Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GAY MARRIAGE: Do we care about the consequences?

Letter by David A. Summers, Tacoma on June 30, 2011 at 9:39 am with 151 Comments »
June 30, 2011 9:40 am

Two questions:

• On what basis does a marriage consist of two people, when a representative of each gender is no longer required?

• If two homosexual lovers are just as good at parenting as a mommy and daddy, why wouldn’t three or more be even better?

These questions only scratch the surface of the chaos we unleash by tearing apart the definition of marriage.

Sadly, the sexual-confusion lobby has opted to force this down our throats, come what may, and by whatever means necessary – judicial activism, threats, boycotts, emotional blackmail and intimidation.

This debate is not about human rights. It is about the destruction of the institution of marriage and Western civilization as we know it.
Welcome to the brave new world.

Leave a comment Comments → 151
  1. David – I’m disappointed. You left out the “man on dog” issue that Rick Santorum suggested will happen. That is usually the first stone thrown.

    As to “why not three”, don’t you think there has ever been a nuclear family with three adults raising the children? Many countries endorse poligamy (even parts of the US practice it) and of course there are families were grandparents are part of the everyday life, right along side the primary parents.

    David, I have just one suggestion for you. If you don’t agree with same sex marriage, no one is forcing you to participate in one.

    Welcome to the real world, without religious bias.

  2. As long as personal pleasure and happiness rule the world, we will continue to see changes occurring that do not take anything else into account. I am quite sympathetic with gay people who wish to marry, but I also agree that this is a slippery slope issue.

  3. aislander says:

    Marriage IS government endorsement of a social arrangement. That endorsement came because government has an interest in helping ensure that children become citizens who contribute positively to society, and (since we still have private property–for now…) there is a default mechanism for inheritance should people die intestate. Heterosexual exceptions notwithstanding, government has no such interest in same-sex “marriages.”

    Such questions can be dealt with, in those cases, through contract law and civil unions.

    There is no reason to change the definition of marriage for everybody else…

  4. aislander says:

    sozo: You may have noticed that I made NO religious argument in favor of the true definition of marriage. My own theory is that this is just another lefty tactic to break down the culture, making government’s role as arbiter of cultural mores even greater…

  5. Good lord, are you people still whining about this?

    the debate is about human rights and it was settled over 200 years ago,
    “All men are created equal….”

    Over and done, settled, finished, complete.
    You haters and bigots lose the debate, period.

  6. “but I also agree that this is a slippery slope issue.”

    You are not really going to go down the ‘marry my dog’ road are you? You can’t be that stupid and closed minded.
    So just how is this a slippery slope and where do you see it leading?

    Then explain to me how anyone elses marriage effects your or mine, do that in a rational adult mannor, explain to me how letting your fellow Americans have the same rights as all other Americans is a ba thing and a ‘slippery slope’.

  7. xtp you make the same mistake so many people make. I am not suggesting that gay people are “less than” their heterosexual counterparts. I fight for their rights and support them. I have gay people in my family and I love them.

    I wish you, and others, would stop turning this into a highly emotional issue when it is NOT, at least not for me. My concern is about the dismantling of our culture, and while you are free to disagree to your heart’s content, I believe the institution of marriage should remain as it is.

  8. johnsonjrbm says:

    Of course, the REAL threat to heterosexual marriage is not gay marriage – it’s heterosexual divorce.

    About 45% of “traditional marriages” will be dissolved at some point before ” ’til do us part”. These divorces have included Ronald Reagan (our first and only divorced and remarried President), John Wayne, and Newt Gingrich. Presumably gay marriage played no role in the destruction of their marriages (though Newt did claim that his patriotism made him do it…).

    However, most denominations not only accept second marriages despite Jesus’ repeated admonitions against it, but actually perform such ceremonies and allow them to remain or become full members of their churches (Catholicism and Mormonism being notable exceptions.)

    Using gay marriage as a red herring to detract from their own shortcomings is to pretend they don’t have a two-by-four in their own eyes. It would be doubly embarrassing to them if gay and lesbian marriages actually end up having a lower divorce rate than “traditional marriages”…

  9. Respectively Mr. Summers? Your mind should be on your own family and marriage if one exists. Anything outside of your own house is none of your business and there fore you do not have the right to dictate what happens in someone else’s home, marriage and family. You are not above any of us and we all have the same freedom and rights in this country. I love how the religious right wants limited government and then they turn around and want the government to dictate what happens in everyone else’s bedroom.

  10. aislander says:

    Sorry, Frida, but your side is trying to dictate that government change the definition of my marriage. Gays can call their arrangements anything they want (and change them in fact through civil unions), but they can do all that without changing the definition of marriage for everybody. And if anybody is trying to “dictate,” it is those who ignore the people’s will in this matter…

  11. colsprague says:

    Well, it seems to me that we’ve had some experience with gay marriage in a few states and several nations. And things haven’t gone downhill, so I don’t see what the fuss is all about.

    Gays can raise children, have wild sex parties and do all the sorts of things everyone seems to be afraid of right now. What they’re asking for is the right to settle down with a single spouse and form a family. I really can’t see what is wrong with that. Marriage is not hedonistic. Kids do fine with gay parents, as study after study shows. What’s the big deal?

    Why when it is homosexuals do you use the term “lovers” but for heterosexuals its “mommy and daddy”? Are mommy and daddy not lovers? If not, where did baby come from? As I recall, having kids puts a serious damper on the whole “lovers” bit, but I’m guessikng that doesn’t discriminate by sexual orientation.

    I suspect “Western Civilization” is in more danger from arrogance and greed than it is from allowing gay folks to marry.

  12. colsprague says:

    Oh, and gays can call themselves “married” now. When I was younger a lot of people talked about “common law marriage.” In other words, people lived together and called themselves married without benefit of a license. So this nonsense of saying the government should deny the use of the word “marriage” to the gays is ridiculous. We have a First Amendment. They can call it whatever they like.

    My grandkids, by the way, think this is stupid. I suspect most younger people feel the same. It will change.

  13. “My concern is about the dismantling of our culture”

    Ok, so your answer to my question of how this is a ‘slippery slope’ is this?
    Dismantling our culture??

    Come on, I asked you to answer like an adult and you evaded like you are running for office.
    I think we all know why none of you can or will answer honestly, it will show you for what you really are if you do.

  14. I am not naive. I am fairly certain that nothing I say here in defense of traditional marriage will carry any weight with you, xtp, or anyone else who’s already made up his mind. Why? Because our differences lie in the way we view the purpose of marriage.

    But, in the interest of adult dialogue and debate, I will say what I believe. Before I do though, I’d like to ask that you refrain from devaluing my comments as “stupid” just because you don’t find merit in them.

    In a brief filed by Margaret Somerville, McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and the Law, the author says this:

    ‘People advocating same-sex marriage argue that we should accept that the primary purposeof marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate relationship betweentwo people, and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination.

    They are correct …

    IF [my caps] the primary purpose of marriage is to protect an intimate pair-bond. ”

    (I presume this is what YOU believe xtp?) The author goes on.

    “But they are NOT correcti f its primary purpose is to protect the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sexpair-bonding or to protect an intimate relationship for the purposes of its procreative potential.” (My view)

    Before you leap on this using the argument that some opp-sex couples CANNOT procreate, I agree with Somerville when she goes on to explain that even the symbolism of the family unit as the essential component of procreating and keeping the human race going is highly significant, not for religous reasons, but ESPECIALLY in a culture that has essentially left religion behind.

    Homosexuality is an anomaly of nature. Even if you argue that a person is born homosexual, it is still anomalous…just as a child born with brain damage is anomalous. Note that that child is STILL precious, highly valued and protected by the law, just as gay people are, or should be, but we still acknowledge that his/her condition is not “the norm” or “normal.”

    I’ve done some world travel. The family unit is at the heart of every culture. Yes, gay couples can lovingly raise a child, and yes, a home with loving gay parents is superior to an abusive environment. BUT THE central, defining unit of any culture is a family that includes a male and a female, bonded by covenant and recognized by law as the best possible means of carrying on the human race as it was intended to be.

    The marriage between a man and woman should be protected as unique and ideal IN MY OPINION. Meanwhile, I will continue to love my gay friends and relatives, I will fight for their rights to be treated justly, but I won’t attend their wedding.

    And for the record, xtp, you can laugh all you want about the slippery slope potentially leading to a man marrying his dog, but take a good look at humanity before you decide it’s an absurd notion.

  15. Soundlife says:

    Two questions:
    1: How do any two people, regardless of sex, getting married affect your own marriage?
    2: How does having grandparents, or a live-in relative, a straight or gay friend, a spouse of either sex, or hiring a baby sitter to care for and help raise children destroy the sanctity of marriage?
    I find it humerous how frightened the average American has become of true Freedom.
    How does providing inalienable rights to members of a homosexual marriage affect anyone other than the Taliban, Alqueda, or a Baptist minister?

  16. Oh and sozo, there is no emotion about this on my part, it’s your side that seems to be emotional about it, ‘slippery slope, dismantling culture, dictating consequences, threat to marrage’…..those are emotion filled words and terms.

  17. Frida, you say “Your mind should be on your own family and marriage if one exists. Anything outside of your own house is none of your business and there fore you do not have the right to dictate what happens in someone else’s home, marriage and family.”

    Okay, so it’s none of my business if my neighbor is beating his wife and kids, right? Perhaps we should all ignore each other like those folks in Fresno did until nine children, born of incest, lay dead at their feet.

  18. aislander says:


  19. nice cut and paste sozo but it still doesn’t answer either of my questions pertaining to your statements.
    Why is it a ‘slippery slope’?
    and how is it ‘dismantling our culture’?

    I know how you ‘feel’ about gay people, you hate them and look at them as freaks of nature that should be locked away, but even you know you can’t get away with that so you pretend to ‘like them’ and have no problem with them.
    Good for you.

    Your cut and paste rant doesn’t do much to dispell that by the way it in fact re-enforces it.

    You have tried to defelct to the ‘procreation’ argument, which is silly and yes stupid.
    Procreation is great, but why do you need the Govt to ‘protect’ that? What is wrong with being married and not having kids?

    But lets put that aside for now and get back to your first wild statements.
    Explain them if you will or can.

    And then I will dress you down on the dog\man thing.

  20. Ahhh and right to the persoan attacks, I expect that from ailander and I knew you would get there sozo but you got there faster than I thought.

    Those are very emotion filled words and you know it, thats why you attacked me, you can’t stand others being correct and showing you the door.

  21. Soundlife says:

    Why would the religious right be bringing up the “dog” argument when their predecessors with amourous ties to goats and sheep presented mankind with syphillus?
    Shall we now rewrite the Constitution to read: “All straight men are endowed with …”

  22. SadujTogracse says:

    Excellent letter! Remember marriage is not a right. Nobody is stopping gay couples from living together and having a relationship. The institution of marriage has a meaning that doesn’t include 2 same sex individuals. You can try calling an apple an orange all day long, however in the end… it’s still an apple.

  23. Soundlife says:

    Why all the fear towards the gay marriage community?
    Are you really afraid that you might be gay yourself and this self-loathing brings out your tyranical side?
    Again, how does gay marriage affect your own marriage?
    I have a few close friends who are gay. They don’t “come on” to me, don’t threaten my own marriage, and do pay taxes and add to the betterment of our community.
    I also feel for them when they are unable to be with their one in the hospital because they are not “married.”
    Enough double standards; let’s have the true freedoms that America was founded upon.
    “What he does to the least of mine, he also doeth to me”

  24. Sorry David! I refuse to stab my friends and family in the back. If gay marriage gets on the ballot, they can count on me voting yes!

  25. Sorry aislander, but you are trying to impose YOUR definition of marriage and limiting other people’s rights. This is a free country, and with it comes things YOU may not like or agree with but YOU do not have the right to impose your views on the rest of us. And Sozo? We are not talking about breaking laws via domestic violence, murder, rape and incest and to equate gay marriage to those things shows your biased mindset. Explain to us all how your neighbors being gay and married is going to effect your own marriage? A better comparison would be biracial marriage. Same reasoning from those wanting to “preserve” marriage and the same old tired arguments. Biracial marriages have not resulted in the downfall of marriage as we know it and neither will gay marriages.

  26. LarryFine says:

    Funny how mere decades ago the left was claiming marriage was outdated and now they are trying to co-opt it. Kooky.

  27. LarryFine says:

    Wrong Frida, the left is attempting to redefine millenia of a common (worldwide) understanding of marriage.

  28. “Sorry aislander, but you are trying to impose YOUR definition of marriage and limiting other people’s rights”.

    Of course she is, thats what the conservatives are all about.
    They need big Govt to control others, not them of course, they do nothing wrong, but the Govt should control all others and force them to be more like the freedom loving conservatives.

  29. Grassisgreener says:

    Can’t we come up with some universal term for a partnership and not call it marriage. That way, everybody should be happy. The gays and lesbians will have recognition as having a special partnership, and the “haters and bigots”, as some would call them, don’t have to give up the marriage title.
    Maybe amoraphilia or something.

  30. Soundlife says:

    Unfortunately we have created a society where “marriage” has become a legal term used to define certain rights: right to visit a family member in the hospital, right to inheritance, etc.
    The only means the gay community has to address their rights under this circumstance is to have their relationship defined as a “marriage” under the law. Therefore to address this inequity we need to rewrite the law or define the relationship appropriately.
    Americans just can no longer tolerate true freedom…sad

  31. SadujTogracse says:

    March 17, 2009….
    “One of the nation’s most prominent dictionary companies has resolved the argument over whether the term “marriage” should apply to same-sex duos or be reserved for the institution that has held families together for millennia: by simply writing a new definition.”

    So the change to include same-sex couples to dictionaries is a relatively new addition. Prior to that the definition of marriage was “the institution in which a man and a woman become legally united on a permanent basis”

    Now who exactly is imposing THEIR definition of marriage? (hint it’s not me or aislander)

    Read more: Webster’s dictionary redefines ‘marriage’ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91995#ixzz1Qn3McKas

  32. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Larry said it. This is beyond our borders and lifetimes. The ceremony and tradition of marriage goes back thousands of years and now we are letting a tiny minority of the population change the definition and meaning.

    It is a mockery of the ceremony and our values.

    For the record I am not a very religous person, but I believe and values and tradition. I believe that we do not need to turn our society upside down and inside out in the name of political correctness.

    And the mommy/daddy vs lovers comment- Gays cannot naturally reproduce as a couple. While one of the parties could be a biological parent, science has figured out how to produce a baby from 2 gay parents yet.

  33. Soundlife says:

    “For the record I am not a very religous person, but I believe and values and tradition. I believe that we do not need to turn our society upside down and inside out in the name of political correctness”
    We fought a great civil war to overturn some people’s beliefs, values, and traditions.
    Kind of a tradition in this country…defining freedom and new “norms”

  34. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Why so many straw men and “bad faith” arguments around this subject?

    If this were a subject that the bad faith arguers and I disagreed on, I would just roll my eyes and move on….but I happen to agree that gay marriage should be recognized.

    Sozo and ai have made thoughtful and cogent arguments for their positions….I just don’t agree. Why is it so hard to understand another point of view for some people?

    Anyway….I liked sozo’s “cut & paste”. Did any of you who are gleefully making fools out of yourselves even read it? I did, and she actually posted the best argument in favor of gay marriage. Here it is again:

    ‘People advocating same-sex marriage argue that we should accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two people, and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination.”

    As long as government has a role in sanctioning and benefitting social contracts in our society….those benefits should be applied equally.
    Of course, it would probably be best to get government out of our personal lives altogether, but since that’s not likely to happen…then the next best thing is to ensure that government isn’t in the business of picking winners and losers…

  35. sozo, since you are the one who has resorted to name calling, you can leave and let the adults discuss this matter. Go have your temper tantrum elsewhere. Larry? Your argument also includes the the centuries old traditional marriage of nine year old girls to men in their thirties? What about Polygamy? What about arranged marriages? What about the stoning of wives when a husband is tired of her and wants a younger woman? Or one that will bear a son? If we are going to hold to tradition as the world has known it and defined it, then by all means you get what you asked for. And Marks? I agree with the point that we all have a right to disagree and everyone is allowed their opinion. I think we can all agree that nobody has a right in a free society to impose their opinion upon others and restrict their freedoms- and I am only talking about consenting adults.

  36. gwhite54 says:

    Our nation was founded as a Christian nation. We were blessed for many years until false prophets began to twist the laws using human rights as their banter. The only true rights humans have are spoken by the word of God. Turning from the truth with bring certain destruction to our nation and the end of the age,. May God help you to realize that it is His word that is being spoken.

    4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)– 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
    12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
    18 For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”
    2 Peter 2:4-22 (NKJV)

    Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” 4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
    Matt 24:3-14 (NKJV)

    24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
    Heb 10:23-25 (NKJV)

  37. Two Answers:

    On the basis of two people loving and supporting each other. Gender is irrelevant. Or do you believe that “regular” people shouldn’t be allowed to marry unless they intend to have children as well?

    Yes, three or more would most likely be even better. Or do you believe that extended family plays no role in raising a child? Love and attention are what make a family strong, not the anatomy of its members.

    Your questions scratch at the surface of nothing save your own bigotry.

    Now that we’ve cleared that up why don’t you answer a couple of questions?:

    Since when did marriage become a requirement for having and raising children? Gay or straight anybody can have children. Denying them the right to marry will not prevent people from having children and raising them as they wish.

    What about transgendered people? Is it OK for them to marry because they’ve had surgery to obtain the “proper” parts to fit your opposite gender requirement?

    Is it your stance that human rights come secondary to the maintenance of the status quo and your standard of living? We only extend those rights when it is convenient for us to do so?

    Western civilization is based on human rights, preventing gays from marrying does not protect Western civilization, this in fact is in direct opposition to its core beliefs.

    Freedom, lucky for the rest of us it’s not just for you.

  38. Gays getting married allow them to have the same government benefits that straights have. There’s nothing scary about that and that’s what the fuss is about.

    To keep peace in the family, we need to understand that conventional marriage (as we know it) in western civilization is a religious act, a carry over from the Dark Ages. For those who desire that particular ceremony in their relationship, fine, do it with the appropriate religious official.

    For far to long the United States has allowed this religious ceremony to have civil implications. Time for a true separation of church and state, which means that religious marriage gets stripped of it government sanction. Couples should be required to get a government permit stating that they want to be in a committed “Civil Union Partnership”. Get it stamped or sealed or whatever and the government money faucet gets turned on. Marriage gets stuck back in the holy kingdom and out of the civil realm.

    Only those couples who obtain the blessings of the government through the Civil Union Partnership will receive government benefits. Those who only opt for the marriage route will have to petition god through prayer for benefits.

    Those of a religious nature who want to receive government goodies will have to jump through two hoops, one religious and one government to receive their benefits.

  39. aislander says:
    June 30, 2011 at 10:14 am
    My own theory is that this is just another lefty tactic to break down the culture, making government’s role as arbiter of cultural mores even greater…

    Yeah….just like the government had to step in and grant freedom to a class of people and then almost 100 years later had to step in again to make sure they had their civil rights.

    As long as ‘culture’ stipulates that a certain group of people are lesser than others, GOVERNMENT will have to arbitrate. The Constitution says so.,….

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  40. “gwhite54 says:
    June 30, 2011 at 1:30 pm
    Our nation was founded as a Christian nation.”

    WRONG. Our nation was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, which doesn’t designate Christianity or any other religion and in fact protects us FROM religion.

  41. As long as we are going to play parsing games…

    Marriage is to “join together” …..as in the “marriage of two ideas”.
    “a close or intimate union, relationship, etc: a marriage of ideas”

    Or a hand in a card game –
    “(in certain card games, such as bezique, pinochle) the king and queen of the same suit”

    The religious don’t own the word.

  42. “A dog returns to his own vomit,”

    A fascinating phrase to come from a mythological text…….

  43. I can find no rationale for denying gay couples the right to be as miserable as the hetro population.

  44. MarksonofDarwin says:


    Of course we shouldn’t allow our opinions to be forced on others, but unfortunately, this mindset is prevalent all too often from both Team Red & Team Blue.

    This isn’t a “right vs. left” issue, although it seems to be red meat for those who are simply partisan. Knee jerk reactions and name calling only add to distract from the main issue.

    As an interesting example of how this issue isn’t so neatly divided, the recent ruling on gay marriage in NY came about because Republicans pushed for a vote (they favored it) at the risk of political fallout.

    Also, many traditionally conservative donors contributed roughly two thirds of the total amount of money the coalition for gay marriage received for this legislation.

    Stereotypes and name calling do nothing to advance anybody’s cause.

  45. Misunderestimated says:

    What in the world are you posting?
    A supposed translation of an ancient text from the 1400s?
    Are we to take it literally?
    Should we not then smite you for masterbating in your bathroom?
    Shall we return to stoning?
    Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of religion, freedom from those who would impose their religion on us (Taliban/Alqueda/Loons), and the freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  46. Roncella says:

    sozo, Your beliefs about the sacrament of Marriage were profound and sincere, thanks for sharing them for all of us to read.

    I have observed this about liberals/progressives. They do not give up ever on their causes. They may be slowed down or put on hold for years. However they come back and continue fighting for their causes.

    They are like the weeds in your grass or garden. You can pull them, dig them out, but they come back again and again.

    sozo, look at the last two appointee’s Obama choose for the Supreme Court. Soon the Supreme Court will be controlled by a far left liberal majority.

    What the liberals could not change with votes they will continue to change with the liberal judges on the Courts.

  47. SadujTogracse says:

    I already provided the exact defintion of the word marriage prior to the most recent change. Again, who are the ones redefining the word? Strange nobody has answered.

    Parse that.

  48. concernedtacoma7 says:

    The left continues to twist the Constitution.

    The founders established freedom of religion, i.e. you can go practice whatever faith you want. That said, our founders were very Christian.

    That is not ‘freedom from religion’. Seperation of church and state is not something found in the Constitution.

    As I said earlier, I am not religious, but the nation was founded on Christian values. We have excelled as a society by incorporating those principles into our laws and practices. The current path we are on, where the minority drives policy and social engineering is evident in our policymaking, will not help our society in the long run.

    I will continue to say Merry Christmas and marry a member of the opposite sex, which is biologically correct. You can support changing thousands of years of tradition, I will fight you the whole way.

  49. surething says:

    What an offensive letter.

  50. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Who does it offend?

  51. newscrap says:

    This is not a liberal/progressive issue, stop trying to make everything about poitics. I happen to agree 100% with sozo, and I too have gay friends and gay family members yet you continually call me liberal/progressive. Let the canned name calling go please.

    We are usually on the same page on ths site but this time I have to disagree with you. Sozo was very clear about why she thinks it is a slippery slope, and being against gay marriage and for gay civil unions does not mean that she hates gays. You are putting words in her mouth. It is her OPINION (as she very cleary stated) and an OPINION can’t be wrong. It can be different than YOUR opinion, but by their very definition an OPINION can’t be incorrect.

  52. Roncella says:

    newscrap, sorry but I can’t take politics out of what is happening to America.

  53. Sorry news, but sozo did not addres her statement of why she thinks this is a slippery slope, in fact she seemed to be careful to NOT address it.
    There was nothing from her aswering my questions, only more evasion.
    And frankly it’s my OPINION that she hates gays. She is quite good at covering it but it’s there, you can almost taste it through her elitesim.

    I’m still waiting for a rational answer from her.

  54. aislander says:

    Frida: I am not trying to impose anything: you are. Simple question: Who’s trying to change things? THAT is who is “imposing…”

  55. “Our nation was founded as a Christian nation.”

    No it wasn’t, in fact it wasn’t founded on any religion at all.

    Outside of religion there is no argument against smae sex marriage, none.
    And the myth that marriage is thousands of years old is just that a myth. What is considered ‘traditional’ (by the church) marriage is only 300 or less years old.
    It only came about because the church figured out a way to use it to make……money, what else.

    No one has yet to come up with a rational argument for keeping their fellow Americans from having the same freedoms and rights that every other American has.

    “All men are created equal……”
    You either agree with that or you can pack up and get out of my country.

  56. aislander says:

    It’s really very simple: when the definition of marriage is changed, it changes the definition of ALL existing marriages. The PC crowd is already trying to write “mom and dad” out of the culture (certainly in schools); now they are writing the traditional definition of marriage out of the culture. Below a certain age, I don’t want MY kids being taught anything BUT the ideal arrangement, but if the definition of marriage is changed they would be taught that one has a smorgasbord of possible spouses…

  57. aislander says:

    By the way, there IS no “equal protection” question here. All people have the same rights and same options…

  58. “The left continues to twist the Constitution.

    The founders established freedom of religion, i.e. you can go practice whatever faith you want. That said, our founders were very Christian.

    That is not ‘freedom from religion’. Seperation of church and state is not something found in the Constitution.”

    So what exactly does this mean?:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

    Your own statement says we are free to practice whatever faith we want, how exactly would that be possible if Christianity is incorporated into the law of the land? I’m fairly certain that Christianity has a rule or two about how things should be done…
    Can you sight one valid arguement to bar gay marriage that DOESN’T center around religious beliefs?
    Just for the record you are staiting that because something has been in place for a certain amount of time it becomes moral and ethical…correct? Slavory was the norm for thousands of years, does that make it OK in today’s world?
    One more thing, please show me evidence anywhere in nature of marriage…your claim that marrying the opposite sex is “biologically correct” holds no water. Marriage is a human concept, there is nothing natural about it.

  59. wake up their all communists

  60. Once again, MarksonofDarwin demonstrates why she is one of my favorite posters here. (even though we agree on this issue)

  61. “Can you sight one valid arguement to bar gay marriage that DOESN’T center around religious beliefs?”


  62. aislander says:

    MarksonofDarwin writes: “As long as government has a role in sanctioning and benefitting social contracts in our society….those benefits should be applied equally.”

    But it doesn’t apply those things equally. You KNOW there are favored and protected classes, and disfavored classes. In the case of marriage, there are compelling reasons NOT to change its definition, which I have cited elsewhere in this thread…

    By the way, gays are one of those favored and protected classes in other areas where government meets citizen. I suggest that traditional marriage have the same benefit…

  63. aislander says:

    Upthread, someone wrote about a “marriage of ideas,” and other metaphorical uses of the word. At the risk of being accused of trivializing the discussion (remember, I did not introduce the use of metaphor here), one cannot “marry” one thing to the same thing. In other words you cannot have a marriage of “idea.” It makes no sense. Nor can you “marry” iron with iron–you would have just iron. You CAN”marry” iron with chromium and carbon, but those are obviously different substances…

  64. aislander says:
    June 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    MarksonofDarwin writes: “As long as government has a role in sanctioning and benefitting social contracts in our society….those benefits should be applied equally.”

    But it doesn’t apply those things equally. You KNOW there are favored and protected classes, and disfavored classes. In the case of marriage, there are compelling reasons NOT to change its definition, which I have cited elsewhere in this thread…

    By the way, gays are one of those favored and protected classes in other areas where government meets citizen. I suggest that traditional marriage have the same benefit…

    So your definition of “favored” is being discriminated against, denied the same rights as others and thought of as less than human by people such as yourself?
    Wow, just…wow…

  65. “By the way, gays are one of those favored and protected classes in other areas where government meets citizen.”

    look me in the eye and try, try to tell me you don’t just make this stuff up.
    I dare you.

  66. aislander says:

    In the case of gays, sb963, government DOES discriminate: in their favor. Your argument is so dishonest that it is despicable…

  67. No, thanks, Concerned. I’ve had enough religion for a lifetime. Hypocrisy by any other name is still hypocrisy.

    If your values and judgement is what I’d get from religion, I’ll take my chances on no religion.

  68. I find no “values” in telling another person they don’t deserve what others deserve.

  69. “sozo says:
    June 30, 2011 at 10:07 am
    As long as personal pleasure and happiness rule the world, we will continue to see changes occurring that do not take anything else into account. I am quite sympathetic with gay people who wish to marry, but I also agree that this is a slippery slope issue. ”

    Slipping to where???????

  70. “aislander says:
    June 30, 2011 at 4:51 pm
    Upthread, someone wrote about a “marriage of ideas,” and other metaphorical uses of the word. At the risk of being accused of trivializing the discussion (remember, I did not introduce the use of metaphor here), one cannot “marry” one thing to the same thing. In other words you cannot have a marriage of “idea.” It makes no sense. Nor can you “marry” iron with iron–you would have just iron. You CAN”marry” iron with chromium and carbon, but those are obviously different substances…

    Nice pickup, aislander. So, based on what you say, there is more to the word “marriage” than just the religious implication of a ceremony held in a church, which is exactly my point. The Religious Bleeding Deacons don’t own the word “marriage” and it implies more than one thing and more than one application.

    As to your example that “you can’t marry iron to iron”, I ask why can’t two piles of iron filings be married into one larger, better, pile of iron filings?

    You can limit your mind, but you can’t limit mine.

  71. MarksonofDarwin says:


    I think I know what you’re getting at, but I’m not sure.
    Not trying to define your position for you, but by way of trying to understand, I will attempt to rephrase what you’re saying.

    There are defined protected classes that the government is prohibited from discriminating against…gays being one class. Therefore marriage should also be considered a protected class so that government doesn’t discriminate against one man, one woman marriages?

    If I am understanding you correctly, I don’t think that those two things follow. First, the protected rights afforded to gays as a class are designed to ensure they are able to participate fully and equally in our society. There is a constitutional basis for this.

    Second, the only way to “protect” marriage from discrimination is to allow all consenting adults to participate. At any rate, there is no constitutional basis for government to be involved in marriage at all.

    Finally, I may not fully grasp what you’re trying to say, and none of the above makes any sense at all!

  72. MarksonofDarwin says:


    Aww. I’m blushing. Thanks, and back at ya….

    Just guessing, but I bet you won’t feel that way the next time I send a bit of snark your way!

  73. M o D–I too wondered if those responding to my post bothered to read it. As I said from the get-go, there’s little chance anybody’s mind is going to be changed here –because we are dealing with very different world views. Still I wonder…

    While everyone clamors for the individual’s right to happiness, I wonder at what point in one’s life do we begin to say no to self-gratification as the key determiner in decision-making. In my younger years, I found monogamy quite challenging at times. Anybody remember the big push for “open marriage?” Consenting adults (back in the era of the Sexual Revolution) agreeing to condone and affirm their partners’ extra-marital activities? The argument was that monagamy was “unnatural.” But the open marriage thing didn’t work out too well. Why do you suppose that is?

    About that slippery slope. Perhaps some of you are aware of educators who are in favor of featuring story books that have “genderless” children as characters? Yes, it’s true. Makes as much sense as mommies and daddies becoming “parental units” I guess.

    What interests me at the moment in these discussions is the conflict that exists in the “nature-doesn’t- make- mistakes” argument and the support for people who have sex change operations. If Nature doesn’t make mistakes, why do some people undergo the agony of sex-change and enjoy the full support of the gay community?

  74. alindasue says:

    As I see it, there are two types of “marriage” : legal and religious (or spiritual). Most of us go through both, but you can have one without the other. My mom and step-dad married in front of a judge. No religious ceremony was involved. I have some friends who are married within their church, but are in a common-law union legally.

    When I was sealed to my husband, the legal paperwork was taken care of in an office before (or after – can’t remember after 29 years) we went through the sealing ceremony. It was a legal necessity and required by the church, but not part of the actual temple sealing. We are married within the church and we are married legally. We have two separate marriage certificates.

    A state issued marriage certificate is a document legally binding two families together. Nothing more, nothing less. Since the government can not constitutionally declare a religion, the government issued marriage license is by nature an a-religious document. With that in mind, then the government has no business telling consenting adults who – or even how many – they can or can’t marry. Equally so, the government has no business forcing marriage standards on the members of any church. This truly is, or should be, a case where “separation of church and state” should fall into play.

    To johnsonjrbm, a point of correction:
    I cannot speak for Catholics, since I am not Catholic myself, but I am a Mormon. I know quite a few divorced and/or remarried people at church who are members in good standing and temple worthy. The church does encourage couples to prayerfully do what they can to preserve their marriage, but I’ve not known anyone to be dis-fellowshipped in any way because of divorce.

  75. Capybara91 says:

    Gimme a break. We’ve survived a Civil War, a couple of World Wars, countless undeclared wars, a Depression, and 9-11. I’m pretty confident that we won’t succumb to gay marriage. To paraphrase the Bard, methinks you protest way too much. And the institution of marriage? With infidelity, cohabitation, and divorce what they are, I seriously doubt we’re wrecking a “sacred” institution.

  76. aislander says:

    This is easy, MoD: marriage isn’t a class, it is a recognition by government of a formal union between a man and a woman, and has moral and legal implications that society has found to be important. The legal side can be picked up by civil unions and contract law. The moral side isn’t so clear cut, but my strong opinion is that we should come down on the side of tradition, what we want our children to view as “marriage” (and there were references to marriage as early as kindergarten, in my life), and what currently exists, which with VERY recent exceptions, is marriage is between a man and a woman. The state has no interest in gay “marriage” other than enforcing someone’s idea of “fairness,” and helping to advance a political agenda. As I stated above, there is no equal protection question since we all are subject to the same rules.

    And finally, the side that is pushing for “change” is the side that is trying to impose ITS values on everyone else…

  77. aislander says:

    We’re getting a bigger pile, all right…

  78. aislander…..just as I expected. When confronted by your own analogy that failed, you seek to insult.

  79. To conservative fundamentalists any non regressive change is a slippery slope and is to be avoided at all costs.

    “Dismantling our culture” was an argument for not giving woman the vote, or allowing them to wear trousers, integrating the military, ending separate but equal education systems etc, etc, etc.

  80. “About that slippery slope. Perhaps some of you are aware of educators who are in favor of featuring story books that have “genderless” children as characters? Yes, it’s true. Makes as much sense as mommies and daddies becoming “parental units” I guess.”

    If one is rock solid in holding to “traditional roles”…..there would have been no “Rosie the Riveter” to get us through the manufacturing for WWII when the men were overseas. Today, there would be no “two income families” as there were few in the 40s and 50s, thus the buying power of Americans could be cut in half and many of the things we take for granted (computers????) would not be affordable.

    The list goes on and on….

  81. xring – “allowing” women to vote was a BIG_____deal!!! They were too frail for the rough and tumble world of Republican politics that controlled the US in the early 1900s

  82. “aislander says:
    June 30, 2011 at 6:57 pm
    This is easy, MoD: marriage isn’t a class, it is a recognition by government of a formal union between a man and a woman,

    which, up until 1971 in many states, HAD to be a man and woman of the same race. Luckily for many, we grew up past that regressive era.

  83. “What interests me at the moment in these discussions is the conflict that exists in the “nature-doesn’t- make- mistakes” argument and the support for people who have sex change operations. If Nature doesn’t make mistakes, why do some people undergo the agony of sex-change and enjoy the full support of the gay community?”

    Change the word “nature” to “God” and watch the dialog change……

  84. bobcat1a says:

    Concerned tacoma ” the nation was founded on Christian values”

    In what founding document do you find a mention of Jesus Christ and his values?

  85. I guess kardnos is a scorned black man with a chip on his shoulder based on the constant race baiting that he does. Join the rest of of America and relax.

  86. bobcat1a says:

    Aislander: “Simple question: Who’s trying to change things? THAT is who is “imposing…”

    So you would argue that the 13th amendment was “imposing” freedom of those who had been slaves? Boy, I bet society was really damaged by that change!

  87. aislander says:

    Comparing same-sex “marriage” to the abolition of slavery is an insult to African-Americans…

  88. concernedtacoma7 says:

    When is the attack on the traditional family going to stop? By making a joke of marriage, the next generations are even more likely to have failed families.

    This affects us all. The far left are out of control and with luck and some smart voters we will start to move back toward common sense and decency by 2012.

  89. What’s a “traditional” family? Is it Newt Gingrich? David Vitter?

  90. “aislander says:
    June 30, 2011 at 8:01 pm
    Comparing same-sex “marriage” to the abolition of slavery is an insult to African-Americans…

    How about comparing same sex marriage to mixed race marriage? That was illegal up until 1971 in several states?

    Let me guess…you’re going to pull the old “gay is a choice and being black isn’t”?



    “which, up until 1971 in many states, HAD to be a man and woman of the same race. Luckily for many, we grew up past that regressive era.”


  92. aislander says:

    So…is there a substantive difference between a black man and a white man?

  93. Oh….I guess I was wrong…..this from 2008:

    In parts of rural Alabama, he said, probate judges still refuse to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples. Holmes explained that some of his Alabama colleagues opposed his measure because they willfully refused to accept that the federal government had the power to override state law—an ideology of states’ rights that goes way beyond Newt Gingrich to John Calhoun.

  94. so…is there a substantive difference between a gay man and a hetero man?

  95. aislander says:

    Not really, and that’s the point. Is there a substantive difference between a man and a woman?

  96. How about the Palin’s as a “traditional” family?

    Out of wedlock children, teenage boyfriends sleeping over…..

  97. So……the choice to spend your life together and have all the legal means is all dependent on sexual organs?

    That just set women’s rights back about 100 years.

    The problem with women’s right to vote was that they were too frail, according to the men that ran the country.

  98. aislander says:

    Way to miss the point. There is no substantive difference between a black man and a white man. There is no substantive difference between a black woman and a white woman. There is a substantive difference between a man and a woman (beyond mere plumbing) regardless of their respective pigmentation. Therefore the comparison between anti-miscegenation laws and the restricting of marriage to a man and a woman is not valid…

  99. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Ai, the sexist left will not stop with their rhetoric. Great post.

    And how many reporters will the left send to Alaska to try and get dirt on a woman not in office or running for one? Pathetic.

    McCains daughter is gay, what was your point bringing up Palin?

    Pelosi made millions this year. BHO is the most partisan president in history. His admin is filled with unqualified buddies from Chi-town. Tax cheats, pervs, union buddies. Did you hear his speech yesterday? Worst in presidential history. Jet owners? .01% of this year’s budget. 4 years of Dem budget/tax control, and it was fine then.

    Need more?

    He talks of leadership, and then asks Joe to handle all his business. Worked so well with the stimulus.

  100. Islander,
    Show me one way that gays get preferential treatment from the government.

    Other than White Males, name one group or class of people that is not protected under our laws.

    ‘most partisan president in history’ Once again you show the typical right wing ignorance of history.

    A real leader knows how to use and get the best out of those he leads.

  101. As predicted the rightists can not or will not engage in an adult, fact based rational discussion. They know if they do that they will lose right out of the gate, so instead they evade, deflect, lie, insult, cover up, lie some more and then when all else fails, which it always does for them, they attempt to ignore reality.

    It’s a pity really, I would really like to know just where this slippery slope is going to lead, and I really want to know how our culture is being dismantled.
    Say nothing of an explaination of how anyone elses marriage effects mine or anyone else for that matter.

    We know they can’t explain any of that let alone get them to understand how it is they that are emposing thier so called values and morals on everyone else in the name of religion.
    Freedom and rights be damned, the church is first and formost for the rightists.
    And they will say or do anything to push that agenda.

  102. “McCains daughter is gay, what was your point bringing up Palin?”


    Someone was really cranked up in the middle of the night…

    She has commented that the cause of the gay community for equality is “one of the ones closest to my heart”. As such, she spoke at the Log Cabin Republicans convention in April 2009. There she encapsulated her cultural and political perspectives with the declaration: “I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people’s lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And, yes, I am a Republican.” She supports same-sex marriage and gay adoption. In June 2009, McCain posed for the NOH8 Campaign, a celebrity photo project that protests California’s Proposition 8 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which her mother Cindy also posed for. She is in favor of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military.

  103. KARDNOS
    Teddy Roosevelt was also considered too frail for the rough and tumble world of New York City Republican politics when he got involved in the 1890’s.

  104. I see the rightists have fled in disgrace, like always.

  105. “The founders established freedom of religion, i.e. you can go practice whatever faith you want. That said, our founders were very Christian.”

    Your first statement is correct. Your second one is wrong. If you’ll do some research from other than Chirstian sources, you’ll find the founders were a diverse group when it came to religious beliefs. Some, including Jefferson and Franklin were Deists.

    And when you say “… where the minority drives policy and the social engineering is evident in our policymaking..”

    Are you referring to one or all three of the following: Creationism, the Christian Coalition, or the GOP proposed changes to Medicare that Newt Gingrich recently referred to as “Right Wing Social Engineering?

  106. Roncella says:

    The left will continue to move America to the very far left in every way possible. They can’t do it to the general public, through elections, which leans Conservative. So the Left will fill the courts with liberal far left Judges including the Supreme Court of the U.S.

  107. sue1234 says:

    What is mental disorder? It is making up a bunch of crap about a group of people that for some reason scare you.

    If you care about who someone else marries you are the one who is mentally disordered. Gay parents do not raise gay children.. for centuries now its the heterosexuals who BREED THE HOMOSEXUALS. I know lets get rid of the heterosexuals!!
    Did you know there is 0% of child abuse in lesbian parents? No you fools didnt

  108. aislander says:

    Roncella: Did you know it is not necessary to impeach Federal judges in order to get rid of them? I just found out Congress can eliminate their positions with a simple majority vote. So all the court-stacking that occurred during the Clinton and Obama admins (if you can call the current regime an administration) can be undone with the advent of a conservative Congress…

  109. alindasue says:

    aislander said, “So all the court-stacking that occurred during the Clinton and Obama admins… ”

    Curious about your claim of “court-stacking”, I looked at when our current Supreme Court justices were appointed. Here’s what I found out:

    Gerald Ford appointed one justice who now retired.
    Ronald Reagan appointed three justices, one of whom is now retired.
    George H.W. Bush appointed two justices, one of whom is now retired.
    Bill Clinton appointed two justices.
    George W. Bush appointed two justices.
    Barack Obama appointed two justices.

    source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

    I suppose if any president could legitimately be accused of “court-stacking”, it would be Ronald Reagan, since he appointed one more justice than any of the others – but I really don’t think one extra justice over a two term period really can be called “stacking”.

    As it is, there are now four active justices appointed by Democrats and five appointed by Republicans. All-in-all, that’s a pretty good balance for deciding cases impartially, as the Supreme Court should. It’s much more balanced now than it was in 2004 when seven Republican appointed justices and two Democrat appointed justices gave George W. Bush his second term in office.

    By the way, to Sue1234,
    Despite the way the user name sounds, Roncella (aka frequent letter writer, Ronald Petite) is a he, not a she. It took me a while to figure that out at first too.

  110. aislander says:

    Not talking only about the Supremes, alindasue, but about the entire Federal court system. It would be great to have judges who realized that unfettered government is a very dangerous thing, as George Washington pointed out. It wasn’t evil corporations that killed millions in the 20th Century, but all-powerful governments. We NEED checks and balances, but all three branches have been about increasing the power of government.

    beerBoy is right about one thing: Republicans and Democrats have been about the same thing, except for a couple of trademark issues, but BOTH have increased the power of the Federal government.

    Once a government HAS a great deal of power over its people, you have to depend on the leader to be wise and merciful, but you can never count on that. Witness the parade of monarchs over the centuries: the good ones stand out due to their rarity.

    I would prefer a system of government that limited the power of leaders I agreed with, rather than a system in which they could impose all my favorite solutions on the nation. And you should prefer that, too (with regard to leaders who agreed with you)…

  111. KARDNOS says:

    “We NEED checks and balances, but all three branches have been about increasing the power of government.”

    Unless said checks and balances are progressive keeping the ultra-conservatives in mind.

  112. The arguments against gay marriage on this thread (and elsewhere) all stem from fear of the unknown or from religious beliefs. We have seen tremendous upheavals and changes in the “culture” of our country, and those who fear them predict the end of civilization. Divorce, interracial marriage, integration, women’s right to vote, and a long list of others.

    All of these changes brought some negative as well as positive consequences. The negative ones were mainly instigated by people who had difficulty in adjusting to new things, i.e., extreme conservatives, but for the most part, these things have been positive for our nation’s quest for equal treatment under the law.

    That quest was started by our founders and will be never ending as long as people believe it is all right for fundamental human rights to be granted to one group but not another.

    And, yes, marriage is a fundamental human right, as stated many times by several Supreme Courts. It can only be regulated by law to insure that it does not harm our democracy, harm the individuals involved or harm the family of such marriages. So far, the court has said that marriage of close relatives, polygamy, and underage marriages fit that reasoning.

    This letter is a stab at creating an argument that gay marriages will cause harm, but it falls flat. Fear of the unknown is a great way to get votes, as the conservatives well know, but it is a poor excuse for denying someone a fundamental human right.

    Our nation is not a theocracy where religious beliefs may deny someone a fundamental human right, so those should be immediately discounted. The Supreme Court ruled that way on interracial marriage and threw any arguments based on religious beliefs out before even considering the case.

    I keep asking on many threads to see one argument based on the three issues the Supreme Court says can limit marriage, and I have yet to see one.

  113. Roncella says:

    tuddo, hang in there your dream may come true. Should President Obama win a second term its more than likely he will get to appoint more very young far left progressives to the supreme court just as he has done during his first term in office.

    Once that is accomplished, the far left will have succeeded in turning America up side down and into a third world country.

    What the liberals/progressives could not do using the voting system they will have accomplished using both State Court Judges and the Supreme Court Justices to implement their Social agendas.

  114. aislander says:

    KARDNOS writes: “Unless said checks and balances are progressive keeping the ultra-conservatives in mind.”

    I can think of only two instances where progressive initiatives were directed at limiting the power of the Federal government: Strike that: I can think of only one. I WAS going to say the civil rights movement, but that resulted in increasing federal power at the expense of the states. I don’t believe states (or any other part of government) should be able to codify discrimination, but the Feds took it well beyond that.

    I WAS going to say that the Fed gave us the power to debase ourselves in various ways, but again this is an example of the central government’s taking power away from the states. So, strike that, too…

    THEN I was going to say that progressives reduced our power to defend ourselves, but that was more of a power SHIFT, really…

    Maybe some of you progressives could remind me of progressive efforts to limit the power of the Federal government, because it is obvious I cannot…

  115. aislander says:

    Roncella writes: “…the far left will have succeeded in turning America up side down and into a third world country.”

    There are those on the left, particularly in the environmental movement, who have stated that’s exactly what they want to do, and that makes me question both the honesty and the intelligence of lefties who say their only motivation is to keep good manufacturing jobs in America…

  116. This is what I believe will happen eventually.The Supreme Court will rule that marriage between a man and woman is too racist to be legal and therefor should be banned.This thought occurs after reading of what kinds of decisons the judicial system has been handing down.

  117. Roncella, were perhaps suggesting that the Supreme Court decision on interracial marriages was part of “turning America up side down and into a third world country”? or was it deciisons on not allowing close cousins to marry?

    Or was it their reasoniong thagt marriage is a fundamental human right and can only be liomited if it harms our democracy, harms the individuals involved or harms others?

    If you can show me any reasoniong that fits that, I would seriously consider it. So far it is fear mongering and religious bigotry. Please try again.

  118. aislander says:

    So…tuddo…if marriage IS, as you say, a “fundamental human right” now, does that change the definition of marriage? I mean, you can’t deny fundamental rights to anyone, since those come from our Creator, as the Declaration avers. I’m not certain, though, how that would work, since marriage has ALWAYS had conditions attached to it, and not only the man/woman one. Even more fundamental rights have restrictions placed on them for the good of society, such as the fire-in-a-crowded theater exception or the threat-to-society-and-therefore-deprived-of-liberty one. I believe an argument could (and should) be made that putting restrictions on the “right” of marriage is to the benefit of society.

    Putting aside that argument (for the time being), my original question stands: if marriage is a fundamental human right that can’t be denied to anyone, does that mean anyone can get married to anyone or anything (let’s not forget the animal rights movement…)?

    And, given your aversion to “religious bigotry,” as you put it, don’t you have a problem with the Declaration’s reliance on the Creator as the source of our rights?

  119. We’ve been changing the definition of marriage for a long time. When I was growing up a Black could not marry a White. It was not in the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage is whatever the civil law at the time says it is.

    If you interject your version of God into it, that is your personal belief system and cannot be used for civil purposes.

    For my part, I think that a civil government should make civil unions only, and then people can get married in a religious ceremony that fits in with their belief system.

    When ever we tie civil rights, benefits and obligatons under the law then whatever we call it must fit under the Constitutional tests of equal treatment.

  120. And, by the way, the “Creator” is not God as Christians know it. That was discussed in many papers at the time. It is a Deist concept that there was a force of creation, not an all powerful and judgemental entity that stuck around to watch over human kind. Deists argued among themselves what form this force took, but they all agreed that it became all of nature and was not a separate entity. Not too far from the Big Bang theory.

    The compromise made at the time was between powerful Virginians and others who wanted God mentioned in the Constitution and atheists and Congregationalists from the North who pushed for the elimination of religion in our civil affiars.

    It was settled when the Bill of Rights came along which the founders and contemporaries called “Separation of Church and State” .

  121. Roncella, – liberal/progressive court stacking.

    As of January there were 836 federal judges.
    Supreme Court = 9; Appeals Courts = 179; District Courts = 678.

    Regan appointments: Supreme 3; Appeals 83; District 290; Total 376.
    Bush 1 appointments; Supreme 2; Appeals 42; District 148; Total 192.
    Clinton appointments; Supreme 2; Appeals 66; District 305; Total 373.
    Bush 2 appointments; Supreme 2; Appeals 62; District 261; Total 325.
    Obama appointments; Supreme 2; Appeals 19; District 68; Total 89.

    Republican: Supreme 7; Appeals 187; District 699; Total 893.
    Democratic: Supreme 4; Appeals 85; District 373 Total 462.

    Supreme court: 5 conservatives, and 4 not so conservative.

  122. aislander says:

    They’re baaaack. tuddo you KNOW that deist thing is a pantload, right? As is the Founders having ANY thought of separation of church and state? Danbury Baptists? The letter was about the state interfering with the church, NOT vice versa. The First Amendment is about the establishment of a state religion. How many times do we have to define the wheel before you guys admit it’s a circle?

  123. larsman says:

    Tuddo weaves –

    “If you interject your version of God into it, that is your personal belief system and cannot be used for civil purposes.

    For my part, I think that a civil government should make civil unions only, and then people can get married in a religious ceremony that fits in with their belief system.”

    Tuddo has just interjected his version of his “god” (himself or perhaps “humanism”) into it which by his own new definition disqualifies him from civil discourse, but then gives his personal findings which are fine but are not allowed for anyone else who might be so narrow minded as to believe that a compass actually points…North

    BTW, what’s with the false racial comparison? Melanin content does not equate to personal relationship choices… and for that matter stop blaming Christians, didn’t you know that Moses’ wife was a dark skinned Midianite?

  124. larsman says:

    Tuddo, BTW where are you getting that ridiculously unsustainable idea regarding an imaginary deism or atheism among the founders and framers of our country…..let me posit a guess, in order for you to pass a prerequisite “history” class you have to parrot back the lecturer’s opinions like a juke box or they wont give a passing grade….my kids had to put up with that same unbridled censorship at the UW and Central. I will suggest reading more of a spectrum of sources than merely the assigned curricula, which is, apparently ideologically tainted. The amount of U.S. history source documentation IS available and I would suggest John Jay, Benjamin Rush, Washington’s farewell address and those to whom John Adams points as inspirational for the revolution in the first place. Yeah I know it might take just a little more effort, however….

  125. Roncella says:

    xring, My; point to the regular folks out there, who love their Country and want it to succeed for their part and their families future,is If Obama wins another four years, he will more than likely have a few more opportunities to place very young far left Liberal/Progressives on the Supreme Court as he has done his first term.

    Once the far left get control of the Supreme Court, they will force their agenda on the whole Nation, without the will of a majority of the folks being able to stop them.

    xring be very careful what you wish for, you may be very sorry later.

  126. larsman, you only have to go to the founders’ own words about what they believed to show my statements are correct.

    Almost all of the founders were part of the Free Masons, and at the time this menat they were Deists, (and that is a majority of the founders). The revolutionaries and writers of the Declaration and the Constitution were inspired by America’s first philosophers and freedom writers who certainly were Deists. Their own words show their beliefs and what they intended by “God”.

    Thomas Paine, of “Common Sense” fame, and a leading advocate of Deism, wrote that Deism “is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason . . . with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests. It honors Reason as the choicest gift of God to man and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; . . . it avoids all presumptuous beliefs and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to be revelation.”

    The well-known patriot Ethan Allen published the Deistic piece “Reason: the Only Oracle of Man”. In the preface of his book, he wrote, “I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one.”

    Samuel Adams and John Jay were conspicuous exceptions to the list of Deists that included Washington, Jefferson and most other founders. Samuel Adams was called “The Last Puritan” and was vocally against the free masonary movement. The later Adams rebelled against his tight patriarchal rule and were confirmed Deists or agnostics, although they did attend church, unlike George Washington who refused to go into a church and was proclaimed a Deist in the funeral oration at his grave.

    This from John Adams: “The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?” .

    and…”God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”

    and this…”The Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

    I could go on and on with quotes, but there are a huge number of books available in the library on this subject, in-depth studies with quotes and sources. It will be availabe, I should say, until revisionists like the school text book writers have to eliminate them like they did in Texas.

    Unless one studies real history, people will believe what they want to believe, even in the face of actual statements by our founders. It is clear from their writings that when ever the talk of God, which most do, they are referring to the God of Reason and the God of Nature, which are Deistic thoughts which reject Christian views of God, but view the Bible as a great work of philosophy.

    The only part of my statement I should have been clearer on was the “supposed” atheism of some of the founders, like Washington, who not once ever referred to God, Jesus, Christianity or any other religion in any of his statements or writings. He was probably an agnostic, and that is the word I should have used since it would have been political suicide to be a proclaimed atheist at the time.

  127. Ailander is lying about the courts again.
    There is no ‘srtacking’ unless one is talking about the far right, which has stacked the courts and filibusters every appointment by any Democrat.

    Just once I would like to have ailander be honest.

  128. aislander says:

    tuddo: Nice cherry picking. Of COURSE you never referred to any of the manifold statements by the Founders in which they stressed the importance of religious faith, but I expect that from your ilk. I’ll concentrate on just one little point:

    tuddo writes: “…like Washington, who not once ever referred to God, Jesus, Christianity or any other religion in any of his statements or writings.”

    From Washington’s Farewell Address: Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

  129. aislander says:

    The same Congress that wrote the First Amendment (you know the one that supposedly expunges religion from government), also wrote the Northwest Ordinance (the one that barred slavery from the new territories. Who knew those slavery enthusiasts did THAT?) that spoke to the importance of promoting religious instruction in the new territories. So…if religious instruction was SO important in territories that late would become states, can you guys REALLY assert that religion was NOT important to the states and Federal government that already existed?

  130. And now aislander is lying about the founding fathers!

    Tuddo, you have done great work, the far right radicals are freaking out, you have given them facts, and the truth. They simply can not handle either!

  131. aislander, there are a lot of religions that Washington was talking about in the farewell address, including Deism. Most of the founders thought that some religion was good for people, b ut many didn’t think much of the way the God of Christianity was being misinterpreted as a supernatural being instead of the natural Creator. They thought that rational thought, “Reason” was a much higher ideal than wthe dogma that was being passed off in the churches.

    You notice that Washington never said Christianity, God, Jesus or anything but platitudes about how religion is good for the masses in your quote. That is the way politicians in our secular democracy should talk, and not about how we were founded as a Christian nation, since that is blatantly ridiculous and anti-American.

  132. And, going back before the discussion was hijacked into one of religion, I think that the opponents of gay marriage would be well-suited to discuss without emotion and without religious dogma any reasons why they think it would harm our nation, harm their own marriages, or harm the people in the families created by such marriages.

    Fear mongering and religious dogma were not well-considered by our founding fathers no matter what religion they professed.

    Personally, I think our country should support the stability of these families in the same way we support heterosexual marriages. My predicition is that as these families gain recognition, they will also accept the responsibilities of marriage at the same level as heterosexuals do and the whole institution will be strengthened.

  133. aislander says:

    tuddo: Are you so blinded by ideology that you can’t see the knots you’re tying yourself into to argue this technicality? Just as a fish doesn’t know it’s wet because it’s immersed in water–the only environment it knows–the Founders talked about religion as being synonymous with Christianity: the only environment they knew would be universally understood by the American people.

    tuddo writes: “They thought that rational thought, ‘Reason’ was a much higher ideal than wthe dogma that was being passed off in the churches.”

    You’re talking about the French revolution and the Committee of Public Safety. It renamed Christian holidays in honor of what it considered enlightened principles, including a holiday to honor Reason. No such thing happened in America, but Washington probably could have done it. IF he had wanted to…

  134. aislander says:

    My mistake. The Revolutionary Calendar didn’t include a holiday dedicated to Reason, but they reconsecrated churches as “Temples of Reason.”

  135. aislander says:

    George Washington, General Orders of May 2, 1778: While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.

  136. aislander, as I said, read some history books. Our founders knew that there were many religions in our country and did not equate the word “religion” with Christianity. You have been so brainwashed by current revisionist history that you can’t even see the forest for the trees you have planted. Also your statements are an offense to the Deist, Jewish and Universalist Patriots who were not Christians but who were part of our nation from the beginning.

    As for Washington himself, an excellent book is by Frank Grizzard Jr., a former senior editor of the George Washington Papers, “The Ways of Providence: Religion and George Washington.” He states that the any reference purporting to state Washington’s belief in Christianity were not written by George Washington, but by others, some with his permission, and some without.

    In his own hand, in verifiable documents he never used the words Christianity or Jesus Christ. He used terms for “God” like “Governor of the Universe,” “Providence”, the “Great Ruler of Events, ” or the “Grand Architect”, the masonic terminology for the Creator of a scientifically ordered universe. He never took Communion, but left after the first part of the service when he did attend church, which was not very often by his Rector’s account.

  137. The arguments against gay marriage on this thread (and elsewhere) all stem from fear of the unknown or from religious beliefs.

    Please stop with the “fear” nonsense. As for “religious beliefs” as has been pointed out here by men far more learned than I, they are at the heart of societal laws…don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t murder, don’t sleep with your neighbor’s wife (though I will grant you that last one seems to have been jettisoned by many in today’s society) but you get my drift.

    I would argue that those of you who cannot “imagine” how gay marriage might affect society as a whole are people who lack the imagination required to ponder long-range consequences. Surely you can see far enough down the line to know that what I do may very well effect your life in some way eventually?

  138. aislander says:

    So…tuddo…you’re saying the quote I cited in which Washington specifically mentioned and praised Christianity was FABRICATED?

    George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778.

    Have another: “I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.”

    George Washington, The Last Official Address of His Excellency George Washington to the Legislature of the United States (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1783), p. 12; see also The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1783 (London: G. Robinson, 1784), p. 150.

    Sounds as though he used the word “God” and in a contemporary citation…

  139. aislander says:

    …and he DID call God “the Divine Author of our blessed religion.” What religion could he refer to as “our?” Since the VAST majority of Americans (well over 90% were Christians), there is NO question (for those being honest with themselves and others…) that he was referring to Christianity.

  140. In case it was unclear, the opening sententence in my post a moment ago was a quote from tuddo. An uncharacteristically foolish remark for tuddo I think.

    A thought regarding the long term effects of sanctioning gay marriage. IMO, and please note that it’s my opinion, one essential motive behind the push to sanction gay marriage is to impinge upon the rights of others ultimately. It’s all well and good to clamor for individual rights, but there’s a cost to everything, and as the Heritage Foundation puts it…” the collision of religious/ moral conscience and nondiscrimination laws still looms.”

    “It is increasingly clear that the primary purpose of same-sex marriage laws is not to alleviate legal hurdles or provide particular benefits but to confer social approval on a new understanding of the institution of the family. As Democratic State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn admitted before the New York vote, “What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is. And that’s a good thing.”

    When will your right to marry impact MY right to express my religious beliefs without fear of losing my job, for instance? I can promise you that teaching jobs WILL be in peril if teachers vocalize disagreement with homosexual marriage on ANY grounds. Eventually, questions will make their way into job interviews that will force people “out of the closet” as religious bigots and therefore “bad candidates” for the job. This WILL happen; in fact I think it happens already.

    Protection for folks in civil unions can and SHOULD BE in place without the government putting its stamp of approval on gay marriage and ultimately labeling those who find it immoral or even unsavory as hatemongers.

  141. Aislander…interesting that Pres. Washington alluded to scripture in this remark…Judeo-Christian writings.

  142. sozo, so you think the letter writer’s statement, without any discussion of what harm he is talking about is not fear mongering?

    “It is about the destruction of the institution of marriage and Western civilization as we know it.”

    All I ask is that people detail what harm they think it would cause others, what harm they think it would cause to the people in the family or what harm they think it would cause to our democracy. Is that too much to ask.

    Instead we get this “end of civilization” stuff.

    Thank you for stating specifically what your objection is, that you may be stifled in giving your religious views, especially your personal opinions about gay people at work. I think it would be no different than today. Most private employers do not tolerate religious discussions in public on the work site, especially any that demean or cause friction among the workers.

    If your employer lets you get by with telling Catholics at work that their religious views are stupid, or telling a divorced woman that she should be stoned to death like the Bible says, or telling a mixed-race couple that they are sinful in the eyes of God, for example, then you would probably be able to make any statement about your views of the Bible and Christianity. If they currently suppress such statements, then they probably would be less tolerant of negative statements about gay couples.

    Most employers do not tolerate hate speech or bigoted speech of any kind, because it is not good for business.

    I think any court would uphold your right to make any religious statement that you want in a public environment, however, as opposed to private employers. Look at the extreme of hate speech we tolerate under freedom of speech of Westboro Baptist Church. I personally doubt your expressions of religious reasons for being against gay marriage could be any more extreme than that.

  143. Aislander, please look carefully at what I said about Washington and other Deists. They did think the Bible is a good work of philosophy, and they often quoted it. They thought religion was a good thing for our nation. They just weren’t Chrstians as we define the word today. They did not believe Jesus was the son of God, or that there He rose from the dead, so that would make them automatically “agnostic” at the very least according to our current definitions.

    The “General Orders” were often written by others, and Grizzard points out that Washington was a great delegator on these matters. Some he penned himself, and scholars can tell that he wrote them. Most of them he did not.

    Washington was a great general and a great politician who knew what messages to send out to his troops and to the public.

    Most of the founders came from an elite educated class. In the early 1800’s there was a counter revolution against this class and all things to do with the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason. Deism fell out of favor, and the populist movement swept Europe and the US. The Romantic Age began by emphasizing the emotional, the mystical and the miracles, and the Know-Nothings and anti-education movements began. That’s when Paine was vilified.

    One specific diary that you will find quoted on evangelical web sites trying to prove Washington was a devout Christian (Michelle Bachmann loves to cite it) is a known forgery written after he died by either his step daughter or one of his descendents trying to cast a better light on Washington’s religious views. The religion of several of the early patriots were cast in a harsh light by Southern populists. Thomas Paine was treated the worst, and even Harvard stopped allowing his works to be studied. Southerners especially used these attacks to make political gains and to rally their populace against the Northern atheists, as they called them.

    We still have that tug of war today between reason and emotion, between enlightenment and myth. Note the successful movement in Texas to scrub Jefferson from textbooks.

  144. aislander says:

    Brevity is the soul of wit, tuddo, and makes a conversation move along, as well…There is no doubt that the Romantic movement gave rise to populism, socialism, and Nazism (they were HOPELESS romantics, right?) AND American progressivism, so it is ironic in the extreme that you guys are now claiming the mantle of reason.

    Here’s another from Washington:

    “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”

    That was from a speech to Delaware chiefs…

  145. aislander says:

    tuddo wrote: “Note the successful movement in Texas to scrub Jefferson from textbooks.”

    The only places I could find this being touted as fact was on various lefty websites. Surprisingly, Fox News also spread the misinformation. I saw the list of historical figures slated for INclusion in Texas’s textbooks and Jefferson was on it. I saw another list of those on the bubble, and he was NOT on that.

    If the rest of your assertions are as factual as that one, America’s history as a Christian nation (not government!) is safe…

  146. Is the New York Times considered just a “left website”?


    “Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

  147. aislander says:


  148. Well tuddo, there’s fear and then there’s fear. I’m not trying to be glib. I am not afraid of gay couples or gay unions per se, but I do fear for the future of our society as we continue trying to accommodate everyone’s personal happiness agenda. At some point, my personal happiness formula is bound to conflict with yours or someone else’s. Then what do we do?

    In my opinion, we should uphold what is the absolute best standard for the furtherance and health of our society. IMO that means children should be raised by a mother and a father if possible. I don’t say that because I have sentimental attachment to Father Knows Best paradigms but because I think children need nurture and support from a man and a woman; they need what only a man can give them and what only a woman can give them, and yes, I believe they are very different. I think I was a good mother, for instance, but I am grateful that my children had the direct and daily influence of their father in their developing years, and even now as adults.

    I realize this standard cannot exist in every situation, but I believe that as a society, we should uphold that standard and encourage the marriage of procreative parents and the families that are created by these unions.

    I also think we should be supportive of non-traditional family systems, but that we should not encourage them or force people to say they are “normal.” They are outside the norm and should be the exception, not the rule.

    Finally, I’d like to ask you to be very thoughtful in the way you phrase things. You suggested in your comment directed to me that I have something against gay people when you wrote about me wanting to express myself
    “especially your personal opinions about gay people.”

    Others here have accused me of hating gay people. I do not. Well, I suppose I might hate some of them if they are hateful, nasty people. But their gayness does not evoke hatred in me, not in the least. I have gay friends and family members who I believe would tell you that I have much affection for them — as I hope they have for me. It IS possible to love someone and disagree with them about a political position.

  149. sozo, and I fear a society that thinks some people “deserve” the right to be married and live a peaceful life with the benefits a secular society bestows upon them while denying a fundamental human right like marriage to others because of some religious bias. I felt that way about interracial marriage, and that got me in a lot of trouble with a minority of my congregation in the South when I preached that there was really no place for religious beliefs or “tradition” to control marriage rights in our secular society. I feel that way about gay marriage too.

    I am not sure how to phrase a statement about your personal beliefs about gays. If it is not your personal belief, then what are you parroting, Fox? Like I said, if you feel any way you want to about gays. i would just hope iot was for a rational reason.

    i heard your reason, you think it will impinge upon your right to be able to speak up against them at work. As you put it, your “right to express my religious beliefs without fear of losing my job, for instance.”

    Like I said, if people at your work have a “right” to preface their political statements based on their religious beliefs, then I guess you have no fear of losing any of your “rights” if gays get married. You will still be able to say that in your religion gays are not really married. Just like some Catholics are not considered married iunder their church rules, if they have been divorced. Our civil society still respects such marriages and gives equal benefits under the law, because we are America, not the Papal States.

  150. I understand your position tuddo, and I respect it. Please don’t think I am not somewhat conflicted about all this, and in fact, I am ready to say I am dead wrong about it if so convicted. At the moment I feel convicted to speak as a preservationist for the procreative family unit as the highest standard we can uphold for a healthy society. Again this in no way translates into me “hating” gay men and women.

    Appreciate the time you took to respond without rancor. Nice to know it can still happen from time to time on this site.

  151. aislander says:

    That your opponents had to retreat to their keep and resort to the “hate” theme, sozo, means that your argument was cogent and hit home. And you are probably, along with MoD, the least hate-filled member of this forum. I wish only that I had the same degree of forbearance…

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0