Best
174 Comments
Post
  • #4
    !
    Who care's this has become a nonissue for me, its biblicly wrong I really don't care if the state makes it legal or not. There's more important issues to discuss.
  • #34
    !
    It's good that you don't care if it is legal or not because, since we're talking about CIVIL marriage, religious views aren't terribly relevant, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. But I would say that it's a bit presumptuous to claim it's Biblically wrong when so many Judeo-Christian denominations have no problem with same-gender relationships. They would argue that, of those verses usually used to condemn homosexuality, none are talking about the kinds of loving, committed same-gender relationships being discussed here. Even the Catholic position that homosexuals are guilty of acts of grave depravity is based on one passage that explicitly involves same-sex gang rape (the Sodom story) and three others (from Paul's letters) that even the Catholic scholars behind the Church's own NAB translation acknowledge are about things like pederasty. It would appear to be Biblically wrong only if one believes all homosexuals are rapists, prostitutes, and pedophiles. YOU may believe it's Biblically wrong, but don't assume that is a settled conclusion.
  • #46
    !
    @OldDaveNJ That's the spirit, the bible is relevant to my view point, and I'm difenently pro 1st amendment, and I still don't care either way on this subject. I do enjoy reading different viewpoints, wether or not I agree with them.
  • #66
    !
    The legal definition of marriage in this country does not even come close to resembling what the bible time and again defines as marriage. Interjecting religion into the legal status of two consenting adults as a premise to disenfranchise a segment of society shows a lack of understanding of the religion one proffesses to practice if it's christianity. First, the woman has very few if any rights. She is for all intents and purposes his property. Should she go to their wedding bed without her maiden head intact, not a virgin, then you take her to the doorstep of her father's house and stone her to death. Got a wife who cheats on you? Don't worry, that's a stoniing as well. How about the idea of multiple wives? Should a groom give a bride's father cash or a gift worthy of her status to get his approval for marriage? It's not her choice anyway? It amounts to her father selling her to the highest bidder. How very romantic. Also, fully supported time and again in the bible.
    These are just a very few examples of the reasons those who wish to interject christian tradition into marriage really need to find another arguement. Until you start arguing I need to give my future father in law 50 sheckels to pay for his daughter that I just raped and am now bound by law to marry, you really need to quit thumping that bible and make a better arguement.
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    The very first place I have a problem with this is a national group interfering in state politics. Entirely too many sticking their noses where they don't belong. It's an Illinois issue.
  • #24
    !
    To stop this type of thing you need a rule that any advertizing be split. If a candidate or group buys $50,000 in ads half the ads go to their opponent. That is the only way to discourage this type of interference. As long as they are allowed to give money there is no way to stop it. And giving money to political campaigns is protected by the first amendment. But knowing they are paying for equal time by the opponent may discourage interference by these types of groups.
  • #25
    !
    @PoliticalSpice Would be an interesting way to see how intent a group was to make their point if they knew the opposition was capable of doing the same in an equal manner.
  • #30
    !
    @justapirate Exactly. It would probably result in less mindless sound bite campaigns and more sustantive discussion of issues, since just reducing ones message to a 60 second spot and sharing the time with the other side would seem wasteful in terms of getting people to better understand your own candidates positions.

    this idea i have is also my solution on campaign finance reform. Since most the money hoes to advertizing and Air waves/bandwidth are public property allocated by the government, make ads more or less equally available. There would still be inequiable financing, but it would not be capable of reaching people in their homes through television...
  • #39
    !
    @PoliticalSpice You could just turn off your TV and your commercial radio...I haven't heard a politicl ad in over a decade....
  • #49
    !
    @woodtick57 I wasn't thinking specifically about you, but the impact of such advertizing on the electorate as a whole, which, incidentlly, does effect you in that it influences the election. Not everything comes down to the individual, somethings have broader consequences, and election advertizing is one of those things.
  • R Load more replies

  • #12
    !
    If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender, but don't tell my husband of 34 year and me that we can't get married. Fortunately we were married in a jurisdiction where it is legal. This is our first relationship. If you have had several marriages and divorces, don't talk to me about gays ruining the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexual couples are doing a pretty good job of ruining it themselves. maybe it is time to ban divorce.

    Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caeser's (like civil marriage), and render unto God what is God's (like a religious/church marriage). No church will be forced to perform a religious marriage on gays that they are not comfortable with, although a number of churches believe in marriage equality.
  • #52
    !
    Contrary to the typical postmodernist, we do not get to define our own reality. The sanctity of marriage is not harmed by people's meddlings and failures because it is inviolate. I would compare it to a driver's understanding of the difference between a red and green light. Yes, a driver can believe a red light means green, but it won't be the red light's fault for the driver's impending accident. I understand that there are numerous "churches" that are teaching that red lights equal green, but someone that loves you doesn't want to see you in an accident and will tell you the truth.
  • #57
    !
    @DerivePI

    marriage has 'sanctitiy'? Why wasn't this rite even put into the bible?(Because it was glommed from the social construct marriage...)
  • #74
    !
    @DerivePI you don't need religion to be moral. In fact,I would venture to say most "religious" people are less moral than "non-religious"peopl e. Without limiting myself to the beliefs of one book, I find myself to be much more tolerant of other people's views. I'm more accepting of statements that may counter something I've held as truth prior. The golden rule still applies, and so does self preservation. The bulk of people, even without religion, will still act kindly to others and go their best to not start conflict.
  • #77
    !
    @DerivePI

    What would a person with religious beliefs hold sacred? A state sponsored contractual agreement that the church glommed onto?
  • R Load more replies

  • #36
    !
    Conservative values as in small government. If the GOP wants to stay relevant, they need to keep the government out from people's lives. Stay on message with the economy and small government.
  • #60
    !
    @wild_turkey6 - I am in agreement with your strategy. However, saying that same sex marriage reflects conservative values is clearly a lie. For a federal politician, refocusing the issue on fiscal policy and distancing yourself from social issues by claiming a federal policy (states are to decide) is the correct thing to do. For a state politician, this is a valid issue and he needs to respond. His response should have been, "I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal." Another response would be a libertarian response. "What you do with your other consenting adult is between you and your other consenting adult."
  • #63
    !
    @wild_turkey6 - I agree.

    It is kinda Orwellian when one considers that despite Conservatism's deference to the value that "the law should treat all citizens equally" with regards to race, gender, religion, etc, Conservatism still has an opposition to same-sex marriage as is evidenced by the Republican Party's inclusion of it in their platform last year.

    But if you look at it from the perspective of a republican who has seen this contradiction for a long time but didn't feel like they were in a position to do any good yet, then maybe there are more conservatives out there who agree more with Pat Brady than Conservatism.

    What I mean is that the "value" is there. The Orwellian part is that Conservatism doesn't apply that value in this one case. Usually it's the left that engages in "selective reasoning" but this is a case when the right is.
  • #65
    !
    @DerivePI first of all, i'm getting heartily sick of hearing about this 'conservative/liberal jargon. very few people talking about it even know the difference, you know.

    you do realise, don't you, that his stance is more moderate than it is liberal. not only that, but there are as many, if not more,'conservatives' pushing for same sex marriage than there are 'liberals'.
  • #69
    !
    @Bobolinsky

    I think you are confusing conservative values and the current iteration og the republican party...they are not usually the same these days...
  • R Load more replies

  • #17
    !
    I find it highly amusing that folks posting their prejudice here are so insecure about their own sexuality, that they feel that they have to control other peoples.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    I think this politician is probably just being a politician and taking a page from the liberal playbook. Which apparently works to get elected. All of this is just distractions. ...and “pro-family democrats” is a contradiction of terms.
  • #158
    !
    @Vance1 No it doesn't, your morality is yours personally. How you choose to be is your responsibility and has nothing to do with what others do. But you right it does effect you. Every time you or some representative of our party makes an irrational and quite frankly some unconscionable stink about it we lose credibility and then no one listens when we have something to say about something that might actually matter in government and to this country. If you are a republican or a conservative please remember that we once stood for civil rights and still should. The same way we want our liberties and freedoms protected we should also fight and stand for others. Atleast the right ones. God is great and so are moral values, keep them with you (thats important), don't push them on others, especially if it is at the cost of their freedom to be happy without hurting anyone else.
  • R Load more replies

  • #31
    !
    I thought this was the land of the free? It's not OK for two people who love each other enter a government sanction agreement JUST because they share a gender, but it's A OK for Hostess to give in to it's own greed and give the shaft to all it's employees?
  • #27
    !
    ThanksRedFox. You showed the world what you are made from. If someone does not agree with you, they are mentally ill. That sort of belief is pathological in and of itself. Hope you get some real help someday.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #14
    !
    Being black, left-handed or being gay is just as natural. It is a sometimes rare occurrence to fall in Love and to hold that person in your heart and be loved in return ... it is something that should be celebrated! If it’s between two guys or two girls -- all the better. It takes even more courage to defend that LOVE!

    I am the son of a catholic father who never went to church and a protestant mother who took us to church and Sunday school. Onward christian soldiers; I think not. Such absolute drivel. To be manipulated by a santa claus; an easter bunny and worst of all a bogus cross?

    It’s now time to shut down the synagogues and churches with the torah & bibles with Leviticus 18:22 and Deuteronomy 13:12-16. To see the religious lunatics manipulate government and peoples’ lives -- is shameful.

    Many theologians state quite correctly that the birth; crucifixion; resurrection and other elements of christianity actually didn’t even happen! Churches are committing hate crimes and more succinctly a violent criminal offence against a federally protected minority namely the gay community. It is actually a bigger moment in history … gays standing up for equality ... the realization that there is something far more evil at work -- hateful religion which should be discharged from society – period.

    Religion and the churches should now be exposed as a bigoted structure that gets away with hate mongering. It is a criminal offence to cause harm onto others physically or with written items; torahs – old testament/new testament bibles have been getting away with corruption and cultism based on bogus hocus pocus.

    There is no scientific evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of christianity and other religions. Our early human ancestors; on this earth … go back more than 6 million years … 5,996,000 years before the Greeks, Romans and the Jews. Christianity is basically a 2012 year old fictional cult. In the year 300 AD when Emperor Constantine, who to some was the first pope; went on to fabricate & market Christianity! Christianity is a fantasy; which turned out to be one of the most hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world.

    It is written; so therefore it shall be? We are the chosen people; such a wicked fantasy.

    Einstein stated in a letter recently auctioned that the bible was a collection of primitive legends. He said believing in God was childish and he as a Jew is no different than another person and are not chosen by God.

    The pope is running a bigger fraud than Madoff’s $50 billion ripoff.

    Today’s evangelical extremists are like the nazis who cast others into ovens & are actually supremacists - who practice their bogus hocus pocus - and are trying to suppress and deprive others of their happiness and their legal rights in an open and proud society.
  • #8
    !
    Is this really in the best interests of children? Picture this in your mind for a moment,two men having sex and smoking pot and a young child walks into the room, i find this a truly disturbing prospect for any child.
  • #10
    !
    I'm not into the same-sex thing and don't smoke pot any more and I don't have any kids in the house. I suppose if I had a hankering to indulge the kid argument bears no weight around here. Always pisses me off when someone hollers a "For the Children" argument, anyway.
  • #15
    !
    @justapirate, but children are a very real part of this same sex marriage thing,do you suggest that we just ignore that fact ?
  • #16
    !
    @ Millbank12 Really?? Ok, for one...any couple that engages in sexual behaviour with kids in the house generally takes steps to ensure their privacy. Also, as many kids that have walked in on it...there's no danger to the child's interests...though they may get a good talking to regarding respecting the privacy if a closed door.

    And, if pot were legal...how would that be different than seeing their parents kicking back with a few drinks?!
  • #18
    !
    @Millbank12 And children are a part of hetero relations and get to see or experience abuse and discord and all the things that go wrong there. So, we should then abandon hetero relations, too? Should we ignore that fact?
  • #19
    !
    By that logic there should be a whole lot more traumatized kids in the world, seeing as I personally know a wife who left her husband to shack up (and have a baby with) her cousin, and another who admits that prostituting herself can be a profitable measure if her husband leaves her because she's done it before AND "one of the guys in town will pay me $1500 for one night with me" I also have a male friend who convinced his wife to let him date and sleep with other women, as long as he agreed to not wear his wedding ring while he did it.

    All three used to indulge in a little recreational flora. Sometimes, whether or not people's parts match up is the last thing in a kid's parental environment to worry about.
  • R Load more replies

  • #174
    !
    Republicans will support it, but not the ultra-conservative faction.
    It's the way society is evolving, and opposing it, and some other things, will show how out of touch and obsolete some people can be.
  • #160
    !
    Could anybody explain to me why government needs to recondize marriage in the first place? How about heterosexuals apply for domestic partnerships too, and then we wouldn't have to have this debate?
  • R Load more comments...
Post