Comments on: Same-Sex Marriage Legalization Inevitable?

Seems To Be Gaining Momentum Among Voters, Pols, Judges Alike; Formidable Obstacles Remain

[texasbeta]

It is only good news to those who KNOW they need a Savior. You obviously don't know it. You also prove my point that you think "freedom" is when we can do what we want, when we want without any laws. In other words, you think that deciding for yourself what is "good" or "bad" for your life is freedom.....YOU are your own god. Therefore you display the very same nature as Satan who wanted to be god also. That is why Jesus told those religious people, "You are of your father, the devil"......There are only 2 kinds of people in the world: children of God and children of the devil......"unless one is born-again, you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven"....that is how you become a child of God.
Posted by dmhphils

First, you do not understand the English language. Freedom is as follows:
The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will:

By DEFINITION, your concept of abandoning free will is entirely against what the definition/meaning of freedom is. In order to use words, you must first understand them...OR, you are a talking/typing idiot, regardless of your faith.
Secondly, by exercising free will, one is not exhibiting "god-like" qualities. It is simply thinking...using the greatest gift that a "god" would give to his/her creations. You, unfortnately have ignored your gift, and are therefore in direct disrepect of your "maker."
Third- Not anywhere in the bible does it say Satan wanted to be God. That is supposition and mythology.
Finally - your entire life is obviously based upon a comic book...and is comical to the rest of us. You poor thing...if only someone would have told you not to drag your knuckles when you walk and to actually think, you might have had a chance. There was someone just like you...years ago, reading the Aenid, and saying the same things. You poor poor cow. Go graze with the cattle moo cow....Mooooo.

[poeticaintit]

And now on to cloning...wouldn't want the freaks to have to live without being able to make their own babies.

[Insurgeon_General]

Their disobedience caused DEATH to spread to all people that would ever be born on the earth. That "death" expresses itself in sins of all kinds, of which homosexuality is just one. But........a Savior has been born. Give your life to Him. Happy Easter.!

Posted by dmhphils at 4:32 PM : Apr 9, 2009

Hahahahahahaha - You end that with "Happy Easter!" No offense but after that intro, Easter doesn't sound very happy. LOL

[Insurgeon_General]

Freedom is only possible UNDER GOD.

Posted by dmhphils at 4:08 PM : Apr 9, 2009

LOL - Freedom is never possible under god. Freedom is only possible once one is out from under god. God is a construct of men to from ages past to explain the mysteries of existence. At that time, it was a beautiful notion and led people to lead better and more meaningful lives. Like all things, religion was poisoned by a few bad apples who twisted it into a tool with which they could control people for power and profit, usually through fear and murder. Examples of this include the crusades, the inquisition, and the missionaries who wiped out entire populations less they submit to the notion of "under god". Today, especially in America, religion is a shell of its former self taking the form most often in divisive political movements pushed by "the faithful" who want power, holidays pushed by "the faithful" that want profit, and the sheep that follow them. There are many wonderful and humane people that practice religion of all faiths. Unfortunately, their leaders have become greedy and violent and terroristic and so very different from the Christ they worship.

[atlanta_native]

mcthreeteeth - like your name by the way!

I am not here to gay bash. Do not play the sex card. I am not veiling anything. In the past, when there were no rights between gays at all, I have represented gay couples in petitioning courts for adoption so they could arrange for legal, and unchallengeable, inheritance.

The overwhelming majority of those who are gay are born the way they are like I am born the way I am. Unlike Plessy v. Ferguson, this is not an attempt to paint unequal treatment and oppression in a false light of equality . I propose that these unions get all the same legal protections and headaches as any married couple. There is no separate, as we all watch lohan/ronson news no differently than any other Hollywood couple's media garbage. But the two are different in terms of what they will do to society.

I am not concerned that one side will "win" as I am that the change to our language will society in the long run.

So tell me, why the word marriage is so important in a society that generally doesn't consider it close to sacred?

Also, why not have all "marriages" in the eyes of the law now be "civil unions" and "marriage" as only a religious or humanist term?

[kansas1946]

Same-Sex Marriage Legalization Inevitable?
*******************************************

We can only hope and pray. I am sure eventually it will come but sooner would be better than later.

[UR_Majesty]

If 75% of America just sits back and lets it happen.

[atlanta_native]

mcthreeteeth - I do not disagree - the following is from my original post:

"Should there be all the rights of a married couple for a same sex union? Sure, that's equal protection. Adopt, bequeath, purchase jointly, visit in the hospital, divorce, bad mouth each other, fight over visitation of adopted kids, whatever, fine."

What is your point? That same sex marriages are a waste of time because heterosexual marriages fail? That all marriage is a waste of time? I don't get your comment as it relates to the debate at issue here.

[atlanta_native]

And finally, I do not want to keep same sex couples from having their, as yet, un-named union, I am all for it, as noted in my first post. It just needs a name to avoid the unintended consequences and their lasting effect on individuals and society in years to come.

[atlanta_native]

By the way, nothing against Utah.

[atlanta_native]

apostasyusa - when a 14 year old girl in Utah is being raped by - sorry, "consummating her marriage" with - her new "husband" in the new world order you profess, I hope her tears will be assuaged by your open mindedness.

I don't think she will, she'll just be a hurt and crying victim of your, and others, inability to see the consequences of our actions.

Just because some religions allow something doesn't make it right. I doubt you would be defending the Aztec rituals of human sacrifice as you were dragged up the steps of the pyramid to your pointless doom. Do you condone polygamist cults that appoint young girls to their new "husbands" also? Try to think rather than just react. Don't be like Bill Mahr or Anne Coulter -think about what is right for society, not your present ideology. Wisdom is hard to come by, gainsaying is easy.

[BISEXUAL05]

OK first off being a homosexual is not based on cultul it is based on who you are attracted to. YOu can not choose to be gay or bi you are just what God made you to be. There is no where in the Bible that said that marraige has to be between a man and a woman. It talks about love and you can't help who you love. Its unstoppable. I hope they do leagalize maggarie in all 50 states because it is showing that the USA is actully the land of the free and everyone can be themselves. Thats why our ancestors came to the US so that they could be themselves without fear of proscution and I think we should live by that rule instead of the rules we make up in our heads. Just because homosexuals can't get marriade doesn't mean that they will stop loving one another. THEY WILL ALWAYS BE HERE GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!

[apostasyusa]

"in marriage the answer is quite simple 1 husband - one wife, no room for three. But in same sex there is no such argument, there is no reason there cannot be three, then four, then five, etc. Cannot three people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together? "

Some religions do allow for polygamy. American polygamists consider themselves married, but do not have the right by law.

When MILLIONS of polygamists stand up and say they want the right to marry multiple people....then I will stand up for their rights too.

Right now it is millions of gays people who I would grant the right to marry.

[atlanta_native]

Smitty - all the courts have to do is recognize the precedent in marriage cases applies to the so-far unnamed civil unions. Then it is done, without changing the word. Then the new union is on equal standing. Your argument is a straw argument - as that would give equal protection.

Also, by creating the new union with the same rights as married couples, we make an end run around the argument "Why can't there be three?" In marriage the answer is quite simple 1 husband - one wife, no room for three. But in same sex there is no such argument, there is no reason there cannot be three, then four, then five, etc. Cannot three people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together? This is not a new concept, Alvin Toffler wrote of it in his book Future Shock in the 60's. Re-define marriage and this will come, along with unintended consequences.

What's so bad about that? Harems, for one. Once three men can be "married" then one man and 4 women is not far away. With no real definition of marriage, the precedent in all 50 states on this will be out the window. We all have seen how these things turn out in the non-mainstream Mormon societies and other cults. People are so short sighted and want to do a feel good thing and allow couples to co-opt the word marriage, but down the road it will hurt innocent people in the inevitable multi-member heterosexual marriages.

You say that will not happen? Not if we approach it rationally and not from an "If they get to be married I get to too!" rather childish approach.

I know many people do not like the "slippery slope" argument, but it is truthful about mankind. The ideas behind the Korean War lead to the folly of Viet Nam. The Palsgraf case lead to the morass our courts have become. The Social Security Number (that was for a limited purpose) has become a linchpin of identity fraud. The evidence of the camel's nose under the tent as an allegory for human nature is undeniable.

[sheepypie]

As HistoryRepeats has informed us: "Any relationship that opposes the biological advancement of the human species is abnormal." If straight couples don't have children, then their relationship is "abnormal" according to you. Will they, too, be responsible for this feared downfall of human existence? Does that mean that we should force all straight couples to have children? Some people seem to think that by allowing gay marriage, somehow our ability to procreate as a species will dissolve, and humans will become extinct. "Gay" is not contagious. Supporting gay marriage will not increase the number of gay people in the world. Just because some couples can't or don't procreate (straight or gay), that doesn't mean that the rest of us will stop gettin' it on, and enjoying our ability to give life. Humanity will continue, trust me.

[apostasyusa]

I think one state at a time the conservatives lose this battle and millions of dollars spent trying frivolously to oppress a minority of Americans.

What does history tell us about what happens when we oppress a minority in this country?

We lose our ability to oppress.

Isn?t it funny that conservatives love quoting science as A POSSIBLE reason to oppress gays, but would WILLFULLY ignore science that contradicts the preconceived notions of the religious and ideological zealots of our nation.

One thing I've learned about todays conservative.....they have no idea about how to pick their battles.

[jk55337]

@ Edward- that was the most succinct argument I've heard. People have thoroughly conflated this issue with religion. There is no way, for instance, that same sex marriage would put catholic marriages in "danger."

It is such an asinine belief that same sex marriage will "endanger" marriage. I have an idea- how about we focus on what we can do to increase the chances that married couples will stay together and be happier?

[smitty06794]

I love the quote about the tail and the dog and I appreciate the notion that giving same sex couples a seperate but equal designation such as civil union should make sense. But this is not the case. To understand why, you must have a basic notion of how justice is dispensed in our country-common or case law. Our courts base their decisions on case histories (eg. Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education). To say that a civil union is equitable to marriage is not true. The courts have decade upon decade of historical court cases to help determine rulings in cases brought before them between and concerning married couples. The court does not have the same for civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the like. Same sex couples are not trying to redefine marriage. They are merely seeking the same protection under the law available to any other hard working couple that happens to have been lucky enough to be attracted to the opposite sex. Part of this equal protection is the predicability of our legal system.

[madest06]

It's called the 14th amendment and it endows all Americans equality. To prop 8 supporters: The constitution does not have a clause that allows the majority to vote on the rights of the minority. So your donations were wasted on a lie.

[sheepypie]

Politicians SHOULD mess with the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is not a religious issue. You don't have to get married in a religious ceremony if you don't want to. If you choose to get married in a religious ceremony, you still have to go to the state and register for a marriage license first. It is a legal issue. If a religion refuses to perform a gay marriage, that is their choice. However, that has NOTHING to do with the state's ability to recognize unions entered into by consenting adults. I know it's not very romantic, but technically, marriage is just a contract between two people.