Bush is simply trying to communicate the opinion of a majority of his constituents. I do not see how you can compare this with derogatory remarks about blacks, jews, or japenese. There is nothing perverse about being one of those races/religions.
In addition, he did not condemn homosexuality, in fact he did proclaim that we are all sinners. What he said was that he would pursue legislation that opposes same sex marriages. Just like anything else marriage has parameters, some are required and some are not. Husband and wife are required parameters. Here is an example of one problem: If a house is owned by one spouse (usually the husband) then the wife will have a right of occupation. If they are not married then she will not have that right.
How will laws like this be interpreted? I could list many other examples of like this. Really it is all about the tax implications, so you should not take it so personally.

I'll respond to your comments, but before I do that I want to make it clear that this is a moral issue, not a rational one. Plenty of lefties will calmly respond to your points of tax implications and so on, as will I, but I believe that there is also a need to make it clear that this debate is personal, and offensive, and a social issue above all else. The conservatives have so thoroughly discussed this part of the debate in their own terms, that whenever someone discusses gay rights and morality in the same breath, people automatically assume they're going to say homosexuality is immoral. And it is that assumption that I was attempting to attack directly, by making a vehement, personal, moral polemic against people who would deny gays equal treatment under the law.

However, I'll respond to your points as well. First, you imply that persecuting gays is not analogous to persecuting other groups because there's something perverse about homosexuality. This is the equivalent of arguing that black people are too primitive to be civilized, or that women are too delicate to handle politics -- it's just an excuse based on absolutely no data. However, if you really believe that homosexuality is immoral, even though you have no evidence for that position, then it will probably be impossible for me to convince you otherwise. So let's move on.

Second, you claim that the man-woman part of marriage is a required aspect. Although you gave no justification for this assertion, the only justification I can imagine is one based in tradition. But tradition is not a strong enough reason for people to shun driving in cars, or using the internet, or allowing women to vote, or allowing blacks to sit at the front of the bus. If you personally feel that social tradition is more important than treating people fairly, then I can empathize, but again there is very little possibility for discussion between us -- I disagree with you, vehemently.

Third, you point out there there is a panoply of other laws that would need to be modified if we were to allow marriage between same-sex partners. The example you give is one of a right of occupation. If I take your scenario and simply change the genders, then I don't see a problem -- let the partner have right of occupation. So what? Perhaps the point you wanted to emphasize was that with a heterosexual couple, they have right of occupation if and only if they're married? Well it would be the same with a same-sex couple were marriage to be legal between them -- they would have right of occupation if and only if they were married. Again, so what?

As far as taking it personally, I'm currently considering buying a house with my same-sex partner. So the tax implications are personal. I greatly resent the fact that some of the tax alternatives available to married people are not an option for us.

You have some valid points that I didnt think of before, and I would like to thank you for taking the time to relay your perspective. But really is all of this Bush's fault?

Kim,

None of this is meant to offend. I am simply curious as to your opinions, which seem to be very well thought out.

Do you think the government should allow polygamous marriages? The same arguments that you use to justify same-sex marriage could be used by polygamists as well.

Perhaps government recognition of marriage should be done away with entirely. Allow religions to perform marriages as they see fit and the government can get out of the way. Then each special interest group could find an organization that met the definition of marriage that appeals to them.

Until recently same sex partners in my company were better off in some ways than those who are married. They got all the benefits from the company of being married yet didn't have to pay the marriage penalty tax. That struck me as unfair. I can't see the logic in the government discouraging long-term committed relationships, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple.

Jim, it's not Bush's fault. That's not the point. The point is that Bush is currently in a position of leadership over the rest of the country, and as such it is reasonable to demand more of him than your average person. I believe his position on this issue is ugly and immoral, and I criticized him on that basis. I did not imply that the current legal status of gay marriage is his responsibility.

Or were you referring to something else by "all this"?

John, it's a good question whether polygamists should be allowed to marry. I think it would probably be simpler to either get rid of the legal aspects of marriage entirely, or replace it with a new legal concept that has a different name. I don't think polygamist marriage would fly if it were still called "marriage".

To bring this back to the current discussion, I think the same solution would be appropriate for gays. I would have no problem if the legal concept of "marriage" was renamed to "civil union". As long as homosexual and heterosexual couples are treated the same in the eyes of the law, I don't care what it is called. However I would object if heterosexual couples were legally "married" while homosexual couples were legally "unioned". Making a distinction in the legal terminology would not be acceptable.

With regard to the homosexual couples at your company getting benefits without having to suffer the marriage tax, I think you need to be clearer about what you think is unfair. It sounds like you would agree that the company was being fair by treating the couples the same way, but that the federal government was being unfair by not taxing them similarly. We should be allies -- you're angry at the same legal discrimination that I'm angry at.

Kim,

You understood me correctly. I felt that the company was doing its best to be fair but that the government wasn't fair.

Would a distinction in terminology without a legal difference offend you? That seems to be a course of action that is likely to occur. It allows "traditional" marriage to be distinctive in name only without granting any special rights.

Thanks for your response.

A distinction in name only is still offensive -- it's like having to wear a yellow star on your chest in Nazi Germany. I would rather let "marriage" be a religious (and social) matter, but require the new term when referring to legal status.

>You understood me correctly. I felt that the company was doing its best to be fair but that the government wasn't fair.

John,

There are many benefits that you receive from government due to being married, in addition to the tax "penalty". These benefits include the inheritance rights (including having only 50% of the estate tax that a non-married couple face, pension inheritance), the ability to get life insurance with your partner as the benefactor, the ability to visit and pick up your children at school (many states do not allow second parent adoption by the non-birth parent of a gay couple, despite the fact that straight people can), and right of hospital visitation and decision making in medical matters. Moreover employers are not required by law to give the same benefits to same-sex partners as to married couples. Imagine how you would feel if your wife was in critical condition and you could not visit much less implement decisions you have made together regarding medical emergencies. Imagine how you would feel if other people were allowed to *choose* to have these rights, even if at some tax cost, while you were not given even the choice because of some characteristic of your partner.

All of these benefits outweigh any "tax penalty", in my opinion.

But that's not the point. You have the right to *choose* whether you take on the "penalty", and you chose to do so. There is no unfairness to you in giving you this right to choose. We do not have this right. We are not allowed to choose. We have less rights under the law than you do. This is the face of discrimination.

There is already federal law stating that states do not have to recognize civil unions and marriages of same-sex couples issued by other states (even though they recognize those marriages of opposite sex couples). Bush's comments are aimed at fomenting opinion for a constitutional ammendment to this effect. The only reason for such a constitutional ammendment would be if such legislation is not currently consitutional. Indeed, his comments came after a Texas supreme court ruling that private acts between same sex partners cannot be held illegal if they are legal between opposite sex partners, leading to fear that anti-marriage federal laws might be similarly overturned as unconsitutional.

Jim,

I hope you read my comment above about how marriage is about much more than "tax implications".

Further, if you want to discuss how homosexuality is "perverse" or how gay people are sinners, please provide some evidence. I'm happy to discuss religious text including original hebrew, aramaic, and greek translations.

Real live preacher agrees: read it

Standing up against gay marriages is completly different than being racist. You want to talk about being impeached if he discriminated against "black, Jewish, or Japanese people", where the hell do you get off. There are moral issues surrounding gays. I, for one, would not allow my childeren to grow up in a gay environment, that kind of exposure should be considered abuse. A child should be raised in a suitable enviroment with mother and father and teachings from the BIBLE. You will not find, in the bible, where GOD put some one down for their race, sex, social, or financial status. But, you will find where GOD called gays "an abomination!"

In the King James Version;

Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13

"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."

Why do you think GOD destroyed Sodom and Gomarrha, it was because of evildoers and thier wickedness. I don't see how anyone can sit back and say "God made them that way" or "God allows it", because I have clearly proven that GOD dosen't like it, nor would he make them that way.
Quit trying to blame your abomination and homosexuality on GOD and put the blame where it belongs . . . . ON YOUR SELVES

I'm not sure whether to delete your comment entirely or not, because I think there's a 90% chance you're just trolling. But here goes anyway...

Your comments obviously assume that 1) god exists, and 2) the bible is the word of god. Whether or not this is true, the US is founded on religious separation, and therefore it is unacceptable for the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of the bible. You will simply have to come up with some other basis for your argument.

As for your quotes from Leviticus, I really doubt you actually follow biblical law, except where you find it convenient. For example, Exodus 21:17 would have you kill any child that "curseth his father or his mother".

I'll end by leaving you with a bit of irony. Deuteronomy 17:12 says you should be put to death if you ignore the decision of a judge. Note that judges in Massachusetts recently decided that gays should be allowed to marry. I suppose George W. Bush had better stay out of Massachusetts, to save his own life.

There is nothing in Leviticus that calls woman-on-woman love an abomination, so I think you're safe there, Kim. Also, it's pretty amusing to think that God plays favorites and changes the rules from time to time.

Leviticus 19:29: Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

Genesis 9:6-8: And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

And then there's the whole bit about Lot sleeping with his daughters (or was it the daughters sleeping with their father?). In any case, God seemed to let Lot slide by on questionable grounds here.

Besides, Leviticus 19:19 is my favorite bit: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Beware the poly-cotton blend you get at Wal★Mart …

Kim, our country was based on God, or why else would our money, as well as other things, say "in God we trust". That's why so many people are fighting to keep God out of schools, and public areas is so they won't have to be faced with thier "abominations" every day. But no matter how hard some people try to forget GOD exists he will never try to forget we exists.

Yeah in Gen. 9 it does say that he would give his two daughters who knew no man, but if you'll read a few Verses before and after that one you will see that some men had seen angles come into lots house. They came to entice, what they thought to be "men", and do as they would with them. That is why Lot said what he did because he these were not men as they thought, and they were in his home. He did what he thought to be right by the angles and his house hold, but the solution he sugested wasn't exactly right either.

> why else would our money, as well as other things, say "in God we trust".

FYI - In God We Trust is not a long-standing tradition in the United States. You may want to take some time to review the history of this motto before you use it as evidence that our country is based on God -- you will find that the phrase did not appear on US currency until the twentieth century. And it was not made an official motto of the US until the mid-50s.

Moreover, the United States as an institution rests quite heavily on the Constitution, no? A quick rereading of the original Constitution reveals no references to divine powers.

Lastly, is it possible for religious views to change regardless of what the Bible states? If you had been born in an earlier century and were present for the discussions of whether the New World's heathens had souls or not, what would you have said? At that time, the Church and the many states of Europe declared things immoral that have since been rethought and in some cases contradicted entirely. Where do you stand on the idea of reinterpretation or the discounting of certain religious teachings?

Well, maybe it wasn't "based" on God, but the fact still remains that the government agrees on the existance of GOD and should be a factor in 'some' decisions made by goverment officials. Expecially those that affect our future and our childeren's future.

Yeah, the bible changes somewhat from the new testament to the old testament, but I don't think that that gives us a right to dissmiss the whole bible. The reason the bible changed some was because Jesus was crucified on the cross. Things that were done in the New Testament were no longer needed in the Old Testament.
(For example: The way people repented of their sins changed.)

For instance in Genesis God created the heavens and the earth. He created a man and called him Adam, he took a rib from Adam and created Eve. God told them to be fruitful and multiply. . . how do you think they done it? There was Adam and Eve they had Cain and Able--there had to be some kind of incest there to create a world of people from 2 individuals. The bible also says that then men got ready to marry they went back to where their family was to pick a wife. Men in the bible had more that one wife and hundreds of concubines. All these things are are not allowed today because the times have changed, but just because things are different today than they were then don't mean that our "religious views" have to change.

I belive that this is dicrimination, not ageindt a race (because the gay comunity is not a race by it self) but ageinst a life style. I do not belive that Bush has given this much thought. Well partly because he is a dumb ass fucking red neck. If a law is passed to say no more gay marages or conduct of any kind some one definately had something crawl up their ass. Because it does not just stop at effecting the gay comunity. I mean the adupted children of already married gay coupls don't have the same rights of the headrosexual's kids. And lets say that you'er gay and you partner is siriously sick. Well you woudm't be alowed in to see them because your not family or a spouse. Nice. Well thats just a fucking ray of sunshine to think about, isn't it? Well for all of you that had instant bitch this morning and think that marrige is so sacrade that you have to "protect" it, think again. Half of the marrages in the U.S end up in court. In some life styles if you are raped and you get pregnat you have to mary the one who raped you, or the woman becomes property of the man, or you are set up eith a gay by your father. Whoopy to that. It not bad if you don't agree with the gay life style just as long as you aren't a bitch about it. It's like saying I think we should ban sll the ugly people from getting married or have children because then they would just produce more ugly people! And we don't want that. That would be very bad.
sO LETS JUST FUCK THE IDEA OF DISCRIMINATION! Because one day we will have to except it all and the fuckers out there will one day have to explain why they were such assholes.

Why are people being such bastards about this whole affair? For God's sake, straight people think that homosexuality is evil and from Hell, but if that is true, and that marrige is sacred, then why does everyone get a divorce? People are such bastards! Gay people are the best! They can make your life better, and they are the nicest people ever! And the gay men have a gift to tell what clothes are hot, and what's not.
Most people who say that gay people are evil, are either Republican, or they are gay themselves. And Bush is such a Dumb Ass anyway, and he has never done anything right, so why are people siding with him? Gay people should get alot more respect. Anyone who disagrees can E-mail me and bitch about it and how they think tht I am wrong. But I will get the last laugh when we will have a gay Democrat president. So kiss my ass with love in your heart and a smile on your face.

Kim, et al,
I'm not entirely sure why people are saying what they are about the absence of God from our founding fathers' intentions for this country. If you look at the first sentence of the Declaration of Indepencence, you'll see that God is clearly mentioned. See passage below. I believe this document was written well before the Constitution, and hope this point at least settles the matter of God's influence on the roots of our government.
--MJ

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The founding fathers had some extremely progressive ideas, for their time. But, they founded this country over 200 years ago, and our society has evolved tremendously since then. That is why we have a process by which the basis of our government (the constitution) can be ammended (ammendments). The founding fathers thought slavery was okay. They thought firearms must be legal. They thought free speech must be protected. We, as a society, need to look at each of these issues individually and form our OWN conclusions. We are not any less morally capable than the they were.

Wow, the States is fucked up. Religious specific arguments should never be used in any debate that wishes to maintain any sense of coherance and legitimacy. Kim, come to Canada. You're welcome here. While not all people have come around, we try to keep your average zealot south of our borders.

a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

In related news: The city of san francisco just started issuing marriage licenses yesterday to gay couples. The "Campaign For California Families" is trying to get an injunction to make them stop.

I'm disabling comments on this article, because about 80% of the comments in the last two weeks have been flames (which I have been deleting as they appear). If you have a comment that you would really like to see added to this list, email it to me and I will post it on your behalf.

I've re-enabled comments for now. If people manage to behave themselves, then I'll keep it open.

Being gay is a choice, but you will not think out side the box,because you have been socialized into it. You think the color blue is blue because you have been told that, you were not born to know that. After you were born you grew into it by everday events. I think gay people are human, just hate there sin. It will never work, the will of the people will not allow it. Its wrong, Jesus said it is an abomination to his father, and they will go to hell. They can go to heaven they just have to repent and go away from homosexuslity. Thousands
of gay men and women have. You have been brain washed into it , the liberals, the billionairs like George Solros pay big money to get the Democratic party to vote there way against the will of the Majority. Gays act has if they deserve special treatment, would you let child rapist, serial killers out of prison? Do you want to let prostitutes lose, to do as they please? I think not, its really the Supreme Courts fault, but that will change. The people of America will not allow it. You think I am a bigot, but the funny think is I use to choose to be gay. I found Jesus. I also Know you are probably daming god, and never read the bible. So, how can you comdemn something you have never tried. I also would like to say that a supreme court ruling, back in the 60s is what screwed our country up. Schools should teach the bible, but you say there is seperation of church and state. I will give you 1000 dollars if you find that in the constitution. Thomas Jeffersons letter does not count. I am talking about the founding documents of this Land. It will be clear if you ever read them. You ever heard of sociology,,,,? Thats what the liberals are tring to do brain wash everyone,,,,,, but you say that cant happen......Hitler did it and The nations in the Middle East do it. The mass media is the blame. Gay people have a right to get married. To the opposite sex like everyone else.Gay people should be called heterophobics. I have been called a homophobic, and I use to be gay. So there is one for you. The gay thing will die. Evolution does not support being gay, if thats what you believe, and that will die too.

Straight plan for the gay man

Just wanted to say FUCK YOU BUSH! too...

Just a note about the statement that "evolution does not support being gay". You should look into the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity some time. It throughly documents GLBT behavior in scores of species, from dolphins to hummingbirds to hermit crabs. You might also be interested in the "gay uncle" theory of why homosexuality could be evolutionarily beneficial, described in the book The Selfish Gene.

Can anybody change the picture at the top of his site to contain "The Mad House" instead of "The White House". "The Mad House" is more appropriate.

same-sex marriage is one of the most outraging things i have ever heard of. Its not bad enough that gays are allowed to be running free but now they want to get married, come on now that is disturbing. It is a wonder to me how a person could even be gay why would you do that? - the parts dont exactly fit right. can a man and a man have a child together, a woman and a woman? - no because they are not designed that way. I am one of over five hundred million who belive that gays are mentally handicapped, and should be treated accordingly. "Do not fight your evolution for you will lose the battle to yourself"

PLEASE SEE THE BOOK A DIVINE REVALATION OF THE
SPIRIT REALM BY MARY BAXTER

"Most people who say that gay people are evil, are either Republican, or they are gay themselves". - Posted by: Jude at February 6, 2004 09:46 PM

Based on what? So there are no Dems. that feel this way too? Is this possible. Does this mean that we Dems. are all brainwashed into believing anything that is contrary to Reps.? Pity, I thought we were "One Nation...".

I do know of Reps. that are FOR the gay community, so lets us stop putting labels one political parties....

Well there is an advantage to been gay and allowing gay unions....

It helps with population control. Once all the gay men are married and all the gay women are married, there will be a decrease in the population growth. If the US then forces other countries to follow the same idealogy, then we can actually start to decrease the worlds population size. It may be a hard sell in muslim countries but it could work.

Well, then again, we may have to opt for cloning in time to come....Welcome to America!

I just couldn’t let all of these angry, “my way or the highway” diatribe go unanswered, just in case someone could have mistakenly thought that there was any substance to these panicked gropes to rationalize the synthetic, transparent, fantasies and bastardizing modus ponens logic of the gay marriage (an oxymoron?) liberals. In everyone’s rush to show everyone else how ‘enlightened’ and ‘tolerant’ they are they failed to actually think through the foundation upon which the whole gay this or that campaign is built upon ….those premises are not sound and the whole argument fails before it starts

Like most of the mad grab for special rights of the extreme left the campaign for gay marriage was just about as subtle as most of their campaigns namely they introduce new ideas by clubbing us over the head with them like we were baby harp seals and then threatening us and telling us that people will think we are bigots and hate mongers if we don't fall into line with their ideas. It is sad indeed that so many “sheepish” but otherwise good people become such easy prey for the militant “embrace my bad habits or you’re a bigot” left.

I don't know about the rest of you but at least in my state the last time I checked there was an overwhelming majority of Oregonians who as recently as a year ago soundly rejected the Gay Marriage Agenda. All you liberal left wingers need to know that the families who expressed concern about gay marriage (and also the Gay agenda generally) lay blame not only to it’s content, but also the heavy handed way that it was presented. These people (the no on gay marriage majority) are your friends and neighbors…they are people who represent the mainstream of our neighborhoods and schools and are not the ultra conservative right wing religious zealots you are hoping for. They are just normal people who want to raise their children the way that they choose to raise them. Namely, having absolutes in their lives like knowing the difference between right and wrong!

You promote the notion not of tolerance but acceptance; wouldn’t it be a lot easier for the minority to accept the ways of the majority?? I know it’s easier for a dog to wag his tail than for the tail to wag the dog?

What makes the message of all of these statements lack merit is that they are predicated upon false assumptions from the beginning. One of those critically flawed assumptions is that somehow homosexuals and the union thereof is on equal footing with the union of a man and a woman. In order to have recourse to this definition is, however, to rely on the social-constructivist relativism that drives the sexual revolution, which is an absurd basis for the assertion that “homosexuality” is an innate condition. It is not ...it is a behavior that can be controlled, just like a lot of other behaviors that society frowns upon. It may not be as easy as simply doing everything that feels good. But nevertheless, compulsive behavior arising from peculiar inclinations is not an adequate basis for establishing social institutions, much less for threatening those upon which society has long depended.
While men and women who are possessed by an urge to commit sodomy with others of the same sex should always be treated with justice and charity, they should not be allowed to determine the norms of moral discourse.“Homosexuality” is now used to suggest that numerous urges and actions that deviate from these norms hold equivalent status as an element of human nature, but the peculiar use of a natural organ or faculty does not change its nature. A man can walk around on his hands, but that does not turn hands into feet; and society ought not to be obliged to redesign sidewalks and staircases to accommodate compulsive “handwalkers” (manambulants?), even if they are born with the inclination.
As you yourself have noted, no really existing class of persons of a specific, distinct nature corresponds to the word “homosexual” in the way that men and women are distinct, complementary kinds of human being. A claim for specific “homosexual rights” is, therefore, frivolous, and the word is merely an ideological construct aimed at exciting the emotions and numbing the brains of your audience while undermining the sexual norms inscribed in human nature. Whats next ...meth addicts rights, polygamists rights?, pedophiles rights where do you stop it? These are all behaviors that people are apparently born with or somewhere in the process become inclined to want to do.... just like homosexuality. Only society simply won't tolerate some of these habits, forcing those people with that same innate predilection for their particular habits or thoughts to control them or face the consequences. And so they control them just like those people whose predilection revolves around sodomizing each other should. Where does it stop? The majority has stopped it here!
Stripped of all of our clothes anyone can tell the difference between a man and a woman. A man and a woman fit together for the procreation of life and at hopefully alot of other times for extreme pleasure. They are at all times each unique individuals easily identifiable and biologically equipped to suit each other's needs and the needs of the extension of the species. Add a homosexual or lesbian to the mix and you can't tell who is and who isn't a homosexual...so to give credence to the homosexuals and lesbians somehow being equal to the relationship of the man and the woman is ridiculous and if you can't get past that fatal flaw with the whole gay rights movement (and I can't ... no clear thinking person can...that’s why the campaign plays towards peoples emotions not their brains!) then anything else that is said is meaningless. You talk about ‘gay rights’ as though there are currently rights they are being cheated out of ...rights that the rest of us have that they don't. What rights are these? They can still marry,... they just can't marry each other, they can't marry their dog, they can't marry six chickens, they can't marry their bicycle, or their hamster. But then neither can anyone else. It's not equal rights that they are after... they have those. What they are after is acceptance, not tolerance. I can tolerate a lot of things but that doesn't mean I have to accept them. The majority has spoken, the premises upon which you build your arguments are fatally flawed, and the rights you seek you already have. Please take your behaviors back into your bedroom where they belong and leave the rest of us, and especially our children and our schools out of it. The line has been drawn.

We just need Bush and Cheney out of the white house and put in prison,they are just as bad as saddam was and should have stood with saddam

Bush and Cheney have trampled the U.S. Constitution and whored out the office of the President for the corporate welfare of the G7 and the aristocrats.
Our once proud motto of "Live Free Or Die" should now read " We Sold our souls to an asshole"!

Just the fact that this is an issue scares me. We all know that most children with a gay parent or parents grow up to be straight. Almost all gay people come from straight parents on the other hand. If God didn't want the existence of gay people, then there wouldn't be any. Who in their right mind would choose to be gay? If a man likes women, he just doesn't decide to say "Hey gay people are an abomination and they go straight to hell as well as dealing with discriminating and often times violent acts of hatred before they die... Yep that's the life I want to live!!". Anyone who believes in a hateful God definately has their genes way behind in the evolutionary scale of knowledge! My sister is gay. I can't ever recall a time when she was a normal girl who just decided to change for the plight of abomination. She was a tom boy as a child and never expressed a liking for boys when she was young and never tried to be girly! If anyone ever told me that my sister, who has always been a moral and just ,not to mention religious person, is going to hell because of the way she loved people, I would simply see a lump of biological waste with the intellect of a dog or goat and feel sorry for them while having to acceptthat they are evidence of the fact that God too makes mistakes. The only thing I wonder is why gays want to marry? Marriage sucks. It's set up for failure and ends up hurting more people than it ever should. Fuck Marriage! That's my opinion. But if they're crazy enough to get married then, why not? The Bible was written by people who weren't blessed with the scientific knowledge God has given us to move forward in understanding. So, for all of you who read the bible but forget that humans put the words on the pages, let me give you Jesus' entire message in short..."Don't judge eachother, that's my dad's job, If someone hurts you, love them back, don't judge 'em- that's my Dad's job." So if anyone want's somebody to pay a price for a sin that you are supposed to pay for in the afterlife because you are worth cockroach shit enough to think that's what God wants...Beware!! you are playing God. You are doing his job without permission and when God asks you why you were trying to steal his identity while you were alive, then, I suggest you better start thinking of a damn good reason now so he can at least give you a d- for effort,also Jesus is going to wonder why you couldn't follow his simple instructions, and I'll make sure that me and my sister would cool you off as you burn in hell by spitting a lugie right in your ignorant face.