So is coveting thy neighbor's wife, but that's not illegal...

So is polluting the environment (otherwise know as driving a car) so if you drive a car, you're a sinner.

Your a sin. How do you know it's a sin? What because the bible said so? Come up with an more original answer. Please I'm so sick of people playing the bible card. Maybe god changed his mind and accepts gay and doesn't think it's a so called sin. You people kill me. I can't stand people like you. Ps I'm straight and I think gay marriage is a beautiful thing. :)

Are you suggesting that legalizing gay marriage also means making marriage illegal for straight couples? I don't see how this has anything to do with stepping on others or taking things away from others.

Kenyan Muslim clerics fault Obama:

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Kenyan+muslim+clerics+fault+Obama+on+gay+marriage/-/1056/1404426/-/8boaew/-/

I challenge you to show me any way whatsoever in which you are harmed by two people of the same sex getting married. What is this "cost" you are talking about? Not you, nor any one else, can show me that it would harm them. The truth is, you simply don't like it.

No doubt reelection is the key here and the objective of the gay rights agenda is to do to the same thing to the word marriage they have done to the word gay ie. utterly destroy the original definition of the word until it is completely meaningless. If you don't believe they can do it, just try using the word gay in it original meaning of "a carefree adventurous happy-go-lucky individual.". See how far you get before you are laughed out of the room. They mean to do the same thing to the word marriage.

I oppose gay marriage ... period. Biblically homosexuality is a sin.

To Fraggs and Richard and others who don't understand how gay marriage will hurt you, here's how:
1) Additional expenditures for government and company benefits-This will cause new "family coverage" liabilities that currently don't exist. You'll be paying for these additional obligations through taxes or less needed services. This, as did the 26 year old offspring rule, increases the coverage costs of the health insurance plans and that cost is passed along to those paying for the plan, plus a fairly sized mark-up for administration.

2) Social security-Liabilities will increase for survivor benefits since these are paid to spouses and under age children.

Of course, we have no way to estimate at this time how much the cost will be. "Marriages" can occur just get increased benefits. I know different sex couples can do this now, but increasing a mistake to expand this abuse is bad policy.

From a cultural issue, this may hurt our children most of all.

In Massachussetts, once marriage became "legal" the GLBT militant arm immediately sought to use it as a hammer to force public schools to promote the gay lifestyle as "legitimate and desirable", despite families' religious objections.

None of the negative aspects of this lifestyle could be taught, nor could the moral objections to this lifestyle be discussed of debated. Only promotional discussion was allowed.

Additional cost and forcing gay culture acceptance on the public is what this is about, not "love".

Increasing health care coverage for families with children up to age 26 is actualy a way to lower costs. Most males, 18-30 do not go to the doctor very often, but many paretns will keep them on the plan on pay the additional coverage. This is basically "more money in the pot".

Gay marriage will cost more in benefits, but all this means is that currently gay people are inadvertantly subsidizing the marraige and death benefits for heterosexual couples. So what your saying is its ok for them to pay more to support you and your family, but the moment we talk about making benefits equal, you are going to cry poor.

If this is the truth, and you really feel that way, then what has to happen is that benefits need to be reduced across the board or gays simply pay less into SS since they do not recieve the same benefit as a heterosexual person...

Although some gay people want to marry, and use the word marry, many just want the rights afforded to a married couple. Why would you deny those rights?

Actually, Grunty, from everything I've read the "preventive care" approach is much more expensive than "diagnose and cure". For example, every everyone had a $3,000 colonoscopy every few years, the cost of actual treatment for the few who actually get the disease would be dwarfed by the cost of testing and examination.

The argument that it's worth the money to save lives may be a valid one, but then it becomes a matter of increasing the amount and cost of health care we receive.

Younger, healthier people subisidize the healthcare of older, less healthy people in the current system, and that subsidy will skyrocket under Obamacare.

Regarding SSC, you do understand that it isn't an "investment", it's a tax and means of economic and generational wealth redistribution, right?

The disabled and indigent get far more from it than they ever pay, and older recipients are HEAVILY subsidized by younger people in the system, far beyond what they have "earned" under the paltry payments they made over the years.

I can think of hundreds of ways to spend more government money, as most people can. The problem is that we've reached the point that we can no longer afford to add more entitlements, let alone keep up with funding current ones. A good start to controlling this problem is stopping all new entitlements, of which this would be one.

Is this "unfair"? Sure. But the existing system of giveaways and entiltements is no more fair to those paying the bills.

What rights are they taking away?

You don't have to accept anything, just leave people alone to make their own decisions because it is normal and ok.

Asians also make up 5% of the population, should we deny them rights to? It doesn't matter how big or small a minority is, equality is for everyone. You are free to believe that being gay is not normal and not okay, but you are not free to deny those people the same protections and opportunities you have.

Because it IS normal.
Some facts for you: The Diagnostic manual of the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association stopped classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder decades ago.
Second, gay behavior can be found among something like 176 species in the animal world.

How about it;s not an issue,it's a distraction.Make gay marriage legal, but if you want to force your view on someone, make abortion illegal, then you will see the support from the left just disappear...

Why do you care who gets married and who loves who. Grow up.

Exactly right. I say it's impossible to show how gay marriage harms anyone. If people were more honest, they'd admit that they simply don't like the idea. To them I say, well, maybe your behavior includes things I don't like, but I'm not trying to take away your right to do what you like and want to do. Like having many, many children--in an overpopulated world.

I agree Mr Munrone.

Not necessarily true. Marriage is accepted by the US government. Those who are married can file a joint tax return and file for survivor Social Security benefits when a spouse dies. Civil Unions are not recognized by the Federal Government so neither of the above applies to them.
I am against gay marriage regardless. My feelings though are based on the fact that if we move that line once we will have to move it yet again down the road. How long until polygamists want the same rights? When will people then begin the fight to marry a sibling or other immediate family member? When will people begin to fight for the right to marry a child? I can go on with examples but I'm sure you get the point. In my opinion, marriage needs to stay defined as one man and one woman.

Marriage is a social and legal institution. If people want a religious wedding ceremony, that's super, but marriage after the wedding day is simply a legal arrangement. Not allowing such civil rights to any segment of the population is unjust.

Marriage in and of itself is not sacred. In many cultures, past and present, girls have no choice in partners as daughters are considered property. Victorian English (and concurrent American) marriages were often arranged to enable the transfer of property from father to daughter, and many contemporary cultures endorse arranged marriages. Same-sex marriages existed in the early Roman Empire. I don't know how anyone could argue with a straight face that marriage is an honored religious tradition between a man and a woman that needs to be protected from The Gays. In fact, divorce rates in the U.S. have been declining since the late 1990s--the same decade that the first partnership benefits for same-sex couples were recognized in the United States. Perhaps, then, same-sex marriage is healthy for other marriages, not damaging. (I'm sure it's a coincidence, but I'm tired of hearing the "damaging to marriage" argument. It should also be noted that Southern, and other notably Red states, like Alaska, have the highest divorce rates in the country, with the Blue Northeast at the lowest. So are Republicans less respectful of marriage, then?)

To clarify one point: Where gay marriage has been legalized, no religious institutions have been forced to perform gay unions.
In fact, "marriage" as recognized by civil law confers many rights, such as the right to file a joint income-tax return. (It's been estimated there are about 1000 rights that marriage confers.) And that is the reason why the advocates of same-sex marriage want full marriage and not just civil unions.
There have been numerous instances where one member of a same-sex couple has been very seriously ill or injured, and was hospitalized; and the other partner has been denied to right to visit the sick one in their hospital bed--on the grounds that he or she was "not family." That is another, yet very important, reason for gay marriage.

Then leave it up to each individual religion!! You miss the point --- that right now it is not up to any religion because it is ILLEGAL. If we made a law to ban everything we don't agree with, life would be chaos. If it is against your religion, then your religion should not allow it. But that does not mean it should be illegal!!!

I,agree with babybommer. Religous ceremony should be with husband and wife,To have children with, I,would never go to a gay marriage. Why are we supporting gay people to adpot children also. They will just show them it is okay to be gay/,When the child grows up and that okay. I,do not thimk so!

I agree with you Christina: if you are fortunate enough to find another person with whom to share your life, it should not matter the gender. That said, if your personal religion dictates that you should pair with the opposite gender, that's fine too. Each person should be able to decide on their own..... The government should not be allowed legislate love and marriage....they need to stay out of the bedroom! This is America folks......

I agree that what happens in someone's bedroom is no one's business, however, our government apparently does not feel that way. They are trying to regulate too much. Just like birth control - they want to mandate it. They are trying to force religious institutions to cover birth control options which go against the teaching of most faiths. If they pass a federal law to recognize gay marriage, how long until they start telling religious institutions that they must then perform these "marriages" and acknowledge these unions? It's a very fine line we are walking with all of this and in my opinion the government should just stay out of it all.
I do totally agree with you on the fact that there are so many more important issues in this country. This shouldn't even be an issue when trying to choose a Presidential candidate to vote for.

Wow, Grunty. Spell check and a little sentence structure would do wonders for your writing. I had to read this three times to decipher what you were trying to say.

Hello Pot,

"Wow, Grunty."

This is not a complete sentence.

Your Friend,

Kettle.

Sorry about the incomplete sentence. That is a mistake that I readily admit to. Those were the words that I said out loud to myself as I shook my head while reading your comment. I Will try to be perfect in the future.
Most people write things to be read by other people. I'm sorry to say, your comment was almost unreadable.

Thank you for the apology. Please do not let it happen again.

Nolan, when people start criticizing grammar and spelling, that usually means they have nothing of substance to add to the conversation. Try sticking to the topic. If you had to read Grunty's post three times in order to understand it (because of a couple of TYPOS) then maybe its you who needs to go back to school for a reading comprehension class...just sayin.

You are so delusioned it's scary. Your brainwashing religious dogma is not what marriage is about. Not everyone is of your religion (or they may be an atheist such as myself), so they can make their own decisions on why they want to get married based on their beliefs, not yours. I am married to a woman and we do not believe in a god, yet it is totally legal for us to be married, no religion involved. My brother is in a civil union with a wonderful man and they would be the legal guardians of my infant son should my wife and I die. They wish to be married in this state and I hope it is soon possible. Read your own religious texts, god also says that man should beat his wife when neccesary, own foreigners as slaves, stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding day, sell your daughter into sex slavery, etc. We have evolved to realize that those primative man made up laws and fables are not best for a modern society, and so we dropped them. It is way past due time that we drop the silly "Man should not lay down with man" religious law and grow up. The world is not flat, evolution of life by natural selection is fact, and people should be able to marry any consenting adult that they choose. Serve yourself and your family, think freely, and let others do the same.
.

So, atheists shouldn't marry, then? How you going to enforce that law?

Margaret,

You are correct in that God did not forget to add man to man or woman to woman to the "spiritual truth", as you define marriage, but he did add man to woman, and another woman, and another woman, and another woman....Polygamy, in the Old Testament, was sanctioned by both man and God. Indeed, a great number of prophets had multiple wives and concubines. Polygamy was not outlawed by the Jews until 1000 B.C. because society, at that point, had become monogamous, not because there was some heavenly edict proclaiming that marriage is a spiritual truth between a man and a woman. I can't speak to your beliefs, but I would venture to say that you wouldn't approve of your husband taking another wife, even though God sanctioned such practice in the very Bible you wish to throw at others as support for your positions.

Margaret, does that mean that a man and woman who are athiests should not be allowed to get married?

There are also religions that will kill people for dancing. And kill women for not wearing a hood. There is freedom of religion in the US, which means you have the right FOR YOURSELF to make the choice and believe what you want. It is discriminatory to tell a gay person (which is not one's choice) they cannot live their life with dignity. Until Christians realize that they cannot impose their will on other people, we will not move forward as a country.

GOD made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

God also made Adam and Steve. It just got edited out.

I believe that God loves everyone who is a moral person. If you don't lie, cheat, steal,
and treat everyone with respect. You are a moral person. That means respecting everyone Gay or straight, black or white.

Fraggs, you are like a little island of reality among all this floating crap. Thank you.

How is it that some people have been duped into thinking that allowing two gay people to get legally married would somehow affect ANYBODY'S anything? How would it affect taxes? How would it affect straight people's rights? How would it damage your children? And PLEASE don't come at me with that crap about marriage being a sacred vow before God - what is the divorce rate in this country now? How many times should I expect God to sanctify my bad choice? Even good choices go bad. If you want to take a religious stance on it, then try this on for size: Jesus accepted everyone. Jesus told us to love each other as we love God. Not just some people, all people. And once you say that we're all alike in Jesus' eyes, who are you to choose what is legal for some and not for others?

It used to be a sin for women to vote and for mixed couples to marry. Same-sex marriage is just the next thing-we-thought-was-important-at-the-time-but-now-we-feel-stupid-that-it-was-a-big-deal. Let it go, already.

Thank you.

Fraggs, your summation of biblical history in regards to slavery, or the advancement of women, which spans over 2,000 years from the Old Testament through the New Testament shows your ignorance. I might suggest reading the entire Bible (twice) before using "snipets" to make such a disrepectful comment. The "30 Day Bible" has been written just for you. Yes it can actually be read in 30 days.
If you're an atheist however, just say you are.
Using biblical snipets isn't a fair representation of the hundreds of millions of Cathlolics / Christians and Jews that will love YOU and pray for you even if you hate them. You can call them insane if you will, it's your right. But these "believers" are a group of people who try to live and uphold certain traditional values and truths that they believe to be divinely inspired for giving mankind the most successful model for living. The over-whelming majority of the religious amoungst us should be applauded for their committment to a life of accountability and servitude.
You said "Sadly, it's not about you" - I agree

Your comment makes no sense.

obama is gay !!!

First off, humanity is not mentally insane, that would include yourself. Second, marriage does not have to be a religious event, consider two atheists getting married. No religion involved in my wedding. Third, again-take out the religious aspect and gay marriage is not condemned by people of the human race. Forth, most of the gay population is religious, from what I have seen in every area of the media and my gay family members. Fifth, you used the term "babes", really? Sixth, the word marriage is defined by the people that have entered into that marriage. You can't force your beliefs on them. Seventh, I don't know what you mean by the animal reference but many animal species have gay attributes, and animals do not debate over religious or social issues because they don't have the brain developement that we have gained through evolution. Eigth, every single person on earth has their own blueprint. You can (and people are) gay and normal. I don't get the computer reference at all. Lastly, sometimes, what people feel has nothing to do with their plumbing.

How are marriage ceremonies at the court house a religious event?

Agreed Bonnie.

Ummmm... Hey! I was raised by heterosexuals and I am gay—sexuality is not defined by lifestyle, we are born with it. I have many gay friends that are raising children and they're straight. Gay people don't need to adopt, they can make their own babies with other people that are open-minded, loving, and want children to have a great home.

So you are saying that if a couple is sterile they should not be allowed to get married because they can't have children. If your elderly mother wanted to get married to a man she loved, ten years after your father died, she should not be allowed to because she could not possible bare children at 80 years old. People get married for love in this day and age. The bible and other religious texts were written by biggoted, chauvanist, hateful, insecure men looking for power over the poor and uneducated of the time. Any environment filled with love is a natural one. I know several children, now grown, that were raised by gay couples and they are the nicest, most well adjusted kids I know. Not being the norm can definitely be a good thing. I understand how you could be afraid that something else in your brainwashing bible will be proven wrong for a progessive modern society, but let it go already. Think for yourself, don't let an old book think for you, and live to serve mankind-not a mythical ghost.

Why did you put quotes around the word adopt. Are you saying gay people really don't adopt they only think they do? As a straight woman, I'd be proud to be a surrogate for a gay couple.

Bonnie - The Norm is divorced household. So you'd rather a child be brought up in a home that is broken by your terms rather than one of love because it's between two people of the same gender?

By your standards of them having go 'find' someone to have their child is claiming any straight couple who cannot conceive does not have any business adopting a child who needs a loving family either. And any woman who cannot conceive should not be worthy of marriage at all?

If you're willing to show your true colors, you should post your real name.

Bonnie Bell, Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? "having to go out and find someone to have their child for them goes against the biblical reason for marriage which is procreation" REALLY?? What about heterosexual couples who cannot have children? Maybe we should ban all people who cannot procreate from being able to marry then right? Do you realize how many heterosexual couples use surrogates to carry and have their babies for them? So its "the norm" for straight couples, but not "the norm " when it comes to gay couples? Which is it?

are you kidding me? what hypocrisy! how many supposed "religious" couples use fertility treatments to have a child? how is that any way different from a gay couple wanting to adopt a child or using a surrogate? there is no way you can call any way a person wants to have a child the right or wrong way (unless your "religion" tells you otherwise and again fertility treatments etc) as long as the parents LOVE ADORE AND CHERISH that child that is what matters. my parents were all catholic wonderful and had us kids the old fashioned way and beat the crap out of us whenever they wanted. wonderful heterosexual catholic people having kids "the normal way"

This happens all the time in the heterosexual community, so you are saying it is wrong there as well?

This war is on our Constitutional Rights. Not on each other. We are worried about gay couples adopting children while the moneyed elite are stealing our country right from under our noses...! There is a war raging here in America and it should not be between all of us. We are all equal under the U.S.C , or are we a dictatorship. You cant have both.

although i do go to church every sunday, which is a lot more than most christians, the basis of our country is FREEDOM OF RELIGION. that means that not everyone has to go to church and read the bible and believe in god.
i also find it sad when 'christians' use their religion to preach hatred like you are. you have no right in this country to tell people what to believe. i'm sure you also think that obama is a communist... however you are truly preaching communism when you think everyone must believe in god and in the bible.

According to your god it is a sin for you to speak in church, but I'm sure you do that. In the old testament it was a sin to pray anywhere else other then by yourself at home. So everyone going to church is a sinner. If more people read the entire bible there would be a huge surge in atheism because the book contradicts itself. It is a truly evil, hateful and revengeful text obviously based on the insecurities of the primative men that wrote it. I feel so sorry that this torment has been forced upon you since you were an impressionable young child. What a sin.

I'm sure Dee Dee also leaves the village when she's menstruating, would stone her disobedient daughter, and would never, ever eat a shrimp or wear clothing of mixed fabrics.

"I'm sure Dee Dee also leaves the village when she's menstruating..."
Complete Biblical illiteracy. Before attempting to quote Scripture, please consider learning the difference between Hebrew ceremonial law and moral law.

Its a sin only in your mind!!!

Well said.

"If your God doesn't approve of gay people, why does he create them?"
God creates people. People choose their own sin. That's the essence of the problem.

The point is not to debate whose sin is greater -- it's to get people to come to the Savior.

This illustration seems apt: http://shop.nogreaterjoy.org/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/3/6/3620-10.jpg

Making this a "kinder" world will be great right up until Judgment Day. Then then only thing that will matter is what you said to Jesus' offer of Himself -- "yes" or "no".

AMEN NKLN!

Well said Genvieve

Because if you are a lawmaker and your opinion effects how someone can or cannot choose to live their lives then it should not be tolerated. This type of decision is not a question for polititians or government but one for the individual person. You just labeled someone as intolerant.

You're entitled to your opinion just as people are entitled to not respect your opinion. Opposing gay marriage and talking about it, however, is an action, not an opinion. Wishing to deny other human beings civil rights is, yes, pretty bigoted. If you single out gay people to not deserve a basic civil right like marriage, or, for example, not allow a black person to use your bathroom, those actions are bigoted and Jesus wouldn't approve.

Nolan, lawmakers tell us all how to live in all kinds of ways. And rebels always push to get around the law. That doesn't mean the law is wrong -- God's law or man's law. It just shows that rebels will always rebel.

"...Jesus wouldn't approve."
Again, deep Biblical illiteracy. Jesus never approved of any transgression of the Father's law. Please don't put words in His mouth.

David Vancina, Jesus encouraged people not to judge "lest ye be judged," and if we must judge it should be a "righteous judgment." This means that concerning people who do the same kinds of things we do, we need to mind our own business. However, if people around us transgress worse than we do or in a way that harms us directly, we can offer fair judgment. If I know someone is a thief, I don't have to let him or her into my house--that's a righteous judgment. If another person does something that doesn't harm me directly and isn't worse than the "sins" I commit, my judging of him or her is not righteous and is not justified under Matthew in the New Testament.

It most definitely goes against what Jesus taught to cherrypick strange snippets from the Old Testament on which to judge perfect strangers, strangers whose behavior is not violent or dishonest or thievish.

David, we may disagree, but I assure you that I am not "Bible illiterate." My parents made sure of that.

"...if we must judge it should be a 'righteous judgment.' This means that concerning people who do the same kinds of things we do, we need to mind our own business."

What? How did you get that? The verse you cite is from John's gospel, and the passage does not state or lead to any such conclusion.

If you want to say you don't believe God has the right to say what is sin, fine. I can accept that, no matter how much I disagree with it. But God unambiguously identifies homosexual practice as sin. Old Testament and New. This is eternal, moral law, entirely different from the ceremonial laws you've cited elsewhere in this thread, which were indeed done away by Jesus' atoning sacrifice.

Again, if you don't believe the Bible is authoritative or you don't believe man is beholden to God, we can just agree to disagree. But please don't misquote Jesus or take Scripture out of context to bolster your point.

David, you request "please don't misquote Jesus or take Scripture out of context to bolster your point" of ME, but it's okay for everyone else to do so, why? Because you agree with them? How is my reading, my study, my interpretation any less valid than yours or anyone else's? It's less valid because you don't like what I have to say. The Jesus I grew up with was nice to prostitutes and wanted everyone else to be nice to them. Certainly he'd have no problem with people who love each other being granted legal protections by their state.

Now having said that, of course I don't believe that the Bible should have any bearing on U.S. law. Not only can one use the Bible to support or argue against just about anything (as we are doing), the U.S. is supposed to have a secular government that allows its citizens to practice their choice of religion. Your understanding of Jesus may be totally different from mine, and that's fine (as that happens with all characters in literature). If your religion doesn't allow people of the same sex to be married, then followers of your religion can choose not to get same-sex married. If your neighbor's religion prohibits eating meat, you can eat pork chops, chicken wings, and lamb shank --for breakfast! Does having a vegetarian next door affect your breakfast in any way? No, and neither does having a gay couple next door.

"How is my reading, my study, my interpretation any less valid than yours or anyone else's? It's less valid because you don't like what I have to say."
No, it's less valid because it's factually, grammatically, and contextually incorrect. You've mocked believers with nonsensical applications of pre-Christian ceremonial law (dietary, cleansing, etc.). You've claimed the Bible is silent on the issue of homosexuality when this is clearly not the case. And now you say that Jesus was "nice to prostitutes", implying that He didn't really care what they were doing, and that he only wanted others to be nice to them too.

I don't know what Jesus you grew up with, but the Jesus of the Bible was not merely "nice to prostitutes". Was He what we would call today "a gentleman"? You bet. But He also spoke to them about their sin, just like He did every other unrepentant sinner He encountered. He never approved sin, never demurred from condemning it. He called all people to turn away from sin and come to Him as their good shepherd, their Savior. He also preached of hell and punishment for those who insisted on going their own way.

Many in Scripture, looking inside themselves and understanding that they were indeed sinners, accepted His offer. They repented and were changed, from the inside out.

Others insisted they were fine, and didn't need Him. Didn't need to obey His rules. Just like a lot of people today. He's hoping they'll change their minds, before it's too late.

You know what would help with the "sanctity of marriage"? Outlawing divorce.

i just wish you knew that people in this country have the freedom to believe in whatever they want... they do not have to believe in your religion! and i am a very religious person... i go to church and pray more than anyone i know but i don't try and force it on anyone!

Well said, j.lynn!

I disagree with your view on several points. 1. You do not support "their" rights because if you did, "they" would enjoy the same rights that "you" do.....including to marry the person you love. That's what equal right this is about. 2. Gays marrying doesn't have any effect on which part of the scripture "you" choose to believe in. 3. Little discrimination is not the same as no discrimination, so as long as there is any, there is discrimination. Kids still killing themselves....and there are still gay bashing incidents reported all the time. 4. No one is asking you to abandon your sacred beliefs. If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't gay marry. If you don't want to attend "their" weddings, then don't go. 5. Tolerance is not the same as equality. 5. Politicians and their celebrity sidekicks? The elite making our decisions for us? Intimidation to go along with the "status quo"? Seriously? Maybe you aren't a bigot or a hater. It's possible. Here's one thing for sure.....gays marrying will have zero effect on you, your marriage, your life or your spiritual beliefs. One thing that is also for sure is...you don't believe in equal rights for all people, no matter how much you say you do.

You have not read your books well enough. Jesus says several times that the old books are still the true word of god my father, do not dismiss them. The new testaments were written by men because the old one was pushing people away from the belief with all of the "kill this group and destroy that land" kind of speak. The new testament brought in a more kindly gentle god, (until Jesus says "Bring mine enemies before me and slay them").

I like what you're saying Cfoam.

Maybe this isn't the place for an eschatology lesson, but maybe it is...

Revelation 20:11-15 And I saw a great white throne, and him [Jesus] that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. (12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. (14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

There will come a time when Jesus discriminates with great finality, and eternal consequences. The "book of life" will contain the names of those who acknowledged and turned from their sin (God's definition thereof, not man's) and asked Jesus to be their Savior.

His discrimination will be based on nothing other than whether one chooses life with Him or sin. Nothing else.

Does it have to be another person?

You have said everything I wanted to say in a much better way. Thank you. After reading most of the comments I was ashamed that I was living among such hateful people. You've helped me realize not everyone is so small-minded.

perfectly stated!!!!!

There aren't holy rollers in The Catholic Church. They are very liberal. Wrong church! Pick another!

That's because the hierarchy is really worshipping Satan and they just don't want US to know that....We should have known we should have been sharing Christs last supper not devouring Christs body and blood like a satanic ritual. Don't get me wrong...I learned a lot from my Catholic upbringing. The hierarchy is evil. Esp. Right now. We were warned there would be signs.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion. You have no right to make laws against
another Americans right to marry the person they love.

I won't see you in heaven, mom, because I'm wearing a poly/cotton blend shirt, I say "damn" like it's going out of style, I've knelt and prayed before statues, I've eaten so much shellfish and pork in my life that it grosses me out to think about (I used to work at Red Lobster, you see). I've also borrowed and lent money, stayed within the village while menstruating, worked on Saturdays and Sundays (including this weekend), told lies ("No, Mom, you didn't wake me, I've been up for hours . . ."), read my horoscope, and if I were a man, you better believe I'd shave my face. My point, of course, is that the Bible is filled with all sorts of laws. Does Jesus care if I mix fibers? No. Does he understand that I have to grade papers on the Sabbath? Yes. Jesus just wants us to be good to each other. I suggest you get over your anti-gay hangup because you do stuff that the Bible says you shouldn't, too.

"I won't see you in heaven, mom, because I'm wearing a poly/cotton blend shirt..."
I can't tell if this is just Biblical illiteracy or intentional falsehood. A little honest study before attempting such commentary would reflect well on your integrity.

I'm not making anything up, David. Look it up. Leviticus 19 says not to wear clothing woven of two kinds of material, David, and Leviticus is the same book that lays down the law about "lying with a man." You take one, silly, outdated, B.S. rule seriously, you should probably take them all seriously.

And, by the way, lesbianism is IN THE CLEAR! Woohoo!

Male and female homosexuality are both identified as sin. Neither is "in the clear".

Romans 1:21-27 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ... (24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: ... (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, I believe you are failing to distinguish between ceremonial law and moral law. The former was done away with by Jesus' atoning death and resurrection. The latter are not done away, and are in fact restated and amplified in the New Testament, as above.

As I've also said elsewhere, if you want to assert that the Bible is not God's Word and is not authoritative, fine. We'll just disagree. But if you want to use Scripture to make your point, please do it honestly and knowledgeably.

David, if you get lesbianism out of the word "unnatural," more power to you. To me, it's a bit vague. And "Moral law" refers to the Ten Commandments, and, last time I looked, "Thou shalt not allow marriage equality" wasn't one of the Ten Commandments.

mom. Yes I've attended bible study throughout my childhood. My mother beat me with a dogs chain leash or a wooden sword to get me there (good catholic). I became an atheist at age 12 when I became to big for my mother to drag me to church. Now,as a free thinking adult. over the last 30 years I have studied every literary religious text that I can get my hands on and understand the language of. See, as an atheist, I do not believe in all religions equally, where you don,t believe in all except one, your own. An atheist just takes it one god further. Jesus is not black and white, many of the stories in christian books contradict each other over many times. The christian-judao-muslim religious text are all the same stories plagerized from the zoroaster beliefs way before them. I hope you wake up from your delusion soon and live your life for now on this earht because that is the only wonderful thing we have.

"...if you get lesbianism out of the word "unnatural," more power to you. To me, it's a bit vague."
Vague? It's called "grammar" and "context". The "likewise" in v.27 links the two ideas (female and mail homosexuality) pretty clearly.

"And 'Moral law' refers to the Ten Commandments..."
No, the Ten Commandments are not the entirety of moral law. In fact, not all ten of the Ten Commandments are moral law. Sabbath-keeping is not required of a New Testament Christian.

What I said before I'll say again... if you want to deny Biblical authority, you're free to do so, and we can just agree to disagree. But you have consistently misrepresented basic Bible concepts -- it's those misrepresentations I have a hard time letting pass.

Homosexuality is sin, according to the Bible. Christians espousing this view are on very solid ground.

How about "thou shalt not lie"? The divorce rate is 50% in the US. Aren't those who divorce ("till death do us part") and then remarry breaking a sacred vow, henceforth, sinners (in your mind)? Shame on that evil sinner Ronald Reagan!

STM- marriage has nothing to do with giving birth. by that account heterosexuals who do not want or cannot have children have no business getting married. Marriage and Parenting are two different things.

Wrong thread, pal.

The trillions were spent to basically kill one man, Saddam Hussein. We are paying hundreds of millions in interest on that immoral, unfunded war. But I'll bet you had no problem with that money being spent. Hypocrites like you will be the ruin of this country.

Correct thread sir! He wont talk about the economy. Only issues that divide.

Sure, the President talks about the economy. Here, let me Google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Obama+on+economy

Well said, Kaitlin. Yes, people will look back on this point in our history with shaking heads, appalled at how long it took for these civil rights.

lol....still blaming Bush. You liberals are hysterical!!! Obamination has created more debt in 3 1/2 years than all the american presidents before him combined and you still blame Bush! Distractions and distortions are the only way he can get re-elected and he just might succeed in doing that because the american people as a whole are so stupid! Really, when you think about it, you have to be a brainless idiot to vote for Obama a 2nd time. Lets talk about the manufactured war on women, the redefinition of marriage, birth control, and anything else we can think of so people don't remember the economy......because it is all about the economy stupid!

Carmen

2:01 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012

lol....still blaming Bush. You liberals are hysterical!!! Obamination has created more debt in 3 1/2 years than all the american presidents before him combined and you still blame Bush! Distractions and distortions are the only way he can get re-elected and he just might succeed in doing that because the american people as a whole are so stupid! Really, when you think about it, you have to be a brainless idiot to vote for Obama a 2nd time. Lets talk about the manufactured war on women, the redefinition of marriage, birth control, and anything else we can think of so people don't remember the economy......because it is all about the economy stupid!

We are still (and will be for decades) paying interest on Dubya's immoral, unfunded war. So it is a very valid point to bring Dubya into the argument. Anyone who voted for that POS a second time should be ashamed of themselves. Talk about brainless idiots!

Homosexuality is natural. It has always been natural, across time and across species. Some biologists have noted that during times of abundance for a particular species, there is more homosexual mating, which is a natural way of controlling the population.

"Destroys our fabric?" Man, I am so tempted to make a Santorum joke . . . but instead I'll just ask this: How? How does marriage between the same sex destroy our fabric, Carmen?

I could not agree with you more Carmen!

Carmen - by your account any person who does not have the ability to procreate should be banished? I guess that goes for heterosexuals as well?

Since people generations before us fought hard to desegregate our country, it's disheartening to see someone suggest a new segregation. (And I, too, am curious if that means that all infertile people and post-menopausal women are supposed to go to California as well. What about people who control their fecundity? Can they stay, Carmen? Think of the divided families! And you call President Obama a divider!)

Anyway, this is futile to say but I feel obligated: People do not choose their sexual orientation. We don't choose to be gay or straight any more than we choose to be right- or left-handed. (Trust me, I spent years trying to write with my left hand. It still looks like a four-year-old's writing! I also tried to will myself gay after a particularly bad breakup. It didn't work).

Thanks for contributing a sane religious opinion, Frank.

Hey Denise, when The President talks about the Economy it is usually divisive rhetoric, like the rich not paying their fair share. When was the last time The President gave a feelgood speech about the fact that this is the best country on earth? Pointing fingers at Republicans, or Congress or the rich. Leaders lead, they don't blame. I'm not arguing that he caused our problems at all. I'm just saying he is never leading, always blaming and pitting groups against each other. Negativity never produces anything positive. He is more than happy to take the ultra rich's campaign donations.

"What person, if they were not born homosexual, would want to live that lifestyle?" asks Steve Barnes.

Exactly! Hey, someone's catching on! And by the same token, only people who were born heterosexual would want to live THAT lifestyle! And guess what! No one should have to live a heterosexual lifestyle (i.e., live a lie) just because you're not comfortable with who they are.

Hi, C.S.,
Just to clarify-- I am not the editor of Patch. I am not even an editor (although I do have editor permissions). I did not author this article. I do occasionally contribute stories to Patch (you may have seen my gripping opinion piece about saving the U.S. Postal Service). But even if I were, it is Patch's policy that contributors, editors, and readers alike are all invited to participate in discussions. This website is about news, yes, but it's also about community. I found this story like any other Patch reader and was compelled to participate.

Denise,
Please review the guiding principles of Patch here http://www.patch.com/foundation

I am specificaly speaking to the point of the last guiding principle; "■Patch.org and Patch journalists do not take a political stance on community issues. We do provide a forum for these issues to be explored and debated."

C.S.,
I apologize--that's a change that I was not aware of. I went ahead and deleted the one comment I've made on this thread that gave my political stance away (well, it was a hint at my political stance: I had made an offhand comment about how I don't like my tax dollars spent. It's gone now).

You might notice, too, that when the discussion veered toward politics and away from the topic of the discussion, I tried to set it back on track. The topics of this article and thread focus on civil rights, science, even issues of human emotion. I think the biggest problem with the discussion is that people insert politics into the mix. I personally don't see this as a political issue at all--concern for others, the importance of family, love, values, and rights--these issues don't belong to one party.

Tammy,
Well said. You bring up many great points and you're right--we straight people tend to take these rights for granted. Your sister is lucky to have you in her corner, as are all people still fighting for civil rights. Best wishes to you and your family.
-dd

right on! perfect reasons by someone with their head on straight! take the religious bs out of this!

Poor logic (and poor grammar) in your above statement. Using your argument, the Bible also says it's fine for people to own slaves and treat them as property. Slavery was 'ok' for hundreds (thousands) of years - why ISN'T it ok now?
It's because things change. People and cultural beliefs change.

If the only reason to marry is to procreate, then why are women beyond child bearing age or men shooting blanks "allowed" to marry or stay married once the "defect" is discovered? Marrying who you want to marry should be a human right. Marrying in a church, any church, or no church, is your own personal choice.The rules have been set for centuries is not a valid argument because not so long ago interracial marriage wasn't "ok". And, centuries ago, people didn't marry for love. They married based on something that was arranged by families without regard for "love". Besides that, not everyone IS gay so the human race isn't in danger of extinction after all. All gays don't NOT believe in God. The country is not taking God out of our lives, but rather making sure you have freedom of AND from religion. Even if anyone really honestly believes that the Bible says it's wrong, well, that's one way to think of it. The Bible and the Constitution are two different documents. God didn't write the constitution. It's supposed to be separate.

There are dozens of parades in Chicago every year, so it's just not the 'GAYS'. The 'Gay Pride parade' is not organized by the City, just like the 'Southside Irish Parade' in Beverly. They are sponsored by their communities and the local businesses. If you feel that we as 'straight people' need their own 'Pride Parade' in Chicago, then why don't you organize one ?

Go for it!! Ummmmm...and there are straight people that do participate in the Gay Pride Parade—at least there was in all the years I have been there! I think we should have one for every group!!!

If this topic bothers you so much, perhaps you shouldn't be part of the conversation. I'm not gay and what the President of the United States thinks about gays isn't a matter of "concern" but, rather, a piece of information in a 24/7 news cycle that never ends. The actual election is a ways away and there are loads of topics that will be discussed between now and then. For every "real" topic there will be "BS" topics as well. But seriously...."a diverson for another sneaky order to get passed"......and "useless leader" and "plenty of you gay people responding", well, those things certainly make it clear that civilized discussion isn't really what''s on your mind. We are all subjected to "news" that we don't give a Rat's posterior over. Take me for example when I discovered via the second page of the Chicago Sun Times that "SURPRISE!!!", Bristol Palin disagreed with President Obama. I said to myself....really? On the second page of the Sun Times like it's important, or news, or important news or something. But, one thing I didn't do was write an opinion piece that I thought that Bristol Palin was just creating a diversion so Mitt Romney's campaign could lie about something else. If you don't think a topic is worth discussing, then for God's sake, stay out of the discussion. Some people have opinions on this very topic that they want aired. One person's diversion for another sneaky order is really just another person's discussion on a matter of importance to them.

Please, so why don't you and prostreet please let me know all of the bad policies our "sorry" leader has? You would rather go back to the days of George? I love how critics today cry of big government. People have issues with gay civil rights or gun laws, but those same people have nothing to say about the "patriot" act? That wasn't intrusive enough for you? No child left behind wasn't big daddy getting votes and telling you what to do? Did you like it in 2004 when the President campaigned on the thought of fear? How many times were we told that "we have not been attacked since 9/11. Don't take that chance, re-elect me, I'll keep you safe."
Of course many of these things are distractions and keep people off of another topic. However, that has been going on for a long time, not just this president. Yes, I know, it's the "lame" stream medias fault. Get a brain!

David, how much time do you have about Obama's destructive and failed policies?
Economy: We were coming out of the recession when Obama took office, creating a net of over 640,000 jobs per month through a "natural" recovery, then after he passed the ill conceived and destructive "Obamacare" job creation went into the tank. We now have the LOWEST job participation rate in the last three decades, and if we used honest jobless statistics including those who dropped out of the work force, our unemplyment rate would be over 10%. Even using BLS data, our rate of "underemployment" is about 16%. His claims that the "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8% was clearly a lie. We haven't been UNDER 8% sicne he took office, despite record deficit spending of over $5 TRILLION! He claimed he'd find ways of cutting $500 billion in "waste and abuse" in medicare to fund his program. He hasn't realized a PENNY of those savings in 3 years!

Foreign affairs: When he took office, the hostile regime in Iran was under pressure from protestors in the streets, and the time was never better to support them and bring real change to Iran, defusing a potentially devastating futuer nuclear war in the middle east. he gave no support to the Iranian protestors, adn teh mocement was crushed. In Egypt, a true friend of the US was inder pressure from Islamic extremists and Obama went all out to support the protesters. They were successful, and now the radical "Islamic brotherhood", which want to institute Sharia law and wants hostile realtiions wiith Israel, is in power. The threat of war in the middle east is MUCH greater now than when Obama took office.

Obama provided military support fro rebels in Libya,who was at the time rather benign in international terrorism and a trading partner with Europe. We supplied bombs and military action on the part of the Isalmaic radical rebels, and now the AL Queda flag flies over Tripoli. He spent BILLIONS putting the authors of 9/11 and dedicated enemies of the US in power there.

I could write a book about all teh failures. mistakes, and bad intent of Obama policies, but others already have. What SUCCESSES of Obama policy can you claim David?

Heads are now rolling at JP Morgan for losing $2 billion. Obama, against the advice of ALL responsible advisors, gave a $500 million loan guarantee to Solyndra that now the taxpayers will be responsible to pay. He made a bad investment of stock purchase in GM (SOME of the loans have been repaid, but stock values are still BILLIONS less than what Obama bought them for) , and cheated GM bond investors, who by law were supposed to be the first repaid, and gave away most of the equity and value of GM to his campaign contributors in the union. I hope the voters have the same brains as the Morgan shareholders and make a BIG CHANGE AT THE TOP and at the "Board" level (Senate) to get our Federal "corporation" back on track!

The auto industry loans were paid back WITH INTEREST. But more importantly, saving the U.S. carmakers kept American jobs. It was the right thing to do. Solyndra was a mistake, although investing in non-fossil fuel energy in general is a good idea. The JP Morgan loss simply shows the need for regulation (regulations that were dismantled by President Reagan by the way, not Obama). And apparently you've forgotten that TARP was enacted by Bush, not Obama. It should have been done completely differently--the money should have gone to pay off mortgages, not just handed over to banks to sit on and reinvest (poorly, it seems).

When someone sneezes in Afghanistan, it costs more than Obama's Solyndra mistake. At least he was looking toward the future for when the fossil fuels run out and earthquakes caused by fracking have made homeowners' insurance too expensive for most people to carry.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/11/auto-bailout-losses-expected-to-rise-by-9-billion/1#.T7UqIcX2Qcs

The 23.6 Billion loss on the auto bailouts does NOT include the vast losses to Chysler and GM bond holders, who were denied any return on their investments due to the administration tweaking which moved unions ahead of the bondholders in the bankruptcy payout...

Not an economic major, huh Denise?LOL There's a big difference between money Obama lost on GM common stock and paying back "loans". If you dug a little deeper you'd alos fuind out that GM paid back much of the "borrowed" money from other Federal bailout money!
As far as "saving American jobs" it had just the opposite effect. It actually cut the number of jobs in order to keep inordinately high pay for the senior union members, which COULD have been used to hire more young employees.

The alternative to the Obama bailout would have been going through the bankrupcy process as other automakers have in the past. Union contracts would have been voided, the company would have been able to renegotiate to sustainable levels, there would have been protection from creditors, and failed turkeys like the "Volt" never would have moved forward.
Oh, and bondholders would've been reimbursed per the law.
The only reason the stock was purchased by the Feds( a TERRIBLE idea getting the Feds picking winners and losers in the economy) and the loans were given was that Obama needed to pay off teh unions by handing them all GMs assets, which tehy dutifully returned to him as campaign contributions. It's called "crony capitalism" and it's one of the few things Obama understands in economics!

" it costs more than Obama's Solyndra mistake. At least he was looking toward the future for when the fossil fuels run out and earthquakes caused by fracking have made homeowners' insurance too expensive for most people to carry"
Wow.NOt an engineer or geologist either, huh Denise?LOL We currently have over 100 years of KNOWN reserves in natural gas in the Marcellus shale alone. Earthquakes froom "fracking"?LOL You REALLY ought to get some science literacy before making these kind of claims. There has been NO linkage between fracking and seismic activity. You can't even feel it at ground level, and it';s not happening along any major fault lines. The biggest concern is leakage from the fracking process, but to date there's no evidence that any of the keytones used in the process have leaked into groundwater.
If you think it costs $500 million of taxpayer dollars for every time someone sneezes in Afghanistan...or Washington, DC perhaps you've figured out WHY letting the Federal, State or Local governments manage ANYTHING in teh economy is a HORRIBLE idea. On that we agree!LOL

Bob, my minor in college was geology. But regardless, I know about fracking because I choose to read and be informed. Earthquakes are indeed caused by fracking. Seismic activity (that's a fancy-pants geological term for "earthquakes") has been linked to the high-pressure injection of wastewater into the reservoir from which the gas was removed. You might Google it. Or you could let me Google it for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fracking+earthquakes

Denise, one would hope if you "minored" in geology you'd know that there's a difference between the fracking process and deep well injection, which is done for many purposes, one of which is fracking waste.

"We don't find any evidence that fracking is related to any of these magnitude 3 earthquakes that we have been studying," Bill Ellsworth, the USGS seismologist leading the study of man-made quakes,..."We simply don't see any evidence that fracking is related to earthquakes that are of concern to people."

However, he said there were a few instances when waste water wells, in which chemicals used in fracking are injected deep underground, had triggered seismic activity"

You also should know that currently triggering minor quakes is a desirable condition. The injection of the wastewater doesn't provide the energy for the earthquake, it can provide fault displacement so that it can have low energy slippage rather than a catastrophic "big one". On the San Andreas fault they're digging trenches and creating explosions to release fault energy as a SAFETY MEASURE.

You didn't know we've got CENTURIES of natural gas reserves and you call yourself "well informed?" Case closed!

BTW, I think this is a much more interesting subject than gay marriage!

Bob, which one is it? That fracking doesn't cause quakes or that it DOES cause quakes, but it's a good thing? You want it both ways. Yes, fracking causes quakes. Vermont has just banned fracking based on research by the USGS, with certainly more states to follow.

The quotation you have from Ellsworth of the USGS states that some specific mag 3 quakes in question were not caused by fracking, however he continues with "the spike in earthquakes since 2001 near oil and gas extraction operations is 'almost certainly man-made.'” The part of the fracking process that triggers earthquakes doesn't matter as no part of the process would take place if there were no fracking. Injecting wastewater into disposal wells changes the pressure, causing seismic activity. There wouldn't be fracking wastewater without fracking. And as for quakes being a "desirable condition" -- tell someone who lives in the middle of the continent whose house is destroyed that it's a desirable condition.

As for the San Andreas Fault, the explosions are done for prediction, not as a "safety measure." They measure and map the seismic waves to see where the epicenter and damage is likely to be when the big one hits.

As for this statement: "You didn't know we've got CENTURIES of natural gas reserves and you call yourself 'well informed?'" Umm, where are you getting that? I never said anything about natural gas reserves.
Source: http://www.ewg.org/analysis/usgs-recent-earthquakes-almost-certainly-manmade

Denise, you wrote, "he was looking toward the future for when the fossil fuels run out".I guess you didn't realize that natural gas is a "fossil fuel". It is.

As far as injection, is concerned, its NOT fracking. Rather than the "explosion" from fracking, the pressure is a result of high pressure pump injection, a controlled process.

As far as "minor quakes" from the process in a seismic zone, the impact for the decades this has been going on is minimal, as experts agree. If you think these minor quakes are going to make home insurance unaffordable, compare the seismic risk in the injection zones to those in REAL fault zones like California. Seem like there are quitea few house out there, hmmm Denise?

BTW, using charges for underground exploration throughwave rebound is a very safe and common practice. The blast for stress relief in faults has been going on fro years now. The problem is that just about the only way to minimize large damaging earthquakes is to relieve energy and stress on the faults gradually.

In short, "Many Small Quakes Good, Few Big Quakes BAD"

Bob, you're just having a conversation with yourself now. You're twisting people's words, creating straw men, and inventing your own science. I can't make you inform yourself and I can't change your mind. There are those who want to look to the future and understand that relying on fossil fuels is not a sustainable system and there are those who believe that further messing with the earth's crust (regardless of how much oil, natural gas, and coal is down there) is fine and dandy. We're different types of people.

Get all the Lesbians and gays to sacrifice themselves. Put them on the front lines of the armed forces.

Debbie, your comment is a slap in the face to the families of those gays and lesbians who HAVE served at the front lines and HAVE paid the ultimate sacrifice. Would you tell grieving parents to their face that you're glad their son or daughter died because now there's one less gay or lesbian in the world? I doubt it. But you're coward enough to post it here, under the cover of online anonymity.

Kate, thank you for pointing out how easy it is to say anything on here without having to back it up.

I really wonder what kind of person is brave enough to speak their piece but not want to take ownership of their stance. Especially when it is something like what "Debbie" spewed.

Glass Houses folks!

Well Said!!

Well said, laura.

I'm trying to transition to green tea, actually. Har! Genvieve, you might want to look up which administration approved the auto bailouts/TARP. Hint: The answer is not Obama's. And as far as these worthless stock options, I'd like to see a source on that because all the data I'm seeing show both GM and Chrysler paid off their debts with interest. And even more importantly, the bailouts brought jobs back to Michigan! In additional, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (yes, another piece of legislation from the Bush Administration) brought auto manufacturing jobs from Mexico to Michigan and Tennessee (Ford and Nissan, respectively). Deregulation collapsed the economy, but at least Bush put plans in motion to prevent complete devastation (which then, of course, the Obama administration was compeled to continue). We make so little stuff here anymore, it's a good thing there is still an American auto industry.

"Deregulation collapsed the economy"..Abolutely wrong again, Denise! what collapsed the economy was that Barney Frank and ilk corrupted the financial markets by politicizing giving approval for bank mergers to serve as a way of givng his low income constituency undeserved credit. Once he expanded Fannie and Freddie to massive levels to take bad debt from local banks and lenders, the seeds of destruction were sown.

This dsiaster was very avoidable, and would've been except for Federal corruption. If Fannie and freddie had reigned in and limited, the housing market never would have been overheated and overpriced, and if he would have laid the risk for bad loans to the lenders rather than promoting subprime "bundling" we would have had a sane housing market and any "bubble" would have been a minor one. EPople could have afforded housing when they'd saved enough for it, and people wouldn't have been enticed into borrowing more than they could afford and spending it irresponsibly. Those Mercedes dealerships in California were seeling product like crazy to people whose income couldn't justify the purchase, but interest rates were so low that they fell to the temptation. We knew the financial situation was going off the cliff and fundamentals were bad, but the government kept it going because the banks and unions kept giving them their "cut" and gave them fat salaries like folks like Rahm Emmanual who were supposed to be watching things.

Bob, she is partly correct as are you. Your answers aren't the end all Bob. You are so arrogant. The housing market burst peaked in 2007. The recession hit it's peak in 08-09. Your own republican and democratic leaders assigned blame to high risk loans, major conflicts of interest and major lack of regulation of wallstreet. What was this current administration to do, wave a magic wand? There were dozens of factors and the repeal of glass-seagull in the late 90's was the start of the poor deregulation choices. there should have bee more regulation not less. When you deal with wallstreet and corporations, you then deal with greed. You can't cross your legs and hope these people will do the "right thing." They never will. It has nothing to do with party!

You're right, Russ. After the Dems took control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections (and took power in 2007), the lack of appropriate action by the banking committees "burst the bubble" in the housing industry. What Obama needed to do was to stabilize the economy by enacting policies that reduced economic uncertainty for investors. He did exactly the opposite with his danger ridden and dishonest passing of Obamacare. That created a chilling effect on the investing economy.His anti-growth policies made investing in the US a "bad Deal" and trillions were sitting on the sidelines or being invested overseas.

His meddling the private economy, like breaking the rules by stiffing the GM bond holders, cheating the taxpayers by overpaying for buying GM stock, and hindering energy resource growth spread the housing recession to the rest of the economy. It was the "textbook" way to kill the economy. Fortunately, he only severely injured the economy, he didn't kill it.

A change in the White House next year could get the economy off of life support and bring it back to health. Let's hope that voters can overcome the deficiencies of their public educations and figure that out!

Russ? I'm not Russ. But thank you for putting your own spin back on.

thanks for the request to God Bob,right back at you.I'll raise you one with have a nice day!

First of all, nobody "pushed" loans on anybody. People wanted cash, they saw a means of getting it whether it made sustainable economic sense or not...and they took it. That's a matter of personal freedom, just like the gay lifestyle. Many made bad decisions, they got the benefits, and now THEY should have to live with the consequences of their choices. I agree with you about the inability to refinance for homes that were "underwater". Banks had a choice of reducing rates to the market for a loan....and DIDN'T.

One critical point here is that with all this funny business going on in the financial markets there were huge and very expensive government bureaucracies which had the responsibility to oversee and revise the rules if the way the system was operating was leading to disaster, as it was.

Why did they fail?Ask Chris Dodd (D) who was getting sweatheart deals form Countrywide, or Barney Frank (that brings us back to the "gay" topic-LOL) who was getting massive contributions from Wall street and the banking industry.

BTW, when this meltdown started and the bubble burst(after the Dems took over the House and Senate, the branch of government responsible for regulating banks, in 2007) Barney Frank was publically out there saying there was "no problem".

This couldn't have happened without politcal corruption and mismanagement of Fannie and Freddie, as well as Wall Street payoffs to Dems to keep "hands off" the bundling and "liar loans" exacerbated the problem.

Once again, you're right on, Stephenie. It is funny (sort of) how this discussion veered from personal freedom (the right to marry the person you love, which hurts no one) to the freedom of gas & oil companies to do something so devastating to the earth that it causes earthquakes and people's tap water to be flammable, which could actually hurt people. And we know how the banks hurt people, are still hurting people.

Some people speak up for less personal and sexual regulation while some people choose to speak out for fewer environmental and banking regulations (and a few speak up for both). You're right; it's not amusing. It's sad.

That "don't gay marry" crack is nonsense, Stephanie, and you know it. If Gay marriage results in extra benefits for gays, we are going to be forced to pay for it.

Got any suggestions under which gay marriage would not increase costs to the taxpayer or consumer, and that gay lifestyles would not be promoted in our schools?

Figure out a way to accomplish that, and I likely wouldn't object. I've always believed that people should have the freedom to do what they want, as log as it doesn't infringe or damage the rights of freedom of speech, action, and property of others.

Of course, getting more money from others and propmoting the gay lifestyle to children is what this is all about, isn't it?

"I've always believed that people should have the freedom to do what they want, as log [sic] as it doesn't infringe or damage the rights of freedom of speech, action, and property of others."
1. Bob, speaking out against marriage equality is damaging to the freedom of others.
2. Promoting the "gay agenda" (if it actually existed, which it doesn't) would be freedom of speech.
3. Marriage costs the government tax revenue in joint filing, but it saves taxpayer money in things like spousal healthcare benefits. It all comes out in the wash. But by your logic, if marriage is so expensive, perhaps we should do away with it altogether. But allowing some people rights that are restricted from others is a textbook example of an unjust law. When a majority creates a law that only applies to a minority, that is an unjust law. A country that prides itself on freedom, fairness, and liberty should not have unjust laws. I think if you read Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s letter from a Birmingham jail, you'll understand the difference between unjust laws and just laws.

Based on Bob's posts he is racisit and pretty much a sexist... Knows everything and wants everyone to know it. So none of what anyone says will be accurate to him.

You are wrong about loans not being pushed on people. Loan brokers made a lot more money putting people insome loans rather than other loans. You are wrong about people being given enough information about the types of loans they were ending up with, which makes their "personal choice" not really something they would have chosen had they even realized they had a different choice. The government agencies were being deliberately defrauded. One sweetheart deal to Chris Dodd, which was really just a discounted regular loan for is not what brought the downfall to the housing market. Good try tho. And, "don't gay marry" is not a crack or nonsense. It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS who wants to marry unless YOU are one of the marriers. You are delusional thinking that equal rights is about getting more money from others and promoting a gay lifestyle to children. I don't know what the actual costs vs benefits are, but the number of people involved aren't changing. They'll still be paying income taxes, property taxes, insurance premiums and sales tax. They'll be buying marriage licenses, furniture, houses, cars, goods, services just like real non-gay folks do. Who pays for their stuff? You believe straight people should have the freedom you are talking about. Gay people are not infringing on your rights. You are infringing on theirs. A gay person marrying another gay person does nothing to infringe on your rights. If you think it does, there is something wrong with you.

Stephenie makes a great point. Gay people have to pay for stuff, just like straightos do. In addition, weddings are great for the economy! Think of it all--invitations (postage to help the USPS!), dresses, formalwear, caterers, gift registries, hotel stays, travel (plane fares, car rentals, gasoline), booze, updos, manicures & facials-- all of this costs major buck, and I haven't even gotten to showers, bachelor/bachelorette parties, and honeymoons yet! And then, for some, marriage counseling, and then, for half of them a few years down the road (or days, if you're a Kardashian), divorce lawyers. So you see, Bob, marriage equality is a lovely thing. It could be just what this economy needs, and everyone deserves a crack at it. Maybe we straight people will learn a thing or two from same-sex couples--hey, at the very least, we know a gay couple actually want to be married and don't have to get married, if you catch my drift. (And for that matter, we know all of their children are wanted and planned).

The banks and Wall Street became extreme predators with their debt....1 in 4 mortgages were Liars loans ....loans that set us up to fail. Google articles and interviews with ex banking regulator Bill Black. He helped send over 1000 banksters to prison after the S & L CRISIS of the 80s....The FBI blew the whistle on the bank mortgage fraud in 2008 to the Bush Administration...the fraud got worse. That is because the politicians and their friends were all getting richer and richer from the SECURITIZATION SCAM.....AND STILL ARE.....CatherineAustin Fitts worked for HUD or FHFA under the Bush administration and tried to stop
it and had death threats made on her.

TYO ERROR....THE FBI BLEW THE WHISTLE ON THE BANK MORTGAGE FRAUD IN 2004...! SO SORRY...I DIDNT SEE THAT ERROR?

To Denise: GREAT post! Thank you for summarizing my own thoughts so succinctly! We CAN NOT ever go back to rationalizing the denial of basic rights to a particular group and thereby discriminating against them simply out of fear wrought from ignorance. This isn't, happily, 1963 or 1968 again. And yes, I remember BOTH years quite well!

Thanks, Laura. It's great to hear and it's great to NOT feel only on here. (Hi, Russ, David, and Stephenie). I don't remember the 60s (I was born in the 70s) but I do remember 2000, and I'm with you on this. There is no justification in denying rights to any group. I DO think a Civil Rights Act of 1964-style piece of legislation is forthcoming.

Okay... Ummmm... think of it this way, a straight couple produces a gay child; did the parents sexuality influence their childs? Nope!! We DO KNOW the answer, READ!!!! If a gay couple raises a child, perhaps the child may be more open-minded; but don't we want our childrent to be that way? Children don't see race, sexuality, or whatever, it takes the parents to point it out to them...

I love straight people's ignorance, it's only until they have become friends with a gay person or until one is in their family do they really open their eyes, and then they see the world more objectively... Rosie O'Donnell is raising children, none of them so far have been determined gay, lots of gay people are raising straight children—perhaps the world will become a better place?!

@RobertS You crack me up and you're so right...I'm so thankful to have several awesome gay friends, and if any of them ever wanted to have kids, I'd be the first one to throw them a baby shower!

So you're saying that because hetrosexual parents have maybe less than 5% of kids that are gay you can say with 100% certainity that the parents sexuality doesnt affect there kids sexuality? Thats amazing and so simple! Can you please tell me the answers on capital punishment and abortion too? You have such a way so simplifing complex concepts! My favorite parts of your arguement were "PERHAPS the child will be more open minded" and Rosie's kids "SO FAR have not been determinded gay" when we should KNOW BY READING the answer already. What we see and learn from our parents does affect us! Whether its being polite, drinking, abuse, reading a lot, sports....etc. Don't be so ignorant to believe it doesnt!!!!!

@Billable Hours:

The actual number of homosexuals is approximated at 10%. I cannot say with 100% anything; can you? I have learned from many years that you cannot have a reasonable debate with certain individuals, I walk away from those people, I have much better things to do with my time. Sexuality is not a learned behavior such as smoking, drinking, abuse, etc., it's instinctual, the majority of little boys do not see their male role-models looking at nude women and learn masturbation—it's instinct, unless they lived in one pervy household!

Yes, we learn alot of behaviors from our parents—bigotry, manners, tobacco use, sports, etc., but sexuality is indeed instinct. We all feel the attraction to those we choose as mates and we follow that instinct, ideally we find happiness and acceptance. I am not simplifying anything... I am entitled to my beliefs, and you are entitled to yours.

Have a great day!

Robert S, that 10% you're quoting is based upon a discreditied study made of prison populations, where, well, you know there aren't a lot of people of the opposite sex available. In the general population, the numbers I've read are bewteen 2 and 4%.

I believe there are LGs by "preference" and LGs by genetics. I think most of us known a woman at some time or another who had extremely masculine characterisitcs biologically, and men who had feminine physical characteristics. I can understand how these "tweeners" have a hard time finding out to which team they belong, and they go where they're most accepted.

Others, however, have all the right hormones working for their gender, but due to either failed or abusive hetero relationshsips in their past, they switch teams even though they have had noraml relatinos with the opposite gender and have had children through these relationships.

Either way, I strongly believe that the LGBT team mates have every right to engage in any realtionships they want, so long as it is with adults of capacity.

I don't think those relationships are either societies or governments business.

Remember, there are no conservative posters here that support the return of sodomy laws and infringement of the freedoms and liberty of the LGBT community.

The problem for most of us occurs when that community attempts to force us to legally legitimize and approve of such relationships and add new entitlements and and entitlement rights and public education promotion, and subsidize these birdens against our will.

Bob:

I am done with this thread...it has take too much of my time and again, we're all entitled to our beliefs, only after we leave this Earth will we know how we are judged. As a gay man I live the battle and I will continue to fight it until we have the same rights as everyone. I don't care what the ratios are, I don't care about peoples misconceptions, I don't care about how religion, politics, stupidity, etc. play into equal rights for everyone in this fine country, I just care because everyone should have the right to be proud of who they love, share benefits, and live a fulfilling life.

A friend of mine has told me several times that I walk with rose-colored glasses regarding peoples view on homosexuality, I had really believed that society has changed—unfortunately he was right, there are a lot of narrow-minded people in the world and nothing is going to change them—nothing.

I pray for the children of those with narrow minds, I pray that they will not have to be ashamed if they are gay, I pray their family will accept them, and I pray—like many of us, that we see 'the better day'. At times I reflect on the spectacular life Martin Luther King Jr. and realize many minorities have to fight to get justice, and although we may not all be there when the time comes, it will happen!

Live, Love, Laugh... I am done on this thread! Take care!

Bob, your ignorance is on display like the feathers of a male peacock at the heart of mating season. Only people who have never known a homosexual person well (as a friend, rather than a mere acquaintance) would say that it is a choice, or something they opt for because they don't fit in elsewhere. My advice to you - take the time to have a real conversation (not a debate!) with someone who is homosexual. Seek to understand - without judgment or ridicule. I know you'll probably never do that and it makes me sad for you, but your "opinion" is coming from an uneducated and naive place and it is making you look foolish.

Lord knows, many of them should stop having kids!!! I can't believe how some of these kids act in public and their parents don't think twice... unreal!! These kids are the future leaders, or the future morons—folks, learn to take some responsibility, otherwise get a vasectomy or go on the pill!!!

lol

To much media influence..Last night Nightline was discussing Nicky Minaj very young fan base. Parents are allowing their young children to listen to rap? WOW..! They interviewed Ms. Minaj and she was shocked at that herself. She said her music was not meant for ages 3 and up. She also promoted woman being independent financially because her mother was abused. Well ...good luck with that philosophy..plenty of career women get abused or murdered by their husbands. Control freaks always find a way to control. If you want to be independent don't get married.

Here here Baba Wawa!

I wish it was so that easy, unfortunately, it seems as though all the world's religions entangle themselves in daily life.

We are all born into this war created by people who are control freaks who can't just let people live their lives. They are always looking for a pound of our flesh.

Unfortunately Chronicles of Bob the politicians, and the money changers, the power elite still have us blaming the victims of their crimes. For example, how many Americans still believe the BIG LIE that this manufactured economic crisis was caused by people who bought homes they could not afford? The TRUTH IS...as Ex banking regulator Chris Whalen stated that 1 in 4 mortgage"loans" were LIARS LOANS....IN OTHER WORDS...they SET US UP TO FAIL. That was not even the cause of financial crisis...the real cause was the $1.2 quadrillion in debt the money changers created with our electronic signatures. We were simply robbed of all of our wealth in the manufactured stock market collapse in 2008 and the Patriot Act allowed the banksters and the politicians to hide all of our stolen wealth in their overseas bankster accounts...The traitor politicians handed all of US the banksters tab in the form of ONGOING BAILOUTS to the TBTF. BEWARE THE DECEIVERS...THE BANKS DONT LEND...THEY ARE THE BOROWERS AND THE BIGGEST DEBTORS TO US IN HISTORY...THEY OWE US GAGILLIONS...CHECK OUT SOME REAL NEWS YOU CAN USE AT ALTERNATIVE MEDIA SOURCES SUCH AS: http://www.4closurefraud.org/..

STOP THE FORECLOSUREGATE COVERUP....!

I agree with discussion & exchanges between people, most people don't know how to be civil when discussing a hot topic. @Chronicles of Bob, I don't want anyone lynched or anyone committing suicide. Would never want to be associated with anyone who
thinks like that. That's what I mean.........

THIS. News and opinions are so much more accessible these days...the founders of our country got their news by horseback and letters shipped from Europe...the other difference is that people now can have an opinion from behind an anonymous screen name. (Yes obviously I am guilty of this, but I do this for work reasons.) This makes people more comfortable in expressing their opinion, whether they are voicing their opinion civilly or not. I think it has it's plus sides and minuses...it certainly disheartens me to see how much hate there is...but there also seems to be a lot of love too..

Amen!!! We can all pass judgement, but until we walk a mile in someones shoes, we cannot imagine their lives, until we change the color of our skin, our gender, etc., we simply need to love those around us. In the end, only kindness matters.

They have all dishonored US.

Carin: If that is your real name May I ask you just what you mean by your last question. I have in the past few days wondered just where you come up with such Off the wall questions, Accusations and statements. Please feel free to enlighten all of us with your wisdom.

lol although i view his beard as lovely as a Mohawk scalp He is the only guy i know with images of George Washington and Abe Lincoln on his chest Tribute to paper currency 1's and 5's or some nationlistic tribute ... Ask him

Thanks debbie,

But the new testament also says you should remain silent and never assume authority over any man. Do you also believe this should be a law?

Grunty, sure... Why not?

hear hear!!! let me dumb it down "There has been so much research done and testing to prove the elevated estrogen or testosterone levels" yep why some woman have hairy lips some men grow boobs why steroid users shrink the body is reacting to elevated levels oh yea most important part to much estrogen turns into testosterone visca versa

" the world is one big melting pot....with people like Lot sleeping with his daughters (tongue in cheek here) do you not agree wiring can be mixed up"
yep so if a family remains ethnically pure has the same nationality throughout generations they are narrowing the gene pool higher odds of defect..... East Africans are the exception they have very old DNA.
Once these choice/ pleasure pathways form ina young mind good luck changing them...
However studies do show very strong mother figures do lend to prefrence even if a man is present.. yea good post