Feisty my new avatar is for you ... Furgeson Jenkins

So much for Santorum shining in NH. haha.

WCA,

Oh ,President Obama has nothing to do with Santorum's audience.

Don't you know the OWS folks are everywhere and for the most part they are young.

Ferggy was the first entry to the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame ... Frank Robinson played as a pro first in Montreal ... he was loved.

Sounds like Axlerod sent some more OWS folks to the meeting

Of course he did, Mr. Axelrod has nothing else to do but watch where Rick Santorum goes and send his buddies from OWS to hassle hime. That makes no sense. Then again, when has a right wing extremist ever made much sense?

WCA, have you been on a college campus lately and actually spoken to the new young batch of conservatives coming up? Gay marriage to most of them is an individual choice, not subject to gov't regulation. These kids are zealots when it comes to the economy and small gov't, but social issues do not consume them like the old farts.

Wow...the White Collar Criminal is getting desperate, isn't he? Next he'll rail against something to do with the Volt, yet if you ask him why American auto engineers (white collars) can't design a decent car, he'll have no answer...

Backhouse

Unfortunately, Santorum is a useful tool for the KOCHs, ALEC/Norquist & associates in the high-end 0.02% bracket that seek control of our Government and our lives.

Backhouse, check this out.

Fox News Promotes Violent Oil Industry Threats Against Obama

Posted by Mark on January 5, 2012 .

This morning Fox News escalated the public relations campaign on behalf of big oil. Megyn Kelly (the female Glenn Beck) conducted an interview with Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, a lobbying association. Just to be clear, this was not a Republican congressman who supports the project. It was not a director of a citizens group. It was not a labor spokesman representing the interests of workers. It was a paid lobbyist for the oil industry. Can you guess what position he took?

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=6119

WCA, have you been on a college campus lately and actually spoken to the new young batch of conservatives coming up? Gay marriage to most of them is an individual choice, not subject to gov't regulation.

How can you claim to be a party that loves freedom and liberty and be in opposition of same-sex marriage/unions? How is keeping them illegal not a far greater intrusion into someone's personal life than they claim Health Care Reform is?

It's the great repub hypocrisy in action da noid. Luckily, lots of the younguns disagree with the oldsters on such things.

Phine,

That was a very funny image! I love it!

Thank you, thank you. I'll be playing here the rest of the week. Please be sure to tip your waitresses!!!

Feisty, GF I can take the heat. I say bring it on. I'm Fired UP.

Feisty, GF I can take the heat

Me too GF - keep the squirt bottle of ice water handy.... ;o)

And I'm ready to GO!

Can't wait for St. Paddy's Day! WE are going to tear this town UP! lol

BTW: Has anyone seen WCA? Or is HE in the ladies room - licking his wounds?

Looks like Santy is gonna crash real quick!

Phine, what an image!!!! (almost needed a monitor cleanup)

Da Noid @ 1.17

They (read he) can't

True conservative republicans are all about staying out of peoples religions, personal affairs and bedrooms.

When the Neo-Cons get a life, someone please inform them, will ya? they might miss it.

Looks like Santy is gonna crash real quick!

Egilman, my friend, tell me... WHO would you vote for should Ron Paul be out of the race?

Feisty, I don't know, When I was working for Reagan I would have volunteered to take the grinch out and shoot him, Perry, is he still running? (as far away as he can), Mitts NEVER!!!! Huntsman, A long maybe, I would have to think about that a lot. Probably the best I could say right now is jump the fence and lean toward Johnson, if the Doc wasn't runnin third party.

Egilman - me thinks at the end of the day, you my friend will check the box for President Obama!

You just don't strike me as being main stream crazy...

Just a hunch! ;o)

Feisty, I was a Kennedy Democrat, I moved over with Reagan, and left after the Bush people fired me for telling their strategists that he was going to lose...

Haven't been active since.

Bev yes, thank you for the info.

Like they wrote in your link, it was more free advertising for Big Oil and their interests.

Bottom line is, (as repubs have often said in the past of dems): Rick is way out of touch with mainstream America, and is merely a media-created diversion to keep things interesting for a few days. He'll be out of the race in a couple of weeks anyway, shot down by Mitt and his Wall Street money.

For a well versed Roman Catholic, the scary Mr. Rogers seems to forget that, in the bible, marriage was between a man and as many women as he wanted, and he could rack up concubines, and sleep with temple prostitutes with no legal issue.

This was going on in New Testament times as well as old, so I guess the bible answered is question about multiple partnerships.

On a side note, since it costs more in taxes in the long run to get married in view of the state, I'll never marry again. If I were to get with a woman, and provide a good home for one of the millions of unwanted children that Santorum wants to create, I guess we wouldn't be in the best position to adopt one.

Would that be hurting children? I guess it's better to leave the poor little bastards to the states, working in, say, the state house bathrooms, then to put them with just any unmarried couple.

I have a glimpse of Rick's world, and it's an ugly place, more reminiscent of Dickens then Christ.

The last thing America needs is a Pope Santorum using the government to enforce so called Judeo-Christian values. These religious creeps have made the GOP a joke. Small government but wait, you can't do that. Small government but wait, you can't smoke that. Small government but we need all these government programs, and wars, and corporate welfare and deficits.

And people like this have the audacity to talk about fiscal responsibility. Also, just to correct the senator and all like him. America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values nor for religious freedom. America was founded for profit.

Anyone else get the impression that this was a dig at Romney? If you let them marry each other they should be able to marry several people too, not exactly a fluid thought process. Hmm campaigning to a generation that is far more tolerant on social issues is not a great idea. I tend to agree with you WCA though, there is no reason to take it to the point of devolving the entire speech. I don't agree that he would be better, he is far too focused on social issues.

Jan, I absolutely agree that the "marry several people too" comment was a dig at Romney/Mormons in general.

Kind of surprised FR didn't mention it.

Me too, maybe she didn't catch it.

Name-calling shows an extreme lack of class and substance. When people don't have a good argument, they name-call.

Answering a question with a question is a real good way to get someone who is being taught to think for themselves to support you.

Really Dave? It always sounds to me like politics as usual and diversion.

"So anyone can marry can marry anybody else, so, if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people."

Yes, that would be the case. Santorum said this thinking it strengthen his argument. It does not. The government should not be in the business of protecting consenting adults unequally under the law.

The Cavalier

You are scarier

in the bible, marriage was between a man and as many women as he wanted, and he could rack up concubines,

I am familiar with several versions, and never saw God give permission to do those things.In bible times that was the social standard of the other people surrounding Israel, Israelites were not to do that, and the Bible is very illustritive as to why you do not do that.

and sleep with temple prostitutes with no legal issue

This is particularly an ignorant statement - that is the Greek and Roman Religions.

Its going to be one hell of a ride.

I worked with many white collar auto workers and never met many that didn't think they knew all the answer to all the problems but never realized they were the problem. That's why the auto industry almost went bankrupt before the CEO's were changed.

DaveWH

Answering a question with a question is a real good way to get someone who is being taught to think for themselves to support you.

It's a way to avoid stating your views until you know how the other person is thinking. As Jan stated...it's politics and diversion. To believe it helps people to support you is a stretch because people are as dumb as you think. That is unless they vote for one of the idiots running for the president under the Republican ticket.

@ Unhappy

I don't know if you have seen the latest news but in spite of the Republicans in congress who blocked every jobs bill put before them the economy is picking up steam. Just think how much better things would be today if the Republicans had actually passed a jobs bill in the house that wasn't a tax cut for the wealthy.

@ Paul F

Have you forgotten about the Republicans that disrupted the meeting of congress members? Of course those TEA party members were just speaking their minds too ... right?

I took the heading of this article to mean that Santorum was utterly rejected at this college. The fact is that there was a lot of applause and a just a few loud boes.

For those who call him extremist, most of his time was promoting go through the legistlative process as it should be. It was more of a will of the majority of people issue than what he thought. This explains his votes for funding contraceptives, when he personally did not agree with their use.

I would like the opportunity to ask him that question, because i have a different take on it. Santorum approached it from the law and the legal aspect of it. Personally, I believe in a smaller, less intrusive government, and i dont think the government should regulate marriage at all, with the exception of two scenarios

1) An adult marrying a child (because the child is harmed) and

2) In the case of incest. (because the potential child from this union may be harmed genetically.)

Traditionally, marriages have been performed by the church. Later, it could be performed by ship captains, and then by a justice of the peace. So, if two men can find a church willing to marry them, I say that it should be allowed, and if it is allowed, it should be recognized by any government, and government has no place in it at all..

My old girlfriend went to New England College. A great school. Extremely liberal in the 1970s.

I went to St. Anselms. Very traditional and run by Benedictine monks. Now a political powerhouse. Also a great school. Very accepting of the best of various intellectual viewpoints if well presented and backed up. Not sloppy faux popularism.

I believe in the NH people. Bright, challenging.

They have presented themselves as responsible barometers of the voting public at large. They have been through this before and know how to sift through the BS and find their path.

My very best to some of the best people on earth. New Hampshire!

Miss you guys. Life has taken me on another path, but my heart stays with you.

Answering a question with a question is a time-honored tactic of avoidance.

I think Rick summed up his personal opinion succinctly and eloquently once he stopped trying to turn the question around and actually gave an answer.

I am more concerned with his stance that abortion is affecting our birth rate, which in turn hurts Social Security by reducing the number of future workers that would make SS contributions.

Odd logic indeed.

And taking home a dead baby for your kids to play with? That sounds like a bizarre joke just waiting to happen.

WCA says:

"So I don't agree with Santorum on this. But yelling down a person who is holding a meeting is a poor way to try to get your point across."

Uh, WCA, it made national headlines, so it appears that it is quite effective. But then again, you never let facts get in the way of your poorly supported arguments.

Rick Santorum, "if you can't see it my way then maybe we can't continue the discussion"...?

Aside from the typical red faced extremists from the left or right, who do more damage to their cause than good, a thinking person has to ask themselves who is to gain by pushing forward the partisan issues?

Splitting people was immensely beneficial to Bush W.'s re-election. Is it the other way around this time?

It is worthwhile asking, because if you look at who is 'for' or 'against' gay marriage, on either side of the aisle, certain people gain by having it drown out other, at least equally, important questions such as the economy, wars, etc.

Being against gay rights and making it an issue has been useful to the Republicans before and the Democrats countered by asking why it was replacing 'important' issues. Now Democrats want to talk about it.

Who really is involved in this question from the standpoint of their actual beliefs?

@Paul F,

If we disagree then what? Will you impose laws on me anyway? What if my group had the majority and you were still unwilling to compromise? Then what would you do? Stand your ground and be at a stale mate?

What would you do? Make laws based on your religious beliefs? What would you do? Say I want to be in your bedroom but old people should die now because you will not support there eating habit?

We are at those points in history now, but guess what will happen?

sensible people will compromise within the constitution of the law.

What I have a problem with is any politician who hangs his hat on a certain principle, but is completely wishywashy on other principles. Most often the principles they hang their hats on are completely off the wall beliefs, while the wishywashy principles should be common sense.

Ron Paul, yet again, is the only choice for 2012. He says the decision over who marries whom, has nothing to do with the federal government, that it should be each individual's choice, as to whom they choose to marry,

Santorum is as dangerous as Dumbama - just in a different way. They are both useless hypocrites.

DB Akron

in the bible, marriage was between a man and as many women as he wanted, and he could rack up concubines,

I am familiar with several versions, and never saw God give permission to do those things.In bible times that was the social standard of the other people surrounding Israel, Israelites were not to do that, and the Bible is very illustritive as to why you do not do that.

Apparently you are not as "familiar" as you think:

1 Kings 11:2-3 Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.

2 Chronicles 11:21 Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated....

Judges 8:30 And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

... etc., etc.

To me, Santorum should scare the crap out of every states' rights supporter everywhere. He wants federal law to trump local law on all sorts of matters.

Ask him about the bridge to nowhere...

He's probably right that if you legalize gay marriage the courts would eventually be forced to legalize polygamy as well, especially since it has been practiced for thousands of years and is explicitly allowed by some religions and cultures, including the world's one billion Muslims currently alive. It isn't hard to meet advocates or practitioners of so-called "polyamory"; sometimes it's the woman who has two "husbands". (More than two sounds impractical, but hey, that's just me.) The question then becomes, why shouldn't we legalize polygamy between three consenting adults, in both the polyandrous and polygynous forms? Anyone? Think of it; it would certainly prevent a lot of loyal displaced homemakers being thrown into poverty, children who never see their fathers, and other social problems caused by so-called serial monogamy. I'm being perfectly serious here.

Oom, read the opinion of the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. US.

We have the right to think and say what we please, yes. But when someone in a position of power thinks and says things that take the rights of American citizens away it is a huge problem. Anyone who says gays dont have the right to do ____, where __— doesn't infringe on the rights of other Americans have no place in government.

OR you can look at it this way:

___— people do not have the right to get married in the USA.

Fill the blank with any term describing a person. There are no right answers

I don't care if it is 8 people getting married or 3 queers marrying a slice of apple pie. It makes no difference. There should be no tax breaks for being married or having kids, gay straight or indifferent. Government has no right to say what I do behind closed doors............................

He's probably right that if you legalize gay marriage the courts would eventually be forced to legalize polygamy as well,

No...he's not right about that, anymore than allowing interracial marriage ended up legalizing polygamy (something those opposed claimed would happen). It's an entirely different subject. If people want polygamy legalized, they will have to spend 10 or 20 years fighting social opposition and the courts....just like everyone else.

especially since it has been practiced for thousands of years and is explicitly allowed by some religions and cultures, including the world's one billion Muslims currently alive.

It's also practiced in the bible...so it's very xian as well...although it's one of the many practices in the bible that are ignored or rejected by current xians.

I don't have any moral objections to polygamy...but what happens if one spouse wants a divorce? How do they divide the marital assests? Say a wife that's been married 15 years wants a divorce and there are two other wives who have been married 8 years and 3 years...do they divide the assets in half, then take whatever fractions from that, that the other wives might be entitled to and the first wife get's what's left?....or does the first wife get half of everything and the others have to live on what's left....or what? Or what happens if a man wants to divorce all his wives at once?

I think the logistical nightmares have a lot more to do with why it isn't legal than the "moral" aspects of it. Factor in various kids, child support and custody issues...and it sounds like something that would tie up courts for decades and force the creation of an entirely new set of family laws.

Oom, read the opinion of the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. US.

So what? that was 100 years ago.

So what? that was 100 years ago.

But it still applies today.

I will give him credit desert Blonde, but he is NOT for equal rights, which is more than enough for me to say "see ya" to this idiot.

desertblonde

A least the man has the guts to say what he really thinks, thats more than the rest of these clowns that are running for office and that includes Obama and his cronies as well.

Westboro Baptist Church has the "guts" to say what they really think. Do you support their resolve to be heard, regardless of the popularity of their message?

A bad message is a bad message, regardless of the speaker's resolve.

desertblonde - Santorum can personally oppose gay marriage but he shouldn't be imposing his will on everyone. Not long ago, inter-racial marriage was against the law. That changed but not everyone was forced to marry someone of another race. Nor is anyone forced to accept and be happy about that others do. So what's your problem? Santorum is just pandering to his base to attempt to get the nomination.

A least the man has the guts to say what he really thinks,

It doesn't take courage to express an opinion. Especially such a cowardly opinion.

The man couldn't find one cogent argument against equality....he had to bring in entirely unrelated issues (polygamy) to DEFLECT the questions about gay marriage. He didn't answer them.

He's just one more religious nut-job trying to impose his immorality on others. I hope he wins the nomination, because there is no way he'll win in a general election.

OldKingBlog

posted like a typical lefty, right down to the obligatory name-calling. Can you lefties ever come up with something more cogent and substantive than this when trying to argue your case? Ever?

Irony ... You win at it.

Well, I guess everyone who has a different opinion than you is abnormal, then. As for equal rights, it's only an equal rights case if you ignore the biology of human gender in defining the marriage relationship. Since marriage has always been traditionally assumed to be a man and a woman, you are not talking about an equal rights case, but a redefinition of the concept of marriage to ignore gender.

Jo Ann-666954

I guess these young people will vote for Obama.....Wait.....Obama is also against same sex marriage. Why isn't the same anger directed to Obama? Carry on.

Mayhaps because Obama has no intention of pursuing a personal vendetta against the gay community by supporting legislation and Constitutional rewriting the make a myopic, bigoted and grossly outdated viewpoint law.

Hm? Carry on.

You'd have to be a fool to vote for anyone who opposes Abortion and then turns around and lets his wife have one.

My old girlfriend went to New England College. A great school. Extremely liberal in the 1970s.

I went to St. Anselms. Very traditional and run by Benedictine monks. Now a political powerhouse. Also a great school. Very accepting of the best of various intellectual viewpoints if well presented and backed up. Not sloppy faux popularism.

I believe in the NH people. Bright, challenging.

They have presented themselves as responsible barometers of the voting public at large. They have been through this before and know how to sift through the BS and find their path.

My very best to some of the best people on earth. New Hampshire!

Miss you guys. Life has taken me on another path, but my heart stays with you.

Amused and not kidding

...so if the persons views are different than your own, they are imposing their will.. Kind of like Obama has done to a lot of Americans who oddly enough, disagree with his views.

Thats amusing, and I'm not kidding. So he disagrees with your views, and that makes him a coward, well, if he was scared about losing some votes, I would agree with you.

Conservatives believe in small government except when they demand to push their Personal and Religious Beliefs on the rest of us. Rick pushes States to pass Anti-abortion laws against Federal Law, then says lets pass a Federal Law Banning Abortion and Force the States to follow Federal Law. Which is it Rick, are you going to put a cop in every bedroom and make sure No Contraceptives are used. That's right Rick is on tape stating he wants to Ban Contraceptives, what a Nut Job.

Rick lost his bid for re-election by an 18 point margin. Even his own people know a bad egg when they see it. Rick is a 1%er, he earns over 1 Million a year and pays less in taxes than the middle class.

good point on that one

Rustyboy, I second your admiration for the people of New Hampshire.

I lived in Massachusetts for a few years and found a certain concise, blunt honesty about the New Hampsters. I worked with someone who would use a phrase "She told him where the dog died." or "He told her where the dog died." I never understood what in the devil this meant. Finally I asked one of my NH friends to explain. She said, "You want to know where the dog died?" I nodded. She exclaimed, "Out back behind the barn!" My (apparently) priceless look of dull, Midwestern confusion was hilarious to my co-workers.

I trust the people of New Hampshire will recognize a gigantic, sweater-vested d-bag when they see him. And I trust they'll let him know where the dog died.

Jim-952823 - What personal RELIGIOUS MORALS is Obama trying to impose on the populace? Really? I'm amused that you think there is a strong correlation here... Not kidding, super amused.

FACT: Gay marriage affects no one except for the people involved. Don't like gay marriage? Ok, don't have one for yourself. It's none of your business what strangers do. If you disagree, you are bigoted. This is not a contradictory statement since only ONE group is trying to impose their morals on another. Gay people don't care if you approve of their activity, they just care if you butt into their business.

There is a bill in the NH house that will require stating what part of the constitution is relevant but ALSO what part of the MAGNA CARTA is involved. WHAT!

Look it up if you don't believe me. Are these folks nuts or what.

SantorBum is a freshmen at every level...and a stupid SOB(just to start with)

@oldkingblog

So if marriage is only for procreation and to protect their progeny I suppose we shouldn't allow infertile people to marry either, or those who don't want to have children. Oh wait, Santorum wants to stop the use of contraceptives so that problem will be gone. And since we have a separation of church and state, laws shouldn't be based on religious bias. I also have one other major objection to Santorum, he actually supports "personhood" laws, which would describe a person from the moment of conception, so when a woman has a miscarriage she will have to prove she didn't murder her fetus. This is the same typeof law recently defeated in Mississippi.

Jim-952823

...so if the persons views are different than your own, they are imposing their will.. Kind of like Obama has done to a lot of Americans who oddly enough, disagree with his views.

Has Obama prevented you from marrying the person you love? Denied you the right to adopt a child? Dictated what gender you are supposed to be attracted to? This isn't about holding different views...this is about a religious whack job thinking he has the right to do those things to others.

Thats amusing, and I'm not kidding. So he disagrees with your views, and that makes him a coward, well, if he was scared about losing some votes, I would agree with you.

No, his refusal to answer the question honestly is what makes him a coward. He was asked why he opposes gay marriage. The answer would have been him explaining his views (bigotry) about gays. Instead, he cowardly deflected the question entirely and starting talking about polygamy, a completely different subject (with a shot at Romney's religion tossed in as a bonus).

You bet your ass he was scared of losing votes....that's why he can't just come out and say he doesn't like gays.

Why don't you ask Obama what he thinks about gay marriage? Afterall, its only fair if all the candidates were asked the same question, right? Do you think Obama would become a coward?

Obama has already been asked what he thinks about gay marriage. He gave a very thorough and honest answer.

"I think there are some things that are essential elements of society to which a society rests that we have to have a consensus on,"

The majority of people support gay marriage.

YouJustSaidWhat

Mayhaps because Obama has no intention of pursuing a personal vendetta against the gay community by supporting legislation and Constitutional rewriting the make a myopic, bigoted and grossly outdated viewpoint law.

Obama nor the GOP is as you say it "supporting legislation and Constitutional rewriting the make a myopic, bigoted and grossly outdated viewpoint law".

I wish people would just leave the Constitution alone. The Constitution is fine the way it is right now. The people for gay marriage are the ones who want to rewrite The Constitution.

Jo Ann-666954 wrote: "Obama nor the GOP is as you say it "supporting legislation and Constitutional rewriting the make a myopic, bigoted and grossly outdated viewpoint law"."

The GOP wrote and passed "The Defense of Marriage Act" which is in conflict with the Constitution's 14th Ammendment.

The constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The concept of equal protection and equality in the United States is as old as the country itself.

I always enjoy seeing the attempts at conservatives defending the right to trump State's rights with Federal powers while they oppose the exact same concept based on their same rational when it doesn't suit their political or personal ideology.

The GOP candidates will find out that the real majority of Americans are much more progressive than the extreme factions they are appealing to. The Tea Party is maybe 10% of the voters at most. Religious right, who are not already counted in the Tea Party numbers may be another 10%. Plus, these people are overwhelmingly Republican anyway, so a good block of them are also counted in the people who would only vote Republican anyway.

The eventual nominee is going to have to go quite left to center to get enough moderate, independent, and crossover votes to even try to win the general election and by doing so will risk the far right support of their base either staying home or voting for a third party candidate.

The improving economy is also a huge factor. If Bohner, Cantor, and McConnell had gone along with the attempts at improving the economy instead of blocking it every way they could, they could at least have claimed some credit in a recovery. Instead, they have to distance themselves as far as they can from the economy issues to avoid being seen as bad leaders and decision makers.

As it continues to improve, the mantra of Obama doing a lousy job at helping the economy won't sway nearly as many votes if many at all, so the GOP candidates will have to switch over to "values" issues instead.

Gay marriage is an issue that will eventually be resolved in favor of gays having equal rights. This is America after all...the trend is toward acceptance.

Why do we care what Santorum thinks about the issue? He is a dinosaur who is out of touch with the views of mainstream America. He says he has moral opinions about issues that are outside the realm of government. He says he would not try to change the abortion laws if elected. So why does he keep returning to his opinions on personal issues? Do we care what kind of cheese he likes?

It's high time for Santorum to go home and quit wasting our time. We have bigger fish to fry here.

Oh, wait...he can't go home. Campaigning is his job. It's literally what he does for a living.

Bill C-645784

Obama has already been asked what he thinks about gay marriage. He gave a very thorough and honest answer.

cite please, last I saw President Obama said he had an opinion but didn't want to talk about it (paraphrasing)

Moral Conscience

The constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.

I don't see "marriage" as a law.

A law is something people have to follow and abide by it. Marriage is not something people are made to follow and abide to it.

"Obama nor the GOP is as you say it "supporting legislation and Constitutional rewriting the make a myopic, bigoted and grossly outdated viewpoint law.

I wish people would just leave the Constitution alone. The Constitution is fine the way it is right now."

@Jo Anne. Actually, every GOP candidate is on the record supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. If you want people to leave the Constitution alone, you need to focus on the bigoted,narrow mninded, spiteful, hate-spewing Republicans. In fact, Obama has never advocated a change to the Constitution of any kind.

The people for gay marriage are the ones who want to rewrite The Constitution.

In what universe does this statement even make sense? Where pray tell, does the Constitution even mention marriage? Like most conservative who scream loudly about "getting back to the constitution" this person knows nothing about it. How is legalizing gay marriage rewriting the Constitution? When ignorance goes for $100 a barrell, I want drillling rights to your head.

If anybody is disregarding the Constitution in this matter it is the pig-headed Repugs. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. This means we all have the same rights, including marriage. To grant one class of people a right while denying that right to others for purely arbitrary reasons is a clear violation of the Constitution you profess to care for so much (but know so little about).

Scott Johnson

@Jo Anne. Actually, every GOP candidate is on the record supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

This is factually incorrect.

Ron Paul: Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda.

issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm#Voting+Sponsorships

Ron Paul 2012!

Scott Johnson

The people for gay marriage are the ones who want to rewrite The Constitution.

In what universe does this statement even make sense? Where pray tell, does the Constitution even mention marriage?

You have to read my other post. Glad you agree that The Constitution does not mention marriage.

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. This means we all have the same rights, including marriage.

Well, now you are saying that The Constitution includes marriage. You are wrong.

"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law". I agree with the 14th Amendment 100% but marriage is not a law. Since when has marriage been a law that people have to abide by?

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has identified several statues where the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) adversely affects the spouse (not a sexual identifier) of a legal same sex marriage (yes, some states and countries recognize equality) in a report to the Senate (www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf) listing the statutes by category: SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS / VETERANS' BENEFITS / TAXATION / FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY SERVICE BENEFITS / EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND RELATED STATUTORY PROVISIONS, IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION, AND ALIENS / INDIANS [Native Americans] / TRADE, COMMERCE, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY / FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST / CRIMES AND FAMILY VIOLENCE / LOANS, GUARANTEES, AND PAYMENTS IN AGRICULTURE / MISCELLANEOUS STATUTORY PROVISIONS [Education and Foreign Relations].

The DOMA really does nothing to protect marriage - only 25% of US citizens are married, 50% of US first marriages end in divorce, and 75% of US second marriages end in divorce according to a study published last week. There are marriage vows, but you're right, few abide by them. How would allowing the right to marry to all citizens regardless of gender make those statistics any worse?

My question was not answered.

The 14th Amendment is about following the laws equally for everyone. So my question again is - Since when has marriage been a law? The US Constitution does not mention marriage so why is any politician, republican or democrat, even asked about this?

Do you think marriage is unlawful? Of course not. Marriage itself is a lawful contract. Only marriages licensed with the State are legal (common law marriage is still a legal definition within particular states). The state of being married is controlled by law - one must appeal to the courts of law to terminate a marriage (outside of death).

The Defense of Marriage Act brought marriage into federal law by defining it. The DOMA supersedes individual State laws regarding the definition of marriage in federal courts and programs. Marriage can be defined as a right or a privilege and, therefore, is protected under the 14th Amendment.

Jo Ann, you're twisting words (and woefully misunderstanding them) to reach a pre-determined conclusion. Nobody is saying marriage is a "law," per se. First, the 14th amendment isn't about "everyone following the same laws." The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection/treatment "under the law," and I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but state-sanctioned marriage does indeed fall under the purview of jurisprudence.

If you do not follow certain steps that the state mandates, you will not be considered legally married. If you do follow those provisions, however, then you will be considered legally married. Therefore, the arrangement of marriage, as defined by the state, is a legal proceeding, and all US citizens should enjoy equal protection under such.

Now that we've completely dismantled your faulty reasoning, do you have any other, hopefully more valid, arguments against same-sex marriage?

Feel free to educate yourself here with regard to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

No, its state-sanctioned civil unions. Civil unions as defined by the state is a legal process.

Jo Ann,

You state-sanctioned Civil Unions are Legally binding contracts entered into by Obtaining a Marriage License, and entering it into State and federal records. By definition your Marriage is only not a legal contract if you never had the License and the federal government wouldn't recognize it any more that your state would. Because all contracts entered into legally and willingly are enforced by State and federal Agencies, denying those protections if in clear violation of the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment is about following the laws equally for everyone. So my question again is - Since when has marriage been a law? The US Constitution does not mention marriage so why is any politician, republican or democrat, even asked about this?

The constitution mentions RIGHTS. Marriage is a RIGHT. One that is not applied equally...as the constitution guarantees. Does that clear it up?

Oh...and it is the bigots and conservatives who have been running around changing state constitutions to prevent equality....not progressives. If you hate that behavior the way you claim to, then you are backing the wrong team.

1sargeswife

I am not a fan of the 'good' doctor,...here are some quotes and votes:

"Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
Tamper-proof I.D. for immigrants is a bad idea. (Jan 2006)
Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) Close Dept. ...of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)

and some votes: Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998) Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997) Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Just to armchair quarterback Paul,...I'd say he is overly simplistic on the issues that face AVERAGE Americans. He wants to dismantle fairness by regulation on the naive belief that the 'system' is ultimately fair enough. I'm sorry; but dismantling Department of Education will merely insure that those who are predisposed to fall through the cracks WILL in fact fall through the cracks. Giving TAX Breaks and Vouchers for Private schools furthers that agenda. He basically insures that there will be a lower class who will have to take whatever the 'market' will bear. I'm sorry; but that sets us back as a country. I honestly can't find a single issue that I agree with him on. If you belive government is the problem,...why do you dedicate your life to running or serving in government - to insure the failure of the very institution you'd like to abolish? His stance on abortion and subsequently welfare is chilling at minimum and twisted at best.

Clara too bad you didn't include the full structure eh?

but please explain to me how ANY of your half truths are a bad thing? We are ALL equal nobody should get preferential anything, when you place yourself into a "group" you don't get liberty, each individual should have all liberty, whether you're green, purple, or red shouldn't matter. We ALL deserve liberty.

The dept of education has to go, how long have we been throwing money at the problem and it's no better? They SHOULD fall through the cracks just like big businesses SHOULD fail.

I'm not asking you to agree and/or vote for Dr. Paul, I was merely stating my opinion and actual facts.

Is civil union not a right? Civil unions should be a right which is something I've said all along.

Jo Ann,

Civil Union is a compromise that does not grant the same rights and benefits as marriage. Separate but Equal was the compromise for racial disparity but did not grant racial equality. Separate but Equal did not work, nor will Civil Union; both violate the 14th Ammendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 corrected Separate but Equal. Freedom to marry who one loves, regardless of gender, will soon be a reality. (this will refer to two people and not preclude laws of polygamy or bestiality)

People have been getting married in civil ceremonies by judges for decades. You mean they don't have the same rights and benefits?

You'll note, Jo Ann, that states issue "marriage licenses," not "civil union licenses." So even though it's a secular proceeding, one for which no religious institution is necessary, it's still a marriage.

People have been getting married in civil ceremonies by judges for decades. You mean they don't have the same rights and benefits?

ALL legal marriages are civil marriages, regardless of what sort of ceremony you have. It doesn't matter if it's a judge or a preacher or who performs the ceremony...the marriages themselves are the same.

Civil unions are not marriages. It's a different drinking fountain.

1stsargewife

ahh,...I don't consider my lifting a sampling from Ron Paul's own page a half truth. These were the ones that jumped out at me from one visit to the site.

Abolishing the Department of Education does NOTHING to improve America's standing in the world. AND it negatively impacts our ability to compete globally. Dumbing down America is how India and China have managed to garner a cheaper, technical edge.

And your Utopian Ideology of EQUAL is nice; but it presumes that there is NO existing discrimination,...and well, I'd say that's about the most naive presumption in this day and age.

Insuring equality is a basic tenet of the government I believe in,...

Yeah, easy for you to say, Tom - why do you think Steeler Fan and I cringe every time they say "former Pennsylvania Senator"? :)

JoAnne, there's a good reason he is a former senator; we booted his a$$ out a few years ago, didn't we? A waste of oxygen, he is.

JoAnne
I feel your pain. Many of us in Texas feel the same way when Perry shows up. At least you folks voted him out. At least for us, the national media hasn't given Perry the pass he gets here in Texas. Maybe there is hope for us too.

Yep, I agree 'fights'

Fights, I believe you are referring to the former SENATOR who is now the president of our country....

Fights: the only embarrassment is tea party idiots that are not capable of remembering who tanked the economy with massive tax cuts while adding trillions to the deficits for wars based on lies.

You hypocrites have destroyed our country, and pretend it happened while Obama has been cleaning up your mess.

Yes, Laura, I am sure that Fights is referring to a fictional character invented by the right wing press. President Obama was referred to as "Barry Soetoro" only by his step-father in some registration papers for a school, as he thought that it was a friendly gesture which would help smooth his stepson's transition into his new school (I know several children in this country whose step-fathers have done the same thing, and they also did not bother to change the legal name because the birth father wouldn't agree).

President Obama was born in Hawai'i (not even the radical right-wing press says otherwise any more). He did spend a four-year period in Indonesia--from age six to age 10--which is less time than John McCain spent traipsing around the Pacific as his father moved around from post to post.

Our country was left in shambles by George W. Bush--even the far right-wing press admits this. It is in slightly better shape these days. I seriously doubt that one three-year period in which the new president principally supported the strategies of the last president (Tarp II followed Tarp I, there has been no dismantling of Homeland Security, we stayed on the same timeline in Iraq and withdrew when GWB said we would, we continued the policy of searching for Bin Laden, NCLB is still in force, and so on and so on) constitutes "ruining this once great country."

I would not throw around the word "moron" when you don't know these basic facts. Have a great day.

Laura-476504 - no, its because of people like you that this country is going down the toilet. Put your big girl panties on and become an adult.

Gwaddamn! Can't we get off Homosexuals backs? If they want to marry then aye gwad let 'em marry. Hell!, heterosexuals marry, most, several times. What the hell is the deal here? It's like racism. "I don't like that Sum-bitch because He/She is black, or brown, or yellow, or white, or some combination. Gwaddamn! Anyone ever take the time to really think about such idiocy? What a waste of emotion and sense! Those who indulge in this craziness generally claim it's Gods way. Bunch of liars! No God worth His/Her hairy ass would concern His/Her self with such pettiness.

change your name to idiot it surely would be a meaningful name for you

Unhappy-1583758 - Why do you and so many republicans focus their time on where the President is from? Imagine how many other 'better' things you could accomplish. However, its very typical of conservatives to find one thing that may not be right, and then use that again and again and again....

Our duly elected President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, which is a state last time I checked.

John McCain was born in Panama. Where is the outrage, birthers??

Obama's time in Indonesia gave him a perspective on the world and on our place in it that the likes of Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul and Romney can never match.

Who put Mr. Obama in the White House? The voters of America did. We need to respect that and let the man do the job he was elected to do, without the unceasing opposition of the regressives who only want to have their power back so they can continue to milk the middle class.

Obama For America 2012.

dsb

JoAnne
I feel your pain. Many of us in Texas feel the same way when Perry shows up. At least you folks voted him out. At least for us, the national media hasn't given Perry the pass he gets here in Texas. Maybe there is hope for us too.

I was going to say..... THIS! lol well done dsb.

The contraception gaffe is being intentionally misquoted and misunderstood. Santorum doesn't want to ban contraception and knows full well he could not if president; he explicitly said he would NOT. What he was actually referring to was the legal reasoning between Griswald v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that banned state laws against contraception while establishing a mysterious Constitutional "right to privacy" that isn't really in the Bill of Rights. Guess what? Even Justice Hugo Black, generally liberal, criticized that legal reasoning in his dissent back in 1965. Contraception was in fact widely available even in Connecticut in 1965, which is why they had such a hard time even finding a test case. But the "right to privacy" doesn't exist. If it did, the government couldn't run security checks on employees, urine tests in the work place would be illegal even for airline pilots, and Child Protective Services couldn't question abused children at school.

The rest of Santorum's answer to a question put to him was about his personal views of contraception as a Catholic. This is where he put his foot in his mouth from the viewpoint of a non-Catholic. You know what? Just once I'd love to have a candidate say, "Look, I don't want to discuss my personal religious beliefs since that is really a highly personal matter between me and God. I pray to Him but the content of our conversation is subject to the equivalent of Attorney Client Privilege." I might appreciate knowing that a candidate believes in God and attends some sort of service regularly, but I REALLY don't need to know any more than that. It isn't as if he were running for Pope.

Yes live free .but that seems to be fading in this country sad but true.

Yes live free .but that seems to be fading in this country sad but true.

John Paul ask yourself why. Every law written and passed today from a Federal, State or Local area is a restrictive law, meaning you can't legally do something which was once a choice. Even some former restrictive practices which were overthrown are being reintroduced. No where in the Constitution is the word sin mentioned, but many of the laws being passed are based on so called sins of the Bible.What does that tell you about who's behind these laws. The Bible is and has been a mysogynist scripture from day one. Women have no rights under Biblical text no matter how you interpret it. Banning any kind of preventive measure against giving birth is a holdover from the time the Church needed workers to tend the fields the Kings had given them. Most devout Catholics have large families (kids) because their religion forbade them from practicing any form of birth control. I'm not in favor of all abortion either, I think a woman has given up her freedom of choice by the end of the second trimester, but why deny her the right to take a morning after pill or birth control pills. This based on an antiquated view that we need more hands in the field. I can name ten more restrictive laws passed in the last fifteen years and they are all based on localities needing a source of income or passed on religious sinful grounds.We are becoming Talibanalistic bit by bit by religious inspired and elected officials who impose religious no nos on our freedoms every day. To tell you the truth I liked gays or whatever they choose to call themselves, when they were in the closet myself, but what two consenting adults do is none of my business. I think a union of two people should be defined as a marriage when they are of the opposite sexes, and a contract of unity when they are of the same sex. The only laws applying to them should be the same laws which apply to a legal partnership between any two individuals. In fact I am curious to see who gets to be the wronged party in a disolution of such a unity contract. This aspect of human endeavor will run its course in due time just as all other experiments of man has. I am nor do I think any man or religion is qualified to pass judgement on how any other man or woman acts so long as it harms no one but themselves.

For Joanne and SteelerFan:

Another PA resident Steelers fan here. There is no way in hell I would vote for Santorum. Not a chance. I don't relish the idea of being forced to wear the Christian equivalent of a burka, and make no mistake, that's exactly what Santorum wants to do.

Tebow is going to get a real introduction to smashmouth football when he has to look Harrison and Farrior in the face...the same way Lambert pounded Elway.

But he also went as far as to say that America "always needs a Jesus candidate," quoting a statement to a Boston radio interviewer during a town hall event at Windham High School.

During that interview earlier in the day, the man questioning him told him the country needs an "economic candidate."

But Santorum pushed those in attendance to consider faith and family, and if they really mean it when they say "God Bless America" or if they do not.

Rick Santorum is a creep!....and definitely not a Jesus replacement!

I see a spot on Fox News and a hefty new book deal in the works!!

Book deal I can see, but the price for her to get on Fox I don't think Marcus would go for....

Northstar,

I still can't figure out how that empty headed woman thought she could be president; especially when she doesn't even know she is a politician.

Empty-headed is optimistically high praise. So many of the Religious Reich are clueless.

Unhappy, please enlighten us as to how you know so much about liberals, or even Democrats -- or ex-Republicans like myself, for that matter. Your posts generally give the impression that all of us are part of an evil clone whose sole directive is to make you even Unhappier.

To the majority of grown-ups, what consenting adult strangers do in bed is of no interest.

Whatever emotions lead to straight or gay marriage, it is first and foremost a property arrangement. Look at the stars in their vastness, Unhappy: It is hard to imagine a deity that would care where and how couples register for gifts, dole out the insurance benefits, or pungle up for mortgage payments and taxes.

Unhappy--about 50% of Republicans are born-again Christians, and about 30% of Democrats are born-again Christians. However, only one out of every five Democrats has a belief system other than Christianity (for the non-mathematic, that means 80% of Democrats are Christian--a vast majority). About 23% of Republicans are Catholic and 27% of Democrats are Catholic.

So, yeah, most Democrats are Christian--and, even if the Catholic faith (an "other" religion, I guess) is against gay marriage, it doesn't mean that the people who are Catholic and Democrat are against gay marriage. Don't confuse the beliefs of the faith with the beliefs of the individual believers.

It would really be nice if you'd look something up once in a while rather than just carping on the basis of your own imagined points.

"Born again" is a meaningless aphorism. You cannot be "born again." God is imaginary and even if there were a god, or multiple gods, it remains irrelevant in this particular argument because religious superstitions do not get to be codified into law in the United States. There is not one valid reason to deny same-sex partners the right to marry and enjoy the myriad federal benefits that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy. Numerous studies show that such unions do no harm to society, no harm to children, and no harm to "traditional marriage." For further evidence, look at all the locations where same-sex marriage is and has been legal for awhile. You'll see no evidence of society going downhill.

This is not a religious issue at all. Want evidence of this? You and your betrothed can stand before the priest/pastor/rabbi/imam/whatever of your choice every day for ten years, reciting your marriage vows over and over again, but until you receive a state-issued SECULAR marriage license, you are not legally married in the eyes of any government entity in this country. Even common-law marriage, which is legal in a handful of states, is a purely secular arrangement.

Gays aren't asking for religious endorsement. They simply want legal equality. And they will get it -- every poll, every trendline, every study shows that the social tide is moving rapidly and inexorably towards mainstream acceptance of same-sex marriage. Sorry, bigots.

You and me both, Northstar! Bachmann is such a blight on our great state.

Yeah, just like Sodom and Gomorra all over again. As far as SECULAR marriage, "Give Cesar what is Cesar's and give God what is God's"! This is a religious issue, I don't want my kids seeing this, it needs to be stopped from spreading for the sake of my beliefs. It's his mercy that all the sinners should be thankful for, one can only wonder for how much longer he can keep this sinful world going before he really puts the hammer down!

I can't imagine how angry you get when your kids see an interracial marriage...

Thinkforyourself, I am against homosexuality because of my personal religious beliefs. I totally disagree with all you stated about God. But I totally agree with you about the rights of homosexuals in the eyes of the government. You should always have the same rights I am entitled to as for medical, insurance, etc. I would not be happy if you came into my church and demanded to be married, nor would I be happy for my children to see two of the same sex making out in public. I really don't know what the solution would be, to give you your rights, yet still give me mine. It is complicated, but please understand, it's not about hate, or bigotry - we are different people, with different beliefs. The ones who spout hate only represent themselves, not God.

Well, Bill, you may not be a full-blown bigot, and I do applaud you for at least making a small effort to be reasonable. But let's examine your comment: You would be okay with your children seeing an opposite-sex couple making out in public? I don't care to see any such display -- gay or straight. And if you're personally against homosexuality, then don't be a homosexual. Quite a number of people are born that way, have no real say in the matter, and would probably appreciate it if people like you would stop assuming some sort of moral superiority simply because you happened to be born heterosexual. I'd hope that if one of your kids were gay (because gay kids do tend to, more often than not, come from straight parents), you'd be a bit more accepting and open-minded.

And as for me personally demanding a church to marry me to someone of the same sex, there are two problems with that. First, I have no desire to marry someone of the same sex. This isn't a personal crusade for me; it's just about basic fairness and equality. Second, I'm agnostic, so I would never make any such demand (or even request) of a church. I believe all gods are equally imaginary and, as a rational human being, certainly don't subscribe to "morals" handed down from a book that blatantly advocates murder, slavery, and misogyny.

And, sorry... "It makes me feel icky" isn't a reason for denying a broad swath of Americans rights that are freely given to others.

I've always looked at gay marriage this way:

Either 1)Marriage is a secular contract, or 2) Marriage is a religious institution.

In case 1 - the equal protection clause of the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all, the bill of rights guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness, hence gay marriage must be legal as any effort to make it illegal violates the founding documents of our country.

In case 2 - The first amendment states the government shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. If marriage is a purely religious affair, there can be no laws created regulating it, hence marriages in general are outside the purview of the government and everyone should be getting civil unions, and allow churches to perform marriage ceremonies to whomever they deem fit for their particular brand of religiosity.

In either case, government discrimination against a couple based on their sexual orientation is fundamentally wrong.

Toasty: Only the liberal left would bring into the discussion interracial marriages as if it were something forbidden in the bible. It only shows just how ignorant you are and that so many people in their ignorance actually believed you!!!!!!! How stupid!

Melissa: You can't deny your own demographics can you? Or did you actually think that your beliefs actually held for the entirety of the democratic party? That shows you don't know your party at all. Another shortsightedness of being liberal! Stop acting like your beliefs are what counts for all. For the record, I have many democratic friends who would agree with me. They only voted for Obama on economic issues, not social ones.

Beanathome: Again, you need to improve your math. If you say that 50% of republicans are born again christians, then why do you liberals refer to the entire republican party as the religious right? That right there shows how you skew numbers.

Second, you said that 30% of democrats are born again christians, which means 70% are not... or you stated 1 out of 5 people (or 20%) are from other religions and the other 80% are christian, with 30% accounting for being born-again christians? Which means that 50% are what, psuedo-christians(or atheists) for that matter? According to your math, it seems like the democrats are the ones that are more religious( 80%) in terms of christianity. But we all know that's not true, is it? I don't think your numbers hold up ( 1 out of 5, yeah right!) and its a shame that there is so many dumb people who believed you.

"Born Again", in my opinion, is nothing more than a self-adopted label that people use to tell people that they are morally superior to everyone else.

Why is gay marriage a topic for Presidential elections? Republicans want less social programs yet want to control the social issues of our country. Bill mentioned that he doesn't want to see people of the same sex making out and Thinkforyourself starts jabbing at his religious beliefs. So Think...is denigrating Bill for saying he "disagrees" with you and you go on to take shots at his religion.

Who cares and why does it matter to you? Someone in an earlier post mentioned the "biology of marriage"!?! What the hell is that? What about asexual organisms that can reproduce by themselves?

Some of the talking points in these comments have absolutely nothing to do with anything related to an election or are even related to the posts which are being responded to.

Now that it's been established that Unhappy is a Birther we can all ignore him. All of his beliefs flow from that starting point.

Frank-2467227

Yeah, just like Sodom and Gomorra all over again. As far as SECULAR marriage, "Give Cesar what is Cesar's and give God what is God's"! This is a religious issue, I don't want my kids seeing this, it needs to be stopped from spreading for the sake of my beliefs. It's his mercy that all the sinners should be thankful for, one can only wonder for how much longer he can keep this sinful world going before he really puts the hammer down!

Let's just look at this in a clear-headed way for a moment, Frank. Your belief in an invisible deity is your right, but please do not deny others the same god-given rights (I assume you can understand that concept) because it would offend your beliefs.

You are not god. You did not create the universe and everything in it.

Furthermore, if your god hates homosexuality so much, why did he create some of his children gay? It is natural for animals to engage in homosexuality as well, and once again you must believe that your god created those animals?

If this little exercise in logical thinking doesn't open your eyes a crack, you should see a psychiatrist.

off topic: does kaybeetoys still exist? I loved that place when I was a kid (that's where I got my first cabbage patch kid lol)

Kaybeetoys does indeed still exist. I saw her in the mirror just this morning. :) Thanks for asking.

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Deuteronomy 7:3, banning the marriage of Hebrews, Hittites, Girga@!$%#es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. AKA interracial marriage.

kaybeetoys

Kaybeetoys does indeed still exist. I saw her in the mirror just this morning. :) Thanks for asking.

lol!!

When he denied inhaling, I thought it was the funniest thing a president ever said.

But Mr god on high coming down? Smokin Mary Jane? Nice catch!!!

Egilman, apparently you are unaware of the books that have been published about the moronic utterances of George W. Bush. Talk about hilarious. I laughed for hours.

Well it might be a failing of mine but since I am a conservative I tend to laugh a little more toward the liberal side, but yeah I'm aware and agree with ya...

Egilman, I did not think it was funny, I thought it was stupid. What a waste of good smoke . . .

That too, but it was the straight face on the stand that did it for me... like we were supposed to believe it.

Medical Marijuana is a non-issue in PA - so his not a suprise that he wasn't familair.

Zorro - that type of stuff is only popular with Bush bashers, just like the parade of Obama gaffes is popular with the Obama bashers.

Amazing that this would-be career politician who hasn't even held office or had a job for the past several years wants to provide us with food for thought, isn't it. We already know that Rick is against a woman's right to choose - unless it's HIS woman we're talking about, so my guess is that he's against medical marijuana unless one of HIS family would benefit. When will these hypocrites cast the beam from their own eyes before attempting to legislate the mote in the eyes of others?

I knew what he meant and understood Clinton when he said he didn't inhale. I knew people like that in highschool. Would take a joint and puff it and pass it just to be part of the crowd.

I don't believe in my heart of hearts that anyone who ever went to college didn't try at least one joint. Peer pressure most likely. I know this is how I tried my first joint. After an evening session I discovered that all it did was make me light headed, talkative, hungry and delusional. I may have hit two or three joints in my entire life after that. Now on the other hand I took up beer and alcohol in earnestness even though they made me incoherent, stumbling, impotent, lost of memory of the previous nights drinking, cathartic and head achy the following day. I've since given up drinking also. The follies of youth and adulthood should not be held against any man so long as it does not impair his judgement or prevent his avowed duties while in office. We all know that many social "crimes" become crimes only if they are found out or one gets caught while committing them. If the truth be known I doubt if five out of a hundred of all politicians of whatever office had not made a halfhearted move on one of their secretaries or aides or others and four out of those five would be female politicians. History tells us that of all our Presidents only about six have not had extramarital relationships either before or during office. It is an imbred condition of having power over people and is practiced in publc office or private enterprise.

Just as long as the morality police break down the bedroom doors and arrest those in relations with siblings or animals.

Anybody who says we should be free to love whomever we choose are true hipocrites.

Right, that is why liberals like to force their morality down the throats of others. Your people who are democrats, those of differing religions, would not follow your ideals. Why don't you listen to them for a change instead of those voices in your head?

Why do people seem to not understand the concept that allowing me to live my life the way I want with equal rights and benefits does not force anything on you. Have a problem with same sex marriage? Don't get married to someone of the same sex. Just leave others to make their own decision.

Um, wasn't that Herman Cain trying to force something down the throats of others?

Unhappy-1583758

Right, that is why liberals like to force their morality down the throats of others. Your people who are democrats, those of differing religions, would not follow your ideals. Why don't you listen to them for a change instead of those voices in your head?

First I am no liberal. However, these 'candidates' and the majority of the Republican party are right wing christians who THROW there beliefs down my throat. I have yet to see one democrat that has told me I have to live my life a certain way. I think you are confused, pathetic, and need a valium

Melissa: No, I believed that was Clinton. Or, uh hum, other areas.

It'sAboutTime: According to others on this site, christians make up only 50% of the republican party, hardly a majority ( wish you liberals would all make up your minds).

I have yet to see one democrat that has told me I have to live my life a certain way. I think you are confused, pathetic, and need a valium.

Not including yourself and others on this newsvine, the only one left you must be talking about is Obama. At least that is what he tells everyone else in this country what to do. And yet, why don't you ask your beloved President if he is inclined to support gay marriage? Just asking.

Unhappy-1583758

It'sAboutTime: According to others on this site, christians make up only 50% of the republican party, hardly a majority ( wish you liberals would all make up your minds).

and according to the real world, those 50 ram their christian beliefs down my throat. Perry, InSantorum, and Gingrich to just name a few.

Not including yourself and others on this newsvine, the only one left you must be talking about is Obama. At least that is what he tells everyone else in this country what to do. And yet, why don't you ask your beloved President if he is inclined to support gay marriage? Just asking.

Please add Pelosi, Hillary, Bloomberg, la la la, to this list of growing democrats. That DO NOT force their Christian beliefs down my throat. As for my beloved President, I would love to ask him why he hasn't done more. Of course, its still an election year and none of the candidates (repeat) none, are going to come out in support of Gay Marriage at the federal level. However, it's very clear, Obama does support it, even if he can't say it publicly.

Melissa-1175724-1762238

Um, wasn't that Herman Cain trying to force something down the throats of others?

Yes, that is correct, and Cain started Godfather's Pizza with the slogan, "Do you want sausage on your pie?"

(Quote attributable to my favorite newscaster, Jon Stewart.)

Wow quite the snark.

Look Ma!

I found a Sheeple!

Santorum is a blooming idiot. When all he can do is start talking about multiple people in a marriage, which by the way is a law on the books, it's called bigamy, he has no defense. Rick "man on dog" Santorum. lol

muy pendejo!

I mean pendejo grande! that rascally frothy liquid!

Except your sister. That's still against the law. You could get thrown in Jail for relations with your sister.

@markwonder consensual sex between any number of adults should not be of concern to anyone other than the participants

markwonder

Actually, in some states Incest isn't a crime anymore, like, the State of Washington. (they eliminated the incest statutes some 15 years ago)

As long as you are over 18 and consenting almost anything goes here. (reprehensible conduct to me but to each their own)

lets see... right now the LAW tells you that. Mr. Santorum is trying to keep that law from being manipulated by a community organizer that thinks he is a king.

Mark, not in Kentucky, just kidding.

We speak English in the US.

And Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, German, French, etc. Sorry that you can't keep up.

What makes me nauseous is the consistent platform of fear that these clown-shoes employ. The yawning chasm between consciousness and ignorance is beyond sad.

Dear simplton: your poster name tells me more about your mental capacity than you think. You post like a typical lefty whose thinking apparatus runs no higher than left = good and intelligent; right = bad and ignorant. Do you lefties really think that intelligence and acceptance of leftism are equivalent? If so, consider suing the American educational system for malpractice. As for poor Barney-331 whatever, your post is beyond incoherence. So for the edification of both of you, here's the real deal on marriage:

Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who make their livelihoods by studying can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual sex activities, and not for legalization of unrestrained sexual activity.

Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and have no control over public institutions.

Bigotry dressed up as teleology, Old King, is still bigotry. If heterosexual people don't want kids, are you going to deny them marriage too? How about terminating all marriages when the marital partners can no longer have a kid? Marriage has provided stability for child rearing, which it would also do so for gay people who adopt or where one of the gays bore a child with a heterosexual?

And finally, King, if you're really interested in assuring the continuing existence of mankind, you should thank homosexuals for not having children in a world that is already over-populated, short on fresh water, and living in increasing poverty and squalor.

Is interracial marriage, which was once argued to be against nature or the natural order of things by people just like, a big downer for you too? Sorry, Old King, but I'd rather have you go into a closet than force my gay friends to return to one.

well stated old king blog.

Hey, Old King Blog, while we're at it, why don't you also explain the very real biological fact that males are wired to procreate with everything that moves -- or at least think about it.

So is marriage really all that natural?

You sound like one of those loud, overbearing guys whom no one would want to marry unless he had a lot of money, and probably not even then, but enlighten us all as to why the acquired state of marriage is more normal than being born gay.

Devo-lutionary. The revolution WILL be televised, on MTV. Bring your red plastic headgear and get ready to whip it.

Mr. Old King Blog. With all due respect your logic is weak. Civil decisions frequently fly in the face of evolutionary preferences. In fact, as a civilized society we allow people who would be weeded out without science and technology to survive- its a major function of law. Moreover, evolution "rewards" promiscuity in males. In short, you'll have to come up will a better justification than "naturalness of marriage" for your views if you are attempting to sway opinion with reason.

Hey, Old King Blog, while we're at it, why don't you also explain the very real biological fact that males are wired to procreate with everything that moves -- or at least think about it.

Hey Melissa, you have just proven the fact, that gay men in particular do not value the sanctity of marriage, just the fact that they need to mate. Did you really want to bring that into the discussion?

Marriage only came ito existence with the concept of land ownership. Prior to that men were like herd animals, get and keep a harem of as many partners as you can feed and control. Once man became a land owner he saw the need to have a bona fide heir to pass his land to. Even in the Bible which was written some twenty nine hundred years ago men had a wife and several hand maidens. His goats and sheep went to the progeny of his wife and not his hand maidens. Marriage was the legal means of passing down ones property. The Bible makes no mention of how many hand men if any a man had. This same practice is followed under Islamic law today. Bin Laden was the product of one of his father's hand maidens not his wife. Bin Laden was killed in the presence of one of his hand maidens, not his wife. It was only after the third centry AD that this practice was openly frowned upon by the Christian Church, but was continued as a practice by Hebrews and Christians alike under cover of Nuns by the religious gurus but forbidden to the general population. You will never know or understand what is hidden from you by the religious gurus because the books and history of all religious tenets are hidden from you lest you gain a modicum of freedom from knowing what they know. Why do you not think that some forty odd books of the Bible are stricken from our current version.They tell a different story in many cases, and their are many books that are not true religious books but give a different slant to the tenets of religion that we are used to hearing from the pulpits. The avowed purpose of Priest, Rabbis and Imams is to interpret, get the meaning of interpret, what is written in the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. It is they who DEFINE what is sinful or correct and in every case they are MEN inspired only by their own definition of INSPIRED.

Hey Melissa, you have just proven the fact, that gay men in particular do not value the sanctity of marriage, just the fact that they need to mate. Did you really want to bring that into the discussion?

And again Unhappy demonstrates his inability to actually read peoples' posts. Where did he get "in particular?" Nowhere. He just made it up.

N.C. Thornton, thank you for injecting some reality and logic into the otherwise vast wasteland of religious dogma that only fools and the fearful still cling to.

Mankind is at a crossroads in the evolution of religious thought, and those who think as you do are the wave of the future. The others who still kneel before the power and control of their religious institutions will either wake up and see the light of reality, or they will annihilate mankind with nuclear war waged in the name of god.

Unhappy, ya got it wrong there. The person wrote 'males'. They did not specify it was gay males. And I know several monogamous married gay men, and several straight males that will try to screw any female that moves.

Oh, Srihari, the editing - or rather the lack of it - on msn is nothing short of appalling. Proof of either the decline of American education or the utter disregard for a quality product that is becoming all too common in the US-

Especially when quality education is denied to so many under cover of not enough money. It is the duty of the government to provide safety, a modicum of equality and an efucation to its citizens. You cannot tell me that a government which can provide billions in aid, to foreign Countries and fund two wars, on foreign soil, yet does not have enough money to educate its citizens. Something is rotten in Denmark and Washington. Lest you forget nearly every Country in the world sends its students here to study all of the major sciences in a university setting, but our own children are denied entry because they cannot afford to get in or go to them. Our primary schools have to make do with high class room attendance, lack of basic tools, outmoded school facilities and in some cases unqualified teachers BECAUSE the school systems have no money. Charity begins at home America, tell your Congressman this by going to the polls and voting for men who want to give every child a decent education before he wants to limit peoples choices in how they live. I have not heard one Presidential candidate speak out about what he wants to do to improve the educational quality in America. They all have a stance on abortion, womens rights, gay rights, one percenters, ninety nine percenters, entitlements and everything else under the Sun. Ask them what are you going to do to improve education in all American schools.

since when do college students think?!? too busy smoking non-medical marijuana....

Well, if you had gone to college Laura or any form of HIGHER education, you'd think a little more rationally.

He's toast after New Hampshire. Dumb is dumb, regardless of ideology.

Only three words are needed to describe your post, johnny: "leftist" and "wishful" and "thinking." Cheers

According to his version of religion, he's not allowed to jerk off. It kills sperm cells that could otherwise be made into humans. Anti-birth control as well as anti-abortion. Though he, and a few other repub candidates, would be a perfect candidate for retroactive birth control.

Ummm Laura, I don't believe anyone here needs to know about your personal preferences, ty.

Old King Blog wants to use what he considers a scientific reasoning by associating procreation with a societal construction we call marriage? And he furthermore wants to somehow argue that the existence of homosexuality is not meant to be, if I'm reading his post right?

Well:

1) To me, anyone who thinks they can, completely and without error, know the mind of God, is blasphemous because God is Truth, and we are flawed mortals. I would argue further to say that the Bible, being recorded by flawed mortals cannot adequately capture God, either. It is only a starting point for those of us who follow Jesus as our Way.

2) As a result of number 1, we can only learn through looking at the world, asking questions, observing, and analyzing.

3) How can anyone argue that homosexuality is unnatural when gay people have always existed? And anyone who tries to argue it is a choice are crazy. I have heard it said that straight men think of women almost non-stop, so no one can just turn that of with a choice.

4) I would echo Marowitz's point, but add that, since God is Love, God is Good, and Love is Good, then the existence of gay people born into our world, is God's way to help the world deal with over-population, etc., in a loving way. Animals in the wild deal with over-population in awful ways, and humans often suffer war, famine, sickness, and death due to over-population; but we also know how not to let our worse side cause those "horsemen of the apocalypse," and that is with Love.

Or rather, Santorum didn't realize that his non sequitur undermines his own argument since the slippery slope historically has been between straight marriage and heterosexual polygamy. By his own "logic" if polygamy is what he fears then we need to ban straight marriage.

Santorum didn't display any logic. He repeated that old line about gay marriage leading to plural marriage. He didn't address why he thought it was OK to deny gays equal rights, nor did he reconcile his beliefs in states rights with his desire to ban gay marriage nationwide. Apparently, states rights are fine as long as they think like he does.

This idiot just demonstrated how out of touch he is with reality. Kudos to the students who challenged his 1950 belief systems.

Faux News/Republican strategy;

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

Santorum does it well.

Why, exactly, is gay marriage in anyway superior to plural marriage? At least plural marriage is natural. and biblical!

Well, since Mr. Santorum's own Bible not only has examples of plural marriages, but endorses them, it's kind of odd that he is so worried about the matter.

Slavery of your neighbors and having proscriptions of having sex with a menstruating woman is also biblical in nature Laura.

Laura, The CATHOLIC CHURCH (which was by definition the CHRISTIAN CHURCH until Henry VIII of England broke away) had and technically STILL HAS rites for same-sex unions:

http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Laura, I bet your a southern baptist who wants to be a mormon? Keep religion out of politics and the public arena. If you want to drink the kool-aid, keep it to yourself.

Actually I'd put money on Laura being gay herself. Typically those who bark the loudest are the very thing they are barking about.

Shellie, I was thinking the same thing - not about Laura, but about Dick Santorum. To borrow a phrase from Shakespeare: I think he doth protest too much.

Just Google. he might get the vote if you never hear him speak. Straight people do that sometimes to.

Santorum, would bring back The Salem Witch Trials and burn someone who has an abortion at the stake. Yup, a lot of women would goin' around with "The Scalet Letter" on their chest also.

I think he wants to make sure that pedophile priests can't mary their prey. Opps, silly me, priests aren't supposed to marry anyone at all!

Define what homosexuality is first, what causes it? Why are some attracted that way while some are not. Is homosexuality an orientation, has that been scientifically proven? Define exactly what it is

Homosexuality, like heterosexuality and bisexuality, is an innate-driven sexual ORIENTATION. An orientation is NOT a "choice", and not a "preference". There are over 400 species which have been identified already in the animal kingdom that have exhibited same-sex orientation behavior. Did they "choose" to be attracted to to same-sex? How old were YOU when you CHOSE your sexual orientation?

Don't give me the primal clown fish argument, I am not interested in Percula Clowns, I want to know about human beings and show me the scientific reality for human beings, give me the scientific literature. I am fully aware of certain species of marine life that have a non specific sex morphisms but what about humans, show me the AMA article proving human homosexual orientation.

Paul, do your own research!!! There is more than enough out there. I am so sick and tired of lazy, closed minded people saying "Show it to me" People tell you over and over that it is so, yet you just keep blindly insisting on your ignorance waiting and demanding that someone serves the truth to you on a platter? YOU look it up!!

Right, Laura. And you know this how? Because you have looked through the journals and read through the documentation and seen for yourself the research that "wasn't" there?

Another lazy, closed minded person, waiting for the world to spin around her ...sigh.

Paul and Laura! Get a room! And don't make too much noise, or we'll turn the hose on you!

What are you two so worried about? Do you take gayness personally? Re the "eww" factor, don't you think that digital clips of your most intimate moments might have a big "eww" factor for everybody, other than you and your love thing?

And Paul, answer this one: Why are there white people, or people who are good at whistling? Or people who reflexively go bughouse nuts when facing anyone different from themselves?

Paul--seriously, can we not do the "you have to show me (a person who is unaware of any scientific literature) enough information to change my mind before you are allowed to have your own, informed opinion" gig? Please?

We do not need to know what "causes" homosexuality beyond any doubt whatsoever before we can say that people who are homosexual and in long-term relationships have to pay taxes, what they do in their own homes is their own business, and most people in the US now believe that their relationships should have the same legal basis as the relationships of heterosexuals.

If you want to go and read it, the studies already indicate that male homosexuals have an amygdala that is more similar to that of straight females than straight males, and that female homosexuals' amygdala are more similar to straight males than straight females. The distribution in length between the index finger and ring finger do the same. The way that gay/straight people walk has the same pattern. Behaviors begin in childhood--and unless you think that very small children who do not even know what sex is are unnatural and disgusting . . . well, the present evidence is that this is an inborn trait.

Further, there is a strong tie between stress in the mother during pregnancy and male homosexuality, and there is a strong tie between amphetimine use in the mother during pregnancy (usually diet pills) and female homosexuality.

Basically, if a man wants a gay son, then he should stress his wife out (either by being abusive or by being a Southern Baptist minister with a congregation that holds her to an absurd standard . . . or a politician with similar constituents). If he wants a gay daughter, he should react to any weight gain by his wife and immediately give her diet pills. This does appear to be at least partially causal.

But, you know, nobody has to show you proof before they are allowed to have informed opinions. If you don't want to have an informed opinion by looking things up yourself, then you go right ahead and have an uninformed opinion. My opinion is a bit more informed--have a great day.

By the way, what is a Percula Clown? Is it some kind of fish? Can you get one for an aquarium?

Yes you can, they tank raise them so they don't deplete the reefs of thw world.

Laura-476504

You can't show it because it's not there. Homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural and disgusting. Seriously, think about what they do. eww...

I have no interest in what "they" do, much like I have no interest in your bedroom proclivities (talk about "eww ...").

Why are the "conservatives" so damned obsessed with gay sex? Live and let live, ffs.

I am not obsessed with it except that at the workplace we see it in employee handbooks, health insurance manuals, policy manuals, politicians use the terminology for "orientation" but I see no scientific validity in my research to believe in orientation accept it is a word that they want all of us to "must embrace" and that is why I am asking for scientific facts, how you suck & f— — — is your choice I could care less. I want to know why I am being forced to acknowledge something I have no scientific explanation for.

And, once again Paul, please STOP demanding that others do your intellectual work for you! If you really want to know what others know, look it up yourself! It's all there, ready for you to read! And, it's not that hard to find.

Do yourself a favor, though, and stick to reputable sources, like the AMA, the APA, JPP, Oxford Journal of Medicine, etc. ... wouldn't want you to get hung up in the "supposed research" on "Joe Bob's thoughts about Guns, God, and Gays" site or the like.

I want to know why I am being forced to acknowledge something I have no scientific explanation for.

You're not being forced to acknowledge anything. Ignore those sections of the handbooks and manuals if they don't apply to you.

Paul,

You can find ONE paper here (granted it's not the AMA, however the fact that FOX news published the study may actually carry more weight with you):

Here's an except:

A group of Korean geneticists has altered the sexual preferences of female mice by removing a single gene linked to reproductive behavior. Without the gene, the mice gravitated toward mice of the same sex.

Paul, you need to get out more often, and stop obsessing over other people's sex lives.

Paul sounds like he might be the rabid homophobe Paul Cameron.

Or maybe Saul of Tarsus - the rabid zealot who never met or knew Jesus, but presumed to speak for him.

Paul- Give it time, they will discover it eventually, unless the Mayans really were right. Then it won't matter any more :)

You do realize, right, that there was a time that people thought the Earth was flat. But we found out differently.

There was also a time that people thought the earth rotated around the objects in the sky. Then someone invented the telescope. (Unfortunately, that poor, liberal-educated sot got beheaded)

DNA is a relatively newly discovered thing, and currently, there are more liberal-educated lefties who are slamming sub-atomic particles together (which were not visible until microscopes were invented) in search of something called the "God-particle." BTW, they think they may have found it.

I have no doubt that if this world lasts long enough, and if you live long enough...eventually someone will be able to show you that highly valued scientific research.

Of course, if you are intelligent and dedicated enough, you could actually find it yourself. Me? Nah, Im content with the fact that I was "born this way" and I choose to devote my life to other things. Choice is yours :)

So in other words I am forced in the work place by reading policies, health insurance coverages, politicians using "orientation" as if it is FACT to accept the idea of orientation when there is no scientific validation for this concept at this point-they may prove it 30 years from now but for now the work place utilizes a "theory" as if it is fact!! And this concept bothers me that the term is utilized as if it is fact when it is not!! We who are not homosexual have to embrace this theory in everything we read.

Paul,

Evolution is a theory too, so is relativity, atomic theory, heliocentrism, etc. Do you get this upset that these "theories" are not only discussed in public, but taught in our schools as if they are "fact"? Or is it just the "theories" you don't like?

Don't bother trying to reason with Paul. Even if he read definitive proof he'd still refuse to believe it because it conflicts with his internal opinions.

That's why he won't do his own research. Because he might find something that he didn't agree with.

"It's only scientifically valid if it agrees with what I already know."

Paul-2793107

So in other words I am forced in the work place by reading policies, health insurance coverages, politicians using "orientation" as if it is FACT to accept the idea of orientation when there is no scientific validation for this concept at this point-they may prove it 30 years from now but for now the work place utilizes a "theory" as if it is fact!! And this concept bothers me that the term is utilized as if it is fact when it is not!! We who are not homosexual have to embrace this theory in everything we read.

Your outrage is false. No one is f*cking asking you to embrace a godd*mned thing, let alone "force" you to read "insurance policies" as some sort of continued gay agenda.

To be honest, it sounds like you're simply bitter because "they" are being afforded marriage rights in some states.

In much the same manner I have to live with the fact that there are cretinous asshats that stand resolutely against the concept of equality, I suggest that you do the same with regards to equal rights being affording to same-gender marriage couples.

Live and let live. Troll less, sir.

Paul, do you have any gay friends? Have you ever had a conversation with a gay person about how they came to realize and accept their sexual orientation?

Why--just for the sake of argument-- would someone choose to be different from the majority, treated like a second-class citizen, mocked and ridiculed, forced to live a lie in some cases, and suffer through a confusing and troubling adolescence? Why would someone choose to be different from the person their parents had expected them to be from the moment they were born? Why would someone choose to complicate his or her life on a whim?

Logic alone will tell you that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

Being gay is not not the carefree life you might imagine. The rate of depression and suicide is much higher in the gay community. Can you put yourself in the shoes of a gay man or woman and have a little compassion for the challenges they must face? (From people like you...)

News flash: You are not perfect either.

Paul, what more proof do you need for sexual orientation than the history of mankind? People, gay, straight, and bisexual have been screwing around for centuries. Homosexuality is not a recent construct. Regardless of how you feel about gays, if you still can't wrap your very little finger around the fact that they exist, then your too intellectually challenged for any scientific "proof."

Laura, I feel sorry for your husband (if you have one).

Yeah, when I read about that, I was creeped out. And this guy actually has a following? That's even creepier.

Hmmm, wonder if he saved the corpse to parade around during the campaign?