[RunItUpTheGut]

Ive noticed a trend among gay supporters in comment sections all over the internet. CNN, WKYT, etc, all have the same reused opinions they get off someone else.

The classics are usually....
1. Funny these states are banning this when bestiality is legal.
2. Religion shouldn't play a part in this, usually followed by cursing every religious figure ever thought of.
3. How would this affect your life in anyway, shape, or form?
4. You cant take away a citizens "right"

And this is pretty much all you will see.

For one, I would hope nobody would need bestiality laws to know better. When people make these accusations, they are simply spewing just as much hate as those who hate gays. They are putting a demographic of people down the same way other people are putting them down, making there point invalid. And you know, there are some remarks about these states, KY and TN in particular that are getting a lot of inbred hick jokes in these comments. That simply makes it easier for people to call them out even more.

Secondly, what about the people who are not bringing religion into this at all? One of the top things people say to undermind same sex opponents is completely going nuts over religion. Not once have I stated religion in any of my arguments. I like to take the same approach anti coal people do......SCIENCE. Its inherently funny when someone who is a liberal believes in global warming, er, excuse me, climate change, and yet have never picked up a single biology text book. This is already making there points invalid. I love it when they say homosexuality is normal among some animals, so im confused, are the gays into bestiality? It cracks me up. I would hope we know better than animals and are smart enough to realize that maybe some animals are just to damn dumb to know better.

Third, it would affect everyones lives by allowing this. It sets an example of normalness, when its not. As per my previous statement, there is nothing normal about sodomy. That is in no way what that is used for. Theres only one way to reproduce. One man. One Woman. Its really as simple as that. By allowing them to marry, you are psychologically (another science lick for you) harming children. No different than a kid getting his hands on porn. We see what kind of effects that can have.

And last, nobody is taking away there "rights". They never had any to begin with. There was never a "right" for gays to legally marry. Nobody is telling them they cant be gay. Nobody is taking there free speech away. They can talk about it, write books, and even sing about being born a certain way. Just remember the rest of the citizens also have a right to vote your foolishness down.



If they do this, they start going down a path they'll never come back from. I GUARANTEE you that once gays are allowed to marry, the very next week, polygamist will file lawsuits saying they cant be discriminated against. And if gay marriage is legal, they have every right to be married as well. Same with any living thing. They will also be sued for the freedom to marry any living thing you want.

[Hoot Gibson]

Ive noticed a trend among gay supporters in comment sections all over the internet. CNN, WKYT, etc, all have the same reused opinions they get off someone else.

The classics are usually....
1. Funny these states are banning this when bestiality is legal.
2. Religion shouldn't play a part in this, usually followed by cursing every religious figure ever thought of.
3. How would this affect your life in anyway, shape, or form?
4. You cant take away a citizens "right"

And this is pretty much all you will see.

For one, I would hope nobody would need bestiality laws to know better. When people make these accusations, they are simply spewing just as much hate as those who hate gays. They are putting a demographic of people down the same way other people are putting them down, making there point invalid. And you know, there are some remarks about these states, KY and TN in particular that are getting a lot of inbred hick jokes in these comments. That simply makes it easier for people to call them out even more.

Secondly, what about the people who are not bringing religion into this at all? One of the top things people say to undermind same sex opponents is completely going nuts over religion. Not once have I stated religion in any of my arguments. I like to take the same approach anti coal people do......SCIENCE. Its inherently funny when someone who is a liberal believes in global warming, er, excuse me, climate change, and yet have never picked up a single biology text book. This is already making there points invalid. I love it when they say homosexuality is normal among some animals, so im confused, are the gays into bestiality? It cracks me up. I would hope we know better than animals and are smart enough to realize that maybe some animals are just to damn dumb to know better.

Third, it would affect everyones lives by allowing this. It sets an example of normalness, when its not. As per my previous statement, there is nothing normal about sodomy. That is in no way what that is used for. Theres only one way to reproduce. One man. One Woman. Its really as simple as that. By allowing them to marry, you are psychologically (another science lick for you) harming children. No different than a kid getting his hands on porn. We see what kind of effects that can have.

And last, nobody is taking away there "rights". They never had any to begin with. There was never a "right" for gays to legally marry. Nobody is telling them they cant be gay. Nobody is taking there free speech away. They can talk about it, write books, and even sing about being born a certain way. Just remember the rest of the citizens also have a right to vote your foolishness down.



If they do this, they start going down a path they'll never come back from. I GUARANTEE you that once gays are allowed to marry, the very next week, polygamist will file lawsuits saying they cant be discriminated against. And if gay marriage is legal, they have every right to be married as well. Same with any living thing. They will also be sued for the freedom to marry any living thing you want.

Great post but you left out a big libtard talking point. They like to compare gay marriage to mixed race marriage. Bans on mixed race marriages are obviously contrary to the Constitution and various civil rights laws. This tactic enrages anti-gay marriage black Americans but liberals keep trotting it out.

I agree with your comments on polygamy. There is a much stronger historical precedent for polygamy than there is for gay marriage. I don't understand how gay marriage proponents can oppose polygamous marriage. Their usual response is that marriage has always been between two people - which is an intellectually dishonest position for them to take.

[TheRealThing]

The problem is that the liberals on the SC are the ones who are most likely to be swayed by election results, public opinion polls, and other extraneous information. They are also the least likely to pay any attention to election results that they do not like.

I am not confident that the SC will rule in favor of the states. I was extremely disappointed in Scalia's application of the commerce clause to nullify the 10th Amendment in a case involving a woman in a western state who was growing marijuana on her own property for her own use.

There was no way that the 10th Amendment should not have applied in that case. there was absolutely no interstate commerce involved and no way that the woman's small pot patch impacted interstate commerce in any way. I could see Scalia applying the same twisted logic in the case of gay marriage. I hope that he shows better judgment in this case.

Me too.

[WideRight05]

I can tell you that almost nobody is thinking clearly on this matter or others of like insanity. For example, when we get a DOJ that is more civil rights activist than chief law enforcement agency, honest and competent law enforcement finds that enforcing law gets turned on it's head, while those who were at one time perpetrators, find they've become the darlings of government and media idol worship.

In the case of gay marriage (totally distant and separate from any kind of true civil right FTR), the ultimate suit of sheep's clothing has been thrown over that abomination we used to call homosexuality. We had, by-in-large, achieved equality in this country in ethe recent past. With the politics of division we have seen the return of inequality in that the special few are afforded carte blanche status, at the expense of the dollars and liberty of people who are living respectable and responsible life styles.

The real problem with America is that her people have largely turned their backs on the moral code God handed down to man within His written Word. In so doing, America has forfeited the authority on which we used to govern. Now it's who ever can put forth the best argument and spend the most money to win in the courts. There has been a lot of argument on this forum about whether the will of voter should prevail over the wishes of minorities of doctrine and of race as filed in some clandestine court action. The decision of the 6th Circuit manifests the view of the founders in that we are to be a self governing people. The view of the lone dissenter on the court (a Bill Clinton appointee, shocker!) is the view of liberal activism and we'd better learn the difference very quickly. Once that right (the prevailing will of the people at the sovereign state level) is officially rescinded, America will cease to be. If for example, the states were not sovereign, and their authority was transferred to the federal level, a strong minded president could effectively dictate oppression. Abraham Lincoln---"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Nice post TRT, one question I have - what do you say to those who use the issue of slavery as an example against state sovereignty?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Although the liberals won't approve of this distinction, the difference is between a basic God given right and a privilege. Marriage is not a basic right. If the liberals want marriage to be a "right", they should amend the US Constitution to so state. That happened with slavery through the post Civil War amendments. Abortion "rights" should be handled in the same manner. Otherwise, clearly both marriage and abortion fall under the Tenth Amendment.

If liberals want to have their way on these issues, they should amend the constitution. Of course, they know that that will never happen so they depend on outlying liberal judges. And, of course, the framers would be appalled to if they were here to see the destruction of their foundational document.

And that is the truth.

[TheRealThing]

Nice post TRT, one question I have - what do you say to those who use the issue of slavery as an example against state sovereignty?

Simple, in my mind under the US Constitution all men are equal by virtue of the Creator's hand (their words). Since we were to be a nation of free men, the idea that some of those free men could own other men as slaves, was unacceptable under the clear dictates of the "unalienable rights" granted them by said Creator, and as discussed in the founding documents, specifically in this case the Declaration of Independence.

The gay rights thing in trying to equate those unalienable rights as given by God, with sexual depravity which is an abomination to God, will thusly by His spoken declaration fall into condemnation and are therefore mutually exclusive concepts. Capiche? :biggrin:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

By the way, the basic God given rights are, among others left unstated, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In some documents, pursuit of happiness is replaced by property. These rights are said to be "unalienable rights" which means that they cannot be "amended" by man. It is significant that the first of these rights is life. Since DNA now proves beyond question that a baby, at conception, has separate DNA from the woman carrying it, it is clear that that child is covered by this God given right to life. Liberal abortionists and liberal abortion supporters can bit** and bemoan all they want. But, in the end, they are wrong and we can only hope that God holds them accountable for the murder of the innocents.

[TheRealThing]

By the way, the basic God given rights are, among others left unstated, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In some documents, pursuit of happiness is replaced by property. These rights are said to be "unalienable rights" which means that they cannot be "amended" by man. It is significant that the first of these rights is life. Since DNA now proves beyond question that a baby, at conception, has separate DNA from the woman carrying it, it is clear that that child is covered by this God given right to life. Liberal abortionists and liberal abortion supporters can bit** and bemoan all they want. But, in the end, they are wrong and we can only hope that God holds them accountable for the murder of the innocents.

Indeed they are wrong. To justify doing wrong, men have always resorted to clever and complex arguments. Arguments such as those given in the cases of global warming or Evolutionism, that for the sake of appearances, have been padded with supporting rationale since their rather humble, by comparison, origins. In the case of global warming for example, ice cores that analysts believed to hold abnormally high concentrations of CO2 were tied to exact dates in history that are thought to have been ice ages. The elaborate window dressing that makes up the balance of the data are retro-engineered speculation.

Again in the case of evolution, Darwin observed marine iguanas diving beneath the tide waters to feed on algae and surmised that he was looking at feeding behavior held over from a time in their distant evolutionary past. The expanded notion is that creation (the universe) sort of just created itself via the absurd rationale known as the Big Bang. All the voluminous libraries of subsequent information dealing with the theory of evolution are once again, retro-engineered data which has over the last 15 decades has been elaborately contrived by those who feel more comfortable in a system of belief which excuses them from the certainty of the Judgment of God.

They will be accountable alright. But, so will the Church, which has failed to meet fire with fire where abortion laws have regulated infanticide and gay rights for that matter.

[ronald reagan]

The Sixth Circuit showed enough backbone to rule as the framers of the US Constitution would rule on this issue. The same sex marriage bans in the four states mentioned were upheld. The Sixth Circuit is made up of those four states- Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan.

Now that there is a conflict of laws between circuits, the USSC has really no choice but to take up the issue. When circuits rule differently on what is pretty much the same question, resolving the impasse has always been one of the major duties of the USSC.

How will they vote? From the beginning, the supporters of homosexual marriage have four votes. Those four- Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan- always vote as a block on such issues. Three of the four are Jewish. Sotomayor is what we call a "Cafeteria Catholic". She doesn't seem to be very dedicated to the tenets of her alleged church. And, before someone comes on here and says that the justices are not to let their personal beliefs play a role in their decisions, let me say that, in reality, obviously they do so. They are human beings whose beliefs are made up from the sum total of their life experiences, their heredity, and their environment, and their personal prejudices. Absolutely. We all have personal prejudices. Neither they or we are computers.

The other five justices, all Catholics, will carry the majority. Those who believe in traditional and sacred marriage can count on three votes- Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Roberts and Kennedy will provide the winning margin. If the latter two hold to their spiritual beliefs and their life experiences and personal philosohies, and remember who appointed them, it could be a win for the historic and natural intent of the constitution. For the sake of the country, we better hope that is the case.

While I agree with your views on marriage from the catholic prospective, and believe that politicians (not justices) should follow the church teachings. I must take issue with your understanding of what justices do. They interpret a piece of legislation and compare it to the constitution as written, and not the catechism as IT is written.

What I gather from your post is that you believe a supreme court justice should disregard his oath, and his religious principles -- and lie about what the constitution says. Example:

Lets assume Congress voted to give the catholic church the "official religion" title. Along with it, they gave $2 billion in funding to help baptize and evangelize. The case goes to court on the grounds that it violates the 1st amendment's establishment clause. It is 100% certainly in violation of this constitutional principle -- the 1st amendment. As a supreme court justice takes an oath to uphold the constitution, and not the cathecism as legal precident....... how should a catholic justice rule? Not a cafeteria catholic as you like to call them: but a die-hard, pre vatican 2, latin rite, bible thumping, living - breathing - walking - talking version of the catholic teachings justice. The court has a question to answer: Does making the catholic church the official religion of the united states, and funding its operations with tax payer money, violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment? It doesn't matter if your Jesus Christ, Christ Bearer, Jose' De Jesus, or the anti-Christ.... the answer is the same. Yes, yes it does violate the establishment clause. If a supreme court justice can't tell the truth and interpret the law as its written, then they should step down. But suggesting that they follow the church teachings, and not perform their job, is an oxymoron itself. As many examinations of conscience include: Have I perjured myself under oath? Have I not fulfilled an obligation? Have I been paid for work I didn't perform? And more importantly, have I failed to defend the church?

So on the matter of gay marriage, let it be known that I'm not a constitutional scholar, or trained in the legal profession. But if gay marriage is found to violate equal protection, speech, privacy, etc..... as a catholic, the correct course of action -- given the facts would seem to be: 1)Vote based upon the truth, and job functions you are obligated to perform. 2)Include evangeclical messages in your ruling to make it known that the constitution violates a tenet of faith, discipline, etc. 3)Be the best catholic you can be. 4)Help change the nation, and guide it towards the catholic teachings by voting according to the voters guide for the catholic church.

But, I think its really dangerous to have a supreme court justice rule according to faith, and not according to his responsibilities and legal scholarship. If a traditional and authentic catholic can not perform the job he was hired to do... he should find a more suitable one. Not violate other areas of his faith, as described above. Remember that is taught that you can not get good from an act of evil. Mercy killing, euthanasia, may be acts of compassion and with good intention. But they are intrinsically evil, and you will be judged accordingly. Intentionally misrpresenting a legal document, to make it conform to your religious beliefs.... is just the same. Evil.

[ronald reagan]

Lets let it be known however, in regards to the post dealing with evolution and the big bang --- the teaching office of the catholic church, as well as its science office are now in agreement with these two principles. They state that creation and evolution are likely the same story. And that the big bang was "big" and a "bang" because of its creator -- the one and true God of the universe.

[TheRealThing]

Lets let it be known however, in regards to the post dealing with evolution and the big bang --- the teaching office of the catholic church, as well as its science office are now in agreement with these two principles. They state that creation and evolution are likely the same story. And that the big bang was "big" and a "bang" because of its creator -- the one and true God of the universe.

Well, no offense to the Catholic Church. But, I can hardly accept the notion that along with the 40 something divinely inspired authors of the Bible, God's own written Word. He has chosen from among those who have publicly rejected and denounced His own account of Creation and who having subsequently spent their entire lives establishing an opposing or alternate "origin" to explain the existence of mankind, to present a more clear view of Creation for Him.

I take the position that God says what He says, and man says what he says. But when what man says contradicts what God says, he has set himself at odds with God.

[TheRealThing]

While I agree with your views on marriage from the catholic prospective, and believe that politicians (not justices) should follow the church teachings. I must take issue with your understanding of what justices do. They interpret a piece of legislation and compare it to the constitution as written, and not the catechism as IT is written.

What I gather from your post is that you believe a supreme court justice should disregard his oath, and his religious principles -- and lie about what the constitution says. Example:

Lets assume Congress voted to give the catholic church the "official religion" title. Along with it, they gave $2 billion in funding to help baptize and evangelize. The case goes to court on the grounds that it violates the 1st amendment's establishment clause. It is 100% certainly in violation of this constitutional principle -- the 1st amendment. As a supreme court justice takes an oath to uphold the constitution, and not the cathecism as legal precident....... how should a catholic justice rule? Not a cafeteria catholic as you like to call them: but a die-hard, pre vatican 2, latin rite, bible thumping, living - breathing - walking - talking version of the catholic teachings justice. The court has a question to answer: Does making the catholic church the official religion of the united states, and funding its operations with tax payer money, violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment? It doesn't matter if your Jesus Christ, Christ Bearer, Jose' De Jesus, or the anti-Christ.... the answer is the same. Yes, yes it does violate the establishment clause. If a supreme court justice can't tell the truth and interpret the law as its written, then they should step down. But suggesting that they follow the church teachings, and not perform their job, is an oxymoron itself. As many examinations of conscience include: Have I perjured myself under oath? Have I not fulfilled an obligation? Have I been paid for work I didn't perform? And more importantly, have I failed to defend the church?

So on the matter of gay marriage, let it be known that I'm not a constitutional scholar, or trained in the legal profession. But if gay marriage is found to violate equal protection, speech, privacy, etc..... as a catholic, the correct course of action -- given the facts would seem to be: 1)Vote based upon the truth, and job functions you are obligated to perform. 2)Include evangeclical messages in your ruling to make it known that the constitution violates a tenet of faith, discipline, etc. 3)Be the best catholic you can be. 4)Help change the nation, and guide it towards the catholic teachings by voting according to the voters guide for the catholic church.

But, I think its really dangerous to have a supreme court justice rule according to faith, and not according to his responsibilities and legal scholarship. If a traditional and authentic catholic can not perform the job he was hired to do... he should find a more suitable one. Not violate other areas of his faith, as described above. Remember that is taught that you can not get good from an act of evil. Mercy killing, euthanasia, may be acts of compassion and with good intention. But they are intrinsically evil, and you will be judged accordingly. Intentionally misrpresenting a legal document, to make it conform to your religious beliefs.... is just the same. Evil.

I don't accept the notion that one can "rightly divide" truth, or that one can compartmentalize truth. Christ said "I am the way the truth and the life" and we know in the same book of the NT, John, He is the Creator of everything. The God of Nature according to statements made in the Declaration of Independence. It is therefore my view that all truth interfaces, be that truth religious, scientific or legal. If man cannot govern himself without compromising truth in our society, we have become a nation built on deceit and are widely off course from our noble origins.

How did the US ever work it's way into this kind of a super wedgie? On the one hand we trumpet certain gifts with which our Creator has endowed us and upon which we base much of our law. While on the other, we are compelled to violate the truths given by our Creator because we are bound by that same law, which has evolved into a product or understanding of law, compromises over time if you will, as the ultimate authority?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

While I agree with your views on marriage from the catholic prospective, and believe that politicians (not justices) should follow the church teachings. I must take issue with your understanding of what justices do. They interpret a piece of legislation and compare it to the constitution as written, and not the catechism as IT is written.

What I gather from your post is that you believe a supreme court justice should disregard his oath, and his religious principles -- and lie about what the constitution says. Example:

Lets assume Congress voted to give the catholic church the "official religion" title. Along with it, they gave $2 billion in funding to help baptize and evangelize. The case goes to court on the grounds that it violates the 1st amendment's establishment clause. It is 100% certainly in violation of this constitutional principle -- the 1st amendment. As a supreme court justice takes an oath to uphold the constitution, and not the cathecism as legal precident....... how should a catholic justice rule? Not a cafeteria catholic as you like to call them: but a die-hard, pre vatican 2, latin rite, bible thumping, living - breathing - walking - talking version of the catholic teachings justice. The court has a question to answer: Does making the catholic church the official religion of the united states, and funding its operations with tax payer money, violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment? It doesn't matter if your Jesus Christ, Christ Bearer, Jose' De Jesus, or the anti-Christ.... the answer is the same. Yes, yes it does violate the establishment clause. If a supreme court justice can't tell the truth and interpret the law as its written, then they should step down. But suggesting that they follow the church teachings, and not perform their job, is an oxymoron itself. As many examinations of conscience include: Have I perjured myself under oath? Have I not fulfilled an obligation? Have I been paid for work I didn't perform? And more importantly, have I failed to defend the church?

So on the matter of gay marriage, let it be known that I'm not a constitutional scholar, or trained in the legal profession. But if gay marriage is found to violate equal protection, speech, privacy, etc..... as a catholic, the correct course of action -- given the facts would seem to be: 1)Vote based upon the truth, and job functions you are obligated to perform. 2)Include evangeclical messages in your ruling to make it known that the constitution violates a tenet of faith, discipline, etc. 3)Be the best catholic you can be. 4)Help change the nation, and guide it towards the catholic teachings by voting according to the voters guide for the catholic church.

But, I think its really dangerous to have a supreme court justice rule according to faith, and not according to his responsibilities and legal scholarship. If a traditional and authentic catholic can not perform the job he was hired to do... he should find a more suitable one. Not violate other areas of his faith, as described above. Remember that is taught that you can not get good from an act of evil. Mercy killing, euthanasia, may be acts of compassion and with good intention. But they are intrinsically evil, and you will be judged accordingly. Intentionally misrpresenting a legal document, to make it conform to your religious beliefs.... is just the same. Evil.

I find your post to be rather confusing and your admitted lack of expertise on the subject to be apparent. I said that Sotomayor is a cafeteria Catholic. When compared to the other Catholics on the court and the sacred and unamendable teachings of the Church, that is rather obvious. I never said that she, or any other justice, had to rule in accordance with their alleged religious identity. She certainly does not. But, that is her choice and that is why she was appointed in the first place.

I have posted on several occasions that the justices should interpret the US Constitution as it is written and as intended by the framers and not expanded to suit the whims of individuals.

On the other hand, it would be naïve of you to believe that the heredity, personal experiences, and personal philosophies of the justices don't play a role in their decisions. Obviously, they do and that has always been the case.

I suspect that no justice would actually, in his/her eyes, "lie as to the constitution". It is, in the end, a matter of interpretation of the text of the document aided by precedent. Conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution. What it says is what it means. If you don't like it, amend it as provided in the constitution itself. Liberals believe in a broad interpretation in which the text is "revised" to suit the times as seen by those liberals through what I would call judicial folly.

What does the US Constitution actually "say" in recent times? It says what five of the nine justices say it says. And, for those who believe in following the true intent of the framers, that fact is troublesome. That is why the confirmation process is so vitally important. This election does not open the door to more conservative judges. Obama would never nominate anyone but a liberal. However, it does guarantee that the Republican Senate can reject any radical liberals nominated by Obama. And, since Obama tends to nominate radicals, the election did provide some small degree of sanity to the process.

[TheRealThing]

I find your post to be rather confusing. and your admitted lack of expertise on the subject is apparent. I said that Sotomayor is a cafeteria Catholic. When compared to the other Catholics on the court, that is rather obvious. I never said that she, or any other justice, had to rule in accordance with their alleged religious identity. She certainly does not. But, that is her choice and that is why she was appointed in the first place.

I have posted on several occasions that the justices should interpret the US Constitution as it is written and as intended by the framers and not expanded to suit the whims of individuals.On the other hand, it would be naïve of you to believe that the heredity, personal experiences, and personal philosophies of the justices don't play a role in their decisions. Obviously, they do and that has always been the case.

I suspect that no justice would actually, in his/her eyes, "lie as to the constitution". It is, in the end, a matter of interpretation of the text of the document aided by precedent. Conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution. What is say is what it means. If you don't like it, amend it as provided in the constitution itself. Liberals believe in a broad interpretation in which the text is "revised" to suit the times as seen by those liberals.

What does the US Constitution actually "say"? It says what five of the nine justices say it says. And, for those who believe in following the true intent of the framers, that fact is troublesome.

I like the words of Thomas Jefferson---- "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

[AnotherPirateTD]

I say let them be as gay as they want to be. I just hope when I meet them in HELL that I'm the one that gets to add more fuel to their fire. So I can say see told ya so.

[SKINNYPIG]

With all the debt, unemployment, open borders, terrorism, laziness, choking tax code, drug abuse and about a hundred more problems this country currently has, I cannot understand why we even discuss this subject. Does anyone know what percent of our population wants to marry someone of the same sex? Anyone?

[Hoot Gibson]

With all the debt, unemployment, open borders, terrorism, laziness, choking tax code, drug abuse and about a hundred more problems this country currently has, I cannot understand why we even discuss this subject. Does anyone know what percent of our population wants to marry someone of the same sex? Anyone?

My issue is with the way that gay marriage advocates are going about legalizing the practice. There is no special right to marriage between gay people in the Constitution and in almost every case, a majority of voters or their elected representatives have given two thumbs down to legalization. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and trying to win the hearts and minds of voters, these lowlifes go to radical left wing judges that have been imposed on Americans and demand that their opinion on the subject trump the will of the majority.

I am perfectly willing to live with laws with which I disagree, provided those laws have been duly enacted with a majority of voters supporting them. I also recognize that courts must protect Americans's constitutional rights, even in cases where the majority would deny those rights. Gay marriage has never been a civil right in this country. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution grants gay people special protection under the law.

When a small number of people, most notably federal judges, can arbitrarily set aside duly enacted laws that do not conflict with our constitution or our traditions, all of our constitutional rights are put into play.

[TheRealThing]

With all the debt, unemployment, open borders, terrorism, laziness, choking tax code, drug abuse and about a hundred more problems this country currently has, I cannot understand why we even discuss this subject. Does anyone know what percent of our population wants to marry someone of the same sex? Anyone?

Back in WW2 at the Battle of Midway Island, US fighter bombers were searching for the Japanese fleet, desperately groping their way through thick cloud cover, the result of a well developed weather front that had turned the Pacific into a rolling nightmare. As they were approaching fuel levels that would have compelled them to return to their carriers, there was a sudden and momentary opening in the cloud cover allowing the pilots to see the ocean surface below. In those split seconds American pilots saw and identified the Japanese fleet, and more importantly, four of their front line Aircraft Carriers. Seizing the opportunity our fighters sunk 3 of those carriers in the next few minutes. The next morning the forth was again located and sunk. That battle changed the course of the war and the US ultimately prevailed. If one were to level the playing field and balance the terms of the engagement, it is not likely we'd have so thoroughly trounced the Japs that day or any other day.

Now, call me whatever you want. But, I believe that the Lord had a lot to do with the miraculous timing of that particular bombing mission. The opening in the clouds, at exactly the right time and exactly the right location, to reveal to US air squadrons that just happened to be flying over at the exact right moment a target that factually delivered the enemy into our hands, was in my mind no accident. Other notable circumstances contributed, not the least of which was the fact that Japanese air cover was out of the area chasing US torpedo planes.

The point is this. I don't know how many gays would get married if they could. The more important issue is that America has by her actions in legalizing the homosexual lifestyle, turned her back on God our Deliverer, and set her seal of approval on something He has forbidden and for which He has totally destroyed peoples in the past. I'm not at all comfortable with that level of contempt and I believe we may well need His help again very soon.

[SKINNYPIG]

Back in WW2 at the Battle of Midway Island, US fighter bombers were searching for the Japanese fleet, desperately groping their way through thick cloud cover, the result of a well developed weather front that had turned the Pacific into a rolling nightmare. As they were approaching fuel levels that would have compelled them to return to their carriers, there was a sudden and momentary opening in the cloud cover allowing the pilots to see the ocean surface below. In those split seconds American pilots saw and identified the Japanese fleet, and more importantly, four of their front line Aircraft Carriers. Seizing the opportunity our fighters sunk 3 of those carriers in the next few minutes. The next morning the forth was again located and sunk. That battle changed the course of the war and the US ultimately prevailed. If one were to level the playing field and balance the terms of the engagement, it is not likely we'd have so thoroughly trounced the Japs that day or any other day.

Now, call me whatever you want. But, I believe that the Lord had a lot to do with the miraculous timing of that particular bombing mission. The opening in the clouds, at exactly the right time and exactly the right location, to reveal to US air squadrons that just happened to be flying over at the exact right moment a target that factually delivered the enemy into our hands, was in my mind no accident. Other notable circumstances contributed, not the least of which was the fact that Japanese air cover was out of the area chasing US torpedo planes.

The point is this. I don't know how many gays would get married if they could. The more important issue is that America has by her actions in legalizing the homosexual lifestyle, turned her back on God our Deliverer, and set her seal of approval on something He has forbidden and for which He has totally destroyed peoples in the past. I'm not at all comfortable with that level of contempt and I believe we may well need His help again very soon.

Great story to make your point TRT. My point is this. America or "We The People" by our actions seem to have become accepting to a government that steals, lies, manipulates and for the most part serves its self. America idly stands by while being fleeced by a corrupt and sinful body. In a sense, it looks as though we have given our seal of approval to many things we all know He has forbidden, yet we focus on gay marriage. Sometimes I wonder if gay marriage stays at the forefront of American conversation by design...by who? I don't know.

[Bob Seger]

Great story to make your point TRT. My point is this. America or "We The People" by our actions seem to have become accepting to a government that steals, lies, manipulates and for the most part serves its self. America idly stands by while being fleeced by a corrupt and sinful body. In a sense, it looks as though we have given our seal of approval to many things we all know He has forbidden, yet we focus on gay marriage. Sometimes I wonder if gay marriage stays at the forefront of American conversation by design...by who? I don't know.

The great deceiver.

[Hoot Gibson]

Great story to make your point TRT. My point is this. America or "We The People" by our actions seem to have become accepting to a government that steals, lies, manipulates and for the most part serves its self. America idly stands by while being fleeced by a corrupt and sinful body. In a sense, it looks as though we have given our seal of approval to many things we all know He has forbidden, yet we focus on gay marriage. Sometimes I wonder if gay marriage stays at the forefront of American conversation by design...by who? I don't know.

Gay marriage is one of the many wedge issues that Democrats have used to Balkanize the electorate in a divide and conquer strategy. The 2014 election results demonstrate that many voters are getting tired of being exploited by the Democrats and their media allies. While Democrats have been busy demonizing white males, Republicans have picked up the support of an increasing share of white males while simultaneously recruiting and electing great women candidates like Mia Love and Joni Ernst in some very high profile elections.

I expect women voters and black voters to increasingly gain awareness of the way that they have been cynically targeted in campaigns. Black voters are far worse off today on average than they were when Obama took office. If the Supreme Court upholds bans on gay marriage, which appears to be a 50-50 proposition, then gay marriage advocates will have to start over in building support among voters for state legislation. I doubt that the movement has the support to do the hard work that it takes to move public opinion to their position.

[Hoot Gibson]

It's only a temporary order, and she has ordered the ACLU to file a response, but this cannot be good news for the forces of evil.

Sotomayor Issues Order Temporarily Blocking Gay Marriage In Kansas

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has issued an order temporarily blocking gay marriage in Kansas.

Sotomayor’s brief order Monday puts on hold indefinitely a lower-court order clearing the way for same-sex couples to marry despite a ban in Kansas on gay marriage.

The lower-court order was set to take effect at 5 p.m. Central time Tuesday. Sotomayor acted at the request of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

The emphasis on homosexuals and their "marriage" is trumpeted by the liberal media. Watch the usual news pretenders on MSNBC, CNN, NBC, etc. Why do they do it? First, because nearly all of them are liberals who live to attack the traditional beliefs of Christians. Two, because, by doing so, they take the spotlight off all the rest of the turmoil in the country- most of which is a direct result of the incompetence of their girlie-jeaned boy, Obama.

[TheRealThing]

Great story to make your point TRT. My point is this. America or "We The People" by our actions seem to have become accepting to a government that steals, lies, manipulates and for the most part serves its self. America idly stands by while being fleeced by a corrupt and sinful body. In a sense, it looks as though we have given our seal of approval to many things we all know He has forbidden, yet we focus on gay marriage. Sometimes I wonder if gay marriage stays at the forefront of American conversation by design...by who? I don't know.

Thank you and you're right. We do tolerate lies and never has the point been demonstrated any better than in the case of the recently gone viral expose from MIT Prof Jonathan Gruber. He brazenly admitted that the Democratic conference lied to the people in order get ObamaCare through. In the vein of Lenin and Alinsky, we are mere pawns. "Useful idiots" to be exploited and ultimately denied the utopian pipe dream they have been promised, in exchange for being installed into high office where they can rule. We simply must maintain the clear mindedness voters demonstrated in the midterms.

As to the thing with gay rights, as I mentioned. God Himself declared His disgust with the practice and to my knowledge, the only time He wiped a couple cities off the map was in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah for the particular sin of homosexuality. I believe that of all the sin in which we are presently awash, the twin nation killers are infanticide and homosexuality. I therefore do not think that discussion of those two issues are being fanned as an attempt at diversion. Rather, I believe if in the unfortunate case that we ultimately accept the practice of both, we will with that action seal our doom and we will fall. But, make no mistake, this is no political short fall. The responsibility for the encroachment of sin across the spectrum and therefore the moral compromise we have seen of late within the hallowed halls, falls directly on the shoulders of the Church. The Church has failed to stand up and oppose sin for fear of the disapproval that will certainly come their way from those who have so ardently advocated for said moral compromise.

The sooner the Church gets back "about their Father's business" and by that I mean the real responsibility of which God charged His Church. Opposing and exposing sin, and reinforcing that which all men are inherently aware by virtue of the Lord's own hand, Jesus is Creator and He is Savior. And not just doing the easy stuff like running soup kitchens and serving the poor.

[SKINNYPIG]

Thank you and you're right. We do tolerate lies and never has the point been demonstrated any better than in the case of the recently gone viral expose from MIT Prof Jonathan Gruber. He brazenly admitted that the Democratic conference lied to the people in order get ObamaCare through. In the vein of Lenin and Alinsky, we are mere pawns. "Useful idiots" to be exploited and ultimately denied the utopian pipe dream they have been promised, in exchange for being installed into high office where they can rule. We simply must maintain the clear mindedness voters demonstrated in the midterms.

As to the thing with gay rights, as I mentioned. God Himself declared His disgust with the practice and to my knowledge, the only time He wiped a couple cities off the map was in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah for the particular sin of homosexuality. I believe that of all the sin in which we are presently awash, the twin nation killers are infanticide and homosexuality. I therefore do not think that discussion of those two issues are being fanned as an attempt at diversion. Rather, I believe if in the unfortunate case that we ultimately accept the practice of both, we will with that action seal our doom and we will fall. But, make no mistake, this is no political short fall. The responsibility for the encroachment of sin across the spectrum and therefore the moral compromise we have seen of late within the hallowed halls, falls directly on the shoulders of the Church. The Church has failed to stand up and oppose sin for fear of the disapproval that will certainly come their way from those who have so ardently advocated for said moral compromise.

The sooner the Church gets back "about their Father's business" and by that I mean the real responsibility of which God charged His Church. Opposing and exposing sin, and reinforcing that which all men are inherently aware by virtue of the Lord's own hand, Jesus is Creator and He is Savior. And not just doing the easy stuff like running soup kitchens and serving the poor.

That is why I asked earlier about the percentage of gays and what percent of those wanted to socially be accepted as married. I may be wrong, but I think we're far away from what Sodom and Gomorrah were when destroyed by God. As a nation I believe we're far from accepting, despite what the polls may say. The legality of gay marriage may someday go away, homosexuality will not. As Christians we will oppose it but should never fear what may happen to a country that does not. If America gets struck down some day because of homosexuality, won't we hearing the angels sing?

[TheRealThing]

That is why I asked earlier about the percentage of gays and what percent of those wanted to socially be accepted as married. I may be wrong, but I think we're far away from what Sodom and Gomorrah were when destroyed by God. As a nation I believe we're far from accepting, despite what the polls may say. The legality of gay marriage may someday go away, homosexuality will not. As Christians we will oppose it but should never fear what may happen to a country that does not. If America gets struck down some day because of homosexuality, won't we hearing the angels sing?

I think you could be right and further, that as you point out it will be the people who would ultimately have to reject gay marriage. My fear has been that if it comes to pass that gay marriage legislation comes down from the federal level, John Q Public will be forced to comply as it will become the law of the land. So, as I have said. Though the majority might never accept the homosexual discourse, they could none the less be 'legislated into subjection' by the courts. Therefore, legislation would be the equalizing factor between the US and Sodom. And don't think liberals have not been very busy seeding activist judges in every possible opening.

This is why I have been elated to see the great movement of the voter toward the conservative argument. If that movement is sustained though 2016, the angels and the two of us will truly have something to sing about and it seems to me that we have the momentum. :biggrin:

[tvtimeout]

I have no issue in any and all posts except that there is a tax break for married couples... and a few other items that deal with marriage along with the ideas of property and insurance and hospitals... so on and so forth. Get rid of that and I agree marriage is a religious ceremony not a civil ceremony. Just my two cents.

[WideRight05]

Unfortunately, it looks like the SCOTUS will side with the liberals on this one when it hits their court for the country. A judge overturned the Kansas ban complying with the federal appeals court, and Kansas petitioned for a stay to be put on the ruling. Sonia Sotomayor agreed for a temporary stay, but that has now been lifted.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-lift...itics.html