LOL

Brian C. WrongO! and there is proof

Marriage is already defined as a marital union between one man and woman with as potential to have children of their own for a continuity of a society for an indefinite period of time. Heterosexual MARRIAGE IS BENEFICIAL TO A SOCIETY. WHAT IS A BENEFIT OF THE SO CALLED GAY "MARRIAGE?" Why do we try to call opposite things with the same name? Homosexuality is causing extreme stress, suicidal rate, diseases, premature death, instability etc. among the LGBT community as per credible studies that I have seen. They need help from destroying themselves not only on moral grounds but as a fellow human beings.

Please tell me where marriage is defined solely as that?

If you're going to use secular legislation, please quote the exact part of current Federal law that states such.

If you're going to use the Christian Bible, please quote the exact part in the original Hebrew (for the Old Testament/Torah) or the original Greek (for the New Testament).

"Homosexuality is causing extreme stress, suicidal rate, diseases, premature death, instability etc. among the LGBT community as per credible studies that I have seen."

And why might these things occur? Perhaps there are other factors, such as the effects of ridicules, oppression, and even assault on LGBT individuals as a minority group. Are we to blame the individual who, according to those same peer-reviewed studies, is born that way? Or are we to look at the societal pressures that create a hostile environment resulting in negative socio-psychological consequences?

Correlation is not causation. Anyone who knows how to read a scientific study understands this.

TWoreti, Marriage between to same-sex couples is beneficial for society because as couples already living together and raising children together, the parents and the children deserve the protections that family law provide the man-woman kind of marriage. Its always convenient for folks who oppose marriage equality to pretend that the only way families come about is through procreation. This is one way but just like divorced parents sometimes re-marry another opposite sex partner with children, so do same-sex partner develop relationships. What are we to call to women or men who now find themselves in a same-sex relationship where children are living with their mother or father from the first marriage. We in the LGBTQ community call these groups families. And, these families should be respected as such.

Yes, please show me these so called studies. The suicide rate is high because people are being bullied and attacked. It has nothing to do with being gay. There is stress out there in the world for anyone. Ask a black child if they have stress. A gay child, or someone with a lisp or a scar or a birthmark. We have become a society of hate. And again, I must remind you that my husband and I have wonderful jobs, we are stable, have a home, pay taxes... what is stressful, suicidal, diseased, or early death have to do with it?

And what would you say about old people who are past the age of child birth. Are they not allowed to get married since they cannot have kids. Or what about my mother who has cancer and lost any ability to have kids when she was 19 (I was adopted) ... should she have stayed single since my dad would not have been able to pro-create with her?

@Brook Thanks for your comment. The credible study I mentioned in my previous comment was done by about 7 different credible organizations and compiled by a minister who has homosexual friends. The studies made in those nations that legalized the so called gay "marriage' and those who don't came up with the same result. I don't hate the LGBT community. After looking at various credible studies, I empathize and sympathize for the LGBT community because they are dying at the extremely highest rates when compared to heterosexuals. For further details, please go to this website: http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/christian_philosophy2

@Brook On internet you may come up with any so called studies. What is the name or names of credible scientist(s) who cam up with a gay 'gene." Please recheck your facts. There is no credible studies that conclusively determined that there is a gay "gene."

@Sharon Shoemaker
CONFESSION FROM A FORMER HOMOSEXUAL
A former homosexual speaks out about homosexuality
and the politics of dishonesty. By Richard Weller March 28, 2002
NewsWithViews.com "Today I am living proof that homosexuals can and do change. I was as deep in the lifestyle as anyone. I spent nine years with my piano teacher and even thought about getting "married." I was 100% gay, now I am 100% recovered from that sick and twisted life. They call it "gay", but I wasn't gay at all, I was miserable. I can't think of a more miserable way of life."
For further details, please go to this website for details. http://www.newswithviews.com/psychology/psychology2.htm

TWoreti - it sounds as if you have a diagnosable DSM personality disorder. If you haven't sought help as of yet please consider doing so immediatly. Secual Identity disorders are not now, nor have they ever been, part of homosexuality. Don't confuse your illnes with the choices of others.

Although I am against same-sex mariages as I beleive a simple contractual agreement would protect all concerned and that Congress should allow benefits for all 'partners' whether married or not I make not judgments about the sexuality of others - and neither should you in this country.

@Ronald You don't know me and I do not know you either. I do not blame you for insulting me. Your statement shows that you have not made any research about the destructiveness of homosexuality. If you have seen the various credible researches that I have seen, you will do anything humanly possible to rescue the LGBT community from destroying themselves. Please make some research and see for yourself and then if you objectively look the extremely highest rates at which the homosexuals die in a country which legalized their life styles and others which have not legalized them, not only on moral ground but as a fellow human beings, you will try to help them. Whether you believe or not, I love those in the LGBT community even if I don't approve their destructive life styles. I know in USA we can be whatever we want to be as long as we don't commit a crime. There is tough love. Sooner or later we will see as to which one of us would be right. Because of political correctness, it has gradually become a habit in our country to tolerate anything as long as it feels good.

Peer review has its weaknesses. It is not wise to reject a credible study(ices) due its lack of peer review like some try to do on this website without taking into account the facts and the reliability of the research. Simply objecting to a well-researched analyzed data based on biases doesn’t make it wrong. Those who are pro-life aren’t anti-woman, those who are pro-family aren’t anti-gay, and those believe in the importance of hard work and dedications are not anti-poor. Some may think that they can convince heterosexuals that the homosexual is just fine, regardless of what the CDC statistics about depression, sickness, disease, early death. Read Matt Barber's Open Letter to Homosexuals. The Bible by no mean supported /supports a gay marriage. Those who think otherwise are simply delusional. LGBT is different from heterosexuals. Why are they afraid of admitting this fact and call their relationships with a different name? One researcher says “I can’t possible cover everything, but I will make three arguments.
Same-sex marriage is bad for children
Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business
Same-sex marriage is bad for public health.”
For further details please read this webs site: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/19/liberal-intolerance-strikes-chick-fi

My apology for my previous post. Please replace the the website commentary magazine on my previous post with this: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/ Thanks a lot.

this article is titled
"secular case against same-sex marriage" and then you go to the web site and the very first foot note cited is from the Family Research Center, which is a conservative Christian organization. How does that make this a secular argument. (4 Pinocchios)

As the pro-same-sex marriage people say, this is a weak argument because animals cannot consent. But..........................................what about siblings? Cousins? Polygamy? If I love my adult first cousin and she (or he!) loves me, should I not be allowed to marry her/him? What if I love two of my cousins and vice versa?

Equality for all! ;D

Brook, just an FYI. Marriage is defined by state law, not federal law, except for the Defense of Marriage Act, which may well be unconstitutional. This is why these issues are being decided on a state-by-state basis. DOMA governs federal benefits as they apply to married persons.

oh mark, you sly dog you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk

I just had to laugh that there's a username commenting on patch with the name of "Corbin Dallas Multipass"

Um, television? Their friends (knowing about it and also being gay)? The news? Also, how many 0-year olds do you think they asked?

They learn more about real life on the bus to school than anyplace else.

My daughter knew about LGBT individuals by the time she was 10. She just knew from both regular conversations, news stories, and individuals she has met at various places. She completely understands what sexual orientations are and could care less.

Her only confusion is as to why anyone would practice sexual behavior with someone of the same gender. However, this is understandable considering she is 13 and is confused about what sexual behavior with ~anyone~ is like. You can be young and naive yet still understand LGBT people.

If it's a civil union for one it's a civil union licence for all? I agree! and it still leaves it up to the individual to decide to get "married" certificate from the church of choice. Common sense!

My five-year-old does not know exactly what "gay" is, but he also doesn't know what "straight" is either. We know many families that have two same-sex parents, so he certainly sees this as a normal and valid type of family/relationship. He was absolutely baffled when one of his classmates told him that boys could not marry boys and girls could not marry girls because "Danny has two moms and they are married." (They live in DC and are indeed legally wed.) I think it's all in what they see in their everyday lives.

@Jenni
The best thing happened to your child. It opened up dialog on the subject and gave him some exposure and hopefully some unbiased knowledge.

I work with a woman who has a grandson in my daughter's grade. He's totally "boy", as I was at that age. Somewhat afraid of girls, not really wanting very much to do with them. She says he asked her once, "Do I really have to marry a girl?" He followed up with this, "Grandma, I'd marry you, if you weren't so old." She loved that. On the other side, my daughter was boy crazy in second grade, having her eye on one in particular, unlike my high school daughter who "dated" one boy that he ended after he complained that they really weren't doing anything together. She told him, "Sure, that's fine." Some of us have different priorities and interests as kids.

Our daughters, my wife and I attended a party celebrating the marriage of two friends who went down to DC for the legal paperwork. They were going to wait until it was legal here. They'll have to wait until November. They've been together a year longer than my wife and I have in our 20 yr. marriage. Instead of calling others "gay", "homo", and other names they know what it means and that its okay, no bad. Let's accept it and celebrate it.

The norm is that personalities are formed by the age of 5. If exposed to homosexualtity those exposed will think it acceptable and, possibly, normal. Take a look at Moslows theories of child development (accepted without question worldwide).

Just because society moves beyond the old ways does not mean it's a bad thing. After all, those same "moral values" of days long past taught that Blacks and Women were inferior. Even our own "moral" Founding Fathers thought keeping someone as a piece of property was acceptable.

One group's "morality" is not the end all of what is "right".

But we are all supposed to accept you version of morality, or lack thereof if that's your belief.

There could have been a civil unions bill that would have had the support of the republicans and many independents. Instead, the gay rights crown wanted to force the issue of "marriage equality". If they lose, it serves them right.

I don't care who sleeps with who, but I do think that marriage is the domain of the church. If anything, they should change the law so that anyone (gay or straight) can form a civil union. No more marriage licence from the county or state. leave marriage to the church.

Marriage, as recognized by the government, is a secular matter. It does not require a religious officiator, let alone a Christian one; no specific faith, or even any faith at all, is required. When you receive a marriage license, list yourself as married on your taxes and census, etc. they don't care if you are married in the eyes of the Abrahamic God. All the government cares is that you have signed a legally binding piece of paper, recognized by a government official, that says you are married.

This concept of marriage as a secular binding is not new and goes back to ancient Rome, predating Christianity. No one is telling certain sects of Christians they have to redefine marriage or accept these unions as "marriage" in their eyes. All they're saying is they want to be married, per the secular form that has been a part of Western society for thousands of years, and have all the legal rights everyone else does.

And yet a "legally binding piece of paper" that said Civil Union and conveyed all the same rights as marriage was not good enough? Hmm.

If it's a civil union for one it's a civil union for all. One group cannot have it named "marriage" over another simply because they claim the term is theirs (which it is not).

Regardless, as I said, the use of the term "marriage" for secular unions predates Christianity and should be considered acceptable. If everyone would just understand this basic historic fact, and that the marriage you receive on a piece of paper has nothing to do with religion, then this wouldn't be an issue.

"If it's a civil union for one it's a civil union for all"

Now we agree.

My point is that most people associate marriage with religion. By makining it a civil union or all, the Goverment stays out of religion, and everyone has identical rights.

The problem with changing the term is that it's not up to those who dislike its usage. The government defines the term, in their legal capacity, and they are disallowed by the Constitution from defining it in favor of any given religion. The United States has used the term since the founding of this country, passed down from England, who in turn took it from the provinces that would become France, who in turn took it from the Roman Empire. Religious affiliation with the term does not matter; the term remains as secularly defined regardless of any one group's definition.

Good luck convincing everyone to include language that says "civil unions are equivalent to marriage" in each state, or to change every marriage right to include "and civil unions".

Also, people can just learn to accept there is religious marriage and government marriage. We already do such things with other concepts (religious adulthood vs governmental adulthood).

Chris W: Since when was the English definition of marriage applied only to heterosexual marriage?

Other then this, Brook has it pretty well covered.

Brook your comment [sic] Even our own "moral" Founding Fathers thought keeping someone as a piece of property was acceptable. is totally incorrect! Fact is they were visionary's they believed in nature way of working things out. A part of natural growth and Knowledge. and the practice if natural way of fading out Slavery, kinda like your morals and common sense!. Natural process does not cause wars it brought on by Knowledge. Natural boycott is part of process. i.e. 2 farmers both have blacks working for them, Blacks had no money , hence the "good guy" lets the black family work the fields for a piece of land for his family. then there is the one that truly had slaves and greed took control. which farmer would you buy ur products from? Thomas Jefferson companion Sally Hemings was in (Free) France for two years and he asked her several times to stay in France, She decided to stay with him over freedom. History is distorted for a distorted or fail to tell you everything . Free Black Americans ran south to fight for the South in the Civil War.

Michael, Brook is right by the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Brook is correct on this matter. The individual rights, but I have to say that it has to come from the people. Which is hard to do by the power of the pen of the Federal Gov't..
The States have rights too, and if States approve it until everyone is understands what Brook is saying and the Federal Gov't stays out of it until the major amount of states accept it, Then the pen of the federal Gov't can be used.
But demanding protesting causes uprising and chaos but the FF's believe of natural process or evolution process that keeps the peace. Rome wasn't built in a day, and demanding law from top down is Chaos, but if bottom up is a civil natural process thru peace. King George’s (III) his boss top down is the reason we broke away. I do see that Brook has knowledge of the holy roman empire

yeah how dare those schools to teach evolution.

@ATC with all due respect your HIStory lesson on slaves in America is quite inaccurate. The story you tell is something that is told now to make the forced labor and imprisonment of Black people in this country more tolerable. To spread misinformation like this is irresponsible and surprising from such a learned person such as you.

Baby-boomer checking in here as well. I had great teachers in the public schools I attended. My mother was school board president of our district for a while and fought for the values I treasure and recognize in my neighbors whomever they may be and their basic human rights. Just because we prayed in school didn't make us value each other's rights and lives any more than after we stopped praying at the beginning of our school day. We learned that morals weren't only what we learned in our religious instruction on Sundays. I recall a particular Biology teacher who, if there was a few miinutes at the end of class instruction, would give us heart-to-hearts because he was concerned with how we conducted our personal lives and the choices we made outside the classroom. He took us on weekend hikes in the Adirondack St. Park. that was more fun than Biology class was, but we learned there as well. I value his teaching and the relationship he had with his students so much I visit him and his wife when I go back to see my family in NY.

From what I hear from my own children their schools seem to stress much more academics than the school I attended did, a few teachers try to make the same connection to their students as my teachers did. I recall a few fellow students in my day that made school difficult, but my kids bring home stories of more difficult classroom situations than I experienced. I think home life is more difficult now than when we "boomers" were kids.

I pine for the good old days as well: slavery, woman not voting, debtors prison, when water-boarding was an acceptable interrogation technique.
But I do agree about the addiciton caused by video games and TV. Why not limit TV to 2 hours per day as most mental health professionals will suggest rather than using it as a babysitter? i think the problem started when we went to two income producing households. Someone needs to stay home and raise their kids rather than allowing others to do so AND then complaining about the way they do it.

@Brian C. just for U......"When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South." quoted from General Robert E. Lee, in 1864.
this is In your backyard! http://dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0003531.htm
This monument, dedicated on June 19, 1999, honors the memory of a local man, Benjamin Welch Owens, who left his nearby West River farm to join Confederate forces during the Civil War. Owens was among the tens of thousands of men from Maryland who made their way south. He enlisted on June 3, 1863, joining the 1st Maryland Flying Artillery, C.S.A., which was composed of men from southern Maryland, the Eastern Shore, and Baltimore. Less than two weeks after Owens enlisted,
.http://southernheritage411.com/

@ATC I still stand by my statement about HIS story.

The Boomer generation *let* it happen. I don't believe history will be kind to it. It will be seen as: amoral, selfish, short-sighted and unwilling to fight for the preservation of freedom.

Chris W, if we leave marriage to the church, what happens to atheists and agnostics who want to marry? And who defines what church "the church" is? Does that include Judaism, Islam, Buddhist, Hinduism, Native American religions ... how about Wicca? And what happens when a marriage ends? Who decides how the property gets divided and what happens with the kids?

So. Your sons represent all of us? Absurd. Chick will never see one of my dollars for their owner's bigoted views. I find it hard to believe they follow equal opportunity laws as well.

Fifa, there are enough dollars from people that respect the views of the owners of Chik-Fil-A. I just made a point of our family views not that our views represent all.

Take your lecture elsewhere, Chrissy.

This is about CFA and the owner's views, not anyone else.

Chris: Now see, I'll completely agree with you on this point.

People who are intolerant of religious folks are no better then the religious folks who continue to hold back homosexual 'marriage'.

PS: I had no idea it was "support Chic-Fil-A" day and I was on a computer for about 10 hours today. I'm suspecting they were 'packed' just because they usually are anyway. Unless Churches actually got involved in this, of course.

FIFA,
I did not think you would have the courage to answe that question. If you want to se intolerance, just look in the mirror. You can't even see that your reflexive reaction to one individual's point of view is itself intollerant. You, and people like you want to run this man out of business simply because he has a different opinion as you do.

I would still like an answer to my question because I'm convinced that you can't answer it without admitting you are intollerant of Muslims or be caught in a double standard where you feel is is ok to tolerate one person's religious beliefs, but not another.

Now would be a good time for your usual maneuver. Insult me to deflect the question and then change the subject.

Chris, it is called a straw man argument. Propose something ridiculous that no one is seriously proposing and try to make you own argument. That's your answer.

Make you happy Chrissy, dodge left, dodge right, you are a bigot. The difficult thing about being a bigot is just admitting it. It is not like it makes you a bad person.

Your analogy isn't complete. People are denouncing Chick Fil A because they donate to groups that advocate for specific government policy to define marriage based on religious beliefs that affect others but aren't those others' beliefs.

For your analogy to be complete, a business would have to be donating money to groups that advocate for specific government policy that force others to wear Hijabs when it isn't their belief that they should have to wear a Hijab.

As for your difference between bigotry and religious belief statement: one side is tolerant of the government allowing both "traditional" and homosexual marriage, and religions having their own definition of marriage (that the law specifically lays out language that will ensure those religions' rights are not infringed on). The other side is "simply intolerant" of the government allowing homosexual marriage, based on their religious or other cultural beliefs.

Thanks for being so predictable with your quick insult.

This is not a straw man argument. Since 9/11 there have been may news articles regarding alleged discrimination against Muslims due to their religious beliefs and customs. There is nothing ridiculous about that.

Mr. Cathy is being attacked for his religious beliefs.
You simply won't answer the question because it either exposes a double standard or the fact that you hold an intollerant view.

Re: bigot
Since you feel then need to lob verbal grenades, consider this. None of the positions I have outlined can be construed as bigoted. I happen to believe that same sex couples should have the exact same rights has heterosexual couples. I simply believe that we should also need to consider the religious views of others.

Muslim's uses religion to break laws just as others religions funnel there money to another country

Washington, D.C.

§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:

(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;

(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or

(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section apply only if the person was wearing the hood, mask, or other device:

"I happen to believe that same sex couples should have the exact same rights has heterosexual couples. I simply believe that we should also need to consider the religious views of others."

Chris, that's admirable For your own information and anyone else who has similar concerns, the law is written to embrace that very idea by specifically including language that ensures no religions are force to marry anyone they find it objectionable to perform a ceremony for.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/hb0438.htm

Feel free to read Section 2 of the pdf found there.

"an official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony may not be required to solemnize or officiate any particular marriage or religious rite of any marriage in violation of the right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the Maryland Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights. Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine, policy teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within that faith. An official of a religious order or body authorized to join individuals in marriage under 2–406(a)(2)(i) of the Family Law Article and who fails or refuses to join individuals in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for the failure or refusal."

@ATC Let put the whole law down, not just a part of it so that it fits your views. Here is the rest of the law and qualifier statements. What a shame it is that you do this.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Washington, D.C.)...
§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.....

(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of equal protection of the law or of equal privileges and immunities under the law, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of the United States or the District of Columbia from giving or securing for all persons within the District of Columbia equal protection of the law;

(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of his or her exercise of any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws, or to intimidate any person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws;

(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person;

(4) With the intent to cause another person to fear for his or her personal safety, or, where it is probable that reasonable persons will be put in fear for their personal safety by the defendant's actions, with reckless disregard for that probability; or

(5) While engaged in conduct prohibited by civil or criminal law, with the intent of avoiding identification.

I know the word 'discrimination" is grossly misused and misunderstood. When a male heterosexual chooses one woman for a marriage, he is discriminating against all other remaining women. Individuals and nations discriminate on a daily basis against anything that is harmful to him/her and a society, respectively. Even sincere homosexuals could admit how harmful, stressful, and suicidal their life style is when compared to heterosexuals. If a homosexual life style doesn't contribute anything equal or/and better than the majority of heterosexuals to a society but rather destroys a segment of a society, why should a responsible state or/and individuals should required to approve it? I believe homosexuals like others love their country and wants to have a healthy environment in which current and future generations would grow and prosper.If that is so, why do they encourage this harmful life style for themselves and a society? Even if we call it with any name they want, since there is an inherent problems in the life style, it won't be beneficial. Why not they be encouraged to get help in order to have a better future for themselves, current and future generations? A name change by itself doesn't solve the inherent problem now widely known by objective individuals and organizations. Don't take my words for it. Please google and see what a lot of former homosexuals and others say.

Very nice!

Wait! If Mr. Cathy is such a bigot, why would he choose a company who supports gay marriage? Could it be that his personal views are just that, personal?

Just maybe Pepsi has the same policy? He has got to have one of them.

"Wait! If Mr. Cathy is such a bigot, why would he choose a company who supports gay marriage? Could it be that his personal views are just that, personal?"

Making a lucrative business decision doesn't change the fact that Dan Cathy's business has donated large amounts of money to groups that endorse anti gay marriage policy. Using your personal profits is one thing - using your corporate profits is another.

Not to mention no one forced him to go on the radio and espouse his personal beliefs so publicly.

So, Coca Cola can donate to pro homosexual issues but Mr Cathy is somehow held to a different standard by the pigressives because he donate to traditional marriage and family causes? Intolerance is the work of the pigressives.

Bingo! 10 points for Joe. I would refer the rest of you to wiki to look up double standard.

Who is holding a double standard?

Individuals from anti-LGBT marriage groups made claims of boycotting J.C. Penny and Ben & Jerry's after those companies supported LGBT rights. These "traditional marriage" groups were perfectly in their rights to do just that and no one claimed they could not.

Now, Chik-Fil-A states their opposition to LGBT marriage, and suddenly the other side of the fence can't voice their dissent without being labeled as hypocrites? Somehow the hypocrisy does not seem to lay with the pro-LGBT crowd...

Thats why I got the milkshake.

Brook, did even ONE elected official talk of denying a permit to open a business to JC Penny or Ben and Jerry's? Just ONE? Get a clue dear.

"Somehow the hypocrisy does not seem to lay with the pro-LGBT crowd.."

Wrong! It does as well as the intolerance of others views.
The radical homosexual movement is THE most intolerant group today. And for such a tiny tiny minority they sure do get the attention they so desire.

The elected official has the right to voice their opinion, just like Mr. Cathay did.

If said official abuses their authority and ~does~ deny a permit based on Mr. Cathay's statements? Then they open themselves up for lawsuit and rightly so.

So far, all that has been put forth are a bunch of words, all of which are protected by the First Amendment. Until someone takes an action that violates Federal law (whether it be refusal to hire LGBT individuals or refusal to approve a legitimate business license), then nothing anyone does is illegal or "wrong".

Also, the fact that you just labeled LGBT groups as "radical" and "intolerant" speaks more for your personality and views than anything you have posted throughout this debate. You obviously have made up your mind and created a limited perception of the issues and the laws and there is no dragging you out of your schema.

I will not discuss this further with you as it is an act of futility.

"Brook, did even ONE elected official talk of denying a permit to open a business to JC Penny or Ben and Jerry's? Just ONE?"

Just so we're clear, a lot of progressives objected to elected officials making these claims because in this particular case the idea of the government (as opposed to individual citizens) restricting business based on a corporation's speech seemed to be a tenuous argument.

Examples of such protestations include:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-chick-fil-we-dont-do-that-here.html
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/26/rahm_emanuels_free_speech_attack/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/chik-fil-a-homophobes-have-rights-too

"You obviously have made up your mind and created a limited perception of the issues and the laws and there is no dragging you out of your schema."

And YOU Brook have not? More hypocrisy!

"Also, the fact that you just labeled LGBT groups as "radical" and "intolerant" "

Many have proven that to be a factual statement Brook. See the issue at hand! Get a clue.

"The radical homosexual movement is THE most intolerant group today."

To Brooks point... really, more intolerant than these guys? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Movement_%28United_States%29

Birds of a feather Corbin. Many share the same views.

"The radical homosexual movement is THE most intolerant group today."

"Birds of a feather Corbin. Many share the same views."

Which ones?

Which ones? How about this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFyPnvz-iI
Or this one, "On Sunday, November 9, 2008 Michigan liberals sat peacefully through announcements, worship and prayer for the sick, our nation and our President-elect before staging a coordinated, disgusting and repulsive attack on worshipers and the broader concept of the church itself at Lansing’s Mount Hope Church.

The lefties were a part of a liberal organization known as Bash Back Lansing and their collection of radical blogs, including one of the state’s most widely read “mainstream” progressive blogs (and none which will receive a link on this website) called on “queers and trannies” from across the state and the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an “action.”

…over 30 of them showed up in force yesterday. Wearing secret-service style ear pieces and microphones they received the “go” from their ringleader and off they went.

…Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. “Jesus was gay,” they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss."

So jerks interrupting church services are "the most intolerant", so by extension "more intolerant", than a group dedicated to Nazi values?

Just trying to be perfectly clear here.

"The radical homosexual movement is THE most intolerant group today. And for such a tiny tiny minority they sure do get the attention they so desire."

When the radical LGBT movement as you call them start bombing or shooting at anti-LGBT groups like some of the groups involved with the pro-life movement .... then we can talk about who is more radical or intolerant.The so called radical LGBT groups you speak of are no more radical or intolerant than your ultra religious groups (Christians, Muslims, (fill in religious group here...)) who supposedly have the right morals and believe in loving one another.

steven, you can do better than that.

The fact that the "older" you are the "less" acceptance of gay marriage you are is proof indoctrination "worked".

You see, you are not born disapproving of gay marriage, you have to be taught it is wrong, not the other way around.

Frank, why is Steven's level of education even relevant? Several leaders of this great country we live in were not "Educated" men.

"Frank, why is Steven's level of education even relevant?"

So he has some more info to make his childishly snide comments about him.

Someone heard the dog whistle.

Steven: No more then previous generations of 'indoctrination' that conditioned people to think otherwise.

LOL Frank I dont know what "Dog whistle" means. What does it mean?
Frank I think you and I can agree that your statement "most people who whine about "indoctrination" tend to have low levels of education themselves, and resentment towards those who have higher levels of education." is not very well thought out statement. Hmmm...SOME people who whine......
Please , what is your point of reference?

Frank, My level of education is sufficient to know your theory is baseless. I did not whine. I just stated a fact. You don't have to like it. It does not mean I whined. I have no resentment towards anyone with an education higher then mine. If I felt I needed an education higher then the one I have attained I would attain the education I felt I need. Just because you have an education does not mean you are not a buffoon.
FIFA, I am able to see right from wrong and know to when I see it. I did have to be taught consequences of my actions when doing wrong, but I was not taught gay marriage is wrong.

"The fact that the younger you are the more acceptance of gay marriage you are is proof indoctrination works."

"I just stated a fact."

That is not fact, that is opinion. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

No one has denied anyone their First Amendment rights. Everyone has the right to voice their own opinion. The CEO of Chik-Fil-A did just that and now people who do not agree with him are voicing their own.

The First Amendment protects the individual's right to speak their mind. It does not protect them from the consequences of what they say.

Godwin's Law alert.

There is a difference in consequences of speaking ones mind in a free society and a government official denying free trade as a result of someone speaking their mind.

And if those government officials perform any action that does limit free trade, then let the lawsuits begin. Until that point, it is two groups on either side of the fence just yelling at each other.

Again, no one has restricted anyone else's First Amendment rights. If anything, both sides are using them to their fullest.

Well Brook, the terms are perfectly descriptive and used in total context. When elected officials act like fascists that is what I will call them. No "civilized" American elected person would have said what they did.
Fight fire with fire my friend.

As for The Patch's ToS? When The Patch decides to follow it others will as well.
It is not up to you to decide but the Patch thank you monitor Brook. NOTHING I posted violates any of the rules.

@Joe with all due respect. Brook has a point, your perfectly descriptive terms take away from your perfectly valid arguments.

SN: I get a chuckle out of your perfectly descriptive terms. :-)

Your statement suggests that Democrats are the only political group behaving like fascists, which completely ignores the behavior of most politicians (regardless of affiliation).

You also claim that anyone who elects anyone you do not agree with is "uncivilized", again a statement full of fallacy and offense.

And finally, it is up to the community to help the monitors do their job. Just like the Police cannot help if you do not call, Patch editors and monitors cannot help if you do not bring incidents to their attention. If you cannot find the Terms of Service, then I direct you here: http://hyattsville.patch.com/terms

"You also claim that anyone who elects anyone you do not agree with is "uncivilized", "

That is just more pigressive, yes PIGressive nonsense. I was clear dear that only those elected officials who would say what those Mayors and Alderman said were uncivilized. You stretched that to suit your preconceived notions of someone else. I was specific.

I like your point of view, Mr. Burton. It makes perfect sense. It doesn't really matter. Let people marry, if they want to. There are more important things to worry about.

Mr. Burton... You rock!

Frank, do you deny that story or just want to bash the blogger?

Did the site make up that video Frank? Is it a fraud Frank?

Please, you aren't seriously going to just label the left "intolerant" alone, are you?

Because I could really crank out some hate spewing from your Pope, and it likely wouldn't take long. Intolerance is a sad fact of our entire society and it starts from the vast majority of our leaders. It's a shame.

Although I do find it rather fascinating, only from a stereotypical/generalization perspective, that this happened in a state like West Virigina

@Tim I think you struck a nerve here. :-)

Martinsburg, WV is ~not~ part of the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area. Although there are commuters to the BWMA, the official designation (per the 2000 census) does not include Berkeley County. Only Hampshire County, as part of the Winchester Metropolitan Area, is considered part of the BWMA.

Martinsburg (and Berkeley County) is joined with Hagerstown as part of a different metropolitan area. They are separated from the BWMA by geography, population, and connecting infrastructure. On a completely unrelated note, I highly recommend visiting these two towns as they are rich in history and interesting attractions.

Hey, I'm not judging any part of the state one way or the other. That was why I included the qualifier. West Virginia isn't exactly the first place you think of when the term "leftists" is thrown out there, that's all.

Your answer is because people are not comfortable with those who dont look, smell, think, feel, and do as they do. Humans are community creatures and will naturally gather and support those that are like them and repel those that are different. This is the problem in a nutshell.
If you dont believe me just stop and look around you.

Jungle animals have more morals than humans.

...and you know this because you are best friends with him , correct?

@Joe... who exactly is "them" and correct me if I am wrong but isn't changing one's mind part of being a human being and learning. Perhaps he saw something in his children that he had not seen before and therefore he changed his view. Also he may not internally change but he may see the fact that change is coming and he needs to either piss of get off the pot (as they say)

Bill, I agree with you that there are some serious problems with people doing exactly what they are fighting against. There is always going to be extremists in the world. Gays. Straights, KKK Members, African-Americans... any type of person can become extreme in their thinking. The problem, I see is that when you are "thrown under the bus" for so long sometimes you end up fighting back. It may not be right but is taking the abuse right instead?

How do LGBT groups, homosexual and heterosexuals or African Americans possibly equate to groups like the KKK?

Yeah, everyone can be a jerk sometimes, but the KKK specifically is a group founded on the principles of denying others rights. None of the other groups you mentioned are anywhere close to that. Anyone can become extreme in their thinking, but only one of them starts with a position of hate.

"The problem, I see is that when you are "thrown under the bus" for so long sometimes you end up fighting back. It may not be right but is taking the abuse right instead?"

Who is inflicting the abuse? Who is throwing who under the bus? I'd like to understand what this actually means.

Corbin... Extremists. I am referring to extremists. There are extreme factions of all people. There are gay extremists, and religious extremists. Black Extremists, White Extremists (i,.e KKK) ~~ My comment was that the majority of people couldn't care less but the extreme members of the groups are the ones that are throwing others under the bus (it is a figure of speech). Like someone who is abused for so long, sometimes instead of doing the right thing, they fight back. Gays have been the abused for many years, as the black community was before... after a while you get sick of it and you begin to fight back.

Only the opposition calls it "Gay Marriage." the rest of us call it "Marriage Equality."

You mean that same law that last year President Obama instructed the Justice Department to "no longer vigorously defend"?

You are correct. DOMA, Section 3 (Definition of Marriage) currently says "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

We should note, however, that DOMA Section 3 was found unconstitutional by Federal courts and is currently on its way to the Supreme Court. Even President Clinton and several of the originating legislators now agree the legislation is wrong. When Federal legislation is found to be unconstitutional, we should pay heed and not cling to it because of our own desires or prejudices.

In response to your question about why we should call it a different name, why can we not call it the same name? As I've already posted, "marriage" predates Christianity and has been used in a secular form since Ancient Rome.

In addition, to say that only one set of religious groups can define "marriage" is a violation of the Constitution as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Thus, Congress is not allowed to legislate what marriage is in a way that supports a singular religious view of the term.

@Mark Patro
The opposition doesn't want to call it a "marriage." The majority of heterosexuals want the homosexuals to call their union with a different name. As calling our branches of the federal government with three different names but remain equal, calling homosexual relationships with a different name won't make them unequal. Even as of know, homosexuals have equal right like heterosexuals. They can get married to those of opposite sex like heterosexuals. If they prefer to have a different sexual preference, they still have it as a civil union etc. The problem is they want to call it a "marriage." Heterosexuals don't want to share the term marriage which has been known since recorded human history as a union between a man and a woman with others. This is a battle that would continue. The increased militancy and hatred by the LGBT Community against those who don't approve their life styles that we have observed for over the last two years have a great potential to backfire. I pray for this community to be fully aware of the danger of their own life styles and for heterosexuals to be able to show them love so that they could be rescued before destroying themselves. Those who simply tolerate the harmful homosexual life styles are not the best friends of LGBT community.

It's the law until it is stuck down

"The majority of heterosexuals want the homosexuals to call their union with a different name."

Polling suggests this is false.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/poll-gay-marriage-support_n_830858.html

From 2011 last year, it shows that support for gay marriage is about equal. Moreover, it cites these two polls:

"CBS News asked a three-way question in August 2010, and found that 40% support allowing same-sex marriage, 30% support civil unions, and 25% do not support any legal recognition of gay marriage. Support for allowing gay marriage was up from 30% in 2008 and 22% since they began asking the question in 2004."

and

"Fox News asked a three-way question in August of 2010 and found that 37 percent of registered voters supported legal marriage, 29 percent supported some other form of legal partnership, and 28 percent favored no legal recognition. Support for marriage was up from 33 percent in 2009 and from 20 percent since Fox began asking the question in 2004."

The majority in both these cases supports and is trending towards further supporting marriage.

"Scientists have concluded that there is no a gay gene. Homosexuality is a sexual preference and not orientation."

Completely false. There are many scientific findings about the heritability of homosexuality:

The original study by Hamer, Magnuson, and Pattatucci (1993) found a correlation between the genetic marker Xq28 and gay male sexuality, a finding that has remained the core basis for the "gay gene" claim.

Whitam, Diamond, and Martin (1993) concluded, “In both studies [i.e., Whitam et al.'s and Bailey & Pillard's] the rates of concordance for MZ [monozygotic] twins is sufficiently high as to suggest a strong biological basis for sexual orientation in MZ and DZ [dizygotic] twins” (p. 203).

Kirk, Bailey, Dunne, and Martin (2000) performed a study of twins and found that genes were likely to affect feelings and fantasies directed towards same-sex partners. A follow up study by Kirk, Bailey, and Martin (2000) revealed again that genetic influences accounted for variances in sexual orientation.

A couple of studies suggested that while the evidence of a "gay gene" is questionable, "there is evidence that genetic controls are involved: for example,
human twins are more likely both to be gay compared with non-identical brothers; and male homosexuality is more often inherited maternally, indicating that heritable maternal effects and/or genes linked to the X chromosome are in operation (Camperio-Ciani, Corna, & Capiluppi, 2004; Gavrilets & Rice, 2006)".

Wilson and Rahman (2008) declare that ‘‘Research efforts to identify psychosocial factors in the development of sexual orientation have turned up virtually nothing. In fact, the ‘research’ is often not actually research in the scientific sense’’ and ‘‘such views of the origins of human sexual orientation are just plain wrong’’ (p. 30). Later, they conclude ‘‘…we have shown that social factors play no appreciable role in the development of sexual orientation’’ (p. 146).

Camperio-Ciani, A., Corna, F. & Capiluppi, C. (2004). Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 271(1554), 2217-2221.

Gavrilets, S. & Rice, W. R. (2006). Genetic models of homosexuality: generating
testable predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 273, 3031-3038.

Hamer, D., Magnuson, H., & Pattatucci, A. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321–327.

Kirk, K., Bailey, J., Dunne, M., & Martin, N. (2000). Measurement models for sexual orientation in a community twin sample. Behavior Genetics, 30, 345–356.

Kirk, K., Bailey, J., & Martin, N. (2000). Etiology of male sexual orientation in an Australian twin sample, Psychology. Evolution & Gender, 2, 301–311.

Whitam, F. L., Diamond, M., & Martin, J. ( 1993). Homosexual orientation in twins: A report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 187– 207.

Wilson, G., & Rahman, Q. (2008). Born gay: The psychobiology of sex orientation (2nd ed.). London, UK: Peter Owen, Ltd.

So homosexuality IS a genetic defect! Not unlike Downs or Sickle Cell.

The first reference, "Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men" is 15 years out-of-date and comes from a time when HIV was a far greater threat. Since then, not only has modern medicine made leaps in preventing death from HIV, the LGBT community is far more aware of how to prevent spread of the disease.

The second reference, "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples" is another subjective piece from a special interests organization. It is not peer-reviewed and also quotes statistics from studies without understanding the difference between correlation and causation.

The third reference, "A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people" is a proper study. It correctly assesses the negative psychological disorders that affect LGBT individuals. Again, though, correlation does not mean causation. Being homosexual is no more proven to cause mental disorders than being Black is proven to cause criminal behavior, despite high correlations among both.

The fourth reference, "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" is an interesting read. However, it is not peer-reviewed and was commissioned by a religious organization which questions its credibility.

The fifth reference, "Vermont's gay civil unions mostly affairs of the heart" is a news article and holds no scientific credibility.

So, out of five references, you have one peer-reviewed study that was misinterpreted as a causal relationship by the ministerial article that referenced it. I ask again, do you have a valid, reliable, and peer-reviewed study that shows that LGBT relationships directly cause negative sociopsychological consequences?

An article in the Journal of Marriage and Family noted the fallacies of previous studies that ignored the presence of major family transitions, possibly referring to Regnerus' work. This study concluded that, although "traditional" families did better in education than many "non-traditional" families, the exception was same-sex parent families (Potter, 2012). CSSP did not show any statistically significant drop in education outcomes when you took into account family transitions (including separation of previously heterosexual parents).

Another article actually supports my criticisms, referencing Regnerus' study directly (Eggebeen, 2012). This work does not make any direct conclusions, only highlighting the problems with previous studies. The author brings up stress faced by same-sex parents and their families, including anti-gay sentiments, lack of social support networks, and other factors I mentioned. In the end, he only questions the studies out there and notes a lack of conclusive data.

A third article is even more direct, stating that Regnerus' study runs the risk of having its data taken out of context and used in anti-LGBT agenda (Amato, 2012). This article again highlights the same factors I mentioned above, including divorce, a lack of consistent home life, etc. Amato is vehement that Regnerus' study not be used to determine civil rights, especially since it is not valid when looking at same-sex parents in a supportive environment raising a child from infancy or birth.

In essence, things seem to be where they were before. There is no conclusive evidence that same-sex parents directly lead to negative psychological or social development in children. Any negative development is more likely to be caused by social factors which questions whether it is the individual who is "wrong" or the society.

Amato, P. R. (2012, June). The well-being of children with gay and lesbian parents. Social Science Rsearch, 41(4), 771-774.

Eggebeen, D. J. (2012, June). What can we learn from studies of children raised by gay or lesbian parents? Social Science Research, 41(4), 775-778.

Potter, D. (2012, June). Same-sex parent families and children's academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(3), 556-571.

Weslie - If we write laws "to call it something different" then we are setting up a "separate but equal" situation. The Supreme Court declared that laws like that unconstitutional with the their ruling in Brown vs. The Board of Education in 1954. So if we did that, our new law would also be declared unconstitutional. It also wont work because the two different created classes would not possibly stay equal even if they were created that way on day one. Someone would find a clever way to alter one or the other, and with each additional change they would become less equal. I really believe that folks who promote the idea of "calling it something else" just do not belief that we are all equal. I don't want to attack you on a personal level. I don't do that here because its not debate, so I will just ask: Do you (and I'm guessing you are heterosexual) feel like you are better than gay people?

@Sharon Shoemaker Three are ample evidences online and offline that show a lot of former homosexuals who have become heterosexuals. My be I might have overlooked, I don't see my response to you posted. please go to this website, that could serve as a sample answer for your question. http://www.newswithviews.com/psychology/psychology2.htm

Gosh, so simple. The law of the "land" was slavery was legal. The law of he land was women could not vote. The law of the land was separate but equal. Those were all "majority" positions.

You do know the recognized words ~have~ been changed for hundreds of years, and that's not even including entire shifts in a given language over a millenia.

Also, who is to say that Christianity has sole rights to the word? After all, the word did not originate in Christian lexicon and has been used to represent the unions of a variety of non-Abrahamic cultures (including Hindu, Buddhism, and the various indigenous faiths outside of Europe). Shouldn't they have a say in what the word means, considering they outnumber Christians across the world?

Who is changing what your marriage defines as religion? Is your religion Christianity (which is defined by the words in the Bible) or the worship of the United States government (which is defined by its legislation)?

If your worship is the former, no one is changing the Bible... at least, not anymore than it's already been changed with over 450 English translations and revisions.

If you worship the latter, then you are not following Christianity and the point is moot.

car ran, your ignorance is simply pathetic. It would be the same as me calling the Bible Bubbly. Gosh so revolting. You are a pig.

@FIFA arent you the kettle calling the pot black. One with intelligence might try to enlighten not condemn one for their lack of knowledge.

Qu' ran

@Brian C - you're wrong. Anyone using the term "car ran" deserves ridiculing, which at first I was not sure if the person was ignorant or insulting. Enlighten that.

@FiFA
It is quite possible that I am wrong about if Wes knowledge base. I still stand by my statement though.

Moreover, no one is changing the bible so it's irrelevant.

@ Jon here is the scripture you requested but I am sure it can be questioned as can most things in the bible
Genesis 2.24

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2.24) ~~ Okay so correct me if I am wrong, where is the word marriage in that sentence. I do not see the word marriage.

And in fact~ The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. (The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife." The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."

So correct me if i am wrong, but the word MARRIAGE does in fact NOT show up in the bible.

@Jon
My understand is that the word marriage shows up 19 times. So I guess that does correct your wrongness(may not be a word). In KJ version Exo 21:10 is just one.

@Jon
When two people get married, you would have to agree that they become one of flesh and spirit, wouldnt you?
You draw your own conclusion from that.

I stand corrected Brian. You are correct that marriage does in some version of the bible (and there seems to be many) appear.

You did make an interesting point. "When two people get married, you would have to agree that they become one of flesh and spirit, wouldnt you? " -- Two people. Not a man & a woman. But two people. And any couple who believe in the sanctity of a union (or marriage) can become one in flesh and spirit.

and neither could my mother and father (my mom had cancer at age 19 and lost her ability to have ANY children-- we were both adopted)... So should they have NOT been able to marry since you say the main purpose is to have children?

Civil unions for all. Get the Goverment out of the marriage business. I think gay and straight couples should be treated the same by the government. Leave marriage to religion.

Weslie, that is not a response to the question. We want to know what passage in the Bible specifically defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Saying "it is the whole book" and "phrases like that in the books" is not answering, it is deflecting.

Do you or do you not have a specific passage in the Bible that clearly defines marriage as solely between man and woman? Yes or no. If yes, please provide the passage.

I don't think you will find anything in the bible that clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Though it is certainly assumed since there are many passages that speak about the "abomination" of males laying with males.

All of the above is pointless in this debate however because the religous issue does not matter one bit regarding what should be equal rights in the eyes of the government. A Christian can believe all day long that gays are going to hell, but their view should not prevent a gay couple from enjoying the same spousal rights as a straight couple.

The difficulty is a symatecal argument around the term marriage.

The semantical argument around the term marriage for you may not involve the bible, but for many (example, weslie here) it certainly does.

I pointed out earlier that the law preserves religious' groups rights to define marriage as they see fit in regards to their ceremonies. I also pointed out there are already concepts that religion and government define differently (adulthood), so having separate definitions of marriage isn't unusual. Multiple wives is actually an example of where some religions and government already differ on what Marriage is. Given that those in favor of this law have added the above language, and marriage wouldn't be exceptional as a term with different religious and governmental meanings, why is this still such a crux?

@ Brook Genesis 2.24

Ok, so let’s looks at look at this: “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh…”
Nowhere in this verse does it say this is the only way it can happen. And secondly, it makes no allowance for children who are raised by a single mother, single father or a child raised by her grandparent.
This example is weak at best. What else do you have?

Actually Mark..
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
Lets first say without a mother and a father there is no child. So whether a child is RAISED in a single parent household or by his G parents is irrelevant.
Second, to use your argument, no where does it say this isnt the only way it can happen. One thing for sure it doesnt say there is another way.
Can you show where it says another way?

"Actually", I copied those words directly out of the Bible I use. (New Revised Standard Version, Anglicized Version, Oxford Press). So you may quote a different version and that helps prove that there are different perspectives on Biblical wording and translations.

An no, I cannot say that there is evidence any where in the Bible about any variation on that description of one relationship. My point being there are variations in many aspects of our lives that are not illustrated. But then since nowhere the Bible does it specifically say "marriage does not include same-sex couples" we cannot say one version is more acceptable than the other. In the end "Marriage" is a word that global cultural uses as the ultimate respect for a relationship between two people. The word is an indication of the couple's commitment to each other.

@Mark
I can respect that point of view. I am not an expert on the bible nor did I stay at a holiday inn last night. We all have various opinions and I am always willing to listen to those opinions. Cheers

oh ...except from FIFA ......(J/K)

FIFA. We are actually trying to have a decent conversion here... I really want to understand the others... Comments like that really are uncalled for. But alas freedom of speech is yours to do with how you want as I am passionate about it.

FIFI is a natural ass..

Grow up Brook, you get what you tolerate. Tolerate garbage you will get more of it. Your elitist policy of negotiating with nuts gets you nowhere. That is just what the other "side" will tell you.

Given that brook has done a heck of a lot of the argumentative heavy lifting in this thread, it's clear he isn't tolerating or negotiating anything.

Corry I grant you that and recognize all the heavy lifting Brook has done. However, you never negotiate with terrorists. Period.

Inalienable Human Rights are non-negotiable, he should stand his ground in order to have a reversative impact because I, and many like me, will work for the inclusion of all people until our last breath.

Agreed, Mark.

When it comes to human rights I refuse, refuse, to negotiate with bigots and racists like you Chris W. I know what you say amongst your "friends", you are a bigot and a racist that can't just admit it. Simply disgusting.

Sorry Chrissy, not only higher than your double nickel, but you are an embarrassment to humans.

Your comments remain weak FIFI...revealing clearly the fact that you have surrendered shamefully to yet another topic. You are a disgrace to the LGBT community... no wonder you are ashamed of your real name...please add a little substance to a post one time...just to let us know you have a little...

You are the LGBT bigot and racist working against the cause and you don't even realize it. Pretty sure that you would be the last picked for any team or cause...

Buckaroo - actually the real name stuff concerns me 'cause of the fruitcakes that troll around here wanting guns and threatening to shoot people for littering.

That said Buckaroo - you should be ashamed of using your real name alongside your tax protesting - 16th amendment - garbage you spew.

PS - as Frank said, you surrendered another dollar to me.

So one idiotic man who makes an ass of himself on camera means that he is part of the rapers and murderers and overdosed violent occupiers. By the way, if you overdose, 90% of the time you are too "stoned" to do anything violent. Imajustayin'

Yup! All vote for progressives.

The radical homosexual intolerant gangs are attempting to criminalize believing in and supporting the age old traditional marriage and family. America showed the other day how they feel. they will carry that into the voting booth on Nov 6.

And this is Dan Cathy's and his company's right. If you dont like it dont shop there. It really is that simple.

Brian, it is not that simple. These groups want to use the force of law if they can't win at the ballot box. The radicals will not stop. their mantra is 'by any means necessary'.

Ok Joe,
explain please. These groups refer to who? Who are the radicals?

Reading is fundamental.

So Joe.. People who read are the radicals? OH NO!

But seriously, So 40 years ago, the majority was against interracial marriage and yet now-a-days it is almost second nature. Do you consider THAT radical? Or what about separation of blacks & whites. The majority at one time felt they should not be allowed to co-mingle. Is that radical? How about slavery... They abolished it... is that radical?

"So Joe.. People who read are the radicals? OH NO!"

hahahahaha you are one funny boy.

no answer Joe? I was being serious.

And yet, Joe still didn't answer my question. Must not have one. Oh well. Stupid is is Stupid Does.

I would note that the original Hebrew text is very similar, except two words are not accurately translated: "united" and "wife". The word representing an enjoining with the wife is more accurately translated as "to adhere" (v-da-vaq) while the term used for the woman is closer to "his woman" (b-iysh-to). Thus, "united to his wife" actually means" adhere to his woman".

A direct translation of Hebrew would read the passage as

"Upon so when the man leaves his father and his mother, he will adhere to his woman for the unified flesh."

The intent can be argued, but it should be clear: A) There is no word that represents "marriage" or defines it in this passage and B) This passage is used to explain where woman came from and why (in those "modern" times) when men left their parents they went to be with a woman.

cool analysis, Brook. Just curious ...what is the definition of marriage? Is marriage not a union?
KJ version is where I got my quote. The word it uses is CLEAVE.
The passage also explains a relationship between man and woman. One would need to read the entire chapter to get that. This is the problem with religious documents. They can not be taken literally and they are open to interpretation.
One asked for the verse so I provided it.
I may not be the correct one to argue this point, as I am by far no expert on Christianity or the bible. But I can try for sake of gaining more knowledge from others on both sides of the issue.

You just defeated your own battle Brian. You said "they cannot be taken literally and they are open to interpretation" -- EXACTLY! Marriage IS a union. So why can a same sex couple not use the same word MARRIAGE if it just means UNION as you just yourself stated.

@Jon
LOL no battle here for me. I want to read others views on this issue.
Why must same sex couples use the word Marriage? Why not use some other word?

Brian C.--> why do you insist that gays and lesbians are something "other"? If we become willing to use some other word, we in effect, would be allowing the majority to "otherize" us. This is inappropriate in a country where we are exactly the same except for our sexual orientation.

I dont believe I ever insisted that gays and lesbians are something "other", did I?

"Why must same sex couples use the word Marriage? Why not use some other word?"

1) Existing laws use the term Marriage. To grant the same rights afforded to existing heterosexual couples, all those laws would need to be updated. Gay couples are experiencing pain now. For example, they aren't allowed in hospital rooms during times of emergency because they're not considered family, and they're not granted insurance benefits because the law doesn't require it, putting them at financial risk in extreme medical situations. Given that harm, it seems petty to argue about language.

2) Separate but equal has not been considered valid by courts for a long time.

3) The government and religions already have different definitions for concepts besides marriage. An easy example would be adulthood. Many religions have ceremonies for adulthood that occur way before the government's definition of 18.

4) The law already affords a level of separation by ensuring no Religious leader faces any fine or penalty for marrying a couple if it goes against their religious beliefs. I talked about that in this post above on the thread and pointed to the actual text of the law: http://bethesda.patch.com/articles/age-same-sex-marriage-and-maryland#comment_4196544

Given all this, the onus really is on those making the argument - why is the use of the word marriage so problematic?

It doesn't appear that you suggested that in a direct statement, but you have to put on the shoes of people in my community. I am trying to tell you, from personal experience, how minorities think. When you want to disallow us to "join in" you are putting us outside the circle of inclusion. When "Blacks" were made to drink from a separate fountain or go to a different school they were made into "an other". When you want gays and lesbians to use some other word you are effectively suggesting they/we are something other. So Yes, you indirectly indicated that gay & lesbians people should be satisfied with being otherized.

Which definition of marriage do you want?

Christian definition (as written in the bible)?
Does not exist, as we have noted.

English definition (per Merriam-Webster)?

1- a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
1-b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
1-c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Original Definition (Ancient Rome) -
Marītus, as a noun, meant husband, lover, or a male animal.
Mātrimōnium, as a noun, meant a marriage involving (or overseen by) a mother (or mother-to-be).
In regard to Roman culture, even if most marriages were man and woman, there were exceptions and a number of same-sex marriages did occur with all the binding ritual of any other (Williams, 1999).

Williams, C. (1999). Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA.

hmmm.....@Mark I think you read more in to my question "Why not use some other word?". I really wanted to know the reason. I wasnt saying it to express some feeling. It is funny how we put tone in to what we are reading.
@Corbin
Good question I wonder why the word marriage is so problematic?
@Brook
I want your definition to marriage. :-)

@Brook If you believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible, from the beginning of creation up until now, I have not seen any Bible verse that supports homosexuality. The Bible clearly condemns sodomy. I wish homosexuality is as you are trying to present it on this website. Please recheck your facts.The Bible is very clear about homosexuality being against God's will -- something we should not practice.

In the Old Testament God says it very clearly and plainly:

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." (NLT - Old Testament).. There are ample verses in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. In the New Testament, a portion of Romans 1:21-27 says"...That is why God abondoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." (NLT - New Testament).

@Brook
ok it is CFC now
I can respect that ....

I would have to agree with you on the religious aspect. That is personal and the Gov. has no business in there.

I just had a thought. If the SSM is passed/ defined, All couples would have the same rights. They would be allowed in hospital rooms during times of emergency , and they would be granted insurance benefits because the law allowed it and such.
How do you stop people from just getting married to just take advantage of the law? I dont think this is a valid reason for not having it passed ..I am just asking.

"How do you stop people from just getting married to just take advantage of the law? I dont think this is a valid reason for not having it passed ..I am just asking."

We don't stop heterosexuals from getting married for convenience, so why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed to.

sometime the convenience is in not getting married. as in, two old people living together while one or both collect the pension money of a dead spouse.

@Corbin
The question was not ask with the sexuality in mine. That is why I used the word 'people'.

@Mark
That is so true.

sad isnt it.
Cant we all just get along.

Since you want to bring up stats that have nothing to do with CFA or this article, how many homosexuals died from being infected by their partners who did not tell them they had a deadly disease. How many died because they take the chance of death for an hour romp in the bed?

Wrong Joe - it is not the point of my reply to bring up stats of the hate espoused by anti-abortionists, the point was to show you who is really violent. Graffiti as despicable as it is defacing someone's property probably doesn't quite measure up to murder and burnings, does it?

HIV is not a gay mans disease. How antiquated are you? So you are telling me someone like Ryan White died cause he had a "romp"... ??? What about the faithful wife who had a cheating husband?

And those who are pro- Marriage Equality are not anti-family as the right continues to use in their propaganda. Lesbians as, another study shows raise better socially oriented children than do hetero couple because they are led by two moms....

after this post i will stop reading. I cannot find these posts any more on the long line of comments. Its wasting my time now. I will be voting for for The Civil Marriage Protection Act in November. If you would like to help spread that message go here: http://www.facebook.com/LightBrigadeMaryland

TWoreti, please go elsewhere with your simply pathetic hate. I understand you wish to stone those not like you, just go away with your hate masqueraded by your "studies". You are not going to "correct" the LGBT community because their is nothing wrong with them or how they treat people. You are disgusting.

FIFI is showing his abundant liberal tolerance again.

Chrissy, stick it in your ear. TWoreti is having a party, go join that.

Tolerate your hate, never, period.

FIFI, I see you're been at it all day. Sorry, us grown ups had to go to work today.

Again, I ask you to point out one comment of mine that indicates hatred.

I'll let others judge you. You will mature one day, maybe, maybe not, on second thought.

"And those who are pro- Marriage Equality are not anti-family as the right continues to use in their propaganda."

And those who are pro-traditional Marriage are not anti-homosexual as the left continues to use in their propaganda.

Ah Buck, stop crying about speech you don't like. Are you embarrased for being called out as a tax protester? You would scream likeva stuck pig if your voice was silenced. I don't have comments deleted because my posts are pure. I despise those who hate others for the color of their skin or their choice of partners. Are you a bigot or a racist? What happened, unhappy hour start for you?

PS - have you surrendered?

Frank, I searched the Internet for every acronym named AOL, it sounded familiar, is it one of these? Maybe the last one, although I haven't used it, it accuses of being abused regularly.

AOL Art of Living
AOL Angel of Light
AOL Adventure of Link (video game; sequel to The Legend of Zelda)
AOL Application Object Library
AoL Army of Light (Starwars Galaxies guild)
AOL Age of Legends (Wheel of Time Series)
AOL Airborne Oceanographic LIDAR
AOL Absent Over Leave (See AWOL)
AOL Área de Olho de Lombo
AOL area of limitation (US DoD)
AOL All Operator Letter (airline industry)
AOL Assyria on Line
AOL Asynchronous On-Line (training)
AOL Algebra of Limits (mathematical analysis)
AOL Acronym Over Load
AOL Alarm on LAN
AOL Aircraft Operating Limit
AOL Archers of Loaf (band)
AOL Academy of Our Lady
AOL America Online, Inc.
AOL Ass On Loose (Buckaroo)

If you play your games on Patch you use AOL ..like it or not...surrender is not an option.

Good morning Buck.

Good morning Frank, wow did I find a lot of acronyms for AOL.

Buck's already here this morning too.

Buck, you have way too much time on your hands. I like Frank, he's funny. Can't marry Frank, that would be polygamy and against the law.

Lack of education is not descriptive of me. Failing for the education to stick could be an another personal accusation you can make.

As someone once said, maybe you, a little bit of the kettle calling...........

An introduction to our BFF B Allen is in order.

C'mon Chris, one, I am not a troll any more than you are. Secondly, that is way too much work logging in and out. Lastly, I am better looking than Frank. ;-))

Sorry Frank, I found it. It is in Canada!

http://www.mediahqs.net/

How can a heterosexual possibly understand homosexuality? From an experiential perspective its like a person who identifies as male with physical and psychologically male trying to "know" what being female "is". I just don't think it is possible. So how can you make the statement: "The fundamental cause for homosexual practice is a serious lack of confidence in ones masculinity". Homosexuality is explicitly an orientation, and the reason people like Tworeti cannot understand a homosexual orientation is because he/she is oriented differently and is in denial about biological diversity in this area.

its just "Marriage" and we are including a broader range of relationships. It really is that simple.

But it is modified marriage in reality Mark....really....without the modification it just could and would not be...hence, the proper term of " Modified Marriage". Truthful and accurate.

I'll go along with "evolved marriage"

"Modified Marriage" would be considered a result of devolution not evolution.
Evolution is not man made.

first of all I have never made being gay conclusive by tying it to a "gay gene". It doesn't matter to me if there is a gay gene or not. Being gay is a natural variation in sexual orientation and it occurs in many (more than 200 documents species) that's good enough scientific documentation for me.

TWoreti... you do know that when a sperm and an egg meet they create a child. And that child is GENDER-LESS until the ebb and flow of GENETICS come into play. If you go by creation begins and conception then you have to know that a baby is gender neutral. The baby does not have a gender for 7-10 days!

there are indeed scientific indicators that have an influence on sexual orientation. I'm not interested in debating this topic. you are simply wrong and you are only looking at the pseudo science that "reparative therapy" pushers use. You are entitled to your beliefs, but there is only one truth. Homosexual is a normal variation on sexual orientation an it is immoral to discriminate on that basis just as it is immoral to discriminate on the basis of skin color or the basis of sex.

Mark, it looks like you are talking to Michele Bachmann's husband. Thus you are wasting your time. Talk to your chair, it too is also hard of hearing and lacks the ability to comprehend.

You tried honorably.

TWoreti, Great information from reliable sources in all of your posts, you have successfully proven your points with reason and at the same time reduced FIFI and Frank to their comfort zone of one liners.
Thank you

Can you say, intimidation.

Perhaps they have already begun building the "re-education camps"

FOIA

I plugged my street name into the database. Only two people on my street have signed the petition. They are kinda Odd Cods anyway.
I looked up a couple of my ultra Conservative buddies and I was surprised that they didn't sign it.

Genesis 1:26 is one of the most often mistranslated passages. The original Hebrew is actually "And the Great Powerful One filled the man with a representation of himself".

The word וַיִּבְרָא or Vay-Yeev-Rah is not "to create" but "to fill" or "to fatten".

The word בְּצַלְמֹו or Beh-Tsahl-Mo is not "in his image" but "a shadow or representation of him".

Also, to declare the Bible as objective is complete fallacy. There is not a philosopher, scientist, or reasonable person who sees the Bible as objective. The Bible consists of the Old Testament (a series of books written over 500 years by various people) and the New Testament (a series of books written over 50 years by various people). It has been translated into English ~450~ times, with many historical translations (such as the King James version) purposefully changing words to fit the agenda of the Church at that time.

According to critical thinking, you cannot declare the text in the Bible to be true absent the judgment of an individual nor given the subject or situation at a given era or time. The Bible is only true according to a given person reading a given translation and taking into context a given situation or period. Thus, it is not objective.

James. I have a question for you that no one seems to have the answer for. Perhaps you can enlighten me. You say that "sexual pleasure... also for reproductive purposes. " I was adopted. You see my mom had cancer at age 19 and lost 80% of her uterus and both of her ovaries. She ended up meeting and marrying my father. If you say that the reason for marriage is to reproduce etc etc. Would you be against their marriage? Would you say that they could not or should not have married?
Also... You say that Eve came from Adams rib. Now in the bible they begat Cane & Abel right? Who then did Cane & Abel marry in order to be fruitful and multiply? If it was Adam...then Eve... then Cane... then Abel.... Where did the rest of them come from?

@ Jon. Lovely point. One that many, many Christians won't touch. They know it proves the falsehood of the Bible. Here is how Christians as I have heard answer that nowadays (because they have to add progress to the Bible since Darwin destroyed its whole theme and tales and many people stopped drinking the kool-aide).

Christian friends of mine NOW say: "The Earth was full of primitive, lawless, moral-less humans prior to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were the first "chosen" people of God sent forth to carry his word and too bring civility to the Earth's humans. Cane and Able were the first vessels of God to merge with primal woman to start a population of God fearing, civilized, moral humans. It had to be this way because Adam and Eve were too pure with God's energy. Humanity could only evolve in God's path through the mixture of pure (Cane and Able) and primal mankind. Cane of course committed crimes of jealousy; hence, launching the message that no human is perfect, so they must seek forgiveness from God."

Your Bible is your belief. However, you do realize that is was translated during a period of serious feudal law, corruption and murder? It was falsely translated under the guide of corrupt kings for the purpose of confusing and controlling the masses to do their will. FACT!
I am very educated in classical Greek and some Hebrew. I have personally seen and translated some famous New Testament verses from the TRUE classical Greek text to English. The Bible is 100% fraudulent with regards to the translation you read today. Throughout the New Testament it Never mentions "one God". There is a God whom is father to Jesus and there are many other Gods as well with Earth sent messengers.
I would suggest you take 4 years of classic (Ancient Greek) then find the actual scanned images of the True Greek written New Testament and translate for yourself. Your Bible is very incorrectly translated to empower certain kings 500+ years ago.

That is not the translation of the original Greek. The original Greek states Τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, πόρνους γὰρ καὶ μοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὁ θεός.

This literally translates into "Precious/honored is marriage with everyone and the laying with another, prostitutes and adulterers are judged by God."

"That is not the translation of the original Greek. The original Greek states Τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, πόρνους γὰρ καὶ μοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὁ θεός.

This literally translates into "Precious/honored is marriage with everyone and the laying with another, prostitutes and adulterers are judged by God.""

But if you go literal... Laying with anyone who you are not married to is judged by god. Homosexuals are not prostitutes, adulterers or "another" --

Dang Brook, You rock! Exactly as translated by you, dead on. We should write in classical Greek on this forum to confuse the confused.

Absence of a positive is not proof of a negative.

In addition, historical context must be considered when interpreting these texts. If we are to go solely by passages condemning one activity as if they are applicable today, then we must accept all other passages at the same value. This is why Leviticus is not acceptable today as it condemns many modern behaviors (homosexual activities being just one).

Which God? There are 100's of gods.

If James had been born in Saudi Arabia, he'd believe in a different god. It's all about geography; that is what determines which tales you are told when you are growing up.

Does your 2000 year old extremely edited and falsely translated book continue to feel that every religion other than Christian is one with Satan?

TWoreti, Homosexuality is not a "practice" it is an orientation. You are using 19th science and those you quote are in denial about scientific evolved understanding.

Keep drinking the juice and listening to Glenn Beck and other extremely hateful people. BTW...your Bible must be one very hateful book. Thought Jesus was a pacifist that loved everyone? I guess today Jesus is biased, hateful, mislead, and Republican?

TW~ I hate to say this but my father was more then affirming to me as a child and I had amazing love from my mother. They are BOTH still married 48 years later. They have an amazing life and they raised two very normal (in their eyes) children. My sister has been with her husband for 15 years and I have been with my partner for 8. My partners parents also have been married 48 years and his brother has been with his sister in law for almost 20 years. So where is the dysfunction in my life? (I mean other then your comments)

True, but the founding fathers intentions were not to discourage religion, but to prevent one religion from becoming the "official" religion. The moral values espoused by Christianity were the foundation of many of our laws.

In the past when most religions viewed homosexuality as a sin, it was easy for the government to keep laws that discriminated against gays. Now that the different religions are diverging on the issue, we are having this debate. There are still many people who believe it is a morraly worng choice and they see gay marriage as an endorsement of something they find morally reprehensible.

This is one reason why I feel a civil union bill would have had more support and provided the same rights. It comes down to this, would the supporters of "marriage equality" rather have half a loaf than no loaf at all?

Chris W - No, half a loaf is not good enough. two classes of citizenry is not good enough. This is not economics it is Constitutional Human Rights.

Chris, as noted the Founding Fathers did not discourage religion. The Constitution simply prevents the Government from any legislation that supports or denies a particular religious practice. That includes legislation which defines marriage per the tenets of a singular religious definition, including those of specific Christian subsects*. Thus, the Federal Government cannot define marriage solely how certain religious groups want it; they must only define marriage according to secular law.

*I use the term "specific Christian subsects" because, despite what some American fundamentalist groups would have you believe, there is no singular authority that speaks for Christianity. Christians are already divided among numerous denominations and even those are further divided into sub-denominations or individual churches. Among all these subsects, the stance on homosexual behavior and LGBT rights is just as divided as it is among the rest of the population.

Now, onto some errors in your statement.

"The moral values espoused by Christianity were the foundation of many of our laws."

Yes and no. Certainly they had a large influence, seeing as Catholicism and the Church of England had been the basis for much of Western Civilization at that point; however, a number of laws originated in the practices of Ancient Greece and Rome. In addition, the Founding Fathers were Deists first and Christians second. This was the Age of Enlightenment, when philosophy took precedence over blind faith, and the zeitgeist of the era is what helped draft the Constitution.

Jefferson and Franklin were the most prevalent members to espouse these beliefs. They were responsible for quotes like "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" (Jefferson) and "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies" (Franklin). Other Deists included Washington, Adams, Madison and Hamilton, as well as Thomas Paine who wrote a book called the "Age of Reason". They may have all believed in a singular God, but they also believed that God was beyond man; each of them espoused science, philosophy, and reason rather than blind worship.

So, to say that our laws are founded primarily on Christianity ignores that A) US laws were based on centuries of Western Civilization, including origins in Ancient Greece and Rome and B) the Founding Fathers were anti-Christian dogma and practiced Deism, a philosophy that espoused reason over religion.

Brook, Homosexuality is not a behavior it is and orientation. Is your skin color a behavior?

There is no separation of church and state in US constitution. Those of you who have some confusion about the Us Constitution, please quote the section you are trying to refer as there is none.There is ample proof that the founding fathers were Christians. It was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court who said "USA is a Christian nation."

I guess if you can believe in a talking snake, etc. You can believe what you wish about the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Routinely interpreted as "separation of church and state". Now go ahead and try to make your technical ridiculous argument.

Mark, that is why I used the term "homosexual behavior". You can have homosexual behavior (sexual activity between members of the same biological sex or gender identity) without being a homosexual individual (an innate orientation). Regardless, my point is that even the many types of Christians are divided over the concept of homosexuals and homosexual activity... there is no one authoritative view of LGBT individuals or those who practice homosexual behavior (regardless of orientation).

Chris W -I don't expect you to understand this but i am 56 years old and i have been working on "incremental rights" since 1980. you try living 56 years with out the rights your brothers and sister don't even have to think about and then come back and tell me how it was. I am way past impatient now.

When it comes to inalienable rights, incremental change is ~not~ better than no change. Rights are rights, and people have been fighting for them since the earliest civilizations.

I am not sure what your background is, Chris. Perhaps you have never had to face adversity because of the color of your skin, your gender, or your faith. I certainly hope you have never been denied opportunities, such as jobs or a residence, because of any of that... let alone been verbally or even physically assaulted because of how you look or act.

If you have experienced any of that, then I would hope you have the ability to understand what women went through during Women's Suffrage or what Blacks went through during the Civil Rights movement. Only when your rights are restricted or absent will one understand why they can have nothing but absolute freedom.

Well stated Brook! A man of super virtue and obviously well versed and not blinded by religious backgrounds that many are still in this country. Cheers well done. :)

Bruck is a pretty tough name. I like it!

Sorry Mark, but I call BS on this one. The conservatives signaled that they would support a civil union bill that would have granted the exact same rights, exactly the same. The only difference was the name civil union. Now you can feel free to "throw the baby out with the bath water", but if the the law goes down in flames, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

2) You are incorrect that the Founding Fathers were Christian. Any historian will tell you that the majority were Deists and that several of them (including Jefferson and Franklin) were recorded in letters and interviews as being blatantly opposed to the Church.

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies." (Benjamin Franklin)

"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people." (James Madison)

"As the government of the United States of America is not on any sense founded on the Christian Religion." (John Adams)

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." (John Adams)

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." (Thomas Jefferson)

3) You are correct that John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States and a Founding Father was devoutly Christian and stated "our Christian Nation". Of course, several factors should be considered...

A) He was prejudiced, even working to prohibit Catholics from holding office. Later on, in his oft-quoted statement, he declared that only Christians should lead the country.

B) His statement was taken from an 1816 letter, 21 years after he was Chief Justice and when he was 70 years old.

C) He was one of a few of the Founding Fathers that was a devout Christian. As mentioned, the majority of the major leaders (as seen above) were all Deists.

@Brook The US Constitution prohibits Congress not to establish a law to establish a national religion like England. The Constitution was designed to stop a government interference in the affairs of the church. All churches were allowed to have a free exercise of their religion. According to ACLJ: “…However, there is some misunderstanding on church/state separation that I think is significant. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not even used in the Constitution. Nevertheless, there are two basic conflicting views. The accommodation view, which we hold and which we believe the Founding Fathers held, says that government cannot enforce a certain religion on people - the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion; this is why we have the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. Then there's the view of strict separation, which the ACLU holds, because they think that their view has the support of the Constitution. But church/state separation was never meant to exclude religious expression from public life.”

Also I suggest asking a Rabi how varying the Christian Old Testament is from the Torah. Rabi study and learn the Torah in Old Hebrew. No changes at all in translations over the centuries. 1 version = 1 constant translation = Old Hebrew. It is the truest version of the Old Testament.

@Frank. Yup. There is a professor at UMBC (I saw him speak twice) that has created algorithms which detects and interprets deception in written text. It looks at patterns of written language and styles used. He wrote this program for the FBI a few years back.

During the finalization, he tested this program with the oversight from a fluent Greek and Latin Pastor and a fluent Jewish Rabi. Both had decades of experience in their faiths.

They found dozens of inaccuracies by the original authors of the original books of the Bible (Old and New Testaments). Almost every book was started by one person, continued by another and continued by another and another and so forth. Most of the discrepancies were extremely severe. Some books start out in Old Hebrew and continue in Classical Greek; and some start out in Classical Greek and continue in more modern Greek; and others start out in Old Hebrew and switch to another early form of Hebrew. Using very different words and sentence structures. (Somebody bent the rules and spoke for big G and J way after the books were "written"). Sounds fishy?

What ever your religious beliefs are, saying a lie over and over again does not make it truth. Homosexuality is no more "behavior" than "Barack Obama doesn't have a legitimate American birth certificate". I am know what is true and right for me. Like I said the other day you should not speak about what you don't know about. You talking about being an authority on homosexuality would be like me pretending to be an authority on heterosexuality....

@TW for your information to correct more of your wrongs. In the Bible "hell" is a modern day term. It was created during translation in the late 1300's. The true term as written in the Bible, in its true language Old Hebrew and Ancient Greek is "Tartaros" or in Latin "Tartarus". Meaning the great void or nothingness. It neither has depth nor shallowness, good nor bad, right nor wrong, darkness nor light, it is the absence of existence on any plane in any realm. This word "tartaros" was used by ALL early Christians and pre-Christians in text, NOT "hell". It is the deepest place of nothingness and emptiness.

"Hell" was a term created in the late 14th century after the black plague "the Devil's plague" ravaged Europe. It was designed to scare people into faith to control the rebelling masses = faith for the Christian church = more power for the king and pope = fraud, corruption and control. It powered the crusaders to "do the right thing" for the church, king, kingdom and pope. No one at that time wanted to "go to hell", ug what a creepy place (sarcasm of course).

Now there is the underworld which is ruled by Hades? However, that is a place of many levels of punishment. BTW you do realize all the deadly sins came from the levels of Hades which was documented centuries before your Bible? The Bible authors stole this from the Greeks.

You write this as if it s fact. Whew, so much piled in one place.

Did you read this on that very one sided obviously Christian propaganda website:

"WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the Moral, Religious, and Constitutional foundation on which America was built "

or

"Why the Name Wallbuilders?"
'In the Old Testament book of Nehemiah, the nation of Israel rallied together in a grassroots movement to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and thus restore stability, safety, and a promising future to that great city. We have chosen this historical concept of "rebuilding the walls" to represent allegorically the call for citizen involvement in rebuilding our nation's foundations. As Psalm 11:3 reminds us, "If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?"

Stop the Dam Christian Propaganda and go listen to Glenn Beck and read the Turner Diaries!!!!!

Yup!

@Brook From your previous comments, it was easy to discern your line of reasoning: when you can't counter an argument presented to you based on facts, you simply criticize a credible ones as thought they are not "credible."
In response to his critics regarding his book: The Jefferson lies, David Barton wrote:
“ After all, I am:

Recognized as an historical expert by both state and federal courts;

Called to testify as an historical expert by both the federal and state legislatures;

Selected as an historical expert by State Boards of Education across the nation to assist in writing history and social studies standards for those states;

Consulted as an historical expert by public school textbook publishers, helping write best-selling history texts used in public schools and universities across the nation.” If this expert and scholar is not credible who else could be?

TWoreti, you have yet to present an actual fact. You have done nothing but quote biased websites with blatant agendas and absolutely no credibility in the professional historic or legal world.

For the second time, I am done talking to you. There is no use taking to someone who is so lost in their own psychological delusion that they present subjective opinion and misinformation as fact... while claiming that peer-reviewed scientific journals and direct quotes from original sources is not credible.

My last words are this: Please seek help. You are suffering a serious delusional disorder that is disruptive to a healthy life.

TWoreti
6:08 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
@Brook I have watched David Barton's presentations at irregular intervals. If you are interested to hear a high sounding empty statements by some so called professors/academicians, David is not one of them. If you have some facts to the contrary, please say so. I wish you live to the meaning of your name "Brook". No matter what you say, I haven't seen any historian who has ancient handwritten original personal and historical documents of the founding fathers and credible like David Barton. If you know anybody else, please let me know.Thanks. Be blessed!

Please go back to reading the Turner Diaries and leave us peaceful, loving, accepting, and law abiding citizens alone. You are brainwashed my buddy and you have the wacko churchies to thank.

David Barton/Wallbuilders has been debunked.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw

@Neither (D) or (R) Thanks for your comment. If you think that you know better about American history or for that matter any other scholar who may come close to David Barton, please list their names for all to see. If you know our country's history, you will appreciate the contributions made by a lot of christians (pastors and laity alike) during our Independence war against the then superpower and the civil war.
Based on preconceived idea simply rejecting the writings of a credible author and a well known scholar because of his Christian faith shows an intellectual dishonesty. If you have facts to the contrary regarding the writings of David Barton, please make your counter argument instead of simply rejecting factual statements without evidence.

Humans have way too much in common with sheep.

You seem to have a smart ass comment about everything. Do you do this to people in person, or just when hiding behind a keyboard?

Always, you got anything else to add?

Apparently not.

Looking at your past comments, you and my furniture have a lot in common, except you type. Furniture is never wrong though, you are simpleton.

You must think you are some kind of a wit. Your low brow insults show that you are actually a very sad twit with no life other than playing on the internet. I await your next brilliant comment.

Absolutely. I have read some of your dimwitted opinions. I do find myself funny, most who agree with my humor see the political/religious sarcasm buried there. Except those who have their hard core right wing agenda embedded in them, like you. They usually don't like being challenged, like you. Too bad, deal with it, Rush is almost always wrong except when he cashes his paycheck and hires Elton John For a cool $1,000,000 to play at his wedding.

PS - I have heard your band's music, not bad at all. See, I call them all as I see them.

Why must your gay lover "Frank" always have to come to your rescue? Are you not smart enough to come up with enough stupid childlike comments on your own? You must need all the help you can get. Do your parents know you are using their computer?

C'mon Ross, he is not my lover, he is my evil twin! You have a gay problem. You want to use the figgot word really bad don't you? But that would reveal you as a bigot. You walked into this, walk out.

Blogs are for 'smart ass comments'. Keep up the good work FIFA!

"just leave the word "marriage" alone. Find your own word."

Who's word is "marriage"? Christians? This has already been refuted countless times in this very debate. Marriage is not ~your~ word nor is it Christianity's; it is derived from Ancient Rome and it was originally a secular word (not a religious one).

How about you find your own word for "marriage" since you seem so dedicated to dividing the different unions between two people?

Email filter, block "noreply@patch.com", I don't get any, downside Is fishing for posts.

Enuff said on that, you are correct. Let's solve global warming next.

So much for your "Expert" David Barton. His publisher is pulling his book off the shelves because of the dozens and dozens of errors and inaccuracies it contains.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/09/158510648/publisher-pulls-controversial-thomas-jefferson-book-citing-loss-of-confidence?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw

@Steve I read the NPR website you referenced regarding David Barton's book entitled the Jefferson lies. There are many liberals who don't like David Barton as he has been exposing their revisionist history based on an authentic historical data written before the 1920s. NPR website shows a view from what it alleges to be from the publisher. We don't know yet whether what was alleged is true or not. You have not included in your comment what NPR website included in its comment :"We've reached out to Barton for reaction and will update when we hear from him. WORLDmag.com's Thomas Kidd reports:

"Barton told me that he regards Thomas Nelson's decision as a 'strange scenario.' He added that the press has not tried to engage him about the ostensible problems in the book, and that Thomas Nelson officials simply notified him by email that they were stopping publication."
This decision doesn't leave Barton without a publisher, however. Barton's own organization, WallBuilders, published his previous books." Before hearing a response from David Barton simply criticizing him or/and jumping to a conclusion is simply unfair. This allegation by no means shows all historical facts that he has been teaching and spreading internationally is incorrect.

TW, you know pornography when you see it, I see you. You are disgusting. A fake man of god.

nor·mal/ˈnôrməl/Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

Doesn't really define homosexuality as "normal". You want to be gay, be gay. Does not affect me one way or the other. You believe you were born that way? I don't agree, but so what.

Normal? No.

disagree all nyou want. But when it occurs regularly it is normal.

Filial cannibalism (eating one's own young) is normal in dozens of species.

Nastiness is not reserved solely for the 'right wing.'

And I agree with a comment made on here several days ago: As long as there is an open bar, who cares what the sex of the married couple is.

Most of the population is right handed. Does that make left handers not normal. Of course not, it makes them a minority. OT, open your eyes.

Natural and normal are not the same thing. Neither one is right or wrong. If people are born being gay, then it is natural, ie not a choice that was made. That does not mean it is normal.

If everyone on the planet was born left handed, the human race would continue. If everyone on the planet was born gay, the human race would cease to exist.

In my book that is not normal. I would not presume to call it right or wrong, it is simply a natural occurence that happens in a small percentage of humans.

To pretend it is normal is just as foolish as as those who are fearful about it.

CW is simply sick and homophobic. The species always finds a way.

FIFI, once again you have so much to add. I am so impressed by your intellect.

Sarcasm off

Normal is defined as what the majority of people do. 50.000000001% makes it 'normal'.

if you want to get technical about it, 'homo' in the original Greek means 'same.' so homophobia is an irrational fear of something that is the same.

How's OT head?

Just like our President. When they have nothing intelligent to say, throw insults.

sar·casm/ˈsärˌkazəm/Noun: The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Hey it's got a male end and a female end for a reason. I thought it was a great analogy.

Looking under girls' dresses might be considered depraved, but probably not deprived...

@Mark Patro I have read your opinion in entirety on the website you referenced. You said the following among other things: “And since one cannot decide, nor act, nor intend to be gay a person can only choose to lie about it, which is immoral.” There are many experts who disagree with you saying “it is dangerous to call and define a person by his desires.” Scientists have concluded that there is no gay “gene. “Gays and lesbians have the same types of genes like the rest of human beings. The difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is in the choices they make. Basing your assertion on fluctuating statements made by American Psychiatric Association as conclusive scientific evidence is simply wrong. Who made APA an arbiter of a moral conflict? No one! Christians’ morality is based on the Bible. The Bible is very clear about homosexuality. Those who are Christians in name only may not believe in the Bible. Their unbelief cannot change God’s standard about sodomy. Instead of trying to justify the unjustifiable on moral, scientific and civil rights grounds, in order to have special rights that you are looking for, why not try to have SSM by calling it a civil union as Christians and others may tolerate it?

Corsi represents the Tea Party as Bill Ayers and Rev Wright represent Obama and progressives.
I heard form a good source Steve LOVES his teabagging sessions with Guido on top right after their cardio workout sessions!

You mean to tell me that Michelle is not a man on estrogen????

Ask Larry Sinclair about Obama and men.

Yes I verify that I said those things and I mean every word.

@FIFA I am against anyone who wants to harm any person irrespective of his sexual preferences, gender, political, religious beliefs etc. It is totally insane to attack any one no matter whether he/she disagrees with me in part or /and in everything that i may say or do etc. What I have been trying to do on this website is to write what I believe to be true. I don't hate any person who objects to whatever I say or write even if he/she may be unreasonable. I wholeheartedly respect an individuals right to freely express him/her self.

APA is the American Psychiatric Association, who changed homosexuality from a mental disorder to "normal" in 1974.

@Leslie Schildgen Thanks for your question. The APA's approval doesn't and cannot make something like homosexuality that has an inherent problem normal. Because of lack of masculinity and fear of asking a woman for a date or/and to have a sexual intercourse with so many individuals are trapped in this sexual preference. So many have sought for help and got married to a women, have children and have a normal life like heterosexuals. It is a disgrace by some so called experts who give to any human being an identity based on ones sexual preference. A desire should not be a base to define any person's identity. Sex is one aspect of a human life. We have a lot of other desires to fulfill in life. We don't spend more time in bed for sexual affairs. If we continue to give identity to any person based ones unlimited desires, what kind of society do we expect to have? Homosexuality cannot be justified scientifically, morally and any other beneficial stuff to a society. There is no evidence out there to justify this dangerous sexual preference which is extremely dangerous to homosexuals themselves. Because of deep emotional desires they have some of them do not want to see the hand writings on the wall. They can fulfill their sexual desires by getting married to an opposite sex in order to escape the highest mortality rates, diseases, premature death, frustrations, suicidal rates, instability etc. when compared to heterosexuals.

Tworeti: "So many have sought for help and got married to a women, have children and have a normal life like heterosexuals." This is an out right lie...

"Ex-Gay" is a myth. Why did the founders of Exodus International abandon their so-called "Reparative Therapy" organization to have a relationship with each other?

It's time to Ban Reparative Therapy
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/05/25196/

Philip Hickey, Ph. D. said "What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. ... Gay people gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.
Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.
So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by avote! I remember as a boy reading of the United Nations World Health Organization’s decision to eradicate smallpox. This was in 1967, and by 1977, after a truly staggering amount of work, the disease was a thing of the past. Why didn’t they just take a vote? Because smallpox is a real illness. The human problems listed in DSM are not. It’s that simple. "