• pickersplock said on Nov 04, 2009....

  I'm stayig out of the gay marriage debate, but I think Republicans and Conservatives, and for that matter, any one else who's running needs to convince voters that freedom and liberty will be top priority.
   
  I just heard that the power companies are sending out letters to customers asking if they want adaptions to their household electricity, so that it can be turned down by the electric company during peak usage.
  Are they kidding?
   
  It's getting scary around here.

• CreativeWoman said on Nov 04, 2009....

  ALIEN,  I think you are the alter ego of Steven Cobert. 
  
  CW
  

• CreativeWoman said on Nov 04, 2009....

  And I might add, that I like Steven Cobert.  :-)   Not meant as a slam.
  
  CW
  

• ALIENated said on Nov 04, 2009....

  I like Colbert, too, but he is a pretend conservative. He lampoons conseratives and I fear that some simple minds might think he really is a conservative. For liberals who are not in on the joke, he probably confirms that conservatives are silly. In a way, he is the most dangerous kind of liberal of all ... a wolf in sheeps clothing. However, he does put some liberals on the spot by asking the kinds of questions conservatives would ask, even though he is just trying to be silly. I have seen some libs turn red when he confronts them with the kinds of questions they are usually not challenged with because they only talk to like-minded hosts who agree with them. Conservatives usually fair much better on his show because they are used to not being able to get a word in edgewise and dealing with crass liberal blowhards. In the final analysis, I think he is funny, but I also think he is like most liberals -- he thinks he knows everything and everyone else is stupid. Try watching some CSPAN for 20 or 30 minutes and you will see what I mean. Or watch some Hollywood pecker head liberal like Ted Danson spilling their guts. Thank God we have these geniuses to show us the way. (not)

  Picker, crime would almost disappear if we all had a GPS chip buried deep in our bodies at birth. We could immediately locate every missing child, we could identify every bank robber and serial killer by placing them at the bank during the robbery or at the scene of each killing, yadda yadda yadda. Imagine Bill Clinton trying to deny being in the oval office with Monica every afternoon (or whenever). It might not stop all crime, but it would help immensely. The electric company regulating your electricity is like that. It might help, but at what cost to privacy and personal choice. How awful is it to work in an office building that has those clear plastic covers over the thermostats, and everyone freezes or bakes while you wait for just the right person to come and adjust it? Pretty awful. We need to be drilling for our own oil and we could generate all the electricity we need for a lesser price.

• JennyRotten said on Nov 04, 2009....

  A woman lies dying in hospital, outside her room, her partner of years tries desperately to get access to her room, but she is refused because she is not "officially" the dying woman's family, or next of kin.

  So the woman dies alone.

  And let's just say, for arguements sake, that this dying woman has not made a will. All her assests, her life insurance, goes directly to her "immediate family", who, if they choose, can leave the late woman's partner completely out of the loop, because the state does not recognise the union of these two women, and therefore does not recognise the woman's right to claim her late partner's assets. And let's just say the late woman had a child, who would get automatic custody of the child? A family who has been asbent all the child's life? Or a loving mother?

  This is just a hyperthetical situation pieced together from actual facts, but you get the picture. It's not about the "wrath of god" or "perversion", it's about basic human rights and freedoms, you know, those things Americans like to lecture the rest of the world on.

  I know such things could easily happen to unmarried hetero couples, but they at least have the choice whether or not to register their union. Gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as hetereosexuals. Would you deny people these rights based only on who they fall in love and choose to spend their life with?

• stopmediabias said on Nov 05, 2009....

  Alien- I agree with 99% of the time but I have to say your use of the word "homo" is beneath you.  You will get a lot farther if you cut the crap with that.  I don't agree with gay marriage but as Christians isn't it beneath us all to talk this way?  Would Jesus try to direct gays towards the light or would he stand back and call them homos?
   
  JennyR-Very good point but this is not what gay marriage is about.  Gay marriage is about the miniority forcing their beliefs on the majority under the guise of civil rights.  There are a whole host of financial services and ways to prevent your situation from happening without tearing down the institution of marriage.
   
  Senior citizens who live together (and don't even know what gay is) could be faced with the same situation so it has nothing to do with being gay or straight it has to do with benefits.  Do we let straight seniors get a marriage license?  We can help them fix these problems without changing marriage.  The only thing gay marriage does is reduce the number of garden variety marriages drastically which is bad for children and bad for society. 

• JennyRotten said on Nov 05, 2009....

  "Gay marriage is about the miniority forcing their beliefs on the majority"- Isn't opposition to gay rights the same sort of thing? Except that it's the majority forcing "Christan" views onto a minority, that doesn't neccesarily share those views. That is always what I've understood "oppression" to be, which seems, to me at least, to be more detrimental to a modern, secular society than any "threats" that you perceive gay marriage to pose.

  And "garden variety marriages"? The kind of which 30% end in divorce, which in itself is bad for society and bad for children? Yeah, still not convinced...

• ALIENated said on Nov 05, 2009....

  You will get a lot farther if you cut the crap with that.

  Sorry, homo is just short for homosexual. Some say shit, some say crap, some say do do. It is all the same thing. A rose is still a rose. I am not trying to get farther, whatever that means. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. However, I think homosexuality is a perversion and is an unhealthy lifestyle like a lot of other unhealthy lifestyles, but what a person does sexually in the privacy of their own home is their business. I think things like marriage and how it is defined is the public's business.

  Sorry Jenny, I have no answer for your couple that failed to plan ahead and sign concent forms and set up a will. Thanks to people like you, I cannot even talk to doctors, insurance companies, or the cable company on behalf of my other family members (they hate messing with that do do) unless they OK it first. I have watched liberals mess up our society over the years with their "why not?" attitude. No one is trying to force Christianity on anyone. Most religions think homosexuality is wrong and a sin. Christianity is probably the most understanding. Even I do not think being a homo will determine your eternal destiny. Jesus did not directly address a lot of sin because he was mainly here to tell us there are only two real commandments: love God and love each other. Loving each other does not mean approving of everything others do. I cannot stop you from killing yourself, but I will never stop telling you that killing yourself is wrong.

  And the bottom line is that same sex marriage is not about the things you mentioned. Legal issues and consent issues are easily taken care of in most cases. Same sex marriage is about legitimizing homosexuality. Legalizing what most believe to be sin. Most homosexuals think that getting public approval for same sex marriage will somehow force everyone to think differently. That is just not going to happen, so why destroy the building block of our society, or any society. God built our whole world on one man and one woman. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe that.

• javadewd said on Nov 05, 2009....

  Okay, JennyR, tell us how getting married and divorced every six to nine months in San Francisco -- because those bath-house relationships last about that long -- is suppose to help the homosexual society?
  
  Unfortunately you're hashing old news that has been posted so many times around here. When it comes to civil unions, legal partnerships, two people of the same sex being legal guardians of a child, all of the ground work is already there in the legal aspect and Alien is right, you don't have to even consider the term "marriage" to make all of it happen. At least here in a free-market capitalist America you're free to negate societal norms if you're willing to spend the money to do it. And if you take the time to research the costs, it doesn't even cost as much as a "traditional marriage."
  
  It kills me that people fight for gay rights that most gays around the world don't have even in the Netherlands. To that point, if they think they can get treated better in another country, then by all means go. I hear France will welcome homosexuals with open arms if they feel they can't get along here in the US. I also hear that the gays are dying out there, too, whether by those who hate/hunt them or by simple Darwinism.
  
  And I don't have anything against them!
  

• JennyRotten said on Nov 05, 2009....

  gah, sorry, on dodgy work computer....
   
  Hey, Javadewd, I kinda get what you mean, but still, don't you think people still deserve the right to have a fucked up divorce like you straight folk?
   
  I just can't stand people throwing hate around based on religion, I mean, do you understand that it offends me the way you are offended by homosexuality?
   
  I'm gonna stup up now, and go back to my young and too-left-wing-for-our-good- friends, and have my faith in humanity restored...

• javadewd said on Nov 05, 2009....

  I wouldn't wish divorce on my homosexual friends. It's bad enough I see enough of my straight friends go through it. I just think those who fight to have homo marriage don't consider that we have to have homo divorce as well. This was finally contested in a court in a state that didn't recognize gay marriage. They allowed the divorce and it's gearing up to not only be messy, but to be so bad that it may cause straight married couples to think twice about divorce. That's just plain awful!
  
  What about religion has anything to do with my argument? I guess I can understand you being offended by practically anything I say, but considering I never used any religious component in it, I will see your offense and raise you that I'm offended that you are offended by my un-presented religious beliefs... So huh!
  
  You have to find solace with too-left-wing friends? Oh, come on Jen, I wouldn't imagine your skin is that thin. Besides, I'm amazed you didn't at least want to expand on the conversation a bit, but oh well. See you next time...
  

• JennyRotten said on Nov 05, 2009....

  sorry, that second part was a general statement, not directed at you, javadewd. I'm thinking on the run coz I'm at work.

  I just get tired of politics really quickly, and there's no solution to be had here, is there, really. It's just people baiting each other and shit stirring. And I prefer doing that person.

  And now I'm really gone...

• ALIENated said on Nov 05, 2009....

  I just can't stand people throwing hate around based on religion

  Why is it people quote the Bible when it fits their purpose and call it "religion" when it does not fit their purpose? Why is opposing same-sex marriage "throwing hate around". Most of the Old Testament was God telling the Jews things they were too ignorant to understand. No one could have understood His reasons at that time. We now know that most of His instruction about food was to avoid germs and disease. The same is true of sexual practices. We are finding that out now with things like AIDS and other STDs. We can and should find a cure for AIDS, but I guarantee you that there will be another disease to take its place. The last time I heard, homosexuals have a much shorter life expectancy than heterosexuals, probably because of disease, but probably because of mental problems that lead to suicide and murder as well. It is hard to find those kinds of facts these days. As I said, we are way beyond telling two consenting adults what they can do in the privacy of their own home, but we should never stop trying to warn them about the destructive and unhealthy lifestyle they have chosen. That would be the real spreading of hate.

• stopmediabias said on Nov 06, 2009....

  It really isn't about religion even though religion is a component being that 80 to 90% of the worlds population believe in God. 

  In European states where they have legalized gay marriage the end result is #1-Very few gays actually take advantage of it and #2-It results in a drop in traditional marriages.  Statistically children fair better in homes where 1 man is married to 1 woman.  Even homes where 1 man is living with 1 woman in a stable relationship children don't do as well as with a married mom and dad.

  Marriage is something that is offered to everyone under certain guidlines.  Just like driving, drinking, and a whole host of other things.  Kids 18 years old can go into combat and risk getting their heads blown off but cannot legally sit in a bar and have a beer.  This doesn't mean their civil rights are being violated it means the privilege of drinking is restricted to 21 years olds.

  We can fix any problem without destroying traditional marriage.  We want one man and one woman to hook up, get married, and have lots of tax-paying kids who will grow up in stable homes.

  Alien-Again I agree with you, but you know it is wrong to call gay people homo's.  We are not the same as the leftist cowards who throw verbal shit everyday.  Do you see calling a gay person a homo the same as calling a black person a nigger?  I think we conservatives are above all that.  If we saw a person we knew to be openly gay in distress we would set aside everything and help them.  Some of these liberals if they happen to see someone in distress with a Bush/Cheny sticker on their car would speed by spit on them while they flip them the bird.

• ALIENated said on Nov 06, 2009....

  No, "homo" is not the same as using the N word. However, calling a homosexual "gay" is like calling a pedophile a "boy befriender" or a "child companion". Calling someone "gay" lets everyone forget what we are talking about. That is why the word was invented in the first place. Your reaction proves what I mean to do -- remind the reader of exactly what we are talking about. I am not trying to conjour up someone that flits around a coffee shop or does interior decorating. I am trying to remind people that we are talking about a man that has sex with a man or a woman that has sex with a woman. I am not trying to make people think of something cutesy. I am trying to keep people focused on what we are really talking about. I have to admit, I am not really sure "gay" and "homo" are the same thing. I have known men that seem "gay" and are married to a woman and vice versa. I guess the best way to put it is ... "gay" is a way of acting and "homo" is a way of being. I also think part of the problem is that we let liberals bully us into changing the meaning of things. For example, Pelosi and Reid are trying to rename the public option. A rose is a rose, but it is also just a red flower. If people have the right to define themselves based on their sexual practices, I have the right to label them accordingly.

• javadewd said on Nov 06, 2009....

  Can't a non-Christian be disgusted over the thought of two guys butt-fucking? Seriously. The thought of two boys lubing up their butt holes, blowing each other and taking turns performing anal sex doesn't make a secular atheist woman cringe? Since when did women become so desensitized by those scenes in Deliverance? And what about the total double standard that goes along with that? Could it be true that all women just love anal sex, but some simply don't know it yet!? Could the very idea of scat and two girls one cup be alive and well in society? I hate to admit it, but homosexuality to me is much like cross-dressing... It's only cool when chicks do it. I accept that in society we need men who are great at arranging flowers, planning weddings, designing dresses and dancing with fat chicks. In essence, gay men suit their purpose in society albeit on the fringe. I wouldn't want them to be marked like Nazi Germany, but the idea of two guys playing tonsil hockey in public just doesn't give me the warm fuzzies... Not that two teens makes it oh so much better, either. I guess it's more the lack of discretion than anything else.
  

• ALIENated said on Nov 06, 2009....

  As I said, do whatever you want in your own home, but stop trying to pass laws to make the rest of us accept it as OK. Homosexuality is another one of those deals that liberals look at and say "why not". When the real question should be "why". We can look at damn near anything and say "why not", but do we really want to do that? Do we want Joe marrying his sister? Do we want Tom marrying his daughter? Do we want Fred marrying four wives? Do we want Hal marrying his goat? Marriage is either a one man, one woman deal, or it is totally meaningless. That is really the question we have to decide: does marriage have meaning or not? Legalizing same sex marriage is just opening a can of worms. Most people look at one couple and say "why not". If it was limited to that, that would be fine, right? There are doors that should not be opened and paths that should not be taken. Society is about limititations as well as freedoms. If we have no limits, we have no freedom. I know that sounds Orwellian, but it is none the less true. As a society we have to decide what freedoms we have and what limitations we have. Most of us agree that those are based on biblical principles even if we do not totally understand why those principles are there. If Jews had not listened to Moses and the instructions he received from God, there would probably not be an Israel or Jewish people. They would have perrished in the desert. We have already gone against biblical principles by even allowing homosexuality, but, as a society, we have chosen to look the other way. As we see, that is not enough. The can of worms has been opened. And now we are constantly having to try to put them back in the can.

• stopmediabias said on Nov 06, 2009....

  What about fudge packer or butt dart champion.... :)

  It is hard to be serious on this subject, mainly because we shouldn't have to talk about it.  Who a person is fucking is their business.

  I guess the way I see it by calling someone who is homosexual a "homo" in the context that you use it is being judgemental and who are we to judge?  We all have sin and don't think we should be mean based on people's sin.  But hey that's me.

  And the word "gay" is now political incorrect.  You can't say "that's is so gay" anymore.  The only people we can pick on now is fat people, stupid people, Christians, white males, and Republicans.

• ALIENated said on Nov 06, 2009....

  Hmmm. I am not sure how I can say it any plainer, that what two adults do behind closed doors is their business. However, the definition of marriage is everyone's business. It is a legal matter and we must all agree on the legal definition of marriage. If not, we will see all those weird combinations (father / daughter, brother / sister, Hank / goat). Heteros outnumber homos, what, 9 to 1? So I do not see how the definition of marriage can ever be changed. I think we just need to pass a federal law defining marriage and get this off our agenda. Meanwhile. homos need to be educated (I suppose) on how to set up the legalities of having a same sex partner.

  ha ha ha

  I see you bristling right now because that is not the point, is it? The point is that homos want to force everyone to accept homosexuality as normal. REDEFINING MARRIAGE WILL NOT DO THAT.

• dyingman said 13 days ago....

  Most Americans were against interracial marriage too even though no one was suggesting that it required you to date someone not your color.
  
  How does this bother anybody?
  
  Further, if we decide how the government may regulate marriage, why don't we perform state baptisms?  Why just ONE holy sacrament?  Shouldn't the mayor be giving communion to all comers?
  
  State's performing marriages makes as much sense as my local alderman giving me last rights.  How the heck did this EVER get started in America, the land of a separate church and state?  See the mess that was caused?
  
  No recognition of gay marriages!
  But no recognition of straight ones either! 
  Problem solved.
  
  You want marriage, go to your favorite religious institution.  All churches are free to ignore each others' marriages just as they don't recognize each others' other religious rites.
  
  *DM
  
  

• ALIENated said 12 days ago....

  So you are saying that interracial marriage is unnatural, like homosexual marriage, but we have allowed it anyway so we should allow homosexual marriage even if it is unnatural? I see nothing unnatural about a man and a woman marrying even if they have different shades of skin. Maybe you are saying it is unnatural for an Italian man to marry a Chinese woman. Again, one man and one woman is not unnatural even if they come from different countries. I have to assume you are talking about a white man marrying a black woman or a white woman marrying a black man. That was simply a hold over from the days of slavery and prejudice towards blacks in this country, but it is not unnatural. So I guess I am not sure why you would compare interracial marriage (however you define that) and homosexual marriage when one is perfectly natural and the other is not. I might as easily throw out that people used to be allowed to have chickens in their backyard and now that is against the law, but I am not sure that has anything to do with homosexual marriage. Well, maybe it does, now that I think of it. When towns were small and people lived on bigger lots, farther from their neighbors, they were allowed to have chickens in their back yard. How does this bother anybody? You tell me.

• curmudgeon said 11 days ago....

  I agree with dyingman - the State ought not be involved in who marries whom at all.
  
  The problem here is that "marriage" touches so many parts of our value system - the rights to property and decision-making, the love that binds people together, and the religious-social recognition of lifelong promises made.
  
  The State should not be in the business of "marrying" people - especially on the basis of romantic notions. It can, however be in the business of enforcing legally-binding contracts. As a conservative, I no more wish to see the government enforcing some social agenda regarding marriage any more than I want it enforcing a social agenda in the health care arena.
  
  If the pro-gay marriage folks really want to protect themselves legally, then they really need to quit it with this "marriage" agenda and demand that the government simply adopt secular domestic-partner terminology that precludes discrimination. But this is not what they want. They want to be able to sue their way into socially conservative organizations and force folks to recognize their domestic unions, or else. Fuck them for that!
  
  The State ought to make clear its role in matters of domestic partnerships. "Marriage" certificates or licenses should only be granted by churches - and quite frankly these should not be legally binding in any way. Government should simply enforce domestic partner agreements with pre-filled checklists of assigned rights and privileges.
  
  Life would be so much easier if we delineated the role of government more clearly.
  

• ALIENated said 11 days ago....

  Well, try dying without a will and see what happens, married or not.

  I think government is letting us decide, state by state, whether we want homo marriage or not, no matter who does the marrying. The government is the obvious entity to register your marriage. The real function of marriage is to provide a safe and loving environment for children. There are other safe and loving enviornments for children, but one man (a father) and one woman (a mother) is by far the best. As a by product, one man / one woman marriage is a pretty good legal situation.

  Besides, like it or not, call it silly if you will, any other arrangement opens the gates of hell. Look at the mess polygamists get into. People end up marrying relatives and all kinds of crap.

  We are now living in a "why not" country, and look where it is getting us. If I can do this, why not do that. And if I can do that, why not do that other thing. Where does it stop. The more we move away from the biblical principles this country was founded on, the worse things get. If you want to see what happens when traditional marriage is ignored, just look at the ghettos. Actions have consequences. Sin is like lying. Once you start there is no place to stop.

• SeanRenaud said 8 days ago....

  You know I actually was listening to a bill that Conservatives are trying to pass in California.  Part of me wants to vote for it out of spite but the fact is his logic is there.  So I'll make you a deal ALIEN.  You vote for a federal bill to denounce divorce for ANY reason outside of spousal abuse or infidelity and I'll vote to ban gay marriage.

• ALIENated said 7 days ago....

  Works for me, but I think the point of divorce is getting people out of bad marriages (usually). Same sex marriage would be bad by defniition. I have a homosexual relative that goes through partners like I go through socks. Actually, I have socks older than any of his relationships have ever lasted. It is not about marriage. It is about validation. You know that.

• SeanRenaud said 7 days ago....

  No I don't.  But I do know that you stated that marriage is the foundation of our society and since we don't ALLOW gays to form the same kinds of relationships we don't have a fair measuring stick.  Don't tell me you never knew a guy or guys who went through girls faster than you went through six packs cus I'll call you a liar.  But I'm accepting your premise. 

  If gay marriage is detrimental to marriage then divorce is an A-bomb.  I don't give a shit how unhappy you are (and neither do you it's about validation, or in your case keeping them from validating it) so lets be fair.  You should be pushing for laws to prevent divorce.

• ALIENated said 7 days ago....

  Sorry, you are using a standard old liberal argument -- two wrongs make a right. When something does not make sense, then it is suddenly compared to slavery or whatever. Just not buying it. Marriage is a thing that falls in the God area for most people. By that I mean God defines it, not the state. God is pretty clear (in most religious texts) that He defines marriage as one man and one woman. People in the Bible strayed from that just as they do today because they were human. People committed a lot of sins in the Bible, but that does not negate the sin (sin simply meaning wrong actions). And you know what, a lot of it just boils down to what we think is right and wrong no matter where the origin of that belief comes from. Sometimes we just think things are right or wrong. Most think that pedophelia is wrong and I do not think that that is even mentioned in the Bible. Most Americans think that homosexual marriage is wrong because most think that homosexuality is wrong even though most will not admit it. Most people are simply afraid to say anything negative about homosexuality these days for fear of offending some sensitive liberal or homosexual and being politically incorrect. Even on TV and in movies homosexuality is now recognized, shoved in our faces, but it is still usually met with rolling eyes, snickers, or treated as a joke. Same sex marriage IS a joke. I know it and you know it.

• SeanRenaud said 7 days ago....

  I'm not saying two wrongs make a right.  I don't actually think either is wrong I think people have a right and an obligation to be happy.  However you are trying to use sin by degrees.  If you would vote against gay marriage then you should vote against divorce.  Not because two wrongs make a right but because getting rid of one wrong and leaving the other because it's less offensive is a slippery slope.  Stay the course.

• ALIENated said 6 days ago....

  The two wrongs are keeping people in bad marriages, if they agree to end the marriage, and same sex marriage. It is like I said on another post ...

  I am not sure what your heterosexual marriage is not perfect so we should convert marriage to anything goes argument buys us. We could make that argument about almost anything. [your cause here] is bad so we should allow [some other cause here]. That is the same deal that is going on with the healthcare legislation. Liberal stinkin thinkin. Our healthcare system is not perfect so why not throw it out and let the government take it over and run it? ha ha ha. Yeah right, that will fix it.

  Plus, why would we want to further degrade marriage?. How many people (men especially) are growing up in non-traditional families (one father and one mother) and then perpetuating that situation -- not taking care of their offspring.

  As far as discrimination agaist homosexuals. That one just does not float. We have all kinds of special laws now (hate speech, etc.) that actually go overboard on NOT discriminating against homos. Are we discriminating against homos if we tell them they cannot drive on the wrong side of the road? Where does it stop? Are we discriminating against polygamists when we say they cannot have five wives? Are we discriminating against a minor when we say they cannot buy liquor? Where does it stop?

  The majority of people in America (probably more than would admit it) do not want marriage to be redefined by homosexuals or anyone else. Where does it stop?

  I will say it one more time ... we are arguing one issue when, in fact, that is not the real issue. The issue is not same sex marriage. The issue is, homosexuals want validation. They want everyone to accept homosexuality as natural and right. For 90 or 95 percent of the population, that is never going to happen. We could allow same sex marriage on a national level tomorrow and there would be some other issue (like teaching homosexuality is OK in our schools) by the end of the year. I know it and you know it true. Usually, once you start sliding (which we already are), you do not stop until you hit bottom. And, you know what, if we still treated homosexuality for what it is -- a mental abberation -- I bet that percent would be more like 98 or 99. I will admit that a small percent of people are born homosexual, but manny people turn away from the homo lifestyle every day.

• SeanRenaud said 6 days ago....

  No ALIEN.  The real issue is that gay men turn your stomach.  It's not PC to say that and to say you don't want them getting married cus well that means that you might have to see them holding hands or something so you try to twist it.  It's easier if you'r just honest about your prejudice.

• ALIENated said 5 days ago....

  Not likely. I would have to stop watching TV and stop going to movies, if that was the case since Hollywood tries to push their morals on the rest of the country at every opportunity. However, it does strike me funny that even Hollywood usually plays homosexuality for laughs or at least has characters giggling, rolling their eyes, or showing some kind of disgust when homos are in play. I suppose they would be dishonest to play it any other way because that is the way most people feel. I suspect you even feel that way yourself so do not project your feelings off on me. I freely admit that I hate the sin, but not the sinner just as I hate any sin. I mostly feel pitty for them as I do for anyone caught up in sin that they have convinced themselves is not sin. I feel the same way about homos as I do when I watch TV shows about guys in prison, caught up in a life of sin, crime, and corruption probably because of some bad thing that happened to them in childhood. As I have said, I figure most homos could be cured if they could get some quality psychiatrist couch time. Should we change the laws about murder just to accomodate those who seemingly cannot keep from murdering people. After all, they may have been born that way. If not, why not? Wrong does not become right simply because more and more people get brainwashed that wrong is right. We are simply getting fat and lazy like any prosperous society. We now find it easier to just say "why not" instead of asking "why" on most issues. And resorting to personal attack sounds more like skittlecow, someone that has run out of ideas.

• javadewd said 4 days ago....

  I honestly prefer not to see butt-fucking in the streets, but then again, we'd have to outlaw politicians. They do it in broad daylight!

• SeanRenaud said 4 days ago....

  Of course gays turn my stomach.  (and unlike you lesbians bore me).  I'm also disgusted that people eat raw fish, put up Christmas Ornaments in October and allow socks with sandals.

   

• javadewd said 4 days ago....

  Somebody should start a[nother?] post on things that annoy us... It's about that time of year!

• ALIENated said 3 days ago....

  Well, I think anything beyond a quick peck (kiss), homo or hetero, should be done in private. That is not the issue for me. I think the homosexual act is disgusting and perverted, but that is not the issue. That is their private business. The issue is perverting marriage. Marriage is like a white shirt. If you get one small stain on it, it is ruined. Who would want to wear it? Allowing same sex marriage would be like throwing a bottle of ink on it. Throw some more colors on and pretty soon you have a laughable, meaningless Hawaiian shirt.

• SeanRenaud said 3 days ago....

  Again I expect to see you campaigning to get that huge stain that is Divorce removed.

• ALIENated said 2 days ago....

  Soooooo, we can no longer deal with this problem over here if we have that problem over there? Is that how that works? Interesting. We can let bank robbers go because people beat their wives? Pedophiles can be released because pot is still illegal? Come on. Divorce is bad, but it has nothing to do with same sex marriage. This is one of those deals that will probably always be outvoted because of the statistics of heteros versus homos. Maybe some rich homo could buy a large island and start a new country where same sex marriage is legal.

• javadewd said 2 days ago....

  Isn't George Soros already busy doing something else?
  

• SeanRenaud said 2 days ago....

  Thats how your handling it.  Currently same sex marriage is illegal more places than it isn't and apparently that number is diminishing.  You're the one who is letting divorce go.  To claim that divorce isn't worse than gay marriage is absurd to begin with but you should be against both not accepting one and rabidly campaigning over the other.  You understand the logic so why do you go on justifying Divorce instead of fighting to get it banned AND keeping gays from getting married?

• stopmediabias said 2 days ago....

  The bottom line here is we want marriage and kids between one woman and one man.  Divorce is bad but even the rates of divorce versus the rates of people who stay married is better than opening the flood gates and allowing anyone to get married which would trash traditional marriage for very little benefit. 

   If gay marriage was actually about rights or benefits and not about people pushing their lifestyle on others to legitimize it then over in Europe in countries like Sweden 90 to 100% of gays would get married.  Currently the number is no more than 5%.  And the numbers of traditional marriage have dropped.  That is bad for children and bad for society.

  Plus no-one seems to want to discuss how we teach our children.  What do they tell young males in California who ask at the age of 16 if it is ok to let another young male stick his dick in their ass?  Technically we have to say that is normal behavior if the state recognizes deviant behavior right? 

    

• ALIENated said 2 days ago....

  Who is saying they want people to divorce? The majority of people now want divorce to be easy, which was not always the case. It used to be frowned on to the point that people stayed together no matter what. If we take a vote and the majority says no more divorce, so be it, but that is not going to happen these days. And you are just trying to cloud the issue. You can cloud the issue all you want. It really changes nothing. Allowing same sex marriage has nothing to do with divorce. Marriage is not perfect between some individuals. That is all that is going on. Here is one using your logic ... some people have automobile accidents so we should let 10 year olds drive. Apples and oranges, dude. Try again.

• SeanRenaud said 1 day ago....

  Okay now that we have established everybody not named me as a hypocrit I'll leave you to your circle jerk.

• ALIENated said about 21 hours ago....

  Wow, that sounds like Skittlecrap. Too bad you are gone. I do not understand the hypocrit slam. I think I said that I would gladly abide by a law outlawing divorce, but that has nothing to do with perverting marriage in the first place. The vote in Maine was about how marriage is defined. Divorce is about how marriage is terminated. However, if they had a vote to outlaw divorce, I would be there to vote in favor of outlawing divorce. But you and I both know that the majority of people do not want divorce outlawed, so why even waste time having a vote? The same is true of same-sex marriage (the majority of people do not want it), but that issue is being forced upon us by the minority.

Comment on "No Mo Homo Marriage In Maine"

Currently tagged	politics logic marriage divorce church and state exceptions slippery slopes human rights gay marriage ALIENation homo marriage perverts fruitcakes (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment