry Neocon? - rockhead

Aren't liberals fun! They really do have the minds of children.

Forget the arranged marriages for religious reasons, I married the girl cause she is pregnant, my parents made us get married or my favorite I was drunk on a trip to Vegas.

I am assuming you have a point in there somewhere rockhead, of course I am not sure you even know what that point would be. All of the above examples reflect a union between one man and one woman, and if they choose, they could have that union blessed in the House of God, and that includes your city hall reference.

Mark I have issues with this statement.

Thanks rockhead......I laughed my ass off on that one.

WHEN DON'T YOU HAVE ISSUES!!

Rockville,

No, not everyone should have the same advantages - superior sacrifice must carry with it superior privilege.

As for gay people who have children - they already get child tax credits.

And, finally, while not all gay people are financially well off, the plain fact still remains that gay people are on average better off than straight people - this being because they are generally not as tied to family obligations as straight people tend to be and thus are able to obtain that extra education and work experience which translates into higher earning power.

spook, OK, if you're going to use that argument (only a man and a woman can get married because they can have babies) then shouldn't you force couples who wish to marry to have a kid? or is it ok to choose to get married, and not have a kid, as long as you are able to have a kid?

Mark,
Do you have any gay friends?

It is usually them that are responsible for the parents that the straight kids are to busy to look in on. That is their superior sacrifice and there is no break for taking care of them. Why aren't the children tax breaks enought for all couples?

It is usually them that are responsible for the parents that the straight kids are to busy to look in on. - rockhead

This is the most assinine statement I have ever read, congrats rockhead.

Rockhead takes generalization to another level.

Rockville, You really need to start using your head, instead of listening to the asinine be-wonderings of the local Libtard University!!!

In the beginning, God Created Man, and He said to Himself, "I must make helper suitable for him, It is not good for him to be alone, I will make him a helper," and so, as you know the account, God took one of Adam's ribs from him, and formed a woman, and he named here Eve!

Now, If you think about it, and you're a level headed person, and not a kooky, non-reasoning, DEMOCRAT lunatic, (such as rockville) then you can pretty well see the reasoning of why God done what He done in the beginning, when He Created Man and Woman; He Created them the opposite sex, So that there would be a mutual bond, and trust, and of course, as we all know; to pro-create, for the perpetuation, and continuation of mankind.

If God would have intended for male and male, or female and female to be together? Don't you think He would have just created another man, and it would have ended there? Of course not!

That's why He Created them; United them - Man and Woman, and HE DID NOT INTEND FOR IT TO BE ANY OTHER WAY!

And as to the comments from the Canadian Observer, I want to make some points of clarification known here --

Mr. Canadian Observer, My intentions are not be-little or trample anyone, for your added interest into the matter of the subject at hand, but only to make it know to those who are in error, as to the qualities of Morality, Morality can only be summed-up into one definition, and can only stand as follows--

Morality - The standard in which one owes their fully obligated duties, and work to Almighty God and to Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living and Almighty God, who sets the moral code for a moral and clean lifestyle.

So then, as it stands, if we are to be morally acceptable in the eyes of God, then it is our duty AS CHRISTIANS to correct those who stand LOST! And in need of the Lord Jesus Christ!! And warn them against the dangers of the sinful lifestyle, such as it is with the Sodomite lifestyle, Now remember, It's the Sin that is condemned, NOT THE SINNER, Sinners are encouraged to turn from their sinful ways, and get a new lease on life, in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, so that they may retain Right to the Tree of Life.

So then, we as Christians do our part to insure that those who err on morality, stand duly corrected.

Now, As far as Mark Noonan standing up for my witnessing, that is what Brothers and Sisters in Christ do for one another, we testify for one another so that we can keep each other steadfast and strong in the Faith.

I find nothing in the least wrong with that, and I want to Thank Mark for doing me those kind favors, those were tough times, and I needed the added encouragement to see me through!!!

Yes, Thanks Indeed, Mark, You've been a tremendous encouragement to me, and I appreciate you, Just keep fighting Brother, Don't let 'em get ya down!!

One last final note - Please remember Lucas in your prayers, He called this evening and said he would be at the Air force recruit center in the morning, He's getting ready to fly, high in the sky, up there with the big birds!

Jeremiah

Lol, sorry Mark. I didn't realize I was supposed to only quote hate spewing religious fundemenatlists that were known by a minimum of ten people. Gary Demar - President of American Vision, writer, and conservative talk show host (www.americanvision.org). David Chilton - Pastor, novelist, and christian reconstructionist (can't find a good website to link. Google him. You'll see).

Dear Christians,
Marriage existed before Christ, and before Moses. The institution does not belong to you, it belongs to humanity. Gays and lesbians are part of humanity.
The end.
Btw, what about those heterosexual couples whose marriage ceremony is completely secular? How are they not a threat? Or are marriages not performed in churches not real marriages?
If, as some of you say, it's them uppity gays wantin to use YOUR word marriage when you'll give them everything else, then at least you have to admit it's the bigots among you pretending there's anyone suggesting a church be forced to marry gays. No one is. There's plenty of churches quite willing to perform ceremonies. Like Obama's, which y'all find so evil.

Mark: In actual fact, most of the legal conveniences of marriage are already obtainable by same-sex couples simply by executing a few fairly simple legal documents...

Regardless of whether the legal conveniences available to gay couples could be described as "most", "some", or "few", my question is whether it's true that most conservatives (at least on this site -- I don't ask you to speculate further) would support laws in their state as well as federal laws that extended to same sex couples all the same legal rights that are extended to heterosexual married couples -- just so long as they don't call it "marriage". Do you think that's accurate? Also, would you be in favor of that yourself, Mark?

Let me explain why I keep asking, neocon. The reason is that I sense a major disconnect here. Namely, if you go back through the B4B archives, arguably the most common opinion is some variation on, "gay marriage will cause the very fabric of our society to deteriorate". So is it really the case that such an apparently deep-seated fear is based on nothing more than the nomenclature employed? That strikes me as more than a little absurd. But if it's not the nomenclature, then what is it? Not you perhaps, but it seems to me that a lot of people seem to be dancing around the concept of same sex civil unions vs. heterosexual marriage, and what they are comfortable allowing the former relative to the latter. And I'm guessing it ain't just about the label you attach.

"And you really believe that most folks here on B4B are of the same opinion?"

Yup, marriage is a man and a woman. Like I said before, you can have your civil union.

"Regardless of whether the legal conveniences available to gay couples could be described as "most", "some", or "few", my question is whether it's true that most conservatives (at least on this site -- I don't ask you to speculate further) would support laws in their state as well as federal laws that extended to same sex couples all the same legal rights that are extended to heterosexual married couples -- just so long as they don't call it "marriage". Do you think that's accurate? Also, would you be in favor of that yourself, Mark?"

Honestly, how many times are you going to ask the same question? Is it so hard to believe? It seems your blind hate for conservatives is blinding you.

Just so you know, I do think homosexuality is unnatural. What animal on Earth has gay sex? Animals aren't even intelligent, yet they still know where to put what.

spook, OK, if you're going to use that argument (only a man and a woman can get married because they can have babies) then shouldn't you force couples who wish to marry to have a kid? or is it ok to choose to get married, and not have a kid, as long as you are able to have a kid?

SK, you obviously didn't read the statement to which I was responding: that we need to make gay and straight couples equal. The point I was trying to make was that biologically that is a tough challenge.

Spook and neocon, so you're saying that if the state you live in were to pass laws to grant same-sex couples the same legal rights and obligations as heterosexual married couples so long as their union was not called a "marriage", you would be fine with that?

I can't speak for Neocon, Rico, but my answer would be yes. If you had asked me the same question a couple years ago, I'm not sure what my answer would have been, probably a definite maybe, or maybe not, LOL.

"What animal on Earth has gay sex? Animals aren't even intelligent, yet they still know where to put what."

Jbbicum,

Homosexuality is well-documented in non-human animals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Gar Wood

jbiccum: It seems your blind hate for conservatives is blinding you.

Thanks for weighing in. No, I certainly don't hate conservatives, blind or otherwise. In many respects I am one. But I still still find the present conversation fascinating. I've never seen such a pure example of symbolism over substance. I guess I'm just not wired that way. My curiosity is genuine.

If you support homosexual "civil unions", then you, in effect, support "gay marriage" because that's where that slippery slope will ultimately lead.

If you oppose "gay marriage" then oppose "civil unions" as well.

AAR

Ricorun,

Can't do it as a blanket thing - if we did that, then anyone who lives with anyone else under whatever circumstances would demand the benefits of marriage and marriage, as I've said, isn't just a thing to do...it is the vital building block of our society.

If you are talking about two gay people who have comingled their assets and debts and they are also raising children and doing other things that families traditionally do, then that would be something to cover by law.

rockville,

As it turns out, I have a gay friend in pricesly that circumstance - being the much more responsible parent than the straight parent. And this friend gains the benefit of the child tax credits...but the tax benefits for marriage? Have to be married for that.

mmm... gay marriage thread... I go out of town for one weekend and I miss all of this fun (family business)...

Personally, I don't believe that the government should deal with marriage, period. Marriage is a religious institution and should be out of the sphere of government influence. Using the government to define marriage in any way is, in effect, using the power of the law to enforce some religious doctrine on to the rest of the country, which is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent when they wrote the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Couples, made up of consenting adults, should seek a license for a civil union, and if they can find a priest to perform a religious marriage ceremony, that's all the better. That takes the pressure off the government to define marriage and allows people to deal with private citizens if they do something that they don't like with marriage, instead of clogging up our legislative agenda with marital semantics.

Mark-

Actually, in an attempt to prevent gay couples from doing anything remotely related to sharing assets, on mid-western state (I think it was Kansas for some reason) passed a law to prevent any two people of the same gender from co-owning property. Some collateral damage: fathers and sons couldn't go into business together, heterosexual people of the same gender couldn't co-own property (IE: be roommates), and prevented all of the same things that you claim gays have such an easy time doing. I'm not sure if they repealed it...

Rana,

Well, the thread isn't about gay marriage, per se, but it has become that - the real thread is about how the left routinely calls anyone who disagrees with them a bigot or some other hateful name. In the particular case here, it is Senator Obama - who has pledged himself to bring American together - saying that we conservative Christians have "hijacked" Christianity. Given that his denomination does allow marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, I wonder what, exactly, he means by that - is he trying to say that Christianity has always married gay people until we conservatives came along and hijacked it? Or is it, more likely, that he hasn't the first clue what he's talking about and is just mindlessly repeating a leftwing mantra?

To be opposed to gay marriage - and a host of other leftwing programs (affirmative action, eg) - is not to be a bigot, or hateful, or divisive...it is to be in disagreement. To be a bigot, one has to dislike someone or some group simply because of their identity...you know, the way Jesse Jackson is bigoted against Jews and Senator Obama is, apparantly, bigoted against conservative Christians.

As I've said before, I know gay people, I am friends with gay people - I don't go into detail about my gay friends beecause while none of them are actually in the closet, some of them are not anxious to have their private lives revealed - and as many friends of mine read this blog, some of whom are unaware of this or that fact about friends and relations, I am as obscure as I can be about personal relationships in order to protect everyone concerned. If you have any respect for me at all, then please trust me when I say you would be flabbergasted to know just how close some gay people are to me - but, of course, your shock at it would really be a result of your lack of understanding of just what a conservative Christian is all about. Good to keep in mind that conservatives seek to conserve what is best...and none of us can get far away from 1 Corinthians 13:

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I must love; it is hard, at times, but I must do it. My Lord commands it, and my heart desires it, and I wish to become a light shining with the love of Our Lord for all I come into contact with. My brothers and sisters who are gay are, indeed, my brothers and sisters and many of them have walked much further with Our Lord than I have, and I ask them to pray for me, and I pray for them...and I will never abandon them, or show ill will towards them or by word or deed seek to harm them. But I must adhere to what is right, I cannot profess a lie just to make some others comfortable in the lie.

"Personally, I don't believe that the government should deal with marriage, period. "

Rana - I agree with you 100%. Well said!

I would be more than happy to let the church determine who is married in the eyes of God. Furthermore, let's respect the wishes of any church to deny marriage to any couple whom they do not see fit to marry, for any reason.

If you support homosexual "civil unions", then you, in effect, support "gay marriage" because that's where that slippery slope will ultimately lead.

If you oppose "gay marriage" then oppose "civil unions" as well. Posted by: AAR
-------------------

Agreed.

The people I know that are gay can care less as to whether they are married or have a civil union. They just want to legally be recognized as a couple with all of the bells and whistle of the heterosexual couples.

It is that they just don't want to be tolerated, but counted as full citizens.

I truly don't know the answer. --rockhead

Gee, there's a big surprise!

Aren't liberals fun! They really do have the minds of children.

neocon, rockhead must be a child. Almost all of his statements make no sense, because he doesn't know punctuation. Of course, being from Rockville exempts him from learning; as long as he showed up for school, everything was fine.

Learn to use commas, rockhead, or STFU...

It is that they just don't want to be tolerated, but counted as full citizens.

Posted by: rockville at June 25, 2007 07:47 AM

For once, please forget the grammar lesson, keefer, and address the comment. Do you think a citizen, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same rights and privileges that everyone else is accorded? Yes or No. If you feel the need to offer a negative response, it would be greatly appreciated if you would elaborate. I realize that I am asking for something you are loathed to do, but frankly, I am interested in your opinion on this particular subject. Thanks.

I realize that I am asking for something you are loathed to do, but frankly, I am interested in your opinion on this particular subject. Thanks.

It's "loathe," not "loathed," dumba$$. As for my opinion, I've given it here on countless occasions, and I'm not going to give it to your redundant, Canuck a$$. You don't have an opinion on this blog; you're only 3/5 of a person to me. Now bugger off, you cheeky little wanker...

Canadian Observer please forgive the American because he knows not what he says. He can't answer the question because just as he classified you as 3/5 of a person he thinks less of American citizens.

That's o.k., rockville. I would have choked on my Labatt Blue if keefer had actually offered an opinion. Don't really expect much from him, other than his duties as language enforcer and commandant of insults.

He can't answer the question because just as he classified you as 3/5 of a person he thinks less of American citizens.

Once again, rocksmoker omits commas, making the above sentence meaningless. Just like his sorry-ass life.

CO, I've tried, on numerous occasions, to engage in discourse with you. It's a waste of my time; you're--not your or yore, Dr. Retard--here for one purpose only, and it isn't intelligent debate. So piss off, you Canadian socialist piece of sh*t...

"Do you think a citizen, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same rights and privileges that everyone else is accorded? Yes or No."

The law already makes distinctions between the rights of citizens. These numerous distinctions are based upon age, gender, and sexual orientation. Deal with it.

Please explain why a civil unions, granting the same rights as straights to gays is discriminatory.

The issue really is not about marraige or civil unions, it about gays wanting to tear down the foundations of judeo christian faith.

There have already been attempts by gays to label as hate speach, sections of the bible which speak specifically against homosexuality. They wish to silence the clergy from calling their sin...sin.

CO, I've tried, on numerous occasions, to engage in discourse with you.

Posted by: keefer at June 25, 2007 07:11 PM

Is that what you call it, keefer? Discourse, really? Hmmmm --- seems more like verbal abuse to me.

...seems more like verbal abuse to me.

It wasn't always that way, maggot. As I stated in my last post, I tried, but you're not here for intelligent discussion. Therefore, insults are all you're worthy of. Now piss off, you senseless Canadian socialist POS...

The issue really is not about marraige or civil unions, it about gays wanting to tear down the foundations of judeo christian faith. Posted by: Phnx.

Phnx,

Kudos to you man!!

You nailed it, right on the head!

Jeremiah

phnx: Please explain why a civil unions, granting the same rights as straights to gays is discriminatory.

From this statement it sounds like I can put you in the column that is fine with same-sex civil unions -- as long as you don't call it marriage. Would that be accurate?