Comments on: Huckabee takes heat for gay marriage comments

By: candice

candice — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:08:06 +0000

Mike Huckabee is a strong leader, he won't be bullied by views contrary to the truth. May He satnd strong and may God bless him for it.

By: shasta

shasta — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:34:42 +0000

I believe that his comments were distasteful and hurtful to many gay americans. We in this day and age have over come discrimination against many different races and religions. I feel that not allowing someone to marry based on personal beliefs in discrimination and can not be tolerated. If you agree or disagree who are you to say someone can not marry the one they love. If it is merely based on religion then why is polgamy not allowed. In the bible it takes about Abraham and his two wives. If it talks about two spouses and is no longer accetable then why is same sex marriage so outrageous. Everyone knows someone who is gay. How would you feel if your son daughter mother sister wasn't allowed to marry someone they loved just because it isn't the norm. If we just allowed what majority ruled than America would be a lot different and wouldn't be a free country. I stronger believe that they are human and should have the same right to marriage as anyone else. They work and support this country just like anyone else. They are doctors, lawyers, politicians, and many other workers in our community. I just don't see what their marriage and love affairs have to do with everyone else. My marriage doesn't effect my neighbors or anyone else for that matter. Why would theirs?

By: kay

kay — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:17:23 +0000

I didn't realize that you agreed with Mike also... but I still feel my point about changing the definition of marriage is logical... I agree with the point that you made that marriage is not just for the purpose of procreation. But in your statement that children are slightly more likely to become gay themselves if they are brought up by same sex parents just supports my point even more... my point again being that CHANGING the traditional definition of marriage to mean 'any' combination will say to all future generations that it is ok and natural for these alternative choices... and it's NOT natural in the sense that it is not the way NATURE (God) intended... so the human race would reproduce and not eventually die out. If future generations start believing that these other choices are just as natural (as the traditional one man and one woman choice that has sustained our species) and more and more people start choosing these alternative lifestyles it would decrease the human population to the point where the human species is threatened. And if you add some lethal untreatable virus to the scenario then 'poof' we could be gone just like that... it might sound far fetched and this theory could take many many years to come to fruition BUT it could happen!!! What I'm trying to say is that to give the stamp of approval to alternative unions as being equal with the traditional institution of marriage...to promote alternative choices... is a threat to our survival! Establishing the instituion of same sex UNIONS for the purpose of equal treatment under the law would not be as destructive as trying to insist that it is the same as the institution of marriage. Heterosexuals have a right to claim the institution of marriage as their own!! Possesion is 9/10 of the law as they say. With all that being said I, as a Christian am not condoning homosexuality but our free will that God gave us lets us make these choices if we want and I agree that it should not be illegal if it is a personal choice that does not threaten the well being of others.

By: ryk

ryk — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:18:51 +0000

I have read the bible several times. I know it well. Well enough to know it is a load of hooey. I would say the person who believes in the big invisible fairy tail is way farther out in left field than I am. You are entitled to believe in whatever floats your boat and I will defend your right to do so. I however, having thoroughly researched the subject, choose not to.

By: DeRenda

DeRenda — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:22:30 +0000

ryk read the Bible, let the Lord lead you to Him, because you my friend are way out in left field without a mitt.

By: ryk

ryk — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:03:11 +0000

Regarding your argument about Huckabees statement being correct I agree I said so in my earlier post. However I question your logic that it would be bad for society. Homosexuals are not as a rule sterile. They can and do procreate, and raise children. If as we probably both agree marriage is the best enviroment to raise children then we should let gay couples marry. You might say that they can not reproduce with one another, but so what. If a single mother or divorced, or widowed mother, wishes to remarry a man to help raise her children we let her (although your bible would not). So what difference would it make if she married a woman to the same end. You may say that children do poorly in homes with two parents of the same gender. This has not been proven in fact the only thing that has been even close to proven is that they are very slightly more likely to be gay themselves (and much less likely to be anti-gay). However even if a two mother home were less ideal than a mother father home I submit that it would be better than a single mother family. So allowing gay marriage is best for the children.
Furthermore biological procreation is not the only reason for marriage. Many infertile couples marry for love, company or stability. My mother in law who is 60 just married a man aged 70. They are not likely to be having children soon, does that invalidate their marriage. I thought not.

By: kay

kay — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:56:00 +0000

As to your last statement… it sounds like it comes from a person who is very uncomfortable with the idea of being at the mercy of someone else which is very understandable but refusing to believe it won't change the probable reality that we ARE at His mercy. And there is nothing in the Bible to substantiate your view of God in that way. I personally have never viewed God that way. Often I will look at nature and all the good things of this world and I know that they are from God and show His love for us and when I see the bad things of this world I know that they are not from God. He created this world ( and all the beautiful things in it ) and then created us and gave us our free will. The bad things of this world are the result of our free will. The natural disasters are the result of the cause and affect in nature but also the result of our affects on the environment . Our free will gives us the choice to help those in need (resulting from those disasters or other tragedies) or to not help and it is from those choices that we will be judged.

By: kay

kay — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:40:20 +0000

Ryk, I'm not saying that our illogical existence is proof of God's existence ( although it's good enouph for me) , I'm saying how can people fairly demand proof when our very own existence defies logic. You put your faith in science and you want scientific proof of God even though the existence of the universe has no scientific merit. It seems kind of hypocritical to me.

And I agree with Mike Huckabee that if the definition of marriage is changed it will just open the door to endless scenarios… common sense says that at some point boundries have to be established or the end results could be harmful or disasterous. Changing the institution of marriage to include combinations other than a man and a woman discourages procreation; Children would grow up believing that these alternative choices are ok and ultimately it could actually threaten the survival of human existence. I would say that that is harmful. I believe that everyone should be treated equally by the government so civil unions with the same benefits of married couples would seem to be a fair solution but leave the traditional institution of marriage which promotes biological procreation alone.

By: ryk

ryk — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:35:03 +0000

When I see a painting I say there must be a painter because I know what a painting is I have seen people paint pictures, I have painted pictures, I understand pictures. Paintings can be understood through direct experience. When I see a carbon atom however I do not see a creator I see a fundamental building block of nature. It does not follow to me that someone must have made it. It is absolutely fine that in your eyes anything that exists must have been created, many people feel that way. However your belief that it is so does not make it so. I can show you a painter, can you show me a god.

By: ryk

ryk — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:41:48 +0000

Your "argument" if it can be called that makes no sense. If nothing comes from nothing then where did your god come from. If your argument is that god is "transendant" as you say and did come form nothing or always existed, then the same exact statement can be made about the universe and avoid the middleman in the process. If God does exist he either always existed or he came from nothing. If that is the case it is just as resonable to say the universe always existed. Or the universe came from nothing. It is also much more sensible. There are no arguments in favor of the existence of a creator that could not also be used for the existence of a universe without a creator.
So I ask you, if God is the first cause. What caused God?

By: SAMSONSLION

SAMSONSLION — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:46:50 +0000

So, you ask yourself - is there a creator, God? Science has shown that the Universe had a "beginning", a starting point. They tend to call it "a big bang", but there is something else Science has shown us, and that is that "out of nothing, nothing comes" (in fact if there was ever a time when "Nothing" existed, then "nothing" would exist today. ) and that things at rest tend to stay at rest. So, what made "nothing", on a particular tuesday afternoon, explode into everything? For every effect, there has to be a cause. At the risk of infinite regression, there has to be a "FIRST CAUSE" . For there to be a material, imminent universe to exist, there had to be a transendant, immaterial first cause. I worship the Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause of the Material Universe. We celebrate His birthday every Dec. 25th

By: SAMSONSLION

SAMSONSLION — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:43:09 +0000

The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God".

When you see a painting, how do you know there was a painter?

well, the painting itself is proof there had to be a painter. You couldnt ask for better proof that there was a painter than the painting itself. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to understand, you just need eyes that see and a brain that works. It goes like this " painting...duh...painter" I call it the "duh" principle.

When you see a building, how do you know there was a builder? Again, you couldnt ask for better proof that there was a builder than the building itself.

The same hold true for watch- watch maker, automobile-automobile maker, t.v.-t.v. maker, micro wave oven – micro wave oven manufacturer. Anything with design and purpose has a designer and creator.

When you look at Creation – how do you know there was a Creator ? ... Duh

By: DeRenda

DeRenda — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:29:31 +0000

To All of You(who refuse the Truth)..................your lack of moral integrity is not Huckabee's fault nor problem. Each of you whether you believe in Jesus or not WILL stand before Him either for rewards or judgment. I am an American (Texan, that is), yet spent the first ten years living in Iran, and they don't even condone homosexuality. Man and woman, should be self-explanatory! Most Americans amaze me with their complete ignorance of a great many issues, as well as their deluded mindset as to being something they are not. Study to show thyself approved.......thus saith The LORD. Today is the day of Salvation..........

By: DeRenda

DeRenda — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:55:01 +0000

To All of You..............your lack of moral integrity is not Huckabee's fault nor problem. Each of you whether you believe in Jesus or not WILL stand before Him either for rewards or judgment. I am an American (Texan, that is), yet spent the first ten years living in Iran, and they don't even condone homosexuality. Man and woman, should be self-explanatory! Most Americans amaze me with their complete ignorance of a great many issues. Study to show thyself approved.....thus saith The LORD.

By: saved by grace

saved by grace — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:33:57 +0000

A scant ant rant simply proves the Biblical truth that man is born a depraved sinner whos only hope is in the perfect, vicarious, atoning death of Jesus Christ. JOHN 3:36

By: DFN

DFN — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:27:42 +0000

Boy we have come a long way baby. In 1961 every state in the Union had a law against homosexuals. It is refreshing that someone has stood up for what he believes and is not swayed by others. Homosexuality is perverse and as our country becomes more perverse we are not any better. What comes next...bestiality, pedophilia? Our country is not in good shape and it will not get any better the more we turn from God.

By: Ryk

Ryk — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:36:27 +0000

ay thank you for clarifying your point. I agree that the vastness of the universe seems to defy logic. I have been boggled by that many times. However it is still not proof of God. The Idea that god has existed without beginning or end is no more logical than the idea that the universe has existed without beginning or end. Occams razor states that the simplest answer is usually correct. An eternal universe is simpler than an eternal God who created an eternal universe therefore it is more likely to be correct. I admit that this is a philosophical case not a scientific one. There is not yet enough scientific knowledge to explain the origin of the universe or to prove God.
I also admit that the Idea of an eternal universe doesn't satisfy me any better than the Idea of an eternal God. Beginnings and endings, birth and death, are fundamental to how I see the world and I hope in my lifetime a beginning to the universe can be proven.
You are correct that it all comes down to what we want to believe. That being true, belief being a choice, it is unreasonable to make laws based on belief. Many people don't believe in God, Many more believe in a wide array of different gods. Even among those who believe in the same Gods there is no agreement on what that God wants. Religion therefore is a poor basis for laws. Laws should be based on simple fairness and ethics. I understand that fairness and ethics are also arbitrary concepts, however they are ones that can be agreed on without forcing people to change their belief in God.
Fair laws would allow people absolute freedom to do as they please as long as they don't harm or deny freedom to their fellow citizens. For example Gay Marriage harms no one, except perhaps those involved, therefore it should be legal. Theft, Murder, Kidnapping etc. do harm others or deprive them of freedom therefore they should be illegal.
As to your final question what do I want to believe? I want to believe that there is order in nature, that everything has a cause, and everything causes an effect. I want to believe that everything that seems wrong or unfair in the world are caused by physical, psychological and sociological forces. What I don't want to believe is that everything is just a big ant farm for a cosmic maniac performing experiments for his own amusement.

By: BRANDY

BRANDY — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:56:36 +0000

ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THE MATTER IS .......PEOPLE ARE FREE TO DO OR CHOOSE WHOMEVER THEY WANT TO CHOOSE BUT IF YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST AND READ THE BIBLE IT TELLS YOU .....A HOMOSEXUAL WILL NOT ENTER THE GATES OF HEAVEN.NO MATTER HOW ANY ONE WANTS TO TRY AND TWIST IT TO FIT THEIR LIFE .........THE WORD IS THE WORD!!!!IF YOU WANT TO SPEND ETERNITY BURNING IN HELL TO PLEASE YOURSELF IN THE SHORT TIME WE ARE HERE ON EARTH....THEN I GUESS THAT IS YOU!!!I MYSELF WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND HOW A MAN CAN BE ATTRACTED TO A MAN OR A WOMAN TO A WOMAN KNOWING WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.

By: kay

kay — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:56:10 +0000

Ryk, when I say that existence isn't logical I'm not talking about the 'process' of existence I'm talking about the 'birth' of existence. Even if the evolution theory was correct the question still remains.... where did that first cell, that everything evolved from, come from? Our reason and logic tells us there has to be a beginning and end to everything... infinity is not logical. When you look at outer space and you start to think about where it eventually ends and when it does end what is after that... nothing? Ok then what does that nothing look like and when does that nothing end and then what is after that? ... it's mind boggling and completely defies any logical or rational explanation. And I know that that also brings up the question ... well, who made God? And who made the one who made God and so on and so on... But your response, again, completely ignores this point, you talk about evolution and how life ON EARTH began but if your faith is in science you must have thought about how ALL of existence came to be. Science is based on logic.... science (sometimes) explains why things work the way they do, the process of things, but there is NO logical scientific explanation for how the ORIGINAL process came to be. I defy anyone to come up with anything that can even begin to answer this question. To explain the logic of existence. Really, the only closest thing we have to a logical explanation is a supreme being - GOD. You say that you want proof and that is generally a very reasonable request but have you ever tried to look at things from our Creator's point of view? According to the Bible we were created to love and worship Him. With all of His capabilities, He certainly would be able to make 'or program' us to love and worship Him but where is the value in that? If you could MAKE someone love you it just wouldn't be the same. Of course I do know a few people who would be perfectly content if people loved and worshiped them whether it was sincere or not, just as long as they did. But our Creator wants us to genuinely seek Him and love Him. So He gave us just enouph proof while still leaving room for us to use our free will to seek Him and put our faith in Him. And there are also plenty of 'outs' if we choose, in our hearts, not to believe in Him. Some of the stories in the Bible do seem outrageous and hard to believe but then all you have to do is look at everything around you and again, our existence and that is also outrageous and hard to believe but .... we are here and that can't be denied. The answer to His existence is right in front of us and we can take the 'easy' way and choose not to believe or we can be honest with ourselves (and Him) and choose to believe. For each one of us it really comes down to.... what do you WANT to believe?.....

By: MJR53

MJR53 — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:39:59 +0000

Does anyone other than me see the dichotomy of a person characterizing Huckabee as a "bigoted idiot" and then asking "why can't we stop the hate?"

By: Alex Lord

Alex Lord — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:51:28 +0000

I can't believe that Huckabee mentioned homosexuality and necrophilia in the same sentence... as "aberrations". You know what's really funny? How Huckabee is trying to "appear diverse". He went to Ebenezer Church in ATL, GA this previous Monday, yet he has the nerve to go and preach such nonsense? Last time I checked, the White House didn't have a cross on it's roof, so I don't think Huckabee will find himself at home.

By: Ryk

Ryk — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:37:53 +0000

Kay the only evidence you offer that existence is no logical is that you say so. It is perfectly logical to me. I am well aware of the flaws in Darwins theory of evolution, it is weak in areas. The process of life evolving in an organized manner is however well documented by biology. Saying that something fails to make sense to you is "Scientific proof" that it must have been made by God is no more sensible than the ancient greeks believing the sun was the god Apollo driving his chariot across the sky. They failed to understand that the sun was a giant ball of nuclear fusion that we orbit around therefore they said that it must be a god. None of us understand exactly how life developed on earth and many people say "God did it." That is not science it is superstition. Scientific theory is by definition a supposition that can be measured tested and proven or more frequently disproven. God does not meet this criteria. I have heard many excellent and persuasive arguments supporting the existence of God many of which have made me question my disbelief. All of these arguments have been based in the realm of philosophy not science. I have studied the "science of intelligent design and it is anything other than scientific. After you wade through the facts presented the case studies the arguments saying they could not be accidents all you have left is the statement "Since we don't understand it God must have done it." Nothing measurable or testable or proveable. Therefore not science. Intelligent design involves a great deal of scientific knowledge but it is not a scientific theory. I am not concerned that I don't and probably never will understand how this world came to be. It is enough to know that it can be examined with science and science has shown that it is possible for life to have been created through natural process. Belief that this is so does require faith, but it is faith in something I can see and evaluate and judge worthy or unworthy. A belief in something I can measure against my own logic and reason. I find this faith more real, satisfying and productive than "God did it." I am relieved and happy that your logic and reason tells you that my invisible friend does not exist. My logic and reason tells me that your invisible friend doesn't exist either. It is not I who lacks humility. I claim no certainty about my understanding of the world. Those who lack humility are the people who say "God did it." and deny that any other option has merit.

By: kay

kay — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:33:19 +0000

Another 'intellectual' poster up above further proving my point.... you can have all the education in the world and still lack logic and common sense... I've witnessed it time and time again. Arrogance plus ignorance AND lacking logic and common sense – what a combination...

By: kay

kay — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:28:19 +0000

Ryk, You are proving my point right off the bat by implying that the "civilized" world is on the right track and the "primitive & ingnorant" people of the third world have it wrong. With there being no proof either way as you said... it seems that you're the one who is insulting now. You do have a "real understanding" of science and therefore our existence? You completely ignored the main SCIENTIFIC point of my post. You say there is no proof but how can you argue that WE are not the proof? Like I said, existence of any kind is not logical! You just can't argue with that. You can't deny that everything around you including your mortal human body that science will never fully be able to explain or understand says that there is a Supreme Being. So people like you say.. "well I want MORE / BETTER proof than that"... you are saying that you want your creator to reveal Himself on YOUR terms. You (atheists) clearly lack humility, you are just not willing to accept your proper place in the BIG picture. So, I'm sorry but that, to me, is where the arrogance comes in. There seems to be a very fine line between civilized educated people and their arrogance. Common sense and logic are not exclusive to educated people.. God gave this to all of us, even the people of the third world. And it's my common sense and logic that tells me that your invisible friend doesn't exist.

By: Ryk

Ryk — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:42:42 +0000

One thing that I find interesting is that almost every discussion involving gay marriage or gay anything eventually turns to religion. They often start out about public health, marriage laws, tradition, whatever but in the end the main argument is "God doesn't like it."
I enjoy discussing religion so that is fine but from a legal standpoint it demonstrates that there are no valid secular arguments against gay marriage.
From a personal standpoint I also find it funny that I always end up defending gay marriage. I am not gay in fact I am a little bit homophobic. While I have known a few gay people socially my current circle of friends is resoundingly heterosexual. I have no vested interest at all in supporting gay marriage. I do care about logic and fairness however so I always end up on the pro gay side of the argument.
I would love to hear a non religious non moralistic argument against gay marriage that holds up under scrutiny but so far I have yet to find it.

By: Andrew Rhodes

Andrew Rhodes — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:30:32 +0000

Cynthia, Doh! I THINK it was you who mentioned that point about criminals in jail getting married in another article. And like a dope, I completely forgot about it! But it IS an outstanding point. Don't quit repeating it. Remind us every chance you get so the rest of us will eventually remember it and bring it up too.

Andrew

By: Ryk

Ryk — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:55:33 +0000

whatthe
I have read the flying spaghetti monster and I really enjoy it. Another good one is the church of the invisible pink unicorn (How do you know it is pink, because it said so.

By: Conrad

Conrad — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:24:37 +0000

Thanks, Ryk. I see your point. I am an athiest and really do not like the term "marraige" to begin with BECAUSE of it's religious connotation. I think really what we want is equal right, not for the church to recognize us as "married." Thanks, Ruk for your thoughts!

By: Eitan

Eitan — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:57:53 +0000

The Irony here is that the decline of the US will not come about due to gay marriage or what the religious fanatics call sexual sins, but in great part due to ignorance (rejection of science and technology based on religious grounds, coupled with our sorry educational system), blind, irrational adherance to exclusionist and elitist Evangelical religious systems (us vs. sinners, us vs. the Muslims, us vs. immoral Europe, etc. etc.), and a lack of true compassion and concern for our fellow countrymen, be they of a different religion, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation (FORGET Christian compassion, whos greatest fruits were the Crusades, Inquisition, and subjugation of indiginous people). Jesus must be turning in his grave over what's been done in his good name.

By: Ryk

Ryk — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:33:59 +0000

Andrew
I got your message this time and I don't disagree. The logistics of such changes would be massive. The point However is that marriage is a religious rite. By sanctioning it, the government either sanctions it according to religious belief (one man one woman) which would violate the constitution. Or makes it a secular contract. As a secular contract there is no rational basis for one man one woman or any other restriction based on religion. That is the message I was trying to convey. Although I would like to see marriage become a private/church function I understand it is not likely to happen

By: whatthe

whatthe — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:38:36 +0000

Ryk – I agree with you. Google the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is the invisible friend approach used to debunk Creationism being taught as SCIENCE in Kansas. Brilliant!

By: Conrad

Conrad — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:00 +0000

I think many have no clue just how powerful the gay's in America are. Car companies, travel companies etc....are catering to use because typically, we have more money that heterosexual couples. Most of us do not have children and a large portion of us are college educated and make a decent living. We have "disposable incomes" and I think that large corporations are just seeing this. I am curious how many of the "christians" on this blog have very little education and perhaps...I'm going to say it...live in a trailer in the south. Many liberals who CAN think outside the box are are college educated as opposed to the christian bible belt who are not so spohisticated and for lack of a better word....."trailer trash." I think they need to seperate formally educated commentators and the uneducated in this blog. I guess if we did that, we wouldn't have much of a debate.

By: Ryk

Ryk — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:04:16 +0000

Kay is funny. In her rant about God and why people should believe she demonstrated exactly why religion is failing in the civilized world and expanding in the third world. She starts off by insulting people who want proof before they believe in something and then rants about the horrible things that will happen to all those stupid bad people who don't believe. That kind of logic works on the primitive and the ignorant. People who have no real understanding of science are content with believing "God said" or "God did" because it is easy. No thinking required just believe. Civilized people however eventually get around to asking, "exactly who is this God, why cant we see him or prove he exists." and without a good answer they just stop listening. In the west two different things have happened. One group of people have chosen to just stop believing. If there is no evidence of God there is no good reason to do what the priests say. Another group continues to practice religion but treats it like a philosophy, changing it around, taking it out of context, making it say whatever makes them happy. Since God doesn't object or correct them it must be OK. Kay mocks people for demanding proof. But without a standard of proof we would have to believe anything. If I say "My invisible friend created the world and says you have to send me money and do what I say." Do you want proof? Do you question? Of course you do. So why shouldn't we question God and Demand proof. God may exist. I can not prove that he does not any more than you can prove he does. However you can't prove my invisible friend doesn't exist either.

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:00:43 +0000

Hmmmm, I see no one cared to address the issue of convicted murderers marrying, courtesy of the American taxpayers. Oppressive "moralists" always seem to find their own petards a bit uncomfortable when hoisted on them.

I have every sympathy for the gay community with this issue. The names my husband and I have been called for marrying with no intention of having children wouldn't pass CNN's censors.

By: Andrew Rhodes

Andrew Rhodes — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:26:56 +0000

Ryk, I've tried to post a pretty straightforward response, but apparently some combination in the comment, punctuation or something, is preventing it from being posted.

While it would make sense to choose an "all or none" path, the shock to the legal and social design we've had for so long would be too great. Think of all the changes required to eliminate the inclusion of marriage in certain procedures (taxes for example) and you'll see the problem. It would require several smaller steps to get to not recognizing Legal marriage at all or even to set up a system that includes multiple spouses beyond the current two.

Let's see if this one works. :/

Andrew

By: Andrew Rhodes

Andrew Rhodes — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:40:51 +0000

Quantumfoam, the problem with such an idea is that ANYONE can make an argument as to why just about ANYTHING can be a threat to Public Safety. We already experience the "everything that is good is bad for you" philosophy. It's been happening for decades, if not longer. Various individuals can come up with excuse after excuse to determine that something is bad for the rest of the world. As to the "common good", the problem with that argument would be the same as "community standards". Originally set forth as a "feel good" policy, it has now become the cry of everyone who thinks that something, no matter how innocent, must be "pornography" or "obscene" or "harmful to children". Rest assured, if someone can think up an argument, rational or irrational, logical or illogical, they will make it and encourage others to make it as well. We've seen it used in a variety of ways against a variety of media, from books to movies to editorials. Andrew

By: kay

kay — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:17:12 +0000

Christopher of WI... you are the fool for your narrow minded views about God's existence. Your are obviously one of those sophisticated, all knowing, proof demanding intellectuals ( with your coveted high IQ no doubt ) that will fight to the bitter end in spite of everything that is in PLAIN SIGHT. Your ego, pride, errogance, lack of humility and the inconveinience to your lifestyle won't allow you to believe that there is someone that you will have to answer to. NEWSFLASH... you WILL have to answer to your Creator!! He has made it CLEAR that He exists and you, using your free will that He gave you, have chosen to ignore this. You think you are in control? You think that you will have the last word on what happens to you?...well, my mortal brother. ... you are OWNED whether you like it or not... You need scientific proof in order to believe.... no you DEMAND scientific proof... who do you think you are??? I'll tell you ... you are a created being along with everyone else on this Earth and your existence along with existence in general of anyone or anything is NOT LOGICAL! If you have any intelligence whatsoever you have to know that that is true... our existence is NOT logical. You can't get more scientific than that!! Yet we ARE here!! And you self proclaimed intellectuals STILL demand scientific proof?? Get over yourselves, humble yourselves and acknowledge the obvious... that your minuscule little brains are not going to get the answers that you are demanding....and this life you have is NOT on your terms... deal with it or pay the consequences!

By: quantumfoam

quantumfoam — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:02:03 +0000

In any discussions about personal behavior, there should be some ground rules of inquiry. !. Is the behavior a threat to public safety? 2. Is the behavior a threat to public health. 3. Is the behavior a threat to the common good. If any of these questions are answered in the affirmative then the behavior must be outlawed. if all answers to the questions are in the negative then bug off. I rest my case.

By: vernon johns

vernon johns — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:30:17 +0000

There seems to be an inherent problem with marriage. When you allow two consenting adults of the opposite sex to get married, you’re opening the door to where two men are going to want to exchange vows. And if the men are doing it, you know the women are next. Now we are heading down the road where soon a man is going to want to marry a dog and a few doors down from there a woman wants to marry a horse and a little farther down the road dogs and horses are going to want to get married. And, as technology progresses, logically, some man or woman is going to want to marry a robot and then the robots are going to want to marry dogs and God knows what will be at the fork in the road. Let’s stop this insanity and just abolish the sanctioned union between two loving consenting beings of all races, colors, shapes, genus, species and phylum.

By: Ryk

Ryk — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:43:58 +0000

The logical solution to the marriage question is to not have government recognize marriage at all. It is a religious institution and needs no legal recognition. Laws can be made dealing with child custody and support that do not involve marriage, in fact such laws already exist. Contracts can be made dealing with division of assets, medical power of attorney ect. Gay couples already use such contracts. Tax and other benefits for marriage can be eliminated.
Marriage would then be a matter of religious practice. Churches could decide who they wished to marry and set any rules they wanted. People who value religion would feel just as bound by their faith as they would by the law. Non religious people could perform whatever ceremony they wanted and call themselves married. There would be no redefining marriage because there would be no definition. Individuals and churches could cheerfully claim that only members of their faith are really married because it wouldn't matter what they thought to anyone else.
If marriage is once more a religious rite then the government will no longer have any control over it or reason to control it.

By: Seeker

Seeker — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:48:35 +0000

If you let same sex mariges happen then the rest of the things mentioned will come forth also. Same sex couples can't reproduce without the opposite sex. Wake up America and read the fine print.

The word "Religion" is not found in the Bible so please stop using a term that does not apply.

There is no school to make homosexuals straight. This is something God has to work out with them in their heart. Jesus told the adultress woman the same thing we should be telling everyone in America (not just gays) go and sin no more.

Wake Up People!

By: Andrew Rhodes

Andrew Rhodes — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:43:14 +0000

Tolerance or acceptance: Doesn't matter. It doesn't violate ANYONE'S Rights for two (or more) individuals to be Legally Married. You are entitled to your opinions and/or beliefs. Whoopie. Good for you. BUT, when you try to dictate that others MUST follow YOUR beliefs because you BELIEVE your's is superior to everyone else's, that's where the problem lies. One individual's Rights end where another individual's Rights begin. You are free to worship in your home with your family. You are free to worship in an organized manner in a church or temple or other structure that you come together with whatever like-minded individuals you choose to converse with. You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. HOWEVER, you may NOT violate the Rights of others by attempting to "educate" THEIR children in beliefs that they feel is inappropriate for their OWN children. You no more have the Right to "educate" a child in YOUR beliefs WITHOUT the child's Parent's permission that someone has the Right to expose your child rated R movies. Your personal view of what is moral or immoral doesn't matter. ANYONE can spout religious dogma from whatever religious text they want to pull from. They can interpret it however they choose. Doesn't matter. Not every citizens has the exact same beliefs. Indeed, it is rather silly to scream the religion "Christian" as there are a multitude of beliefs that fall under the "Christian" religion. And a multitude of beliefs under each of those as well. To claim everyone who is a "Christian" MUST believe exactly the same thing regarding each issue out there is as ignorant as assuming that every single American MUST either be Democrat or Republican since they are usually the only ones recognized by the media. Only on very rare occassions are "Independant Parties" or even total Independants recognized or even allow to actually Publically participate in debates or other functions. Again, the Law SHOULD be neutral, as granted by the US Constitution under the First Amendment (as I mentioned in yesterday's post and in a post that preceeded that one but, despite being filled with nothing but FACTS, appears to have vanished). The US Constitution recognizes ONLY the Human species as being capable of consent. Therefore, the reference to animal love or marrying animals is misinformation and deceit. And the question of Rights for children vs adults is a whole other issue, let alone regarding marriage (though you will note that various states do recognize marriage to "children"). The argument about "normality" is the same as "moral". Just another word to dictate to others one's personal religious beliefs. (Again, note the difference between "expressing one's OPINION" and "Dictating that others conform to one's belief".) Also note the misleading information spread about disease, lesser life span, and even suicides, among others. Disease is, in fact, spread due to a lack of proper education. It should be noted that proper education was denied by the "morally superior" who felt such education was "inappropriate" to be taught. Indeed, the "morally superior" actaully spread MISINFORMATION about what caused various diseases, hence disease spread. Another example was the Black Plague where the "morally superior" thought it was punishment from God and blamed cats, believed to be tools of the devil. In killing off the cats, the Black Plague spread even further because the cats would have controlled the situation by eliminating the rats and their fleas which actually spread the disease. Suicide of course is caused by the verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse by the "morally superior" against those they believe to be "morally inferior". The "morally superior" knowing and intentionally created a hostile environment, beating down (sometimes mentally and verbally, sometimes physically and sexually) those they deem "immoral". As with abuse in general, the victims sometimes commit suicide, sometimes become victims for life, sometimes rise above it and live with it, sometimes become abusers themselves. Just because the "morrally superior" are too cowardly to admit their own part in what happens to victims, doesn't mean they DIDN'T have a part in it. We have seen a great many students, as well as adults, driven to suicide by abusers as well as showing where authority figures ignored the abuse taking place because of their own "moral supeeriority". It is not a new thing by any means. And no one lives forever. But tying a lower life span to a sexual orientation is as ignorant as trying to tie it to having select relgiious beliefs. But certainly, we can see in the previous two instances just a fraction of the reasons why some individuals live less than their full life span. And it isn't BECAUSE they are homosexual. It's because of the immorality of the "morally superior" who abuse those who are homosexual. There is a difference. Andrew P.S. The contents of this post are FAR less offensive than some of the post previously made by others condemning individuals in the name of their own personal God. Indeed, the post I first made back on the 18th was not in violation of any comment policy. The use of "you" or "your" is a generic term referring to all those that the comment is referencing, not one specific individual, unless specifically named. So unless the site is more interested in sensationalism rather than FACTS, there is no reason to turn this post down. It has, after all, been posted elsewhere, as has the one on the 19th. Unfortunately, I expected more ethics from this site so I didn't copy the first one which was on the 18th, which vanished. But rest assured, it is no less FACTUAL than the one on the 19th or this one.

By: Todd

Todd — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:30:29 +0000

God started the Institution of Marriage,so why would gays want that so bad seeing as how he "doesnt exist"??...hmmm...makes ya think doesnt it?...its all in the Bible kids.....dust it off and read it

By: Todd

Todd — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:26:39 +0000

Chris...God loves everyone equally,even homosexuals,that doesnt mean he condones their behavior ,in fact he calls it an "abomination"(look that word up),theres also the fact that even believers fall into Sin(which separates us from God),but we arent under the law(of moses) anymore,we are under grace through our faith in Jesus Christ,but theres a difference between sinning and "practicing sin" ie: continuining in and justifying what you do because you cant control yourself with no concience about it whatsoever,so you either hate God or try to deny his existance because you dont want to be accountable to anyone for your own selfish desires,you need to get real with yourself and then find out who God really is..cause you will face him someday......i suggest you have Jesus standing by your side when you do

By: CW

CW — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 03:55:18 +0000

Christopher,

I see that you are spouting off about how great science is. Science will save the planet – Right? Let's all put our faith in science. This is the same science that tells us that something is good for us one year and then the next year tell us that the same thing will kill us. Talk about being fickle.

I see that you want proof that God exists. There is no proof so why don't you just wait and see?

While you are waiting, I'll ask a better question that you can work on to keep you busy. Do you have proof positive that God does not exist?

By: Todd

Todd — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 03:48:09 +0000

Hey Chris,let me ask you a question first......have you ever even read the "new" testament? do you know who Jesus really is?maybe you wouldnt be asking me such stupid questions if you had,Galatians 5:16-25 is pretty clear,so if you have a problem with what i said,take it up with God,he's the one you will answer to,whether you believe in him or not

By: Steven in Charleston, SC

Steven in Charleston, SC — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 03:15:38 +0000

Frank, Just to be clear, when you say that 90% of Americans view the gay lifestyle as "disgusting" and an "abomination" you are not stating fact, you are projecting your own biases onto people who do not share your opinions. Here are some ~actual~ facts: 80%+ of Americans support the passage of ENDA; 70%+ of Americans support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and allowing our gay and lesbian soldiers to serve their country openly and honestly; and 65%+ of Americans believe gay and lesbian couples should have their relationships respected and acknowledged, they just disagree on what those relationships should be called. So you see, Frank, most of America has accepted and embraced their gay and lesbian family members, friends, and neighbors. Please don't insult these good people by projecting your fear and intolerance onto them.

By: frank5057

frank5057 — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:48:00 +0000

Christopher, I take that back, Johnson brought us an escalation of the Viet Nam war that cost this country over 58,000 lives, two of which were old friends of mine, he also sucked the Social Security system dry to finance Viet Nam.

By: DHALL

DHALL — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:29:02 +0000

I do not support Mike Huckabee for president, but completely agree with him
on this subject. Homosexuality or "gay" is NOT a normal, natural, organic identity.
It is certainly not a God-given identity. Why would God and/or nature go to all the trouble of creating/developing creatures obviously designed for sexual procreation but have an alleged 10% do the opposite.
No one is stopping self identified "gays" from pursuing thier sexual satisfaction,
but they in turn have no business what-so-ever demanding acceptance, approval and promotion of thier sexual PROCLIVITY.
To take Mike Huckabee's paradigm another step; should we abolish the age of consent?
The burden of proof that "gay" is an actual biological identity is on "gays" and thier supporters.

By: Christopher, Madison, WI

Christopher, Madison, WI — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:18:16 +0000

Christopher, this isn't a spelling contest, I barely graduated high school, but, anytime you want to compare balance sheets let me know.

Balance away Frank I read 5 newspapers daily and have followed very closely politics since Reagan. I have a firm grasp of the hypocrites on the right. I am a college graduate and hold a degree in architecture. BTW I minored in religion and enjoyed addition course studies in political science. Give it your best shot.
Sorry to hear your heterosexual parents did such a bad job of raising you. Education is the basis for everything. Sorry you missed out.
I have no intention of voting for Hillary unless she is the nominee. Wisconsin gets to do the cross over voting. Not to worry democrats in WI are voting Huckabee so the moron gets a center stage and the whole world will be laughing. I think your side of the aisle has done quite enough damage to our country. Why not sit this one out. We don't need another "born again" cheerleader, cokehead booze hound in the oval office.