freedom for all;

equality for all.

- it's in the Constitution

Ruken, you are just trying go get banned, aren't you....

Felons for President!!!! Romney 2012

Good......yet another nail in their coffin!

Equal rights sure is a nail in the coffin spider, especially when a majority of Americans back gay marriage / unions.

That whole "rights" thing sure as shootin' didn't work for JFK and Lyndon Johnson.

Aparently Ruken is a slow learner ! Anyone know why Ruken got banned for a month ? ... he earned it.

Topic of article: Gay Rights

Opinion: This is not a federal issue but one for each state to decide. Unemplyment at 8.2%+, our economy and $16 trillion in debt are far more important. "Civil unions" may have some merit. Marriage ? I am not sure I would want to take away Mr. Webster's job and REDEFINE the meaning of "marriage".

This is an issue for the back burner. Jobs, the debt clock, the economy and the illegal immigration issue are all of higher importance at this time.

This is not a federal issue but one for each state to decide.

WRONG. Since marriage has been found to be a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, it IS a federal matter.

Dem4Freedom: Report Ruken @ newsvinecontact@msnbc.com. like I do. Copy and paste the the URL and give a couple comment numbers. Oh! Never mind, you have Dem in your screen name. Didn't mean to suggest that you be a turncoat. At ease, Carry on, never mind.

Erin,

I hate to tell you, but the current Supreme Court Ruling is that it is not a basic civil right, nor a federal matter. Look up Baker v Nelson, in which the Supreme Court ruled that "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."

Since the Supreme Court has not taken the cases from either the 9th Curcuit nor the 1st Curcuit, this is still the precedent that we have on this matter.

This is s pretty risky move for the democrats. There are still a WHOLE lot of southern democrats (primarily) who are going to have some real problems with that. They may find in their zeal to make every democrat a social liberal that they lose a lot of them in the process.

I am not sure I would want to take away Mr. Webster's job and REDEFINE the meaning of "marriage".

Redefine? What for? Here's Mr. Webster's definition of marriage:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

As an equal-rights supporter, I'm very much OK with the whole "civil unions" thing. I don't need to call it "marriage" (which, by the way, comes from the Latin maritare, which means "to provide with a partner"). The problem is that we can't render the law-making process ineffective based on an issue of semantics. If the government were willing to enable gays to form civil unions and THEN debate the usage of the word "marriage," that would be the most logical thing to do. Just like it would be most logical to FIRST pass tax cut extensions for the middle class/poor and THEN debate those for the rich. But the GOP loves to hold a good and popular measure hostage to a more unpopular one.

Look don't blame the Democrats for this stance, after all the gay community has threatened to boycott the elections if they don't take a stand.

Because, it's NOT an Individual right!. It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers.. Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual"..

Hey, what's this I hear about The Republican National Convention (RNC) not inviting Dick (Darth Vader) Cheney, or that other guy, George Bush to their own Convention?

What gives? Are you Republicans, Conservatives, and Teabaggers too EMBARRASSED or something, by your own kind?

Isn't Dick (Darth Vader) Cheney one of your Major Financial Contributors to "Etch-A-Scetch" Mitt Romney's campaign, and also one of Romney chief Foreign Policy Advisors? I know Cheney couldn't go overseas with Mitt this time, because Dick Cheney is wanted for WAR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY all over Europe, but the Republican Nation Convention? Is he also a "wanted-man" there? Oh wait, he's Not a "wanted-man" at the Republican National Convention, 'cause Republicans, Conservatives and Teabaggers do NOT want Cheney there! Too Funny!

I guess all you Republicans don't want little Georgie Bush at your Convention, because suddenly all of American Voters would remember that your George Bush was, and is, TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE for the ECONOMIC MESS we're in today. I guess you can say your Ex-president George Bush is the "Gift that Keeps on Giving". Hah! Hah!

That's why this Republican is telling Everybody, and I mean Everybody, to Vote a straight Democratic ticket come this November 2012.

"

Do it yourself

Because, it's NOT an Individual right!. It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers.. Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual".."

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

By that definition anyone infertile can't get married either.

Oh, you have an inoperable cyst on both ovaries? Sorry. You're single for life.

Low sperm count? Hope you didn't want to get married.

it's NOT an Individual right!.

WRONG. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, and as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, homosexuals are entitled to the right to marry the consenting adults of their choosing, just as we heterosexuals can.

It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers

What do reproduction and marriage have to do with each other? One is not required for the other.

Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual".."

Gays CAN and DO reproduce. However, using your "logic," heterosexual couples who are infertile, or elderly couples, or those who do not wish to have children are also "not equal in that regard," so should their "right to claim dependency on each other higher than any other individual" be taken away?

HEY , do u think the TRANSSEXUALS are mentally ILL?? The APA does. That's the 'T' in LBGT. I haven't looked un BI-SEXUALS yet, but I will. I know, you'll say that's not true, so here's the reference:

Today, transsexualism is still listed as a mental illness in DSM (DSM-IV-TR 302.85 "Gender Identity Disorder" or GID) .

Then there's the prevelance of pedophelia among homosexuals:

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

ROFLMAO! That study was from 1992 and has since been debunked, aquarius. Learn how to do research.

The majority of child molesters are heterosexual men, not lesbian, gay or bisexual people. Almost all studies show that over 90% of child molestation is committed by heterosexual men.

http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html

Myth and Reality:

The majority of child molesters are gay or lesbian.

Statistics regarding child molestation prepared by the Boston Advocates for Human Rights reveal that, "the vast majority of child molestation - over 90% - is performed by heterosexual males. The man who is sexually interested in children is rarely homosexual."

http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm

Myth: Gay men are child molesters.
Reality: Studies show that 90-95% of child molesters are heterosexual men, usually relatives of the child involved. In fact, 45% of child sexual abuse is committed by the father. 97% of sex offenders against children are male and 90% of the victims are female. Even in cases of same-sex molestation, offenders typically report that they are not interested in—and are even repulsed by—homosexual activity. Pedophiles tend to be motivated by power, control, and hostility rather than by sexual desire.

http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm

Myth: Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters.
Fact: Pedophilia, sexual attraction to children, should never be confused with homosexuality. Many studies have documented that the overwhelming majority (some say 90%) of child molesters are heterosexual men against young girls. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals have no interest in preadolescent children.

http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

No response, Aquarius?

These kinds of issues are to distract you from the economic situation and make you think there is a big difference between the candidates.

On the issue the americans, gay or straight, are effected by the most, economics, the two candidates are not very different and sometimes almost completely the same.

After all, it was Bush started the bank bailouts and Obama continued them. Both candidates help the rich but are going to give the cold shoulder (and no help) to anyone else.

Here's something I found online:

The jobs crisis and the 2012 elections

30 July 2012

By Patrick Martin

"…The administration has funneled huge resources to the super-rich, in the bailout of banks and then the auto companies, accompanied by a 50 percent wage cut for newly hired auto workers. While trillions were allocated to bail out Wall Street, not a penny is proposed to prevent a colossal growth of poverty and social misery among working people.

There is a definite class policy at work, to be pursued whether Obama or Mitt Romney wins the presidential elections this November. The American ruling elite, far from seeking to end mass unemployment, regards tens of millions of jobless workers as a positive good. A double-digit unemployment rate (when part-time and discouraged workers are included in the calculation) provides a powerful weapon for driving down wages, benefits and social programs, and imposing far worse conditions on workers still on the job

Meanwhile, on the national security front, the lack of decent jobs for young people insures a steady supply of recruits for the "volunteer" military, the cannon fodder for new imperialist wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are being prepared in Syria, Iran and other international flashpoints where the US military is deployed.

For the working class, the OMB document underscores the underlying reality of the 2012 election campaign. With tens of millions of working people facing increasingly desperate conditions, neither capitalist candidate, Obama or Romney, offers any alternative. The truth is that there can be no solution to the crisis without a frontal assault on the accumulated wealth of the ruling class.

The trillions in the coffers of the banks and giant corporations are an irrefutable answer to claims by Democratic and Republican politicians and their media apologists that "there is no money" to deal with urgent social needs…."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jul2012/pers-j30.shtml

Hmmmmmm,

So, the DNC, the Democratic National Convention, will now be known as Do Not Consummate.

While may of you believe that same sex marriage is fine and that gays who marry are entitled to equal rights, there is a dividing line. It would be fine if it were called civil unions and they had the same rights but the term marriage comes from a religious rite. In my church it is a sacrament. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. The use of the term marriage by the states and gay community is a frontal assault on many people's beliefs. So civil unions and equal rights fine...an assault on the institution of marriage is not. I am white is it OK to list myself as a minority to benefit from affirmative action or if I am a man to apply for the benefits of a woman owned business. Where is the equal protection...we are on a slippery slope when you start singling out groups...because as American citizens we are entitled to individual equal rights. All should be equal...women, men, minorities ...no favors for special interest groups. Either you are an American citizen or you aren't.

ArchStanton

The trillions in the coffers of the banks and giant corporations are an irrefutable answer to claims by Democratic and Republican politicians and their media apologists that "there is no money" to deal with urgent social needs…."

So Arch, tell me, how many more trillions will it take to solve these "urgent social needs"? More importantly, when are all these social needs NOT urgent?

We have spent anywhere between $17 trillion and $19 trillion on the "war on poverty". In 1960 our poverty rate was 14%, today it is 14.3% (15.1% including the recession).

We have spent countless tens of trillions on our "war on illiteracy". Today most Americans read at an 8th grade level. Most American's don't know how to use--their, they're or there--correctly in a sentence . Ask a senior to calculate 40% of 660 in their head and they stare at you blankly.

The "war on crime" and the "war on drugs" have been abject failures.

When will we learn these issues cannot be fixed by legislation that aimlessly pours trillions and trillions of dollars via a massive dysfunctional government bureaucracy? So now the solution is to just take more from the banks and corporations and redistribute it with the same results. What makes anyone think any of these problems can be fixed by just throwing more good money after bad?

I agree with the first paragraph of Martins article but he didn’t identify the biggest cause of our economic collapse, the Federal Reserve. The Fed sees the world as bank-centric. It’s recurrent manipulation of interest rates, monetization and its latest grab bag of Quantitative Easing has added trillions of dollars being redistributed to its banks, domestic AND foreign. It’s balance sheet has exploded from $800 billion to over $2 trillion. We think. No one knows.

Remember, governments are very powerful, and when in partnership with the monetary authorities that can inflate our currency at will, big government thrives. Today, reality is setting in and the first of three major events has begun. The worldwide financial system, built on a foundation of paper has received the shock waves of an impending collapse. The wild speculation, the fractured derivatives market, the growing stock market bubble inflated by the Fed, the insurmountable debt-public and private-and the massive government malinvestments have been shattered. The only solutions offered worldwide so far is to print or borrow money faster, keep interest rates low and remove all stops for controlling deficits. We’ve been doing this for 30 years and accelerated it over the past 10 years.

Keynesians have this distorted ideology that “when the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” What complicates this is that when the hammer does work, they never reach the conclusion that the reason it didn’t work is because the problem wasn’t a nail, no, the conclusion is always the hammer wasn’t big enough.

This will just propel the collapse even faster and at much more expense.

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1.

In other words, there are 11 heterosexual pedophiles for every 1 homosexual pedophile. Since homosexuals make up 10% of the population, that means that hetero pedos greatly outnumber homo pedos, both in total numbers AND in percentages

This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

As usual, you ignore your own figures and get it exactly wrong.

The important thing is pedophiles are bad and should be arrested, no matter what their gender orientation might be. But it would be silly to deny rights to all heteros because some are pedos, and it would be just as silly to deny rights to all gays just because a tiny percentage are pedos.

After reading these comments here it very clear that the lunatic fringe is gathering around the leftist Democratic protectors spewing their anger and violence towards the right, again. Sadly typical. You all go beyond showing positive support to the vehement verbal attacks that so much follow liberals opinions. You know that once this election is over and your attacks subside so will your lunatic fringe support from the democratic party - the party that is big on talk and pandering, but, short on action follow through actions....sorry to burst your bubbles.

Erin you are depending upon a Ninth Circuit court to call it constitutional. This is working it's way to the Supreme court. Realistically, you are depending upoin a back door use of the constitution to call it "protected".

Over 50% of Ninth circuit decisions are overturned in the US Supreme Court. At this point, you must wait until the SCOTUS takes it up before it really is law of the land.

The Supreme Court ruled marriage a basic civil right in 1967 - Loving v. Virginia.

That would beat the current Tyrannical Imperialistic Progressive Led one?

Felons for President!!!! Romney 2012

Because, it's NOT an Individual right!. It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers.. Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual"..

Just one more NAIL in the coffin of the OBUMMER administration> Next he'll appeal to the other fringes, like pedophiles, the MENTALLY ILL, oh wait, he's doing that because the 'T' IN LBGT ARE mentall ill. Right SKREKK???

The Democrats will also support the theory that our planet is round, and the GOP will oppose that as well.

And Do it yourself: I assume you oppose marriage for post-menopausal women.

Hey gang, let's go all in on this making our laws comport with the Bible and outlaw shellfish and bring back slavery!

it's NOT an Individual right!.

WRONG. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, and as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, homosexuals are entitled to the right to marry the consenting adults of their choosing, just as we heterosexuals can.

It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers

What do reproduction and marriage have to do with each other? One is not required for the other.

Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual".."

Gays CAN and DO reproduce. However, using your "logic," heterosexual couples who are infertile, or elderly couples, or those who do not wish to have children are also "not equal in that regard," so should their "right to claim dependency on each other higher than any other individual" be taken away?

HEY , do u think the TRANSSEXUALS are mentally ILL?? The APA does. That's the 'T' in LBGT. I haven't looked un BI-SEXUALS yet, but I will. I know, you'll say that's not true, so here's the reference:

Today, transsexualism is still listed as a mental illness in DSM (DSM-IV-TR 302.85 "Gender Identity Disorder" or GID) .

Then there's the prevelance of pedophelia among homosexuals:

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

The majority of child molesters are heterosexual men, not lesbian, gay or bisexual people. Almost all studies show that over 90% of child molestation is committed by heterosexual men.

http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html

Myth and Reality:

The majority of child molesters are gay or lesbian.

Statistics regarding child molestation prepared by the Boston Advocates for Human Rights reveal that, "the vast majority of child molestation - over 90% - is performed by heterosexual males. The man who is sexually interested in children is rarely homosexual."

http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm

Myth: Gay men are child molesters.
Reality: Studies show that 90-95% of child molesters are heterosexual men, usually relatives of the child involved. In fact, 45% of child sexual abuse is committed by the father. 97% of sex offenders against children are male and 90% of the victims are female. Even in cases of same-sex molestation, offenders typically report that they are not interested in—and are even repulsed by—homosexual activity. Pedophiles tend to be motivated by power, control, and hostility rather than by sexual desire.

http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm

Myth: Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters.
Fact: Pedophilia, sexual attraction to children, should never be confused with homosexuality. Many studies have documented that the overwhelming majority (some say 90%) of child molesters are heterosexual men against young girls. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals have no interest in preadolescent children.

http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

The QUOTE I POSTED was from the National Institute of Health, are they WRONG?? Your sources are quite CLEARLY BIASED, mine is the US GOVT, like the FDA that PROHIBITS homosexuals from GIVIN BLOOD.

""""

Hehe, Aquarius I doubt you've ever read the document you tried to cite. Tell me, what page were you reading? Surely you have the document right there in front of you, after all...

Yes! Take the Govt. Dole away.. Make it a true individual right for marriage only without tax dependency benefits just for coupling without reproduction.. Have each individual actually be able to take out accordingly to what they put into the system.. Couples with children get the deductions because they are taking care of children.. When a couple is prego they pay less accordingly be cause it does create dependency.. having sex with each other doesn't!

Because, it's NOT an Individual right!. It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and each others..

So, you're saying that a man with a vasectomy shouldn't be allowed to marry? Same goes for a woman with a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy, or a woman past menopause. Thing is, fertility tests have never been required for marriage, and people unable or unwilling to bear offspring have never been denied the right to marry. Moreover, the legal rights given to married couple involves the couple only, not any "offspring" they might have. There are certain legal rights - and tax deductions - given to parents of children, but those are granted to parents no matter what their marital status might be.

Sorry, your argument is a logical and legal FAIL.

wtfjes66

After reading these comments here it very clear that the lunatic fringe is gathering around the leftist Democratic protectors spewing their anger and violence towards the right, again. Sadly typical. You all go beyond showing positive support to the vehement verbal attacks that so much follow liberals opinions. You know that once this election is over and your attacks subside so will your lunatic fringe support from the democratic party - the party that is big on talk and pandering, but, short on action follow through actions....sorry to burst your bubbles.

The only reason gay marriage will make the Democratic platform is because if it doesn't, the gay movement has threatened to boycott the election. You have to love an organization that seeks tolerance but totally intolerant. Either you agree with gay marriage or they will try and ruin you. How special.

Nice to see the Marxist are out in force with their Saul Alinsky disinformation campaign.

To recap:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" Loving v. 1967

Nobody in their right mind could ever contend that perverts masturbating with same gender partners could ever be considered "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Marriage corruption supporters only concern themselves with those words that appear to give their argument merit when taken out of context, but they have no use whatsoever for those parts of speech that dictate the intent of a given text.

Marriage: the joining of opposites

Corruption: departure from the original or from what is pure or correct

It appears that the Democrats knew they where heading for an across the board landslide defeat so they thought they might as well go for broke.

Pigotry

freedom for all;

equality for all.

- it's in the Constitution

Right.....and as long as they agree with you!

Randy, where is "marriage" defined as "the joining of opposites"?

Oh, that's right -- that came from the dictionary of YOUR ASS. Your "facts" either come from there, or from the encyclopedia that you keep there.

Obama would support a "National Support for Bigfoot" day if he thought it could help him get re-elected. Obama just remember - it's the economy. All these other distractions won't matter. You said you would fix the economy and you have made it worse. Gay marriage, environmentalist support, "tax the rich", "you didn't build that", and so on just doesn't matter.................. You ruined this economy and THAT is all that will matter in November.......

Conservatives claim that marriage is a god-given act to produce children, yet many married couples choose to not or cannot have children. Is their marriage invalid? If they adopt kids, is it valid again?

How about if a gay couple adopt kids?

Either way, this is talking about a CIVIL (NOT A RELIGIOUS) Right.

The truth is marriage is about the sexual stabilizing of society and the co-mingling of money. When people marry, they, in theory, stop spending their time looking for sex. If you think civil marriage isn't about money, try getting a divorce.

By the way, the ONLY reasons transsexuals are still listed in the APA as "mentally ill" is because one can only get medicines from insurance if one has a disease. Transsexuals, dependent on numerous expensive hormones, actually fought to keep it listed as a mental disease.

However, depression and anxiety are ALSO mental diseases--yes, even straight people get those. Does that make them bad people too?

Aquarius, the only people in my experience that are SO anti-gay are usually closeted gays.

Randy, you quote only ONE Supreme Court ruling about marriage as the civil right. What about the other 13??

Is marriage necessary for our survival?? No, people have babies ALL THE TIME without marriage.

Just because YOU have a certain definition for marriage, doesn't mean that's everyone's definition.

Do you think interracial couples should get married? Would you have thought that in 1967?

Redhead Ranting

Pro gay as you say you are, you are still willing to throw them under the bus. Anyone else on your list for the sake of the economy? Single moms?

This is great. I'm glad someone is finally standing up for gay rights in the Democratic party. Seems they've been waiting a long time since the last election. Looked for a while like they got thrown under the bus by Obama but now he needs the votes.

He also "needs" to support and defend the rights of the people. That's why I'm glad the Democrats will back gay marriage and reject DOMA (and I really hope, when they get their Congressional majorities back, that they follow through with these declarations and give that DOMA a nice industrial-strength repeal quickly).

But please remember that it was the Cheney-Rove-Bush administration's plan to run up the deficit and tank the economy so they could blame the clean-up crew and claim that we can't afford social services in this country. I've been in the construction industry for 35 years and this has been happening like clockwork since the Reagan people came up with the insane concept of "Trickle-down Economics".

I said I was pro gay marriage but if I can only support gay marriage by enduring another four years of this cr*p it will have to wait. Sorry. Most of the gay men I know agree. They'd rather be prosperous and 'single' than broke and married. If I have to choose between putting food on the table or supporting anyone's right to marriage I will choose feeding my kids.

I don't mean to be flippant but the social issues just aren't what this race is about. Maybe next time when more people are working.

Besides, this isn't an issue that should be decided on by a majority vote (it will never pass that way, sadly). It's a civil rights issue. It should just be.

Dear Redhead, If you are looking for prosperity then voting for the republicans whose only plans are to bring a recession on purpose to American then you are cutting your nose off to spite your face.

The republicans have been fighting against jobs. You know we couldn't have a small surcharge on billionaires to get Americans working again because the republicans told us would cause them irreparable harm to ask them for any money at all for jobs or to improve the American economy.

No jobs, but these same billionaires have hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on buying the election for the republicans that have promised them forever tax cuts no matter the damage to our economy.

I would have to be pretty stupid to believe that republicans cared about America or jobs.

OK, RR--then vote in some Congressmen and women who will actually do something. We had all these promises of Jobs, Jobs, Jobs in the 2010 election, when Republicans took back the House. Yet, they've done nothing to pass legislation to help get the economy turned around. They've actually stood in President Obama's way as he has tried to get jobs bills passed. How is electing Romney going to help? From what I've been able to learn (he's quite secretive about his plans and also his past), he doesn't seem to be an improvement over Obama. Plus, he's against equal rights for gays.

What Redhead Ranting is really trying to say is that she supports invading Iran as a means to stimulate the economy, just like how Bush needlessly invaded Iraq and wasted $3 trillion.

REDHEAD

i choose feeding my family also...its the economy..

job council has not met in months.(in 5 mins someone will blame it on the repubs)..

just like everything else....its not our fault...lmao...vote how you feel right..dont be sidetracked...

3 and a half years of WRONG has been long enough for me....

anyone is better than obama,,,,hell chavez would be a better leader,,,,

it just aint a job OBAMA can handle

I thought RR communicated what she was really trying to say just fine. And why is she being attacked?

because she thinks for her-self....

she is feared by the left

Though generally unimpressive, the Democrats at least are endorsing a position that is kind and generous of heart, as opposed to the vicious, backward hillbilly rhetoric of the right. That says something about Democratic support for actual individual rights. Meanwhile, the Republicans appear to wish to set up monitoring posts in everyone's underpants.

Melissa -

If you're referring to doing away with the First Amendment as "Kind" and "Generous of heart", then I will agree with you. That's exactly what you are saying. You people can only say what we say is right; otherwise you should not be allowed to say anything. Have no dissenting opinion; and if you do, you're not kind and you're not generous. It only works when it's for certain topics. The irony is you'll probably miss the whole point of this post in the first place, but have fun being selective. Just how do you call that "Kind" or "Generous of heart"? That's censorship, if it hasn't crossed your so-called "Open, tolerant" mind.

arslp, how is supporting gay marriage "doing away with the First Amendment"? Which rights of yours are being taken away?

Because, it's NOT an "individual" right!. It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers.. Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual"..

HEY , do u think the TRANSSEXUALS are mentally ILL?? The APA does. That's the 'T' in LBGT. I haven't looked un BI-SEXUALS yet, but I will. I know, you'll say that's not true, so here's the reference:

Today, transsexualism is still listed as a mental illness in DSM (DSM-IV-TR 302.85 "Gender Identity Disorder" or GID) .

Then there's the prevelance of pedophelia among homosexuals:

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

The majority of child molesters are heterosexual men, not lesbian, gay or bisexual people. Almost all studies show that over 90% of child molestation is committed by heterosexual men.

http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html

Myth and Reality:

The majority of child molesters are gay or lesbian.

Statistics regarding child molestation prepared by the Boston Advocates for Human Rights reveal that, "the vast majority of child molestation - over 90% - is performed by heterosexual males. The man who is sexually interested in children is rarely homosexual."

http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm

Myth: Gay men are child molesters.
Reality: Studies show that 90-95% of child molesters are heterosexual men, usually relatives of the child involved. In fact, 45% of child sexual abuse is committed by the father. 97% of sex offenders against children are male and 90% of the victims are female. Even in cases of same-sex molestation, offenders typically report that they are not interested in—and are even repulsed by—homosexual activity. Pedophiles tend to be motivated by power, control, and hostility rather than by sexual desire.

http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm

Myth: Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters.
Fact: Pedophilia, sexual attraction to children, should never be confused with homosexuality. Many studies have documented that the overwhelming majority (some say 90%) of child molesters are heterosexual men against young girls. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals have no interest in preadolescent children.

http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

The QUOTE I POSTED was from the National Institute of Health, are they WRONG?? Your sources are quite CLEARLY BIASED, mine is the US GOVT, like the FDA that PROHIBITS homosexuals from GIVIN BLOOD.

""""

Yes! Take the Govt. Dole away.. Make it a true individual right for marriage only without tax dependency benefits just for coupling without reproduction.. Have each individual actually be able to take out accordingly to what they put into the system.. Couples with children get the deductions because they are taking care of children.. When a couple is prego they pay less accordingly be cause it does create dependency.. having sex with each other doesn't!

That's really what this issue is about right? Gays wanting the perks that traditional couples have i.e. claiming dependency on taxes, SS$ when the parner dies, insurance, ect.. What about alimony payments upon divorce.. How the hell is that going to work???

I would support civil unions. I am adamantly against gay marriage because of the term "marriage". No different than saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas because it would offend someone's beliefs. Christmas is when Jesus was born and I say Merry Christmas as a christian. If others want to say something else fine ..that's freedom of speech. Now comes a group that doesn't allow prayer in schools or God in a public place. Folks will be looking to get "in God we trust" off our money. We are a christian nation and marriage is marriage between a man and a woman. The Democrats think they are PC, well I think they are pagans.

wtfjes66

After reading these comments here it very clear that the lunatic fringe is gathering around the leftist Democratic protectors spewing their anger and violence towards the right, again. Sadly typical. You all go beyond showing positive support to the vehement verbal attacks that so much follow liberals opinions. You know that once this election is over and your attacks subside so will your lunatic fringe support from the democratic party - the party that is big on talk and pandering, but, short on action follow through actions....sorry to burst your bubbles.

I am adamantly against gay marriage because of the term "marriage".

You don't own the word "marriage".

Now comes a group that doesn't allow prayer in schools or God in a public place.

Read the Constitution, paying particular attention to the First Amendment, and then look up the "Lemon Test".

Folks will be looking to get "in God we trust" off our money.

That's already been attempted, with no success:

The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Controversy

We are a christian nation and marriage is marriage between a man and a woman.

WRONG. We are not now, and have never been, a Christian nation, nor a theocracy of ANY kind. We have always been, and still are, a secular nation.

@Erin,

Will you please show the class where the word "Secular" is written in the United States Constitution?

Lets see what George Washington had to say:

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"" George Washington Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789

"Because I said so" just isn't going to cut it Erin.

Randy, read the First Amendment, and then look up the "Lemon Test" -- the Supreme Court, which is the final authority in this country regarding Constitutional interpretation, has determined that we ARE a secular nation, in numerous cases.

As far as your George Washington quote is concerned:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." --- Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." --- Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. Thomas Paine

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. Thomas Paine
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. Thomas Paine

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions. George Washington

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world...The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. Thomas Jefferson

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. Thomas Jefferson

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, 1785

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." Benjamin Franklin

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin, in Poor Richard's Almanac

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

Will you please show the class where the word "Secular" is written in the United States Constitution?

Show me where "non-secular" is written! The Constitution is set up to ensure a secular nation with a religiously neutral government by default, through the 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state.

Lets see what George Washington had to say:

A personal expressionof faith and nothing more, and certainly nothing to do with the drafting of the constitution or the founding of this nation!

Because I said so" just isn't going to cut it Erin.

Because you say so isn't cutting it either Randy. Erin happens to be right however. You, not so much!

I would support civil unions. I am adamantly against gay marriage because of the term "marriage".

What difference does the term marriage make? Civil unions is not marriage.

Now comes a group that doesn't allow prayer in schools or God in a public place.

Yeah, that pesky Constitution!

Folks will be looking to get "in God we trust" off our money.

God wasn't originally on the money. God was first added in 1864. The original motto was: E. Pluribus Unum."

We are a christian nation

Demonstratably false! We are a secular nation which happens to have many christians in it. But we have a religiously neutral government!

and marriage is marriage between a man and a woman.

Merely your opinion!

Because, it's NOT an "individual" right!.

Marriage itself is a "basic civil right," as determined by the SCOTUS. So yes, it's a right!

It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers..

Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage or vice versa!

I take it, by your refusal to address the question as presented, that you have nothing of substance to offer in support of your ridiculous assertions.

That's what I thought.

"A personal expression of faith and nothing more,"

You are kidding right...? It is a resolution presented by the 1st President of the United States in response to a unanimous request of the 1st Congress of these United States.

The ONLY reasons transsexuals are still listed in the APA as "mentally ill" is because one can only get medicines from insurance if one has a disease. Transsexuals, dependent on numerous expensive hormones, actually fought to keep it listed as a mental disease.

However, depression and anxiety are ALSO mental diseases--yes, even straight people get those. Does that make them bad people too?

Randy, I DID address your question: you are WRONG (as usual), and because you don't like the answer and have nothing to support your claims, you act as if there was no answer (as usual).

It is a resolution presented by the 1st President of the United States in response to a unanimous request of the 1st Congress of these United States.

WRONG AGAIN, Randy. It was George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789.

@Erin,

The question asked that you refused to answer:

Will you please show the class where the word "Secular" is written in the United States Constitution?

You claimed the U.S. was a "Secular" nation and not a Christian nation because the constitution does not mention the word "Christian." The U.S. Constitution does not contain the word "Secular" yet here you are insisting that is what this nation was founded on.

You have nothing of substance to support your ridiculous assertions so you throw out words that have no connection with intent; full blown Saul Alinsky rules for radicals tactic. Your disinformation campaign is failing you and now you are flailing around like a drowning victim looking for someone to take down with you.

Aquarius, the only people in my experience that are SO anti-gay are usually closeted gays.

Randy, read the First Amendment, and then look up the "Lemon Test" -- the Supreme Court, which is the final authority in this country regarding Constitutional interpretation, has determined that we ARE a secular nation, in numerous cases.

Show us where the Constitution mentions Christianity, God, Jesus, or the bible, Randy.

You have nothing of substance to support your ridiculous assertions so you throw out words that have no connection with intent;

ROFLMAO! Sure, Randy, the Supreme Court's opinions are just "words that have no connection with intent". Only on YOUR planet.

@Erin,

The question asked that you refused to answer:

Will you please show the class where the word "Secular" is written in the United States Constitution?

Erin

You're a fool.

Men who molest little boys are not heterosexual.

Wow, no end to your stupidity.

No, RP, you're still the king of stupidity:

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes...the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

EPIC FAIL.

The will of the people be damned, we have an agenda to attend to!

That's exactly what people said about giving women the vote and extending civil rights to all.

Sometimes it's necessary to move forward with what is right for a minority group, or society at large without waiting for the electorate to get their head out of their collective asses.

It's called leadership. It might not make anyone rich to advocate for equal marriage rights for everyone, but it is the right thing to do.

It may be right for you, not everyone feels that same way you do about SSM. Why does what you think is "right" override what others think it right or in this case wrong?

Celtic,

by that logic we should have had people vote on slavery. Do you think it would have ended if it were left up to the majority? Civil rights should never be up for a vote, because the minority would always lose.

It's not about what is right or wrong. It's about equal treatment under the Constitution. Someone with a severe disability may not be "normal", but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have euqal protection under the law.

I mean, I might not believe Irish people should be allowed to marry, but I believe that the Constitution insures that right.

Hey Celtic--I don't like it that Texas, among other states, carries out the death penalty. I think capital punishment is morally wrong, but I have to live in this society and pay taxes that support this awful law. I don't agree that guns should be so easily available either. There are lots of laws I don't agree with. What's your point?

In this case, a minority group is being discriminated against. You might not like their lifestyle, but you don't have to. You don't have to accept it, condone it, pay for it, or deal with it. You can keep ignoring that gays exist if you want to. You can keep looking down your nose at them. Whatever floats your boat. But Democrats are on the right side of this issue, IMHO.

The three you RELAX. Let me state I am no bigot, have no hostility toward gay people-. My roommate in college was gay, wonderful guy love him we are friends to this day and that was 32 years ago. I have had gay co-workers, neighbors etc... ok nuff said. I do not give a rats ass what you do behind closed doors. I want gays to have the same rights as I do- LifE Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. What I bitterly resent is having this agenda shoved down my throat and called names because I believe in one man one women marriage- that'sit. And one more thing PLEASE do not equate slavery to gay rights. Last time I check gays were not held as slaves for 300 years, beaten, endured horrible conditions etc etc.. Gay people seem to do very well in this country. Bethie from Texas- do not judge me, you do not know a damn thing about me - fair enough?

I'll give you a hint.

One side of this issue is focused on denying rights to certain Americans. That side is wrong. Can you guess which?

@Celtic 1:

It may be right for you, not everyone feels that same way you do about SSM. Why does what you think is "right" override what others think it right or in this case wrong?

As an individual, it is neither right nor wrong for me, as a nationwide ruling on marriage equality will not affect me one iota.

My personal thoughts on the subject do not override what others think, and I am not trying to force acceptance on anyone. I do, however, believe that the Constitution trumps the Bible 10 times out of 10.

If you truly believe in this great nation and its founding principles, you should be able to put aside whatever issues you have concerning what same-sex couples do in their bedrooms and applaud another small step forward towards fairness and equality for everyone - not just those who think, act, worship, love, and look like you.

You don't have any hostility towards gay people, just people that disagree with you. How open minded of you...

I mean this will sincerely - I am trying to educate myself on this issue. What "rights" exactly are Gay people being denied in this country? Can you vote, live when you want, work where you want, say what you want - I am not being a smart ass, I really do not know, to be honest until recently I did not care- just being honest. Educate me.

Celtic, when you do not want gays to be able to legally marry, you are looking down on them. At least, that's how it seems to me. Why do you have the right to marry and they should not? Are you a better person? If you love your friend who is gay, why wouldn't you want him to be able to enjoy the same rights as you do? We are talking about the rights that married couples have--the rights to make medical decisions, to be considered family when their partner is in the hospital, to be able to file joint tax returns, etc. Educate yourself--not our job!!

What rights???? Do you have any friends that are gay couples, Celtic? Their partners are NOT family and thus can be excluded when they are hospitalized (it's terrible but I've seen this one first hands with friends), they cannot file joint returns, can't combine insurance policies .... basically any advantage that is gained by marriage is what they would like. Also, as I do have many gay friends that are married, and the validation that they have made a commitment to be with the one they love means so very much to them (as it would to anyone taking that step).

Gay people do not have the right to marry the consenting adults of their choosing, as straights do. That is unconstitutional.

BTW, there are approximately 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities that attach to marriage, but not to civil unions. THAT is why gays want marriage, not civil union. And as the Supreme Court has ruled, "separate" is not "equal".

What "rights" exactly are Gay people being denied in this country?

Since our government is in the marriage business (you need a government-supplied license, or your marriage isn't legal; a judge can be an officiant, etc.), and provides special rights and privileges to married couples, this is a civil rights issue. Same-sex couples are denied insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights, tax benefits, and inheritances (to name but a few) because they cannot legally marry in most states.

Churches can decide who can and cannot have their marriage ceremony performed in their property-tax free buildings - that is their right. However, they cannot stop couples who happen to be of the same sex from entering into the legal status of marriage (in the jurisdictions that currently allow it).

It's really that simple.

Now please, educate me on why this very basic of civil rights should be withheld from same-sex couples. How will the very fabric of society be torn assunder if same-sex couples are allowed entrance to the 'marriage club'?

First- Bethie and Layton. Make sure you have a reply option so I can directly respond. No I do not know a single gay couple that are married. I live in SC for God's sake - that is sort of frowned upon here. Erin you are the FIRST person to directly answer that, I did not know that and I will research. Bethie I was trying to reach out as a Libertarian with Conservative leaning finacially , don't lecture me. I am going to educate myself, and no it is not your job. I am engaging in a conversation seeking to bridge a gap. Your pious nature is one thing that pisses me off about some Liberals. Detroit - man, your to sensitive, I am not hostile to people that I disagree with, I am Irish - American I get worked easily . Keep the blog going Man I am enjoying.

Celtic 1 - I mean this will sincerely - I am trying to educate myself on this issue. What "rights" exactly are Gay people being denied in this country?

An elderly woman in New York was recently forced to pay $363,053 in federal estate tax when her wife died. That money comprised the bulk of her liquid retirement assets, so she'll likely have to sell her house in order to survive. She's 83 and has a heart condition, and the couple had been together for 44 years, and married in Toronto in 2007. The surviving spouse had taken care of her wife for a number of years, until she died from MS. This is the case that caused the DoJ to no longer defend DOMA:

http://www.nyclu.org/case/windsor-v-united-states-challenging-federal-defense-of-marriage-act

As a straight married guy, I'd be exempt from that tax if my wife died. Apparently you think you and I should have that special right, but you want my gay daughter to be a 2nd-class citizen. There are over 1100 similar federal rights which are denied to gays, and many more at the state level in the bigoted states.

IF your against gay marriage your against people's rights, if your conservative in any way your an enemy of this country. Conservatism has never done any country anywhere any good period end of story.

@skrekk:

The necessary rights would be granted by civil unions, not by "marriage", which is impossible for homosexual pairings.

The necessary rights would be granted by civil unions, not by "marriage", which is impossible for homosexual pairings.

The Supreme Court has ruled that "separate" is not "equal". And in this secular nation, legal marriage is strictly a civil contract.

And you don't own the word "marriage," so whether you consider homosexuals to be married or not is irrelevant.

GD "it this is what I am talking about. Why are you picking a fight? I am trying to be nice and your being an ass. Of course I do not think anyone should be treated as a second class citizen where did I say that? I have spent the last 2 hours researching this subject on line. You being a jerk makes it easier to close the book and go back to my wonderful life and let you work things out for yourself. Gosh and you almost had a convert! Tiffany you are to stupid to reply to. Write back when you complete Junior high.

ad.majorem.Dei.gloriam - The necessary rights would be granted by civil unions,

Civil unions have no interstate, federal or international recognition.

And maybe you dumb bigots in the Catholic hierarchy should have thought of that before you decided to oppose both marriage and civil unions for gays. By supporting hate groups like NOM, you've ensured that gays will have marriage equality sooner rather than later.

not by "marriage", which is impossible for homosexual pairings.

Since there are lots of married gays and gays have no problems at all signing the legal contract of marriage, it sounds like you must be talking about some bizarre religious ritual, not the secular legal contract of marriage.

Celtic-- I appreciate that you're seeking to become more educated on this issue; perhaps you're catching a little irritation on my part because I feel that you should be able to google info on this on your own. In any case, it really comes down to a civil rights issue--you're also probably picking up on my passion for this topic too. I didn't mean to offend you; in general, I really enjoy discussing political issues with people of all stripes--conservative, libertarian, liberal, etc. It's just hard to find people who can discuss topics civilly. Maybe you're an exception to that, and if so, hope we can blog some more!

Sorry to be short with you Bethie . I admire your passion! fight the good fight. I have read and goggled some state laws and civil cases in regards to this issue. Spent three hours on it so far. Now being a good Irishman, I need a beer, I will get back to work later. Best of luck to you!

Erin, Skrekk, and Berthie,

There is not a 'right to marry' in the United States. And there are no 'rights' to exemptions to taxes, being allowed into hosipitals, or any other 'rights' that are attached to being married. All of these things are provided by law, but are not 'rights' in the same way that free speech or bearing arms are.

The closest thing is in Loving v Virginia where Chief Justice Warren wrote "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." However, he distinctly limited his remarks to race and not gender.

Celic--it's all good. Enjoy your beer! Hope you come back to FR. We need more voices like yours.

Opfor~thanks for the interesting history. Maybe it's time to add gender to the law.

Opfor311 - There is not a 'right to marry' in the United States.

The supreme court disagreed with you in Loving v Virginia and 14 other cases.

Also, the main civil right being denied is equal protection, as several federal courts have now ruled.

However, he distinctly limited his remarks to race and not gender.

Perhaps that's because the issue of gender discrimination wasn't before the court in Loving v Virginia?

The problem for you dumb bigots is that both race and gender are subject to heightened scrutiny by a court. That means you'll lose, inevitably. The state has no more legitimate an interest in the gender of your spouse than it does the race of your spouse.

Celtic, those folks that wish to pursue single sex marriage as approved by their Church (and yes, there ARE Christian Churchs that have accepted single sex marriage and will perform ceremonies) are being denied that opportunity to do so by the State. That is direct case of state secular law interferring with freedom of religion with no compelling state need to deny that Constitutional right.

Those folks who wish to engage in single sex marriage are being denied equal access to the opportunity (as already codified in state laws) to engage in a marriage "contract." Again with no compelling state need to deny equal opportunity. Note that this also directly impacts survivor benefits and family health insurance.

Opfor311 - in Loving v. Virginia Cheif Justice Warren directly stated, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." (source: http :// law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html ).

While an argument can be made in reference to the second half of the sentenance, it still in no way negates the first half and the declaration of marriage being a civil right. And since marriage is a civil right then the laws affecting it need to be equitably applied to everyone.

As skrekk said, Chief Justice Warren linked his comments to race because that was the case before him.

Because, it's NOT an Individual right!. It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers.. Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual"..

Do it yourself - Because, it's NOT an Individual right!. It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers.

Once we deny marriage to the elderly, the infertile, and the willfully childless, then you'll have an argument.

Until then you just sound rather stupid.

Malarky, Do it yourself, just flat out malarky - using your logic if one member of a opposite sex couple is sterile they should not be allowed to have a marriage license and get married. Or if an older couple (past child bearing years) of opposite sexes wishes to get married they should be told no.

HEY , do u think the TRANSSEXUALS are mentally ILL?? The APA does. That's the 'T' in LBGT. I haven't looked un BI-SEXUALS yet, but I will. I know, you'll say that's not true, so here's the reference:

Today, transsexualism is still listed as a mental illness in DSM (DSM-IV-TR 302.85 "Gender Identity Disorder" or GID) .

Then there's the prevelance of pedophelia among homosexuals:

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

Umm, aquarius, come back from the seventh house.

NONE of what you have posted is true.

aquarius - So you want to rely on a controversial classification that was and is under severe critism by leading professionals in the field and a 1992 article about a test (note - the test has a 32% accuracy rate) for your technical understanding. Not only that, in the 1992 article testing was done exclusively on convicted pedophiles and "taking into consideration mean numbers of victims per offender group" (i.e. - higher probability of repeat offense was related to higher number of victims admitted to - so if a person lied, they were placed in a lesser probability of offense category and the physical results skewed in their favor).

At least do the search about the MRI studies done over the last few years that show that it is brain changes that appear to demonstrate incination towards pedophilia. Those tests indicate just about an equal proportion regardless of gender preference or level of sexual activity (think priest here).

Also feel free to talk about the other studies that completely contradict the results you posted unless of course they might get in the way of your discussion points.

The QUOTE I POSTED was from the National Institute of Health, are they WRONG?? Your sources are quite CLEARLY BIASED, mine is the US GOVT, like the FDA that PROHIBITS homosexuals from GIVIN BLOOD.

""""

Cite your source, Aquarius. What are you afraid of? Could it be that you're just copypasting stuff from anti-equality websites?

aquarius - You can find your quote from the abstract at http ://www .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756 referencing the article: "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study" by Feund, K. and Watson R.J of Department of Behavioural Sexology, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto, Ont., Canada published in Spring 1992.

Now read the whole study and you'll see where I got my information in reference to the self-identified numbers of children molested and how that played into the group categorization.

My reference to the 32% accuracy rating (specifcally in reference to who will go on to commit further sex crimes) for the phallometric test was from the article titled: "Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies" from the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362. Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998)

My reference to the MRI testing was from: http :// individual. utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog2.html and http ://www .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2186373/ and http :// archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=783830

And th FDA banning of gay men giving blood was a 1985 response to the AIDS epidemic. It is currently being reconsidered. source: http : //articles.cnn.com/2010-05-25/health/gay.blood.donation.ban_1_gay-blood-donors-blood-safety-america-s-blood-centers?_s=PM:HEALTH

Got any other questions or accusations of bias?

Oh, and btw aquarius - "an exploratory study" is used when the problem is not clearly defined. What this means is that the study itself is speculative in nature as it tries to better define the parameters that future studies may wish to build upon. It is not a study to find out the "absolute truth" of the hypothesis but rather to build a framework upon which future studies might use (or not use) if warrented.

So this is what passes for BO as guests at the white house. The glbt group is an insult t every american.

Expanding marriage protections to include a reference to sexual deviants requires changing the very meaning of the word and severing its connection to the history and traditions of these United States. We do not change the meaning of words so as to appease the political agenda of a disproportionately powerful horde of decadent miscreants.

The 1st amendment shows these whores for who they are and they desperately need to shield their depravity from the light of truth encased therein.

Expanding marriage protections to include a reference to sexual deviants requires changing the very meaning of the word and severing its connection to the history and traditions of these United States.

You don't own the word marriage and its meaning has already been redefined numerous times over the centuries. Besides, gay marriage will have no impact on anyone else's marriage whatsoever!

The 1st amendment shows these whores for who they are and they desperately need to shield their depravity from the light of truth encased therein.

What does the 1st Amendment have to do with anything? Of course, the 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS disagree with you!

Same old Randy K. -- only the screen name changed.

Read the 14th Amendment, Randy (in fact, read the entire Constitution). Gays are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country and deserve ALL of the same rights as everyone else.

The 14th Amendment only exists because of the 1st. You cannot use the 14th to bi-pass the 1st; it is a violation of intent.

Cannot be denied equal treatment without due process of law is the governing component of the 14th; which means a duly constituted law can deny equal treatment - as recently upheld by SCOTUS in reference to the ACA.

Sexual deviants are not a species of man unto themselves; their depravity does not entitle them to special consideration above that which is afforded all bottom feeders governed by the Rational Basis standard. Face it; the only thing you miscreants have going for you is a tendency towards denying those parts of text that restrict your ideology.

Same old Randy K. -- only the screen name changed.

Too bad the old ignorance and bigotry has not. That's the same as ever.

The 14th Amendment only exists because of the 1st. You cannot use the 14th to bi-pass the 1st; it is a violation of intent.

WRONG, Randy. Laws prohibiting gay marriage have been found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, NOT the First Amendment -- the First Amendment has nothing to do with this, since NO ONE's First Amendment rights are violated by allowing gay marriage.

Cannot be denied equal treatment without due process of law is the governing component of the 14th; which means a duly constituted law can deny equal treatment - as recently upheld by SCOTUS in reference to the ACA.

That is not what the 14th Amendment says AT ALL, Randy:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

NO ONE can be denied equal treatment, PERIOD. That includes homosexuals, Randy.

Sexual deviants are not a species of man unto themselves; their depravity does not entitle them to special consideration above that which is afforded all bottom feeders governed by the Rational Basis standard.

Actually, Randy, since the gay marriage debate is about the relative genders of the people involved, that means that such laws are subject to strict scrutiny.

WRONG, Randy. Laws prohibiting gay marriage have been found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, NOT the First Amendment

Doesn't randy look all cute when he tries to talk about the Constitution and the law like a big boy? LOL

Randy K-

Just a generation ago, interracial couples could not wed. People claimed it would "change the very definition of marriage." Prior to that, slaves could not wed. If they could, it would "change the very definition of marriage."

Somehow, marriage still survives.

Didn't Randy K get banned? Why was he allowed to reregister as Randy EK?

SCOTUS has not found any marriage protection law to be unconstitutional and they are the last word for the judiciary. In order to declare marriage corruption a constitutional right the two appellate's in question how to ignore guiding SCOTUS precedence.

There is no way SCOTUS upholds the right of sexual deviants to change the meaning of marriage.

Didn't Randy K get banned? Why was he allowed to reregister as Randy EK?

Best to just report it.

Tina, this has always be the ploy of Democrats. The goal is to divide and conquer. Lets look at what is going on that is pushed by Obama. Class warfare, everyone making over $250,000 is "rich" and are not paying their fair share. Business owners "You didn't build that". The path to citizenship for illegal aliens= Latino votes. End of don't ask don't tell, which seemed to be doing fine. Last week announcing special Govt programs to help African American students do better in school. This list goes on and on.

Tina, who is stopping you from standing up for what you believe in? That's the beautiful thing about our country--the freedom to express our opinions. Diversity is beautiful too. The division that disturbs you is the extremes who've become more vocal, especially the far Right. Voices like Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Palin, full of hate and lies.

I'm a Christian who will be voting for Obama--again. I don't trust Romney's secrecy (tax returns? financial records from the Olympics? hard drives from his time as governor? foreign policy ideas??? etc.) What you see in him over Obama is not clear--but his politics are not more "Christian" than Obama's, and his religion is certainly not. Your "sleeping giant" threat doesn't scare me. As a believer, I don't live in fear (see I Tim. 1:7).

New day Dawning- should be changed to your time is almost up..

First of all, I am a christina, not sure what God you serve, if any. You know nothing about me.

Riddle me this, why is that liberals think what I have earned by getting an education and working hard should be re-distributed amongst those that choose not to work. I have many in my family that are down right lazy, refuse to get off the couch. I would be pleased to buy anyone groceries and help with normal living expenses, which is the christian thing to do. However, don't you dare preach to me about not being a christain. Not sure what God you serve. My God would not find it very enlightening for some to sit around all day on their lazy butts and expect others to care for them. The elder, children and sick need our help.

If Obama wishes to help those he is serving, create jobs. Stop with all the class war fare and racial divide.

Oh I know that one newday and can site the scripture for our little non-Christian Tina. Mark 10:25 and Matt 19:24 - guess it was worth mentioning twice.

Looks like you're judge and jury as well, Tina . . .

My God would not find it very enlightening for some to sit around all day on their lazy butts and expect others to care for them. The elder, children and sick need our help.

I don't know who YOUR God is but the one I serve actually insists that I serve the elderly, sick, lazy, LGBT community, homeless, jobless, etc. by following Christ. Remember Him? He did all that and more. I like my God a lot more than yours.

So Layton - does your God also say it is OK to murder unborn children?

I agree, Layton. Poor Tina does not know what she is talking about.

God, you just know an anti choice nut case is going to show up.

Doesn't matter what the topic is, their emotional health is SO fragile that it all goes back to being antichoice zealots. I am convinced that there is a mental illness attached to that. Get help.

To answer your question, if you had not slept through biology, you would know that women do not carry CHILDREN when pregnant. What do you think they do, give birth to a 10 year old child?

God you people are frightening.

Responding to you two is not worth the time nor effort.

newday - Tina is a Christian - as so many Republicans are - in name only. In the church I grew up in we didn't put those who had less down or call them names. We were taught to try to give a hand up to those who had less. It was/is the real Christian thing to do. As for the Tina's of the world - they are the reason I detest organized religion and all the hypocrites who show up on Sunday but don't show up as human beings the other 6 days of the week!

Obama/Biden 2012

Rick, do you ever get out and actually SERVE those in your community? Volunteer at Food Banks? Paint, clean, and assist low-income housing? Assist in organizing free "yard sales" in the most poor area of a community? Offer a free food pantry? The list goes on and on ... I believe in a relationship with God and not some stupid religion. As far as abortion goes, I truly believe it is a woman's choice.

Tina; "Responding to you two is not worth the time nor effort."

Translation: "I can't compete, because what you have said, Newday and Layton is so very true."

Good for you Tina; you know when to fold them.

Back during the last presidential campaign, t-shirts were made up by the democrats that said "I had an abortion". I think they are selling again. There is really something wrong with our society when we wear a t-shirt about such a private issue, and supposedly a decision that women wrestle with and do not take lightly. It is one thing to support choice, but quite another to flaunt an medical procedure that ends a life. Horrible, proving why our society is circling the drain.

which you christians and your party are trying to deny people. ITs the retardicans trying to deny people the right to vote by purging voter roles, it's your party trying to tell a woman what she can do with her body. To me matters of civil rights come before economic matters, also we'd have fixed the economy if the repukes would work with the president and compromise we can't keep lowering taxes on millionaires.

Layton - as a matter of fact, I do. Serve at a homeless shelter, food bank, and donate thousands of dollars a year to each. And I have been out of the country on a number of mission trips. What is your point? And I made all A's in biology also. When is the last time you saw an ultrasound of an unborn baby at 4 months?

December actually, and it was of my grandaughter. Your point?

Tina. You are correct and the others can claim to be what they are not. Jesus forgave sins and he told the sinners to go and sin no more. If one continues to live in a unGodly manner and support UnGodly principles than they are without God. There is no Gray area in his words.

When you support the open murder of innocents then you do not have a christian heart.

tina

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
Sinclair Lewis

tina - you said you were a christina above? What exactly is that and to repeat your questions - what god do you serve as a christina?

Celt - Re: "divide and conquer" - oh please. The Republicans whole existence is based on a type of divide and conquer policy. The party is run by the rich but there are not enough of them to win. So they use jingoistic patriotism and religion go bring in the needed votes. In other words, they get a whole segment of society to vote against there own economic interests based on appeals to religion and jingoistic patriotism. That is a really neat trick. Divide and conquer indeed. If only the sheep in the party knew what their rich leaders really think of them and their beliefs.....

Because, it's NOT an Individual right!. It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers.. Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual"..

Oh, I get it, Do it yourself. Only people capable of reproducing may be granted a marriage. So, couples who have infertility issues, elderly couples who find each other late in life, and all others may not marry.

Here's an idea: why don't we do away with marriage all together and get the government and private business out of issuing special incentives for those couples who marry?

Rick asks when is the last time I saw an ultrasound of a 4 month old fetus? Two weeks ago. It cannot survive away from the mother ship. Until it can, it has no specific rights above that of the being that carries it.

By the way Rick: Do you also want to criminalize God for causing spontaneous abortions?

Now. Go to your nearest mental health center and deal with your problems.

it's NOT an Individual right!.

WRONG. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, and as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, homosexuals are entitled to the right to marry the consenting adults of their choosing, just as we heterosexuals can.

It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers

What do reproduction and marriage have to do with each other? One is not required for the other.

Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual".."

Gays CAN and DO reproduce. However, using your "logic," heterosexual couples who are infertile, or elderly couples, or those who do not wish to have children are also "not equal in that regard," so should their "right to claim dependency on each other higher than any other individual" be taken away?

HEY , do u think the TRANSSEXUALS are mentally ILL?? The APA does. That's the 'T' in LBGT. I haven't looked un BI-SEXUALS yet, but I will. I know, you'll say that's not true, so here's the reference:

Today, transsexualism is still listed as a mental illness in DSM (DSM-IV-TR 302.85 "Gender Identity Disorder" or GID) .

Then there's the prevelance of pedophelia among homosexuals:

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

Cite your source, Aquarius. What are you afraid of?

Doesn't matter how much you post this, aquarius, it still isn't true.

The ONLY reasons transsexuals are still listed in the APA as "mentally ill" is because one can only get medicines from insurance if one has a disease. Transsexuals, dependent on numerous expensive hormones, actually fought to keep it listed as a mental disease.

However, depression and anxiety are ALSO mental diseases--yes, even straight people get those. Does that make them bad people too?

shouldn't you be busy bleaching your robes in preparation for the next klan rally?

Since Obama has been in the white house this nation has never been more divided.

Who is at fault for that? Certainly not Obama. Within days of being sworn into office, Rush Limbaugh started proclaiming that he hopes that Obama would fail. Soon after, Senator McConnell announced that it the Republican's job to ensure that Obama was a one-term president. The right-wing has been willing to sacrifice the economy and the middle class to ensure that Obama would not be re-elected.

Jimmy

Nope... I don't have to belong to fringe groups like you and Feisty for identity.

Of course you have to ask yourself ... why are sooooo many Democrat lawmakers, Senators and Congressmen, Congresswomen ad whatever niche' Wasserman-Schultz belongs to, avoiding the National Convention as if it was the plaque.

Could it be they are going to be passing about lubricants and boy-butter to the crowd?

I am certain you and your male homosexual lover wlil feel right at home. Of course Clinton will be pi$$ed when he finds out all of the women there are lesbians. He has lived with one for decades at hates it.

Don't forget you "Rainbow Rangers" ribbon!!!!

it is totally obama's fault that our nation is so utterly divided....obama is a liar, a distorter, and a divider who will say or do anything for votes....

proudamericanveteran:

I am certain you and your male homosexual lover wlil feel right at home. Of course Clinton will be pi$$ed when he finds out all of the women there are lesbians. He has lived with one for decades at hates it.

Look in the mirror.

Of what could you possibly be proud?

mcpaddywack - you clearly are wacked. We all know the GOP has worked hard to divide the country and frankly don't give a damn about the country - just winning at all costs. Shades of Charlie Sheen - demented and delusional.

Obama/Biden 2012

Because, it's NOT an Individual right!. It's the right of a biologically compatible mating pair capable of producing offspring (new life) of which they (the couple) are dependent on each other for the success of the offsprings livelyhood and eachothers.. Therefore a same sex couple in NOT equal in that regard, and should not be given the "right" to claim dependency on eachother higher than any other "individual"..

Horse apples, Do it yourself.

Couples past child bearing years and infertile couples get married every day.

But homosexual MEN can't reproduce can they??

The QUOTE I POSTED was from the National Institute of Health, that says HOMOSEXUALS are MORE likely to be pedophiles, are they WRONG?? Your sources are quite CLEARLY BIASED, mine is the US GOVT, like the FDA that PROHIBITS homosexuals from GIVIN BLOOD.

""""

You didn't post any quotes, Aquarius. You're so lost in copypasting that you can't even form a cohesive argument. You're easier to read than a Dr. Seuss book, kiddo.

Paddywack-- Yes, Obama, alone, and no Republican EVER, would do anything just for votes. Yes, only Obama, no one else.

Are you deliberately blind?

Gay men CAN reproduce and they do. Through surrogates and with their wives, when they are closets gays.

Aquarius, the only people in my experience that are SO anti-gay are usually closeted gays.

we should be employ people to make cars at a few thousand dollars a pop... not to charge a dollar for a pop. yet anything to interfere with outsourcing is instantly labeled by your ilk as socialism.

Democrats are going from "you didn't build that" to "you can't build that".

Gee, I wonder why we have a jobs problem....

obama outsourced jobs using our tax dollars in the so-called stimulus program......i guess you are okay with outsourcing as long as it is done by obozo!!

I guess you are alright when Mitt the twit outsourced American jobs to India when he was governor? Romney easily outsourced American jobs just like it was something he had done before.

I guess outsourcing is okay if done by mitt the twit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't forget the republicans just voted to protect the corporation and their special tax cuts for moving our jobs offshore.

But of course most of all don't forget to blame President Obama for what the republicans are doing.

Americans first,

It is unfortunate by true. for those who do not belive it, call Dell customer service, ATT or most any other cell or computer company. You will almost always reach India.

you wanna know what is wrong with these people....simple...they are liberals and live in a fantasy world where everyone has their own unicorn....

I'm a straight man... i was raised to think that marriage applies to people who love each other, not necessarily people who are of different genders.

Very few have a problem with gays unions or how they live their life or what they do in their bedrooms.

Really? Then why do the majority of states that ban same-sex marriage also ban civil unions? The right claims that they're "protecting" marriage, but their true bigotry comes through when they also ban civil unions.

good for you

I think if they allow gay marriage they have to allow marriage to more than one person as well. I just dont see it being any diiferent. Its against the law to be married to more than one person. That has to be aginst their civil rights as well. I just dont see any difference if you love all of the people that your married to.

i love my pet racoon.

I think if they allow gay marriage they have to allow marriage to more than one person as well. I just dont see it being any diiferent.

Gay marriage does not change the basic premise of marriage, which is restricted to two consenting adults in this country.

Its against the law to be married to more than one person.

But it's not illegal to be homosexual, or in a homosexual relationship.

That has to be aginst their civil rights as well.

Look up Reynolds v. US; the Supreme Court decided this a long time ago.

I think if they allow gay marriage they have to allow marriage to more than one person as well. I just dont see it being any diiferent. Its against the law to be married to more than one person. That has to be aginst their civil rights as well.

You clearly don't understand the argument for gay marriage. Gays are denied civil marriage to the ONE consenting adult to whom they are emotionally and sexually attracted. This is a privilege granted to heterosexuals. There's the discrimination. Since no one is permitted multiple legal spouses, there is no discrimination.

Im confussed its ok for the gov to tell us we cant love but one person at a time. I dont understand the difference between it being a civil right to just love one person or more than one. If it is a civil right then we should be able to love more than one person. If we go by the basic premise of marriage then it would be a man and a woman. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Bottom line we will still be denying certain groups their civil rights but I guess that want bother gays because it want effect them.

Rolla, marriage was around before your religion was invented, and it wasn't "one man and one woman." That came later.

If it is a civil right then we should be able to love more than one person.

You can love as many people as you want. But marriage is reserved for two consenting adults by law.

If we go by the basic premise of marriage then it would be a man and a woman.

Homosexual marriage has be recognized and existed in various cultures throughout history.

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

That's nice. prove it!

Bottom line we will still be denying certain groups their civil rights

And you're ok with that?

I think if they allow gay marriage they have to allow marriage to more than one person as well. I just dont see it being any diiferent.

There's a big difference and you know it. or maybe you don't, which explains a lot then.

When gays do have the same rights, you won't be hearing this "crap" over and over. Perhaps you're not old enough to remember the fight for civil rights for blacks in the 1960's.

perhaps i do remember it..........the "fight" for gay marriage is nowhere near the struggle for civil rights for black americans........you can be gay in your bedroom and no one will know........but if you are black everyone knows.....equating the civil rights struggle of the 60"s with "gay" rights is ludicrous and almost laughable....

mcpaddy- for someone who is tired of hearing about all the "gay crap" you sure have a lot to say. and yes we will equate this with any other civil rights movement. your kids will be just as embarrassed about you and your stances on equal rights as my generation is about our parents and equal rights for african americans or women.

the "fight" for gay marriage is nowhere near the struggle for civil rights for black americans.

So gays have not had to "struggle" enough to suit you?

I'm sure these people would disagree:

1970-1979

• Howard Elfland, beaten to death in March 1970 by the LAPD after checking into the Dover Hotel under a pseudonym;
• The Upstairs Lounge (a gay bar) in New Orleans was set afire on June 24, 1973, killing 32 people;
• Robert Hillsborough, stabbed to death by a man shouting “faggot” in San Francisco on June 21, 1977;
• In an area of Central Park in NYC that was known to be frequented by homosexuals, a gang of youths with baseball bats and tree branches assaulted several men at random, but the youths later confessed that they had deliberately gone out to attack homosexuals; one of the injured men was former figure skater Dick Button, who had gone to the park to watch a fireworks display;
• Harvey Milk and George Moscone, assassinated on November 27, 1978, by Dan White at San Francisco City Hall; the short 7-year sentence given to White prompted the White Night Riots in San Francisco;
• Tennesse Williams, assaulted by five teenage boys in Key West, FL, in January 1979; while he was not seriously injured, the attack was part of a wave of anti-gay violence inspired by an anti-gay newspaper ad run by a local minister;
• Terry Knudsen, beaten to death by three men in Loring Park, MN, on June 5, 1979;
• Robert Allen Taylor, stabbed to death near Loring Park, MN, on September 7, 1979; the murderer told a local reporter from jail that “I don’t like gays. Okay?”;
• Steven Charles, 17, of Newark, NJ, beaten to death in NYC on October 7, 1979, by four males who also beat his friend, Thomas Moore, 16, of Brooklyn, who was critically injured but managed to get help at a nearby residence, and also identified the four in a lineup four days later; the leader of the attack pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter, was paroled after 8 years, then murdered on November 17, 1989.

1980-1989

• Charles Howard, drowned by three teenagers who threw him and his companion into a tributary of the Penobscot River in Bangor, ME, in 1984 (the companion survived and pulled a fire alarm, but Howard was already dead);
• Rebecca Wright, shot along with her partner, Claudia Brenner, by Stephen Roy Carr on May 13, 1988, while they were hiking and camping the Appalachian Trail; Carr later said he was enraged by their lesbianism when he saw them having sex;

1990-1999

• James Zappalorti, a gay Vietnam veteran, fatally stabbed in 1990;
• Julio Rivera, beaten with a hammer and stabbed by two men in NYC on July 2, 1990, because he was gay;
• Paul Broussard, a Houston-area banker, killed in 1991;
• Petty Officer Allen Schindler, stomped to death by a shipmate in a public restroom in Japan on October 27, 1992; Schindler had repeatedly complained about anti-gay harassment aboard ship;
• Brandon Teena, a transman who was raped and later murdered in 1993 when his birth gender was revealed by police to male friends of his (this case was later made into the movie Boys Don’t Cry);
• Scott Amedure, killed by shotgun by Jonathan Schmitz on The Jenny Jones Show on March 9, 1995, after Amedure revealed his attraction to Schmitz on the show;
• Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill, a lesbian couple who were murdered in Medford, OR, on December 4, 1995, by Robert Acrement, who said he had “no compassion” for bisexual or homosexual people (he was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection);
• The bombing of the Otherside Lounge (a lesbian nightclub) in Atlanta, GA, by Eric Robert Rudolph, the Olympic Park Bomber, on February 21, 1997, in which five bar patrons were injured; Rudolph said after being sentenced to five consecutive life terms for his numerous bombings that homosexuality is an “aberrant lifestyle”;
• Matthew Shepard, tortured, beaten severely, tied to a fence, and abandoned in Laramie WY, on October 7, 1998; he died of his injuries on October 12, 1998, which were inflicted by Russell Arthur Henderson and Aaron James McKinney, who are now serving two consecutive life sentences in prison;
• Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, a gay couple, murdered on July 1, 1999, in Redding, CA, by white supremacist brothers Matthew and Tyler Williams, who claimed that they were “obeying the laws of the Creator”;
• Army PFC Barry Winchell, beaten to death with a baseball bat on July 6, 1999, in Fort Campbell, KY, by Calvin Glover, another soldier, after rumors spread on base of Winchell’s relationship with Calpernia Addams;
• Steen Fenrich, killed and dismembered by his stepfather, John D. Fenrich, in Queens, NY, in September 1999 (his remains were not found until March 2001); his stepfather had written “gay @!$%# number one” on his skull along with his SSN;
• Sissy “Charles” Bolden, shot to death in Savannah, GA, on October 15, 1999, by Charles E.Wilkins, Jr.

2000-2009

• Arthur “J.R.” Warren, punched and kicked to death by two teenage boys on July 3, 2000, in Grant Town, WV, because the boys believed he had spread a rumor that he and of the boys had a sexual relationship; the killers also ran over his body to disguise it as a hit-and-run;
• Danny Overstreet, shot by Ronald Gay in Roanoke, VA, on September 22, 2000, when Gay walked into a gay bar and opened fire, severely injuring six other people; Gay said he was angry at the new meaning of his last name and upset that three of his sons had changed their names, and said that God told him to find and kill lesbians and gay men, and that he was a “Christian soldier working for my Lord,” and testified that he “wished he could have killed more fags;”
• Fred Martinez, a transgender and two-spirit student, bludgeoned to death on June 16, 2001, near Cortez, CO, by Shaun Murphy, who bragged about attacking a “fag”;
• Philip Walsted, fatally beaten with a baseball bat on June 12, 2002, by a neo-Nazi man named David Higdon;
• Nizah Morris, a trans-woman, killed in December 2002 in Philadelphia, PA;
• Gwen Araujo, a trans-woman, killed in October 2002 by at least three men;
• Sakia Gunn, 15, fatally stabbed on May 11, 2003, in Newark NJ, while waiting for a bus with her friends; they were propositioned by two men, and when the girls rejected them, saying that they were lesbians, the men attacked them, and Gunn was fatally stabbed;
• Richie Phillips, killed because he was gay by Joseph Cottrell on June 17, 2003, in Elizabethtown, KY; Cottrell stuffed his body in a suitcase, where it was found;
• Nireah Johnson and Brandie Coleman, shot to death on July 23, 2003, by Paul Moore, when Moore learned after a sexual encounter that Johnson was transgender; Moore burned the bodies after killing them;
• Glenn Kopitske, shot and stabbed in the back on July 31, 2003, by Gary Hirte, 17, a straight-A student, star athlete, and Eagle Scout, in Winnebago County, WI, who pled insanity, saying that he killed Kopitske in a rage after having sex with him, because he felt that gay sex was “worse than murder,” but was found to be sane and received a life sentence;
• Scotty Joe Weaver, 18, beaten, strangled, and stabbed numerous times, his burned and partially decomposed body was found in Bay Minette, AL, a few miles from his home;
• Daniel Fetty, hearing-impaired and homeless, beaten, stomped, shoved nude into a garbage bin, impaled with a stick, and left for dead by multiple attackers on October 2, 2004, in Waverly, OH, and died of his injuries the next day -- three men received prison sentences for the crime;
• Ronnie Antonio Paris, 3, died of brain injuries inflicted by his father, Ronnie Paris, Jr., on January 28, 2005, in Tampa, FL; the father slammed the baby into walls repeatedly, slapped his head, and “boxed” him because he was worried that the child was gay and would grow up a “sissy”:
• James Maestas, assaulted outside a restaurant, then followed to a hotel and beaten unconscious by a man who called him “faggot,” on February 27, 2005, in Santa Fe, NM;
• Jason Gage, bludgeoned to death with a bottle and stabbed in the neck with a shard of glass by Joseph Lawrence on March 11, 2005, in Waterloo, IA, because Lawrence claimed that Gage had made a sexual advance to him;
• Jacob D. Robida, 18, entered a gay bar in New Bedford, MA, on February 2, 2006, and attacked patrons with a hatchet and a handgun, wounding three people;
• Kevin Aviance, robbed and beaten in Manhattan by a group of men who yelled anti-gay epithets on June 10, 2006;
• Six men in San Diego, CA, were attacked with baseball bats and knives after leaving the California Gay Pride festival on July 30, 2006, one victim injured so badly that he required extensive facial reconstruction surgery;
• One man and seven black lesbians had an altercation in Manhattan on August 18, 2006, during which the man was stabbed, and the women claimed that they were acting in self-defense after he screamed homophobic epithets at them, but he says it was “a hate crime against a straight man”;
• Michael Sandy, attacked by four heterosexual men on October 8, 2006; they lured him into meeting after chatting online because they were looking for gay men to rob; he was struck by a car running away from his attackers, and died five days later;
• Andrew Anthos, beaten by a lead pipe by a man who was shouting anti-gay names at him on February 27, 2007, in Detroit, MI, and died 10 days later;
• Ryan Keith Skipper, stabbed to death by four people on March 15, 2007, in Wahneta, FL;
• Robert Duncanson, stabbed to death by Omar Willock on May 12, 2007, in Brooklyn, NY, because Willock claimed that Duncanson had flirted with him;
• Sean William Kennedy, fatally punched by Stephen Andrew Moller on May 16, 2007, in Greenville, SC, because Moller didn’t like Kennedy’s sexual orientation;
• Nathaniel Salerno, beaten by four men on a Metro train in Washington, DC, on December 8, 2007, while they called him “faggot”;
• Duanna Johnson, a transsexual woman, beaten by a police officer while being held in the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center in TN; Johnson said that the police called her a “faggot” and “he-she” before and during the beating; Johnson was found dead in the street in November 2008, apparently shot by three unknown individuals;
• Lawrence “Larry” King, 15, shot twice by a school classmate on February 12, 2008, and taken off life support after being declared brain dead on February 15; a 14-year-old classmate was charged with premeditated murder with hate crime enhancements;
• Lance Neve, beaten unconscious because he was gay by Jesse Parsons on March 16, 2008, in Rochester, NY, leaving him with a fractured skull and a broken nose;
• Steven Parrish, murdered by Steven T. Hollis III and Juan L. Flythe, members of his gang, on May 29, 2008, in Baltimore County, MD, because they felt that having a gay member would make their gang appear weak;
• Jeremy Waggoner, murdered on June 9, 2008, in Detroit, MI, which is still unsolved;
• Angie Zapata, a trans-woman, beaten to death on July 17, 2008, in Colorado, two days after meeting Allen Ray Andrade, who was found guilty of first-degree murder;
• Tony Randolph Hunter and his partner were attacked and beaten near a gay bar in Washington, DC, on September 7, 2008; Hunter later died from his injuries;
• Nima Daivari was attacked by a man who called him “faggot” on September 13, 2008, in Denver, CO, and police refused to make a report of the attack;
• A 10-year-old student was taunted by the bus driver on his school bus, who also encouraged other students to chase and beat the child, in Bourbonnais, IL, on September 15, 2008; the driver was later charged with leading a homophobic attack;
• Melvin Whistlehunt, whose home was destroyed by arsonists on November 7, 2008, in Newton, NC, who also painted homophobic graffiti on the back of the house;
• Lateisha Green, a transgender woman, was shot and killed by Dwight DeLee on November 14, 2008, in Syracuse, NY, because DeLee thought Green was gay;
• Romel Sucuzhanya and his brother Jose were attacked on December 7, 2008, in Brooklyn, NY, for appearing to be gay and for being Latino;
• A 28-year-old lesbian in Richmond, CA, was kidnapped and gang raped by four men who made homophobic remarks on December 18, 2008;
• Nathan Runkle was assaulted outside a gay nightclub on December 27, 2008, in Dayton, OH;
• Efosa Agbontaen and Branden McGillvery-Dummett were attacked by four men with glass bottles and box cutters who shouted anti-gay epithets during the attack on February 15, 2009, in NYC;
• Michael Goucher, a gay veteran, stabbed to death by two men who were arrested in Stroudsburg, PA, on February 18, 2009;
• Marc Bosaw required twelve staples in his head after three men entered Roberts Lafitte bar in Galveston, TX on March 1, 2009, and attacked patrons with rocks;
• Josh Kehoe and Bobby Daniel Caldwell were attacked by 15 teenagers leaving a Britney Spears concert in Newark, NJ on March 14, 2009, in which Caldwell suffered a broken jaw;
• Two gay men in Seaside, OR, were attacked and left unconscious on a local beach on March 23, 2009;
• Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, 11, hanged himself with an extension cord after being bulled all school year by students who said he “acted feminine” and was gay, on April 6, 2009, in Springfield, MA;
• Justing Goodwin, attacked and beaten by six people outside a bar in Gloucester, MA, on April 11, 2009, suffering a shattered jaw, broken eye socket, broken nose, and broken cheekbone;
• Seaman August Provost, shot to death and his body burned, was found at his guard post at Camp Pendleton, CA, on June 30, 2009; he had been harassed because of his sexual orientation, but DADT prevented him from seeking help.

great post erin!!! sad thing is that so many of the so called "christian right" or the extreme GOP would say these people had it coming. let's hope that their hate ends sometime soon, and if not, then may their time in power be short!

Erin - the far right doesn't care about people - just their hatred. It is sad the GOP has fallen into such disgusting decay!

Obama/Biden 2012

mcpaddywack......the "fight" for gay marriage is nowhere near the struggle for civil rights for black americans

Actually it's exactly like the fight for mixed-race marriage, which you right-wing "Christians" also vehemently opposed. Apparently you dumb bigots still want some Americans to be 2nd-class citizens.

By the way, the NAACP says that same-sex marriage is the civil rights issue of our time.

HEY , do u think the TRANSSEXUALS are mentally ILL?? The APA does. That's the 'T' in LBGT. I haven't looked un BI-SEXUALS yet, but I will. I know, you'll say that's not true, so here's the reference:

Today, transsexualism is still listed as a mental illness in DSM (DSM-IV-TR 302.85 "Gender Identity Disorder" or GID) .

Then there's the prevelance of pedophelia among homosexuals:

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

The majority of child molesters are heterosexual men, not lesbian, gay or bisexual people. Almost all studies show that over 90% of child molestation is committed by heterosexual men.

http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html

Myth and Reality:

The majority of child molesters are gay or lesbian.

Statistics regarding child molestation prepared by the Boston Advocates for Human Rights reveal that, "the vast majority of child molestation - over 90% - is performed by heterosexual males. The man who is sexually interested in children is rarely homosexual."

http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm

Myth: Gay men are child molesters.
Reality: Studies show that 90-95% of child molesters are heterosexual men, usually relatives of the child involved. In fact, 45% of child sexual abuse is committed by the father. 97% of sex offenders against children are male and 90% of the victims are female. Even in cases of same-sex molestation, offenders typically report that they are not interested in—and are even repulsed by—homosexual activity. Pedophiles tend to be motivated by power, control, and hostility rather than by sexual desire.

http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm

Myth: Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters.
Fact: Pedophilia, sexual attraction to children, should never be confused with homosexuality. Many studies have documented that the overwhelming majority (some say 90%) of child molesters are heterosexual men against young girls. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals have no interest in preadolescent children.

http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

The QUOTE I POSTED was from the National Institute of Health, that says HOMOSEXUALS are MORE likely to be pedophiles, are they WRONG?? Your sources are quite CLEARLY BIASED, mine is the US GOVT, like the FDA that PROHIBITS homosexuals from GIVIN BLOOD.

""""

Cite your source, Aquarius. What are you afraid of?

Aquarius knows his source is right wing anti-gay organizations that routinely twist data to show that gay people are somehow bad.

The reason the FDA prohibits gays from giving blood is because of the increased incidents of HIV, a blood-transmitted disease. Now that we have tests for it, the ban is very controversial. Straight people who have unprotected sex everywhere are still allowed to give blood but not gays, even those in monogamous relationships.

Haitians, those who've had blood transfusions, and those who have travelled to Europe and Africa recently are not allowed to give blood either. Are they all bad people too?

yes indeed.....obama panders and panders.......he is disgusting....

And republicans don't stoop? how many times have they brought up terrorism and 9-11 in the advancements of their own political agenda?

Don't be silly, James. Of course Republicans don't stoop. For instance, Romney has remained consistent in all his views and has never once changed his mind to appeal to voters.

Romney doesn't stoop. He has people he pays to do that for him.

EVERY retardican needs to be unelected instead, tradition has NO place in our great country. Tradition by itself is useless.

HEY , do u think the TRANSSEXUALS are mentally ILL?? The APA does. That's the 'T' in LBGT. I haven't looked un BI-SEXUALS yet, but I will. I know, you'll say that's not true, so here's the reference:

Today, transsexualism is still listed as a mental illness in DSM (DSM-IV-TR 302.85 "Gender Identity Disorder" or GID) .

Then there's the prevelance of pedophelia among homosexuals:

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

The majority of child molesters are heterosexual men, not lesbian, gay or bisexual people. Almost all studies show that over 90% of child molestation is committed by heterosexual men.

http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html

Myth and Reality:

The majority of child molesters are gay or lesbian.

Statistics regarding child molestation prepared by the Boston Advocates for Human Rights reveal that, "the vast majority of child molestation - over 90% - is performed by heterosexual males. The man who is sexually interested in children is rarely homosexual."

http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm

Myth: Gay men are child molesters.
Reality: Studies show that 90-95% of child molesters are heterosexual men, usually relatives of the child involved. In fact, 45% of child sexual abuse is committed by the father. 97% of sex offenders against children are male and 90% of the victims are female. Even in cases of same-sex molestation, offenders typically report that they are not interested in—and are even repulsed by—homosexual activity. Pedophiles tend to be motivated by power, control, and hostility rather than by sexual desire.

http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm

Myth: Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters.
Fact: Pedophilia, sexual attraction to children, should never be confused with homosexuality. Many studies have documented that the overwhelming majority (some say 90%) of child molesters are heterosexual men against young girls. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals have no interest in preadolescent children.

http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

The QUOTE I POSTED was from the National Institute of Health, that says HOMOSEXUALS are MORE likely to be pedophiles, are they WRONG?? Your sources are quite CLEARLY BIASED, mine is the US GOVT, like the FDA that PROHIBITS homosexuals from GIVIN BLOOD.

""""

Again, cite your source, Aquarius.

Source: all the moletsted kids...stop protecting the pedophiles....

Aquarius knows his source is right wing anti-gay organizations that routinely twist data to show that gay people are somehow bad.

So, Aquarius, are you saying that mentally ill people should not be allowed to get married?

Even straight people?

They both do.... right up until Election Day. Its the day after you have to worry.

Get your shovel ready and laser focus....recovery summer is only 2 years old.

Right...they both do....right....

You mean like the republicans who just voted to protect the special tax cuts for those moving our jobs overseas instead of for tax cuts for companies that create jobs in America?

Do you mean someone who cares about jobs like that?

Almost by definition, conservatives are left trailing every social trend.

yes and social trends are just that....trends......they are not values...

Yes, nothing like good Christian values. Like bigotry for instance.

mcpaddywack - I've read your posts and it's become very clear your only values are hatred of anyone who is not as demented as you. That's it - plain and simple. You live a life of hatred. You're truly a sad little man.

Obama/Biden 2012

HEY , do u think the TRANSSEXUALS are mentally ILL?? The APA does. That's the 'T' in LBGT. I haven't looked un BI-SEXUALS yet, but I will. I know, you'll say that's not true, so here's the reference:

Today, transsexualism is still listed as a mental illness in DSM (DSM-IV-TR 302.85 "Gender Identity Disorder" or GID) .

Then there's the prevelance of pedophelia among homosexuals:

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

The majority of child molesters are heterosexual men, not lesbian, gay or bisexual people. Almost all studies show that over 90% of child molestation is committed by heterosexual men.

http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html

Myth and Reality:

The majority of child molesters are gay or lesbian.

Statistics regarding child molestation prepared by the Boston Advocates for Human Rights reveal that, "the vast majority of child molestation - over 90% - is performed by heterosexual males. The man who is sexually interested in children is rarely homosexual."

http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm

Myth: Gay men are child molesters.
Reality: Studies show that 90-95% of child molesters are heterosexual men, usually relatives of the child involved. In fact, 45% of child sexual abuse is committed by the father. 97% of sex offenders against children are male and 90% of the victims are female. Even in cases of same-sex molestation, offenders typically report that they are not interested in—and are even repulsed by—homosexual activity. Pedophiles tend to be motivated by power, control, and hostility rather than by sexual desire.

http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm

Myth: Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters.
Fact: Pedophilia, sexual attraction to children, should never be confused with homosexuality. Many studies have documented that the overwhelming majority (some say 90%) of child molesters are heterosexual men against young girls. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals have no interest in preadolescent children.

http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

The QUOTE I POSTED was from the National Institute of Health, that says HOMOSEXUALS are MORE likely to be pedophiles, are they WRONG?? Your sources are quite CLEARLY BIASED, mine is the US GOVT, like the FDA that PROHIBITS homosexuals from GIVIN BLOOD.

""""

Why can't you defend your argument, Aquarius? What are you afraid of?

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution allows the federal government to protect basic civil rights. It is not a state's right to establish an American citizen's right to vote in our democracy, it is not a state's right to control a woman's right to have an abortion and terminate an unwanted pregnancy, just as it is not a state's right to determine an American citizen's right to marry a same-sex partner. Several other countries (Canada, Spain, and Argentina) and several other US states (Massachusetts, New York, and Iowa) have already recognized this basic civil right, and so has this US President...10 years from now Americans will look back at the discrimination against gay Americans and wonder what the fuss was about...in this great land "with liberty and justice for all..."