Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: It’s a private matter

Letter by Claudia A. Hoopes, Lakewood on May 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm with 111 Comments »
May 14, 2012 1:51 pm

A respondent to Leonard Pitts’ column (TNT, 5-3) stated that the Bible condemns homosexuality, polygamy, incest and other atrocious activities, as they are “on the list of many types of sins” (letters, 5-11).

Since when is what two consenting people agree to an infraction of the rights of others, as mandated by the Constitution? Incest and rape are definitely atrocious sins, but they are not consensual, they are crimes. But just to love someone? Is that a crime? And to want to commit to each other – and GLBT relationships tend to last longer than heterosexual ones – well, there’s something wrong with this societal picture.

Besides, whose business is it, anyway, how we live our private sexual/personal lives, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else?

Leave a comment Comments → 111
  1. RLangdon says:

    Claudia, you are right on all counts! And to answer your question: It’s nobody’s business!

    Great letter!

  2. BlaineCGarver says:

    All those things are nobody’s business. But, since the marriage thing is not legal as of yet, it has to go through the process. It is sort of line the No Smoking law. One would think that the owners of a business would be able to post their own rules, but, no, the state sticks their nose in…is it, so far, the law. Isn’t it? If you want the state to micro-manage your life for good, you best be prepared to accept it when it’s managed to your ill.

  3. truthbusterguy says:

    Gay marriage advocates are upsetting an apple’s cart that has existed since the birth of man.

    Genesis 2:18-24

    This passage describes the marriage of Adam and Eve, the first people on earth. God creates Adam and, noticing his loneliness, decides to make a helper for him. From Adam’s rib, God makes Eve and unites them. The scripture notes that, because of this first union between man and woman, a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. The companionship between Adam and Eve serves as the blueprint for all other marriages between a man and a woman.

    Voters will have their say in Nov. and reaffirm this in the law. Just because democrats and one GOP state senator sold their sole for gay campaign dollars doesn’t mean the silent majority will stand for this. Like trying to start an income tax the democrats will get their hat handed to them on this issue too. The other 33 states tht voted on this issue are right and so will it be in WA State.

  4. menopaws says:

    We all need to work on our own problems, on our own families and tend to our own knitting, as my sweet Grandmother would say……This judgement of others who cause us no harm is just wrong and crazy……..Last I heard, the Constitution trumps any religion in government……….As to those who talk about the what the voters want, we all need to remember that most of them were furious over the integration of the races during the civil rights movement…..What people want is far less important than doing what is the right thing……And the right thing is respecting the dignity of EVERY citizen………….This is not a popularity contest—it is about respecting all of our citizens……And, like Rhett Butler, frankly, I don’t give a damn about what Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina , California, etc….want. Doing the right thing, as Atticus Finch taught us in “To Kill a Mocingbird” isn’t always popular………Never did respect either the jocks or the cheerleaders in high school—don’t plan to roll over and play dead to the “popular” garbage now……..

  5. sandblower says:

    Quote the bible, lose the argument.
    End of story.

  6. truthbusterguy says:

    sandblower

    For the non believer I agree and feel sorry for them. If you don’t believe in God what do you and other atheist believe in? spacemen?

    I respect your right to be a non believer, please show respect for us that do believe in God’s laws.

  7. Truthbuster? So what? Its in the Bible? Who made you Moses? What does that mean to a non-believer? If it works for you great. It is not a valid argument point when you are talking to non believers or people who read it differently than you. So, please show respect for others and don’t ram your personal interpretation of it into ANOTHER personal matter that really has nothing to do with you. Love your god, read your book, mind your own affairs and let others be.

  8. sandblower says:

    truthy, for you: “Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success.”
    “Religion gives men the strength to do what should not be done.”

    One earns respect. One does not “deserve” respect.

  9. RLangdon says:

    tbg “because democrats and one GOP state senator sold their sole”

    IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE THE BIBLE (archaic passages) you should at least know that the SOUL you speak of is spelled “soul” not “sole”.

    You are WRONG, anyway, about everything!

  10. elmerfudd says:

    What is it about a gay sexual relationship that makes it any more important than any other relationship? Why should society subsidize such a relationship?

    Any argument you can make in favor of it can be made equally well for a non-sexual relationship between two or more people.

    You could also make an even better argument for plural marriage or incestuous marriage. Both have traditions going back thousands of years and are likely to produce offspring.

  11. Pecksbadboy says:

    Traditions like human slavery still exist and they are often raped to produce offspring to increase the workforce.

    Christians are suppose to be fruitful and pop out more children to make new believers who are baptized in the faith before they can even have a thought thought of self awareness.

    Both these practices have thousands of years of traditions which do not make them right.

  12. truthbusterguy says:

    The voters will have their say in Nov. and this issue will go back into the closet for another 20 years.

    Time to talk about the obama ecomomy and how he has failed in his #1 job.

  13. RLangdon says:

    tbg, HERE IS YOUR TRUTH…

    “Genesis 2:18-24″

    “This passage describes the marriage of Adam and Eve, the first people on earth. God creates Adam and, noticing his loneliness, decides to make a helper for him. From Adam’s rib, God makes Eve…”

    So God made Eve out of Adam’s rib! Adam was a male correct? Correct! So that would be a MALE rib, correct? Correct! So Eve was made out of a male body part, and technically could be considered male because of that circumstance.

    Thus, Adam and Eve would actually have constituted the very FIRST GAY MARRIAGE!!! And God made it so!!!

    Think about that for a bit.

  14. RLangdon says:

    Genesis Times Dispatch

    BREAKING NEWS: Male (Adam) marries Male Body Part (Eve), everyone is happy and GAY because of the Same-Sex nuptials! God’s work sets precedent on marriage. All marriage’s henceforth should be Same-Sex!

  15. bobcat1a says:

    Claudia, puritans don’t care if you think as they do as long as you do as they “think.”

  16. bobcat1a says:

    respect your right to be a non believer, please show respect for us that do believe in God’s laws. -truth b guy

    No one is disrespecting your right to believe as you wish. Why are you demanding that others follow your beliefs? No one is telling you to participate in any marriage, same sex or otherwise.

  17. sandblower says:

    So truthy changes the subject. What else is new?
    I don’t care if it takes 20 years. Democracy is messy. 20 years is an eyeblink in time. How many years did it take for real slavery to end?

  18. TBG,

    As a non-believe I have no problem with you living by your churches interpretations of the bible.

    And there is nothing in any of the same-sex marriage laws that will interfere with your beliefs and practices.

    However, you do not have the right to demand everyone else abide by your beliefs.

    Elmer,

    No one is asking anyone to subsidies same sex relationships. The marriage equality acts allows same-sex couples to enjoy the same rights and privileges as hetro couples do.

    RL,

    Actually, Eve was the second model. The original female was Lilith who was made out of the same dust and clay as Adam.

  19. Frankenchrist says:

    I’ll never understand why conservatives are obsessed over what happens in other people’s bedrooms. It’s a creepy kind of voyeurism.

  20. RLangdon says:

    xring, I also know the backstory on Lillith, but did not want to confuse tbg.

    Franken… “creepy” Ain’t that the truth!!!

  21. notimetobleed says:

    “The Bible Condemns Homosexuality???”…That’s just it!

    This is the big smoke screen many are duped into believing. As an actual Christian, this kind of talk drives me crazy! They rely on the fact that the average layperson is not a biblical scholar, and that they will not do their own research. Not everyone can be experts in biblical text. Seek out those that are experts (you would be surprised how many so-called pastors didn’t really go to college or seminary and just preach their own un-educated understanding of the Bible).

    Do your own research on the 6-7 passages they keep trotting out there, stop listening to what others tell you is in the Bible find your own way. Once you do this you can then start to question the high & mighty to expose their real issues with homosexuality…and it has nothing to do with the bible. They use the bible as their cloak.

    Gods’ Peace.

  22. hansgruber says:

    A private matter?

    Why does the state issue marriage licenses then?

    Why pass legislation then if it’s private?

    Our laws are made and modified by society’s morals and normalcies. When the demand from society becomes great enough, then it will be socially acceptable.

    Marriage is a public matter, not private.

  23. RLanfdon says, “So God made Eve out of Adam’s rib! Adam was a male correct? Correct! So that would be a MALE rib, correct? Correct! So Eve was made out of a male body part, and technically could be considered male because of that circumstance. Thus, Adam and Eve would actually have constituted the very FIRST GAY MARRIAGE!!! And God made it so!!! Think about that for a bit.”

    A prime example of what I have said all along. These characters who push this agenda, and fall over themselves to make homosexuality legitimate are right on cue to take something and twist it a million ways to make it work for them. The above convoluted statement from RLangdon is a perfect example. Frankly it makes it difficult to even attempt realistic debate with these people!

    In my opinion, if the homosexual movement wants to succeed in garnering any support from the mainstream population, they are going to have to come up with better spokesmen! :D

  24. XBJ98N? OR one could interpret that after God made Adam, he wasn’t satisfied with his rough draft and he started over with a scrap to make the final masterpiece… Eve. Jesus further stresses this in the New Testament by blaming Adam for screwing everything up. My point? When you cite a “source”, it needs to be checkable facts and not “hocus pocus fairy tales”. Call me a non believer? Go ahead. You’ll never know because unlike many posters, I keep my faith between myself and my God. Can you do the same?

  25. “You could also make an even better argument for plural marriage or incestuous marriage. Both have traditions going back thousands of years and are likely to produce offspring.”

    Quit bluffing and put your case forth on plural marriage. It’s not something I find that is desired by people to any great degree, but I won’t stand in their way.

    As to marrying your sister, you’ll have to get her to agree.

  26. Truthbuster? Your vote gets cancelled out by mine :0)

  27. Let’s see how many stupid Bible “facts” we can come up with :) and add a few smiley icons ;)

  28. truthbusterguy says:
    May 14, 2012 at 6:58 pm The voters will have their say in Nov. and this issue will go back into the closet for another 20 years.
    Time to talk about the obama ecomomy and how he has failed in his #1 job.

    Amazing how conservatives don’t want to discuss social issues this campaign. That is usually their main course. I’m sure there will be a new “Reverand Wright” or “Bill Ayers” soon. Romney can no more change the economy than anyone else.

  29. Bandito says:

    This issue has less to do with sex than the Right makes it out to be. They use their homosexual bigotry to cloud the issue. It’s about the inability of two people of the same gender to enter into the same legal contract that any two individuals, one from each gender, are allowed.

    Everything else is window dressing.

  30. spotted1 says:

    It is a private matter until you make it public then it is no longer a private matter.

  31. Lynnwoodfats says:

    You could use the arguement in this article to justify prostitution.

    Two consenting adults agreeing to sex for money, what business is it of the Gov’t.?

    What ever happened to freedom?

  32. Hans – there are about 1400 legal and financial advantages to being in a state recognized marriage(probably the best know is ‘married filing jointly). So it is in the state’s interests to know who is and who is not legally married.

  33. xring – in response to your comment directed at Hans…

    “no there isn’t”…”no there isn’t”…”no there isn’t”…”no there isn’t”…”no there isn’t”… ::::stomping of feet:::::

    Fats – I’m all for legalized prostitution. Call Timmy Eyman and start the inititative. It would be fun to see just how “conservative” Eyman is and how willing he is to promote getting the government out of private business. Just like Tim, I’ll sign your inititative – for a price.

  34. scooter6139 says:

    Truthbuster dude – How many children did Adam and Eve have? (Cain and Abel and Seth). Please describe where the procreation of humankind went from there. (Try to keep those big sins out of it if possible, like rape, incest, adultery etc.)

  35. charliebucket says:

    yup I am with sandblower. As soon as someone uses their Bible to justify their argument regarding civil matters, they lose. argument null and void.

    why anyone keep trying to reason with religious zealots is beyond me. religious beliefs are a dime a dozen. this country is not governed by religious beliefs and it is only a matter of time before gay marriage is the law the land. progress takes time….as already mentioned, it took many years to end slavery, and to get women the vote and it will take many years to get equality in marriage. but I have faith that day will come before I am dead.

  36. Lynnwoodfats says:

    Scooter-
    That’s a very good question that I have never considered before.
    If Adam And Eve had three boys, how did we get here?

    Bible thumpers please explain this to me. While your at it, please explain the two different creation stories in Gensis I & II

  37. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cains_wife.html

    As usual, there are all sorts of convoluted stories. It appears that God did some additional creating that He chose to not let man know about.

    Yadda, yadda, blah, blah.

    You know, I kinda like Alice in Wonderland, but I don’t think that I’ll live my life based on the story.

  38. Let us look at some of the verses from the Old Testament that allow polygamy:

    In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

    In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

    In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

    In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon’s son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

    In Deuteronomy 21:15 “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons….”

    There are a lot more verses from the Old Testament that allow polygamy, but I think that the above are sufficient enough to prove my point.
    http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm

  39. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Genesis 19:32-36

  40. There are numerous examples of incest in the Bible. The most commonly thought-of examples are the sons/daughters of Adam and Eve (Genesis 4), Abraham marrying his half-sister Sarah (Genesis 20:12), Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19), Moses’ father Amram who married his aunt Jochebed (Exodus 6:20), and David’s son Amnon with his half-sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13).

  41. aislander says:

    How long does the average gay male relationship last?

    And, since we are talking about government endorsement of these putative “marriages,” it most certainly IS a public matter.

    Marriage is a cultural norm, and, since most great civilizations of the past have failed due to cultural disintegration, we should be extremely careful about forcing changes of this type.

    Given the visceral reaction that most people have when confronted with the spectacle of two men expressing their “affection” for one another in a physical manner (even if that means only kissing), it is obvious that such behavior is outside the norm, and no law WILL normalize it.

    There! No religious argument at all…

    Besides, the crappy economy, unemployment, inflation, and the loss of REAL personal freedom are all much more important this time around…

  42. Chippert says:

    Toting out the Bible in regards to a civil matter such as marriage is a non-starter. Nowhere in our Constitution (or the Declaration of Independence for that matter)does it say that America bases its laws on the Bible. And the Bible and Jesus specifically tells us to stay our of earthly governmental business. “Render unto Caeser the things that are Caeser’s and unto God the things that are God’s”

    In short, keep the government out of religion and religion out of government!

  43. “Gay marriage advocates are upsetting an apple’s cart that has existed since the birth of man.”

    Not really but please don’t let the truth, facts or rational discussion get in your way.

  44. “I’ll never understand why conservatives are obsessed over what happens in other people’s bedrooms. It’s a creepy kind of voyeurism.”

    Because they are small minded and petty, they fear you have something they don’t……happiness.

  45. “Marriage is a cultural norm, and, since most great civilizations of the past have failed due to cultural disintegration,”

    Finish the sentence ailander,
    Marriage is a cultural norm, and, since most great civilizations of the past have failed due to cultural disintegration, brought about by religious dogma and idealism.

  46. “Besides, the crappy economy, unemployment, inflation, and the loss of REAL personal freedom are all much more important this time around… “

    Someone was asleep in 2008. Economy, unemployment, inflation and the loss of REAL personal freedom was there. The conservatives told us everything was fine, if we just put them in the White House again. “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” – John McCain 2008

    “Given the visceral reaction that most people have when confronted with the spectacle of two men expressing their “affection” for one another in a physical manner (even if that means only kissing), it is obvious that such behavior is outside the norm, and no law WILL normalize it.”

    For centuries, less anal retentive cultures have tolerated and practiced in displays of affection between same sexed people. Interesting enough, those same culture don’t see a woman’s breasts as soley a sexual thing and they don’t get their undies in a bunch over breast feeding.

    Maybe the conservatives need to quit deflecting their emotional shortcomings and start talking about why they so oppose natural feelings and such between human beings.

  47. charliebucket says:

    aislander no religious argument in your last post sure, but now you have wandered into the popularity argument, which also does not hold water. In fact, the tyranny (of the visceral reactions) of the majority vs what is LEGAL or what is discrimination or a breach of rights is exactly why gay rights need to be protected. Just like inter racial marriage, just like blacks riding in the front of the bus, just like women’s vote to name a few.

    regarding your other point that homosexual actions are not normal, welp, that is entirely subjective. I find certain sex acts performed by heteros not my cup of tea and disgusting, but I do not wish to make them illegal nor to deny my fellow Americans the right to practice them if they so choose.

    potato, potata.

  48. PositiveNews says:

    GOOD FOR YOU, CLAUDIA :) Very well said!

  49. philichi says:

    I realize that all of this pro homosexual marriage stuff is backed by the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transsexual GLBT organization. I now know who Gay and Lesbians plan to marry. However, Who do Bisexuals and Transgendered people marry? Just asking.

  50. BlaineCGarver says:

    Gay marriage is NOT in the constitution, MenOPaws….SCOTUS has not even had mention of it as yet….When it’s the law of the land, I’ll accept it.

  51. charliebucket says:

    phil gay marriage is backed by many hetero people like me who are for equality and for keeping religious beliefs out of civil law.

    and, all in due time for the supreme court to rule. and then the neocons can spend 10-20-30-40-50-100 years trying to get gay marriage overturned just like they have spent years and years trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. just watch.

    as for who bisexuals etc marry, I don’t know and it is none of my business.

  52. Blaine – MARRIAGE is not in the Constitution either. Since it’s not in the Constitution, that makes all the laws concerning marriage “unconstitutional” therefore, null and void. Just using a little conservative logic for you….

    philichi says:
    May 15, 2012 at 12:38 pm I realize that all of this pro homosexual marriage stuff is backed by the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transsexual GLBT organization. I now know who Gay and Lesbians plan to marry. However, Who do Bisexuals and Transgendered people marry? Just asking.

    Mr. Philichi – whoever they want. What they are seeking is for the right to enjoy the legal fruits of “marriage” without someone telling them that their orientation is wrong.

  53. “When it’s the law of the land, I’ll accept it.”

    I doubt that.

  54. “I realize that all of this pro homosexual marriage stuff is backed by the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transsexual GLBT organization.”

    No it isn’t, it’s backed by common and American ideals.
    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  55. “Gay marriage is NOT in the constitution”

    Neither was slavery, or inter-racial marriage, whats your point?

  56. RLangdon says:

    XBJ98N says: “A prime example of what I have said all along. These characters who push this agenda, and fall over themselves to make homosexuality legitimate are right on cue to take something and twist it a million ways to make it work for them. The above convoluted statement from RLangdon is a perfect example. Frankly it makes it difficult to even attempt realistic debate with these people!”

    Hey DUDE! Pay attention!!!! truthbusterguy brought up Genesis and Adam & Eve, and THE FACT IS, any RIB or other body part taken from Adam’s body we all know will have the same exact DNA as the rest of Adam’s body. Thus, the DNA is MALE. That God fashioned Eve from MALE DNA logically follows that EVE would have been made of MALE DNA, thus Eve, though fashioned to look female was essentially scientifically a MALE. (Just like RuPaul!)

    Therefore, in spite of what you homophobes believe, from a cursory glance at The Old Testament, the first pairing that would have been considered a marriage in The Bible, that of Adam & Eve, was a pairing of a Male with a Male and YOU CANNOT REFUTE THAT!

    Unless, as xring points out, that a woman named Lilith was actually the first female God gave to Adam, and you consider that a marriage. But that male-female bonding between Adam and Lilith didn’t quite work out as planned, so God divorced them made Adam a new BOYFRIEND named Eve (or maybe it was Steve) to replace Lilith.

    There’s nothing twisted about any of these facts. READ YOUR BIBLE!!! (Don’t just go by what you were told in Sunday School years ago. Actually sit down and READ THE DAMN THING will you?) These are THE FACTS as presented inThe Book of Genesis!!! If YOU believe The Bible is God’s Word, then… who the hell are YOU to refute God’s Word?

    That’s why I personally only go by the words of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, because I am a Christian, NOT a Jewish/Christian. I’m just a plain old Jesus loving Christian. And, being that, I’d like to tell you now what Jesus had to say about homosexuals and same-sex marriage.

    I’d like to, but I can’t, because Jesus didn’t say anything about them or it! So, if it’s OKAY with Jesus, it’s okay with me. And if you got a problem with that, take it up with Jesus!

  57. aislander says:

    charliebucket writes: “…but I do not wish to make them illegal nor to deny my fellow Americans the right to practice them if they so choose.”

    Nor do I, but the “visceral reactions” of the majority are pertinent when it comes to governmental ENDORSEMENT of someone’s living arrangement.

    There is no question of discrimination. Males and females of the homosexual persuasion have exactly the same rights as do heterosexual males and females…

  58. Jesus

  59. “Males and females of the homosexual persuasion have exactly the same rights as do heterosexual males and females…”

    That’s a false statement. As our conservative fiends (typo on purpose) are so fond of reminding us, marriage between same sex partners is forbidden in 30 states.

    As to “visceral reactions”…I throw up in my mouth just a little, everytime I see conservatives lie, which is frequently. Unfortunately for me, their lies are protected by the Constitution.

  60. aislander says:

    LarryH. Please quote the exact language (from any state, or all of them) that “forbids” same-sex “marriage.”

  61. aislander says:

    Oh, and I forgot to cite crushing debt as being more important than same-sex “marriage…”

  62. “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” (North Carolina)

    Now, I know you want to play rhetorical roulette so I’ll pass the chip over to you and have to explain how a same sex couple can marry in North Carolina because there is no language saying they can’t.

    “aislander says:
    May 15, 2012 at 6:25 pm Oh, and I forgot to cite crushing debt as being more important than same-sex “marriage…”

    I guess the “crushing debt” wasn’t important in 2008? During 2008 we dealt with gays, God, guns, Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, Chicago politics, bare arms, gay sex in limos, et al….while John McCain assured us that the foundation of our economy was blah blah blah.

    Funny how the economy wasn’t an issue in 2008 while the entire thing was collapsing from a Repubican Administration.

  63. aislander says:

    So…all men and women have the same rights under that wording. “Man” and “woman” name what people are while all the other words are merely adjectives…

    Adjectives don’t have special rights…

  64. aislander says:

    As for you comments about the debt: hurray! That’s what we SHOULD be talking about, along with other aspects of the economy…

  65. aislander, you forgot to explain how same sex couples can marry in North Carolina.

    I think you avoided the issue.

    Again.

    We can’t talk about the debt. There is a new Obama “terrorist” story being manufactured at FOX. It will take over the internet in a couple of days. I’m really surprised you aren’t up to task on that one. You probably need 3Pigs to bring it up first.

  66. “all men and women” could eat at the lunchcounter.

    Blacks were considered animals. Semantics.

    Keep up your bigoted position. There is a difference between “except” and “accept”. I doubt you’ll ever really comprehend.

  67. hansgruber says:

    Klu misses it again!

    kluwer

    May 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    “Gay marriage is NOT in the constitution”

    Neither was slavery, or inter-racial marriage, whats your point

    Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, of the original U.S. Constitution contained the fugitive-slave clause. It is no longer in effect:

    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due. . . .

  68. bobcat1a says:

    Puritanism: a belief system based on the fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun and must be stopped.

  69. LarryH,

    Does Mommy know you have escaped from the cupboard under the stairs and are using her computer again.

    Adam & Eve had 3 named sons and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4)

    Aislander – a religous issue to some – a secular Constitlutional issue to others.

    Try any state law that defines ‘marriage as between one man and one woman’.
    Or have you mate read it to you.

    Kluw – add and failure to adapt to changing conditions.

    BGC – check out the 9th and 14th Amendments.

  70. “As for you comments about the debt: hurray! That’s what we SHOULD be talking about, along with other aspects of the economy…

    And yet here you are, commenting on gay marriage. pardon me, but your hypocrisy is showing.

  71. philichi says:

    So, can a bisexual marry a transsexual? Since, in a traditional wedding, the bride’s parents generally pay for the wedding, who would pay for this one? When they go on a honeymoon, and need to stop at the restroom in the airport, do they use the lady’s or Men’s restroom? Just asking.

  72. charliebucket says:

    aislander, you don’t like gays and have a visceral reaction to them and their lifestyle. fine. Maybe I don’t like uneducated rednecks with no teeth and surely don’t want them to breed, for example, but I don’t get to make laws to discriminate against people I don’t like to keep them from getting married or having children. it’s called equality under the law. either you get it or you don’t. your visceral reaction is clouding your objectivity.

  73. pjillchi – who pays is not the issue. The issue is tht the two should be allowed to marry.

  74. charliebucket says:

    phil your questions are not relevant to civil law on marriage. further, a ‘traditional’ wedding that you bring up is a religious ceremony not a civil one. not pertinent to the civil law.

  75. philichi says:

    Well if a transsexual marries as a male than has a sex change operation after the wedding, and the bisexual was more attracted to to the prior sex would that be grounds for a divorce? Would the children call them Dad or Mom?
    And if the the transsexual wanted to buy life insurance for the family security, which life expectancy table would they use to form the insurance rate, Male, or female?
    If they are on a cruise ship and the boat starts to sink, and the captains says women and children out first, what is the transsexual to do? Just asking

  76. philichi – did your parents sign a note excusing you from “human development” class?

  77. philichi – since you like questions, I’ll ask you….

    Since woman-on-woman sex is considered homosexual, why are so many Republican men interested in it, to the point of spending large amounts of GOP money in a Los Angeles bar featuring such acts?

  78. Funny thing is, “philichi” is making some very valid points.

    Funnier still is the moronic way the LeftistLiberalLunaticsOfTacoma fall all over themselves trying to gain ground when all they have is ridicule and insult. Like a bunch of little kids!

    And no one can argue this FACT. If two competent adults Male and Male, or Female and Female enter into a legal contract, they already have the means to a civil, legal joining. They just want the definitions of marriage changed to suit THEM. They just want the change to justify and legitimize their homosexual, unusual, out of the norm, deviant partnership.

    Fact is, to the majority of Americans it’s just not going to happen.

    Of course its always fun to watch the silly supporters of this nonsense fall all over themselves trying to convince the rest of us that they are right. Never fails, they trip and skin their knees every time.

  79. If lesbian sex is homosexual, why are so many men interested?

    No 13 hour days again, huh?

  80. philichi says:

    “Since woman-on-woman sex is considered homosexual, why are so many Republican men interested in it, to the point of spending large amounts of GOP money in a Los Angeles bar featuring such acts?”

    Not really sure of this answer. I have never seen or heard of “GOP money” However, if one of the GOP guys ended up marrying one of the girls, would it be a “gay marriage” or a “conventional marriage” If she regretted her past life style, would she be a homophobe?

    If they lived happily every after, would that be bad or good? Just asking.

  81. “Not really sure of this answer. I have never seen or heard of “GOP money”

    conveniently ignorant. “GOP money” would be money from a GOP bank account

    Meanwhile Republicans seemed to enjoy their visits to the bar. They spent thousands of GOP dollars

  82. RLangdon says:

    Funnier still is how XBJ98N apparently lacks the intelligence or integrity, or both, to address the points I made specifically for her in my comment above on May 15 @ 3:29 PM.

  83. philichi says:

    LarryH, I am sorry, I don’t know much about this issue. Don’t really care either. I suppose that sense California is sort of a Democratic party state, The GOP doesn’t have much else to do. I hope that these establishments are all paying taxes. The Dems have really messed up that state (and ours). Cal could really use the extra revenue.

  84. charliebucket says:

    phil your continued rhetorical questions seem insincere, immature and fear based, to me. and what do they have to do with whether gays should have the right to marry? (answer: nothing, you have no argument hence the silly questions)

    jus sayn.

  85. charliebucket says:

    and it is clear you are simply a liberal and democrat hater phil. good luck with that.

  86. philichi says:

    charliebucket your answers seem to be so cut and dried. However, life is a little more complex than simply putting people in the “gay or Straight box” wouldn’t you agree? We all know those that lived the Homosexual life style however, married one of the opposite sex. Would you consider them gay at the time of marriage? Did the Gay gene just go away or did they grow out of it? Just asking

  87. “As for you comments about the debt: hurray! That’s what we SHOULD be talking about, along with other aspects of the economy…”

    Why? you lose on those as well.

  88. “We all know those that lived the Homosexual life style however, married one of the opposite sex.”

    No we don’t.

  89. LarryH wonders, “If lesbian sex is homosexual, why are so many men interested?..No 13 hour days again, huh?”

    Frankly LarryH, as a heterosexual man, I have no interest in what two lesbians do with themselves…However since you seem to have something for this kind of perversion, I would assume you do! You certainly seem to know about it!

    No 13hr day today, …this is my Saturday, and I found tons of more productive things to do with it that sit around swilling in the local sewage all day. Glad youve been having fun however!

  90. RLangdon wonders, “Funnier still is how XBJ98N apparently lacks the intelligence or integrity, or both, to address the points I made specifically for her in my comment above on May 15 @ 3:29 PM.”

    Actually my intelligence AND integrity kept me from wading through the stupid, disjointed, convoluted notions about Adams ribs that you seem so intrigued by. Some things are just not worth a response.

    However you seem so worried about it! Is it a discomforting offense to you that someone doesnt jump at your drivel? If so, Good! I hope youre squirming in your britches at being ignored! Sheesh.

  91. …and “philichi” offers another legitimate question. What about those “homosexuals” who marry someone of the opposite sex. DID they suddenly become un-gay?

    What about bisexuals, where do they fit in? Does their orientation change from day to day or hour to hour? One day they are hetro, the next homo? I guess whatever is convenient at the time then?

    Frankly, in my opinion, all this homosexuality, regardless of how its brainwashed, is nothing more than perversion trying to gain legitimacy. I’ve heard that some people like sex with animals! So when does THAT become accepted?

  92. You’re seriously going to play the “marriage equality will lead to sex with animals” cop out? In that case be better ban heterosexual marriage as well because by your logic there’s a very good chance that if we let men have sex with women, pretty soon they’ll be overcome with the urge to have sex with everything else that moves too!

    Marriage equality is about providing equal rights to two consenting adults, whether or not you have a book that contains ambiguous passages regarding the subjective “holiness” or lack thereof. Whatever you and the rest of your congregation want to believe and conduct within the confines of your building and fellowship is your business. However, there is absolutely no room within our secular legal system for what it says in your book. That you and so many other religious individuals have yet to grasp this concept is beyond my understanding.

    I look forward very fondly to a time when my generation and the youth of this country are free of the influence of individuals like yourself and we can move on to dealing with issues that will improve this country for everyone.

  93. Yes “tburki” I will use the sex with animals “cop out”…and your convoluted analogy is ridiculous! And that is YOUR logic not mine. (“In that case be better ban heterosexual marriage as well because by your logic there’s a very good chance that if we let men have sex with women, pretty soon they’ll be overcome with the urge to have sex with everything else that moves too!)

    Despite what the promoters and supporters of this lifestyle would have us believe, and regardless of whether this lifestyle has been around since the beginning of mankind, it is still a perversion. That may be an unpopular (there was a time when it wasn’t) opinion, but still true none the less. And please don’t embarrass yourself by throwing in that tired, lame story about how slavery was once popular too! That’s always a good diversionary tactic you people use.

    That being said, homosexuality being nothing more than a fetish, when do we give equality to other forms of sexual deviancy? When does sex with animals become acceptable, When do we accept street corner flashers as normal? I’m sure those forms of sexual orientation have been around since the dawn of time as well.

    Frankly, people should be able to do whatever floats their boats with a consenting partner behind the privacy of closed doors all day long if they wish, but to demand that society regard their activities as equal, or accepted as the same, is opening up a very slippery slope.

    This country has been steadily losing its “moral compass” for a number of decades now, in the self absorbed interest of “whatever feels good is okay” and making homosexuality equal is just one more step to a total breakdown into complete decadence. Right and wrong and understanding of the difference is rapidly disappearing.

  94. And to further address concerns of “tburki”,

    (“Whatever you and the rest of your congregation want to believe and conduct within the confines of your building and fellowship is your business. However, there is absolutely no room within our secular legal system for what it says in your book. That you and so many other religious individuals have yet to grasp this concept is beyond my understanding.”)

    Funny how you people automatically assume that anyone not embracing your disjointed social reconstruction agendas is a “religious nut”!! Simply amazing that you have to have a target to throw barbs at.

    I imagine that just twists your undies to know that there are many, many people who disagree on this subject without the influence of a church! I suppose it pains you to your ends to realize that while you thought the only enemy you people had was religion, that you discover its just not the case.

    I really hate to burst your ‘anti-everything but what you believe’ bubble, but I am not affiliated with any church, nor have I EVER mentioned any connection to religion on this subject in all the comments I have made in regards. I am just an average, everyday person who does not buy into the horsepucky that homosexuality is normal, equal, or acceptable. Some things are just simply wrong.

    However in today’s morally bankrupt culture of anything goes and whatever anyone wants is okay, the idea of there still being a right and wrong is rapidly becoming an archaic dinosaur.

  95. RLangdon says:

    XBJ98N, Just admit you don’t have an answer, or the courage to provide one.

  96. “Funny how you people automatically assume that anyone not embracing your disjointed social reconstruction agendas is a “religious nut”!! Simply amazing that you have to have a target to throw barbs at.”

    When you put words in quotes in reference to what another individual stated, the person in question has to have actually said the words. This appears to be a tough concept for you to master but I have hope that you’ll persevere someday soon. Furthermore, as I stated in my original post, followers of any and all religions are free to go about their business of picking out sinners and praying for rain or the end of the economic crisis or worship whatever god/goddess/spirit/deity they want in the comfort of their own private establishment.

    Heck, they can even do it on their holy TV channel as they collect thousands of dollars from callers that want to purchase pieces of fabric that have been ‘blessed’ so that these televangelists can rake in millions of dollars annually just like Jesus would have wanted, right?

    However, what is unacceptable and clearly unlawful by way of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution is any attempt to limit the rights of another human being in this country through any kind of religious reasoning or rationalization. What is not clear to you about this? And please spare me the baseless claims of your reasoning being justified on the grounds of anything other than your religious beliefs. If the best you can do is “it’s a perversion” or “what happened to the moral compass?” or some other pathetic attempt to try and veil religious justification, your argument doesn’t have even the tiniest of legs to stand on.

    When you can come up with a single verifiable, legally-based, secular example of how two consenting adults who are in love and just happen to be of the same sex would be objectively harmful to you or any other member of society, then you can come talk. Don’t count on me holding my breath though.

  97. RLangdon says:

    Well said tburki! You have now thrown down the gauntlet, but don’t expect anyone of them to pick it up and take your challenge. No guts, no glory, just expect more pathetic invective.

  98. OMG Tburki….Oh by the way, lets add condescending to the homosexual supporting litany!

    Your last comment which of course you thought was a challenge, was merely a superior attitude wrapped in baloney. You STILL bring up religion when I certainly have not. My opinions are not based on any church, so you just sit there and ‘secularize’ to your pretty little hearts content.

    Amazing that your pathetic assumptions brought you to embarrass yourself with, “And please spare me the baseless claims of your reasoning being justified on the grounds of anything other than your religious beliefs.”..of course your cheerleaders like that Rlangdon character spur people like you on your sad little superior cloud you dangle your toes off of and high five each other! HAA! How do you know anything about my “religious beliefs” when I have never brought the up. The more you people spout off with your amateur arguments, the faster you fall so keep it rolling.

    So take your arguments about civil rights, and court decisions, (which are all based on circumstances other than homosexuality) and your twists and turns and deceptions, and sell it to someone else. The average person in America is not going to bow down to your demands for a long long time yet. Sooner or later with your brainwashing, the case might improve for you, but its going to take a long long time.

    Oh by the way, my reasoning? You seem curious as to my reasoning? My reasoning against homosexual marriage is quite simply that the notion of two men, or two women doing each other under the covers is SICK….Its a disgusting perversion that frankly I put in the same category as any other sick twisted behavior-pick any off the list- and I put sad people like you who consider it normal in the same boat. Nothing to do with “religion” at all….Just my stand on the issue…You have a problem with that…Wallow in it. :)

  99. RLangdon says:

    tburki, What did I say? “more pathetic invective.” as provided by XBJ98N just as I predicted.

  100. tsk tsk tsk……there’s RLangdon with his million dollar vocabulary again! HAAA

    Nothing invective about my comments…..UNLESS you are unable to counter them with more than a one-liner. You ought to run a competition with “kluwer”! :D

    This is supposed to be a forum for expressing opinion….I do exactly that.

    You have issues, flag my comments. Of course censorship is the tool for those who cant win a debate with words.

  101. Oh this is classic!!

    Tburki announces, “When you can come up with a single verifiable, legally-based, secular example of how two consenting adults who are in love and just happen to be of the same sex would be objectively harmful to you or any other member of society, then you can come talk”

    Tburki has now established their own rules as to when someone may “talk” in a public forum!

    First off, there are no “legally-based” examples, which is exactly why 7 States out of 50 are all you can manage to make some form of legal, and of those seven, there may be some overturning of those decisions. That of course is exactly why there is this struggle to convince the people of this country and the courts that this lifestyle is legitimate, and should be protected by law. Those seven States decisions were based on a few judges, NOT a vote of the people.

    The majority of Americans just don’t support you. The majority of people find the homosexual lifestyle to be offensive. And so far there doesn’t seem to be much success in convincing the general public that it is equal, normal, or acceptable. This issue might have the ear of a handful of liberal judges, but it certainly hasn’t swayed the opinion of the average American. Even if homosexual marriage does gain LEGAL acceptance, I doubt seriously if it will with the PEOPLE. You cant legislate opinion or personal thought.

    And I certainly don’t post this to gain your permission to “come talk” Sheesh!

  102. This may come as a shock to you but being married is not the determining factor in what two consenting individuals are free to do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Is that seriously the reasoning you’re going to espouse as being the defense to your position that marriage equality should not become law? It’s utterly pathetic that you truly believe that the third grade mindset of ewww that’s gross, l don’t want cooties.

    At least a majority of others in opposition to equal rights with regard to marriage equality try and invoke the ‘traditions’ of marriage because apparently the concept of marriage is owned by Christianity and it definitely didn’t predate the religion by thousands of years.

    “So take your arguments about civil rights, and court decisions, (which are all based on circumstances other than homosexuality) and your twists and turns and deceptions, and sell it to someone else.”

    Let’s just make sure we’re all on the same page with what you’re saying here. You stated that you couldn’t care less about factual evidence and examples of cases that can surely be considered comparable in nature, however you feel that “the notion of two men, or two women doing each other under the covers is SICK” is the basis of a valid argument to determine whether or not two human beings can marry each other?

    You keep talking about perversion and yet you seem to be the only one that can’t stop thinking about what consenting adults choose to do in their bedrooms. Perhaps you may want to consider why it is that you’re so intent on constantly envisioning same-sex couples having sex….

  103. Also, I’d love for you to humor me and substitute “interracial marriage” for “same-sex marriage” into your incredibly well-designed argument and let me know if you notice any similarities with another time in our country when the rights of individuals were limited simply because others didn’t agree with who they wanted to marry.

  104. Tburki, you see, this is exactly the card you people continue to pull out.

    Those “inter-racial” marriage cases involved a man and a woman. A traditional marriage. You cant make an apple out of an orange, yet digging up some convoluted similarity to racism for your cause seems to be your only tool. And frankly you dont use it very well, besides the fact that it is quite often insulting to people of color who do not support homosexual marriage.

    Once again, you people are going to have to gain support for this on your own merits, not by stealing a court decision made for someone else under different circumstances.

    Oh and just for fun….you say, “humor me”….You really are a smug, condescending character arent you. Wont get far with that! :D

  105. Careful there, it looks like you’ve just about run out of room to sidestep

  106. RLangdon says:

    XBJ98N, let’s say you are right and that Marriage is only acceptable when it is between a man and a woman.

    Okay!

    Now, let’s say you have a daughter. And let’s say your daughter has decided to marry a flaming Gay man, who will be your new son-in-law. You got a problem with that? It’s perfectly legal!!!

  107. Okay two things, then I have an evening to take care of.

    1. For Tuburki…I hope that “side-stepping” comment wasnt for me! On the contrary, side-stepping is about all you people who support this issue do for crying out loud! I’d never want to side step on your toes! Thats YOUR territory! You wont find much more straight-forward than me, or honest opinions. I dont like the idea of homosexual marriage, I dont like liberal politics, or liberals themselves for that matter. I dont like Harley’s with straight pipes, or boom boxes, or anything or anyone else who forces their choices upon anyone else. Thats just scratching the surface on my peeves….However believe it or not I could fill volumes with what I DO like. I’m not all sour apples! But that’s off topic. Haa!

    2. To answer RLangdons scattered question. Speaking of side-stepping. I see where you are trying to go with this.

    More of the typical and expected distractions, and twists and turns of the liberal mind! Carrying on a conversation with people like you is like herding cats!! RLangdon, I hate to dissolve your fantasy, but I seriously doubt, as beautiful as my daughter is, inside and out, if a “flaming gay man” would marry her, so your bizarre point is really rather moot isnt it.

    What I find interesting in your comment however is just the fact that you brought it up! You being the expert of homosexual matters, seem to suggest that a “flaming gay man” could at least for a time, become attracted to my daughter long enough to want to marry her!!! I guess you just answered the age old question of whether being a homosexual is a choice or not. Seems now that is most definitely IS! ;)

  108. (“Perhaps you may want to consider why it is that you’re so intent on constantly envisioning same-sex couples having sex….”)

    Well tburki, we cant speak for your household, but sex is a part of a healthy marriage. Maybe you’re suggesting that homosexual marriage is not healthy??

    Seems funny that the term homoSEXUAL….would have nothing to do with sex, at least when you try to twist it to make an argument.

    Maybe they should just call it Gay SharedBreadMakingDishwashingTVwatchingChoresMarriage. Yes dear, I’ll take out the garbage.

  109. vingrotto says:

    I love how homophobes stand behind the Bible when it comes to their fear of what is different. Just admit it: you think homosexuality is ICKY. Just say it already. I would respect you more if you did, because I think a lot of things are ICKY: raw tomatoes, spiders, country music (just the new stuff), etc. But here is the deal: you can’t do that because if you do speak the truth about how you feel, it has little to no impact like standing behind the Bible. NEWSFLASH: your thumping of the Bible has no impact on me either. No one gives a rip about what I don’t like. Let it go.

  110. Yeah, I think its “icky” but I’d find a more colorful and matured description. So do the majority of Americans.

    Simply stated, I don’t stand behind the Bible on this issue, I stand behind the realization of when something is just wrong. The act of homosexuality is wrong and even more so, the act of demanding society to accept as normal those act is wrong.

    In this case, it just so happens that God agrees with me.

  111. By the way, is that homophobe, as in phobia? I hate to break it to all those homosexual lifestyle supporters who like to toss around those labels, but I have no phobia or fear of homosexuals……I just think their lifestyle is bizarre and something that needs to stay behind their closed doors…preferably deep in the closet. The rest of us dont want to know, nor do we care, and we are certainly not afraid.

    And who made up these lables anyway? So if someone is “straight”, is that to suggest that those who are not straight are crooked?

    I also like those “left” and “right” tags….Always nice to know that Conservatives are “right” :D

*
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