Gay marriage will remain the law in New Hampshire, after legislators yesterday rejected two bills that would have repealed it.
The New Hampshire House rejected a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman by a vote of 201-135. It then rejected a bill to repeal gay marriage, 210-109.
At times, the debate on the House floor turned personal.
"Over four years ago, I met a man who I fell deeply in love with," said state Rep. Robert Thompson, a Manchester Democrat who was married Jan. 2, a day after the state's gay marriage law went into effect. "I must ask each of you, how has my marriage impacted on your marriage, or diminished the value of your marriage?"
Both bills garnered passionate public testimony, and the House Judiciary Committee had voted 12-8 against each one.
State Rep. Al Baldasaro, a Londonderry Republican, sponsored the repeal bill. Baldasaro testified yesterday that he is Italian and had family members married to African-Americans.
"When it comes to civil rights, a live person can't change the color of their skin, but a homosexual can change their sexual preference at any time," Baldasaro said, drawing boos from other legislators and causing some Democrats to walk out of the chamber.
The debate fell largely along party lines, with Republicans supporting repeal and Democrats opposing it.
John Cebrowski, a Bedford Republican, talked about his granddaughter, who loves to dress up as a princess, and his grandson, who acts like Darth Vader.
"This fantasy, flights of imagination, is fun with children," Cebrowski said. "But we're talking about adults. The vast majority out there knows that marriage is between a man and a woman. To engage in this flight of fancy, of imagination, this make-believe with adults is downright cruel."
Jordan Ulery, a Hudson Republican, said "natural law" defines marriage as a relationship that is "essentially for procreation."
"You can't make peanut butter and jelly only with peanut butter," Ulery said. "A potato is not a turnip. You can't create a family with two of the same gender. That is natural law."
Thompson countered that marriage is a "stable bond between two individuals who work to create love in a household." Thompson said the right to marriage is part of the constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.
Procreation, he said, is not a prerequisite for marriage.
"Some couples are unable to bear children due to age, or a medical condition," Thompson said. "Do we say we can't have marriages of couples unable or unwilling to have children? Same-gender couples don't diminish, devalue or dilute interest in procreation and don't discourage opposite-gender couples from getting married or having children."
State Rep. Ed Butler, a Harts Location Democrat, said he was one of the first justices of the peace to perform a same-sex marriage Jan. 1. He plans to marry his partner on their 32nd anniversary in April.
Butler repeated the vows said by the couple he married on New Year's. When the ceremony was complete, he said, "they were married. No flight of fancy."
"We homosexuals fought for the day when we'll be married not because we want to tear down the institution of marriage, but because we respect it and honor it," Butler said.
Debate on the constitutional amendment focused mostly on whether New Hampshire residents should have a chance to vote on gay marriage. State Rep. Dudley Dumaine, an Auburn Republican who sponsored the bill, said a majority of people in the state no longer trust the Legislature to represent them.
"A large number of these people no longer trust our governor to keep his word," Dumaine said, referring to criticism of Democratic Gov. John Lynch for signing same-sex marriage into law, despite his personal opposition to it. "We were elected to represent the people, not to speak for them." (next page »)
BRENTWOOD, N.H. (AP) -- A New Hampshire judge has cleared…
OSSIPEE, N.H. (AP) -- A New Hampshire jury has found…
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Democratic Gov. John Lynch is…
Pressure mounts against Quran burning has reached 25 comments. Join the discussion!
Comments
Homobigots should look into counseling
By fiddlingglassblower - 02/20/2010 - 8:45 amTo discover the root of their fear and hatred of Gays, which is often repressed. Perhaps they weren't loved enough as children. Who knows?
Clearly, there are no rational reasons for opposing gay marriage, which leaves homobigotry as the motivation. Notice how they try to hide behind their Bible. Pitiful.
to vote
fiddling
By truthsetufree - 02/20/2010 - 9:34 amNo ones "hiding behind" anything and fear and hatred of gays is absurd except for perhaps a very small percentage of the 300 M people who live in the USA; it's simply not true. Many times, many of us have posted very rational, logical, factual reasons for opposition to gay marriage but apparently you're not reading anything unless it agrees with gay marriage which is probably why you never come back with any logical, rational, factual rebuttal and just use the recently coined word "homobigots" to explain everything.
to vote
None of your "reasons" are in any way
By fiddlingglassblower - 02/20/2010 - 2:31 pmLogical or rational, and in fact have been shown to be illogical and irrational countless times. But, you just don't get it. Homobigots rarely do, because so many are simply in denial. Counseling could help to discover the basis for their fear and hatred, which they deny of course.
to vote
What rational, logical,
By Budd123 - 02/20/2010 - 10:55 amWhat rational, logical, factual reasons can you possibly have for using the force of the government to force other people to go along with your beliefs even though they don't share those beliefs?
to vote
Budd123
By truthsetufree - 02/20/2010 - 4:59 pmBest read that again, since you're trying to "force other people" to go along with gay marriage even though they don't share those beliefs!
I've made many factual-based arguments, many times, but you just don't like them so what's the point of re-writing them again?
to vote
See..this is the problem.
By Budd123 - 02/21/2010 - 1:27 amSee..this is the problem. You apparently define being forced to go along with gay marriage as simply having to put up with its existence. In fact no one is forcing you to make a choice between gay marriage or no marriage at all. YOU, on the other hand, are telling people that they must either conform to YOUR definition of marriage or not get married. You are claiming that you have the right to make a personal decision for people you have never, and will never meet. I've been following the issue for years now and have yet to see ANY valid argument why these individuals should not be allowed to live their own lives by their own decisions. Its not that I don't like your arguments, they just don't hold water.
to vote
How everyone voted for the record and to vote them out!
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 5:09 pmVotes on Marriage Law posted for you to see that the temporary politicans in power don't care what you think and they know better than you cause they're your nanny: Why didn't they want to wait until after the March Town meetings? You figure it out!
On Wednesday, February 17, 2010, the New Hampshire House of Representatives
killed HB1590
, the bill to repeal the redefinition of "marriage" to include homosexual
relationships. You can see how each Representative voted here HB1590
Roll Call. Those who voted YES were voting
to kill the bill. Those who voted NO were supporting the repeal of
homosexual marriage.
The House also voted NOT to allow the citizens of New Hampshire to vote on
the marriage amendment CACR28
. You can
see which Representatives voted to deny you the right to vote on the
definition of marriage here Roll
Call on CACR28. The motion was to kill
the amendment. NO was the correct vote for those in favor of allowing the
citizens to vote.
The most outrageous vote of the day was the REJECTION of a motion to
postpone the vote on the marriage amendment until after the March Town
Meetings. There was no reason why the House could not wait 3 weeks to hear
the views of the voters on the marriage amendment. They knew that more than
half the towns in the State are about to vote on the Article that asks if
the citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to
the New Hampshire Constitution that defines marriage.
191 "Representatives" demonstrated that they do not care what the voters
have to say on this issue.
Check the Roll
Call on Motion to Postpone vote on CACR28
to see who voted NO to waiting to hear from the voters on the marriage
amendment. Make sure you remember who these "Representatives" are when they
run for office again. If they are so uninterested in what the voters think,
why would anyone consider re-electing them again?
to vote
Define your own marriage and
By Budd123 - 02/19/2010 - 11:45 pmDefine your own marriage and leave others to define theirs. I will most certainly support the people whose votes show that they are more concerned with individual freedom than they are about your desire to force other people to live by your beliefs and rules.
to vote
huh, Budd123?
By truthsetufree - 02/20/2010 - 2:29 am"your desire to force other people to live by your beliefs and rules." Civil unions gave gays all the rights of "marriage." But, that wouldn't punish those who believe in tradtional marriage only enough would it? It wouldn't bash Christians and their beliefs enough either to suit you. And, please give me the names of those who are trying to force you to live anyway other than how you choose to live, ok? That's just not right. Are people coming into your bedroom and interfering with your same sex life?
to vote
Actually no, civil unions
By Budd123 - 02/20/2010 - 11:00 amActually no, civil unions only gave SOME of the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy to gay couples. And please explain to me how two guys getting married "punishes" you? As far as names..here's what you do. Write your own name on a piece of paper and look at it. YOU are claiming that you have the right to force your Christian and "traditional" beliefs on other people using force of law. And if you get to do that using YOUR criteria then what's to stop others from doing the same using THEIR criteria.
Very clever assuming I am gay because I support Freedom...oh no, wait. Its not.
to vote
Yep, Budd
By truthsetufree - 02/20/2010 - 8:22 pmNext up? Polygamy, beastiality and anything and everything anybody wants to call marriage cause everybody has equal rights! What's wrong with 2 people of any sex, any age, unrelated, related, disabled and unrelated, same sex (with no sex) but living together, 3 men and 2 women, and everybody "loves" the other(s), don't even have sexual relationships but want to get married? Why not? Why stop at gay marriage. Let's just let everyone marry anyone of any age for any reason and continue the slipery slope to accommodate people who want to marry their pet as I'm sure PETA will demand. Two transvestites should be allowed to marry if you're concerned about everyone's "freedom." I love my cat and want to marry her when my spouse dies. My neighbor loves his horses and wants to marry them. My two spinster sisters who live together think they should be allowed to marry each other bc only one of them has ever worked and the other should get social security, etc.
Exactly what rights didn't civil unions give gays?
to vote
I'll make this simple. If
By Budd123 - 02/21/2010 - 1:35 amI'll make this simple. If it involves consenting adults then its their business and no one else's. If it involves children then please explain how those children qualify as consenting adults. If it involves animals then please explain how those animals are able to give informed consent to the marriage and articulate their vows. If your transvestites are consenting adults then its their choice. Same with your spinster sisters, especially since they are not able to have genetically damaged children from the union. But DISABLED? Are you serious? Are you going to claim the right to tell people that they are too crippled to get married?
I'm unfamiliar with the law passed in NH, however those unions are not recognized by the federal government and many states have civil union laws that grant approx. half the rights of marriage whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual.
to vote
So let's say I am a gay man...
By Matunaagah - 02/19/2010 - 4:29 pmMe: "Hey dude! you are attractive, and I love you!
Other guy: "I feel the same way about you! Let's move in together and have sex!"
Me: "But shouldn't we get married?"
Other guy: "married? Are you referring to that religious custom that Christian Europeans brought with them to North America and set legal statutes for because they did not fully understand what separation of church and state really means, and still exists today only because the Christian majority still has not seen fit to remove religious concepts from the law? Why should we do that? We are not Christians, or at least we should not be, seeings how our conduct is explicitly condemned in both the old and new testaments. And besides, we get, or at least should get, the same legal benefits with civil union. "
Me: "I see, but won't we be somehow unequal to other people if we cannot be labeled as being married as well?"
Other guy: "well partner, that would be like saying that black people, who have all the same rights as white people, are unequal to whites because they are not legally able to have their birth records changed to say they are Caucasian. Legal terminology does not dictate equality, and most people in this country today, including religious people, view us as equals and treat us with respect. Only a fool would conclude that the members of the Westboro baptist church represent everyone who is opposed to gay marriage."
Me: "I guess you're right, there really is absolutely no good reason for us, two homosexuals, to seek marriage. I mean, it's not like we have the ulterior motive of initiating an assault on religious society by cheapening an institution that they created, all to improve our sense of self-worth, right?"
to vote
WBC has how many members from Kansas?"
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 4:57 pmYep, WBC has about 60-70 members from KANSAS Dorothy, but the local gay community acted as though they speak for NH and everyone else in the entire world when 3 showed up in Concord for a rally that everybody condemns!
to vote
No on Gay Marriage
By joesalters - 02/19/2010 - 3:39 pmWe need to vote out of office every one that approved gay marriage next time that they are up for election. They are a discrace to the state.
to vote
Comment blocked by moderator
The post violates the Discussion Guidelines.
Joe, then simply vote out every democrat and a handful of repubs
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 6:19 pmBut Obama still doesn't quite get that there's, he's, the reason there's such bi-particanship. Duh! Voting party lines no matter what the cost to society's common good just became we have all the power right now.
to vote
who's really robbed here?
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 7:49 amThe Citizens of NH who have not yet been given their right to vote because of the temporary party in power as have 31 other states who have voted and who have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. Why? Because progressives don't know the difference between a man and a woman and actually believe they know better than what nature created because they actually think they're more intelligent. This is the epitomy of arrogance. Gay marriage will always be an imitation of the original as it's impossible to make 2 men or 2 women "one" sexually as can be accomplished with opposites. But, I'm sure the possibility of procreation is just a mistake of nature too just like 5000 years of recorded history of traditional marriage.
The homosexual agenda has told their lies so often, ignorant people are believing them. Truth is their is no gay gene and that's been scientifically proven; gays are not "born that way" and scientists have proven that it's a combination of environment and hormonal influences. We've succumbed to a confused small population of gays many of whom switch from hetero to homosexual and back and many of whom never dealt with the trauma of incest as a child. Many in fact turned to homosexuality bc they didn't have a healthy mother and father and didn't get their needs appropriately met as children due to abuse, alcoholism, no strong father roll model, etc. So now we're going to deprive another generation of innocent children of having the much needed balance of both a healthy mother and father and we're doing it purposely. Black is forever and the slavery argument is just another lie that gay rights is the same as civil rights because gays just can't help themselves. But, the truth is that they have chosen not to address their core issues of why they feel compeled to express their sexuality to a same sex person.
Gay marriage hasn't equated to happiness as the divorce rate of gays increases exponentially yearly.
The long-term effects of gay marriage will not bode well for the innocent children who were purposely denied the balancing influence of both. Society will pay greatly in the future, but thank goodness, I'll be dead by then.
Progessives simply ignore common sense but hopefully people have seen the light by the next election and follow the national trend that's begun and restore sanity to America.
to vote
Contradictions piled upon Contradictions
By devilsAdvocate - 02/19/2010 - 8:29 pmOn the one hand, you want to hold up heterosexuality as the moral good and the only environment suitable for raising children, yet on the other hand you blame all of those dysfunctional alcoholic incestuous lousy heterosexual parents for turning their children gay. You can't have it both ways. If it's lousy heterosexual parents who cause their children to turn to homosexuality, which is exactly what you claim, shouldn't you be arguing that heterosexuals are the ones who should be banned from marriage and should not have children? Based on your argument, the real and time-proven threat to children is in fact a heterosexual household, because that's where all of the gay children come from. As a matter of fact, 100% of all the gay people in the world have come from heterosexual parents, so in order to protect these poor innocent children, shouldn't you be doing everything in your power to stop heterosexuals from having children and exposing them to the kind of bad parenting that turns them gay? According to your argument, heterosexuality is the cause of homosexuality! If there's no gay gene, then were do homosexuals come from? You point to environment--well, people who are gay grew up in heterosexual environments, and hormones--well, gay people got their hormones from their heterosexual parents. If you want to stop homosexuality, you need to stop heterosexuality.
to vote
devils
By truthsetufree - 02/20/2010 - 2:37 amNice attempt at over-simplification. Some children are abused by total strangers and/or homosexuals, eh? You've been posting on here since I have and still haven't adequately answered any of my relevant questions. And, yes, we all know already about the pedophile priests in the Catholic Church so don't bother with that rebuttal as God has/will never condone what sick (homosexual by the way) men with free will did.
to vote
Actually, statistics show
By devilsAdvocate - 02/20/2010 - 6:42 amActually, statistics show that the greatest percentage of pedophiles are heterosexuals, and among them, the greatest percentage are heterosexual parents who molest their own children. So I guess there goes your theory that children are best raised in a heterosexual household. See, you can't be guilty of your sweeping stereotypes against homosexuals, and now priests too, based on the behavior of a few, and then complain when someone makes similar sweeping stereotypes against heterosexuals based on the behavior of a few. It works both ways. Seems like you don't like the taste of your own poison.
to vote
devils
By truthsetufree - 02/20/2010 - 8:43 am"Sweeping stereotypes"? Write the APA and other "scientific" organizations and complain to them that they're stereotyping then.
"Actually, statistics show that the greatest percentage of pedophiles are heterosexuals, and among them, the greatest percentage are heterosexual parents who molest their own children."
And you got this where? Many children are abused by a step-parent, but that certainly doesn't make all step parents bad and, of course, I never said all priests were pedophiles either.
to vote
Implications
By devilsAdvocate - 02/20/2010 - 9:28 amNo, but you certainly implied that homosexuality was the cause of these priests' pedophilia, and this is not supported by any respected medical or psychological community. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. By perpetuating the lie linking homosexuality and pedophilia, you create an unfair and negative stigma attached to child abuse, which makes it all the more difficult for children who are abused to come forward and seek help, for fear that they will be labeled sick and/or homosexual. You fail to grasp the dangerous impact of your positions and opinions and how they hurt the very people--children--you claim to care about. When you perpetuate these myths that child abuse can turn people gay, you make it so hard for children who are abused to want to come forward and report it. Instead, on top of the abuse they've already suffered, you heap shame and moral condemnation upon them, in essence doubly abusing them and making their situation worse.
to vote
Priests?
By truthsetufree - 02/20/2010 - 9:50 amDid the priests abuse children the same sex as them or those of the opposite sex? And just how many children do you think read the CM and the comments? I have NEVER said that it's the child's fault when they're abused or incested; quite the contrary. Not talking about child abuse, incest, etc. just perpetuates the cycle of abuse and secrecy abusers so love. Just bc these issues make people feel uncomfortable, too bad, since that doesn't help the actual victims. Facts are facts and me stating them isn't going to prevent anybody from seeking help if they really desire it and when THEY'RE ready to come out of denial and deal with all the trauma. Blaming me won't help anybody.
to vote
Your message
By devilsAdvocate - 02/20/2010 - 10:16 amYou obviously understand nothing about child abuse if you think sexual orientation factors into it at all. Sexual abusers abuse whatever children they have access to, and in the priestly world of altar boys, boys were the children most abused because they're the children that hang out at church, but girls were abused as well. Essentially, though, the message that your attitude and your words send out is this:
"Sorry, kid, to hear that you were sexually abused, but you know that's probably going to turn you gay, which is an abomination against nature. Oh, and by the way, kid, being gay is a choice, so you only have yourself to blame for everything that's happened to you. "
You've already gone on record that sexual abuse can cause a child to turn gay. You've already gone on record that homosexuality is an abomination against nature.
You've already gone on record that being gay is a choice and people can flip flop.
All I've done is put your pieces together so that you can see what you're really saying, and how you're words really harm the victims of sexual abuse by stigmatizing them as sick abominations against nature who are solely responsible for what's happened to them. There's a difference between what you say, or what you think you're saying, and what actually gets said.
to vote
Really devils?
By truthsetufree - 02/20/2010 - 10:55 amI see you've again tried to put words in my mouth I've never said and twist, add, subtract them along with comments not made by me so there's no use in even re-explaining anything to you so let's just agree to disagree.
to vote
whos really robbed here
By joesalters - 02/19/2010 - 3:42 pmjoesalters Your right on , children will be the ones that suffer from this law.
to vote
"Truth is their(sic) is no gay gene"
By Matunaagah - 02/19/2010 - 2:27 pmAbsolutely correct. Two men cannot pass on their genes, therefore, if there ever was a gay gene, it would have died out in the first generation of the human race. One could make the argument that some people are born with the sexual hormones of the opposite sex, but in that case, how could they develop physically normally? And why do many homosexuals seem to be attracted to members of the same sex who dress like, act like, and resemble members of the opposite sex? The entire phenomenon has "nurture over nature" written all over it. Not that I don't think they should have the right to engage in their fetish to their hearts content, but if they are going to throw morality out the window then they ought to also through labels like marriage out with it.
to vote
Opps! "there" not "their"
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 4:58 pmtruthsetufree
to vote
Reality.....
By URSUS - 02/19/2010 - 11:58 amTry to keeep the discussion about Civil Govt. and Civil Laws in reality, not the paranormal.
Your god, your sins, your delusion.
to vote
"Your god, your sins, your delusion..."
By Matunaagah - 02/19/2010 - 2:29 pmand our institution as well.
to vote
ursus
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 12:40 pmyour opinion
to vote
"truth"
By URSUS - 02/19/2010 - 1:09 pmMy belief.
to vote
ursus
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 1:15 pmand you're entitled to it.
to vote
Who's really robbed here
By KAD - 02/19/2010 - 11:43 amIn my opinion, some of the legislature representatives of NH that have a right to vote on this issue are a little bias, being that they are openly gay as well and will only benefit, i.e. social security and medical insurance with their partners of the same sex. People that are voted in by the people of NH that have their own agendas should not be allowed to vote on a very serious issue.
to vote
KAD
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 1:08 pmAnd they're headed by openly gay, mean-spirited Ray Buckley. And, yes, it's always about the money and the me, me, me's. It's impossible for anyone not to have some kind of bias, but one of the gay legislators during the hearings said he had absolutely no bias just because he's gay. No bias...? but perhaps a bit of self-dillusion?
to vote
WOW
By Loveburger-Toas... - 02/19/2010 - 12:13 pmSo if a rep benefits in any way, then they shouldn't vote? I'm pretty sure every one of them has an agenda to not get punched by a jerk, so they shouldn't be able to vote on anti-jerk-punch legislation?
THINK, PLEASE THINK.
to vote
Wow....you solved it!
By newworldrepublican - 02/19/2010 - 11:10 am"Truth is their is no gay gene and that's been scientifically proven; gays are not "born that way" and scientists have proven that it's a combination of environment and hormonal influences. We've succumbed to a confused small population of gays many of whom switch from hetero to homosexual and back and many of whom never dealt with the trauma of incest as a child. Many in fact turned to homosexuality bc they didn't have a healthy mother..."
Please cite your scientific facts sir...just because they haven't found a gene doesn't mean it is non-existent! Have you seen God? Because you haven't does that mean he doesn't exist?? I know many gay people who were raised in wonderful,healthy sometimes even Christian homes and had siblings who are not gay..so your unhealthy mother, environment, etc., theory doesn't hold much water! Barak Obama was raised without his father, had an unhealthy mother, etc...and I don't believe he is gay is he?
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. - George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
to vote
new world republican
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 1:02 pmDo your own research with an open mind. Mine's based on 10 years of counseling people, lots of education, reading pro and con scientific literature and research for 20 years on the subject matter. You can even find alot of stuff on the internet if you really want to know what both side's research states. How much time do you have? You'll need alot of it to thoroughly research everything, get your education and years of counseling all kinds of people from all kinds of life situations.
I extensively counseled 2 sisters. One thought her father was a life-long abusive alcoholic and the other said her father didn't drink. Ever hear of "denial?" Ever hear or study about birth order characteristics, etc. Ever hear about only one-child in a family being beaten, abused or sexually assaulted and not the other children? Logically, that might even explain how different children react differently to even their own parents and environment, huh? You could even study age between siblings, other factors affecting one that never affected the others such as job loss, a parental affair, a chronically ill parent during their formative years the older children weren't around during, etc. My siblings and I couldn't be more different in more ways even though we had the same parents and are all close in age.
I never said "every" homosexual is simply a victim of environment, now did I?
Yeah, Obama, and look how horribly dysfunctional and narcissitic he is, and how he doesn't even know what he really believes in or who he really is...and how do you know he's not gay? How do you know if he's ever had a same-sex sexual relationship? He won't even release his college transcripts so what do you suppose he's afraid of or hiding? He sat under the nut case Rev. Wright for 20 years but never heard one of his sermons.
to vote
nut case?
By URSUS - 02/19/2010 - 1:21 pmpot meet kettle.
to vote
Apple pie? orange juice? I
By TWE - 02/19/2010 - 3:33 pmApple pie?
orange juice?
I think you lost me.
to vote
Show me
By Jerry Spaulding - 02/19/2010 - 11:03 amPlease reference the scientific studies that conclude there is no "gay" gene and that homosexuality is a combination of environment and hormonal influences. Also reference the study that shows the divorce rate for gays going up exponentially. I do not listen to heresay.
to vote
Jerry
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 1:13 pmSee reply above and you'll have to do alot of statistical research...start in
Vermont on divorce rates of gays, go to the Town Halls, get vital records, etc. at the library and read, read, read and study, study, study...higher divorce rates in lesbians in Vermont, as apparently many who once thought they were gay, figured out they weren't.
to vote
Heh
By Loveburger-Toas... - 02/19/2010 - 3:27 pmThat's not science, my dear friend. That's pure conjecture, based on anecdotal evidence. Don't they teach you people science up here in the great north?
to vote
SmarmyVette, check the APA
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 4:54 pmSo the same American Psychiatric Institute that said homosexuality isn't a "mental illness" many years ago is wrong when it said that there is "no gay gene" after years of study? Kinda like the global warming nuts who whether it's hot or cold say it's "global warming" (usually very alarmingly) cause they want to have it both ways, eh? You're a member of a cult and many religions are cults, so what's the difference? There is still absolutely no scientific consensus when it comes to gays anymore than there's scientific consensus when it comes to that big bad global warming, yikes!
to vote
Again?
By Concord King - 02/22/2010 - 5:37 pmWhy do you keep lying with a name like yours? There isn't just one gay gene, there are several. Perhaps if actually researched something rather than parrot your bigot idols, you'd know that. You are such a liar I am ill with disgust.
"Kinda like the global warming nuts who whether it's hot or cold say it's "global warming" (usually very alarmingly) cause they want to have it both ways, eh?"
And you're highly uneducated. If you don't know the difference between "weather" and "climate" you are severely intellectually challenged and obviously unable to research a word in a dictionary, never-mind research genetic links to human behavior.
The truth will set us free, so stop your incessant lying.
to vote
I disagree with you truthsetufree
By TWE - 02/19/2010 - 9:23 amI disagree with you truthsetufree it is not the homosexual agenda that has told their lies so often that ignorant people are believing them. You are wrong to blame the homosexual agenda. That agenda is the results of a wider problem that has plagued mandkind since Adam and Eve.
Now hear me out. The truth of the matter is this; An anti-God agenda has brought us to where we are today. The apostle Paul in Romans 1:28-32 described for us what happens to a soceity that suppresses the truth of God.
The apsotle said "28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
To sum up this verse Paul gives us his analysis of our situation in four steps. Take verse 28 from above to see all four.
1st, Paul identifies the cause of the problem is that humans don't like having God in thier knowledge. "They did not see fit to acknowledge God." This condition has been in the world since Adam and Eve. This is a rejection of the one true God.
The 2nd step of Pual's analysis is that God in an act of judgment will withdraw his common restraints this rebellion and give people over to sink in the slime that we have chosen.
The 3rd step in this analysis is that God will remove his common restraints on society (see Genesis 20:6). We are now imprisoned by a "depraved mind." "God gave them over to a depraved mind."
The last step is that these defective mind will produces all kinds of evils. Paul list twenty-one samples of this evil. What he is not saying is that evry unbeliver will be filled with every sin. We know this because in the previous verses 26-27 Paul mentions that a homosexual desire is one result of failing to love God above all things. Paul clearly does not teach that every unbeliever has homosexual desires or will be full of greed or gossip all the time. No what he is saying is that all these sins are the result of refusing to acknowledge God he has provided us samples of the sort of thing that results from rejecting God.
So how do we stop these Destructive Evils? Do we fight gay marrage? "No", the answer is the the gospel of Christ. we will do no good fighting gay marrage, abortion or a "homosexual agenda". But we can turn things around by following God, loving one another and work to change the hearts of those we know.
It is the gospel of Christ that made western civilization what it became, and it is the lack of honoring the God that gave us everything that can make it errode.
to vote
Yeah,
By Loveburger-Toas... - 02/19/2010 - 12:16 pmBut magic sky-wizards aren't state reps. They don't vote on laws. I'm pretty sure that unless they get elected, it would be illegal. You don't want your magic sky-wizards to go to jail do you?
to vote
I agree TWE
By truthsetufree - 02/19/2010 - 10:12 amthis is the result of a much wider problem...but since we are discussing gay marriage, I was focused on truth instead of the lies that keep getting repeated to purposely deceive people into supporting gay marriage.
While you may not be aware as I have no idea how long you've been following this issue, I have posted many legitimate questions many times that have not once been answered by any gays or those in support of gay marriage. Instead posters come back with the usual accusation of you're just a hater, bigot, homophobe, racist, KKK member, etc.
to vote
So sad
By TWE - 02/19/2010 - 10:47 amYes, so sad that political discourse has resulted in name calling and insults. But when you have nothing better than your mantra, the nam,e calling is nect on the list.
But, the bible says that is how it will be. So with each one they proove the word of God correct. They react exactly as we are told they will.
I have refrained for most of the posts on this subject until recently when I saw so many attacks on Christan worldview that I had to start in on it. There are so many misstaments and misunderstanding I felt compeled to set the record straight.
I undertsand you were staying focused, and I was purposfuly expanding it. As I truly belive all these issues are connected and the results of teaching Evolution and a humanistic religious view to people. Instead of the god centered view that Christanity gives us. I also thinks many people misunderstand the bible, as they fail to view it from Gods perspective which is what the bible tried to give us. Man's view is so short sigted, and self centered. Man's view is more on "my rights", "give me, give me give me", and all about what "I WANT". The failure to see what is best for everyone is what the bible tried to correct in human nature.
The Lies that get people to vote on gay marrage are the same lies, that affect other issues. Such as there is now God, there is no sin, everything came from nothing, everything continues as it always has, and evolution (which is differnt from natural selection.)
If people would stop and examine the truth they could see through the lies, but while they fail to find the truth they fall for the agenda.
to vote