The American Spectator : Either-Or Conservatism

Text Size

Either-Or Conservatism

By David N. Bass on 8.25.11 @ 6:08AM

An unfortunate fallacy enters the same-sex marriage debate.

In my eight years covering America’s debate over how to define civil marriage, a common meme from the Left has been that cultural conservatives would do better to focus on problems with heterosexual marriage, such as divorce and unwed motherhood, rather than deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.

It’s one of the most effective arguments against the traditionalist position on the issue. It’s not without some merit. After all, the institution of marriage in the United States is in shambles. No doubt that’s why a small enclave of conservatives has echoed the same argument.

Adroit political analyst Michael Barone did so in a column on Saturday. After quoting polls showing a shift in the public’s perception of same-sex marriage, Barone repeats the same refrain:

Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that it would weaken the institution of the family. Certainly there are problems there: rising percentages of children are raised by one parent or none, and nearly 50 percent of teenage children in non-college households did not live with both parents. Yet outcomes for children raised in two-parent families are far better than for those who are not.

But as one who favors same-sex marriage for reasons set out in Jonathan Rauch’s 2004 book “Gay Marriage,” I think the institution of the family is less threatened by a few people who want to get married than by the very many more people who get divorced or who have children and without getting married at all.

Because the United States’ rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock birth are so high, conservatives should be focusing their firepower on those social ills rather than the question of same-sex marriage. So goes the argument. But it’s full of holes and a classic example of the either-or fallacy.

I’m unaware of any cultural conservative who would rank same-sex marriage a more significant threat than decay in traditional family structures — rampant divorce, single-parent families mired in poverty, child abuse, the whole gambit. At the same time, I doubt many would rank it as less of a threat. These issues go hand-in-hand and are similar fronts in the same culture war.

It’s a given that same-sex marriage has occupied more attention lately due to the Left’s rapid-fire campaign during the last decade. Politically speaking, it’s possible to fight both skirmishes at the same time. To be trite, we can synchronize walking and chewing gum.

No doubt, the ills of the traditional family are grave. But setting up a false dichotomy between problems in heterosexual marriage and the threat of same-sex marriage accomplishes nothing. It constitutes a convenient excuse for “moderate” Republicans, wary of being labeled “homophobic,” to side step an important issue.

There are links between same-sex marriage advocacy and liberalized divorce laws. In many ways, our contemporary debate over homosexual marriage is analogous to the campaign in the 1970s for no-fault divorce. Under that concept, either party can leave the marriage without the need to establish grounds, such as adultery. It had sweeping impact and transformed what future generations of Americans understood marriage to be.

Legalized same-sex marriage would take the campaign a step further by upending the traditional definition of marriage for society as a whole. That has been a chief goal of liberalism for decades. In fact, advocacy for same-sex marriage is inextricably linked to the cultural campaign that brought us no-fault divorce, rampant unwed motherhood, the breakdown of the traditional family, and the failed welfare state.

The idea is the same: reshape America into a liberal utopia. That goal can be accomplished through both fiscal and cultural means. It’s not overstating the case to say that same-sex marriage — along with other means of chipping away at the family — is one of the Left’s chief ways of achieving statism.

Without strong families, recognized and protected by law, a free society is weakened. Then the government steps in to fill the vacuum. Preventing that is a vital conservative ideal.

About the Author

David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (391) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

stephanie| 8.25.11 @ 6:20AM

So David, when Joe Smith demands that he be able to marry his goat, will you say we should get behind that as well? How about if he wants to marry a 9 yr old boy? Is that okay too? Where does it end. Just askin...

Wayne | 8.25.11 @ 11:30AM

Or more likely his brother.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 12:49PM

Or more likely a child.
A group of mental health professionals, dubbed “B4U-ACT,” are arguing that pedophiles are simply misunderstood and therefore, should not be criminalized.
A partial statement by the group reads:
“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.” B4U-ACT’s aim is allegedly to create “tolerance” for people who are sexually attracted to children. Are members of the psychiatric community now attempting to treat pedophilia in the same way they would alcoholism or depression?

This is happenning right now.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 12:57PM

I predict that there will be a day that we will be standing against the liberals and pedophiles and will see, useful idiots, like surfer dude below, telling us that we are haters, fundies, oppressors, and sharia law supporters.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:38PM

That's right, Simon.
But that day is already here.
And Don't you know? God must have made them that way.. or some say.
So, don't be mean and tell the truth: that's it's a lie!

But remember what Jesus says:

"If the world hates you, know that it has hated Me before it hated you." Jn. 15:18.

Breaking News| 8.25.11 @ 5:33PM

Go to Drudge Report to read

"Pentagon to Marines: Stop Farting."

Seems that Afghans find loud farting offensive! Well, I thought anyone would . . . well, anyone other than marines and AmSpec rightwingers.

jolizoom| 8.25.11 @ 4:14PM

Stephanie, Did I read the same article as you?

And I quote: "In fact, advocacy for same-sex marriage is inextricably linked to the cultural campaign that brought us no-fault divorce, rampant unwed motherhood, the breakdown of the traditional family, and the failed welfare state."

In what way does this sound like David is advocating for anything but stable, traditional marriages?

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 5:19PM

I think she was being sarcastic to make a point?

Brian Mc| 8.25.11 @ 6:40AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a time when every major denomination in this country was opposed to divorce, not to mention contraception, abortion and gay marriage. Culturally speaking, we have become a swamp of relativism festering along to our doom. As the government has stepped up and said, "We'll take care of it, the churches have quietly become impotent and disconnected from its moral responsibilities. We are truly beginning to reap what we have sown over the course of the past century.

surfer dude| 8.25.11 @ 9:13AM

On the contrary, because of moral evolution, I think our nation is advancing in making us better, more ethical people.

We how have integration of the races, more respect for women, less stigmatism of mental illness, etc.

Yes, we are evolving morally. "Onward and upward" is what I say. So bring on the same-sex marriages.

9thID| 8.25.11 @ 10:45AM

The depraved, or morally devolved, would have us move "Onward and upward" to bestiality, polygamy/Sharia, and man-boy love...

surfer dude| 8.25.11 @ 11:14AM

Fundamentalist Christianity = Sharia Law

(well, if some of the fundies had their way--they're a hate-filled, intolerant bunch)

But they're becoming more insignifican with each passing day.

Jive Bomber| 8.25.11 @ 11:29AM

Obviously the "insignifican" have significence or you wouldn't be fretting about them.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 11:53AM

"if some of the fundies had their way--they're a hate-filled, intolerant bunch"

"Fundie" is a bigoted epithet for Left-wingers who are too lazy to educate themselves beyond liberal provincialism. It's popular because all of the *cool kids* talk that way. I am not saying you are using it for this reason; I'm just saying it doesn't increase your credibility. As a matter of fact, it makes your "hate-filled, intolerant" complaint pretty ironic.

JimH| 8.25.11 @ 3:31PM

Keith Hernandez uses it referring to basic baseball skills.

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 12:39PM

Yeah, you travel through areas where fundamentalist Christians live and you see nothing but women covered from head to toe in Burqa's, and walking because they're not allowed to drive. Fundamentalist Christians, as we all know, forbid women being educated or owning property, and of course, in some of those communities, there are beheadings, or stonings, or the public spectacle of a limb being chopped off from some minor offense on a daily basis.

The only thing more stunning than your ignorance of fundamentalist Christianity is your ignorance of Sharia. Fundamentalist Christians may disagree with you, but even if they were in charge, they would at least tolerate your presence among them. Under Sharia law, you either become a fundamentalist Muslim or they lop off your head - though that would obviously have little impact on your intellectual capacity..

fundamentalist| 8.25.11 @ 12:45PM

No. True fundamentalist Christianity does not ask the state to enforce religious beliefs. True fundamentalists are libertarians.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:52PM

WHAT?
Romans 13 says that "the powers that be are ordained of God . . . [as] a minister of God to thee for good
. . . as a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 2:48PM

Uh, no. Hell, no.

Surfer dude, you never lived in small town Alabama as a Jewish guy, or you would not be making such stupid statements as Fundamentalist Christianity = Sharia Law.

The level of tolerance and love is completely different. You don't know or understand Jack. Start by going to the Amy Winehouse obituary and reading Margie's posts. Get an education before you spew.

(TCU, 1984, B.S. Biology, Magna Cum laude)

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:42PM

Yes, they call me "Mullah Margie" here.

You belong in that camp of true haters~ those which refuse to love the Truth, and so be saved. 2 Tim. 2:10.

I hope you repent before it's too late.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:44PM

My comment was to surfer dude, of course.

Greetings, O.T.!

Surfer Dude| 8.25.11 @ 5:47PM

And may peace be with you, Margie.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:06PM

I know, Margie. You rock!

voted against carter| 8.25.11 @ 5:22PM

Sorry,.. no.

Homosexuals make up LESS,.. REPEAT,… less than 2% of the ENTIRE U.S. population

WHY do we continue to let a SMALL group of sexual deviants Dick-tate public policy???

LESS than 2%.

Oh,... and lets NOT forget the continued attempt at the mainstreaming of deviant homosexual behavior.

NEEDS TO STOP.

^Sojourner Truth^| 8.25.11 @ 11:29AM

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING FRESH TO SAY ON THE TOPIC, PLEASE DO NOT POST.

Some of you posters make the same stale point over and over.
You're either dumb, disabled, or retired (or all three). Who else would have the time to sit before their keyboards and spell out such insufferable dribble.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 12:59PM

Like yourself? Troll.

Butch | 8.25.11 @ 3:41PM

Well, my dribble is insufferable, but I have a great jump shot and I play good defense. On the other hand, my drivel is an excellent read.

MikeBee| 8.25.11 @ 12:00PM

Surfer Dude,
Moral standards have not evolved at all throughout the ages. Instead, people change, either throwing out moral standards or embracing them more. Don't get this confused. It is BECAUSE the U.S. is such a Christian and moral country that it was one of the first in history to get rid of slavery. People in the U.S. decided to better live out their Christian faith, and free all the slaves.

It is also BECAUSE the U.S. is such a Christian country that gays have been allowed, in our time, to cohabitate peacefully. In many other non-Christian countries around the world (particularly in countries which have embraced Sharia law), gays are openly harrassed and put to death.

Morality does not evolve. People change.

cowgirl| 8.25.11 @ 12:07PM

I am curious surfer dude - do you find the rioters in England morally evolving????

Sonny's Mom| 8.25.11 @ 1:18PM

Take no notice of the surfer dude wearing the grape-huggers and tinfoil hat....

TrueBlue| 8.25.11 @ 2:08PM

I must have missed the increased respect for women with so many guys calling women bi%$^ and whore, or treating them as just another lay. So many women have no respect for themselves either, acting like it's an accepted practice for them to sleep around, and then going on to complain how guys treat them like objects.

As for racial integration, it's there in some cases, but in many cases it is not. ANY time a REQUIREMENT is made for a company/agency to hire a person based on a race quota, that is forced integration, which only breeds hate and discontent toward the party involved. I personally treat someone based on the actions they take, not their color, but I am getting really tired of the race card being played as an excuse for someone's inability to do something or used as justification for how they treat others.

Less stigmatism of mental illness? Maybe, but in most cases the only thing it does is "protect" these people from intervention by their families or law enforcement to get them the help they need to actually be productive members of society. Instead a large number of the homeless are people unable to function because they won't seek out help in their current state, nor can anyone legally get involved to assist them because then we'd be infringing on that person's right to be mentally unstable.

Same-sex unions I have no real problems with, I do however have an issue with it 1) being called marriage, marriage is a religious term derived from the spiritual union between a man and a woman before God; and 2) treating same-sex unions as equal to a marriage between a man and a woman when they do not contribute to the continuation of the society or species due to the inability to reproduce. Give them legal rights to sign documents, determine healthcare in the case of incapaciation, or to pass property on to their spouse, sure. But that's the extent they should get for that. Also, something nobody likes to mention, same-sex couples have an even higher separation rate than normal couples. Yes, I use the word "normal" because if being gay was normal the proportion of gays to hetero individuals would be nearly equal, and you'd see a ton of gay animals in the world too. I have friends who are gay, I treat them just like anyone else, but I do not (and never will) agree with their lifestyle CHOICE.

jolizoom| 8.25.11 @ 4:34PM

"I must have missed the increased respect for women..."

I see your point, but the attitude is not entrenched in law here--it is the by-product of a culture with no moral bearings. Muslims codified their lack of moral bearings into Sharia law. We haven't gotten there yet.

You forgot 3) the government injecting the homosexual agenda into schools in contradiction to the beliefs of the parents, and telling children that if they accept their parents moral beliefs, they are evil and intolerant.

I'm waiting for a reverse lawsuit where a Christian sues the school system for "separation of church and state" over the "tolerance" curriculum.

TrueBlue| 8.25.11 @ 4:57PM

Ah, thanks for that one, you're right I did forget it for a second.

Another issue with schools, why are they allowed to teach the THEORY of Evolution, but not the THEORY of Intelligent Design? Instead they teach Evolution as Law, and handily ignore the fact that Darwin was a religious man. Also, if they love Evolution so much, why do they make so many laws and regulations to save people from being stupid?

darcy| 8.26.11 @ 3:18AM

It reeks of irony that the people who most ardently embrace the theory of evolution are the very people who advance the proposition that two same-sex males (or females) constitute a viable alternative for society's perpetuation within the framework of 'marriage.' In short, they do not and cannot, and it's clear to everyone that homosexual marriage is not intended to further the reproduction of the species but rather for further devolution of the entire concept of male/female marriage and family; for if marriage can mean nearly anything, it means nothing at all.

Sappy civil rights yammering to the contrary, the intended purpose of the homosexual marriage agenda is to destabilize society, weaken it, and make of us all merely isolated individuals with no family, tribe, or culture, but owing and giving everything to the state.

Fine work, Mr. Bass.

Furthermore, that the teaching of evolution in our public schools has attained a quasi-sacred status is stark testimony to the failure of the church in its mission to teach and preach the Gospel. America's moral decline and fiscal profligacy find their genesis in the mainline and liberal churches' abandonment of the Bible and their replacing it with man-made social justice concerns that dove-tail nicely with leftist utopian schemes. How else could the 'church' so readily blaspheme against God's Holy Law but by ignoring Scripture's clear teaching on sinful sexual practices and adopting the attitudes of the degenerating and decaying culture around it?

Negro X| 8.26.11 @ 2:14AM

I diot!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.25.11 @ 6:49AM

The problem with marriage is that it's controlled by the government. That is precisely why it's open to debate and conjecture.

That is also why most marriages fail. There is no commitment to government anymore except when it's convenient.

Government is viewed as the dispenser of entitlements and marriage has now entered that sphere.

Conservatives have gone along for the ride because it suited their purposes. Well, sometimes you have to pay for the ride.

Ass, grass or cash. Nobody rides for free.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:28PM

Many of your statements are overreaching to the point of absurd. Marriage is recognized by the government because it is a naturally-occurring, important building block of society. *Its importance stems from the children it naturally produces, and the superior way in which those children are brought up.*

Marriages are not failing because they are "controlled" by the government. They are failing because our culture -- Hollywood, specifically -- has taught the public that sex is meaningless and can be pursued any way one wants to.

The government's support of traditional marriage is one of few things helping at this point, the Church having been severely weakened by anti-Christian propaganda (see: SNL and every Stephen King movie ever made).

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 1:02PM

Excellent points! You have a very sharp mind.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 1:27PM

Thank you.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.25.11 @ 1:39PM

The government does control marriage. To state or imply otherwise is a complete absurdity. As far as education being a factor that's also a ridiculous argument. There are good and bad drivers but they are all licensed by the goverment. Your assumptions are hardly facts.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 2:14PM

What is ridiculous is this tiresome insistence on the part of libertarians that the government "get out of the marriage business", showing they have no concept of why the government involves itself (to the extent that it does) in the first place.

People are primal; they need a primal reason to care for children; biological connections provide that better than anything else. The government regulates marriage to afford future citizens -- i.e. children -- a legal framework that automatically and efficiently protects their interests. This stream-lined legal process involves an acknowledgement of the fact that the optimal place for children is with their own biological, married (shackled) parents. This is a perfect example of why legal systems in functioning societies EXIST.

Years ago, if you wanted rights to your child, you had to be married to his mother. If you wanted rights to $ support for your child, you had to be married to his father. There were some sad situations, but relative to the misery we have under today's watered-down system, the old system worked BEAUTIFULLY.

Because whether you want it to be or not, Bill, the law is a teacher.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:49PM

Nice. You need to come around here more often.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.26.11 @ 9:48AM

I never said the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Actually, your referral to a system that worked beautifully was BEFORE the government took over all social aspects of marriage. So for all practical purposes you are arguing against yourself.

I simply stated that the government controls marriage. And when government controls anything it's a disaster.

Your comment that Hollywood is to blame is really lame. That precludes the belief that people will make good choices. In fact, Hollywood does not make laws and people follow laws.

The reason people make bad choices is because the government encourages those bad choices in many ways.

LiveFreeOrDie| 8.25.11 @ 12:49PM

AS writers need to stop parroting the leftist propaganda that marriage is in shambles. 50% divorce rate OVERALL. Check rates for college educated couples at least 25 and the rate drops more than half. Add Christianity to the equation and it drops even more. Decent, God fearing folks are still getting married and staying married.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 1:03PM

Same of you, LiveFree, excellent points. Very sharp.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 6:03PM

Ok, let's have a roll call here of all the Christians preaching to us.. How many of you Christians are still married to your first wife or husband. The Bible says you can't get divorced, right.

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 7:01PM

Thomas, this post, in and of itself, proves beyond all question that you are so ignorant of Christian teachings as to render anything, ANYTHING, you say on the subject of Christianity utterly meaningless.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 11:07PM

Ok, Big E is out.
Next.
You all feel morally superior to homosexuals, fess up.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 7:46PM

It says except on the grounds of Adultery.
And I'm Married and faithful, by the Grace of God.

Pooch| 8.25.11 @ 10:22PM

Margie! Must you be so personal?

Has someond called you an adulturist?

Ken (Old Texican), for instance.

James Baker| 8.26.11 @ 12:12AM

I am

SGT Baker

POST American| 8.25.11 @ 7:28AM

"Notice, not even one of your leading
'religious leaders' is sounding ANY alarm,
giving ANY warning, delivereing ANY challenge
against what's coming (ie TREASON,
DE-in-dustrialization, EUGENICS ). This tells you
they've all been brought in; that they're all
'in on it'. Very, very, very disturbing indeed."
-ALAN WATT

------------Anyone care to dispute the reality?

ANYONE DARE----------------?

Rev. Jim Whittle| 8.25.11 @ 12:07PM

A Theist responds to homosexual marriage and says it is a perversion of the primary purpose of marriage which is to symbolize God's relationship with his people. A Naturalist responds to homosexual marriage and says it is a perversion of the primary purpose of marriage which is reproduction. The gospel looks at all these problems - no fault divorce, easy adultery, children born out of wedlock, homosexual marriage - and says we are dehumanizing our culture and removing the sacred. The author is correct in stating that this the goal of progressive statists because then only the state has the ability to humanize. That's a perversion of God's grace and his plan revealed through the Lord Jesus Christ. Redemption is about friendship with God on his terms. He defines humanity, not the state, or each others' opinions. Our social demise is putting holes in the bucket of humanity, and only God can repair those holes and fill those buckets.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:55PM

"The author is correct in stating that this the goal of progressive statists because then only the state has the ability to humanize."

I don't understand that part of your comment.
Who are the progressive statists in your mind? And are you saying something along the lines of~ much like the Libertarians say~ that "marriage" should be a basic free-for all??

And that there ought to be no laws?

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.25.11 @ 8:10AM

To quote the Bard - Brian Mc - Correct me if I'm wrong, BUT..............................
I remember when Songs were Songs. They put a smile on your face. They calmed you down. They weren't screaming at you, calling you a Pig or a Ho. They were about Love and Tenderness. They were Melodious things that took our minds off our troubles.
Now, they are Vile, and Vicious, and in one case: Gangsta Rap, in the Inner City, they have made a Bad Situation: The Black Community, WORSE. Don't take my word for it. Ask them, yourself.
I remember Bonanza, and Gunsmoke, and Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett on the television. Stories about Honour and Justice, Decency, Bravery, and Compassion. They taught us all of these things.
The Television doesn't do that, any more.
I remember when Halloween was SAFE. I remember how my folks never really knew where I was, in the summer, when school was out, but it wasn't a problem. My Mom KNEW I was okay. KNEW that I was safe. and everybody kept an eye out, for everybody else.
I have a fence in the Front Yard, and one in the Back, and I STILL keep my eyes on my two boys.
Things have changed.
There used to be SHAME. It DIED, with the Presidency of Bill Clinton.
Girls who got Pregnant, out of wedlock, were an Anomaly. A girl who got Pregnant in High School? Her family sent her away, to live with an Aunt, or someone. Or, they sent her off to a Catholic School.
Now, the Single Mom, threatens to take down our Civilization. Her Fatherless offspring, Rampaging through America's Cities, as we speak. Robbing, Raping, Beating innocent people for the Fun of it.
Which brings us to Today's Subject: Marriage.
There's a reason that the Judeo Christian Marriage, is the way that it is. It's for Stability. It's for the Continuity of our Species. It enables LAW and ORDER to prevail.
I've got a great Idea. Let's CHANGE it.
Does anyone think that this isn't gonna turn out bad? When it was One Man and One Woman, you knew what you were getting. Now, with the parameters being expanded to ANY two Consenting Adults, our way of life sits on the edge.
You don't agree?
When Rickey and Lucy were shown in the BEDROOM, on the I Love Lucy Show, it was the first time ever, that a Couple had been shown in bed, in their Bedroom. And they were shown in separate beds. Where are we now? Where has it gone from there?
How has the Smoking Ban progressed, over the years? Look what they want to do to OUR FOOD. Our Salt. Our Butter. Our Burgers and Fries.
What is to prevent a Mother and a Son from getting Married, if they are both of the age of consent? What about, a Father and his Daughter? That stuff happened all the time in the past. (Which accounts for all the English Dental Problems) What about, Brother and Sister? what about a Bunch of people? Why does it have to be, only 2? I mean, if they are Adults, and they're in love? Who are we, to judge?
There's a fine line between a working, and functioning Civilization, and SODOM and GAMMORAH.
Something tells me, we're about to cross it.
I'm just saying.

Pecos Pete| 8.25.11 @ 8:41AM

TLP: Wow! This one is your best ever. You have encapsulated the current disaster with so few words. I'm impressed. Lest you think this is sarcasm, let me be clear (damn, I hate to use that phrase), I agree with you.

Julian| 8.25.11 @ 8:44AM

Mr. Pennell,

While composing your runaway-train rant, did you hyperventilate and have to lift your fingers from the keyboard and place a paper bag over your head?

90/90| 8.25.11 @ 8:57AM

Pennell does make one important point: the one about the inner-city baby mamas whose offspring run wild and end up being criminals.

But same sex marriage is NOT going to have that much of an impact on society. On my street here in Memphis, there are two same-sex couples, and nobody really thinks anything of it. My husband and I know both couples, and we invite them over, and they have us over to their houses for drinks or cookouts. They blend in nicely with the neighborhood.

To quote Tammy Wynette, the main problem with marriage is D.I.V.O.R.C.E. But I don't think many of you will agree, because, if the truth were known, a large percentage of you readers are divorced. And many of you have left a trail of broken vows, broken families, and broken hearts.

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 9:28AM

Hey if same sex marriages want to join in the Divorce courts fun I say let them. Let them also pay alimony. Your worried about divorce but want to add to the divorce rate by enlarging the pool?
"A study on short-term same-sex registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that divorce rates were higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men"

To many conservatives the argument is over calling it a marriage. Civil unions were proposed with the same legal rights/benifits but that wasn't good enough for the Gay/Lesbian agenda. We are sick and tired of having your "alternative" lifestyle pushed on us and being told to accept it as normal.

If you want to sleep with a member of the same sex, fine, that's your business but don't sit there and tell me how I should feel about it.

Little Lulu from Honolulu| 8.25.11 @ 9:41AM

My, how you rave! Rave on, Mr. Lunatic.

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 10:22AM

Honolulu Lulu,

Lunatic? Have you been talking to my ex-wife? ;)

Teaghan| 8.25.11 @ 10:51AM

Intolerant bitch.

Hello Kitty| 8.25.11 @ 11:17AM

Teaghan! Such rude language coming from your lips!

Shame on you. You make Hello Kitty blanche.

Slate Devotee| 8.25.11 @ 4:13PM

Biblical Marriages

The Bible has many novel examples of marriage that American Spectator's readers are sure to approve ("It's sanctioned by the Bible" they'll say.)

Read on, oinkers:

“Lamech [Noah’s father] married two women, one named Adah, the other Zillah.” (Genesis 4)

“Sarai brought her slave-girl, Hagar the Egyptian, to her husband and gave her to Abram as a a wife.” (Genesis 16)

“When [Rachel] gave [her husband Jacob] her slave-girl Bilhah as a wife, Jacob lay with her, and she conceived and bore him a son.” (Genesis 30)

“Esau took Canaanite women in marriage: Adah daughter of Elon the Hittite and Oholibamah daughter of Anah son of Zibeon the Horite, and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebaioth.” (Genesis 26)

“When a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, if they both bear him sons, and the son of the unloved wife is the elder, then, when the day comes for him to divide his property among his sons, he must not treat the sons of the loved wife as his firstborn in preference to his true firstborn, the son of the unloved wife.” (Deuteronomy 21)

“If, on the other hand, the accusation [by a newlywed man that his bride is not a virgin] turns out to be true…then they must bring her out to the door of her father’s house and the men of her town will stone her to death.” (Deuteronomy 22)

“When a virgin is pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the town and lies with her, bring both of them out to the gate of that town and stone them to death; the girl because, although she was in the town, she did not cry out for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife: you must rid yourself of this wickedness.” (Deuteronomy 22)

“When brothers live together and one of them dies without leaving a son, his widow is not to marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother is to have intercourse with her; he should take her in marriage and do his duty by her as her husband’s brother.”(Deuteronomy 25)

“David’s two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail widow of Nabal of Carmel, were among the captives.” (1 Samuel 30)

“Sons were born to David at Hebron. His eldest was Amnon, whose mother was Ahinoam from Jezreel; his second Cileab, whose mother was Abigail widow of Nabal from Carmel; the third Absalom, whose mother was Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; the fourth Adonihah, whose mother was Haggith; the fifth Shephatiah, whose mother was Abital; and the sixth Ithream, whose mother was David’s wife Eglah.” (2 Samuel 3)

And that's just a scattering of items from the first quarter of the Bible; we haven't even gotten around to Bathsheba yet, or to King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines, but I think I have made my point and made it well.

In Vir Beach waiting for Irene| 8.25.11 @ 4:20PM

Irene is a mean liberal.
Hilarious, Slate! Give me a few minutes, Slate Devotee, and I can add to your list of examples from the rest of the bible. There are some real howlers!

We're going to be without electricity tomorrow. No computer, no TV, no micro, no AIR CONDITIONING!

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 4:34PM

Again, you have not made your point well.
Because you don't know the Sacred Scriptures, in fact, you despise them.

If you did understand God's Word, you would know all those examples that you have cited were not God's ideal. They were man-made customs.

"And the Pharisees coming to him asked him, tempting him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? But he answering, says to them: What did Moses command you? Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce and to put her away. To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart, he wrote you that precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing. And he says to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another commits adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another, she commits adultery." (Emphasis mine.)
- Mark 6:2-12

A Mormon Here| 8.25.11 @ 5:13PM

There is no unequivocal statement in the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible, that says that monogamy should be the norm. For the most part, biblical characters we know well, if they could afford it, had many wives. Solomon, the greatest lover of them all — maybe why he's attributed with writing the Song of Songs — had 300 wives. So the fundamentalist Mormons who insist that polygamy is biblical are right, in a sense. If you're going to be a strict literalist, there's nothing wrong with polygamy.

(00)| 8.25.11 @ 5:16PM

Good point, Mormon.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 5:50PM

"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." Gen. 2:24.

Just sayin'.

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 6:33PM

A Mormon Here,

Actually, the example of Solomon, and his many wives, is not an example of something good, or of obeying God. In fact, Solomon was violating one of the three precepts that Moses forbade a king to do, when the Israelites would come to demand a king, as Moses said they would, in the Book of Dueteronomy:

"And when he is made king, he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor lead back the people into Egypt, being lifted up with the number of his horsemen, especially since the Lord has commanded you to return no more the same way. He shall not have many wives, that may allure his mind, nor immense sums of silver and gold." (See Deut. 17:14-20)

Wives were basically peace treaties in ancient times. Solomon was very wise, but, by violating all three of these commands from Moses, which he did (see 1 Kings 4:26 & 10:14 - 11:4) he allowed himself to be influenced by the pagan gods of his treaty wives (1 Kings 11:4). And, this eventually resulted in the dividing of the Israelite kingdom, in 930 B.C.

You will find no verse of Scripture calling polygamy good, or, God commanding it. God tolerated it, just as He tolerated divorce. Until Christ and the New Covenant, that is.

Multiple wives are not what God had in mind, as Christ makes clear in Mark 6:2-12.
God Bless!

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 1:53AM

Oops! That should be: as Christ makes clear in Mark 10:2-12.

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 4:51PM

And your point is what? That in Old Testament Israel men sometimes married more than one woman? If that's the point you were trying to make, you made it well, and I doubt you will find any poster on AS who will disagree with you.

If your point was something else then you clearly have no idea how to make a point. Assuming (since this article and subsequent posts are about gay marriage), that you were attempting to make a point about gay marriage, I would ask how showing that men in the Old Testament sometimes married more than one woman makes any point whatsoever about a man being able to marry another man? Or a woman being able to marry another woman? You didn't cite any references like those, why?

Oh, that's right, because there AREN'T any, or at least, none which were described with approval.

Of course, if you want some Old Testament quotes on homosexuality, there are some. Try these:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Things changed somewhat in the New Testament, where Paul condemned the homosexual sex act as a sin, but left it to God to judge the sinner.

Of course, God loves all His children, and He didn't make any mistakes in making us.

Yes, that statement includes homosexuals. God loves homosexuals the same as he loves me, and he didn't mess up when he made them.

However, He also gave all of us weaknesses, such that we are all tempted in one form or another, to sin, and we all, at some point in time, give into temptation (in one form or another) and fall into sin.

For homosexuals, that temptation may be to engage in homosexual sex. For heterosexuals, that temptation may be to engage in heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Both are sins because both are sex outside of marriage, and both can be forgiven if the sinner sincerely seeks forgiveness. That doesn't mean the sinner won't be tempted in the future, he or she will, and unfortunately, it also doesn't mean that the sinner will never give in to that temptation again, because he or she might. It does mean, however, that God loves homosexuals the same as he loves heterosexuals; and that He will forgive the sins of homosexuals the same as He will forgive the sins of heterosexuals, so long as the sinner sincerely seeks forgiveness.

Unfortunately for (what I assume is) your position, it also means that you don't get to make the rules (neither do I). You can call a relationship between two men or two women whatever you want. You can confer upon that relationship whatever legal status you want and whatever legal benefits you want. But there is nothing you can do to make that relationship into something it is not, and you are lying to yourself if you think you can.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 6:07PM

Are we supposed to read the Old Testament as literally true. I need help here from the Bible experts.

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 6:40PM

Thomas,

Some parts of Sacred Scripture are literal. Some parts are historical. Some parts are allegorical. Some parts are metaphorical. Some parts are poetry. Some parts are prophetic.

As a member of the Catholic Church, I believe you need the Church that Christ founded, on the Rock, i.e. Kephas (Peter,) to discern which parts of Scripture are which.

Hope that helps.
God Bless!

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:45PM

G-d Bless yourself, Nick. Nice post!

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 7:09PM

Thanks Occam!
Shalom, and be well my friend.
G-d Bless!

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 9:21PM

Thank you

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 7:55PM

Thomas needs the Holy Spirit in order to discern anything. The Bible (God's own Words) tells us that the whole World is in darkness and that we are spiritually blind, and cannot see Heaven unless we are regenerated from above, by God's Spirit.

Read and believe the Bible. What I just said is contained in John chapter 3, and Jesus explains it clearly.

God says that all we have to do is ask for His Holy Spirit to come into our hearts, and He does it~ if you humbly ask, and seek Him with all of your heart.

No Religion is needed for this. Seek Him yourself. It is what He tells us to do:

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Lk. 11:13.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 9:24PM

Thank you Margie.
How do I know what is historical, allegorical, and metaphorical. Example: did God make Eve from Adam's rib.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 10:15PM

Thomas,

Yes, He did! And an amazing fact is that women have one more rib than men do.

"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him. Prov. 30:5.

If you take refuge in Him, you'll find this out, just as every Christian does, by His Grace.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 5:10PM

Slate Devotee,
Is the point of your post of OT scriptures that conservative opposition to polygamy and other sexual practices is NOT religiously grounded? If so, why do you people keep complaining about the Religious Right? If, according to you, the Holy Bible doesn't adequately condemn sexual immorality, stop shrieking about separation of church and state.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.25.11 @ 9:18AM

Julian, sweetheart. Shouldn't you be Enlisting in the Army, or something?
You can do that, now.
Of course, the GERBIL has to stay behind. (No pun intended)

Popeye| 8.25.11 @ 9:30AM

old, old, old

yawn

Negro X| 8.26.11 @ 2:18AM

Well Julian, do you thinkyou will fare better under islam?

OldFighterPilot| 8.25.11 @ 11:56AM

Marvelous post, and very well said indeed.

Mimi| 8.25.11 @ 2:07PM

Somewhere along the way, mankind got an accute aversion to the emotion of GUILT...plain old conscience piercing GUILT. The Libs especially will not tolerate it, so the rest and best of us have given up. We need to use the words....THATS WRONG PAL! When you cross your own line of CONDUCT it's not O K to give you Sympathy and change all our LAWS to make you feel better!

jolizoom| 8.25.11 @ 4:43PM

"There's a fine line between a working, and functioning Civilization, and SODOM and GAMMORAH."

No, it's more like a big freaking gulch... but we have been filling it in with morality creep for the last 40 years or more.

Sara from Alabama| 8.25.11 @ 8:28AM

Look, God knows who is married and who is not. Let Him sort it out.

There are already laws against consorting with goats and nine-year-old boys, for whatever little good they do. Have civil unions. That is under the purview of the government. Marriage belongs to the Church. Let the left keep state and religion separate for once.

K Kolt45| 8.25.11 @ 9:32AM

I'm gittin' drowsy zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 11:56AM

"Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, Sara. You may prefer this principle, but you are no more entitled to it than Christians are to add things we would prefer.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 4:01PM

And sodomy used to be illegal, but no more. Now they're trying to turn it into "Marriage."

Sodomy is the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and used them as a warning to future generations.
Warnings which the World ignores, sadly.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 6:08PM

Margie, do you want to make sodomy illegal.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 8:02PM

It should be. But it's never going to happen~ we will not go back to sanity ever again.
The important thing is that it is "illegal" in God's eyes.
No one who practices it will be allowed into His Kingdom. (His Words, not mine).
No, I know it is impossible to make illegal because Jesus tells us that in the end, before His 2nd coming, the World is going to become like Sodom and Gomorrah once again.
And it's happening just as He said.
He's giving the World a chance to repent now, because when He returns, it will be too late for that.

Old Soldier| 8.25.11 @ 8:32AM

Yawn.
How about we all hold hands and read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments - then leave all this to the States and the People?

Then the folks in charge of the Federal Government can address far more important issues - such as not spending ourselves into a 3rd world slum.

Julie Meyers | 8.25.11 @ 8:38AM

I respect your position and thoughts. I am a gay woman who has lived in committed relationship with another woman for 16 years. As a resident of Indiana, we do not have a license to be married. Yet, we have remained committed, started a family, and are raising a son in a midwestern city.

I would suggest that morality is the choice of the individual. Marriages don't fail because of the government or the church. Marriages fail for many reasons, some beyond the control of one or both of the participants. It is a complicated issue, but choices are made by individuals.

It is of concern to me that the separation of church and state is so clearly muddled on this issue. Churches should and can decide who they will support in "marriage". Churches can exclude same sex couples. It is the governments role to provide the legal context for unions between people. It is the churches job to create a philosophical mindset for the parishioners of each church.

al| 8.25.11 @ 9:07AM

morality is the choice of the individual? as in 300 million Americans all making it up as they go along? good luck with that.

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 9:13AM

With all due respect, morality is NOT the choice of the individual. The mere fact that you want something to be morally OK, even desperately want it to because it feels OK to you, doesn't make it so.

union of 2| 8.25.11 @ 9:42AM

blah, blah, blah . . .

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 11:12AM

union of 2,

Such an erudite exposition of lucid thought!

John2| 8.25.11 @ 2:58PM

Oh, yeah? Well blah, blah, blah, to your mother.

That'll fix him!

Dr. X| 8.25.11 @ 9:30AM

I pity your son. Homosexuality is a warped and abnormal behavior that not only contradicts traditional religion, it contradicts Darwin's theory of sex selection. Take a 10th grade biology class sometime if you don't know how the mammalian reproductive system works.

Maybe you can't help the way you feel about desiring another person of the same sex, but you sure as hell can determine how you act on that feeling. I've never bought that false argument that we just need let homos do what they naturally feel. I naturally love money but I must refrain from robbing banks.

I an frankly disgusted by homosexuality and the idea that homosexuality is in any way normal or tolerable is an assault on reason and logic, and an indication that our society is on its last legs.

Eartha| 8.25.11 @ 9:33AM

old fogey

how you bore me

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Negro X| 8.26.11 @ 2:19AM

Moron.

9thID| 8.25.11 @ 10:51AM

Homosexuality must be viewed in the same manner as pedophilia and other sexual deviancy...

Oldmanriver| 8.25.11 @ 11:36AM

Usually I find that people that condemn homosexuality the most usually turn out to be frustrated closeted homosexuals.

Mimi| 8.25.11 @ 12:42PM

You're not referring to Michelle Bachmann's husband, Markus, are you? He's is known to be a closeted gay. He even shops for his wife's clothes because "he has better taste in fashion than I do," says Michelle.

Mimi| 8.25.11 @ 2:34PM

I certainly did not post this!

Mimi| 8.25.11 @ 2:36PM

Are you ashamed to use your own name....You know you will be found out!

Mimi| 8.25.11 @ 3:55PM

Have you considered, Mimi, that there could be at least TWO Mimi's in the world. For crying out loud!

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:58PM

Usually I find that people who say that people that condemn homosexuality the most usually turn out to be frustrated closeted homosexuals don't have any real information to support their own position, so they revert to paranoid accusations.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 6:17PM

How did you find this,
Did you take a survey

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 2:42PM

Yeah, and people who oppose war are frustrated closet soldiers. Vegans are frustrated closet deer hunters. And for that golden piece of reasoning, we must conclude that you are a frustrated closet intellectual, since you clearly oppose rational thought.

John2| 8.25.11 @ 2:59PM

You find no such thing. But you wish it were true.

cowgirl| 8.25.11 @ 11:57AM

Okay Julie - fair enough - my morality is that homosexuality is immoral and wrong..

Start explaining how you and I are going to live in the same world with differents view of morality...

GO....

John2| 8.25.11 @ 3:02PM

We'll live, but you will live better than Julie because your morality will prove superior to Julie 's pro-homo"sex"ual version.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:56PM

The men who wrote our Constitution, which, bytheway, doesn't include the phrase "separation of church and state" would never have issued you a marriage license.

You do not need a marriage license. Your son needs a father. I am sorry you have chosen this path, and hope you change your mind for the better some day.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 4:10PM

Julie,

I hope you realize that you "chosen" sin is both killing you now, and taking you to Hell.

Do you not know what God says about your chosen lifestyle?

He says that the nether gloom is prepared for those who practice this sin. He doesn't want you to go there, but He cannot break His promise.

He didn't create you to be like this. You need to turn away from it or else you won't see Heaven.

"For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into Hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the Judgment; if He did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when He brought a flood upon the World of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes He condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if He rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of Judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones.." 2 Peter 2:4-10.

"For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." Ez. 18:32.

Christopher Landrum| 8.25.11 @ 8:52AM

While it is true that individuals are quite capable of "walking while chewing bubble gum", even in a rhetorical sense, I don't know if that notion applies to groups, factions, political parties, mobs, demos. My Burkeian instinct tells me the rabble can only do one thing at a time, and not very effeciently (murder being the exception that proves this rule). Still, there are many good points in this post by Mr. Bass: false dichotomies (as well as false positives) must be called out for what they are.

Harry the Horrible| 8.25.11 @ 8:57AM

We just had a convention on "normalizing" pedophilia; how pedophiles are unfairly stigmatized, suffer from bias, aren't really mentally ill, etc.

Tell me again how "gay marriage" isn't just a little bump on the slippery slope straight to Hell?

Gen X'er from Seattle| 8.25.11 @ 9:23AM

Harry the Horrible:

My generation and those younger-- who are fiscally conservative-- are far more open to same-sex marriage than older generations.

What do you expect gay people to do? Do you want to deny them a partnership with the benefits you take for granted?

Use your brain, and heart . . . that is if you've got one.

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 9:30AM

So your ok with the term "Civil Union" then if it carries the same benifits? Many on the left are not.

Gen X'er from Seattle| 8.25.11 @ 9:35AM

I think gay people need and deserve the full equality marriage would give them.

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 9:43AM

Gen X'er from Seattle,

Equality before what bar?

Gen X'er from Seattle| 8.25.11 @ 9:53AM

Equality as human beings. Gays have been trashed for too long. The demand respect, and they shall have my respect.

Just as you did not choose to be heterosexual, they did not choose to be homosexual. It's genetically conditioned.

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 10:08AM

Gen X'er from Seattle,

I grew up with gays in the arts community in Baton Rouge in the '60s. I have gay friends and have never thought they were anything but full human beings deserving of my respect just as anyone else. How and why someone is gay is of absolutely no interest to me any more than how or why someone is an engineer or an artist, or whether they prefer Jazz to Classical music.

The they should marry (using the traditional sense of the word) is ridiculous. Marriage was defined around the recognition that raising children took a lot of effort. When field labor was the predominant means of production, having bastard children around meant a mouth to feed without a father to feed them. Raising children took women out of the field. The marriage was not a love-bond between two people for whom children was a likely result, it was a contract between the couple AND the society made purely for the purpose of ensuring there was a next generation and that they were properly cared for. This is not to say that Gay couples cannot adopt. This has nothing at all to do with marriage. Many structures have been put into place to care for parent-less children and marriage isn't a part of any of it.

9thID| 8.25.11 @ 11:01AM

There is ZERO scientific proof that being gay has anything to do with genetics. Even if you don't believe in biblical morality, the secular theory of evolution shows that homosexuality is aberrant behavior that would lead to the extinction of the species. The rampant STD rate among gays alone is reason enough for society to stigmatize or criminalize it. I fear you have been "genetically conditioned" to prevaricating...

Wayne | 8.25.11 @ 11:28AM

Sorry, but I am sure if you research the genetic theory you will see that it has the same validity as AGW. It is all about turning them young.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:47PM

"Just as you did not choose to be heterosexual, they did not choose to be homosexual. It's genetically conditioned."

FALSE. There is no gay gene. Even the liberal American Psychological Association doesn't accept the Born That Way theory. That campaign was a politically-driven exaggeration.

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 12:51PM

And there is increasing scientific evidence that some (maybe all) pedophiles did not choose to be pedophiles. Should pedophilia then have our respect? There's plenty of evidence that alcoholism has a genetic component. Does that make drunk driving OK? Have you seen some of the recent studies on a possible genetic pre-disposition for violence? The mere fact that somebody was, "born that way" does mean they have no obligation to regulate their behavior, or that their behavior cannot be regulated by law. We are all, every one of us, flawed in some way. We all, everyone one of us, must deal with the fact that we desire to do things (sexual or otherwise) which are wrong. The mere fact that it is in our natures, our genes so to speak, does not give us carte blanche to do whatever we want.

And this is where the rising divorce rate and the gay marriage debate may, in fact be related. Many heterosexuals may be tempted to stray on their spouse and commit adultery, they may have a genetic pre-disposition to a strong sex drive. Does that make it OK for them to cheat? Simply because it takes more effort for some to remain faithful than others?

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 10:27AM

I rest my case. Civil Unions with the same benifits are not good enough. You do not have issues with the same rights and benifits you have issue with the term "Marriage".

voted against carter| 8.25.11 @ 5:27PM

Homosexuals make up LESS,.. REPEAT,… less than 2% of the ENTIRE U.S. population

WHY do we continue to let a SMALL group of sexual deviants Dick-tate public policy???

LESS than 2%.

Oh,... and lets NOT forget the continued attempt at the mainstreaming of deviant homosexual behavior.

NEEDS TO STOP.

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 9:41AM

Gen X'er from Seattle,

Civil unions were designed to remove this iniquity before the law. It was a money grab which began with gay partners seeking health benefits from employed partners in San Francisco during the early days of the AIDS epidemic. The irony of promiscuous "bath house" gays claiming monogamous relations in order to claim health benefits from the city was hilariously ignored. Still, any sense of equality before the law, requires that legal entitlements available to one partnership be available to others. The "committed" couple could legally contract with each other and sign durable powers or attorney and achieve the same result. The civil union made this as easy as filing for a marriage license.

However, receiving the contractual benefits before the state which come with marriage was not, apparently, enough. No, a redefinition of the institution to which these benefits were attached - by the state - must also attend. Once the economic problem was solved, the cultural issue had to be attacked.

77 & on my way to heaven| 8.25.11 @ 9:48AM

Only a minute percentage of gay men would frequent bath houses--about the same percentage of heterosexual men who would frequent whore houses. Very small.

Stop stooping to drag up the most extreme examples to tarnish gays. It diminishes your credibility on the matter.

And I don't like the references some of you are making to old people on here. My wife and I, both in our seventies, support the progressive idea of same sex marriage. We are not a"fogeys."

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 10:14AM

77 & on my way to heaven,

If this minute percentage of men (averaging some dozens of sexual encounters per night) were so minute, the AIDS epidemic would never have attacked the gay community so widely; it would have tended to stay in that so-called minute population. It takes a lot of work to get AIDS although male to female transmission is somewhat easier explaining why the at risk populations are gay men, prostitutes and IV drug users.

Is my statistical analysis credible?

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 10:17AM

77...

PS. What reference did I make to "old people"? I am unaware that age has anything to do with this topic and have no intention to include it.

Swastikas on Nearly Every Post| 8.25.11 @ 12:55PM

Anybody besides me getting a whiff of Naziism from some (most) of these posts?

As a liberal Jew, I find your hatred repulsive. "The Jews have poisoned the wells." "The Jews are killing Christian babies." "The Jews killed Christ!" "The Jews own the entertainment business." "All the banks are run by Jews." "The Jews control the media." "Keep the Jews out of our country club." Jews! Niggers! Fags!

At least Ben Stein, a fellow Jew, is not a gay hater like most of the rest of you.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 1:15PM

"Anybody besides me getting a whiff of Naziism from some (most) of these posts"

Um . . .
1)the Nazis were Socialists.
2)They were not Christians, and
3)modern-day scholars* believe that Hitler and other Nazis were probably gay and only included effeminate gays in the camps to cover this up.

*like Salon's hate-filled reviewer Allen Barra . . . Wait -- oh yeah, he's a liberal . . . http://dir.salon.com/books/rev.....index.html)

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 1:39PM

You are a sad, deluded idiot. You can not see anything beyond your strange self hatred and contradictory political world view. Conservatives and Christians are not your enemy. Your understanding of history and politics is sadly a mountain of ignorance and misinformation.
You call yourself a Jew? Nazism?
Not a single comment here contained any of the explicatives you ranted forth.

Vlady| 8.25.11 @ 1:40PM

As a Conservative (politically) Jew I find your Liberalism repulsive.... I have not seen a bit of what you are saying on AS mouthed against Jews. Now, venom mouthe against Catholics? Well, that's another kettle of fish entirely....

Vlady| 8.25.11 @ 1:41PM

My comment above was @ Swasika twit. Sorry for the confusion.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 2:51PM

Venom against Jews---see Jack in Wi., Clint, KingoftheNet, and Canuckistani. That's about it.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 4:21PM

How about the venom against Catholics.

Clint| 8.25.11 @ 5:23PM

You're A Serial Slandering Liar, Occam's Tool.

Aaaand It's Interesting, That A Screwball Israel Firster Fanatic Like You, Use The Moniker Of A Catholic Heretic.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:16PM

Answered ad nauseum. Explain how "SandMonkey" is not a slur, idiot.

Catholic Heretic forgiven by Catholic church, incidentally. Explained ad nauseum.

As a matter of fact, Clint, you are the definition of ad nauseum, you slandering, Jihadist fellating, treasonous scumbag.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 10:19PM

Thankfully, one needs not be forgiven by the Catholic church.
The much more merciful Lord Jesus Christ is Lord.
To be considered a heretic by them is to be blessed by God and counted amongst the Martyrs of His.

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 2:10PM

Not sure how you translated opposition to gay marriage into hating jews ( unless your gay and your jewish lover rejected your marriage proposal) but where or where do you show the tolerance that the left is so famous for?

If you want a same sex lover that is your business. We are simply saying quite making it our business

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 2:47PM

You know, I can't claim to have read every single post in this thread, but I certainly have yet to see any of your quotes in any of them - except of course, yours.

So let me ask you this, why do hate everybody who does not share your point of view?

Shouldn't you be more tolerant of those with whom you disagree?

Why is that your heart is filled with so much prejudice?

Indeed, why are you such a bigot?

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 4:57PM

Just for clarification, this response was intended for the person above who chooses to identify him or her self with the swastika, which of course, is a symbol of hatred.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 3:02PM

As a Conservative Jew, I can tell you that Reading is Fundamental.

Clint calls Jews "SandMonkeys." Jack in Wi. might as well quote from "The Elders of Zion." The other two antisemitic posters, KingoftheNet and Canuckistani, tend to swing Liberal---King is an Obama supporter.

Some of the most traditionally Conservative posters---Margie, Old Texican, Simon Templar, and Dr Right, are those who, by any reasonable Criteria, would be considered "Righteous Gentiles" by tradition. And they have taken vicious verbal hits for their defense.

It is the Obama supporters and the Libertarians who tend to write antisemitic crap, not the Conservatives.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 4:23PM

Sure, righteous gentiles because they agree with you on Israel.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:18PM

No, righteous gentiles because they don't call Jews SandMonkeys, to start.

In addition, my definition of antisemitism is really simple---people who do things to try to get Jews hurt or killed. Clint and Jack easily fit that definition. What about you, THOMAS? And by the way, did you get your polio vaccine as a kid?

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 8:50PM

O.T.

Righteous through faith in Him only, sir.
Remember Abraham's faith, (the Father of many nations),

"No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was "reckoned to him as righteousness."

But the words, "it was reckoned to him," were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in Him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification." Rom. 4:20-25.

You see, I got to feed you a little gospel mixed in with the subject.

And by the way my friend, the day you stop posting here is the day I shall.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 9:20PM

Occam's Tool,
What is your point about polio vaccine.
What about the venom against the Catholic religion. You only bothered by venom against Jews. That why you went into automatic attack by asking about polio vaccine, sly little one about Jonas Salk.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 5:06PM

At least Ben Stein, a fellow Jew, is not a gay hater like most of the rest of you."

We don't hate "gays", we love them enough to tell them the truth.

And who gets to be the authority on the matter?

The Authority that created Mankind~ God the Father.

He says that anyone who practices the sin gets thrown into Hell.

He also makes the Way of escape. That's through His Son, Jesus Christ. Jn. 14:6.

Are you really willing to call God a "hater, too?"
I hope not!

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 5:11PM

Swastikas on Nearly Every Post,

Please cite any evidence you have than I am a Nazi, a Jew hater, gay hater or any other kind of hater. I'm certain that I have no apologies to make to you or to anyone in this area.

To answer you question directly, I hope no one besides you is getting a whiff of Naziism in these posts. If you are getting a whiff of Naziism, may I suggest a hot shower with plenty of soap.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:18PM

Sorry, John: Righteous Gentile. Sorry to leave you off list.

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 6:46PM

Occam's Tool,

Thanks for the accolade. Despite our differences on some few issues, I have never taken anything you have written as anything approaching a slight.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 6:19PM

Heh.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 6:19PM

Heh.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:15PM

"Only a minute percentage of gay men would frequent bath houses--about the same percentage of heterosexual men who would frequent whore houses. Very small."

This is simply not true, 77. Gay men on average have over SIX TIMES the number of sexual partners as straight men. Look at the stats out of Britain.

"Men with a homosexual partner during the past 5 years reported a mean (SD) of 26.7 (109.9) sex partners during that time, compared with 4.1 (8.3) among those men who reported having no homosexual partnerships."
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...../S127.full

DN| 8.25.11 @ 1:27PM

77 and All,

The Bible clearly explains what is happening in American society (as so many before). Everyone is doing what is right in his own eyes and seeking the imaginations of his own heart. Imaginations are ideas of things - of your own invention. ONLY God (Who created all) speaks righteousness and declares those things that are right. God has done just that in His Word - the Bible (its really not that hard to read). So 77, are you on your way to heaven? ONLY if your idea of things lines up with God's. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away." All creation will be judged by God's Words. You MUST find agreement with God, not man. Societal acceptance of homosexuality is only the beginning of the forbidden fruit to be eaten and no doubt many on this post will quickly accept pedophilia, bestiality, and such. Homosexuality and child sacrifice (abortion) opens the door very wide. So may you all grit your teeth and scream with anger as I lovingly tell you to REPENT and turn unto God's truth that sin not be your ruin.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 3:03PM

No, but you are also not raising children, either.

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 10:29AM

BINGO JOHN!!!! You see through the duplicity of their ways.

Harry the Horrible| 8.25.11 @ 9:57AM

I actually don't care what gays do.

On second thought, I do care.

I want them shut up and go back in the closet. The "love that cannot speak its name" has become "the love that won't shut up." Its becoming annoying at the news and entertainment level and downright frightening when they force their way into the education system. I never imagined that 1-3% of the population could wield so much power for such perverted ends.

So my "brain" has considered this pretty carefully and I don't have any "heart" for gays as a group (as individuals I can consider them based on something other sexual preferences and that can earn them my respect).

And I can assure you, I don't take the benefits of marriage for granted. They can feel free to marry women just like non-mentally ill people do.

Oldmanriver| 8.25.11 @ 11:40AM

The fact that you consider the act of marrying a woman to be without mental illness speaks volumes

Harry the Horrible| 8.25.11 @ 3:27PM

Humor aside, my wife was the best thing that has EVER happened to me.
She was an end to loneliness, selfishness, and isolation. She brought me back to church.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:20PM

OldmanRiver: explain why not propagating your genome is a prosurvival trait. I'll wait.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:08PM

"My generation and those younger-- who are fiscally conservative-- are far more open to same-sex marriage than older generations."

Younger people have proved themselves to be less than brilliant when it comes to . . . just about everything. Those generations gave us irritating tattoos (which by the way make people *less* attractive), Barack Obama, and single motherhood. Thanks, but please, stop pretending that the opinions of "younger generations" hold any value.

"What do you expect gay people to do? Do you want to deny them a partnership with the benefits you take for granted?"

Yes. Because you know, there's a REASON those benefits exist: it involves child-rearing. Homosexuality is no more worthy of official recognition -- or benefits -- than the relationship of best friends, very close neighbors, or co-workers who really like each other.

Why, you ask? Because society doesn't get anything out of two men who are veryvery in love with each other.

People need to grow up and get over themselves.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 1:22PM

X-boy,

We know all about your generation. You know nothing more than what your hippie public teachers taught you. Your generation has done nothing, produced nothing, and have never learned to you use your brains or think for yourselves.

You bought the genetic bullshit theory and the post modern moral relativity slop hook, line, and sinker. Do not even try to lecture us about anything.

Come back in another twenty years when your son is being molested by some homosexual pervert that is being defended by the ACLU and your child is the considered a sexual being and the ped an oppressed minority.

What do you expect pedophiles to do? Do you want to deny them a partnership with another sexual being with the benefits for which you take for granted? Useful idiot!

John2| 8.25.11 @ 3:04PM

"My generation and those younger-- who are fiscally conservative-- are far more open to same-sex marriage than older generations."

That's what you think. Sit tight, the truth will come and you will learn something valuable.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 4:13PM

"What do you expect gay people to do?"

The question should be, What does God expect them to do?

What?

Repent.

Anyone with a heart will warn them of this command.

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 9:32AM

Harry the Horrible,

It's not a bump, it burns down the house. Divorce is a problem for the institution indicative of a lack of due respect for the institution by those entering and leaving it. When enough people (married or not) consider marriage no longer valuable it ceases to be the bedrock is was - witness today's animal husbandry passing for civil society.

The walls of this house are indeed on fire. Gay marriage knocks the walls down.

jolizoom| 8.25.11 @ 5:10PM

That bump on the road is actually conservative heterosexuals being thrown under the bus in the race to burn down the house.

DWSWesVirginny| 8.25.11 @ 9:20AM

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" a quip which is about to be reversed in the Western World. It will soon be "Goddess made Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve". Or "Goddess made Adele and Eva, not Adam and Eve" and so on. Of course, we have evolved beyoned the primitive agrarian society of our ancestors who penned the biblical injunctions against the sin (a completely outmoded concept!) of members of the same sex assuming any sexual union. Nor were they concerned about "love" in such a context. But we have modern psychology which has dispassionately proved using advanced empirical methods that the former taboos are actually bad for us. They need to be outgrown as man (excuse me, humans!) progresses to ultimate maturity. Once there he will be polymorphous sexually and the former taboos will be seen as actually causing the struggles and toils which have beset him since a bunch of uptight scribes penned in their arbitrary codes (which they smugly attributed to something called God!).

Popeye| 8.25.11 @ 9:29AM

ho hum

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 9:32AM

Whenever we consider any issue, ANY issue urged upon us by the left, we must always remember that leftists are, at heart, nihilists - to them, life and the institutions of life, have no value. The only thing the liberal values is his or her own, personal pleasure at any and all costs. They see no harm in gay marriage because they see no value in traditional marriage. Once they have achieved universal legal acceptance of gay marriage, then they will seek universal legal acceptance of pedophilia, pederasty, incest, etc. - in fact, they have already begun that quest. They see no value in human life or dignity beyond their own personal pleasure, and there is nothing they cannot justify.

#too#| 8.25.11 @ 9:38AM

Such trite thinking. I need to nod off for a bit.

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 12:56PM

Thank you for proving my point, since, if you had any valid intellectual criticism of what I wrote you would have voiced it. Since you did not, and instead simply chose to insult me, I presume that either:
(a) There is no valid intellectual rebuttal to what I wrote, or
(b) You lack the intellect to either understand or rebut me.
You choose.

Swastikas on Nearly Every Post| 8.25.11 @ 1:32PM

No need to make any rebuttal to one as close-minded as you or to any other of the gay haters on this post.

But here's some good news: most of you gay haters will soon be infirm or dead, and the gays will be married and living happy, productive lives, contributing as they always have to society and culture.

Even Anderson Cooper--that handsome anchorman--is considering marrying his equally handsome boy friend, and as a female who would love to date Cooper, I still wish him happiness in his same sex marriage.

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 2:14PM

Now I get it. Your panties are in a twist because the comments on here are not in favor of your girlfriend Anderson Cooper's marriage plans.

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 2:54PM

At no point in any post have I ever said that I hated gays, and I do not. I disagree with the choices they make in life - whether that be the choice to be homosexual, or if that is something they cannot choose, the choice to act upon those impulses. Likewise, I disagree with a heterosexual's choice (and it is unquestionably a choice) to cheat on their spouse. In either case, the fact that I disagree with their choices doesn't mean I hate them, it means I disagree with their choices. If you are incapable of recognizing the distinction between hating a person and disagreeing with the things they do, then, my friend, it is YOU who have a problem with hatred, it is YOU who hate your fellow man, not me.

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 2:54PM

Johnny Bravo| 8.25.11 @ 3:26PM

Not much love in sodomy. Sodomy is an act of violence. But hey, at least the 2 men love eachother. And if they survive to middle age they can sell off thier condo in San Fran and open up a Bed and Breakfast or antique shop in Vermont.

"Check my pecs!!"

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 4:52PM

It isn't love, it's sin.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 4:23PM

.."and the gays will be married and living happy, productive lives, contributing as they always have to society and culture."

Happy? Temporary.
But where do they go after they die? Eternal damnation is the reward for the sin.

What does God say? See my post, above.
He's the Authority on Eternity.
Be warned~ happiness is very short-lived.

Would you rather live in the will of God now, and joyfully so, knowing that you are able by His Grace to enjoy a clear conscience and the promise of eternal Life later?

Or the alternative?

There's where the only real choice exists. He made us to please Him and He wants us to be out of pure love, (because God IS Love 1 Jn. 4:8), fulfilled by looking to Him~ not the flesh.
When we go against what He's planned for our existences~ we take ourselves away from Him, both now, and for ever.

God is so worth it! And the peace He can give us is not like the World can give:

"Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.." Jn. 14:27.

Who is this Person? Jesus Christ, the Lord.

Georgie| 8.25.11 @ 11:16PM

Where does God say that homosexuals go to hell.
Is it old testament or new testament.

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 12:27AM

New Testament:
Romans 1:26-32.
Jude 1:7.

RCV| 8.29.11 @ 2:48PM

Not God speaking, but Paul. Learn the difference. It's important.

Nick| 8.29.11 @ 5:38PM

RCV,

I've explained that Saint Paul made it perfectly clear when he was speaking for himself and when he was speaking for God.
It's important to learn this fact.

Nick| 8.29.11 @ 5:40PM

I should add, that when Paul was speaking of the immorality of homosexual acts, he was speaking for God.

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:52PM

"Not God speaking, but Paul. Learn the difference. It's important."

Wow. What haughtiness!
As you well KNOW, RCV~ Paul was appointed by GOD!!!
To do what??

PREACH HIS GOSPEL!!

Repent!

Butch | 8.25.11 @ 7:51PM

I wonder about that. The two gay guys who lived across the street from me--dead. Aids. The gay graphic designer in the office down the hall--dead. Aids. The high school guy we all just thought was a sissy, but who "came out"--dead. Aids. The 28-year-old young man whose obituary I read in the paper this morning--dead. "Make your memorial gift to RAIN". The list goes on and on. On the other hand, I'm going to see my grandchildren this weekend. We'll see who survives.

RCV| 8.29.11 @ 2:50PM

A lot of reasons to encourage stable, long-term relationships in the gay community. The gay couples that my wife and I know have been together for decades, live conventional lives and contribute to society. Regardless of what one thinks of homosexuality, it's in all our interests to promote stable relationships and discourage sexual promiscuity for a host of good reasons.

Derek Leaberry| 8.25.11 @ 9:50AM

Before I read this article when time allows, let me explain that Michael Barone is no conservative. In the 1960s, Barone was an acolyte of Detroit Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh, the second-to-last white mayor of Detroit, a man who was expected to be the political future of modern liberalism. Such was not to be and Cavanaughism led to Coleman Young and the dysfunctional city of today. Barone began his Almanac of American Politics in 1972. Those early Almanacs displayed the attitude that the only game in town was the Democratic Party and liberalism. Hatred of conservatism and the Republican Party dripped from nearly every page. On the personal side, Barone married left-wing journalist Joan Shorenstein who would write for the Washington Post and produce "Face the Nation."

Barone would move a little right in the 80s perhaps much like Morton Kondracke did- he was forced to not only acknowledge the success of Ronald Reagan but witness the intellectual collapse of liberalism. Barone also began to make big money. He sold the Almanac. He wrote for US News and World Report and Reader's Digest. And, sadly, his wife died and thus ended a degree of liberal reinforcement in Barone's life.

Barone has never pretended that he cares for religion. His personal values have probably evolved like those of other 60s liberals. He excepts the destruction of traditional mores just like any other liberal. That some consider Barone a conservative shows just how dazed and confused modern America is at present.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:30PM

This summary should be posted on the front page.

Derek Leaberry| 8.25.11 @ 2:54PM

A good editor would have caught "he excepts" which should be "he accepts."

MIke C | 8.25.11 @ 10:23AM

Whenever we remove a block from the foundation of our society our culture is weakened.

At some certain point the ediface will collapse.

I don't know where that certain point is; but it draws closer w/ every "demand" from the self-indugent and every capitulation by weak willed relativists.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 4:28PM

"Whenever we remove a block from the foundation of our society our culture is weakened."

So true! Especially when that block is the Cornerstone, Christ Jesus.

"So, the Lord Jehovah says this: Behold,
I place in Zion a Stone, a tried Stone,
a precious Cornerstone, a founded Foundation;
he who believes shall not hasten." Is. 28:16.

Bob K.| 8.25.11 @ 10:38AM

The fundamental difference between the people who engage in same sex marriage and the people who engage in traditional marriage between sexes is that the former are also engaging in genetic suicide.

Nina| 8.25.11 @ 10:44AM

While I do not condone homosexuality, I abhor it being forced upon me and my beliefs, I do feel that they will be judged at some point. I also feel that there are those who engage in such acts of debauchery just due to the fact that they can. There are those whose sexual appetites include being homosexual, child molesters, etc and it's an excuse to indulge. I also belief it is a slippery slope we are on with this as in 50-100 years from now, who is to say that sleeping with your horse will be acceptable? As with all things, when you have no accountability, it runs out of control, and who will reign it in then? I also believe the current liberalism has been totally responsible for rise in divorce rates, abortions, and single parent homes. When I was a young mother, the pressure was on to push women into the workforce instead of staying home with their kids, taking care of the home. It was implied we were "less than a woman" if we didn't. I felt inadequate in that I chose to stay home with my kids while my husband worked. I couldn't see paying someone else to watch my kids and take most of my pay either. I have a friend who has three kids and went to work, lost a lot of sleep because she had housework and washing to do. Let's face it, MOST men do not do the double duty women do - housework, raising kids, laundry, dishes, cooking, etc and hop into bed happy to have "our man" want us by which time we are watching the clock to hurry up so we can catch a few zzzz! I'm not old fashioned, nor am I "old" to the point of the 50s but is seems to me that back then innocence was something we could all use a dose of today. When it becomes acceptable to murder an infant but let an imprisoned murderer live his life on our money because someone doesn't believe in the death penalty, what does that say about our society? When we are forced to accept two men or women to cohabitate even though we don't believe it's right, what does that say about the government? It's not the government's responsibility to force us to accept it as a lifestyle. The rise in unwed mothers was also during the time I stated above where women were supposed to be "bringing home the bacon and cooking it too". We were told we can and should take care of ourselves to the point where girls are pregnant at an alarming rate today and it's accepted for them to attend school with everyone else, no shame for her or the father, no accountability and usually the father leaves the mother anyway because they are too young to deal with each other nevermind raising a child and we wonder why kids today just don't know what to do or where to turn, drugs is an easy out for them. Just my opinion.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.25.11 @ 11:00AM

Read that a group psychiatrist recently met and are planning to for pedophiles what they were able to do for homosexuals by redefining their actions as "normal." Such is the enlightened society of the morally vacuous.

Wayne | 8.25.11 @ 11:24AM

Then they will say children NEED these adult relationships to grow into well adjusted adults themselves.

career soldier| 8.25.11 @ 11:03AM

Marriage deals with male & female interaction. It always has, so get over it.

Now, if you need to create something to try and normalize your sexuality, then do it, but leave marriage alone.

Grow up already. Marriage is already taken, figure out something else.

W| 8.25.11 @ 11:03AM

Some of the arguments for gay marriage are that one partner cannot inherit from the other, or visit in the hospital, or make medical and financial decisions. None of these are true because you can write a will, do a medical and financial power of attorney. You can open bank accounts and purchase real estate and title the ownership in whaever manner you choose.
Since these arguments have shown to be false, the next argument is respect. This does not make sense. The government passing a law will not cause one person to respect another, maybe it will have the opposite effect.
Next, we have the argument that the state does not have a valid or reasonable or compelling reason to legislate that a marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe every society in recorded history has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. If we say that the state cannot limit or define marriage as between a man and a woman, then the next question is what is the valid, reasonable, or compelling reason to limit or define it to two persons. Why not three or four or whatever. At least there have been societies and religiions that approved of polygamy, such as the Muslims and Mormons.
Of course, attorneys will benefit from gay marriage. More divorce work, more prenuptial agreements.
Most people do not discriminate against homosexuals. Live and let live. There are numerous laws prohibiting discrimination in employement, housing, and other areas.
What is the purpose for the gay marriage movement?

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 11:38AM

Simple, it is a flanking movement on religion.

Wayne | 8.25.11 @ 11:22AM

The author ignores semantics. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. The government did not create marriage, so it is powerless to redefine it. Realizing this is conservatism. His social arguments are meaningless.

What gives homosexuals exclusive rights to change the definition? If changed to fit their demands, how can we not change to meet similar demands of other groups. For example why would marriage require sex at all. If you eliminate sex from the definition of marriage, then you must also eliminate incest as a prohibiting factor. Why couldn't two 60 year old sisters MARRY because it is advantageous for them to do so?

Don't ignore the semantic argument, for it is this argument that would make the whole concept meaningless.

Citizen Jerry| 8.25.11 @ 11:40AM

Of course this meme has infected so-called conservatives. Fox News' Margaret Hoover, who calls herself a conservative, is one of them. Her annoyingly smug attitude is that she and all of her generation is just waiting for all the old people to die, then homosexual marriage will be embraced fully with no one left to dissent.

Sorry, but I don't care if 100 percent of the population is cool with it. History has shown time and again that once a society embraces perversion, that society begins to die. Don't think it can't happen to us.

Ted| 8.25.11 @ 12:41PM

Ah, yes... Maggie... A beautiful woman, but, much like her Republican greatgrandfather President, there is much about which she is mistaken and most assuredly not conservative.

Bob K.| 8.26.11 @ 3:48AM

What difference should it make to her?

When homosexuals die, married or not, most of them take their genes with them to oblivion. They contribute nothing to future generations. It is genetic suicide!

Petronius| 8.25.11 @ 11:44AM

The miscreants demand the dignity that is grounded in Normality. They have no more right to that than they do to my approval; or that of any other Man.

Butch | 8.25.11 @ 7:59PM

You are exactly right, Petronius. They demand normality--"normal as left-handed." Normal-as-left-handed fisting, normal-as-left-handed gerbiling, normal-as-left-handed golden showers, normal-as-left-handed golden enemas, normal-as-left-handed teabagging. Yessir. Doesn't everybody have these impulses?

Derek Leaberry| 8.25.11 @ 12:37PM

If you are a product of the moral cesspool that is modern America and Western Civilization and are confused about issues like homosexuality, abortion, pornography and adultery, I recommend asking oneself a series of questions. What does Jesus believe and instruct regarding your question? What would Plato believe? Or George Washington? Or Robert E. Lee? Or Teddy Roosevelt? Or Pope Benedict XVI? The answer will then become clear.

One last thing. We live in a sewer of moral depravity that is imploding all about us. This collapse is not confined to obvious moral questions like homosexual marriage or abortion. The society that turns its back on cultural mores is also one that will have no problem with deficit spending that will doom their progeny. Morality will not be compartmentized but will encompass the whole society on every issue.

David| 8.25.11 @ 12:41PM

To the posters here who support same sex "marriage", you are a bunch of morons. The posters here who are OPPOSED to it are giving logical, coherent, thoughtful reasons as to why they oppose it. And all you morons just call them names and argue like 12 years olds: "just because", "because I want to", "because everyone else does it".

YOu people are the f_cking intolerant ones for trying to force all of society to say that what you do is okay.

Derek Leaberry| 8.25.11 @ 1:10PM

The Deweyite schools, marinaded with Gramscian-Marxism, has conquered millions of children.

John2| 8.25.11 @ 3:12PM

It is always like this, from forum to forum. The only thing I would add is the occasional play for sympathy for the "love" these sad creatures think they feel for each other.

It is easy to prove that they hate each other - look at the effects on the person the homosexual "loves". Shortened life, worse health, social costs imposed on everybody,... All bad , not very loving at all.

The homosexual hates his fellow man, particularly including his partner in perversion.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 4:39PM

And don't forget the suicides and attempted suicides of the younger ones that are now being indoctrinated in this slime of thought.

They "think" they are "gay" or want to be "gay" and go and do it and then are so overcome with guilt because their yet tender consciences are not yet hardened by what the Bible calls the deceitfulness of sin, that they attempt suicide.

I am acquainted personally with a relative in that situation, that God rescued.

There is a group of people that go by the name of Exodus that are Christians and have been saved from the homosexual lifestyle, and that can help anyone out there who is struggling to be free from this sin~ and that is what God's own definition of it is~ not mine. This sin (along with any), will overcome your soul, and then you become a slave to it.

The Devil, God's enemy, wants to take people to Hell with him. Don't let him!

God loves you and Jesus can give you the strength that you need to leave it in the past.

MikeBee| 8.25.11 @ 12:43PM

Early in the history of the U.S., there was a group in the New England area who were all very religious. They all decided to remain celibate "for the Lord." A generation or two later, they were all gone. The group had ended forever. Later on, a group in a midwestern state (Iowa?) tried the same thing, with the same result.

Societies around the world approve institutions and behavior which tend to enhance the continuance of the societies. Heterosexual marriage has been blessed by most societies since the beginning of time, as it enhances the continuance of society. If all U.S. citizens decided to become gay overnight, U.S. society would soon cease to exist. It makes perfect sense to provide a special place and standing for heterosexual marriage, as it enhances and continues society.

Secondly, most societies have frowned upon prostitutes, and have laws in place to try to reduce this behavior, because of the harm to society. The harm, simply put, is in the spreading of STDs throughout the society. Spreading STDs throughout the society tends to help cause the cessation of that society. Therefore, the laws against such behavior.

The sexual behavior of gay men has also tended to spread STDs at close to the same rate as prostitutes. A society should discourage any behavior which tends to work against the continuance and benefit of that society.

However, U.S. society is largely Christian. Due to their Christian virtue of Tolerance, most folks in the U.S. have adopted a "live and let live" policy toward gays. Here in the U.S., gays have it better than almost anywhere else on Earth.

Message to gays: accept your status in the U.S. as "tolerated." Know that you've got it much better here than almost anywhere else on the Earth. Set aside the childish yearning for acceptance. Get out of people's faces, and enjoy the liberties you have in this country.

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 1:33PM

Amen.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:28PM

Kentucky, Mike, not Iowa. One can visit the Shaker Village in Pleasant Hill, KY.

The Shakers is the group you are thinking of. No children, no extended history.

MikeBee| 8.26.11 @ 8:41AM

Thanks, OT. I knew it was somewhere in the Midwest. I didn't know that they were both Shaker groups. Perhaps that's why one doesn't find too many Shakers around anymore.

JP| 8.25.11 @ 1:02PM

The problem Americans have with marriage is a religious one, not a cultural/political one. The statistics bear this out. Divorce in the US is at its highest in the Deep South. And as Ross Douhout points out, if one wishes to find the one area of the nation with the lowest rate of divorce go no further than Massachusetts. The highest rate of teen pregnancy is in the Deep South. The lowest is in Vermont and Massachusetts. Of course, there's more to the issue. New England has the highest rate of abortion in the US. In New York state, it has been estimated that 50% of all conceptions end in abortion.

Another interesting statistic comes from Catholics. Catholics commit adultery, file for divorce about the same rate as the general population. And 85% of Catholic couples use artificial birth control (the Church still teaches that artificial birth control is intrinsinctly evil - that is no good comes of it. It still teaches that use of birth control is a Mortal Sin). Yet, Catholic couples ignore the Church's teachings. Up until 1930, almost all Protestant denominations teachings on birth control mirrored the Catholic Church.

Americans today may be more pious, but we're not exactly religious. The statistics bear this out. The family as we know it is disintergrating. Parents casually commit adultery, and divorce; thier children co-habitate and bring up bastard children. The state is empowered by this fecklessness, and yet Conservatives complain. Just look at many of our political leaders within the GOP, and you know that something deep down is wrong- something that goes beyond politics.Grace, Faith and Belief have been demystified. In many cases those religious terms have been purloined by the political class (Just look how Obama ran his last campaign). Yet, it is Grace and only Grace that has fortified Christian men and women these last 2000 years. And Grace is not something that is earned -it is a Gift. Grace does come with a price, however. Fewer and fewer people today are willing to accept it.

Few homosexual activists intend to marry. But they do intend to finish the job of destroying marriage - something hetros have worked on for decades. What needs to be done to reinvigorate marriage is known to many. But very few hetros are willing to pay the price.

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 5:06PM

JP,

Excellent comment, just excellent.

It is my understanding that all Protestant denominations condemned birth control up until 1930, when the Lambeth conference of the Anglican church caved to public pressure.

Which Protestant sects approved of contraception prior to 1930? Just curious.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 5:09PM

You do know that not all Christians are "Protestant", and that that is a term imputed upon us by Catholics to try and put us in a box.

No go, Geronimo!

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 5:30PM

Margie,

Yes, I do.
That is why I used the words denominations and sect. I was not trying to imply that all Christians belong to a particular Protestant faith.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 8:16PM

By the way, your Religion also teaches that "birth control" means using a condom, and that it's wrong. (And I am talking about inside a Marriage here).

It also teaches that a Marriage isn't a Marriage unless there are children, or that a Marriage HAS to produce children in order to be considered same, correct?

Both of these things are not Biblically correct.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 12:03AM

Margie,

"By the way, your Religion also teaches that "birth control" means using a condom, and that it's wrong. (And I am talking about inside a Marriage here)."

Yes, this is correct. Any act that has as its intent the purpose of stopping procreation, is sinful and wrong. The first purpose of the marital act is to have children. Anything designed to stop or interfere with this purpose is wrong.

It denies the dignity due to one's spouse. By using birth control, one spouse is telling the other by implication, "I love you, but not enough to have children with you. I just want to use you to pleasure myself."

The marital act, whenever engaged in, must be open to the creation of children. God said many times to "be fruitful and multiply." God also smote Onan for spilling his seed (Genesis 38:9-10).

"It also teaches that a Marriage isn't a Marriage unless there are children, or that a Marriage HAS to produce children in order to be considered same, correct?"

This is not correct. Whoever told you this, was mistaken.

I hope that helps.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 12:38AM

This teaching is not of God, nor is it biblical. It is yet another perversion.
The Catholic church has not the authority over anyone's body, soul or mind.
Each Christian is free in Christ to live according to their own conscience.
The Bible gives us the definition of Sin. (James 4:7.)

The Scripture you use to try and justify the Religion you follow, in Genesis was given to Adam & Eve as they were the first of Mankind. It is a very twisted thing that the Papacy has done to try and say that somehow it is Sin for any Married couple if they choose not to procreate.
Sickening, actually.

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Gal. 5:1.

As to the second issue, you have said something similar to the fact that Marriage isn't real unless there are children, or that people shouldn't Marry unless they plan on having them.

Anyhow~ it's two more reasons I'm glad Jesus saved me from this Religion.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 1:22AM

Margie,

"The Scripture you use to try and justify the Religion you follow, in Genesis was given to Adam & Eve as they were the first of Mankind."

This is incorrect. God told Noah to "be fruitful and multiply" several times (cf Genesis 8:17; 9:1; 9:7). God also told Jacob the same (cf Gen. 35:11). And, He told Jacob that He would make Joseph fruitful and multiply (cf 48:4).

Also, Christ told us the purpose of marriage in the Gospel of Saint Mark: "For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh."
- Mark 10:7-8

"As to the second issue [...]."

I have never stated that a marriage isn't legitimate if the couple produce no children. But, on the second part of this sentence, yes, a couple has to be open to having children, if they want to get married in the Catholic Church, and remain in communion with Her. I can't recall if I have ever made that point before, here, at AmSpec. I might have.

If a married couple cannot have children for medical reasons, they are still married. If a Catholic couple is using contraceptives, they are not in union with the Church.

May I assume from your citation of Galatians, that you are not implying that having children is like submitting to the "yoke of slavery"? I assume you are referring to the Pope?

Studies have shown that promotion of birth control leads to abortion. Why do you think Planned Parenthood offers contraceptives? Because they know it will lead to future customers, that's why.

Birth control is evil, and contrary to God's plan for married couples.
God Bless!

Vlady| 8.26.11 @ 11:29AM

What "religion" does Margie follow? Oh, that's right, a form of "Christian" Wahhabism....

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 1:54PM

Vlady,
No Religion, but Christ.
And obeying His Words only is what Christians are commanded to do~ that is, if they love Him.

"Jesus answered him, "If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." Jn. 14:23.

Jesus makes the standard, not me.

Do YOU obey Him?

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 2:03PM

"This is incorrect. God told Noah to "be fruitful and multiply" several times."

What is incorrect?

I said it was a command to Mankind~ I wasn't excluding Noah or Jacob.

My point is that your Religion USES the Bible to come up with really perverted doctrine~ and I spelled it out.

It isn't Christian doctrine~ it's Catholic doctrine.

If a couple chooses to not have children, they aren't going against God's will~ and your phony Religion has no authority to claim same.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 4:53PM

Margie,

"What is incorrect?
I said it was a command to Mankind~ I wasn't excluding Noah or Jacob."

"The Scripture you use to try and justify the Religion you follow, in Genesis was given to Adam & Eve as they were the first of Mankind."

I think I reasonably inferred, from what you wrote, that you were claiming that the command from God, to be fruitful and multiply, only applied to Adam and Eve.

Now you are stating that "it was a command to Mankind." Then why are you claiming that the Catholic teaching is not Biblical?

If it was a command to Mankind, from God, then you are admitting that any attempt to block the natural means of procreation is a violation of God's command to be fruitful.

So, which is it? Are all married couples to be fruitful and become one flesh? Or, is it okay to interfere with the way God made men and women and artificially stop a baby from being created?

Are married couples to put their own wishes above what God intended?
God Bless!

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 7:04PM

Nick:

When a couple tries to prevent a pregnancy naturally, it is NOT sin.

That your Religion would call that sin is actually sin! It puts the yoke of slavery on people~ you are also under that yoke.

"For freedom Christ has set us free!"

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 8:37PM

Margie,

Condoms are not natural. The only natural way to prevent a pregnancy is to abstain from the marital act.

Are you admitting that God's command to be fruitful and multiply was meant for all married couples?

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 2:04PM

"But, on the second part of this sentence, yes, a couple has to be open to having children, if they want to get married in the Catholic Church, and remain in communion with Her. I can't recall if I have ever made that point before, here, at AmSpec. I might have."

Yes, that's what I remember that you said your Religion claims.

And once again~ it is a Catholic doctrine~ it is NOT Christian, and not biblical.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 4:58PM

Margie,

It is very Christian and Biblical.

The main purpose of marriage is to have and raise children. A study of the reproductive organs make this abundantly clear.

Any attempt to stop what comes naturally, by artificial means, is an attempt to meddle with God's design. Therefore, making it a sin.

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 2:08PM

"May I assume from your citation of Galatians, that you are not implying that having children is like submitting to the "yoke of slavery"? I assume you are referring to the Pope?"

Very slick, aren't you, Nick?

No, the yoke of slavery are the perverted teachings and doctrines that the Papacy puts upon its people. The ones you adhere to, Nick.

Jesus died to set man free from Religion.
His Yoke is easy, and His burden is light.

You ought to try it.

"Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take My Yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
For My Yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Mt. 11:28-30.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 5:01PM

Margie,

How am I being slick? I stated that I presumed you were talking about the Holy Father.

I just wanted a clarification, so that no misunderstandings arose.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 12:45AM

Also~ Onan in the Scripture you mention, as we've discussed before, was struck dead by God for not obeying the command of God to further his brother's line.

That was a specific incident, a specific man at a specific time.

To try and twist this into what the Papacy has done and try and make that into that every time a Married couple has sex, they aren't allowed to try and prevent a pregnancy is absurd, and perverse.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 1:27AM

Margie,

No, it is not. It's in the Bible.

Don't interfere with the way God made all of us. Leave it up to God as to how many children a couple should have. Male and female He made them. For a reason, to procreate.

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 1:55PM

Tell that to the Papacy, Nick!

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 5:03PM

Margie,

Why would I tell that to the Holy Father?
He already believes it.
Would you please explain?

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 7:06PM

The Pope needs to repent of being the Pope and teaching perverse doctrine.

If he doesn't, he's going to Hell.

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 10:54PM

Margie,

I'm still confused.

RCV| 8.29.11 @ 2:55PM

I'm no Catholic, but I'm quite confident that Benedict has a much greater chance of making to Heaven than anyone posting here.

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:56PM

RCV~ The LORD GOD tells us who it is that love Him:

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's Who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

Since the Pope is a liar, and is living a lie.. guess what??

John Navratil| 8.25.11 @ 7:17PM

JP,

Addressing the divorce rate, see: http://www.census.gov/compendi.....orces.html

You will find the divorce rates spread all over. The top two for 2000 (the last year with data for all states) are Florida and Texas. Followed by New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania and then back to North Carolina. The data for 2008 (incomplete) shows a similar result.

Your statement "Divorce in the US is at its highest in the Deep South" is not born out by census data.

It is hard to continue reading a data analysis when the first statement of fact is demonstrably false.

Sonny's Mom| 8.25.11 @ 1:16PM

GET 'EM WHILE THEY'RE YOUNG

Thank you, David Bass!!! "Hey, the sky hasn't fallen!" is a common taunt heard from RINOs and "libertarians", as well as from the Left. Well here in Massachusetts we have gay marriage. So when David Parker visited his son's school to discuss the Mass. parental notification law with school administrators ("King and King" was being read in his son's KINDERGARTEN class), the principal had Parker arrested for trespassing. The case ended up in the 1st Federal District Court where Judge Mark Wolf ruled that because we now have gay marriage in MA, "It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations...." (http://davidparkerfund.org/order_motion_to_dismiss.pdf) "Introducing" young kids to adult sexual topics used to be known as pedophilia... now it's known as "civics".

Another resource Spectator readers might find helpful is Marybeth Hicks' new book, Don't Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid.

Pecos Pete| 8.25.11 @ 1:35PM

I've ofter wondered what happens, assuming gay marriage becomes normal, to the demands of gays?

Will they quit demanding special treatment?

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 2:19PM

Will Diva's quit being annoying? Will Drama Queens quit screaming "Pay attention to me"?

Highly doubt it.

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 2:19PM

Mr. Bass,

Interesting article. Especially the last paragraph:

"Without strong families, recognized and protected by law, a free society is weakened. Then the government steps in to fill the vacuum. Preventing that is a vital conservative ideal."

There is no better proof of these maxims than the passage of the 19th Article of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving suffrage to women, as Ann Coulter had pointed out for years, now.

Once women got the vote, the first feminazis got to work electing politicians who would enact legislation that would help provide for women, whose husbands had left them. Government would become the bread-winner, so the women wouldn't have to find another man.

Of course, it was all for the chillllllldren.

This started the snowball rolling down the hill, which eventually became the avalanche of the Welfare State. Women could keep getting pregnant and get a government check. Why get married? Who needs a man?

Is there any other way to explain how FDR was elected to four terms as president? He was the ultimate sugar-daddy, cutting checks for all those battle-axes who drove their husbands away!

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 2:55PM

We are being outbred by Islamists. We are losing Europe, and Michigan is well on its way to being lost, as in Minneapolis (For Example---I tend to stay out of big cities. Had enough before age 31.).

What are we doing to encourage the creation and nurturing of children in our society, which we will need if we are to dig ourselves out of the Obama hole we are in (both financially and defense-wise), and does Gay Marriage foster or hurt this? I believe it does not help, and that Civil Partnerships can handle everything that needs to be done legally for gays. But I think that's the question.

MikeBee| 8.25.11 @ 6:08PM

Razor,
Excellent question. I think the short answer is that, if Obama gets his way, and the U.S. becomes extremely impoverished (this is his desire), that the birth rate among European-descendant U.S. citizens will increase. Right now, folks have too many choices of what to do, with all the money they have. As they become impoverished, their choices will dwindle, and cheaper recreation will prevail.........

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:29PM

Europeans are dying out, though.

Tiddly| 8.25.11 @ 3:17PM

The first thing women voted for was Prohibition, and we see how that turned out. The latest thing women voted for was Obama, and look how that's turning out.

Yes, Ann Coulter is right, if women had not gotten the vote, there would be no Democratic Party and no Democrat would ever be elected. The Founding Fathers did not believe in female suffrage, and they were wise men.

The 19th Amendment is an unfolding disaster.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 4:45PM

Well then, I'm certainly glad that at least my vote has gone to the Republican party all my life!

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 6:26PM

The Founding Fathers did not believe that blacks should vote, and believed in slavery. They were all Protestants, by the way.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 8:22PM

Worse yet, Catholic Papists didn't believe anyone had the right to read the Bible on their own~ and put such "heretics" to death for so doing.
And for 600 years.

Oh, but I am not permitted to speak about that, am I?

Touche old buddy.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 9:28PM

Speak all you want buddy.
But you can't defend what I said by accusing Catholics of something else. One does not justify the other.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 10:22PM

Well for one, you need to get your facts straight.
My facts are correct.
Yours on the other hand...

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 11:19PM

Which of my facts are wrong.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 11:22PM

Oh, not Catholic. So deal with the facts and skip the atttacks on Catholics.
You can read your Bible anyway you like. Your business as long as you don't bother me physically. But you reading your Bible is not the same as slavery.

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 12:49AM

It isn't an attack~ it is the presenting of the historical facts, and in order to "touche you" in your stupid and lame "attack" on Protestants. LOL.

You didn't like that though, did you?

Which facts are wrong? Well, that all the Founding Fathers were Protestant!

That's ok, Thomas, we can move along here.. but if you can't take the heat, you know what they say.

THOMAS| 8.26.11 @ 8:13AM

Margie
You do not know any history. Name the religions of the founding fathers. They were all protestants and one catholic, no jews or budhists or atheists or hindus.
Read something in addition to the Bible. You may learn.

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 3:22AM

No, you need to prove that your claim is true.
Prove that all except one Founding Father were Protestant!
And then you will have some credibility in order to falsely accuse and attack my character.
Good luck.

THOMAS| 8.27.11 @ 8:38AM

Margie
Go to a public library. History section, read some books that don't fit your preconceived views. That is how you prove it. Very simple. Not wasting time pasting from history books.

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 7:08PM

Sorry, you presented something as fact and now you disingenuously slither away from it while at the same time hurling insults.

And is that what you call the Bible? A History book?

THOMAS| 8.28.11 @ 11:03PM

You can't be this stupid.

THOMAS| 8.28.11 @ 11:04PM

Margie
You're right. Founding fathers were Budhists. You are dense and stupid.

Margie| 1.12.12 @ 3:58PM

RCV is a liar, and THOMAS here never presented his proof.

"He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit." Prov. 12:17.

RCV| 8.29.11 @ 2:58PM

Jefferson was a Deist; by no stretch of the imagination could he be considered an orthodox Christian. He denied Christ's divinity, but believed him to be the world's greatest moral teacher.

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 11:46PM

Margie,

"Worse yet, Catholic Papists didn't believe anyone had the right to read the Bible on their own~ and put such "heretics" to death for so doing."

This is not correct. The Catholic Church has always encouraged people to read the Sacred Scriptures. And, She authorized many translations , in many languages, long before Luther and Calvin arrived on the scene.

It was not heretical to translate the Scriptures. If the translator didn't have permission, it was unauthorized.

I'm not aware of anyone who was put to death for publishing an unauthorized translation of the Bible. Are you?

I have dealt with Wycliff and Tyndale, previously, in other threads, including tonight. I can re-post that reply, here, if you would like?

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 12:52AM

"If the translator didn't have permission, it was unauthorized."

You said it, and it was punishable by death.
"authorized by whom? The Papacy~ the lunatics who Martyred the Christians who "dared" translate into English.

Anyone can do the research~ it's well know history.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 1:49AM

Margie,

"You said it, and it was punishable by death."

No, it was not. This is just wrong.

A translation had to be authorized by the Church. The Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prohibited unauthorized translations into English, not the Pope.

This is not what got Tyndale burnt at the stake. It was the heretical teachings he included in the notes to his bible, among his other heretical teachings, that got him tried for heresy.

What is well known historical fact is that there were many English translations before Wycliff and Tyndale. So, it cannot be true that they were persecuted, or "murdered," just for the act of translating the Bible into English.

It is also historical fact that the Catholic Church encouraged the laity to read the Sacred Scriptures as often as they could, if they were able. It is not true that the Church forbid average people from reading the Bible, or that She tried to hide the Word of God from them.

Facts are stubborn things. I'm sorry, but you cannot refute them.
God Bless!

THOMAS| 8.26.11 @ 9:00PM

Nick,
Don't confuse Margie with the facts.
She believes what she believes. End of story.
Mind is closed.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 11:52PM

Thomas,

I have been conversing with Margie, now, for a couple of years. Facts matter a great deal to her.

THOMAS| 8.27.11 @ 8:38AM

Nick
You have to be kidding.

Tim| 8.27.11 @ 2:39PM

Troll Thomas:

What do you have to say to Jesus then, Who says:

"For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Mt. 7:14.

THOMAS| 8.27.11 @ 11:26PM

Troll Tim
When I see Jesus I'll ask him about people like you who think they know Jesus's mind. After we laugh, He'll say what'ya expect from people who read the Protestant bible and each one makes up his own religion.
Not very Christian of you Timmy calling people troll and quoting something you don't undersand. Good night.

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 2:47AM

"This is not what got Tyndale burnt at the stake. It was the heretical teachings he included in the notes to his bible, among his other heretical teachings, that got him tried for heresy."

And pray tell Nick,

Just what were the "heretical" teachings that he was persecuted by the Catholic church?

Nick| 8.27.11 @ 5:35PM

Margie,

I could not find a list of the specific charges, but, it would appear that the main cause of Tyndale's heresy was his teaching of Lutheran doctrines, e.g. Sola Scriptura and denying the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Remember, Tyndale was previously tried for heresy a full three years before his translation was even published. So, claiming that he was "persecuted" or "murdered" because he translated the Bible into English is just not true.

And, again, there were already several English translations of the Sacred Scriptures before either Wycliff or Tyndale were even born.

God Bless!
Yours, in Christ, Nick

Nick| 8.27.11 @ 5:56PM

Margie,

I also found a source, corroborated by Tim's link, below, that states that Tyndale did not die by the actual act of being burned at the stake. He was strangled first, then burned.

Just an interesting fact, I thought. Being strangled doesn't sound nearly as barbaric as does burning someone to death, now does it?

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 10:45PM

"Being strangled doesn't sound nearly as barbaric as does burning someone to death, now does it?"

You have got to be kidding me. They burned his body afterward and so, in your mind, it isn't so bad.
They hated him so much for daring to be a Christian, that the strangling wasn't satisfactory~ yet you make light of this?
Your true colors (anti-Christian Papist) are showing, Nick.

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 8:14PM

Margie,

I was not giving my opinion or stating that being strangled isn't so bad. But, since you brought it up, I, personally, would rather be strangled than burned alive. Wouldn't you?

You have to admit that saying someone was burned at the stake sounds much more barbaric than being hanged or strangled? It is a tool of the propagandist.

It's the same with drawing and quartering. This was also done to the victim after they had already been executed. But, it sounds much more gruesome if you imply that the victim was alive, when four horses tear him limb from limb.

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 11:37PM

Nick, how is it a "tool of the propagandist" to tell the truth~ that he was first strangled, and then burned?

And Christians WERE drawn and quartered. The Bible even says they were, and the written history of witnesses does as well.

You're in denial.

"Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.
Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment.
They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated-- of whom the world was not worthy--wandering over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth." Heb. 11:35-38.

It began in the Old Testament, and Christians are still being tortured to this very day.

And the World is STILL not worthy.

Here are some accounts from the 15th century alone.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs047.htm

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 10:50PM

Transubstantiation is demonic.
It isn't anything that Christ or the Apostles taught.
Your Papists are the heretics~ they were also demonic~ since they saw fit to play God and torture and kill Bible believing Christians~ that is, my brethren who refused to bow to these perverts in their robes who played God.

Sad that you are in agreement with them.

Transubstatiation is against the Word of God, whih says:

"So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him." Heb. 9:28.

Offered once, Nick. That's it.

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 8:28PM

Margie,

Transubstantiation was commanded by Christ, in chapter six of the Gospel According to Saint John.

I also explained, the best that I could, Hebrews 7, 8, & 9 to you in a previous thread. I could re-post it, if you would like?

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 11:29PM

Nick,

Hebrews 9:28.

What you have been taught is a lie and a fantasy.

Jesus was offered once to die, just like the Bible says He was. He is not offered anymore~ and He is not offered again through this apostate Religion's false teaching at the taking of communion.
He does NOT therefore reappear physically.
That teaching is against the Word of God.

Tim| 8.27.11 @ 2:45PM

Nick,

You're just plain wrong on this. It is historical fact that there were inquisitions by the Popes and that Christians were Martyred for it.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm

Nick| 8.27.11 @ 6:59PM

Tim,

Since I have neither denied that there were inquisitions, nor have I denied that people were executed for heresy; you, sir, have put up a straw man.

From a quick perusal of the link that you provided, it seems that the information about Wycliff is correct. What is written about Tyndale is mostly correct.

The author conveniently leaves out the fact that is was King Henry VIII who banned Tyndale's "bible" and ordered copies burned and forbade anyone to read it.

This author also states that Wycliff "[...] was the very first to translate the entire Bible into English [...]." - Item #4 (emphasis mine)

Yet, he later claims that Miles Coverdale "[...] printed the first complete Bible in English on October 4, 1535." - Item #5

Both claims cannot be true.

The first two "Items" concerning Pope Innocent III and the Council of Toulouse are quoting out of context.

Pope Innocent III was probably addressing the Catharist heresy. I was unable to confirm this, as I could not locate the full quote used in Item #1.

The Council of Toulouse was dealing with both the Albigensian and Catharist heresies. The council is specifically addressing the inaccurate translations produced by these heretical sects. Context is everything, as they say.

The Church was only trying to preserve the Word of God and make sure heretics did not pervert the meaning of Sacred Scripture. This is one of Her many duties.

Using these corrupt translations back in the 12th and 13th centuries, A.D., would be like using the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation, today.

The same goes for Wycliff and Tyndale, since they changed the Word of God, as Luther and Calvin did, to fit their heretical ideas.

I hope that helps.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 10:35PM

The only Religion that perverted the Bible is yours, Nick.
And your False Religion calls Bible believing Christians heretics.
Yet the blood of the saints (Martyrs)~ millions upon millions of them are on the hands of your Papists~ whom you defend.

The Church isn't Catholicism~ it is the individuals the World over ~ they are called Christian~ and they still, to this very day reject Catholicism.

We are your modern day "heretics". So then, if you abide by these teachings and you consider the Martyrs heretics~ then you consider me same.

Light has no fellowship with darkness, sir.
I am not sure why it is that you say to me, "bless you!"

When this is what you are in reality~ a Papist!

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 7:58PM

Margie,

"So then, if you abide by these teachings and you consider the Martyrs heretics~ then you consider me same."

Yes, I consider them heretics.
No, I do not consider you, or other non-Catholic Christians, heretics.

By your own admission, you left the Church at an early age. And, like myself, you were not taught the Magisterium that well, as we both grew up in wake of the abuses of the Second Vatican Council.

I don't know if you ever made your Confirmation, or not. But, I would say that you are not a heretic. If you want to know for sure, ask a priest. Ha-ha!

I say "bless you" because I want you, Victor, and your family to be blessed by God, that's why. We all need God's Blessing. And, because you are my sister in Christ.
Please, keep me in your prayers.

Margie| 8.29.11 @ 2:22PM

"I say "bless you" because I want you, Victor, and your family to be blessed by God, that's why. We all need God's Blessing. And, because you are my sister in Christ.
Please, keep me in your prayers."

Nick, and Jesus wants you to know the truth, so that you are genuinely able to serve it. Since Jesus say He IS the Truth (Jn. 14:6), we cannot accept another gospel and still be truly following Him.

When I said the Papists have taught you well, I meant it that you are well trained in rejecting the true gospel of Jesus~ as they trained themselves and others to do.

And the World is in the power of the evil one, as it is written in 1 Jn.
The World does not know Him~ also in 1 Jn. This includes people that are believing the various lies of all false Religions (Babylon).

Religion is simply man's ideas on how to reach God, as they did when they tried to build the old tower of Babylon in the Old Testament. But God was angered, and confused their tongues (they spoke in different languages), so that they couldn't understand each other.

The Devil makes sure he has everyone trained into thinking they are serving God if they "belong to a Religion." They believe that if they "go to church" they will be pleasing God.
This~ along with his biggest trick~ that of making people think that he and God don't even exist, is one of his biggest lies.

Those who your Papists Martyred were the ones who knew Christ, and are the ones who tried and by the will of God~ did get the Bible printed in English and other languages so that all men could read it~ your Catholic Religion is an apostate Religion and along with Satan himself, took delight in torturing and murdering those that sought to do His will.

Your Religion did not want anyone but itself to have the Bible in its hands. and why is that? So that they could hide from the people the fact they the doctrines that they taught were not in the Bible.

They are no longer murdering Christians~ but they still teach the same false doctrines that they stood on when killing Christians.

This Religion NEVER repented.

I digressed a bit there, but that is the ultimate example of a false and demonic Religion.

Religion isn't what God wants. God gave us Jesus, and now~ all men must be born of His Spirit in order to be saved. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No longer are there sacrifices, solemn assembly, trying to "be good."

Since no one is good, as the Bible tells us.
Now~ thankfully, we are saved by Grace, through faith, and when God draws us to Him we are able to have a relationship with Him through His Son.

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the Prophets; but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son, whom He appointed the Heir of all things, through whom also He created the World.
He reflects the Glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by His Word of Power. When He had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right Hand of the Majesty on High, having become as much superior to angels as the Name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs." Heb. 1:1-4.

Nick,
Satan has many servants. All of us were under his servitude before we were born from above by His Spirit, as in Jn. 3:3.
Satan, as you well know, disguises himself as an angel of light.
If you are believing and preaching another gospel~ the one of Catholicism, you aren't truly doing His will.
I tell you this because it's the truth.

In Christ with His love,
Margie (and that is my real name).

Nick| 8.29.11 @ 7:10PM

Margie,

"Those who your Papists Martyred were the ones who knew Christ, and are the ones who tried and by the will of God~ did get the Bible printed in English and other languages so that all men could read it [...]."

How many times do I have to show you that no one was "murdered" for trying to translate the Bible into English? The Catholic Church had already authorized several English translations of the Scriptures before Wycliff and Tyndale were even born.

There were also translations in other languages, authorized by the Church.

You can keep repeating it, but, it won't make it any less false.

Nick| 8.29.11 @ 11:04PM

p.s. "Nick" is my real name, too.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 10:55PM

"Since I have neither denied that there were inquisitions, nor have I denied that people were executed for heresy; you, sir, have put up a straw man."

Your Papists have trained you well, Nick.
To the untrained eye what you said looks peachy, but to Christians who have the Spirit of God, know it is pure deceit.

You said you never said that you denied that people were killed for heresy~ and in this you are telling "the truth".

But the issue and problem is~ that you agree with the Papists who murdered them~ that they were really heretics!

You are not on the side of God's Truth if this is what you truly believe.
I hope and pray that God opens your eyes. It would be better to have a zeal for Jesus that is enlightened.
Right now you are serving Satan.

THOMAS| 8.28.11 @ 8:57AM

Start praying for yourself Margie that God opens your eyes

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 6:33PM

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy." Prov. 27:6.

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 8:06PM

Margie,

I haven't had that much training from the "Papists," really. I've read a lot. Especially, the Sacred Scriptures.

Yes, I agree that they were heretics.
No, I do not agree that they should have been executed.

The only time that I serve Satan is when I sin, as we all do. But, I try to serve God the best that I can. Sharing the Truth of Christ's Church is certainly not serving Satan.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 11:23PM

Nick,

The "Church" you serve IS Satan. Its teachings are false and against the Word of God.

God's church, His Body are those of us who reject false and apostate Religions and follow the Words of God, as written in the Bible.

His church are those who are willing to die for the Word of God, like my brethren~ Christ's own, those whom you refer to as heretics. Those whom the Papists that you admire and listen to and believe, that killed my brethren~ and who are still teaching the same lies~that Bible believing Christians are heretics.

Light has no fellowship with darkness, that's what God says. And He tells you to come out from among the whore of Babylon before it's too late.

You're faithful, but it isn't to the Word of God.

Yes, you need to share the Truth~ of Christ and His Gospel, Nick.
Not the truth of an apostate Religion.
Ask yourself, how can you be sharing God's Truth if what you are sharing doesn't consider the Martyrs brethren in Christ? How~ if it truly considers Bible believing Christians heretics?

Your soul is for sale to the highest bidder. Who is that going to be, Nick?

I am still praying that God opens your eyes.
I know you want to serve Christ, but it has to be His way, His Gospel.

Nick| 8.29.11 @ 6:52PM

Margie,

"The 'Church' you serve IS Satan. Its teachings are false and against the Word of God."

Then what about Tyndale? He was a Lutheran, and therefore believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, known as the sacramental union, a form of consubstantiation. Is this not a false doctrine, according to you?

But, you have called Tyndale your brethren, have you not? And, Luther had no problem with the state authorities executing heretics, at least those he considered heretics, like Zwingli:

"Luther's general thought on the question of execution of heretics was expressed in a statement from his Home-Postils in 1533:
"[T]he worldly authorities bear the sword with orders to prevent all scandal, so that it may not enter and inflict harm. But the most dangerous and horrible scandal is where false doctrine and worship penetrates . . . They (i.e., State officials) must resist it (i.e., such scandal) stoutly, and realize that nothing else will avail save their use of the sword and of the full extent of their power in order to preserve the doctrine pure and the worship clean and undefiled."

Source: http://socrates58.blogspot.com.....ws-of.html

In fact, here is a list of authors who correct all the errors, inaccuracies, and falsehoods contained in Foxe's The Book of Martyrs:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com.....acies.html

It also has links to lists of thousands of Catholics martyred by Protestants during the so-called Reformation.

"And He tells you to come out from among the whore of Babylon before it's too late."

I have shown you several times that the Catholic Church cannot be the Whore of Babylon. You never reply to them, though.

First, Vatican hill is not one of the Seven Hills of Rome. Secondly, the whore is Jerusalem, according to the prophets, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc. Thirdly, the Whore, "that great city, Babylon" is utterly destroyed by fire in Revelation 18. Only Jerusalem was completely destroyed by fire, not Rome.

Finally, "the great city" is first mentioned in Revelation 11, verse 8:

"And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt: where their Lord also was crucified."

Was Christ crucified in Rome? No, He was crucified in Jerusalem. Therefore, the "great city", the whore, Sodom and Egypt, and Babylon all refer to Jerusalem, not Rome.

The events described in the Book of Revelation are the destruction of Jerusalem, in A.D. 70. This is why Matthew 24 is known as the "Little Apocalypse."

Thank you for the prayers.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.29.11 @ 11:54PM

False doctrine is false when is does not agree with the Bible.
I have nothing to do with creating the Words of the Bible~ I just quote the very Words of God, as written.

So, that game of yours is over.

And Foxe's book of Martyrs is not a lie. The website you use is.. wait for it.. Catholic!! Big surprise there since the Papists are the ones who actually did the murdering.

And the links I posted here were to an entirely different historical book~ an even better one, called Martyrs Mirror.

and I hope that everyone who has a heart to learn the truth, reads it.

And, Babylon is a figure for false Religion.
The blood of millions of saints are on her hands.

Nick| 8.30.11 @ 1:03AM

Margie,

"I have nothing to do with creating the Words of the Bible~ I just quote the very Words of God, as written.
So, that game of yours is over."

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, here. Would you please explain further?

"The website you use is.. wait for it.. Catholic!!"

And you quote constantly from anti-Catholic sites. Pot calling kettle.

My point is that Protestants murdered Catholics, and, Catholics murdered Protestants. And it was wrong.

And, that William Tyndale believed in some form of consubstantiation. Is that not perverting the Word of God, according to you?

"And, Babylon is a figure for false Religion."

Perhaps.
But, in the Book of Revelation, Babylon and the whore are figures of Jerusalem.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.30.11 @ 1:01PM

The historical book, Martyrs Mirror isn't an anti-Catholic website. It is a historical account of the millions of Christians, CHRISTIANS! that the Papacy tortured and killed for centuries, Nick..
You are so very disingenuous.

As to the fact that you seem to be in a perpetual state of "confusion"~ it is no small wonder. You are under your father the Devil's tutelage, and are bought into the perverted teachings of this apostate Religion.

I hope you repent, Nick.

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.." 1 Cor. 14:33.

You constantly reject Jesus' own teachings, and replace them with Catholic doctrine.
What does God say about that?

"Not every one who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven." Mt. 7:21.

"He who is of God hears the Words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." Jn. 8:47.

Nick| 8.31.11 @ 1:50AM

Margie,

I have nothing of which to repent. I'm not responsible for the actions of others, in the past. Neither, are you. I only have to repent of my sins.

My confusion is not perpetual, like Christ's sacrifice is perpetual. It only occurs when someone doesn't fully explain what they wrote.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 7:12PM

The perverted Papists and the Bible believing Christians they tortured and killed. These are those whom you refer to in the same way as your Papists did: as heretics:

Read it and weep. I do.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs010.htm

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 7:48PM

Tim,

Disregard my objections about what the author stated about Wycliff and Coverdale and the first English Bible. I see now that the operative word is "printed" in those "Items."

Coverdale published the first printed English bible, while Wycliff was supposedly the first to completely "translate" the whole Bible into English.

Forgive my error.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 7:08PM

The history of the murderous Papists:

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Totally Fed Up| 8.25.11 @ 3:17PM

Hmmm, some of us conservatives have a conundrum... we're fiscal conservatives, but the thought of the religious Right (pick any denomination) being in control scares us just as badly as the Leftist lunatics in there now. I believe in nearly unlimited personal freedom tied to absolute personal accountability. And under no circumstances do I want morality legislated. For instance, I think abortion is a horrible thing. But the only thing I can think of that's worse, is me having to support a crack baby for 18 yrs... I don't care what consenting adults do (and enough of the silly histrionics about same-sex unions leading to beastiality and pedophilia... zero cause-effect proof ). None of it is going to change what I decide to do. Don't like gay marriage.. don't have one! Don't go Liberal and try to ban everything you don't believe in. By all means, DO stop the spending.. the welfare train... the govt regulation... the attack on business, and yes, even the MSM's outright attack on Christianity.. But if you try to push fundamentalist restriction on the middle, they always go Left, and you LOSE. So pull your heads out of your gloomy orifices, focus on jobs and the economy, practice your religions as you wish, and let's WIN why don't we!

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 3:58PM

"I believe in nearly unlimited personal freedom tied to absolute personal accountability. And under no circumstances do I want morality legislated."

Oh yes, you do. I have news for you: Your belief that people should be allowed to keep the fruits of their own labors is a moral position. Your belief in the rightness of self-determination is a moral position. You just don't realize it because social cons agree with you on these things, and never complain about you "imposing your morality on everyone else".

Why are you allowed to insist we preserve your morality in the existing government system, but it's somehow inherently wrong or backward for us to want to preserve ours?

Fiscal cons are always pointing to the misery caused by the welfare state -- the government propping up people's bad choices -- as support for their political vision, but when social cons point out the misery that will be caused by the government propping up (dignifying and endorsing) warped family arrangements that would otherwise be stigmatized, they dismiss the point.

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 4:13PM

Totally Fed Up,

I can't add much to NotALibertarian's fine reply, except, maybe, this:

"I believe in nearly unlimited personal freedom tied to absolute personal accountability."

A simple philosophy, tailor made for simple minds.

Mimi| 8.25.11 @ 3:38PM

Battle-axes...NICK ? Blunt but...SO TRUE !

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 4:19PM

Mimi,

That is just the mental picture I get when I think of those 1920's feminazis nagging their husbands to the point of running away.

I am in no way condoning the abandonment of a family by the husband. These men are of low character and are cowards. So are wives who do the same.

Oldefarte| 8.25.11 @ 4:05PM

The comparisons of heterosexual marriage to other unionizations is comical and absurd. The former is a sacriment from the Almighty, whereas the latter is simply immoral human behavour. Liberals have for decades been at war against normal religions in order to destoy same, and their promotion of immorality of homosexuality is just another example of same. Liberals have infiltrated churches [especially the Catholic Church] by usage of homosexual foot soldiers, and have most destroyed them in the process. They wish to destroy the very idea of God by any/all means possible. Their chosen battlefields have been the use of Hollywood to propagandize children and stupid adults into believing their homosexuality, physical nudity, illegal drug promotion, etc; and the general decline of morality among the public has been the result. Neither children nor their supposedly responsible parents attend religious church services anymore; and children are not home instructed in religious philosophy as well. The result is an overal decline of morality today, and that seen within the institution of marriage is just one example. Crime, teenage pregnancies, murders, rapes, assaults, etc are all on the rise and will continue doing so if/until ther is a reversal of this liberalism and an re-commitment to religious thought and principles. The impossibility of homosexual marriage comes from it immorality as a practice and any sane possibility of its becoming a sacrament of the Almighty. The MAN'S LAW principle of marriage is only derived from God's NATURAL LAW, and therefore, if the former recognizes homosexual marriage, it becomes in conflict with its foundation within the latter and therefore is ILLEGAL in actuality!!!!!

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 4:17PM

Where to begin?

--Just when has the so-called religious right had unbridled power in elected office as the Left has done? What exactly are you so scared of? What is all your religophobia about? Have they inacted laws killing homos? Have they required you to believe in anything at the pressue of a sword? Get real.

I believe in nearly unlimited personal freedom tied to absolute personal accountability.
-- Wha? Where to begin? Great. Move to an island.
That is just as stupid as the liberal utopias.

And under no circumstances do I want morality legislated.
-- Oh, this is a good one. I hate to burst your bubble but this has been going on since recorded time. They call them laws. Thou shall not kill, ring any bells? Thou shall not steal?

For instance, I think abortion is a horrible thing. But the only thing I can think of that's worse, is me having to support a crack baby for 18 yrs...
-- Ah, yes, you would prefer killing a baby, rather then paying for its keep. Well, Ron Paul, your great one, disagrees. Your big on the rights of the individual but if it cost you a dime forget it. Who says you have to support it? Yeah, full scale murder of 58 million is more desirable.

I don't care what consenting adults do (and enough of the silly histrionics about same-sex unions leading to beastiality and pedophilia... zero cause-effect proof ).
-- Really? I did not know you were an expert in such matters? Well, it has already started with pedophiles, you have a group of shrinks already calling for normalization. Polygamist have begun lawsuits.

None of it is going to change what I decide to do. Don't like gay marriage.. don't have one! Don't go Liberal and try to ban everything you don't believe in.
-- We are not banning anything. We are trying to stop another so-called victim group from destroying the current status quo and demanding special rights above that which the constitution provides. It does not exist. So, how can we be banning it? Are we attempting to discriminate against these people and ban them from something? Are we clammoring for laws to lock them up or stop them from their behaivor?

By all means, DO stop the spending.. the welfare train... the govt regulation... the attack on business, and yes, even the MSM's outright attack on Christianity.. But if you try to push fundamentalist restriction on the middle, they always go Left, and you LOSE. So pull your heads out of your gloomy orifices, focus on jobs and the economy, practice your religions as you wish, and let's WIN why don't we!

--We would like to practice our religion as we wish but we can not. Apparently, you have not noticed that a kid can not even thank God for his accomplishments in his valedictorian speech. Or how about the parent who objects to what their children are being taught in school and are arrested? Or all religious references being removed from our public buildings including the ten commandments in court rooms? Or the threats made against priest and clergy in their own churches? No one is trying to restrict anything. Have we become second class citizens whereby we have no say about these matters by virtue of our values and beliefs? As far as the middle. What middle are you talking about? Most Americans now do not approve of abortion. That middle?
What you need to do is pull head out of your own ass. The second thing is to take a good look around. The third is to face the fact that this society cornerstone is based on morality, values, and religion as the founders said a million times over.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 4:19PM

The above is a response to Totally Fed Up.

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:31PM

Dear Simon:

Unfortunately, there aren't enough Conservative Psychiatrists.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 11:30PM

Simon Templar
When did the religous right have power. Well,during the 19th century we had slavery until the Civil War. All our presidents, judges, senators were fine upstanding Protestant men. They had laws against sodomy, adultery, mixing of the races, no voting for women, labor unions were illegal.

After the Civil War, these fine men in the South, or Bible Belt, passed laws to segregate, poll taxes, allowed lynching, well you get the picture.
Learn some history about the religous right.

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 11:34PM

Thomas,

That is not history, that is propaganda.

THOMAS| 8.26.11 @ 8:15AM

Nick
It can be used as propoganda but it is based on facts.
BTW like your posts.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 4:35PM

Thomas,

Thank you for the compliment.

What I took away from your comment was that you were implying a cause-and-effect concerning Protestants.

You list some bad effects, e.g. segregation, poll taxes, etc.; and you state the the South was full of "fine upstanding Protestant men," implying a cause for the bad effects.

I think this is very unfair to the many good Protestants from the South. The premise is also not provable. I would say it is dubious.

If this was not your point, please explain further.

THOMAS| 8.26.11 @ 9:04PM

Nick
Didn't mean all Protestants are bad or they all pass bad laws.
Just a general comment what happened when the religious right of its day had the power to do its agenda. There were no Jews or Catholics or Budhists or Hindus passing those evil laws to maintain slavery and then segregation. It was the Protestants. But it does not mean all are bad. Just stating history.

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 11:47PM

Thomas,

I can't speak for the other groups that you listed, but, there were plenty of Catholics in the South during both the Antebellum and Reconstruction periods. Some of them even owned slaves. And, I'm sure some them, who weren't living their faith, had a hand in "passing those evil laws."

The real cause for the Jim Crow South was the way Southerners were treated after the war. They couldn't take out their frustrations on the North, so, they took it out on who they blamed for the war: The ex-slaves.

In other words, the Northerners were sore winners. Segregation and lynchings had nothing to do with their Protestant faiths.

The Northerners were also no strangers to racism, then, or now, by the way.

Following your thinking, it could be said that the North was full of Irish Catholics. And, that there were plenty of racists in the North. Therefore, the Irish Catholics were racist.

This is a logical fallacy.
You are linking an effect to a non-existent cause.

Also, as a Catholic, I consider myself a proud member of the religious right. I don't believe there was a religious right in the 19th century, though.

p.s. Have you preciously posted as JOSEPH?

THOMAS| 8.27.11 @ 8:48AM

Nick
Irish Catholics had no political power in the North except for a few cities in local elections. The power at state and federal was white Protestant men. All judges were white Protestant men. Those are facts.
Kennedy was first Catholic presdident, Brandeis was first Jewish Supreme court justice.

It cut across both parties, Democrats and Republicans. But result was same. They passed all laws that todays religious right wants, like sodomy, and then all the segregation laws and marriage laws that whites and blacks could not marry.
Todays religious right wants to involve in people's lives again. Maybe you don't, but read some of stuff here.
No, not Joseph. I bounce around from NR to WSJ to Huff Post to DailyKos and others. Post and Kos full of hate agaisnt eveangelicals and religious right,then some of stuff from af few I read here, not you, backs up what they say at Post and Kos.
There are kooks on every site.

Nick| 8.27.11 @ 3:37PM

Thomas,

My example never stated that Irish Catholics had political power. You have misunderstood my point. I will try to make it more clear.

It is a logical fallacy to take two statements that are true, and then extrapolate a conclusion that is false. Just because some of A is B, and some of B is C, does not automatically mean that some of A is C.

Here is another example:
A) Most baseball players are right-handed.
B) Most baseball players strike-out.
C) Therefore, baseball players strike-out because they are right-handed.

Or, using your argument:
A) Most Southern elected officials were Protestant.
B) Southern politicians passed Jim Crow laws.
C) Therefore, Protestantism is responsible for Jim Crow laws.

In the two examples, even though both A and B are true, C is not. It is a false conclusion.

Sodomy laws are not the same as segregation laws. All laws affect peoples lives. The religious right believes that man's laws should mirror God's Law, the Natural Law.

THOMAS| 8.27.11 @ 11:33PM

Nick
Should be:
1. All Southern politicians and most northern politicians were white protestant men, and all the Founders were white protestant men
2. these politicans passed Jim Crow laws and allowed slavery
3. white protestant men allowed slavery and passed Jim Crow laws.

Not saying that today's religous right has same agenda as religious right as before. Saying what happened when the old religous right had power.

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 7:42PM

Thomas,

This is still a logical fallacy.

Even though 1 & 2 are true, 3 is not.
Protestantism had nothing to do with slavery and Jim Crow.

Unless, you count the few preachers and laymen who tried to wrongly justify slavery from the Bible.

Also, there was no "religious right" in the 19th century. Back then, the right and left consisted of the split between the Hegelians, i.e. the followers of Hegel.

THOMAS| 8.28.11 @ 11:00PM

No, 3 is factually correct.

Nick| 8.29.11 @ 6:07PM

Thomas,

No, it is not. Non-Protestant men also allowed slavery and passed Jim Crow laws.

And, the conclusion that #3 implies, that Protestantism is the common link between #1, #2, and #3, is false.

Also, I just noticed that your #1 is false, because it states that all "Southern politicians" and the "Founders" were Protestant.

The Founders had some deists in their ranks, along with some who had been duped by the so-called enlightenment. A Catholic even signed the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll.

The South had many Catholics. Jefferson Davis even had Catholics and a Jew in his administration.

You should have used "most" with the Southerners, like you did with the Northerners.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 4:50PM

Yaye Simon!!

voted against carter| 8.25.11 @ 5:29PM

Homosexuals make up LESS,.. REPEAT,… less than 2% of the ENTIRE U.S. population

WHY do we continue to let a SMALL group of sexual deviants Dick-tate public policy???

LESS than 2%.

Oh,... and lets NOT forget the continued attempt at the mainstreaming of deviant homosexual behavior.

NEEDS TO STOP.

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 5:32PM

Actually, it less than one half of one percent!
A tiny minority, indeed.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 6:20PM

I have on more thing to say about this subject.
And I challenge anyone to refute it, but first you must go out and read the literature of the Left before you open your mouth or write a refutation.
Please. I insist you do not take my word for it!

What I am about to tell you some of you already know but I suspect many really do not or have not fully grasped it. It needs to be said and it is LONG over due. It needs to faced and confronted head on.

The sexual revolution, the homosexual agenda, the feminist movement, the attack on the nuclear family, and abortion as a right are a co-ordinated, ideologically based, cultural direct attack on the very cultural foundations of capitalist free market republican societies.

The Frankfurt School and the cultural marxist are real and have been part of a larger Left wing movement that has written about such objectives and 'revolutionary' ideas for several centuries since the beginnings of our own Republican revolution.

Most people believe that much of this was just the product of technology changes and the general cultural drifts that occured in an evolving democratic industrialized society. They are not.

Many of you have most likely never looked at the writings of Sanger, Marcuse, Marx, or HG Wells and the countless thousands of others. Nor have you seen the literature of the many left wing groups that have worked to bring about these 'progressive' cultural changes. Read them, none of this was by accident. Read them and see very clearly the plan, the objectives, and the deep hatred for not only christianity but morality in general. You will quickly find out that all of this is related and of one larger objective, one world view, and one philosophy.

These changes were not conceived as seperate actions or efforts but were rather pieces of a larger effort to transform society and destroy capitalism thereby bringing about their revolutionary vision of a new world order and new man.

I will tell you most of the trolls and useful idiots do not know this or have a clue to where any of these ideas came from, particularly these Libertarians. Lose this culture war, and you will lose everything.

-Warnings from a reformed and petinent radical,
Simon Templar

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 8:39PM

Have you ever read the book entitled Marx and Satan? by Richard Wurmbrand.
It says it all.

gary siebel| 8.25.11 @ 6:27PM

As I have stated many times before, so long as conservatives insist on arguing against same-sex marriage solely on the basis of so-called "conservative values" (e.g., religion), they will lose, and -- alas -- the homosexuals will win. The argument against no-fault divorce and increase in divorce rates is absolutely useless in the debate about homosexual marriage. Whenever conservatives make that argument, their own hypocrisy in matters of sex immediately comes to the fore, and they are forced to shut-the-f-up.

The most potent argument against gay marriage is that it is a violation of the principle of human rights, which are founded on the exactitude of equality. As a hetero male I do not have the right to get married, so why should a homosexual have rights that I lack? Marriage has always been controlled by the State and society -- always. It's not a right, it's a privilege (I realize many long married couples may question the privilege of being married to their lout of a spouse, but that is irrelevant to the point.)

In ancient times, like up until many decades ago, males with money and power simply demanded marriage, and parents eagerly handed over their daughters. Until polygamy was outlawed, patriarchs scoured the earth in search of hot, young virgins, and grabbed as many as they could (e.g., the recently convicted Mr Jeffs). It was practically their right to marry whomsoever they could. However, nowadays marriage is requested rather than demanded. But no human rights are ever requested -- not even one. Human rights are innate, and hence not requested. To demand same-sex marriage on the basis of equal rights therefore undercuts the foundation of human rights. Homosexuals already have precisely, exactly the same, equal, privilege to marriage as all hetero's.

It is not just marriage that is under attack. They seek to replace the exactitude of equality with the vagueness of equivalency. Conservatives are not helping in this battle by choosing to do battle solely on the grounds of morality, which are like quicksand for all, for none are righteous -- not even one.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 6:47PM

"They seek to replace the exactitude of equality with the vagueness of equivalency."
Brilliant!
You are onto something here, Gary.
Now take one step back further, and see the whole picture, ask, Why?

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 7:42PM

Gary,

You make some excellent points, especially about the non-existent "right" to marry. There simply is no such right - not for me, not for you, not for anyone.

However, I think you misapprehend the nature of faith based arguments against gay "marriage."

Legally, any state could permit or prohibit same sex "marriage." Any state could create what is often called, "civil unions" providing the same rights and privileges to a same sex couple as are granted to legally married traditional couples. But the fact is that creating a status identical in law to marriage, but called something else, is not acceptable to the gay and lesbian community.

Why is that? If their claim is based on having the same legal status as married people, then why is giving them that status under a different name so repugnant to them? Furthermore, why is it that so many of them abhor traditional values so greatly, and yet want to use the most traditional of all terms to describe their unions?

Why? Because the issue of same sex "marriage" has nothing whatsoever to do with providing same sex couples with the same rights and privileges as married couples, and everything to do with destroying any institution which believes that homosexual sex is immoral. It's that simple.

The fact is that many in the gay and lesbian communities despise, nay, hate Christians and Christianity, and any beliefs or traditions based upon Judeo/Christian values for the simple reason that those values teach that homosexual sex is a sin. If you don't believe me, just read some the posts above from proponents of same sex "marriage." The pure, raw hatred is evident in post after post after post.

It is this hatred which drives them to push for same sex "marriage." They know that Christians believe marriage is a Holy state ordained by God. They believe that by forcing Christians to accept as "marriage" a state which is clearly antithetical to Christian teachings, they will undermine and ultimately destroy Christianity itself. They are, of course, utterly and completely wrong.

Same sex "marriage" poses no threat whatsoever to Christianity, but because its goal is the destruction of the value based foundation upon which western society is built, it does pose a very real threat to freedom itself. Its essence o same sex "marriage" is not tolerance of "alternative lifestyles," but INtolerance for any point of view which does not wholly accept "alternative lifestyles." At its heart of those advocating for same sex "marriage" is the ideal that those of us who think homosexual sex is immoral will someday have no right to believe what we believe, and that the day will come when the only acceptable point of view is theirs.

I know, I know - you think I'm blowing this way out of proportion. Well then, answer me this, why is it that following the legalization of same sex "marriage," what inevitably follows is a push by the same people who wanted same sex "marriage" to prohibit clergy from refusing to perform same sex "marriage" ceremonies? What does that have do with civil rights? Especially since there are (misguided) clergy who will perform such ceremonies, and especially since many of those advocating for this prohibition profess to have no religious faith themselves. Why? Because the goal of those advocating same sex "marriage" is not "equality," but the eradication of religious beliefs which they do not like. It is the only logical explanation.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 8:01PM

Big E,

You made me weep. Absolute brilliance..
"its goal is the destruction of the value based foundation upon which western society is built, it does pose a very real threat to freedom itself."
I bow to you sir, my hat is off. You get it.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 11:33PM

The Big E
The Bible says a man shall leave his parents and go with his wife. That means the Bible says we have a right from God to marry.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 8:37PM

None are righteous, but Christians are certainly justified by faith, and it is reckoned as righteousness.
Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:11 & 24.

"Whenever conservatives make that argument, their own hypocrisy in matters of sex immediately comes to the fore, and they are forced to shut-the-f-up."

~Speak for yourself.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 9:03PM

Marge,
I think he was trying to make the point that secularist and liberals entrap conservatives by the counter argument of hypocrisy in areas of sexual sin and are forced into a 'shut up' situation. I did not take he meant we should shut up. Rather, he thinks we have some very solid arguments against this without religious ones that can beat them at their game.

Thanks, for your nice compliments of my comments. No, I have not read that particular book but I will look it up.

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 10:35PM

Simon,

I believe you are agreeing with a Libertarian view, and if I am wrong and you are right~ he should say so.

I read his post as gobilty-gook.
Sorry.
But I appreciate you, and thanks for your comment.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 11:35PM

Margie
Agree with you it is gobly gook.
It is not libertarian, it is hot air.

fred lucci| 8.25.11 @ 8:57PM

IF cultural conservatives are as concerned about divorce and single parent families as they are about gay marriage, then when is someone going to FINALLY explain why there isn't the same effort to write laws defining marriage as a "permanent union" between one man and one woman? Explain why there isn't a concerted effort to make divorce illegal and maybe you might begin to have a convincing argument that opposition to same sex marriage isn't driven by homophobia.

Augusta| 8.26.11 @ 8:45AM

Wow. Where have you been? Or rather, how old are you? There has been huge battles over the years, particularly the last few decades over various marriage weakening laws. Frivolous Divorce, Abortion, Family Court corruption, Alimony and Child Support abuse, Child Abuse, Welfare, have all increased as a result of pervasive leftist culture and its accompanying body of anti-family laws. These battles are fought continuously - and far longer and more rigorously than the gay marriage issue. So, your assertion is ridiculous. And your absurd suggestion that we should seek to utterly ban divorce in order to avoid hypocrisy on the gay issue, reveals your complete lack of understanding of our perspective on marriage and divorce. It's not divorce per se that is the issue, but frivolous divorce and the chaos we now see in the Family Courts across the country. But of course, you were being purposely flippant and disingenuous.

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 9:13PM

Divorce was 'illegal' for many centuries in western society. Until recently one had to sue for a divorce and prove that the marriage contract was broken, otherwise no go. It was considered a permanent union. Henry the Eighth and Liberalism changed all that!

Your proposition that we have to prove anything according to your parameters is idiotic, illogical, and downright stupid.

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 11:39PM

Simon Templar
Henry VIII was a guy who read the Bible the way he wanted to read the Bible. He wanted an annulment. Pope said no. So he started the Protestant sect in Britain.
Divorce came because the people wanted it and all the state legislators passed easy divorce laws.

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 12:56AM

Actually, that was the Anglican church that branched off from Catholicism.

They still held to the teachings of the Popes.
Basically Popeless Catholics.

THOMAS| 8.26.11 @ 8:17AM

Margie
So Anglicans are bad.

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 2:20AM

No, the Religion is.

THOMAS| 8.28.11 @ 3:44PM

Margie
What is a good Religion.

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 6:29PM

"Pure and undefiled religion before God
and the Father is this: to visit orphans and
widows in their afflictions, and to keep
oneself without blemish from the world." Jas: 1:27.

The word religion is barely used in the New Testament.

Why? Because Religion was crucified with Christ.
Since Jesus became the sacrificial Lamb that took away the sin of the World, there is no longer any reason for Religion the way it was practiced in Old Testament times.

Ever read Isaiah chapter one?
Even then God couldn't stand solemn assembly, burning of incense, et al.

What God desires is mercy, not sacrifice.

He wants a relationship with us through His Son.

Have you ever read John 3?
Jesus explained to a Religious Pharisee that he needed to be "regenerated from above" in order to see Heaven.

He explained that everyone is born once physically, yet we all need to be born from above~ of God's Spirit.

THOMAS| 8.28.11 @ 10:59PM

Long way to say there is no good religion. Just read the bible.
biblebabble.

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 11:09PM

You asked, and I answered.
God doesn't want us to be into Religion, but into Him.
Before Christ came and died for us, there was Religion. As the Bible says~ He became the sacrificial Lamb~ Jesus Himself is now the High Priest to all Christians, and HE is the ONLY Mediator now between God and Man.

Everything else is just a lie.

If your attitude is as careless toward the Bible as you act like it is, then you aren't really interested in the Truth, are you?
That's too bad.

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.

PCP Smoker| 8.25.11 @ 9:38PM

Well written. Good job. Other than perverting society, what is the point of homosexual marriage? A dirty penis?

Tony in Central PA| 8.25.11 @ 9:51PM

Communism and modern American liberalism indeed have much in common. Both have an absolute intolerance of competing institutions and desire the atomization of society where the individual stands helpless before the State. Same - sex marriage is a combined assault on religion and the family. When the State decides sex, or even the possibility of procreation by the participants, has nothing to do with marriage it will set up a religious liberty conflict likely to end with the State determining how churches may define marriage. When you make marriage everything, it becomes nothing.

POST American| 8.25.11 @ 11:21PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------

We MUST DEMAND FULL DISCLOSURE
of ALL our candidate's past associations and
funding ---esp. associations with Masonic and
occult organizations and the deeply sinister
'benny violent' foundations.

We MUST DEMAND TO KNOW what agreements
and contracts they've signed and, even more important, what oaths they've taken.

We are putting our lives in their hands.

We cannot tolerate, we annot allow another
puppet of David Rockefeller and the EUGENICS
and TREASON cabal to gold authority over
America and its people.

With Agenda 21 caling for world government
by 2012 ----this may be our LAST chance.

Nice| 8.26.11 @ 12:27AM

None are righteous, but Christians are certainly justified by faith, and it is reckoned as righteousness.
designer sunglasses
http://www.wholesalesunglassesbrands.com

Margie| 8.26.11 @ 12:57AM

Good spam, good!

Mike| 8.26.11 @ 12:30AM

That is just as stupid as the liberal utopias.
http://www.wholesunglassesbrands.com
designer sunglasses online

Augusta| 8.26.11 @ 7:59AM

The destruction of marriage and family is due to the overall broad spectrum of adult self indulgence born of leftism; We allowed leftist 'values' to slither into our homes. Specifically, Leftism is the greasy mangled head of the beast and feminism, in it's modern form, is the tentacle that strangles. Marriage is no longer oriented toward children, i.e., sacrificing all for their sake, but as a means to indulge fluffy liberal ideas of personal fulfillment. Marriage isn't supposed to be about one's own personal life journey, but a much higher cause undertaken by the two halves of humanity coming together as one. When we marry, we take vows to acknowledge our understanding of the necessary self-sacrifice. We won't always feel loving toward each other - but we're supposed to stick it out anyway; Judeo-Christian guidance is imperative to a marriage's survival, and can even be darn good advice for the open-minded atheist couple. There are no such guiding principles that serve to promote this balance for gay 'marriage', thus, gays' contention that they will fair no better or worse than straight people do in marriage is another delusion. The only reason why marriage isn't completely dead, aside from natural drive, is because the Judeo-Christian 'rules' still live and breathe, however sickly a state they may currently be in. If marriage were stronger, Left wing meddling would not be nearly as devastating.

Uriel| 8.26.11 @ 8:25AM

A point I've made before is that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. By definition, marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for life. Talking about "homosexual marriage" is like talking about "square circles". The State cannot simply arbitrarily change that--marriage came first, and with it the family, and this is the foundation of civil society. It's not the other way around. Thus only relativists can talk of "homosexual marriage"; to someone who believes in absolute, essential truth, it is literal non-sense.

The "no-fault" divorces fall under the same heading, really. Marriage is a serious commitment and something to be protected by the State, not undermined by it. By passing lenient legislation that made divorce easy, the government was effectively saying marriage is a plastic institution defined by the State, so the current debate is a logical extension of that perspective (as noted in the article).

Also, the argument to focus on actual marriage and let homosexuals do what they want with the institution is tantamount to saying "Your ship is already sinking, so why don't you stay on deck and bail out water while we go below and blow holes in the bottom."

It comes down to the fact that people who decide to live a homosexual lifestyle are unwilling to deal with the consequences of their choice, and demand to be treated as if they are not living the way they are living. In the real world, however, actions have consequences. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is America, and people are free to make that choice and not be punished by the government; choosing to do one thing always involves choosing not to do something else, though. It's a little something called "adulthood". If people are dissatisfied with the homosexual lifestyle and what it entails, they are equally free to stop living that way (and many do).

LegacyAmerica | 8.26.11 @ 11:50AM

Well stated argument. Those with traditional values must make every attempt to strengthen traditional marriage and family structure, and resist efforts on many fronts that would undermine these foundation stones of stable and enduring society.

Opal| 8.26.11 @ 1:14PM

Gay marriage comes on the back of acceptance of contraception. Once the Protestant churches accepted that seperating the reproductive ascpect of marriage was OK, the stage was set for redefining marriage any way the popular culture chooses. Go back to 1933 when Anglicans first accepted contraception within marriage, to see the beginning of the end of marriage. Personally, I don't understand how anyone who contracepts can not but be a hypocrit when it comes to gay marriage. Homosexuals are not allowed to have sterile sex but you are? God asked to be fruitful and multiply. He didn't ask to have our cakeand eat it to by being sexually active while denying his ability to grant us children. You all are reaping what you sowed. I say that as a devout, young, married with a large family Catholic

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 2:17AM

Opal,

People have been divorcing since the fall of Adam. It's because of sin, not because of whether a Married couple desires or doesn't desire to have children.

God doesn't condemn anyone for that. Religion is a very harsh taskmaster.
IT is the reason it is a haven for pedophile priests and it is the reason for the ungodly restriction upon them not to Marry.

Separate the reproduction aspect from Marriage? This is just silly. What then of people that Marry late in life? What of those who cannot bear children, or of a man who can't father a child? Should they not Marry?

How about if they decide to adopt children? Should none of these people Marry?
God is not unjust!

And what about Abraham And Sarah? She was barren. Oops, that's right~ the Catholic Religion wasn't around yet to tell them they were in violation!

Your silly argument and accusations remind me of the Libertarian who says that the blood of those who die from drug abuse is on the hands of those who want to keep drugs illegal.

You need to come to know the real Jesus. His Yoke is easy, and His burden is Light.

Nick| 8.27.11 @ 7:20PM

Margie,

"Separate the reproduction aspect from Marriage? This is just silly. What then of people that Marry late in life? What of those who cannot bear children, or of a man who can't father a child? Should they not Marry?"

I have already addressed the point about couples who are unable to have children for medical reasons, above, remember?

Why are you bringing them up to Opal? You already know the Catholic answer to these objections.

Couples who are unable to have children through no fault of their own, are not the same as couples who intentionally stop a pregnancy from happening. Who intentionally prevent a new life from being created.

This would be interfering with God's design. And, therefore, a sin.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 10:29PM

God is the only Authority, Nick. Not some man in a robe pretending to be Christ.
You're barking up the wrong tree here, and you know it.
The Bible tells us that for freedom Christ has set us free.
That is the principle Jesus died for.
Your Religion is a harsh task Master.
Jesus' Yoke is easy!

Nick| 8.28.11 @ 7:35PM

Margie,

The Holy Father doesn't pretend to be Christ.

The Pope is Christ's prime minister. He is the Vicar of Christ.

And, Servus Servorum Dei, that is, Servant of the Servants of God. This title comes from the Scriptures:

"A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.
'You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [the other Apostles].'" (Emphasis mine.)
- Luke 22:24-32

Here, Christ, at the Last Supper, is telling the Twelve that Saint Peter, Kephas, is to be the "leader" and that he is to imitate Jesus "as one who serves." This was not the first time the question of who was to be the greatest among them had come up, cf Matthew 20:20-28; Mark 9:33-37).

All the Apostles are called to serve mankind. But, Peter is singled-out by Christ to be the servant of the servants, the Apostles. Peter is to be the "shepherd" that must pass through the Door, i.e. Christ, as He explained to the Pharisees in John 10:1-7.

And like Peter, the Holy Father is the servant of all the Bishops of the Catholic Church.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 11:02PM

"The Pope is Christ's prime minister. He is the Vicar of Christ."

There is no such thing, Nick.

You are being deceived by Satan himself.

It is the doctrine of demons.

Have you read the history of this false Babylon of a Religion?

I posted the link from Martry's Mirror. It exposes God's Truth for all to see how this apostate Religion with its murderous Papacy ever began.

I suggest you read it, and I'll pray that God opens your eyes to reality.
The simple truth is that you cannot serve two masters.
It's either Jesus, His Words, His Gospel~ or an apostate false Religion.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Nick| 8.29.11 @ 7:14PM

Margie,

I do not serve two masters.
I serve God. By belonging to His Church.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.28.11 @ 11:58PM

"Watch that there will not be one abducting
you through philosophy and empty deceit,
according to the tradition of men, according
to the elements of the world, and
not according to Christ.
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily;
and having been filled, you are in Him,
who is the Head of all rule and authority.." Col. 2:8-10.

Jesus is Lord.

Margie| 8.29.11 @ 12:07AM

The false doctrine concerning Peter and "Pope-ism" explained:

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

RCV| 8.29.11 @ 5:28PM

Nick is not "being deceived by Satan." He is a good and loving Christian who lives what Christ told us that all of the law and prophets can be boiled down to: Love and worship God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.

The rest is gravy. Those who focus on the minutia of biblical shalls and shall nots and miss these two essentials are exactly like the Pharisees our Lord condemned.

And while we're at it, for someone who purports to revere St. Paul, and treats his words as if they were God's, it's so curious that you attack organized Churches. Paul organized Churches, with a capital "C". He recognized that Christian worship was to be corporate; he busily appointed Deacons and Bishops, and set about establishing rules for their selection (Rom 16:1; 16:5; 1 Tim. 3-13; 1 Tim 5:17-22; Hebrews 13:17).

He also left us with this very sage advice: "But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissension, and quarrels about the law; for they are unprofitable and worthless. After a first and second admonition, have nothing to do with anyone who causes divisions, since you know that such a person is perverted and sinful, being self-condemned." Titus 3:9-11.

Anyone who accepts Christ as the Saviour is to me a fellow Christian. And all people who love God and wish to find Him, no matter what their religion, are my brothers and sisters. The rest is detail. And quarrels about the details of the law are, as Paul says, divisive, unprofitable and worthless.

Nick| 8.29.11 @ 7:12PM

Thanks for the kind words, RCV.

As a Catholic, though, I do believe you need the Church to know God as fully as possible.
God Bless!

RCV| 8.29.11 @ 7:35PM

I also believe you need the Church for a lot of reasons, which is why I am an Anglo-Catholic in a Church that believes in apostolic succession. I have quibbles about things like papal infallibility, priestly celibacy and its wisdom, etc., but still look to the Holy Father as the spiritual head of Christianity on earth, fallible as he may be.

God bless, Nick.

Margie| 8.30.11 @ 12:48PM

You need Jesus to know God. That's a lie.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

Margie| 8.29.11 @ 11:43PM

This from a flaming anti-Christian Leftist who calls God a liar and the Apostle Paul isn't good enough for you.

One who says homosexuality isn't sin in God's eyes.

Yeah, preach it, RCV!

Also~ it is the Catholic Papists who are the ULTIMATE apostates~ they tortured and killed my brethren for centuries~ and all because of the false doctrines that they thought up and added to God's Words.

You and Nick have sadly thrown in your lot with them.
The Bible is good enough for me~ and Jesus says that if you love Him~ you MUST obey His Words.. HIS Words.

Margie| 8.30.11 @ 12:51PM

Furthermore, RCV~ being "nice" doesn't cut it.
It isn't "nice" to pervert the Word of God, and it isn't nice to call God a liar, and His Martyrs heretics.

So, deceitfulness isn't of God. And we all know just who it IS of, don't we?

John Lofton | 8.26.11 @ 2:15PM

I would respectfully suggest that modern “conservatism” be forgotten, please. It has, operationally, de facto, been Godless and thus irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago: 

 ”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”  

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

 John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
Facebook, My Wall
 JLof@aol.com

Margie| 8.27.11 @ 1:57AM

Secular conservatism?
LOL.
Too deep for me, sorry.
The conservatism I know has been around for ever.
See: Sarah Palin. She's the present day finest.

Nick| 8.29.11 @ 5:55PM

Margie,

"When a couple tries to prevent a pregnancy naturally, it is NOT sin."

Condoms are not natural. The only natural way to prevent a pregnancy is to abstain from the marital act.

Are you admitting that God's command to be fruitful and multiply was meant for all married couples?

Margie| 8.29.11 @ 11:37PM

"Condoms are not natural. The only natural way to prevent a pregnancy is to abstain from the marital act."

Like I said, Religion is a harsh Task Master.
and thankfully, it isn't my Master.

Jesus Christ is.

And I didn't mention condoms, did I? But even if it were the case, it isn't wrong.

Only your false Religion teaches men so.

Nick| 8.30.11 @ 12:54AM

"Margie| 8.25.11 @ 8:16PM

"By the way, your Religion also teaches that 'birth control' means using a condom, and that it's wrong. (And I am talking about inside a Marriage here)."

Also, you didn't answer my question, did you?

Margie| 8.30.11 @ 12:46PM

How utterly disingenuous of you, Nick. You know that in my post concerning this matter, I wasn't referring to the use condoms~ and now because I said I didn't mention condoms you grab a quote, but in the post where I was talking about ways in which a couple can prevent a pregnancy~ I did not mention the use of condoms.
More deceit.
That's right ~ Your Religion says that, Nick.
The Religion you follow is NOT the Church of God.
According to Christ~ and He IS Lord! His church are those individuals the World over who believe in Him, and are faithful to His Words.

You quote an Old Testament Scripture to try and justify your Perverted Religion's teaching~ that within a Marriage, it is wrong for a couple to try and prevent a pregnancy from happening during sex.

Your perverted Religion puts this despicable burden upon Married couples~ one of the MANY heavy burdens, so that they are under the rule of the Devil himself.

Your perverted and ungodly Religion therefore teaches that Marriage and sex are for the sole purpose of reproduction.

You fail to quote anything out of the New Testament, where nowhere does Jesus give any such "ruling" what so ever, and in fact the Apostle Paul speaks of couples that are burning with passion~ that it is better for them to Marry than to burn. (1 Cor. 7:36).

And in fact, you conveniently omit the fact that Paul advises everyone after they have become born again, to stay as they are, that if they are single~ to remain so.

It is because of your vain justifying of your Religion harsh treatment of Married couples, and them trying to rule over them and play God.

And your false Religion also forbids your priests to Marry, yet the Bible teaches us that the forbidding of Marriage is a doctrine of demons, and this is exactly why I as a Christian have the authority to claim that your Religion is not of God. And if it isn't of God~ then we know just who it IS of, don't we?

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim. 4:1-5.

So, Nick~ I have a question for you:

Do you have the fear of God in you?
Or the fear of the Pope?

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who practice it. His praise endures for ever!" Ps. 111:10.

"The fear of man lays a snare, but he who trusts in the LORD is safe." Prov. 29:25.

For those who don't know~ a snare is a trap.
And the false doctrines taught to you by the apostate Religion~ Catholicism have trapped you, indeed.

Nick| 8.31.11 @ 3:06AM

Margie,

It is not my fault that you can't remember what you wrote. That doesn't make me deceitful, it makes you forgetful.

"You fail to quote anything out of the New Testament [...]."

So, now the Old Testament doesn't count?

"[...] where nowhere does Jesus give any such "ruling" what so ever [...]."

Christ doesn't give any such "ruling" on baptizing infants, either. So, by your own logic, infant baptism must be okay, correct?

Saint Paul's advice, in 1 Corinthians 7, is why the Church eventually required celibacy for priests and bishops, because a married man has too much to deal with when he has a wife and children.

The Holy Spirit was most certainly referring to the Gnostics, in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. They taught that material things were bad and only spiritual things were good. Therefore, they forbade marriage and sexual activity and pleasurable food. Look it up.

If celibacy is a "doctrine of demons" why did Paul recommend it for his disciples?

To answer your question, I fear offending Almighty God. I try (and fail far too often) not to offend Him, by following the dictates of His Church. Because I can't resist temptation on my own, I need God's help. God provides this help through the Sacraments of His Church.

You still haven't answered my question. Do you now admit that God's command to be fruitful and multiply was directed at all married couples?

Using contraceptives is a sin. They interfere with God's plans. And, they can be abortifacients, i.e., cause abortions. And, when they fail, the resultant pregnancy usually leads to the killing of an unborn baby.

There is NO justification for using birth control. Contraceptives are for the selfish. They are a tool of Satan.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 2:46PM

I didn't forget anything, Nick.

When I said I didn't mention the use of condoms, I meant it in the context of the actually using them.

You are so very twisted.

You sir, are a tool of Satan, and I will from this point treat you as such.

Nick| 9.1.11 @ 6:12PM

Margie,

And I will continue to love you, as a sister in Christ, because this is what God commands.
God Bless!

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|44 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|41 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|55 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|95 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|27 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|41 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|17 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|8 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Another Perspective

Either-Or Conservatism

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (391) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

stephanie| 8.25.11 @ 6:20AM

Wayne | 8.25.11 @ 11:30AM

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 12:49PM

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 12:57PM

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:38PM

Breaking News| 8.25.11 @ 5:33PM

jolizoom| 8.25.11 @ 4:14PM

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 5:19PM

Brian Mc| 8.25.11 @ 6:40AM

surfer dude| 8.25.11 @ 9:13AM

9thID| 8.25.11 @ 10:45AM

surfer dude| 8.25.11 @ 11:14AM

Jive Bomber| 8.25.11 @ 11:29AM

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 11:53AM

JimH| 8.25.11 @ 3:31PM

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 12:39PM

fundamentalist| 8.25.11 @ 12:45PM

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:52PM

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 2:48PM

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:42PM

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:44PM

Surfer Dude| 8.25.11 @ 5:47PM

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:06PM

voted against carter| 8.25.11 @ 5:22PM

^Sojourner Truth^| 8.25.11 @ 11:29AM

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 12:59PM

Butch | 8.25.11 @ 3:41PM

MikeBee| 8.25.11 @ 12:00PM

cowgirl| 8.25.11 @ 12:07PM

Sonny's Mom| 8.25.11 @ 1:18PM

TrueBlue| 8.25.11 @ 2:08PM

jolizoom| 8.25.11 @ 4:34PM

TrueBlue| 8.25.11 @ 4:57PM

darcy| 8.26.11 @ 3:18AM

Negro X| 8.26.11 @ 2:14AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.25.11 @ 6:49AM

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 12:28PM

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 1:02PM

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 1:27PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.25.11 @ 1:39PM

NotALibertarian| 8.25.11 @ 2:14PM

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:49PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.26.11 @ 9:48AM

LiveFreeOrDie| 8.25.11 @ 12:49PM

Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 1:03PM

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 6:03PM

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 7:01PM

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 11:07PM

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 7:46PM

Pooch| 8.25.11 @ 10:22PM

James Baker| 8.26.11 @ 12:12AM

POST American| 8.25.11 @ 7:28AM

Rev. Jim Whittle| 8.25.11 @ 12:07PM

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 3:55PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.25.11 @ 8:10AM

Pecos Pete| 8.25.11 @ 8:41AM

Julian| 8.25.11 @ 8:44AM

90/90| 8.25.11 @ 8:57AM

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 9:28AM

Little Lulu from Honolulu| 8.25.11 @ 9:41AM

Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 10:22AM

Teaghan| 8.25.11 @ 10:51AM

Hello Kitty| 8.25.11 @ 11:17AM

Slate Devotee| 8.25.11 @ 4:13PM

In Vir Beach waiting for Irene| 8.25.11 @ 4:20PM

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 4:34PM

A Mormon Here| 8.25.11 @ 5:13PM

(00)| 8.25.11 @ 5:16PM

Margie| 8.25.11 @ 5:50PM

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 6:33PM

Nick| 8.26.11 @ 1:53AM

The Big E| 8.25.11 @ 4:51PM

THOMAS| 8.25.11 @ 6:07PM

Nick| 8.25.11 @ 6:40PM

Occam's Tool| 8.25.11 @ 6:45PM

K Kolt45| 8.25.11 @ 9:32AM