Prophet, I commend you on your ability to read things as you want them to be. However, much like your philosophy towards the bible, you should be taking what I say literally. My first point is that it's a chicken or the egg type situation. The Christians are claiming that the gays are trying to silence them but this is in response to the Christian communities efforts to defame, discredit ...more

Prophet, I commend you on your ability to read things as you want them to be. However, much like your philosophy towards the bible, you should be taking what I say literally.

My first point is that it's a chicken or the egg type situation. The Christians are claiming that the gays are trying to silence them but this is in response to the Christian communities efforts to defame, discredit and dehumanize the gay community. Much like abolitionists, they make a public outcry and challenge the oppressors in the pursuit of equality. Surely you're not going to claim with a straight face that gays are 100% equal to all other citizens. My guess is that instead you believe that in their current state they are not deserving of the rights you and I enjoy.

As for the demonic comment, I see little tangible difference in the classifications. Most of the Christians I've encountered on this board hate sin (and despite your protestations I would even add the sinners themselves) as much as they would hate a demon. The bottom line is that you want to end sin and do away with sinful behavior and ipso facto you want to do away with gays entirely. Or at the least you want to "cure" them to "fix" what's "wrong" with them.

As for the person talking about what's happening in the school, no that still doesn't count. We're not talking about a teacher commenting on what he or she does in the classroom. We're talking about an upset parent making claims about something they believe is happening in the classroom. BIG difference. I reiterate my metaphor with Christians claiming that Jews drink Christian blood in their ceremonies. They too claimed that this had to be going on in a place where they were not actually present.

We are no longer an insular, homogeneous society. There are and will continue to be different people with different lifestyles. Call it a descent into sin or what have you but it is contemporary society and our children will have to learn to function within that society. It hardly behooves them or us to perpetuate this animosity towards a recognizable segment of society. While both sides escalate the fighting there can be no peace. Do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek and let them be and they will likely do the same.

Food for thought. You're upset because the Christian community is being "silenced" by the gay community in its ability to be critical and disapproving of the gay lifestyle. Imagine, for a moment, that you are in the shoes of a member of the gay community. Their rights as citizens and whole lifestyle are being subjected to this type of "silencing" at the hands of the Christian community and its proposed legislation.less

See this is the reason that Christians such as yourself are lampooned as being paranoid and irrational. You miss the forrest for the trees. The gay community is trying to silence Christians insomuch as Christians are outwardly condemning them and their chosen lifestyle, going so far as to denying that such couples can experience love or enjoy the privileges and rights of legal union. The gay commu...more

See this is the reason that Christians such as yourself are lampooned as being paranoid and irrational. You miss the forrest for the trees. The gay community is trying to silence Christians insomuch as Christians are outwardly condemning them and their chosen lifestyle, going so far as to denying that such couples can experience love or enjoy the privileges and rights of legal union. The gay community is trying to promote its lifestyle insomuch as they want recognition, acceptance and tolerance from the rest of society. In schools they want to show children that they exist and that they are not the evil, demonic, sinful wretches that you seem to believe them to be. They deny everything insomuch as they aren't doing half of the things you're imagining them to be doing. I live in Greenwich Village, which apart from San Francisco is the gay capital of the world, and interract with gay people all the time. In a post-college job I was the only straight male in my company for 2 years. They are hardly the demonic figures you make them out to be.

It's not about teaching kids that sin is fun. Frankly, your concepts of sinfulness are irrelevant in the scheme of political and social life. They are values that are internal to you and your flock, in no way impacting those who do not ascribe to your religion. All that I and the gays ask is that you keep your religion to yourself and stop injecting it into the affairs of others. Teach your kids how you'd like and when something comes up that you don't like sit them down and explain what you think is the right way to think of things. DO NOT take it upon yourself to denigrate others and make them to feel inferior because they don't fit in with your idealistic notion of society or salvation. America is diverse now. Gays exist and are tax paying, law abiding citizens. They are entitled not to be made into second class citizens or subjected to the equivalent of Jim Crow laws.less

So as you can see, the support you claim exists for the gay agenda conspiracy still hasn’t been shown particularly well. It’s about as well documented as another Christian favorite about Jews drinking the blood of Christian children for Passover. Sure a lot of people allude to it but that doesn’t make it true. I’ll...more

So as you can see, the support you claim exists for the gay agenda conspiracy still hasn’t been shown particularly well. It’s about as well documented as another Christian favorite about Jews drinking the blood of Christian children for Passover. Sure a lot of people allude to it but that doesn’t make it true.

I’ll concede that young kids shouldn’t learn about gay sex in school but let’s be honest and admit that having the schools educate children about diversity and society as it exists outside the walls of the school only presents the danger that your children will be more tolerant and less hateful towards gays than you are.less

Talk about having my head in the sand? Clearly you have very little reading comprehension skills. My specific challenge was to draw upon independent, unbiased sources to support your "gay agenda" conspiracy theory. Blogs don’t count for much of anything since they are unmoderated or verified. The only two that you presented that are even close are the WND and LA Times...more

Talk about having my head in the sand? Clearly you have very little reading comprehension skills. My specific challenge was to draw upon independent, unbiased sources to support your "gay agenda" conspiracy theory. Blogs don’t count for much of anything since they are unmoderated or verified. The only two that you presented that are even close are the WND and LA Times.

Starting with the LA Times piece, if you took the time to actually read the article you would find that the only allusion to a conspiracy to indoctrinate children to homosexuality comes from someone on your side of the issue making an accusation, not a statement of fact. It seems that your many years of reading the bible and taking it literally without any reflection on the meaning of the words has left you less than able to deal with comprehending regular prose. By that logic if I were quoted in an article asserting that the St. Peter's Basilica was built over an alien space ship then that would be proof of that fact.

Moving on to WND, should I first point out that it is hardly an unbiased source? Joseph Farah, the founder of WND, is known as an evangelical conservative who operates sites selling Christian books. However, looking past that, the content contained in the article is hardly inflammatory or indicative of the nefarious agenda you claim exists. So you wouldn't agree that an understanding that there are different kinds of family units, including ones with same sex parents, is essential to being "engaged and productive citizens"? I think that the rationale the judge provided deserves repetition: "Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy…Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation.” He further said, in the context of denying parents the right to remove their children from class when gay topics are broached (by which I think means stories involving same sex couples) “An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students." Regardless of what the Christian community believes, it is not the place of public schools to create inferiority complexes in the children of same sex parents. Tolerance and acceptance is not emulation or participation.less

Prophet, If it is so well known a fact please provide citable references from legitimate sources (none that are obviously biased. JC, First of all you missed my point about the validation of a child's homelife completely. The point was, until you and your community manage to deprive same sex couples of the right to raise children there will be children attending school coming from such ...more

Prophet,
If it is so well known a fact please provide citable references from legitimate sources (none that are obviously biased.

JC,
First of all you missed my point about the validation of a child's homelife completely. The point was, until you and your community manage to deprive same sex couples of the right to raise children there will be children attending school coming from such households. As such, they are entitled to recognition in the stories read in class. To do otherwise would be to implicitly tell them that their family unit is unnatural and something for which they should be ostracized and to be ashamed of, none of which is productive for a child's development.

Second, since you trotted out the first amendment, what about the other portions? Separation of church and state sound familiar? There is no disputing that religious belief is behind the outcry to keep any non-negative educational treatment of homosexuality out of the public schools.

As far as the golden calf point goes, you still have missed the point. So you're saying that you would prefer that there be the worst straight parents over loving and effective gay ones? If that's the case then I pity you because you clearly don't care about the well-being of children. My girlfriend is a teacher in a nursery school where a large number of the parents are gay and often those are the most caring and devoted parents in the class. No doubt you've never observed the dynamics of a family unit with two same sex parents, so it's understandable that you're reacting from your dogma rather than personal experience.

Lastly, whether or not it's a foundational issue, the fact still remains that it is a constitutional issue. In the legal sphere the constitutions carry similar weight to the bible. Just as you'll beat your chest and claim that the bible is the final word on life, absent all but the most extreme and unlikely situations the constitution is the final word on the law.less

I think that the Christian community has conflated the issues of teaching about same sex relationships and same sex sex into a singular issue, and much of the outrage stems from this failure in reasoning. Just as young children should not be taught the dynamics of heterosexual sex in school neither should they be learning about gay sex at that time either. The appropriate age for sex education (an...more

I think that the Christian community has conflated the issues of teaching about same sex relationships and same sex sex into a singular issue, and much of the outrage stems from this failure in reasoning. Just as young children should not be taught the dynamics of heterosexual sex in school neither should they be learning about gay sex at that time either. The appropriate age for sex education (and the scope of such lessons is a different discussion all together). On the other hand, for children who are not even cognizant that marriages involve sex there is not as much an issue teaching them that there are same sex relationships in society.

I'll justify this on a number of grounds.

First, these are public schools and as such are not beholden to any religion's precepts or moral code. Public schools exist to serve the community and as such should not kowtow to Christianity's abhorrence of gays. These schools are funded by general tax payer funds, not merely those of Christians. If you want that send your kids to parochial school.

Second, as much as a concern as there is for children learning tolerance through exposure to other lifestyles, there is a great concern about creating an inhospitable atmosphere for children of same sex couples, married or not. Here you have children who had no choice in whom they would have as parents. By including books that show that having two moms or two dads is ok that validates the child's homelife both to that child and the rest of the class. To create a blanket prohibition on stories involving family units like theirs creates the potential of long term emotional harm to those children, a sense of not belonging and being different.

Third, I wonder if the problem is that the parents most outraged by the inclusion of this material in the classroom are just unable to do a proper job of teaching their children. It doesn't matter what the teacher says during the day, a parent is and should be the most influential person in a young child's life. When you ask them what they learned each day, when you come across something troubling you talk it out. You don't rush off to the school to complain instead of engaging your child in a discussion and explanation of what you think is the right teaching. I think this outrage is a smokescreen for parental laziness.

The gender of the parents doesn't matter so much as the quality of their parenting.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, this is a constitutional issue, both state and federal, and there's no real way that any voter or legislative decision to roll back these rights will be successful. If you were to substitute Latino for Gay you'd see how absurd these positions are. I'll recognize your right to be unhappy and to preach against it, but love it or leave it, this is how our system of constitutional rights work.less

I guess I'll dive into this fray again. Not that it will do much good but just as Christians see it as their divine mission to bring religion to the masses I'd like to bring insight to a group that is very narrowly focused in its worldview. For starters, I would like to throw out that I will be supporting McCain in the coming election, so as not to be immediately lambasted as a bleedi...more

I guess I'll dive into this fray again. Not that it will do much good but just as Christians see it as their divine mission to bring religion to the masses I'd like to bring insight to a group that is very narrowly focused in its worldview.

For starters, I would like to throw out that I will be supporting McCain in the coming election, so as not to be immediately lambasted as a bleeding heart liberal. That being said, I am a Republican based upon the economic policies rather than the social ones, which I often feel are too permeated with influence from the "moral majority."

I'm seeing a lot of comments regarding public school education and the acknowledgment of the existence of gay couples therein. Many of you have asserted that it is harming children to expose them to these concepts. And depending on how the matter is handled I might agree with you. There's no reason to explain the sexual intricacies of gay sex to kindergarten-ers PERIOD. Then again, there's no reason to explain the sexual intricacies of heterosexual sex to those children either. On the other hand, I don't experience the same degree of outrage over having a story with 2 dads or 2 moms. The fact of the matter is that in a public school there will likely be at least one child being raised by a same sex couple. My girlfriend is a preschool teacher and has several students from such families. To create a blanket prohibition on describing such family units would ostracize these children and negatively impact them among their peers. Here you have a child who had no choice in who his or her parents are being in essence told that his or her family is sinful and not to be recognized. Worse, without building understanding and tolerance on the part of that child's peers you're inevitably setting him or her up to be the target of abuse and harassment from the rest of the class who have been "enlightened" by their parents as to the evils of homosexuality.

If you don't like public school and its curriculum then send your kids to a parochial school where they can learn the bible along with their abc's. Just as the Muslims have no right to come into the US and force everyone to be under Sharia law, there's very little justification, in my opinion, for Christians to refashion the public education system to adhere to their own worldview to the exclusion of other tax paying citizens. Certainly there will be limits (no teaching satanism, and other inane slippery slope arguments you'll undoubtedly throw out) but the goal should be for broad inclusion with the parents taking the lead in instilling values.less

Believer, I admire the firmness of your belief but it makes me wonder how you reconcile your faith with your patriotism. Personally, I have drawn a line between matters of my faith and matters of society and government, but based upon what you've written I could imagine that such an idea would be repulsive to you. As such, would it be fair to say that you would favor getting rid of that whole...more

Believer, I admire the firmness of your belief but it makes me wonder how you reconcile your faith with your patriotism. Personally, I have drawn a line between matters of my faith and matters of society and government, but based upon what you've written I could imagine that such an idea would be repulsive to you. As such, would it be fair to say that you would favor getting rid of that whole constitution thing and replacing it, in toto, with the bible? I understand you're doing what you believe is G-d's will but it just doesn't seem to mesh with the American paradigm to support initiatives that undercut and run afoul of the most basic and fundamental governmental principles that this country was founded on.

I would rather believe that G-d loves all his creations who are humble and pay him respect in thought and deed and be wrong than ascribe to the school of thought that says "only we're saved and if you don't do as we say you're doomed" and be right. This is both with respect to Christianity and Judaism and all other religions alike. I hold my faith very dear to my heart and live my life in accordance with the values I was taught in Hebrew School and Hebrew High School along with those imparted by my parents; however, I find there to be no excuse to recreate America in my religion's conception of what must be done. To do so would be to eradicate what makes America great, namely the ability to escape persecution and harshly enforced, overly restrictive norms that derive from any given religious text, and live in a free society.

Again, I respect all of you and the beliefs you hold. It just that in your well-intentioned quest to do G-d's work that you overlook the fact that others have their own beliefs that they hold just as firmly, and to which they are entitled. By injecting your faith into civil government it adversely affects those of other faiths and lifestyles and the purpose of government is to serve the people, ALL THE PEOPLE.less

Again, you are missing the point. It's not about what you believe has been decreed from above. The issue is how CIVIL GOVERNMENTS treat this matter of gay marriage. Could someone please come forward and make a good argument, in terms of society and government, as to why gays should be denied the rights and benefits that straight married couples enjoy? WBMoore, I'm looking in your gen...more

Again, you are missing the point. It's not about what you believe has been decreed from above. The issue is how CIVIL GOVERNMENTS treat this matter of gay marriage.

Could someone please come forward and make a good argument, in terms of society and government, as to why gays should be denied the rights and benefits that straight married couples enjoy? WBMoore, I'm looking in your general direction...less

Mike has hit on the issue I continually come back to. Marriage began as a religious institution but has over time become a facet of civil government. Certainly the church blesses the marriage (between a man and a woman) but it is the government that infuses the marriage with legal recognition and discernible benefits and rights that the couple would not otherwise have. For that reason alone, relig...more

Mike has hit on the issue I continually come back to. Marriage began as a religious institution but has over time become a facet of civil government. Certainly the church blesses the marriage (between a man and a woman) but it is the government that infuses the marriage with legal recognition and discernible benefits and rights that the couple would not otherwise have. For that reason alone, religion should not be involved in determining who may enjoy these benefits, but rather it should be left to the respective governmental bodies to reach a decision in a democratic process that follows both the state and federal constitutions. Equal protection and due process require that one group not be treated differently from another without adequate justification. I could bore you all with the rigors of how adequate the justification must be in order to stand up to judicial scrutiny, but suffice it to say that religious beliefs are not sufficiently adequate to treat gays differently. I recognize that you all think that it's a sin and that they will burn for all eternity for giving into their sinful desires; however, that is not a sound basis for crafting social policy. No one is asking you to cease your self-imposed duty to "save everyone" through the teachings of Christianity. I think what people are asking is that these attempts to "save everyone" should be done through the carrot instead of the stick. Laws and social policy should not be crafted to align with any particular religion because there is no official American religion. Just as Sharia law, in my opinion, is inappropriate for the resolution of disputes in the US likewise Christian ideals are an improper basis for determining individual rights. Try to save people, but when they refuse your offers of salvation leave them to their chosen fate.less

"Excellent point, government may allow same sex couples all the benefits that they desire but in Gods eyes, will these unions be legitimate marriages, I think not? Why . . . because he explicitly speaks against such practices in his Word?" But that's the entire point of what I'm saying. I trust the Christian community to decide for itself what is right and how best to obey h...more

"Excellent point, government may allow same sex couples all the benefits that they desire but in Gods eyes, will these unions be legitimate marriages, I think not? Why . . . because he explicitly speaks against such practices in his Word?"

But that's the entire point of what I'm saying. I trust the Christian community to decide for itself what is right and how best to obey heavenly dictates. That in no way, however, affects the separate sphere of government. If or when those gays who avail themselves of the right to marry are wrong or sinners then they'll have an eternity to come to grips with that.less

It is truly astounding to see the same inane arguments put forward on this subject time and time again. The basic problem is that you, as the collective, dare I say fundamentalist, Christian community confuse religion with law. The two are hardly the same. To pull a line from the book you love and regard so highly, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unt...more

It is truly astounding to see the same inane arguments put forward on this subject time and time again. The basic problem is that you, as the collective, dare I say fundamentalist, Christian community confuse religion with law. The two are hardly the same. To pull a line from the book you love and regard so highly, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." - Matthew 22:21.

It is more than within your right as individuals and religious institutions to decline to recognize same sex couples as legitimate or worthy of having a member of your clergy preside over such a wedding. On the other hand, it is in no way within your right to deny the legal right to marry. The court was completely correct that it is a matter of equal protection and basic due process rights under both the state and federal constitutions. Marriage is not just about the union in the spiritual sense. It carries with it a host of benefits.

I'll skip over the incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and other slippery slope arguments because they're simply alarmist and irrelevant.

The bottom line is that there are rights provided to each citizen by the government. This aforementioned government operates independently from the Church and its scriptures, as it should with all religions because it is not a theocracy. We simply cannot tell two consenting non-related adults that they are ineligible for the rights and benefits of married couples based upon their gender. Perhaps we should reform marriage such that all individuals wishing to be married would have to prove that they're in a monogamous relationship based upon genuine affection and love before being eligible to obtain a marriage license? Oh wait, that couldn't work since as I recall from these comment threads gays are incapable of love. To prove how ridiculous that comment is here is another one equally as preposterous: Christians are incapable of logical thought. See how absurd it is to make these sweeping statements?less

As the argument goes, I believe it has something to do with recognition and acceptance. That being said, I really don't care what you call it so long as the results are there. I'm a pragmatist at heart and protecting these couples and providing the same benefits and rights are what I'm concerned about, not how you name the institution. This fight isn't going to end any time...more

As the argument goes, I believe it has something to do with recognition and acceptance. That being said, I really don't care what you call it so long as the results are there. I'm a pragmatist at heart and protecting these couples and providing the same benefits and rights are what I'm concerned about, not how you name the institution.

This fight isn't going to end any time soon and the middle road would at least provide a workable status quo until there's an acceptable resolution to both sides.less

At its most base level, and the one that the government should be keeping most in mind when determining this matter, marriage is about being entitled to and receiving certain benefits. There is favorable tax treatment, extension of medical coverage, inheritance priority, medical proxy rights, and a host of other benefits/rights. That's what this fight is all about. Forget issues of propriety ...more

At its most base level, and the one that the government should be keeping most in mind when determining this matter, marriage is about being entitled to and receiving certain benefits. There is favorable tax treatment, extension of medical coverage, inheritance priority, medical proxy rights, and a host of other benefits/rights. That's what this fight is all about. Forget issues of propriety and morality, this is about conferring government benefits on couples. Benefits which Christians see fit to deprive tax paying citizens of. I repeat my assertion that denying rights to some because of your beliefs (and not theirs) is both wrong and unamerican.less

Prophet: Ok. I'll say it again, as I did before. It's really easy to avoid giving a straight answer when you keep changing the topic and jumping to hardly related issues. The topic is defending marriage from the gay community, not incestuous marriages. There are currently no bills being proposed to allow them nor much of a public outcry to that effect. It's a red herring and you all...more

Prophet: Ok. I'll say it again, as I did before. It's really easy to avoid giving a straight answer when you keep changing the topic and jumping to hardly related issues. The topic is defending marriage from the gay community, not incestuous marriages. There are currently no bills being proposed to allow them nor much of a public outcry to that effect. It's a red herring and you all know that.

Returning to the issue raised, defining marriage as about love actually creates more problems than fewer. Depending on how we define love then that could open the door for your parade of horribles including people marrying children, household appliances, animals and, heaven forbid, consenting adults of their same gender.

I just don't understand the big deal about defining marriage as the following: "The consensual union between two adult humans who are not related, or if related no closer than 1st cousin (which is the general legal standard for incest/non-incest)."less

igh, there's a word we Jews have for someone like you. It's schmuck. I happen to be a registered Republican, just one who ascribes to the ideas of small government and fewer taxes rather than the moral legislation. But I suppose that the easiest and least thought intensive response to a question regarding the unamerican habits of pushing your religion on everyone else is to fire back com...more

igh, there's a word we Jews have for someone like you. It's schmuck. I happen to be a registered Republican, just one who ascribes to the ideas of small government and fewer taxes rather than the moral legislation. But I suppose that the easiest and least thought intensive response to a question regarding the unamerican habits of pushing your religion on everyone else is to fire back commie accusations.

Prophet, let me get this straight because it seems like a tautology. Marriage is about more than procreation, it's about love. Add to that the belief that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. So if I understand you correctly, either gays are not people, or are incapable of love, or both? Although you may not agree with it, or question the purity thereof, it really is an untenable argument that gays are incapable of loving one another. Suppose that a longtime gay couple is unable to engage in sex, due to illness or injury, what else would their relationship be based upon? Are we to assume that they remain together to subtly poison the minds of youths and denigrate society? That would be absurd. So assuming that they can experience love, and love is a cornerstone of and purpose for marriage why then, other than the whole "the bible is against it" line of arguing (which has ZERO PLACE in political discussions regarding individual rights), should they not be allowed to marry?

Oh yes, throw out the slippery slope argument, again. I can tell you that at least 8 out of 10 serial killers wake up and have breakfast each morning. Should we then get rid of breakfast because it leads the way to killing people? Quit trying to "save" people by making them miserable. When it comes to the gay community, just leave them to their "ultimate fate" and feel morally superior to them. We'll all thank you for doing so.less

Prophet, minor point to raise. A large issue with incest is concerns of birth defects in the ensuing children. Gays can't have children together. Again, the only connection you're drawing betwixt the two is the sin/"eeeew gross-factor" and that's rather tenuous. Again, when you have a Christian nation, Christianity can set the rules. Until such a day we still have the ...more

Prophet, minor point to raise. A large issue with incest is concerns of birth defects in the ensuing children. Gays can't have children together. Again, the only connection you're drawing betwixt the two is the sin/"eeeew gross-factor" and that's rather tenuous.

Again, when you have a Christian nation, Christianity can set the rules. Until such a day we still have the constitution and a sense of equal rights for all. [As always, please refrain from the lame argument of this nation was formed under christian ideals or if we don't follow our morals everyone will run around raping horses and blaspheming.]less

igh, I don't see the point you're attempting to make. Yes, they're either homosexual or transgendered/transexual. Considering that this is a site for Trans-Health is that such a shock? Am I to be mortified that they have organized to discuss health? And for the record, if this is a poor attempt to point to the "conspiracy" your feeble attempts are not worthy of further res...more

igh, I don't see the point you're attempting to make. Yes, they're either homosexual or transgendered/transexual. Considering that this is a site for Trans-Health is that such a shock? Am I to be mortified that they have organized to discuss health? And for the record, if this is a poor attempt to point to the "conspiracy" your feeble attempts are not worthy of further response.

WB, the issue is same sex relationships, not the longevity of "marriages." There is no way that the US will ever prohibit divorce as a matter of public policy. It is one of those things that we have to accept as a cost of living in the greatest nation in the world where people have certain freedoms.

Believer, with respect to your distinction of private tolerance vs. public condoning I'm afraid that I will have to send along, to you and the rest of the Christian community, a big tough...tomatoes. No group gets to deprive another group, arbitrarily, of a reasonably expected right incidental to citizenship, especially when the arbitrarily selected group is not impinging on the rights of others. To allow otherwise would permit the Jewish Conspiracy to get together and decree that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman, both of whom are Jewish. Seems pretty arbitrary to me and I could say that, in lines with my religious teachings, that allowing Christianity starts a slippery slope towards allowing Satanism because Judaism is the one true religion and if everything else is frowned upon then surely Christianity must lead to Satanism.

Let's drop the act and accept as a given what the actual truth is. For whatever reason, allegedly because of "religious belief", the gays are less than people and are undeserving of their rights as tax paying citizens. Moreover, despite the clear and constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state, vehement attempts are being made to ensure that this religiously derived notion is enshrined in the law. Truly an example of religion being employed, not for the benefit of but rather, the the detriment of society.less

I think Mike is working towards the point I'm making. The main concern is that in the process of legislating from religious norms the rights of an individual outside that belief system and superstructure could have his individual rights infringed for an activity that does not adversely affect any other non-willing adult participant. Why have laws against making porn available to kids? Because...more

I think Mike is working towards the point I'm making. The main concern is that in the process of legislating from religious norms the rights of an individual outside that belief system and superstructure could have his individual rights infringed for an activity that does not adversely affect any other non-willing adult participant. Why have laws against making porn available to kids? Because they're kids! Once you're of legal age, you can get all the porn you want. That was a decision based upon notions of maturity and propriety rather than a strict religious dictate. We all get that you're thoroughly convinced that your religious paradigms are the one and true TRUTH. That doesn't make it the case for everyone and as such, those views should not be imposed on society at large. I eagerly anticipate the day when someone brushes off a copy of the old testament and its teachings on slavery and attempts to reinstitute slavery. It's in the bible, or so I'm told, and since you can't pick and choose what to believe in the bible you're stuck having to oppress segments of society because the bible says to do so.

But seriously folks, doesn't it seem un-American to be decreeing how citizens should privately live their lives? America was founded in order to escape religious persecution by the masses. What happens after everyone's settled in? The ones who got here first start to occupy the position of the majority and proceed to push their religious views down the throats of the minorities.

Just since I know this is coming, having been around here long enough, this is not a proposal to abolish all laws or protections for individuals or society in general. There are easily ascertainable wrongs that may be perpetrated against others which should and must be regulated and controlled. The issue is that the "marriage" issue is just outside the purview of dangerous social developments. That 2 CONSENTING NON-RELATED HUMAN ADULTS choose to enter into a relationship is of no major significance or importance to society. The genders of the people in the relationship are fungible for governing purposes, and moreover should be, specifically for taxes and benefits. I would sooner burn the bible, or in my case the torah, page by page than tell the "partner" of a dying gay man that he may not visit his dying "partner" in the hospital or inherit with more priority than a family that disowned their gay child.

I don't even care about the terminology marriage or union or partnership or "gaylationship." The equal treatment of American citizens is my main sticking point and whosoever decides that their religion is valid grounds for depriving a citizen of his rights is a damned poor American.less

I'll try to keep my comments brief since they will likely not be well received or even given time for reflection and thought. First, it is a little disappointing that the usual refrain of bestiality, incest and pedophilia have to accompany any gay rights discussion. It makes it very hard to engage in any kind of reasonable discourse on the subject when a parade of horribles is attached to ...more

I'll try to keep my comments brief since they will likely not be well received or even given time for reflection and thought.

First, it is a little disappointing that the usual refrain of bestiality, incest and pedophilia have to accompany any gay rights discussion. It makes it very hard to engage in any kind of reasonable discourse on the subject when a parade of horribles is attached to homosexuality. The only things in common that they share are that they involve sex and Christians are against them. Much like the "Jewish Conspiracy" a lot of this gay agenda business is in your collective head. Any actual organized effort are likely a movement from the gay community to push back against what they see as a concerted offensive, so as not to be pushed back into the closet or exterminated.

Second, this is again a woeful example of people failing to realize that their religious beliefs and values are best kept as social mores than public policy. Thankfully (if you ask me) government in the US is intended to operate exclusive of religion. As such, any argument based upon the holy bible should be irrelevant for the purposes of determining law. If you want to excommunicate gay members of your church, go ahead; HOWEVER, don't bring your bibles into the state capital and dictate how others can enjoy their rights as citizens. So long as the relationship is between TWO CONSENTING NON-RELATED ADULT HUMANS then there should be no impediment from the law. Clearly this is an intentional move but many of the concerns of the conservative ideology with slippery slopes could be handled easily with some clear and definitive drafting of the law.less