That fact is true that none of us would ever beIf there were any gays in
our ancestryYou don't get a word that they sayWhen you're the
opposite of gay-The Opposite of Gay (a country song)Why
do homosexuals demand that the rest of us give up 100% of our moral beliefs to
accept their demands? Can we meet half way? We keep the sanctity of marriage and
you get equal benefits. When will you realize that we will never annoint your
behaviors as normal or holy...isn't it our acceptance you want to relieve your
conscience? Never! We will give you the right to put what you want where you
want to, but don't force us accept it as normal...it isn't and won't ever be!
I find it interesting that a group that the religious and the believing feel are
breaking commandments (those who live together without marriage) fight marriage
tooth and nail--demanding that others not judge them or their chosen way of
living. They HATE the idea of marriage before they live together and some hate
the idea of it forever. You can't convince them for anything of the
desirability of marriage.Then there is the other group who the
religious and believing feel are also breaking commandments (those who live in a
homosexual relationship) and who also demand that others not judge them or their
chosen way of living.And you can't convince them for anything to
give up the idea of marriage.Isn't that curious??
"In Hawaii and Illinois, gay state representatives were lead sponsors of
civil union bills signed into law earlier this year."Doesn't
matter what the states do. Any law authorizing same sex marriage is illegal
since it goes against the federal DOMA... I refer you to the Supremacy Clause
of the US Constitution.
Find it kind of interesting. Seems that they are serving their own needs, and
the the desire of the people. We need elected officials who are more Statesmen
rather then walking billboards for a cause.
Walking billboards? You mean like the ones that read "NRA",
"Polluters 'R' Us, "Screamin' Eagle Forum" or even "This
Space for Rent"? All these, of course, go cheaper than
It seems a bit self serving that these state representatives have placed such a
high priority on something that would benefit such a small minority. Don't their
states have more pressing issues--unemployment, homelessness, state budgets,
etc, etc. I do not hate homosexuals, they have the right to make the choice to
live their life they way they want, but I do resent the way they try to force
their ideas on everyone else. They have even changed the way we view some
words, for example, I remember when gay meant happy, now it means homosexual. I
even hesitate to use a rainbow on anything, because they now use it as their
symbol. What next?!
@ Opinionz: How are you being required to give up 100% of your moral beliefs?
Personally, I think smoking is immoral - the fact that people are allowed to do
it in no way, shape, or form requires me to give up that moral belief nor does
it require me to partake of cigarettes. And when I shop at stores that sell
cigarettes, that in no way indicates I support smoking. What other people do
and believe has no effect on my moral beliefs at all. Why would other's beliefs
or actions require you to surrender your beliefs?@ Miss Piggie: You
need to reread DOMA - it does not prohibit same-sex marriage or civil unions.
It prohibits the Federal Government from recognizing them and it allows other
states to choose whether or not they recognize them, but it in no way prohibits
states from having or recognizing them.@ slgs5aggie: "We need
elected officials who are more Statesmen rather then walking billboards for a
cause." That would be nice. Do you by any chance know any?
@ mtymouse: Yeah - human rights are so yesterday....
"Can we meet half way? We keep the sanctity of marriage and you get equal
benefits. "We can meet halfway, civil unions for all couples
gay or straight (since when is gov't a place to put something sacred like
marriage), then individual churches can just call whatever they want marriage.
@opinionz and @mtymouse:You argue that someone else's moral beliefs
are going to be imposed on you, but the fact is, your irrational beliefs have
successfully denied love and companionship to countless people throughout the
ages. Your beliefs have dominated to the sad detriment of many. I
understand your fear. As more and more of us accept gay marriage, it will be
harder for you to promote the belief that homosexuality is a sin. But I, for
one, will not be feeling sorry that your beliefs are being challenged.
Your religious beliefs are yours. Someone who isn't a member has no reason nor
interest in protecting your religious sensibilities. Other's rights do not
depend on your bigotry. 'Don't like gays, turn around and walk
"your irrational beliefs have successfully denied love and companionship to
countless people throughout the ages." ??? You mean to say that those of us
who don't want to change the definition of traditional marriage are keeping gay
couples apart? That is so exxagerated! Gays will get together, hook up, live
together and try to raise children whether those of us who are opposed to that
lifestyle like it or not. Being able to get a marriage certificate and serve
wedding cake at a party will not change or make life any better for gays. They
are already living that lifestyle. They can already have all the love and
companionship they want. Civil unions allow them to have all the legal rights
they need. The only thing that allowing gay marriage would do is confuse society
and confuse and damage children further. If you want to live a gay lifestyle
with a same gender partner- go ahead! But DON'T call it marriage. Marriage is
just for us irrational, religious types.
There are many wonderful gay people. However, activist homosexuals are very
organized, very powerful and have been systematically attacking religion and
families for many years. Homosexuals also increasingly promote the
abandonment of children and spouses for homosexual relationships, arguing that
those inclined to homosexuality are rightly adulterous because they were
pressured by society to marry. According to "Creating Gay
Children" NGLJA part of the gay agenda includes "demonizing those they
cannot 'desensitize.'" They do this through media manipulation
and control (tried reading the Trib lately?), organized comment activists, and
pushing studies done by activists in schools etc. Charles E. Rice,
Professor of Law, ND Law School, says of research by activists, some fed in our
schools, by legislators, and through media: "Any judge,
legislator or other publicofficial who gives credence to that research is
guilty of malpractice and dereliction ofduty."Studies
indicate that mainstreaming homosexuality through marriage is not good for
anyone. It doesnt help gays be less promiscuous and it does destroy traditional
families. As homosexuality is mainstreamed by these powerful legislators and
activists homosexuality increases, thus crucial traditional families decrease,
and are often destroyed (see narth).
I have to take issue with this statement from the article."Current law
would bar doctors from consulting her if Baker, her partner for more than seven
years, became seriously ill."Basic planning documents include a
Medical Directive to Physicians in case of serious illness or injury. I
completed these planning documents last summer and can legally name whoever I
want to act on my behalf in medical emergencies. Doctors must honor my legally
binding documents or face lawsuit.It does not matter what your sexual persuasion
is.If your partner is not consulted, you must accept responsibility for
not preparing for future possibilities. Even my legal spouse can not be
informed of my (non-emergency) medical issues unless I file paperwork specifying
it is my wish.
'Basic planning documents include a Medical Directive to Physicians in case of
serious illness or injury.' - lifesublime | 8:06 a.m. That would
make sense... IF state county did NOT have the ability to over-ride
such documentation. For evidence, I provide 'Harold and Clay' in Sonoma county,
CA. They had: Will, Medical Directive's, Power of Attorney... and
all were ignored by the county. This was April, 2008.
Both were placed in retierment homes against thier will, and all belongings sold
when one fell ill. No Directives were followed and Clay got to sit in a room, by
himself, while his partner of 20 years died without him. More
examples: *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA
PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09 Janice Langbehn was denied the ability
to see her partner of 18yrs, Lisa Pond. Same story: ABC News,
Line:'She immediately called a friend to fax health care proxies and
documentation of durable power of attorney but the hospital disregarded the
documents.' The claim that homosexuals 'can' see loved ones in the
hospital is, well, I have no other way to say this, False. Marriage
is not 'needed'? I disagree.
Hawaii and Illinois are now among seven states that allow civil unions or their
equivalent state-level marriage rights in virtually everything but name.
Article I LOVE the writer of this! 'Virtually'. It's SO
CLOSE! Like: 'Almost, pretty close, maybe, kinda, sortta.' i.e. NOT the same. You cannot VIRTUALLY have all the rights of
marriage. You don't ALMOST have all the rights and legal protections. You either HAVE the same rights... or you don't. I'll
even take a line from Miss Piggie: 'Doesn't matter what the states do.' - Miss
Piggie | 2:10 p.m. It dosen't, as, while DOMA is being struck down
in court... *'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal
challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10Line: 'U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples'
rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA,
a 1996 law that...' It is still being recognized. So, any state gay
marriage/civil union... is nullifeid once you leave the state of
origin. Does your marriage stop when you leave a state?
I didn't think so.
They just need to get power of attorney for a doctor to consult with one of them
if partner is seriously ill...or is that too ordinary and easy?