June is always a month for weddings between a man and woman as it should be. More power to the gays as they make a mockery of our state/country. Its just howbI feel about it.

Pity the poor 'society page' reporter who will have to cover 'gay marriages. Right curious to see snaps and words to describe the 'lovely bride' wore a smart silk dress offset by the heavy beard and hairy arms. Not sure how one would describe the 'bride' in a lesbian marriage......is she the one who is 'fem', rather than 'butch'.

Oh dear, just when you thought you had it right, life serves you a curve.

If people find same-sex marriages so personally distasteful, they can always decline an invitation if they get one. Otherwise, I don't see how it's anyone else's business.

There was a time when people might have used similar words about my interracial marriage, calling it a "mockery" or worse. But thanks to the legacy of those "activist" courts that overturned discriminatory laws, my wife and I have been happily married almost ten years now. Why deprive some committed, loving same-sex couple the same comfort and joy we share?

To those who say "Why should we even bother to vote when some "liberal court" in San Francisco can overturn the will of the people?" YOU MUST show up at the polls this November, when the people have a chance to amend our state constitution, defining marriage between a man and a woman only. If successful, we will not only revoke the decision of these four rogue judges, who unfairly overturned the will of the people, but will solidify the sanctity of marriage in our great state.

The ban on gay marriage came about thru Prop 22, which was approved by 61% of voters. The problem is, a proposition is subject to judicial challenge. However, a Constitution Amendment can only be overturned by a majority of voters. The beauty of this is, these same rogue judges will be forced to conduct themselves according to the constitution, and the new amendment. Judges cannot overturn an amendment.

Nearly twenty states have passed such an amendment. It is imperative California does the same. Why? Because historically, the institution of marriage existed before the USA did, every major religion on earth recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman only, and allowing same sex marriage is a huge leap toward the road to perdition for our country. Think of what it would do to future generations. . . before we know it those with heterosexual values will be seen as racist, advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded as hate speech, and laws passed to enforce it, engagement ring ads with the hands of a two men, films that show man-women married couples will be regarded as antisocial, traditional Judeo-Christians will be marginalized, the wedding businesses (photographers, churches, caterers) will be forced to provide service to same-sex marriage or be sued.

The ultimate goal of the gay rights advocates is to turn our society into a genderless one, where genetalia is the only real difference between a man and women, and that can be switched at will. Sounds like something out of a science fiction horror flick, to me.

redpeach, with the heterosexual divorce rate over 50%, how will denying same-sex couple the right to marry "solidify the sanctity of marriage in this state"?

And where did you hear that nonsense about gays wanting to turn us into a "genderless society"? Do you know any actual gay people?

There seems to be a trend among anti-gay marriage activists to try to demonize and dehumanize gay people. To me that is far more scary than the prospect of two men or two women getting married.

Isn’t it amazing (and sad) that the media and various special interest groups are desperately trying to build a case for:

1. What God clearly and specifically forbids;

2. An assault on marriage by redefining it to placate militant homosexuals;

3. What history has determined will act as a debilitating decline on (any) culture (see Romans chapter 1);

Here’s a prediction: With media complicity, the whole homosexual marriage issue will be framed as a civil rights issue rather than what it is - a moral issue.

Marriage (one man, one woman) and family is revealed in the Bible as God’s chosen building block for a moral and godly society. Societal well-being ought to be the primary concern in issues like this. Court decisions can’t change what God has said and beforehand determined.

Part of the problem is that the media and special interest groups have become so radicalized, so willing to distort the "real" issue and so determined to force any and every opinion on us, that "truth" has been obscured, and so confusion reigns.

Even many so-called believers - evangelical Christians - seem willing to compromise their cherished beliefs just to "keep the peace" or to cultivate an appearance of "tolerance."

The issues are bigger than us. We need clarity of thought and purpose. This can only be found in God’s holy and inspired Word. We need to run everything through the grid of truth as found in the Bible. Only then can we be assured of truth and accuracy as we seek to find our way in a perplexing pluralistic society where seemingly "anything goes."

TC and Redpeach,
A church I used to belong to once did a book study on the book "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality," by Daniel A. Helminiak. It looks at all those biblical passages that those who oppose gay rights always cite, but examining the language in the context of what the words meant in the time the Bible was written, rather than how we've chosen to interpret it today. According to Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest, God was speaking against the abuse of power that often took place in same-sex relationships of that time, not the acts themselves. It's a very illuminating book, for those whose minds aren't closed.

T.C., can you explain why you think state law should conform to your personal religious beliefs?

And while you're at it, can you name one nation/civilization that declined as a result of same-sex marriage? It's easy to throw around claims like that. Can you supply evidence?

Couple of questions for you, T.C.:

1. Do you shave your facial hair/trim your beard?

2. Do you wear clothes made from a combination of cotton and linen?

3. Do you swear?

4. Do you eat shellfish or pork?

All these things (and many others) are prohibited in the Bible. Should there be civil laws against them? How do you, as a believer in the infallibility of the Bible, reconcile your repeated breaking of one or more of these laws? (Somehow I don't see you as a beard to the belly kind of guy.) I'm not asking to be sarcastic: I'm genuinely curious how a Christian who believes as you do in the infallibility of the Bible deals with the archaic parts of the Bible. Who gets to decide what we should follow and what we should ignore?

I have no problem with interracial couples as they are still a man and woman. Anyone that truly loves another can be together but that little piece of paper I just be;lieve should be between a man and woman. I support them having entitlements as domestic partners. I will ask if your position will be the same if you child comes home to announce they want to marry their partner? Will you dstill want to throw them the big gala wedding?

To me, there is no difference between an interracial couple and a gay couple, except that gay couples in our society have suffered discrimination longer than interracial couples. And my position will not change if any of my children find out they are gay or lesbian. Other parents?

Some where along the line I picked up a theological tome containing some writings of Nancy Friday - the name of the book escapes me at this time - Friday, is of course a noted feminist and pro-homosexual activist. I was interested in one thing - her take on homosexuality in contrast to what the Bible says. Her "take" (her interpretive methodology) - and I’m paraphrasing - was, "it really doesn’t say and mean what it says."

How do you deal with a person who, in a debate, basically says, "it’s in the Bible, but it really doesn’t mean what it clearly says"? That faulty interpretive methodology is a recipe for disaster and deception. It also represents a deliberate, wilful, and malicious attempt to rewrite what God has clearly said.

I would suggest that the Scriptures on homosexuality found in Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6 are clear and unambiguous; that only a mindset seeking to distort truth, possibly for ulterior motives, possibly for hidden, devious and impure agendas, would suggest otherwise.

It always comes back to: Do you believe that God’s Word is true? II Peter 1:20-21 NIV "Above all, you MUST understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Daniel Helminiak, referenced by Ms Boyles, and a reputed Bible scholar, makes some serious mistakes when he states things like:

(1)"The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. .....(2) Not a single Bible text indisputably refers to lesbian sex. .... (3) Biblical figures like Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel may well have been involved in homogenital relationships. (4) And Jesus himself said nothing at all about homosexuality, not even when face to face with a man in a gay relationship." (What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, in part, Summary and Conclusion).

1. Refuted by: Genesis 19: 4-5 NIV "Before they had gone to bed, all the MEN from every part of the city of Sodom——both young and old——surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the MEN who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SEX WITH THEM.'"

2. Refuted by: Romans 1:26-27 NIV "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

3. There is no Scriptural support whatsoever for such wild speculation. It’s interesting to note that Helminiak doesn’t even attempt to twist Scripture to fit his beliefs - probably because there is nothing that even comes close to such a ridiculous suggestion.

4. I wish he would have provided a little Scriptural guidance here. For the life of me, I don’t know of any such incident in Scripture (but then I don’t know everything); the only thing that can remotely hint at any such relationship is when Jesus described John as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Hey, Jesus loves all of us! To take that any other way is a big stretch!

Another quote: "Simply that 'God said it is wrong' is not a good enough answer...." (What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, chapter 2). Why not? Sounds pretty good to me! It seems to me if God said it, that ought to be the end of the debate!

It appears that much of the so-called agenda-driven, pro-homosexual, pseudo-interpretation of the Bible is really a "situational interpretation" that is looking to manufacture a "theology" that offers anything and allows for any "act" no matter how bizarre or deviant.

BTW, a better Biblical perspective on important 2008 election issues is found in the book, "How Would Jesus Vote? - A Christian Perspective on the Issues" - by the late pastor, D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe. (Available at Barnes & Noble).

Hey Gail...can homosexual couples produce children compared to interracial couples? Doesn't that shoot a hole in your only difference theory.Through abortion and homosexual activity the left's numbers are decreasing while conservatives(mostly against abortion and homosexual activity) see their numbers increasing.As far as your children being homosexuals...how does that discussion go? Do you have that talk with them before or after the normal sex talk? Other parents?

[I lifted this out of another page on this same topic]

...Since referring to God seems so offensive these days, let's see if a factual biological approach might support the gay rights perspective.

The sexual act is how animals produce more of their own kind (correct me if I'm wrong on that). And without making more of their own kind, any species will eventually go extinct as the old and weak specimens die off without being replaced (again, corrrect me if I'm wrong). And except for some lower invertebrates, a male and female are required to complete the sexual act in order to reproduce more of the species (at least that's what I've learned over the years in various biology classes). So, it's probably safe to conclude if two females or two males mate, no offspring will be produced.

Medically speaking, the female reproductive system is designed with a different epitheleal and muscle structure than the end of the digestive tract (to state it delicately). A little more bluntly, the female reproductive anatomy is designed for the reproductive act, while the "backside" is not. For more info, go here: www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768&Topic=598, and pay close attention to the last few paragraphs; it gives a graphic medical description of why the homosexual act is wrong.

Conclusion from a biological perspective: a homosexual human race will go extinct within a generation or two, and--like smoking, drugs, or overeating--homosexual acts dramatically increase the risk of damaging the physical self.

Unlike obvious traits beyond our own control such as skin color or physical deficiencies, homosexuality is a matter of psychology that goes against behavioral norms (hence the title--used by many gays themselves--"queer"). If the issue is touted as a restriction of personal happiness or pleasure for a small number of participants ("minority"), then it becomes a matter of personal self-control, not equal rights.

To Lisa Maria Boyles:
Concerning your claims that the Bible does not denounce homosexuality: Throughout the Old Testament and into the epistles of St. Paul, homosexual sodomy is an abomination leading to personal destruction and damnation, and one of the five sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.

Also, can you think of any bigger way to denounce your God, than to rebel against the very sex he created you as? You are his creation, he is the creator. Who are you, the created, to challenge Him on his design?

To Mike D:
As a matter of fact, I do have friends and coworkers who are gay, and love them all the same. Still, I do not want them dictating to me what is common sense: The very definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman, first and foremost, for the procreation of children (two men or two women cannot procreate).

Also, Christianity is the cornerstone of Western civilization, and Judeo-Christian values are written all over our nations founding documents.

Declaring the social opinions of a radical, minority fringe group law, is absurd, when that law renders the ideals of marriage meaningless, in this very Western civilization.

TC is right on the money, in his views and values. I would like to add: With moral decay, and sexual prevertion on the rise, our society needs a moral shot in the arm, not a catalyst in the crotch.

To T.C.: Just as I was expecting, you avoided the easy (but, perhaps for you, hard) questions. I repeat:

Do you shave your beard? Do you wear clothes made of mixed fibers? Do you eat shellfish and pork? Do you swear?

Should there be civil laws against these "sins"?

How do you explain why you get to pick and choose what you follow in the Bible and what you ignore?

T.C. asks, "How do you deal with a person who, in a debate, basically says, 'it’s in the Bible, but it really doesn’t mean what it clearly says'?"

Good question. Christians do that all the time. For example, when Jesus says "judge not lest ye be judged," they will cite passages from Paul to argue that Jesus didn't really mean what he said.

Mr. Morgan does something very similar when discussing the sin of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:48-51 is very explicit in stating that the sin of Sodom was arrogance and lack of concern for the poor and needy. Mr. Morgan insists that the Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality, contrary to the scriptures.

So how can we reason with people who claim to follow scripture, but read their own meanings into it? And who claim to "love the sinner, but hate the sin," yet advocate depriving "sinners" of even basic human rights, while ignoring the fact that their own theology states that their own sins are just as bad as those they judge?

Redpeach, I'm glad to see that you have gay friends. I submit, though, that if you love them in spite of their gayness, then you don't love them for who they are.

I don't see anyone trying to "dictate" anything to you. Some people just want the right to marry the person they love. Just like Richard and Mildred Loving did 40 years ago. Were they trying to "dictate" common sense or change the definition of marriage, or defy the "will of the people"?

Brian, are you implying that the only purpose of marriage is procreation?

And I'm not sure what Mr. McIntyre's point is, or why he seems to equate same-sex marriage with anal sex. And nobody is suggesting that the whole human race become homosexual, so the "extinction" argument is irrelevant.

Mike D

I’m well aware of the Ezekiel quote. But that’s not the ONLY thing revealed about the "sins" of Sodom and Gomorrah. My quote from Genesis is also relevant to the discussion.

BTW, Jesus did NOT just say, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged..." - that is out of context and the favorite verse of any unbeliever trying to justify his own actions. Let me give you all the Scripture in it’s proper context: Matt7:1-5 NIV "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

What Jesus clearly forbid was the hypocrisy of condemning (judging) someone (or something) while doing the same thing themselves.

An aside: Isn’t it amazing how those who don’t believe that God’s Word is really God’s Word use God’s Word to defend their own opinions - even if out of context? Is that the ultimate hypocrisy or what?

The Bible says many things about "judging." It lays it all out - under what circumstances it is forbidden and when it is permitted. "Judging" is also often used in the Scriptures in the sense of discerning or self-judgement. Jesus had some interesting things to say. "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." John 7:24; "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" Luke 12:57. Another interesting verse: "The spiritual man makes judgements (discernments) about all things....." I Cor 2:15.

We dare not insult or demean centuries of honest hermeneutics by twisting and taking out of context the Word of God.

Back to our original point: The Scriptures are clear on homosexuality. There is no ducking the issue; there is no word play that suggests an alternative meaning. It is clear. It is specific. It is so carefully stated in simple, easy to understand words, that a third grader, a college grad or even a functional illiterate will come away with the same understanding. That is, if they are intellectually honest and really want to hear what it says. To suggest otherwise is to offend every rule of English word usage, every rule of grammar, every principle of Biblical hermeneutics. To suggest otherwise is to over-rule 2,000 years of theological studies, demeaning some of the greatest scholars (of all times) and the greatest names in all of Christendom.

Simply put, if you are a redneck boob, you can understand what the Bible says.

Why then do some misunderstand the plain, simple, clarity of the Scripture? Because they choose too! Or the unregenerate mind does not want to hear what God’s sin-convicting Word has to say. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned." I Cor. 2:14.

T.C., yes you provided a quote from Genesis. But that quote does NOT say that is the reason Sodom was destroyed. That's an example of you reading your opinion into the text. Are you implying that the Sodomites would have been spared if they had taken Lot's suggestion to rape his daughters instead? That result would be absurd.

I am well aware of the context of Jesus' instructions about judging. Nothing in that context provides permission to disgregard his plain instruction. (As far as "ultimate hypocrisy," that would be claiming that the Bible is the Word of God, but seeing the need to interpret it to support your own opinions and prejudices.)

Saying the scriptures are "clear" on homosexuality is just wishful thinking. It appears to be declared an "abomination" in the OT, but so is eating shellfish. Paul appears to disapprove of it in Rom. 1, but he doesn't actually forbid it (note what the scriptures actually say - that God "gave them over to" what Paul calls "shameful lusts.") And you can't point to one solitary scripture that actually forbids same-sex marriage. Any sex outside of marriage is sinful according the Bible. So why not let them marry - isn't it "better to marry than to burn"?

Nice try, T.C., but all I see is someone repeating
what he has been taught by other people, and bending scripture to make it fit.

By the way, you still haven't answered my threshhold question: why do you think State law should conform to your religious beliefs?

Is there some reason you're ducking that one?

T.C. --

Still no answers! Simple questions:

Beard?

Cotton-linen blend clothing?

Shellfish or pork?

You say the Bible is "written" in language that a third-grader would understand, though of course most third-graders can't translate Greek. It says simply: "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

T.C., why can't you answer the questions? Is it because that fundamentalists are selective when it comes to the Bible? If so, it sure damages your argument.

One more time, T.C.: Do you shave?

I didn't write what was in the Bible. Just repeating it. As a believer I affirm what God said.

So, any conforming with State law would be with the Word of God not me.

Mike D.
Regarding the Richard and Mildred Loving comment: You are comparing apples to orange. The racial makeup of an individual cannot be changed--choice of sexual partners can change.

Regarding your accusation that I do not love my gay friends for who they are: Your judgement of my heart is not only without basis, it is incorrect. If your observation was true, you must also reason that unless I drive my alcoholic friend to the liquor store everyday to tank up, I do not love the alcoholic friend for who he/she is. Quite the opposite is true.

You see, I do not have to accept, or enable the behavior of anyone, if I believe it to be sinful, destruction, unlawful, or whatever. My convictions about homosexuality are biblically based, rock solid, centuries tested truths. Like most Americans, I do not have to look at some twisted argument by anyone else to decide on this subject. There is nothing wrong with knowing what you believe in.

And as far as the gay advocates not trying to dictate to me or the rest of society....dahhhhh! Why do you think we debating this? Gays are in our faces constantly... trying to redefine the institutions that built mankind. For decades now, gay advocates have been chipping away at the social order of our nation, our culture, our values, our laws. You seek to confuse our children by parading your perversions in front of them, as if that makes it acceptable. We see it in the news almost daily, how a gay has filed lawsuit against someone who refused service to them because of their personal moral conviction--for controversial things such as gay adoption, or artificial insemination, or gay wedding services. Is that not imposing on others???

Then there is SB 777, a law successfully lobbied for by the gay community, which will soon require all California public and charter schools to promote homosexuality, without the permission or notification of parents. Is that not overriding a parents basic right to instill their own child with their own values and spiritual beliefs? Since gays cannot procreate themselves, they push to poison the minds of our children to gain acceptance.

Additionally, if gay marriage is allowed, based on the demand for marriage equality, why stop there? Won't we also have to allow polygamy, marrying your dog, a tree, or even yourself? If the right to marry, as you have argued, is only based on love, then why not?

You see, it doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on this pig...it is still a pig.

tnanks for taking this on Mike, you've displayed many christian virtues in your patient defense of same-sex marriage...T.C, King James didn't have a hot-line to the Big Truth.

REGARDING MIKE D's INSINUATION THAT IT IS A SILLY NOTION THAT THE GAY COMMUNITY IS PUSHING TO MAKE OUR SOCIETY GENDERLESS, THIS IS HOT OFF THE PRESS:

Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, "gender-free." In other words, anyone--regardless of their biological identity--will be welcome in the men's or ladies' room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven't made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines "public accommodations" as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses. The other side says this is about discrimination. But the chance of offending a few people hardly justifies putting everyone else at risk, which is exactly what SB 200 does. For every transvestite who takes advantage of this law, there are a dozen sexual predators who will see this as a chance to put women and children into a vulnerable situation.

To Jackie Krage:
You are obviously white. There is no comparison to the history of black people and the history of gay people in this country. Gay people want something way different than what the blacks wanted in the 60’s. Gay people have always had the protection of their rights. If gays went to the police they would be helped, in the 60’s if blacks went to police they would be hung, sprayed with water hoses and not treated as a citizen. The black involved in the civil rights movement of the 60’s wanted the rights that all other citizens had. Gays have equal rights. What they want is to call their relationships a marriage. This is an issue of labeling, so please, please, please stop riding the success of the civil rights movement of the 60’s. They are not the same.

T.C., you evaded my question. Let's grant for sake of argument that the Bible is the "Word of God," (although that claim is nowhere found in the text). Just to make you happy, I'll rephrase my question:

Why do you think State law should conform to the Bible?

I submit that you can love each other without a certificate of marriage as many heterosexuals have chosen to do. God created prople equal so interracial couples are still just people and it does not say in the bible that a white person shouldn't be with a person of other colors so this is not even the same as homosexuals getting married.

Mike D.
Do you even believe in God? I doubt it. And if you don't believe in the Almighty, why use and twist the scriptures to try and justify homosexuality? Why would you so visciously attack Christians like T.C., if you don't believe our faith is based in truth?

The most profound truth in this blog is from T.C., who quoted I Cor. 2:14, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Gay marriage takes God out of the equation. That is what the vast majority of humanity objects to.

Redpeach, I was comparing apples with apples. Richard and Mildred loved each other and wanted to get married, but state law wouldn't allow it (based largely on religious beliefs at the time). A lot of same-sex couples today want to get married, and state law didn't allow it, based mostly on the religious beliefs of the majority. It's not just a "choice of sexual partners," as you so trivially phrase it. Can you decide to be gay if you want? I can't. I could have chosen another woman, I suppose, but I could never have chosen a man.

As for judging your heart, I haven't done any of that. If you said you love me, but condemn my "choice of sexual partner," refusing to acknowledge my marriage, then you do not love me for who I am. My love for my wife is a huge part of who I am. I may not know your heart, but I do know mine. And I know that you can't truly say you love me if you hate a huge part of me.

What I see here, not just in you, is an inability or refusal to empathize with gay people. Can you imagine not being allowed to marry the person you love? Or having to be discrete about your relationship (or being accused of "flaunting")? I look at my office, and see pictures of my wife and kids all over. Is that "flaunting" or "getting in your face"?

More and more, I'm beginning to believe that the chief difference between liberals and conservatives is the amount of empathy that person has towards others who are different.

Redpeach, regarding SB 200, have you actually read it? I have (it's from Colorado, by the way - you forgot to mention that). You can find the official text at www.leg.state.co.us.

I didn't see anything in that law about making public accommodations "genderless." Can you find any such provision?

There's a lot of stuff on the internet about it, but you really shouldn't believe all the propaganda out there.

Redpeach, regarding your last post to me, I find it amusing that you would accuse me of "attacking" T.C. while saying worse things about me. Apparently your definition of a "good Christian" is someone who hates homosexuality. I see no conflict between believing in a Creator God and accepting gays for who they are. I find it extremely illogical that an all-powerful God would care if Betty loves Sue or Alex loves Bob. I give God more credit than that.

Jackie
If you read the bible cover to cover and get that male on male or female on female relations are right in the eyes of god, then that is amazing in it's self. To get married is an order from God. Like being baptized, circumcised or whatever else. The bible teaches us that there are things he wants us to do. Men marring women is one of them. How God wants us to view sex, sexuality and marriage is overwhelmingly obvious. Do not let the fact that there are many good decent Gay people in the world distort what is sin. The devil has a way of doing that.

Swift, thanks for the kind words. It is starting to get a little heated in here, isn't it? Even Jackie is taking some mis-directed flak, even though she's on the other side. Seems like some "straights" can't shoot straight.

I find it telling that, other than Dr. McIntyre's irrelevant (imo) medical opinion, the only objections to same-sex marriage being offered are religious. Can anyone offer a valid, non-religious reason to deny the right to marry to a whole class of people?

Mike
The only legal reason same-sex should not marry is because a same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. I see marriage is something that did not come before religion. Before mono-theistic religion was organized what people did was not called marriage. I see it as God, then marriage. He told a man to marry a woman. So marriage by definition is for straight people. I could be wrong, but that what I get from religious works. If Gay’s are allowed to call their unions marriage, it wouldn’t be, by definition first of all, and I just see that it infringes on people who are following their on their religious tradition. Calling same-sex unions a marriage belittles anyone who marries as a practice of their religion. That’s all I got and that’s I, and those who agree, are losing this battle. Even if we win it will now, it will be changed within the next decade.

Tyrell I am not saying anything about the civil rights of black people in the 60s so Im not sure where that came from. I have read the Bible from cover to cover numerous times and know exactly whjat it says. Somehow you got the iimpression I am for gay marriages which I am not. It is wrong in the eyes of God and many people just want to ignore God as they seem to do in many things. I choose to live by the Bible and can see that the devil is all over this gay marriage amendment. I am not sure where you got that I was for it or comparing it to the rights of blacks in 60s and yes I am white and love people of all colors and ethnicities. My 5 yr old niece is biracial and I love her and have no problem with it. God Bless one and all. Dropping religion out of everything in society is what has gotten us where we are in the world today.

McIntyre wrote, "Conclusion from a biological perspective: a homosexual human race will go extinct within a generation or two, and--like smoking, drugs, or overeating--homosexual acts dramatically increase the risk of damaging the physical self."

Unless you can cite the scientific sources that confirm this conclusion, you're no more reliable than a common fraud. I'm in my mid-50s and have been a homosexual my entire life, have engaged in homosexual acts and every trip I take to the doctor I'm told to get more exercise, not "knock off that damaging homosexual act". So, what "damage to the physical self" are you talking about that my doctor (who happens to be gay) doesn't know? Gay people would benefit to know what you seem to be an expert on. The context of your state was a "biological conclusion" so what might we dullard homos read to get up to speed on this?

Recall, Mr. McIntyre, that I've asked you to cite your sources of information, not just spew your opinion. If you are going to hold forth on the health of gay people to further a political and religious prejudice, you carry the burden of stating the facts. The fact are those produced by the scientific community. Now! Where did you get your information, Sir?

redpeach45 wrote: "

Regarding the Richard and Mildred Loving comment: You are comparing apples to orange. The racial makeup of an individual cannot be changed--choice of sexual partners can change."

Well, black people don't have to marry white people do they? I mean, weren't Richard and Mildred Loving defying centuries of tradition of one race not mixing with another to accomplish their goal? What were they trying to do, ruin civilization? Bring down the country's moral values? Hasten Arrmadaddon? They could easily have chosen someone of their own race to marry and wouldn't have had any problem, no court case. The laws in most of the southern states could have just stayed the same and all those white people living in Alabama could have gone to church and thanked God for keeping order. You see, the same argument that is being made about gays was made about blacks. Imagine! In 1961! A black person couldn't marry anyone who was white. In California a person of Mexican descent couldn't marry a white person until the Supreme Court tossed out that law.

Apples and oranges? Remember, all you white folks out there. Your grandparents and great grandparents were the very people who raised religious objections about black and white marrying. They were espousing that old time religion because, just as with gays getting married, they couldn't come up with a satisfactory reason why black people should not be able to marry white people, so they made a religious issue of it because that the only "authority" they had that didn't have to make any sense. It only had to say, "God said so."

That's what slays me about this idiotic debate. People will cite the bible all day long and the worst they can say it that homosexuality is an abomination.

Well why is it an abomination? "Abomination" means "disgusting". I've asked people about this and I've mostly heard Christians say that if the bible calls someone/something an abomination, it probably means it's like an unpardonable sin.

No. That's not what "abomination" means, folks. It's means something you don't like. And the ancient Israelites had an entire catalog of things/people they didn't like and they would kill over them. "Abomination" is the modern day equivalent of the word "disgusting" or "icky" and believe it or not, there is some actual scientific research on why people regard some thing or some people as disgusting. There has actually been a test devised (The Disgust Scale) to determine what an individual's level of disgust is for certain people or situations. For example, one of the questions asks, "Would it bother you if you knew your soup had been stirred with a used, yet thoroughly cleaned fly swatter? Some people find that so revolting they can even stand to read the question. But here's the amazing thing. The people who study study this stuff say that certain groups of individuals definitely show a higher level of sensitivity to disgusting situation than others. Who? Why fundamentalist Christians, of course. I'm not making this up. You can read it online yourself but looking it up just like I did. People who score high sensitivity ratings on the disgust scale will answer "Yes" to the following question: "If you got on a bus and sat down and then noticed you could feel the warmth of the body of the person who previously sat in your seat, would you change seats?"

Some of you might benefit by just thinking of yourselves as "high on the disgust scale" and find it within you to try not to control the constitutional rights of other people you think are "icky". Don't think this matters? Okay. Let's ask Tyrell if he's ever seen some white person recoil when he handed them food to eat out of his hand. That ever happen to you Tyrell? It would amaze me if it hadn't because even some of the most strident social liberals have a level on the Disgust Scale that would surprise and embarrass them. Some simple would eat from a black person's hand.

There's not doubting that Christian teaching has much to do with these "disgust" reactions people have. Gays know it exist because we endure the ugly reactions people have to us so often. We get fired from our jobs or evicted from our homes. Our children get bullied and taunted. We get assaulted and even murdered because of these disgust reactions. No. We're not a different color. If we were all sitting around her talking about negros and someone like Mr. McIntyre popped in with some sort of biological explanation that rendered negros inferior, at the very least Tyrell could stand up and rightly say that if you want to know about the experience of a black person - ASK ONE.

But gays and lesbians rarely, if ever, get that courtesy extended. Instead, we get just what Tyrell and his ancestors got when we asked to be treated exactly the same as any tax-paying citizen - we get God shoved in our faces because that's all the argument bigots have. And we get these so-called "biological conclusions" like Mr. McIntyre rendered earlier.

People here are just saying things and don't even know what the experiences of gays and lesbians are. What has been repeated over and over here in on form or another is, "Gays choose to be gay."

You know, I've heard that theory a gizillion times. The science on homosexuality isn't conclusive even though it points at a biological origin. All I know is that I don't ever remember choosing to be gay and I can say with a satisfied mind (because I've examined the question for most of my 50 years of life). No, I don't remember an instant in my life where I had this flash and said, "I think I'll be a homosexual from now one." All I remember is that my attraction for men just appeared in my head one day, uninvited, and it never went away no matter how much I wished and prayed for it to leave. Wishing and praying make me a mess and I didn't get rid of that mess until I stopped wishing and praying and just started living with what God gave me. It took me 30 years to stop and I now think of that time as 30 wasted years.

Mike D,

I am not a doctor. I'm just relaying simple medical and biological facts, not "opinion" as you claim.

You asked for any non-religous reason why a whole class of people should be denied a right. The facts I presented before are very relevent. How 'bout some legal precedent as follows:

A. The homosexual community has convinced mainstream society that being gay is an inborne, not acquired trait. Those of us who oppose the gay marriage issue don't subscribe to that theory. Being black or hispanic, physically able or disabled, or mentally functional or not--THOSE are inborne traits.

B. BUT... Let's run with the "inborne trait" theory and extrapolate it a few more steps. Keep in mind that those who support gay marriages are using the exact line of reasoning I present here:

1. Bisexuals would also be able to say that they're "just made that way." In order to be "fair" to bisexuals and not restrict the rights of a "whole class of people," then they should be allowed to marry one male and one female, because they are "wired" for intimate relationships with both sexes, right? (But isn't that polygamy?)

2. While we're at it, another whole class of adult citizens are attracted to young children; that's just the way they are! Who are we as upright Americans to prevent a group of individuals from exercising their right to happiness? So let's stop labeling them as "abnormal" and call them "different," and let's also "teach tolerance" in the pursuit of equal rights. They're not wrong, just different. And while we're at it, let's throw a couple of buzz words we've heard from the Bible back in the faces of those Bible thumpers who are trying to set up a fascist government (even if we don't really have a clue about the true meaning of the entire chapter or book we're referring to because we don't want to actually have to read it).

3. During the next election, let's use the courts to find some obscure constitutional loophole so the judges, who know infinitely more than the citizens, can decide whether or not the votes should count. Heaven forbid that a "mob mentality" should decide who our next president, congressperson, or governor is! Why should the rights of a whole class of people who can't read the directions on how to poke the paper out of their ballots be infringed?

4. And let's re-evaluate the U.S. Constitution. As legal precedent would dictate, since some Articles have proven irrelevent (such as the archaic idea that only male landowners can vote), let's piggyback our ideas on that reasoning in order to get rid of some of those first 10 ammendments that no longer are needed because our society is so much different than it was 230 years ago.

...Some would say, "Oh that's just paranoid thinking. That could never happen." I disagree; that's the direction we're headed if we allow this ruling to stand without further hearings.

So to address Mike D's prompt (a non-religious reason...), it's an insidious beginning to a chaotic, anarchistic degradation of our society and way of life.

DW

Your unanswered challenge to TC comes from Old Testament rules. Understanding the New Testament will address your concerns about hypocrisy.

You refer to sacrifices that were required of early believers. About 2,000 years ago many sacrifices were no longer required because God sent his first and best as our Saviour. Look back to Genesis to understand what "first and best" is all about; I don't have room to explain it.

In a nutshell, the anti-religious arguments are falsely based on the presupposition that the teachings of the Bible are irrelevent in today's high-tech world. The Bible isn't about things and material possessions; it's about human nature and God's desire to spend eternity with us. It's not simply a rulebook to which we must rigidly ahere.

Within the first few pages of The Bible, we learn that humans are innately driven to pursue their own desires for personal pleasure. That lack of self-control is called "sin." From there, it's all downhill! The New Testament chronicles the history of Jesus, as well as clarifying how society of the day needed to straighten up or suffer negative consequences. Non-religious history proves what happens when nations don't follow rational rules. They fail and drop into oblivion.

Moses was a murderer. David was an adulterer and murderer. Solomon was a polygamist. A prostitute helped save the nation of Israel. Paul was a member of the very same group who sent Jesus to the cross. Another prostitute helped spread the word of Jesus as the Saviour. Superficially, the Bible is full of paradoxes, but a thorough reading and study, in and out of context, helps one understand at least a little bit about the historical accounts and parables contained within it.

...And for those who think believers are mindless lemmings, keep in mind that nearly every single event in the Bible has been archeologically and historically validated. It really is the truth. (Before the flood of, "Oh, yeah? Prove it!" starts up, I recommend you read "The Case for Christ" first. Google it and do some research...)

This old geezer is right gobsmacked at how the name of GOD is used so freely. How GOD must feel at the number of folks who have used his name to do horrid things or believe horrid things.

I am also gobsmacked at the shrill tone of the rabid homosexuals. I have been 'bent' the whole of my life. Why I am 'bent' will have to be answered by one more clever than I. I can tell you that at a point in my early life, MOI knew he was different, and being different was going to create hardships. MOI made the choice to live an open lifestyle , at a time when it was not fashionable. Are there some who do not like MOI. To be sure. Were there opportunities missed? To be sure.

MOI lived with another man for 20 years, had very close friends, a brilliant life and in the death of his companion learned that many in the world MOI lived in honoured my companion and our life together.

Personally, the thought of 'gay marriage' is repugnant. MOI never felt the need to 'marry' and feel strongly that it but a political move on the part of some to get what they feel they need to validate themselves.

MOI is a Republican, Catholic and an American. MOI has no problem with defining his place in society.

How very sad that so many here feel the need to bang at one another.

Mike D.
It seems you are being DISHONEST regarding your challenging my evaluation of SB 200, the new law in Colorado regarding access to any public bathroom BY bisexual, homosexual, transexual individuals--RENDERING PUBLIC BATHROOMS GENDERLESS. I Googled it, and across the board, there is no mistaking it, my evaluation of the law is right on the money. Even the gay websites/blogs are recognizing it as such, and are, in fact, celebrating it. Because they were the group who financed and pushed it.

RECAP OF STORY ON 05/30/08: Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, "gender-free." In other words, anyone--regardless of their biological identity--will be welcome in the men's or ladies' room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven't made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines "public accommodations" as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses. The other side says this is about discrimination. But the chance of offending a few people hardly justifies putting everyone else at risk, which is exactly what SB 200 does. For every transvestite who takes advantage of this law, there are a dozen sexual predators who will see this as a chance to put women and children into a vulnerable situation.

THIS IS A TRAVESTY!!!
The first bathroom rape/molestation that occurs due to this assinine law should result in a crippling lawsuit against the gay proponent groups, and the State of Colorado.

Once the word gets out on this, women will unite against it.

Woot I scored a 9 on the disgust scale! I am pretty sure that means I am part animal.

I grew up with lots of "uncles" that are gay men. Some are in long term committed relationships others are not. One and all they are all great men who deserve to have the exact same rights I do.

It's funny one person sees this as the end of our country or the decline. I see this as the exact opposite. It is part of our growth as a country.

Fifty years from now our kids and grandkids will look back at our actions and beliefs about this very subject and feel slightly embarassed. They will wonder why it was a big deal for us.

Quote the bible all day long as far as I am concerned as an agnostic it makes not a whit of difference. Instead of using a book written 2,000 years ago to dictate your thinking look around and open your eyes. Think a bit for yourself.

Now I am going to link that cool disgusting scale test to all my friends. Have fun arguing.

R. Foster
Looking at the history of this country many would agree by saying they would rather be a gay white person than a black person. Gay people are protected by law. I think we all want that. If you do not feel it was your choice to be gay, it was at least your choice to act on it. I would not have, but hey that is you. As Christians we all should be accepting no matter your decision.
If people are using the bible to support a ban on interracial that makes no sense, that is a misinterpretation. It’s sad that people allowed that to happen back then, it was also a misinterpretation of the bible when the KKK used as well. There is no misinterpretation when people say the bible doesn’t support gay relations. That is a fact.
As a black man it just fires me up when gay closely connect their argument with interracial marriage, or the woman’s movement. When blacks marched or could not marry whites they also had a hard time walking in an all white neighborhood, joining a workers union, voting, or even eating in a dinner and moving into a white neighborhood. I may be wrong because I don’t know many gays but have they ever had that problem. 50, 60 years ago if a black had ever experienced any of the segregation issues I mention who do they go to. Not the police because they were obviously not on their side. (Watch Mississippi burning) The police protect the lives and rights of gays. This is why I say the issues are not at all related.
Just a question, you say you cannot help that you are attracted to males. But what about those child molesters who cannot help but be attracted to little boys and girls, or brothers who are in love with their sisters or mothers. When does the government have the right to stop those attractions? I and many like me are fine with your choice of lifestyle, but by definition it is not a marriage, and through the history of the issues it is way different than interracial marriage.
Please RESPOND……………………………..

Redpeach, what in heck do you mean by accusing me of cheating on my wife and kids?? (I'd use stronger language, but I don't think that would be allowed.) It's none of your --- business, but I've never had relations with anyone other than my wife. You had absolutely no basis for that libelous accusation. Doesn't your Bible say something about bearing false witness against your neighbor?

It always gets me when "devout Christians" are so ready to tell outright lies to defend what they see as "truth."

Moderator, will you please remove that malicious, defamatory post?

Redpeach, another empty accusation? So you googled SB 200. Did you look at the official text? If so, cite the provision that says what you claim. I don't care what other people say ABOUT the law. That's hearsay (double hearsay in this case - and you didn't even cite your source you claim to be quoting from). What does the law ACTUALLY SAY? You've already falsely accused me of adultery. Can you back up your claim of dishonesty, or is that another violation of the "big ten"?

The right to marry has never been allowed soley on feelings of love between two people. Society has always restricted marriage to those deemed appropriate to marry. Ex. close blood relatives are not allowed to marry—fathers to marry their daughters, polygamy is outlawed as well. And if feelings of love are the only threshold, why not let a person marry their dog, or themselves.

Few today believe it was justified to outlaw inter-racial marriage. And like Tyrell says, for the gay community to parade themselves as victims of descrimination is shameful, and comparing your experience to the plight of Black Americans marginalizes their suffering and triumphs. You are being disengenuous, and disrespectful.

Gays are protected by the law, as any other citizens, and have full access to the freedoms this great country offers. But you do not have the right to over-ride the will of the people. Government in this great republic, was created and designed to serve the people--and that means the majority rules. Yes, our Constitution trumps all. But their is nothing in our Constitution that says gay marriage is a civil right. And the Constitution specifically says that justices do not have the right, or power to legislate, like they did in California several weeks ago. They are elected to interpret law. Four judges not only overturned the will of nearly 5,000,000 citizens who voted to ban gay marriage, but created a new law that says gay marriage is allowed. Additionally, their ruling allows gays who reside outside California to come here and marry, and mandates that other state to recognize the marriage. Doesn't this imposes on the will of 48 other states, who have laws on the books banning the practice thru Propositions, or Constitution Amendments. Once again, according to the Constitution, a judge does not have the luxury, or legal right to make law. Obviously, that is exactly what these four judges have done.

The same can be said in New York, where despite the peoples choice to amend the Constitution-- defining marriage between a man and woman only, the Governor has ordered state officials to rewrite thousands of policies to accomodate the recognition of gay marriage.

Now folks, this is not how our government is supposed to operate, and in my opinion is a form of tyranny. Executive and judicial officials are not allowed to legislate, which is precisely what is happening. What next...will these branches of government decide to suspend free speech?

We need to get back to common sense, limited government, and demand that we the people, decide how we are governed.

Mike D.
I misunderstood the meaning of your post about your wife and kids. I thought you were admitting to me that you were married with kids, and having an extramarital, homosexual relationship. Apparently, my mistake.

For my misunderstanding and comment, I profoundly apologize.

Tyrell,

If you are married to a female, I'd say that was sufficient evidence that you DID act on YOUR sexual orientation. If you've only had intimate relationships with females, whether you are married or not, that, Tyrell, is a prime example of acting on your sexual orientation. It's common place for straight people to demand abstinence of gays, all the while saying how easy and simple it is to not act on one's sexual orientation. Easy, huh? Obviously, you mean for a lifetime. That's something you'd never do, but you can impose that requirement of gays with such ease and abandon it defies the experience of your entire life. Being gay and keeping it forever and always a secret is in diametric opposition to moral edicts that guide people with common sense to be truthful and honest. Hiding one's homosexual orientation has the exact parallel and consequence as it once had for a light-colored negro trying to pass as white; in both cases you are accused of dishonesty, are ostricized for not upholding solidarity with those who cannot hide. Oh yes. We all knew of the bickering that goes on among black people over having very dark skin as opposed to those who have light skin and physical feature that are closer to European than African. We all know that those black people whose skin and features are classically African are the ones who have born the burden of racial prejudice in America.
Well, there's a gay parallel to that that gays are abundantly knowledgable about that almost no straight people will even acknowledge: feminine mannerisms in males and masculine mannerisms in females. Feminine mannerisms in males are no merely affectations embraced by gay men. They are present and prominent in children as young as age two and a tremendous cause of concern to parents who have such male children. I don't expect that you would have read the scientific literature on this. It's THE hot topic in both the behavioral genetics academic area and with such stellar anti-gay groups as Focus on the Family and and Family Research Council. The jist of it is that back in the 1980s a straight psychologist, named Richard Green, from UCLA who counseled pre-operative transexuals did a study of feminine-behaving boys. Based on his experience with transexuals, the believed this tendency toward developing a desire to change sex in adulthood arose from boys being socialized to do so in childhood by their environment (in short, by their parents). So he collected a large group of these boys and was able to do so because most of them, as young as five and no older than 12) were already being counseled by professional counselors. Green had four groups of boys that he observed over a period of something like 12 or 14 years. They were from every conceivable kind of family: highly religious, not religious, politically conservative, liberal, one-parent, two-parent, mother as primary care-taker, father as primary care taker, both parents with equal care-taking responsibilities, neither parent with primary care-taking responsibility, adoptive parents, foster parents, high, middle and low economic status, black, white, hispanic, asian. In other words, these kids represented virtually combination and segment of society we see today. But the striking thing about them was their mannerisms and behaviors. Green called this study, "The Sissy Boy Syndrome" and I think you'll have to acknowledge that you and everyone else on earth have encountered children who fit this description. The were classically what people commonly think of as "sissy" boys. The like to play with the girls. They liked playing with toys associated with the opposite sex. The didn't like rough and tumble play. Mind you, these were kids who would be called an, "only child". A few were and that was necessary because Green needed to see of being an only-chlld had an impact on these kids. Most of the boys had one to several siblings who were of both sexes, close in age and, perhaps most importantly, didn't exhibit ANY of the behaviors these boys did. Green divided kids into two categories: gender-conforming and gender non-conforming.
After Green identified these boys, he basically went away and left them because his entire point was to find our what kind of adults they would become. His prediction was that they would grow up to be like the transexuals he counseled because these kids exhibited the same behaviors that his adult transexual clients told him they exhibited in childhood. Half of the boys received counseling throughout the several years the were in the study and half received no counseling. Green thought that the boys who received counseling would be able to shake the feminine mannerism and behavior and develop ordinary characteristics like heterosexuals.
After the first three groups of the boys reached age 18, Green had to end the study. Why? Because ALL of the boys became, what Green described as, "ordinary homosexuals." None of them became transexual. The case was closed with one group still not having reached age 18 but the outcome was so obvious with the first three groups that it was a moot point. These boys were BORN homosexuals. It's more complicated than this. Green had a "control group" of gender conforming boys that had as similar environmental influences as possible to the gender non-conforming boys. He had to see out his CONTROL GROUP turned out, too, in order to validate what he found on his focus group. NONE of the gender conforming boys identified as homosexual at the age of 18.
Does that sound like biological influence? It should. That's the conclusion of the study. Green had never believed biology played a role in determining sexual orientation until he did this study. Here' more news, Tyrell. This study has been replicated three times with the same results and to make it more interesting, the studies were in other countries that had completely different environments and cultural influences.
Why is this important? Because every gay person knows that effeminate men are the ones who have the greatest difficulty "hiding" and that's the parallel with dark skinned black people. Effeminate gays get identified as "sissy" in childhood and they are the ones who get assaulted, beaten, bullied, fired from jobs, evicted from their homes, not hired regardless of their qualifications or their character. So you say it's different for blacks because they can't hide their skin color. Puh-leesze! If there's one thing that gay men worry about and have a kind of life-long obsession about is this effeminacy thing. We KNOW how people react to it. It's like having black skin in the middle of a Ku Klux Klan rally. Gays call it "nelly" or "nelliness" and to be sure, there are lots of gay people who don't exhibit any of that nelliness. But we don't kid ourselves. We know there are lots of gays and lesbian that simply are clever enough to "butch it up" (so called "straight-acting" as the term is so often seen on gay dating web sites.)
So blacks couldn't eat at the lunch counter in Montgomery, right? I know that's true. My cousin used to own a cafe in a tiny Oklahoma town that had seating in the back for black people to us *if* they came in the back door of the cafe. In 1958 my companion (who is 85) was in New York City on Christmas Eve. He and his companion at that time had traveled from California to deliver a patient, an autistic man, whose family wanted to place him in an asylum in Connecticut. They delivered him on Christmas Eve than caught the train to NYC and when they arrived in Times Square it was *empty*. No one was out. Howard Johnson's restaurant was the only thing open and they went in to have dinner and they were the ONLY customers in the place. The restaurant had one of those benches for seating that extended the entire length of the room and my friends went and plopped down on the bench side-by-side, tired from having traveled six days on a train to deliver this guy to his family.
The manager came out and said, "One of you will have to move to the other side of the table." The implication was clear. This manager didn't know if these two customers were "queer". They were dressed in business attire. They weren't making love on the bench. The were sitting there reading the menu in an EMPTY restaurant. They left. They went back to California and both of them did what all gays had to do in order find other gay people to socialize with; the went to night clubs that were known to be frequented by gays. In these places, you couldn't so much as brush against someone accidently because the vice squad would haul you off to jail for such an "crime." The police in Los Angeles regularly raided these places. No, not because men were doing something awful, like holding hands. They did it because gays were such easy victims. If arrested, they wouldn't sue, they wouldn't tell anyone because it might cost them their job or get them evicted from their home. The police chief in LA did these raids just before election time, just so he could pad his record with "vice crimes." Nobody knew the police hadn't found any "criminal activity." That didn't matter to most people because they were DISGUSTED with homosexuals and they believed arresting them was morally correct. Over the course of 10 years my companion was arrested SIX times in a gay bar, and for doing what? NOTHING! He went there to socialize. It was the equivalent of "driving while black" that Chris Rock so poignantly makes lite of and with such great effect. You didn't even have to LOOK queer. You just had to be IN a gay establishment. Luckily my partner never was convicted of a crime but in the hearings the testifying officer would say, "He's a known homosexual and I've told him not to hang out in these places." That was the officer's "evidence"! My partner had just served four years in the Army during World War II !!!!!!! And he couldn't go have drink with his friends?

Tell me where the law was the night I walked out my driveway at the corner of Van Ness Extention and Sierra to find my care riddled with bullet holes. Tell me about the law's protection the night some punk spray painted "FAGGOT" in six-foot block letters on my driveway. Tell me about the law protecting me the two dozen times teenagers drove their cars through the middle of my yard! Tell me where the law was the day I went for my first interview to become an elementary school teacher, met a principal I'd never seen in my life, and then endured the most harsh hostility from a prospective employer I've ever received from ANYONE! Of God's sake! I graduate from college with honors, served eight years in the Air Force and had the highest possible performance rating the Armed Forces awards. Tell me about the law's protection the day my daughter was held hostage at school when they found out her two daddies were homosexuals. Go ahead! Tell me how the law protects gays. Tell me how the law was there the day my dear friend was riding his bicycle down the street and four teenagers stopped their car and beat him half to death because, as they later told the jury, "We looked like a fag." Tell me where the law was for Bob Hillsborough after Anita Bryant set Florida on fire by saying gays were child molesters. He was beaten to DEATH by "Christians" who were inflamed by Bryant's screed. Where was the law in the past decade when thousands of gays and lesbians were thrown out of the armed forces? About 60 of them were Arabic language specialists who could have helped decode intelligence in the war effort. Where was the law when 35 year veteran Colonel Margarith Connameyer was ejected from the service for "admitting to being a homosexual.? Where where where where?
I've recounted those stories many, many times, Tyrell. Why in hell doesn't the average straight citizen know about this stuff? Here's why? Because homosexuality DISGUSTS them and they DON'T CARE! You, a black, can't see that what happens to gay is precisely what happens to black people. The most frequently reported hate crimes are against black people and gays. We get our brains caved in about as frequently as black people do. I'm shocked at your blindness to this. These day, gays don't even have to "look queer" to get assaulted. Wearing an earring is sufficient to get clobbered and a whole lot of straight guys who wear earrings have been the victim of that abuse.

Segregation? Well, first people have to acknowledge that you exist. Before 1953, the word "homosexual" appeared in NO bible and for a good reason; because when the bible was written, there was no word "homosexual" (or for that matter, "heterosexual"). The word was coined in the mid-19th century by a German psycho-analyst to describe people who had attraction to people of the same sex. It took religion a while to catch on, but they finally incorporated the term in the bible about 100 years after it was invented. Until the 1860s no one had thought that there was a class of people who were exclusively attracted to members of the same sex. It took almost 100 years for that idea to catch on, but in the mean time gays were just considered to be people who engaged in kinky sex against their own nature and the segregation of this kind of people had begun centuries earlier and was wrought with violence and every kind humiliation. Clearly, ancient Israel permitted stoning gays to death. Later, during the Spanish Inquisition, both gays and Jews were burned at the stake. Hitler murdered thousands of people of every strip but he singled out Jews, gays and the handicapped for special treatment.
So go ahead and keep your eyes shut and keep saying that there is not resemblance between the situation gays and black people have. As time goes on, you'll find it harder and harder to justify that claim.


If people are using the bible to support a ban on interracial that makes no sense, that is a misinterpretation. It’s sad that people allowed that to happen back then, it was also a misinterpretation of the bible when the KKK used as well. There is no misinterpretation when people say the bible doesn’t support gay relations. That is a fact. 
As a black man it just fires me up when gay closely connect their argument with interracial marriage, or the woman’s movement. When blacks marched or could not marry whites they also had a hard time walking in an all white neighborhood, joining a workers union, voting, or even eating in a dinner and moving into a white neighborhood. I may be wrong because I don’t know many gays but have they ever had that problem. 50, 60 years ago if a black had ever experienced any of the segregation issues I mention who do they go to. Not the police because they were obviously not on their side. (Watch Mississippi burning) The police protect the lives and rights of gays. This is why I say the issues are not at all related.
About child molestors? Geeze. I'm with you. If an adult take advantage of a child they ought to be locked up whether they can help it or not. It's our duty as a society to protect innocent children. But consenting adults have the freedom to do whatever they want to do in the private lives, or haven't you read the ruling by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas.. Since you can't resist your attraction to adult females, why is it the special burden placed in gay adults to practice celibacy? At the very least, adults have the option to decline to have an intimate or physical relationship. That's why the right to consent is reserved for grownups. I never said I "cannot help my attraction". I't not beyond my ability to cease to engage my natural attraction. In fact, I did do that very thing for 30 years. It's your turn to try it. Stop all flirting, come-ons. When women pop into your head, just stop thinking about them. Pray instead of masterbating. Get a hobby. Join the most rigid, ruthless, unforgiving church you can find that forbids you to enjoy your natual attraction to females (if you can find one) so they will reinforce your desire to eliminate all thoughts of romance, lust, interest, whatever that causes you to backslide and engage your natural attraction (like I did when I joing the Mormon church). If you need counseling to help you keep your sanity while you're trying not to think about the ladies, be sure to go to that special counselor whose business card says, "Christian Counselor" because he'll never encourage you to think about women and if you get out of line in your thoughts, he'll have an entire arsenal of condemnations from the bible to inspire you to stay on the straight and narrow. I've already done all of this, Tyrell. It's your turn to be miserable. Once you've done it, then tell me how easy it is to turn off your attraction to women. Write about about it and you'll probably sell millions of copies. I'll be understanding if you fail. You see, I know you just can't help it. It's hardwired in your brain like being right handed or left handed. It's something that happens to you that you don't even have to make any effort whatsoever for your natural impulse to take command. I understand all that. That's how it happens to me, too. It's just there like the natural impulse to pick up pencil and write with it with a certain hand. You don't even think about it while, if I'm not mistaken, means "you just can't help it."

Mike D:

Ah, yes, at least you libs run true to form; the last defense of a unbelieving lib, in any debate, is to plead for censorship.

Mr. McIntyre, I believe you when you say you're not a doctor. Your offense at my use of the word "opinion" is sufficient proof of that. Doctors understand what the term "medical opinion" means. It's not a trivialization at all.

Your "legal" analysis (I use quotes because you don't cite any actual legal principles or authorities) is nothing more than the old "slippery slope" argument. But as I said on another thread, that slope is not slippery at all. The "two consenting adults" standard is very easy to maintain, and I see no valid equal protection argument for polygamy, child marriage or any of your other hypotheticals.

Redpeach wrote: "The first bathroom rape/molestation that occurs due to this assinine law should result in a crippling lawsuit against the gay proponent groups, and the State of Colorado."

Why the gay proponent groups? I agree that I really don't women in the men's room, but why punish gay advocates? It's sooooo easy to look up on the internet and read who the perpetrators are in cases of child sexual abuse. We now have at least a half century of study on this issue and ALL the information and findings are online and so easily accessible. Start with the Univ. of New Hampshire Family Research Labratory. David Finklehor, who heads that department, is considered to be the most sought authority on the subject of child molestation and he was on television as an expert commentator quite a bit when all those Catholic priests were being hauled off to jail. His findings show what every single large-scale study has found and Finkelhor's study was the largest and most comprehensive too date. In his study of 1,200 day care centers he didn't find ANY homosexuals who were the perpetrators in cases of child sexual abuse. That's consistant with the Connecticut Penal Systems study of incarcerated felons. Connecticut reviewed the records of all incarcerated felons, both male and female, who were jailed for child molestation. In NO case did they find a perpetrator who was homosexual. Not enough? Go to Children's Hospital of Denver study in about 1996 which specifically sought to determine the sexual orientation of perpetrators in cases of child sexual abuse. They included ALL cases of child sexual abuse that came into the hospital over a one-year period. In the 377 case they received, ONE case identified the perpetrator as homosexual. The other 99 percent were heterosexuals.

What ALL of these studies determined was that 99 per cent of all perpetrator in cases of child sexual abuse are heterosexual. Heterosexual males account for about 98% of all perpetrators while heterosexual females account from about one per cent. The most typical perpetrator is a heterosexual male and he is either the child's father, uncle, grandfather, or other male relative or a male heterosexual friend of the family. Only about 2 per cent of all sexual abuse is carried out by strangers (people the child doesn't know) and heterosexual males account for the sexual abuse of both male and female children in virtually all cases.

So, why would you sue gay advocacy groups for that? You don't have to believe me. You can look for yourself at the the literature. I doubt you will then stop lying about gay people but at least you'll know you're lying when you do it.

McIntyre wrote: "A. The homosexual community has convinced mainstream society that being gay is an inborne, not acquired trait. Those of us who oppose the gay marriage issue don't subscribe to that theory. Being black or hispanic, physically able or disabled, or mentally functional or not--THOSE are inborne traits."
Science, not the homosexual community, has done all the convincing. It was the American Psychological Association's 100,000-plus membership that removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Since homosexual make up only about 3 to 7 per cent of the population, they couldn't possibly have "outvoted" 95,000 other professional counselors to remove that fallacious stigma. No, those professionals knew from their own clinical experience and from reading the research literature that it was idiotic to label people as disordered when they functioned as normally as anyone, even under the daily strain of rejection. Inborn traits? First of all, the word "traits" is the go-to label for genetic markers. It's interesting to see the recent recent research that links left-handedness to a higher than usual rate of homosexuality (I'll ask all you lefties out there to hold your horses for a moment on this). Handedness, as we know, is a behavior. It's something you do that can only be identified as you're doing it. Coincidentally, left-handedness has an identical genetic trait in homosexuality. You only know if someone is left-handed or homosexual when they behave in a left-handed or homosexual way. Sure, you can TELL someone you are homosexual or left handed without behaving like you are, but the proof of the pudding is in behavior. This is how we have come to understand that behaviors are as genetically bound as physical traits like eye color and height. You can sit and watch television without behaving in a left-handed way, so the question is, "Are you still left-handed even if you're not behaving in a way that demonstrates left-handedness?" Yes. You are still left-handed. And as every gay person can tell you, this is precisely the way their sexual orientation works also. We go to work and we carry on our daily lives focused on the things we have to do. But as sure as we know the sun will rise in the morning, we, like heterosexuals, know that if we see a handsome person, we don't have to go up an kiss them to know what we feel inside. Gays react that way to other men and lesbians to other women. Straight men and women have forever and always only reacted to members of the opposite sex. See? Heterosexuality is a behavior, too! Just like with handedness, you can choose to use your non-dominant hand to do something. You can also choose to behavior in the direction of your non-dominant sexual orientation. But you always know what happens when you're on auto pilot. Your mind choose for you and it does so with no effort whatsoever. You don't have to think about each time and decide one way or another because your mind has already decided how you're going to react.
Those are purely genetic traits and they are behavioral. You can choose to dismiss them, but the next time someone hand you a pen to sign your name on a credit card form, consider that you don't even have to think about which hand you use. Gay people say, "Yeah. That's how it feels to be gay. It happens automatically and often before I'm even aware of what is going on." Religious bigots say, "I choose not to accept that explanation." They don't always then say, "...because my religious beliefs forbid me to do so." What's more common is the phrase, "That's been refuted several times." The obvious question to ask, then, is "Who refutes this information?" In recent years the most cited "authority" among religious bigots has been the Family Research Council's Tony Snow and others at that organization. You guys remember Tony Snow? He that great genetics expert whose training is not in genetics, but religion. He has a PhD in religion from Marquette or De Paul, I can't remember right now (look it up). Ordinarily, serious scientists don't seek peer review from religious organizations. They ask experts in the same field to criticize them. Religious organizations have a mandate to uphold their religious beliefs so things like behavioral genetics and evolution are almost universally "refuted". Notice I didn't say "disproved". Even the Family Research Council as taken to using the word "refute" because, otherwise, they'd be lying if they said the important word - "disproved." Matt McIntyre, who submitted the opinion I'm addressing, it a pretty commonplace example of anti-equality/anti-gay. He not really presenting facts. He's "refuting" and, my friends, you can refute all day long but refuting doesn't change factual information. McIntyre says he's "simply relaying facts, not opinion." and to prove that, he does so without citing his sources of information. In other words, he can make up anything and tell you it's a "fact" as long as he doesn't/can't cite his source, you might be inclined to swallow what he says as such. Let's not go there. If it's factual, then he should easily be able to cite the scientific literature that supports the stuff he is calling "fact." It's the only fair thing to do when you're messing with another person's civil rights.

Then McIntyre wrote: "B. BUT... Let's run with the "inborne trait" theory and extrapolate it a few more steps. Keep in mind that those who support gay marriages are using the exact line of reasoning I present here:
1. Bisexuals would also be able to say that they're "just made that way." In order to be "fair" to bisexuals and not restrict the rights of a "whole class of people," then they should be allowed to marry one male and one female, because they are "wired" for intimate relationships with both sexes, right? (But isn't that polygamy?)"

McIntyre uses the slippery slope argument here. A slippery slope argument is one of the most common fallacies of logic. It proposes that IF YOU DO "A" then "B" "C" & POSSIBLY "D" (or more) WILL INEVITABLY OCCUR. It's the most popular argument known to mankind. And he adds the implication that all gays are arguing in favor of "A" when he says "Keep in mind that those who support gay marriage are using the exact line of reasoning I present here." In other words, he wants you to believe, without citing a source, that gay people have just plain bought into the thing he's about to present as fact. Nowhere does he say HOW he knows gays buy into the thing he's going to present. He simply says we already have bought into the thing. So we're to believe that gays want bisexuals to be able to marry someone of both sexes since that's what bisexuals are wired for. Really? Where did he get that information? Certainly kinds of child molesters are thought to be "wired" for attraction to children. Does McIntyre also think gays would advocate on behalf of child molesters because they "can't help it.?" Apparently. It certainly follows the logic of the slippery slope he employees, again, without citing a source of information to see how much truth his "facts" are based on. A simple survey of gay dating web sites would easily demonstrate how far afield from reality McIntyre is about gay attitudes toward bisexuals. On of the most common demands one can see on a gay persons online profile is this one: "NO BISEXUALS". There's a long-standing reason for that. Most gay people go through transitional stages of coming out to family and friends and among those stages is one in which gay men will tell people "I'm bisexual". Why? Because gays people have discovered that the larger community is more ambivalent about bi-sexuality. Indeed. A look at the shelves in "adult video" stores will quickly show you that scores of titles have straight women performing lesbian sex scenes for the the enjoyment of straight males. Gays regard that kind of thing as the real "kink" and paradox about heterosexual sexual interests. Lesbian sex is an ENORMOUS business enterprise for the porn industry and it's 99.9 percent the domain of male heterosexuals who spend millions annually to buy that stuff. Local cable television providers sell it to people right on the television in their own home because it's so popular and lucrative. But gay people have an attitude problem with bisexuality. Since we know that many of our own friends claimed to be bi-sexual as a stage of coming out, we understand that it's just someone who is really gay, but can't quite admit it. This isn't a mere claim to a view. The Advocate published the results of research on this subject about 12 years ago. (Note the source being cited). The researchers said that 95% of men who identified as bi-sexual eventually identified as homosexual. So, that's really the basis of a bit of distrust gay men have for people who claim to be bi-sexual. Gays have been fighting a lot of political fights over the past 3 or 4 decades and there is a resentment that these guy who say they are bisexual don't have to take any of the negative flack. They can hide behind bi-sexuality to distance themselves from all the heavy lifting required to gain an inch of equality. Yet they reap rewards from gay men by having sex with them without having to take on the political load. That's a SERIOUS affront to scores and scores of gay men. It's like being a very light colored black person who can pass for white and as long as they keep it a secret, they get treated like a white person without all the jolting negativity that blacks normally are confronted with. So, as you can see, Dr. McIntyre doesn't even know what he's talking about so his "facts" are hollow and undoubtly fallicious. Once you include "those who support gay marriage" to mean people who, supposedly, advocate for bisexuals to be able to marry two people, you include multitudes of gay who, indeed, support marriage rights for gays, but don't give a rat's butt what what bisexuals want because they don't believe true bisexuality even exists out side of straight porn films.

And then Dr. McIntyre writes: "2. While we're at it, another whole class of adult citizens are attracted to young children; that's just the way they are! Who are we as upright Americans to prevent a group of individuals from exercising their right to happiness? So let's stop labeling them as "abnormal" and call them "different," and let's also "teach tolerance" in the pursuit of equal rights. They're not wrong, just different. And while we're at it, let's throw a couple of buzz words we've heard from the Bible back in the faces of those Bible thumpers who are trying to set up a fascist government (even if we don't really have a clue about the true meaning of the entire chapter or book we're referring to because we don't want to actually have to read it)."

Here's another example and another opportunity to examine the fallacies of the slippery slope argument in more depth. Remember, the fallacies of logic say that a "slippery slope argument" is one in which a proposal is made where "IF you do "A" then "B" or "C" or any number of dreadful things will inevitably occur. You've heard one of the most common of the slippery slope arguments when you read this one: "If gays are allowed to marry, what next? Will people be able to marry their dog?"

Well, no. They wouldn't able to even if there are kooks out there would would most certainly want to. And no, we wouldn't allow pedophiles to marry children and, coincidentally, for the same reason. We have this small matter of law in every state and in every nation that is incorporated into every aspect of civilized society called, "Informed consent." What's that? Well, suppose you were married to a jerk and divorced him and six months later someone from the bank shows up at YOUR door to collect for HIS credit card debts. "But I divorced him and I'm no longer responsible for his debts," you say. To which the banker replies (while he's backing up the truck that will take your car and furniture away), "So true, but when you married him, you automatically assumed responsibility for his debts. Look! We have the document right here where you signed, saying you accept responsibility for each others debts. It's called a marriage license and it obligates you to pay debts whether you or your ex incurred the debt. We don't care if he's not a jobless dead-beat. We also have the document that says you would pay for his debts. It's from the day he applied for the credit card. So, get out of our way because we came here to get our furniture and car."

Can children or animals give informed consent? No. They are intellectually incapable of doing so and our society protects them because of that intellectual limitation.

Notice, Dr. McIntyre literally uses the form, "If X happens, then Y will happen" when he says, in essence, that since pedophiles are blameless and because they can help/resist their impulses, we have to be sensitive to that for politically-correct reasons and let them have their way with children and that this logic is what logically follows the awarding of marriage rights to gays and lesbians OR "IF gays are allowed marriage rights, then pedophiles should naturally be allowed to rape infants because they can't help what they are. He simply implies that marriage rights for gays makes rampant and legalized pedophilia a foregone conclusion.

I have a child myself and I'd shoot on sight the bastard who tried to employe that repulsive logic. About 25 per cent of gays and lesbians are parents and I've no doubt they would be as happy to blow out a pedophile's brains for such an attempt as I would. But more to the subject at hand. Dr. McIntyre snipped this particular slippery slope argument off of some religious web site somewhere and brought it here and presented it as a fact. Do we make special allowance for pedophiles? Yes. We lock them in cages. That's their special treatment in lieu of death by lethal injection. We have a special moral obligation to protect children regardless of what limitations pedophiles can place on their behavior. In this regard, they are not special. They are a DANGER to our children. The law would not allow a child to marry an adult because a child has no understanding of the responsibility involved in doing so. But far more seriously, a child is NEVER able to give informed consent to an adult about sexual issues and, not suprisingly, neither can animals. That's the reason the the informed consent law exists. It's not only an aspect of the responsibilities of marriage; it's deeply entertwined in every aspect of commerce and trade that exists in this country. You MUST be able to understand what you are agreeing to and children and animals simply can't do that.

Okay. Now we can understand that McIntyre had no "fact" to present on this issue. Like so many people before him, he just copied and pasted an old, beaten-to-death, worn-out slippery slope myth from one web site to another without the courtesy of even telling us that there are REAL and IMPORTANT legal issues that make these arguments so utterly ridiculous. McIntyre has already been charged with insulting the intelligence of gays, not to mention lying about gays in saying we support some kind humane response that would allow pedophiles to molest children. Now he insults the intelligence of all readers by proposing schemes and scenarios so profoundly ludicrious - and calling them "facts" - none can help but wonder how he treats his own family. If he thinks the average Fresburger is so stupid they cannot imagine a reason NOT to permit pedophiles to molest our children and a reason NOT TO allow someone to marry their poodle, he's an incurable imbecile. We CAN think of GOOD reasons NOT to permit those things. This is in stark and diametric opposition to marriage right for gays; a situation in which we CAN'T think of a good reason that gays should not have the benefits and responsibilities or legal marriage.
The damage McIntyre has done is irrepairable. You can't call fallacious arguments "facts" and not expect intelligent people to be insulted as well as question your respect for morality. McIntyre takes a whiz on us all from his self-proclaimed moral height and expects us to respect him for it. I don't respect fakes.

Mike D.
I read the law, and I stand by my interpretation of it.

Explain to me why the gays are celebrating this as a victory, if it does not have anything to do with gay rights?

The cat is out of the bag on this.

R. Foster
First off I really appreciate your sharing what seems like very personal information. I truly am thankful for your educated input. From your detailed description of your history of gay persecution I believe that you and people in your circle have had a tough time in our country. You sound like you may have some grey hair on your head. I am only 23 and I can assure you that the generation that I belong to is far less harsh than what you have experienced. I know I cannot speak for all of us but everyone in my phone is. Many gays can hide their orientation. For the ones that cannot, like those in that study, it is much tougher. But hey I really do not like a very famine man either. Not because I think they are gay but because I think that they are annoying. They tend to be loud, draw attention and too emotional. I chose not to hang out with them because their personality bothers me, not what they do on their own time. But with that said, if I owned a business and one of them could do a job much better than anyone else I could fine I would defiantly hire them. Sorry if many others would not.
You have made the best case for why the civil rights movement is close to the gay movement that I have ever heard. I almost changed my mind until I started thinking a little further back. The entire foundation of the civil rights movement began with treatment blacks experienced during slavery. Slavery in the U.S. is one of the most harmful things done to a single group of people. I say this because my great grandfather was born a slave. It was illegal for him to read. My grandfather was born on a plantation and only finished the 4th grad. My mother did not graduate high school, and certainly not college. I did, and it was harder for me than any other person at any of my two colleges. Slavery set the value of human life back for blacks and we are still paying the price today. We are probably one of the most unsuccessfully groups of people in this country (aside from Native American). There is no way my grandfather had a chance in this world, his dad was a slave and his mother an Indian. He was born on a plantation while others were born in house. How is he to succeed?
I picked up on this at an early age and soon realized that I could A. cry and be lazy, or B. OVER COME. The exact message the civil rights movement was based on. Taking your situation and making the best of it. MLK once said if the only work you can get is that of a janitor then don’t be upset, be the best janitor you can be. Clean and shine floors like no other. I may be wrong but I do not get that same massage from the Gay activists. That is why I feel the movement is much different. I am all about supporting people in their life choices. I especially don’t beat people up who don’t deserve it. You and your friends were wronged. I would support you and yours in any prosecution of those who have done those things. Please do not clump me in with all the other misguided folks out there that don’t even know why they don’t like gays. I support you in fight that you have with any injustice, except for this whole gay marriage thing. I see marriage like this. By definition marriage is god’s commandment to people to stay with one partner who is that of the opposite sex. Ever time people break or go against Gods commandments something really bad happens. There was once a time in the Old Testament when god commanded people to circumcise their children 10 day after birth. No one knew why then, but now we all know that newborns blood would not be thick enough for a surgery until the tenth day after birth. We have all kinds of medicine we can cut when ever now. But if you did not obey god then, your child would bleed out. Every time a sin is committed the world is worsened. And when sin is allowed, kind of like allowing people to drink until they are drunk, really, really bad things can happen. Look at the spread of STD’s. If we all chose 1 one partner and waited till marriage there would be virtually no STD. Where did they come from, how did they get here, who could have done that? God commands parents to sternly discipline their children; you can take a look at any middle or high school to see how disrespectful and unsuccessful kids become if their parents don’t. I see marriage as a commandment. That is why it is usually done in a church, with a priest. It is a god thing, and a gay marriage is a walking contradiction. It’s like bar mitzvahs for Muslims. You just can’t do both. It’s like being in California and Hawaii at the same time. You can say you did it but you never have. But no matter what I say the only people who get to air their views for my side of the argument are idiots and overly religious zealots. Even if gay marriage is banned this November I am sure it will pass in your lifetime.
Thank you for the good feedback, by far the longest post I ever left anywhere. You really forced me to think and that’s always a good thing.

Then Dr. McIntyre wrote: "3. During the next election, let's use the courts to find some obscure constitutional loophole so the judges, who know infinitely more than the citizens, can decide whether or not the votes should count. Heaven forbid that a "mob mentality" should decide who our next president, congressperson, or governor is! Why should the rights of a whole class of people who can't read the directions on how to poke the paper out of their ballots be infringed?"

Here Dr. McIntyre uses cynical and nonsensical proposals. In college writing classes they teach this as a method of drawing attention to one's words by proposing the ridiculous. Yet we find failure in the attempt.

A court-imposed ruling that enforces equality is called "an obscure constitutional loophole" by our teacher. In other words, Loving Vs. Virginia is law because an "obscurity" was found by legal scholars and exploited to allow gays to enjoy the marriage rights they've been paying taxes for but haven't been allowed to have benefits from.

That's the real basis of the California Supreme Court's ruling. Read the analysis on the internet and what you see being cited over and over ad-nausium is that the court didn't rule in favor of "gay marriage". Rather, they affirmed the fact that marriage is a "fundamental right".

So? What's a fundamental right? Good question. It's a right that EVERYONE is entitled to the benefits and responsibilities of. That's the plain and simple summary of the ruling. The court used case law going back nearly 200 years and, again and again, affirmed that marriage was a fundamental right and they said California's constitution forbids withholding a fundamental right to ANY citizen unless a compelling state interest was in jeopardy. That's the way ALL civil rights cases are examined and have been since the foundation of this country, so we're not talking about an "obscure" anything!

All the State had to do was find ONE compelling reason why legal marriage should be withheld from gays and lesbians. ONE REASON! The state failed to find even ONE reason to withhold legal marriage. The state argued from the standpoint that "tradition" dictated whom should be allowed to marry and when they did so, the court simply turned to Loving vs. Virginia as their guide. In that case, the race of the couple was at issue. There was a long-standing tradition in this country that blacks and white could not marry. The US Supreme Court ruled that "tradition" was insufficient reason to bar marriage in that case.

In California, the long-standing "tradition" was centered in opposition to the sex of the couples who sought to marry. The state could have argued that gays and lesbians weren't morally fit and that moral standards are a compelling state interest. Mind you, the phrase "compelling state interest" is a legal term of monumental importance and complexity. Briefly, it is actually a test used in due process and equal protection claims that require the STRICTEST scrutiny. In a nutshell it when you are deciding a case that involves a class of people who have traditionally suffered extensive discrimination, you'd better have a damn good reason to exclude that group from enjoying the same rights that every other group enjoys. The state used "tradition" as their argument. That's the argument that was used in Loving vs. Virginia and Brown vs. Board of Education and Lawrence vs. Texas. Tradition, the states said, was sufficient reason to A) prevent blacks and whites from marrying, B) segregate children in public education, C) charging homosexuals with a crime for sodomy while NOT charging heterosexuals with a crime for engaging in the exact same acts. The State of California wanted invoke tradition, in effect, by saying marriage has always been a certain way.

They probably could have won the case on that argument if, over the years, tax-supported benefits had not accrued to those who were married. But the entire history of secular marriage has been one of constantly changing and reshaping of benefits and responsibilities. Benefits reached a point, finally, where gays realized they were being barred from things they not only had to pay taxes to support, but could never receive benefit from but could reap substantial benefit from if they weren't barred from doing so. The state set up an apartheid system called "domestic partnership" that pretty much gave gays the entitlements and practically no one objected to it. Domestic Partnership was the identical twin of secular marriage in all but name and it was the name that finally created the big controversy. The name "marriage" was being reserved for straight people and in doing that, the status of "domestic partner" took on a kind of "marriage lite" persona, as if the commitments made between individuals weren't really serious, notwithstanding the marriage of people of great fame such as Brittany Spears, who cancelled her "commitment" in the space of days.
The state could have easily won the case if they could have documented the substance of such an argument. But they didn't do so because they couldn't find sufficient examples of moral unfitness that were any different from the moral unfitness that heterosexuals themselves had long-standing deficits in. So the State simply shoved "tradition" into the mix and the court handed their heads to them.

The fundamental right to marry has never been an "obscure loophole" as our Dr. McIntyre asserts. He demeans and trivializes the due process of law that brought equality to millions of people for many great and noble reasons by calling these decisions "obscure loopholes". I'm embarrassed for him family.

Finally (and at long last) our Mr. McIntyre wrote: "4. And let's re-evaluate the U.S. Constitution. As legal precedent would dictate, since some Articles have proven irrelevent (such as the archaic idea that only male landowners can vote), let's piggyback our ideas on that reasoning in order to get rid of some of those first 10 ammendments that no longer are needed because our society is so much different than it was 230 years ago."

Anyone understand this?

Mike D

You hit the nail on the head! You tell redpeach your lifestyle is "none of your business." Somebody's sexual preference is "none of your business," every bit as much as what goes on behind your closed doors. The gay community has forced this issue to be "everybody's business."

Also, it gets us devout Christian "bigots" when the Bible is quoted so grossly out of context in order to quip some line that it intended to present some falsely-generated paradox.

R. Foster

Here's my source as you requested:

pp.117-118, Straight Narrow Compassion, Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, Thomas E. Schmidt, IVP

Never have so many said so little. Go ahead and live your lives according to your beliefs(at your own risk)and it will all be sorted out at the end.See you on the other side....Maybe.

R. Foster

Concerning your post accusing me of lying???? I have not lied about anything here. I am simply stating the facts about SB 200 in Colorado, which you have failed to read, or choose to ignore.

So you can understand the issue, I will post my information about SB 200 for a third time:
------------------
RECAP OF STORY ON 05/30/08: Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, "gender-free." In other words, anyone--regardless of their biological identity--will be welcome in the men's or ladies' room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven't made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines "public accommodations" as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses. The other side says this is about discrimination. But the chance of offending a few people hardly justifies putting everyone else at risk, which is exactly what SB 200 does. For every transvestite who takes advantage of this law, there are a dozen sexual predators who will see this as a chance to put women and children into a vulnerable situation.
--------------
While file lawsuit against gay rights advocates for this? Because they are the authors of the law. I guess in your dream world, only gays have the rights to protection under the law, and to hell with children.

The law allows sexual predators to search bathrooms for victims, and it is only a matter of time before this results in harm to others (kidnapping, rape/molestation/murder),

The lawsuit would hold whoever is responsible for making the bill law—which in this case are gay rights advocates who sponsored and lobbied for the bill, as well as the State of Colorado, who endorsed it. DAHHHH!

And sorry about that Jackie, I was a little too Anxtious earlier on.

T.C., Redpeach already apologized for that false accusation. Your post was out of line. I'm not going to ask for it to be removed, though. Surely even conservatives can see the difference between false personal accusations (based on mistaken reading, in this case), and political differences?