It would seem that the majority of people in France do agree with gay marriage. So maybe France will come into the 21st century and recognize gays/lesbians deserve to marry the person they love

well, duh, of course "not everyone in <insert name of country here>" agrees with gay marriage. Did you think you've come up with an amazing discovery? lol.

I would think that those who oppose equal rights would be labelled as "those who oppose equal rights". :)

Personally i don't give a hoot about gay marriage.I don't have to like or dislike it.Just because i don't support it doesn't make me a bigot.I just stay on the sidelines and say whatever.

So you don't support equal rights for all people? doesn't sound very freedom-loving or patriotic to me. How sad.

Right Wolfhoud, just like not supporting equality for minorities wouldn't make you a bigot, or not supporting women's suffrage wouldn't make you a misogynist.

when it comes to rights, you either have them or you don't. Pretty straightforward don't you agree?

should the slaves have been "moderate" and agreed to, oh, be slaves for half their lives or something? lol.

I hope they will be labled as good people.

i'll listen to any argument about why some lawabiding citizens should have less rights than others.

So far I haven't heard any.

David,

If a group of gay people decided that the heterosexual lifestyle was offensive to them and launched campaigns to make heterosexual marriage illegal, would you get a little bit defensive?

I don't see how anyone can justify denying someone a basic human right based on their sexual preference.

HeWillRuleAsGod

You are so right. Heterosexuals that cannot procreate.. a disgrace. Let's have a public stoning

HeWillRuleAsGod,

That's a bad argument for a number of reasons.

1. Women are the bottleneck on population growth, not men.

2. There are already way too many people on the planet, population growth shouldn't be our goal.

3. Legalizing Gay marriage would not make it mandatory. Heterosexual marriage would still be legal.

4. With IVF, heterosexuality isn't technically necessary for the continuance of humanity.

Please let me know if you'd like me to go on.

AHH I see... so we should have sympathy for heterosexuals who cannot procreate. I agree. However, we should openly treat gays/lesbians like second class citizens because they cannot procreate? Hmm. I missed that in our Civil Rights :)

Thanks for the comments

@AboutTime

Too many people on the planet? That so laughable. You are a funny guy, who obviously hasnt traveled much. Inner cities are densely populated yes, but the world is much more than inner cities. And IFV still requires a man and a woman. There will never be any getting around that...EVER. Do you understand why it is not possible for homosexuals to procreate? Is it for the same reasons certain heteros cannot?

Hello, vermontguy et al, have you ever considered the possibility that your support of the people that want to legalize such a way of thought will not only take away the rights of other people, as in a far more vast number of people, but that there is also a right for civil disobedience, the right to stand up for morals, the right to proclaim THEIR sexual orientations, the right for them to stand up against sexual harassment, and the right for them to tell you that not only will it cause the death of traditional marriages and familes as we know them but that they also do this to prevent infighting that will inevitably come within the ranks of the LGBTIIQA "communities?" However, in addition to all of those reasons why they are doing what they are doing, they also know one thing and that is every single society that has accepted heterophobia (that is homosexuality) as a normal way of thought has a. died off, b. been conquered by another empire or society, c. had a cultural backlash and consequential purging of bigots that promote this way of thought, not to mention what you term as witch hunts (though in the case of people like Nero, who essentially only killed Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, more than anyone else before or after him, might I add, and thus SHOULD be driven from public offices), and/or d. has slowly or rapidly disintegrated or been destroyed. This is real historical truth, people. You can not, nor can you ever, name one successful empire, country, or nation that has always readily accepted a pro-heterophobia stance and has also been a major player on the world stage. You would have far more success generating black holes that did not tear the cosmos apart, a perpetual motion machine, truly free energy that is completely non-polluting, a time machine, a teleportation device, than you would having people make a utopia that is this way. Granted, the people of France had this happen, not to mention other people, due to their amoral stances on things like traditional marriage and the acceptance of extramaritial affairs (though the heterophobes are even more guilty on the deeds), but just the same, society will disintegrate and World War III will result for this reason, among many other reasons. This is the truth, it is undeniable, and you will have to make the bed that you laid in, people. HeWillRuleAsGod is speaking the truth.

WolfHound you a bigot, racist, etc because it is much simpler to accuse someone who does not agree with you, of being that, than to actually have to think and have a debate based on rational thought.

I challenge anyone to show me where in the constitution that homosexuality and marriage of same is is right, if you can prove this logically and with reason, I will sit down and have a conversation so that you may sway my thought patterns that my long held belief that homosexual behavior is an afront to the natural order of things.

Why a good word goes "bad"

Gay meaning ‘homosexual’ became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world. As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy’ have more or less dropped out of natural use.

HeWillRuleAsGod

@AboutTime

Too many people on the planet? That so laughable. You are a funny guy, who obviously hasnt traveled much. Inner cities are densely populated yes, but the world is much more than inner cities. And IFV still requires a man and a woman. There will never be any getting around that...EVER. Do you understand why it is not possible for homosexuals to procreate? Is it for the same reasons certain heteros cannot?

Reading with comprehension? I did not make a statement that there is to many people on the planet. That was in comment:#1.16

Ummm.. Homosexuals can procreate and do. It's called Heterosexuals having more homosexuals ;). There is also something called "medical science" I know.. its hard to believe the numerous ways people can have children without following the 'traditional' ways...

Any more questions? Also, please forgive me for following our founding fathers on religion:

"Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
― Thomas Jefferson

Ummm.. Homosexuals can procreate and do. It's called Heterosexuals having more homosexuals ;)

@AboutTime

Please tell me that was a joke.

Yeah, The too many people on the planet comment was me. And it is most definitely true.

Nope. Heterosexuals are the ones having the most homosexuals :)

@ Scuba

The world is far from overpopulated. Travel lately?

why is it that homosexuals instantly bash someone for not agreeing to promote the lifestyle they choose to live ?

@David ... when did you "choose" to be heterosexual?

No silly...lol. Heterosexuals who cant produce are the result of medical conditions. Sterile men and barren women are suffering. Its not their choice, any doctor will prove that to you.

@HeWillRule ... hmm ... ever hear of vasectomies and tubal ligation? Those are (usually) voluntary procedures. By the logic of those who claim that marriage is for procreation only, these people should not be allowed to marry. Yet, they are. Will you support legislation to end their marriages?

@Barry

I cant speak for David...but i can say i became heterosexual at about 4-5 witnessing my parents and grandparents. Before that i never had a preference. Most infants dont...lol. At what age did you choose?

@Barry

Not being able to reproduce was their choice right? What about gays? Its impossible for them to reproduce with each other. And to me marriage does not equal procreation.

HeWillRuleAsGod

Can you provide us a legal reason why gays/lesbians should not be married? Please post a source that supports your claims :)

HeWillRuleAsGod

@Barry

Not being able to reproduce was their choice right? What about gays? Its impossible for them to reproduce with each other. And to me marriage does not equal procreation.

So if marriage doesn't equal procreation, why are you arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate?

@AboutTime

You mean a solution that satisfies everyone? LMAO dont be silly. Unless people understand that homosexuality is a mental illness, and this has been diagnosed as such, then their is no way we can come up with a solution. No more than we can change pedophiles, murderers, theives, or rapists. It just is what it is. Our job is to be responsible and teach future generations morality, not according to what a government says is moral.

I do believe that gay people shouldn't be abused for what they are attracted to...I mean they can't help the way they feel sexually. But I don't support ALL sexual lifestyles. Which means if I don't support between children and grown men, I can't support sex between same genders. Its only fair. People raise a big stink when someone is 28 dating a 16 year old in this country, but then all of a sudden being gay is SO different. And incest too (love between siblings). There's a difference between being homosexual and living a homosexual lifestyle. And some people don't know that difference. I believe being gay is a condition. The reason why is because it does not fit with our biological makeup. Biologically/scientifically, our bodies were meant to procreate with ones of the opposite sex. But mentally people have all sort of conditions that can cause someone to be attracted to someone of the same sex. Its not that its not normal. Its just not natural.

People compare blacks to gay people, being black has nothing to do with the lifestyle. Its a skin color. I know black people, but not all of them support "black lifestyles". I only support some of them as I am black myself, but the hip hop culture is the ruination of our ethnic group. Being a woman is a physical condition rather than mental. But I don't support all "womanly" ways of living. So there is a difference.

@Scuba

Did you forget why i said what i said initially? It was actually in response to you saying what if heterosexuality was considered illegal. I was just stating the necessity of heteros, and that there is no necessity for homos.

@HeWillRule 1.29.....You don't just DECIDE one day to become either Straight or Gay...YOU ARE BORN EITHER STRAIGHT OR GAY!!!!....I truly hope you are kidding with that comment...

@Tinbashr

Im sorry i dont remember the first year of my life as vividly as you do. So you remember birth huh? What was your favorite color? What did you like about women?

Im sorry for not knowing you have a memory beyond all humans, and that infants have a sexual preference.

HeWillRule @1.38....What the Hell does memory have to do with sexual preference?....I probably have one of the worst memories, as I am trying to remember your last post!! LOL...I am a STRAIGHT male, married to a beautiful woman, with 2 kids...I was BORN that way...So you are saying that because you saw your parents and grandparents at a young age interacting, that's why you are straight?...So, if you grew up in a homosexual family with 2 dads, you would have been GAY?....I would love to hear your answer on that...

@barry nj; find a woman, playing on another dudes exit ramp is "WRONG" ITS AN EXIT RAMP STUPID!!!"

@vermontguy: read the above post!.......... My wife and i love Vermont(by the way she`s a female and im male, not to confuse you fruits) but when we go out to eat and some silly boy comes over to our table with hands failing and a major LISP she`s the one who says lets go!!! act like a man not a sissy !! we tip well!! signed Stowflake.

"Man cannot give freedom. He can only take it away." Jacques-Yves Cousteau

HeWillRuleAsGod... "And the God of the Bible hates homosexuality" God hates? That's news to me. I was brought up to believe that God ia all forgiving and loves all of his/her creations equally.

BTW, which version of the bible are you referring to? These are man's words not "God's." And unless you can read Hebrew (there is no literal translation) you're missing a lot of important text.

I've traveled all over the world and have seen things that would appall you. 7 billion + souls and counting. This isn't about real estate, it's about having the resources to to feed, clothe and shelter these people. But maybe that's not on your agenda, 'eh? And if you think homosexuality is a choice you've got a lot to learn.

Hy-poc-ri-sy: n. The feigning of virtues one does not hold.

If Evolution is Just a Theory, Religion is Just an Opinion

muddlerfly... There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation.

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein

Let's hope this stance takes hold in US. The homo's have been breaking some ground lately. It would be nice to see them knocked down a few notches again. The difference between discrimination against women/blacks vs gays: the former based on sex, race were as the latter is based on a disturbing behavior. Discrimination against the latter is justifiable

"not everyone" agreed with getting rid of slavery either, if you remember correctly.

there are always bad people. Doesn't mean we can't move forward without them.

Looking back, growing up we didn't have gays wanting to marry, we didn't have mass shootings, we didn't have doctors prescribing multiple mind altering medications, we weren't trying to take god out of every public place, if you wanted a better life you had to work for it not expect government handouts, it was easy to find products made in the U.S.A., this list could go on and on.

Just because something offends someone doesn't make it wrong. Welfare recipients should be ashamed and have to use food stamps, they shouldn't be able to go to Burger King or any other food establishment. After all they are unemployed and have plenty of time to make food at home.

We as a world need to get back to family values. We need to start doing what is right for the future of our youth, not these adults that are all about a cause and what they want. Reminds me of when my kids were 3.

On the plus note though being a family law attorney, legalizing gay marriage creates a whole new clientele base. lol

Tinbashr

You contradicted yourself. You just said you have a horrible memory, yet you can remember being born straight. No one can say they was born straight. The average person doesnt have a memory prior to 2 years old. You can say you have been straight for as long as you can remember, but thats where the line is drawn. You arent born gay or straight. There is no such thing as a gay baby.

Not being able to reproduce was their choice right? What about gays? Its impossible for them to reproduce with each other.

The result is the same. So, what's your point? What does whether or not someone is able to procreate with any given individual have anything to do with civil marriage?

Unless people understand that homosexuality is a mental illness, and this has been diagnosed as such, then their is no way we can come up with a solution. No more than we can change pedophiles, murderers, theives, or rapists. It just is what it is.

So, you're equating consensual sex between adults with with pedophilia, murder, rape and theft. Nice. Are you a member of Westboro Baptist Church, too?

@barry nj; find a woman, playing on another dudes exit ramp is "WRONG" ITS AN EXIT RAMP STUPID!!!"

@Mudderfly ... some heterosexuals engage in anal sex, and not all homosexuals do. Your statement is pointless.

thetruthteller-3478699

Spot on!

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

“While homosexuals vehemently reject being considered mentally ill, they have no problems regarding those who dislike homosexuality as mentally ill.” –- homosexinfo.org, Homophobia

“If you think nothing is wrong with homosexual activity, that is your right. It’s not your right to indoctrinate children, force an extreme social agenda on an unwilling country, or demand acceptance from people whose religions (or philosophical beliefs) refer to that activity as sin and(or) a crime against nature.” –- John Biver

“A healthy society is life-affirming. Homosexuality is the metaphysical negation of life. Incapable of reproduction (giving life), it can replenish its numbers only by seduction.” –- Don Feder, A Jewish Conservative Looks At Pagan America

“Injustice results as much from treating unequals equally as from treating equals unequally.” –- Aristotle, quoted in Traditionalist’s Anthology

“In a corrupt society, the truth can be found in what is forbidden to say.” –- author unknown

“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” –- George Orwell

"Humans are the only species of animal that can believe that something that is false is the truth." -- author unknown

“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” -- attributed to Aristotle

Historically, there are five key things that have occurred before the collapse of every great civilization. These things typically run concurrent with any civilization that "appears" to rise again utilizing the same name and manner of governance. Anyone who studies this will come up with the same conclusions:

1. Widespread government corruption.
2. Centralized banking.
3. The importance of art, entertainment and sports being placed higher in value than that of scientific, intellectual and spiritual education/learning.(Look at who gets more praise and money.)
4. Human sacrifice of all kinds, including excessive capital punishment, mass murders by individuals, and the murder of children, toddlers, babies and the unborn. {Evidenced of which goes back to the cradle of civilization, Sumeria.}
5. The social acceptance of sexual deviance, including homosexuality, bestiality, et al.

"It is impossible to make people understand their ignorance; for it requires knowledge to perceive it, and therefore he that can perceive it, hath it not." -- Jeremy Taylor, English prelate (1613 - 1667)

Adults having sex with children is wrong. Sexual relations between siblings is wrong. Parents having sex with their children is wrong. Rape of another person is wrong. Having sex with animals is wrong. Two people of the same sex having sex is wrong. Wrong is wrong. You won't change my mind in any of these situations now or ever. I put up knowing people of the same sex being together, but don't put it in my face or I go will go off and tell you what kind of sicko you are. I don't care what you call me, I believe if all the people in past generations could vote on the gay issue, you gays would really be outnumbered. I have taught my family to be kind to others but non of us will put up with you gays agenda. Your best bet is shut up and live your lives quietly. Never to be convinced you are right.

HeWillRule @1.46...That's right...I do have a terrible memory...But AGAIN...What does memory have to do with being straight or gay?....And I never said I " Remember " being born STRAIGHT, this is FORTUNATLY the way I turned out...Thank God...No different than my hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc....Sexual preference INCLUDED!!!....The same as anyone else...You do not have a choice or control about ANY of that....And as far as you thinking it is a choice....Why would any man in their right mind, if they had a choice, want to be with another man?....Makes absolutly no sense...

@Michael-4273928

You do know that the marriage age in the US around 30-40 years ago is still at 13 years. For thousands of years, the marriage age is at 13 and even the Bible support such marriage and even encourage it.

Just to let you know all those things because progress actually change all that and it will change with equality for all, including homosexual marriage.

Barry@1.49...I could not agree with Muddlerfly more....IT IS AN EXIT RAMP!!....As far as you saying not all homosexuals engage in anal sex...How would you know?....

@RayGirl

I do believe that gay people shouldn't be abused for what they are attracted to...I mean they can't help the way they feel sexually.

Under that logic, neither should pedophiles.

i guess being queen is in ....what a drag ...whats next pets ?

Cuong@1.53...Exactly what Bible are you reading?....Homosexual marriage? Just where in the Bible does it say it will agree to homosexual marriage down the road?...

I wonder what US homophobe groups are behind these demonstrations in France (c.f. Zimbabwe).

The only reason for the label is the act. An act is not grounds for recognition only a definition of what is practiced.

Good grief...don't we have enough problems with our own homosexuals?

Why do we care anything about the homosexuals in France?

Commonguy (note what was left out)

What "problems" do you have with "our own homosexuals"?

So another predominantly Christian nation has a large bigot population? No way!

And that population supports their bigotry with specious arguments and good old fashioned hate? Get out!

"I got mine, F*** you!" = The global motto of the conservative.

• Get over it people. If you against gay marriage then don't marry a gay person then shut up about it.. It's no more complicated than that.

Daaaaang! And just when you thought you had them on your side and were making progress...

And most people in Europe who are NOT from a predominantly catholic country tend to lead more secular lifestyles than here in the U.S. Hmmm...maybe they just don't agree with you upsetting the natural order of things.

Oops! How will you ever explain that to your life partner over tea and scones? LOL!

I friggin' love this more than I could possibly articulate over the Internet. Love it! Love it! Love it!

Homosexuals can indeed procreate. All they need to do is be fertile and have sex with someone of the opposite sex, the same as anyone else. Their biology is the same. Heterosexuals have sex all the time with people they are not in love with or in a relationship with and sometimes babies are the result.

wolfhound27 - Just because i don't support it doesn't make me a bigot.

If you think some citizens should be denied the legal rights you enjoy, you're not just a bigot but a greedy bigot.

When a man can stick his penis in another mans rectum and produce an embryo and than that same man who has the embryo pushs it out of that same rectum, than they should be allowed to marry. When a women can stick her tongue in to another women and get her pregnant, than they to should be allowed to marry. Until we have evolved to that point, thru evolution, than and only than should these people be allowed to marry.

Persnally I think it's all about getting paid through social security and pensions. That's all these people really care about. A man receiving another mans pension after the one dies. Same for social security. A man or woman marries another and never works a day yet they get to get paid off by the companies the other worked at and by the social security that we pay in to?! B.S. Love isn't supposed to about getting paid.

Yeah yeah I know......if you don't agree with someone elses beliefs....your a bigot! What is it called when the so called minorities or gays and lesbians don't agree with us? Normal or just an opposing view? I call it two faced and hypocritical! Hypocrits like Charlie above.

Why am I not surprised that the same paranoid people spouting out hate here are the same old tired posters from other issues. It's always the end of the world with them.

Congrads to France for getting equal rights nearly passed.

With in every specie on the face of the earth same sex attraction & union is there. Most scientific evidence suggests it is a natural occurrence to help control population. Just because we think we are smarter than all other forms of life on the planet doesn't mean we escape what is inherent within us. Just because we think we have the means of communication and reasoning doesn't mean we are exempt from nature.

Leave God Out of this.....Until I hear directly from God...not some mortal on the subject saying it's wrong or I have a choice in being Gay.....I'm going to continue to be gay. Let me worry about dealing with God as I understand God. Or would you like to take my freedom of religion away too?

@Tinbashr

Reading comprehension, much?

I said Bible allows and encourage pedophile or marry 13 years old. Heck, Bible even encourage polygamy.

However, process change all that, and it will change with allow homosexual marriage as equality for all.

I don't even know how you could read all that and somehow response the way you do. No wonder you how you guys took Bible and then did the opposite of what Jesus taught.

@wolfhound27,

We share a similar premise -- we share the belief that what gay people do doesn't really impact us. But I don't simply shrug my shoulders then, and say meh whether gays are treated equally doesn't matter to me.

On the contrary, its why I so strongly support most gay rights; it doesn't really hurt me or others but it means a lot to anyone deprived of their equal rights (e.g right to marry, health insurance, taxes, and much more). If people aren't willing to stick their neck out for someone else's freedom, I don't see how can we hope to defend it.

If you think some citizens should be denied the legal rights you enjoy, you're not just a bigot but a greedy bigot.

What's wrong with enjoying those same benefits with the opposite sex? Nevermnd! Anyone who has an opposing opinion is a bigot. A Greedy bigot!

Damned Two Faced Hypocrite

"Yeah yeah I know......if you don't agree with someone elses beliefs....your a bigot!"

No --- when you think YOU should have rights but want to deny those same rights to others -- that makes you a bigot. Hey -- I'm a straight guy. I married a straight women. If you're a gay person and wnat to marry another gay person, have at it. Nothing will change in my life.

A marriage licence is legal document & nothing more.

There are some 193 benefits & rights that married couples enjoy under current law in the U.S. that are denied to gays & lesbian couples.

I'm sure that in France it is the same.

Last time I checked to apply for a marriage licence there was not a box to check asking if your a moral upstanding person of faith...I would suggest that if there was most if not all would not have a marriage licence.

In fact the opponents to marriage equality here aren't merely greedy bigots, but they all appear to be Christofascists who want the state to enforce their Christian sharia laws against gays.

Apparently they're unaware that our 1st Amendment directly contradicts their 1st Commandment.

I might add that with over 50% of Heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, they are the last ones that should be giving advise on marriage.

Cuong@1.69..Oh I comprehend just fine...As long as there is something intelligent to be said...Not so much in your case....So you say the Bible encourages pedophiles...Well, lets take a vote on that....From your comments, you must be reading the Bible from back to front....As you have it all Back Asswords...

We do not allow men to choose abortion, only women, and no one can commit murder under any other circumstances beyond the abortion of an unwanted child. This decision is allowed to be made after conception (which doesn't make any sense, since we all know sex is the act of procreation--HEY that's not fair, Gay's can't procreate), but has to be made prior to birth, before you know whether it's going to be a whiny little crap or not. This seems pretty unfair to me, but I doubt very seriously anyone will get behind me claiming the fathers should have the right to call for abortions or that mothers who figure out it was a mistake after all and decide to kill their three year olds shouldn't be put in prison or let alone put to death.

People who are poor receive food stamps and medical care without any obligation to anyone (and often with little proof that they are actually in need). Everyone should have the right to food and health, yet many times people who earn too much money to qualify for services that many consider a right cannot afford food or medical treatment because of their individual circumstances that nobody gives two flips about because they are "rich". This seems pretty unfair to me, but I sincerely doubt I will get a lot of support for requiring the government to stop printing money to give to banks and start printing money to give to each and every citizen equally to use for food and health care, so that everyone has an equal opportunity for survival no matter the ups and downs, and anything they choose to work for beyond those basic needs can go to their personal retirement funds, thereby reducing the burden on Social Security to provide.

Speaking of the elderly and disabled, why do they have the right to closer parking spaces and bigger toilets?

This whole, "But it's not fair they get to marry for love and we don't," is just annoying. Life is NOT fair--as evidence the fact that you were born gay instead of with a giant tumor on your face or with cancer or with stumpy arms or to abusive parents (rich or poor) and the list can go on and on.

"AHH I see... so we should have sympathy for heterosexuals who cannot procreate. I agree. However, we should openly treat gays/lesbians like second class citizens because they cannot procreate?"

Well, yes this is just one of many reasons. Gays were never really a problem until they asked for 2 things: the right to marry and the right to raise/adopt a child. I can only hope this backfires against your community in a BIG way. Should have just fought for a union for benefits and left it at that.

You can cry bigotry all you want. You're gay groups have gone to far so therefore i don't care.

skrek,

I did not see anything in this article that said the French people who oppose gay marriage are Christians.

It said that they were just French people who oppose gay marriage and favor traditional marriage.

There are many people of different nationalities, religions, and atheists who oppose gay marriage. It is not just a Christian thing. Why are you always trying to single Christians out?

This discussion has nothing to do with religion.

GLCSR

When a man can stick his penis in another mans rectum and produce an embryo and than that same man who has the embryo pushs it out of that same rectum, than they should be allowed to marry. When a women can stick her tongue in to another women and get her pregnant, than they to should be allowed to marry. Until we have evolved to that point, thru evolution, than and only than should these people be allowed to marry.

Persnally I think it's all about getting paid through social security and pensions. That's all these people really care about. A man receiving another mans pension after the one dies. Same for social security. A man or woman marries another and never works a day yet they get to get paid off by the companies the other worked at and by the social security that we pay in to?! B.S. Love isn't supposed to about getting paid.

Yeah yeah I know......if you don't agree with someone elses beliefs....your a bigot! What is it called when the so called minorities or gays and lesbians don't agree with us? Normal or just an opposing view? I call it two faced and hypocritical! Hypocrits like Charlie above.

What an absolutely disgusting post. Not everyone who disagrees with others' beliefs is a bigot, but you are clearly a bigot. Minorities who disagree with you deprive you of no rights and no freedoms ..... the same cannot be said of you and people like you.

You make an incredibly lame and disgusting argument arguing against marriage for those who cannot or chose not to procreate. Are you equally opposed to marriage among older people who have passed the age of conception? How about those who choose not to have children ..... for any reason, but perhaps because they run a high risk for passing on a genetic disease, or because they are not financially able to provide for a child.

You clearly are opposed, not just opposed but opposed in a rude and uncivil manner, to the sexual practices of others. First, what those people do is none of your concern. They do not need your approval. Second, marriage has no requirement that ANY sexual relations take place. As far as the government is concerned, marriage is just a legal agreement between two consenting adults.

If the rest of your hateful and not very eloquent comments were not bad enough, you believe you know the reasons that those two adults (who do you no harm) decide to marry. For financial reasons, you say, as if you had any idea what is in the hearts and minds of those people who you insult. Then, after you ignorantly and incorrectly have been convinced of your own foolish argument that gays marry only for the money, you insult them for being so crass. You somehow in that very narrow and perverted mind of yours believe that heterosexuals marry for love and homosexuals marry for money. You know what we call those who judge others by a single characteristic rather than as an individual. A BIGOT!

GLCSR ..... you are not only a bigot, you are a fool.

I'm still waiting for ANY attempt at a legal argument for upholding the ban on gay marriage, as that is the ONLY type of argument that counts since it governs us as a collective and not individually.

I love how so may people just say that anti gay people (especially Christians) are not being very Christian. We are to love others! Jesus did and look what they did to him! Because he spoke the truth and the truth cuts like a double edged blade. The only God Americans know is through the bible, read it! God is anti gay.

Nguyen,
Reading comp much? If you re-read your post's they are rather hard to follow...
And people married young because they died very young...And girls even now start their menses anywhere from 9 yrs 13 some later,but that's when a girl was deemed a woman,because she can reproduce.
Now States say 16 with parental consent is age appropriate...I don't think a child should marry and certainly not 13 as you have stated, and brought up,for whatever reason that has nothing to do with the Article or current Posts....

I don't like the idea of gay marriage but I'm more repulsed by the thought of "majority opinion" defining what rights the minority can exercise. Unless there is a strong compelling reason, I'll support minority rights every time.

The viewpoint of the majority is important but we must never allow it to needlessly define the rights of the minority. We are all minorities in one way or the other. If we allow that line to be crossed, we will eventually be living in a restrictive society simlar to the Taliban.

DonBo,

Thank you for that post! It sums it up perfectly!

The anti's don't have anything to stand on but a Bible. It's all or nothing. It's all about their religion & everyone should damn well conform to it or your going to burn in hell.

Even that stand has a problem.

If true the Bible says that those that ascend to the gates of heaven shall not remember those that have not......

You have nothing to mourn for us, for it will be Gods mourning...not yours, you won't know we ever existed. That's if you believe your Bible.

So, the French people think that all children should have a mother AND a father. Who knew they were smarter than most American people?

spider-737231

LOL....I hope you where joking there

We don't see human clones...... yet.

If you weren't joking then read my post 1.75

Then tell me if we should require all men and women that have children to remain married by law, or in order to have them they would be required by law to marry first. That should close the gap on a father and a mother right?

HeWillRuleAsGod

First, homosexuality is NOT a mental illness. :). So that is not reason to deny homosexuals equal marriage rights. Do we deny civil rights to adults that are diagnosed with a mental disorder. LOL Umm no we don't :)

So your entire 'legal' idea that homosexuality is a mental illness is absurd.

P.S. According to the US Supreme Court Lawrence Vs Texas - Consensual sex between two adults of the same sex is NOT illegal. When an adult abuses a child in a sex manner (Pedophile), that is illegal :).

So please by all means, show up on the Supreme Court steps in March and YOU can present the legal reason why gays/lesbians are not allowed to marry. When they are done laughing at your claims.. then you may be the one who has a mental illness :)

DonBo---You and your alien friend Sarah sure have it backwards, you see the Constitution is based on the concept that the majority rule is required. We do not send the person with the fewest votes to Washington. The reason it is majority rule is in fact to protect the rights of everyone otherwise you nitwit dog and pony show people would have done away with everyone rights by now. You being in the minority now use bullying and terror tactics attacking those who oppose your beliefs with words of anger, hate, and retaliation. Say it ain't so.

As far as commenting about religion I find it funny those who deny that there even is a God somehow have the understanding of the word of the bible enough to share their understanding when they do not believe in it. Normally I let it rest but today I say it loud and clear God never said he was going to save anyone in this life and Jesus did not cure the ills of the world when he was here. So quoting them like you even understand the principle is as idiotic as saying we do not do things by majority rule. Way to go overeducated egomaniac liberals.

good, bloody grief...what in the world would change if gays/lesbians were able to legally wed? nothing other than being afforded the legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual partners. they already live together, and many have much longer, more stable relationships than heteros. grow up non-accepting world...you look not only silly and uninformed but most definitely are intolerant, narrow-minded prigs...

Irvmani - You and your alien friend Sarah sure have it backwards, you see the Constitution is based on the concept that the majority rule is required.

Actually we have a constitution, a bill of rights, and a judicial branch precisely to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a minority. That's what civil rights are all about - they're the rights of individuals vs the will of the majority. That's why, for example, offensive and unpopular speech like flag burning is protected.

-You and your alien friend Sarah sure have it backwards, you see the Constitution is based on the concept that the majority rule is required.

To elect people to our legislative branch and the executive leader, POTUS. Tell me, if this were true, why do we have a SCOTUS? Furthermore, how did we desegregate the schools? Can we take a popular vote tomorrow and outlaw Christianity? According to you, we could. Or how about something not so popular, could we vote tomorrow to out Islam? The KKK? To stop women from voting? To no longer require search warrants? To stop the viewings in private homes of Keeping Up With the Kardashians? Please God, I hope we can with that last one.

Seriously, civics 101. You definitely illustrate the educational crisis in our country. And I prefer "extraterrestrial American", not "alien".

France PAID Hitler to relieve them of their "jewish problem", turned a blind eye to their existing "muslim problem", and are acting out on a non-existant "gay problem".

Leur fromage pue!

"It would seem that not everyone in France agrees with gay marriage."

From the article: 63 percent of people in France support the legalization of same-sex marriage.

"I wonder how they will be labeled for disagreeing with the LGBT movement."

Bigots? No. Illiterate bigots.

There are 4 civil unions for every 5 marriages in France. Over 95% of civil unions in France are straight couples. Seems a lot of French do not agree with marriage. Any marriage.

Savvy Shopper-4621457 Please clarify your statement

The Nazi took France as I remember history, I don't think France has a "Muslim" problem per-say & the rest of what you said I'm still trying to sort out???? Are you saying that France has a non existent Gay problem?

LeslieDF

Thank You for pointing that out.

Hey Steve, the problem with saying it's OK to be gay is it teaches children that there's nothing wrong with it and that is not the truth. But trying to tell somebody like you is probably a waste of time as it looks by your picture that your favorite movie was Brokeback Mountain and you were pulling a pee wee Herman all the way through it.

Hey Steve, the problem with saying it's OK to be gay is it teaches children that there's nothing wrong with it and that is not the truth.

Yes it is. And, by the way, your God is irrelevant, as is your opinion on what is/isn't okay to teach children. Care to make a case without your personal opinion and religion. You know something that actually holds water?

To any gay teenagers who may have just read JudgeMark's post,

Ignore him. The world is on your side, and there isn't a damn thing wrong with you. And I promise you this, you will receive equal protection under the law before you pass on. And one day, people like JudgeMark and his asinine tripe will make you laugh, and the world will relegate his kind to the history books right next to Nazi collaborators and the people who spit on civil rights workers. That's the way the world has always worked, and that's the way it will work here to.

IT GETS BETTER.

http://www.itgetsbetter.org/

Protip: If they say it's for the children, then it's probably not for the children. Remember, people like these would rather children go homeless than be with a gay family. That doesn't exactly say strong family values, that says screaming, whining little child that wants his invisible bestest best friend to rule over everyone. Someone who'd rather see a child starve or bounce across foster homes, than to be loved and taken care of.

Also, notice that they're putting so much work towards stopping two devoted people from getting married. REALLY? You're going to sit there and tell me that all this time and effort is worth it? How about getting in a soup kitchen, grabbing a frelling ladle, and actually making a positive difference in people's lives? Oh wait, that'd require effort, and it'd require them to actually care, not just say they care, then jump in the street screaming and shouting when someone that isn't a White, Heterosexual Christian wants basic human rights.

Would Jesus really want you to fight this battle? He preached love for EVERYONE, his healings and teachings knew not skin color, or sexuality, or anything. He wanted to stop suffering, yet his believers are always spreading the very thing he fought against. What sort of brand of stupid do you have to have to not see that you're destroying the very message of the one you worship? Or did Jesus stutter?

ThaMonkeh,

. What sort of brand of stupid do you have to have to not see that you're destroying the very message of the one you worship?

Methinks, a very special kind of stupid.

Irvmani

DonBo---You and your alien friend Sarah sure have it backwards, you see the Constitution is based on the concept that the majority rule is required.

One of the genius aspects of our Constitution is that it prevents the majority from denying rights of minorities. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes far too long to win those equal rights, as for the abolishment of slavery, women's rights, civil rights, and now, marriage equality. However, our country has always moved toward equality and marriage rights is another example of the ultimate value of the Constitution.

The reason those Constitutional rights are slow in coming is that we have the "Irvmanis" of the world blocking the progress of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"Judgemark" - "THE PROBLEM" here is that you want to send the message to EVERYONE who is Gay, AS WELL AS THE KIDS YOU DESIRE TO BRAINWASH with your Special brand of hate and Fear... Is That literally Millions of Good Folks, Throughout the world... who LOVE their Straight Parents, and Brothers and Sisters... cousins, aunts, uncles.. Etc.. and who accept them FOR WHAT THEY ARE... that these people (Gays) are not even Valid as Humans... and i suspect that if it ACTUALLY were up to YOU, there would be a systematic Roundup of "undesirables".... and God only knows what the Fate of the Unacceptable people would be... Banishment ? just the beginning i would Bet. But we already know that Feeling, so well.

But Hey, Thanks for making the world "safe" Again.... you Heartless, Soulless, protector of Bigotry.

"Sarah" - YOU !... are Awesome !

Walking,

Ditto!

If in fact, as this article infers - the argument is about kids having the right to a male and female role model in the home then there may some merit to this argument. Thus far, all we've heard is how it should be the right for same sex couples to marry if they wish. It should come as no surprize however that any child would benefit to a greater degree from different sex parents. Each sex has something unique to bring to a childs upbringing that results in a well rounded adult.

Did I say same sex couples are incapable of raising a child - no. I said the child benefits in a way that he cannot without different sex role models. If you think the childs rights come second to your rights (the desire to be with your homosexual partner), then putting your child ahead of yourself and his/her well being just went out the window didn't it?

Did I say same sex couples are incapable of raising a child - no. I said the child benefits in a way that he cannot without different sex role models. If you think the childs rights come second to your rights (the desire to be with your homosexual partner), then putting your child ahead of yourself and his/her well being just went out the window didn't it?

Yet you don't raise these concerns in regards to single people having children. A child benefits from love and stability. Two different genders is not necessary to give a child those things.

I never understand why people give a SH!& about two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married. It doesn't affect your marriage and to think it does brings into question how stable your marriage is. Seriously, there are so many other important things we should be focusing on.

Sarah - I didn't mention it in that post but the same can be said for single parents as well. Did I say Single parents are incapable of raising a child - no. But a child benefits to a greater degree from different sex role models. Ask most single parents and if they are honest they will tell you a child suffers without the presence of a male/female role model (whichever is not in the picture)

Sarah-3043284

Thank You....I was at the movies with my HUSBAND.....Yes, I'm married to a man for all you haters out there. He's handsome, caring and loyal to both me and OUR CHILDREN....There I said it for all you haters out there....And ya know something....The world hasn't ended yet. (That should rub some salt into their wounds or make them pee)

((((Hugs)))) Sarah

my2centsworth-4076520

Our children don't have a lack of male or female influence in their lives. They are very well balanced for having two dad's.

The only way a child suffers with a single parent, is if they live in a bubble. In which case I say remove the child and let the parent suffer from isolation alone.

They say children have a fundamental right to have a father and a mother.

Now where, oh where, have I heard this before ?

Sarah and Steve-

Well said!!! You BOTH ARE awesome!!!

First off I would like to say, leave the "Bible" out of this conversation. This is about the law, NOT the bible. Which WAS written by man and NOT "GOD" himself/herself/itself. Separation of church and state. Ever heard of that? Leave the bible out of it. If you don't want to be gay, then don't be. This will not affect you. This is about peoples equality. If you really believe in the bible, this won't matter to you, getting into heaven will be about you and not others. If you really think about it, religion is what is hurting everyone. What has killed more in "the name of god" than any other war, ever? RELIGION!!! Man made fairy tale non sense. That book is the ONLY evidence the religious have. And they can't even prove it's true! Take it on blind faith. LMAO!!! No thanks. Need proof before I believe a book that was written and re-written many times by people. If there IS a god, then I will bow before god. Until I know without a doubt, NOPE. Don't care if he sends me to hell for this. If god expects us to believe without proof, then god is not very intelligent. Too many people lie.

@Tinbashr

Apparently you are not intelligent to think the age of marriage during the time which the Bible is written. The consent age to marry is around 13, and look at the passive in Bible, it never condemn or anything about that. It even have several chapter talk about it.

If that is not the indication of pedophile, I don't know what is.

@ Steve 1.111 Really Steve? There are so many denials in your post. If there is no lack of female influences in your childrens lives, tell me which of the two males in your household is the female? Or are you talking about grandma? Ah! the surrogate female/mom for you and your children.

Being well balanced is purely subjective as is your idea of living in a bubble. All I said was that a male and female (mom and dad)influence at home is a better condition for a child to grow up in. Not that it can't be done in other ways - happens everyday. Just that its not ideal. And that could be detrimental to their mental health in the long run.

A legal argument for continuing to ban gay marriage? That's backwards. We, as a society, have laws regulating who can and who can't get married. To say that we "can't" say who can or can't get married based on their personal preferences is RIDICULOUS. The issue is not "can we ban gay marriage" but "is allowing gay marriage in the best interest of society". Gays are not having their "rights" trampled, period. Every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and every person is prohibited from being married to someone of the same sex under federal law. The human species is heterosexual...it's just how it is. We have heterosexual sex organs...it's the way we are supposed to be. Homosexuality is a genetic flaw...like those born blind, deaf or albino.

The difference is homosexuality is a behavior...it is not like being a "black" man or a dwarf. Being homosexual is based on an action, not a physical trait. A person is a "black" person or a dwarf whether or not they are ever conscious or aware that they are such...a person needs to be conscious and aware to be homosexual.

The idea that gays are being denied their "human" rights to marry is ridiculous...laws regulate behaviour and homosexuality is a behavior. Homosexuals aren't born with "homosexual sex organs"...they are not being discriminated against because they are physically different. They are being told that their BEHAVIOR is something we don't necessarily want to see accepted as "equal" to the way we are designed to mate and pair after millions of years of evolution.

Our children don't have a lack of male or female influence in their lives. They are very well balanced for having two dad's.

Even your own words betray that you think children having two dads is not the environment for children for optimal results.

A legal argument for continuing to ban gay marriage? That's backwards. We, as a society, have laws regulating who can and who can't get married.

We are a free society, therefore we don't need reasons to make things legal, we need reasons to make them ILLEGAL. And yours are???

Every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and every person is prohibited from being married to someone of the same sex under federal law.

Both race and gender are protected classes under the 14th Amendment. That very same argument for banning interracial marriage failed in Loving v. Virginia, so why would it pass for another protected class. You can choose who you sleep with, you can't choose the sex you're born as.

Homosexuality is a genetic flaw...like those born blind, deaf or albino.

Leaving aside your comically erroneous comment about it being a flaw, we don't stop albinos or blind/deaf people from marrying, now do we?

Being homosexual is based on an action, not a physical trait.

An action that is protected from government intrusion in Lawrence v. Texas and through our implied right to privacy in the Constitution.

The idea that gays are being denied their "human" rights to marry is ridiculous...laws regulate behaviour and homosexuality is a behavior.

So is eating ice cream, doing laundry, and heterosexual sex, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be too cool with the government telling you you can't marry based on your flavor, detergent, or position preferences. It doesn't matter if it's a behavior, the government needs a compelling reason to limit rights based upon it.

See my above paragraph for why.

They are being told that their BEHAVIOR is something we don't necessarily want to see accepted as "equal" to the way we are designed to mate and pair after millions of years of evolution.

So people are only worthy of being equal to you if they have sex like you? There "behavior" is none of your business, and until you can show how it is, your OPINION on who you think should be your equal is nothing but unsubstantiated bigotry, that nobody gives a @!$%# about.

That was a piss poor attempt, but coming from you I'm in no way shocked.

The marriage contract isn't about LOVE, it is about the obligation to one another created because procreation exists as a necessity between a man and a woman. Specifically, if a man gets bored and leaves the woman he's created a bunch of children with alone with no one to help her and no one wanting to help her because she's already had kids with another man, who saw fit to leave her, then society has a problem. It was too messy without the contract, so we invented this contract for when love fails, and it always has and always will (marriage takes work, not love--love's a happy benefit). At first it was a contract bound by God, so that everyone would take it seriously, and it couldn't be broken, but then it was appropriated by government. Now it's a contract bound by "God", and the state can break it at the behest of either party, with a whole bunch of icky side-effects requiring that no one have any ethics or care at all about the damage they do to those children that got created (MOST of them by accident, because the reality is when a man and a woman have sex, people tend to come about--it's NOT the same, it's NOT equal for gays--you bring people about abnormally with absolute intention, not by accident).

All these benefits that gays claim heterosexuals get are a farce. Love whomever you want, loving is easy and fleeting, but recognize that we're not equal, and in fact, you've got it better in a lot of ways. A man and a woman accidentally get pregnant and they are a family whether or not they want to be--gays don't have to worry about that. Traditionally the man went to work and provided for the woman and children, which inevitably came about, because even the best protection won't always work, so things like married filing jointly providing a bigger tax deduction made sense because one income was providing for more people, and to claim that somehow that little deduction boost is unfair is pretentious-- please let's remember that a rich single person makes $200,000, but a rich married person only makes $250,000, and you can be gay and live together and be in love and both make $199,999 and not be rich, but in many states there are cohabitation laws that make a man and a woman contractually obligated to one another just by living together for a certain amount of time--common law marriage protects these couples from the person who wants their cake and to eat it too when the time comes that love fails. Unfortunately, we're at a point now where not everyone has the luxury of someone staying home to raise kids, so often there are two income households where the mom and the dad are both working and no one is raising the kids, and to pretend this is a good thing is ludicrous, because kids aren't meant to raise themselves and the really don't "know better", but when a man and a woman are together, they often make children by accident, whereas gays can't do that, they get to plan everything out, they get to choose when it happens and if someone will stay home to raise kids, or choose not to have any children at all, ever. The marriage contract protects people from the mess that is life--it's not at all about the benefits, and that you want to get married for these benefits you think we marriage people are afforded makes it look like it's just about the dog and pony show, not about reality. In reality life is hard and contracts are necessary when you just make babies by accident. If you want kids, marry a woman and have children and enjoy the "benefits" the state provides in those situations--you can still have the things you like on the side, many, many a married man and woman have proven so through the years. But understand that the things you like don't make your marriage work, love and flowers and candy hearts and bubbles and giggling together don't make the marriage work--respect for one another does. If you have that, you don't really need the contract to begin with, because there's nothing you need to protect yourself from, because love will wax and wain through the years, but that respect will always be there if you have it, so you'll make it work. We make these vows to one another, and it sounds all romantic and sweet, but the grit of it is why the contract's necessary--not the benefits. So get over it.

It's really not to difficult to see the difference between a straight couple and a gay couple is it ? I mean if you line up 30 gay couples and 30 straight couples I am gonna beat a five year old can pick out the straight couples 100% of the time. WHY.... ? Because even a child can see there really is a difference and for that reason as well as others gays do not equal straights in terms of "marriage.

Just as a side note there were 4 nudes arrested for being nude in California because a law had changed and they were protesting but there doesn't seem to be much focus on that. Being nude is a natural thing right. After all we are ALL born nude but gays chose to be gay. And before I rewad the question again " when did I "chose to be straight?" I will answer it. I didn't have to chose it was a natural thing because that is what nature made us male and female for just as every other creature on the planet we are made to reproduce the species.

Gays are not having their "rights" trampled, period. Every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and every person is prohibited from being married to someone of the same sex under federal law.

That's the same dumb argument the dumb bigots tried to use against interracial marriage in the 1960s, and it's still just as dumb -- and just as unsuccessful.

The human species is heterosexual...it's just how it is. We have heterosexual sex organs...it's the way we are supposed to be.

WRONG. There are many millions of humans who are not born homosexual; it is just one of the four recognized sexual orientations with which we are born. Moreover, there are many other animals besides humans that are homosexual, as scientists have documented.

Homosexuality is a genetic flaw...like those born blind, deaf or albino.

WRONG AGAIN. Medical science disagrees with you, and their word on this trumps yours.

The difference is homosexuality is a behavior...it is not like being a "black" man or a dwarf. Being homosexual is based on an action, not a physical trait.

STILL WRONG. You are confusing orientation with behavior. One can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual -- without ever having sex. Sexual orientation is based on attraction, not on behavior.

They are being told that their BEHAVIOR is something we don't necessarily want to see accepted as "equal" to the way we are designed to mate and pair after millions of years of evolution.

Then perhaps you can explain why homosexuals have existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed.

Stop doing research from the encyclopedia of your ass.

Cuong @1.114....One last kick at the can here...By definition, a pedophile, is an ADULT who preys on small CHILDREN....Not for marriage, but for sexual gratification!!!!.....This is OBVIOUSLY SICK AS HELL....Just where in the Bible does it condone this?....People interpret the Bible many different ways...Some to suit their own agendas....And that is exactly why there are so many wars...Everyone thinks they are right....As far as you not knowing what a pedophile is...Now you know....

HeWillRule@1.46 Breaker 1-9....This is the Tinbashr...You got your radio on?.....

ErinNJ.............Not sure just where you get your info from but there is NO homosexual activity in the wild that simulates what humans do. NONE. There is no evidence to that there is and never has been. we are not born with ANY sexual orientation but are born a particular sex however.. Two options , male or female. The choice to become homsexual or bi-sexual comes as we mature and it is a choice not controled by genetic make up.We can chose to live our lives in the tradition and natural manner and allow our feeling for the opposite sex to grow. Or we can because perhaps of some life even chose to become somehing other than what our natural intended purpose is which is to reproduce. if you wish to dispute that sex between a man and a woman is what nature had planned for us perhaps we can run a scientific experiment. We will group 100 straight couples in a compaound and 100 gay couples in a compound for 100 years. We will see at the end of that time which group survived. and which is extinct

.Not sure just where you get your info from but there is NO homosexual activity in the wild that simulates what humans do. NONE.

Not sure where you get your misinfo from, but you're completely WRONG. PERIOD.

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

June 17, 2009 — Same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species, from worms to frogs to birds, concludes a new review of existing research.

"It's clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies," said Nathan Bailey, the first author of the review paper and a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Biology at UC Riverside.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Other species form same-sex bonds for other reasons, they found. Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding while male-male pairings in locusts killed off the weaker males.

Writing in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Dr Nathan Bailey, an evolutionary biologist at California University, said previous studies have failed to consider the evolutionary consequences of homosexuality.

Writing in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Dr Nathan Bailey, an evolutionary biologist at California University, said previous studies have failed to consider the evolutionary consequences of homosexuality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

we are not born with ANY sexual orientation but are born a particular sex however.. Two options , male or female. The choice to become homsexual or bi-sexual comes as we mature and it is a choice not controled by genetic make up.

WOW, you're just so full of bull@!$%# today!

June 30, 2008 — Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins.

Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm

The arrangement of a mother's genes could affect the sexual orientation of her son, according to a new study.

The finding, detailed in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.

The researchers examined a phenomenon called "X chromosome inactivation" in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers whose sons were not gay.

http://www.livescience.com/7056-mom-genetics-produce-gay-sons.html

Italian researchers have made a new discovery that solidifies the understand that homosexuality — at least in men — has a strong genetic component. Though this study does not identify a specific gay gene, which probably does not exist, it does demonstrate what role genetics play.

Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova discovered that the mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than those of straight men. Tthere seems to be at least one gene on the X chromosome that creates a trade-off in men and women. The men turn out gay (and hypothetically less likely to reproduce), but the women’s fecundity increases, making them more likely to have more offspring. In a sense, the gene makes men more attracted to men, but the women more attractive to men. Not only are they more fertile and have less complications during pregnancy, but these women are also more extroverted and have few family problems and social anxieties.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/14/499483/study-male-genetic-homosexuality/?mobile=nc

Or we can because perhaps of some life even chose to become somehing other than what our natural intended purpose is which is to reproduce. if you wish to dispute that sex between a man and a woman is what nature had planned for us perhaps we can run a scientific experiment. We will group 100 straight couples in a compaound and 100 gay couples in a compound for 100 years. We will see at the end of that time which group survived. and which is extinct

The stupidity of those statements is proven by the fact that homosexuals have existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed -- and yet here we are. BTW, if our "purpose" were really only to "reproduce," then NO ONE would have sex for pleasure.

Honestly, I'd like to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up your ass -- and yours is too tightly wedged in there.

here is just one of many sources

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

The following article is adapted
from the author's recently published book, Defending a Higher Law: Why We
Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.

In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1]
turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:

1. Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
2. Homosexuality is irreversible;
3. Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is
   natural.

Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two
premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal
homosexuality.[3]

Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?

The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as
follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior
is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their
instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal
nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance
with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If
seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature,
then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in
accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things
further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human
nature?

In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

1. There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
2. It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal
   behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally
   acceptable behavior for rational man.

There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals

Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to
conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are
exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal
instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from
factors beyond their instincts.

-- Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts

To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact
that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical
laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can
adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch,
taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human
intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation
with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance
with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can
suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions
or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover,
the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original
impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the
best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while
encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two
instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]

At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's
instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and
"homosexuality."

-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"

Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving
"mixed signals" from their instincts:

Most female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in
order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of "hunt mode"
may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the
"hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting
instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that
dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue.... Compare the
size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey.
They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic
movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat,
maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the
kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts
are confused.[5]

Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran
Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:

Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and
invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own
kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially
when food is scarce.[6]

-- Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States

To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In
expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.

Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states
(fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich
resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of
talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot.
Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They
"borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to
manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so
on.

-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior

Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the
chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and
other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours
observing and filming bonobos, says:

There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to
avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one
bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a
cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other
before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other
species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert
attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts
totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a
female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or
after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the
aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing
between the two adults.[7]

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in
seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for
example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and
professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When
two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects,
explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a
display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of
letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may
mount for the same reason.[9]

Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely
chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a
frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat
will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been
with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind
of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into
contact with.[10]

Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to
identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom,
the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes,
leading to more frequent confusion.

-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed
to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal
world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting
predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual
activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such
thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]

Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior
does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr.
Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain,
explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals....
For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always
directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can
never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts
(particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual.
Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is
that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of
reproduction.[12]

It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation
And Sentiment
Into Animal Behavior

Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human
motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic
approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology
it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for
Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:

The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for
in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon
as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a
risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[13]

Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual
relations:

Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human
sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to
have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of
mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological
pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits
a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and
makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the
law of nature.[14]

Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal
Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological
Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici
curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that
homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:

Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also
necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in
the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result,
the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and
interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people
we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With
animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied)
behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and
motivations."[15]

Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however,
throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory.
Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a
homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however,
that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a
homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall
Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian
interest books."

Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational
Man

Some researchers studying animal "homosexual" behavior extrapolate from the
realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason
from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus
is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is
also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man's nature
belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the
determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.

Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at
Riverside, for example, states:

Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have
this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that
they have sex to procreate. ... Sexual expression means more than making babies.
Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16]

Simon
LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal "homosexuality" will
help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:

It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals,
especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of
religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative
sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma
that homosexual behavior is "against nature": the notion that it is unique to
those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone
become morally culpable.[17]

Other researchers feel compelled to
point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very
favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of
the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:

For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't
natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and
ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump
from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals
to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to
live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that
should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]

The animal
kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That
blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man
himself:

It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal
behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. .... The laws ruling human
behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed
them, namely, in human nature.[19]

The fact that man has a
body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an
animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man's rationality pervades
the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are
not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as
human.

Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by
what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not
accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes
human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and,
therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is
to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

From Science To Mythology

Dr. Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance research displays his
fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal
mythology:

Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about
systems of gender and sexuality...[21]

To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an
unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of "explanation" or
"cause" or "rationale." In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the
world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in
both the human and animal worlds...[22]

Most Native American tribes formally recognize--and honor--human
homosexuality and transgender in the role of the 'two-spirit' person (sometimes
formerly known as berdache). The 'two-spirit' is a sacred man or woman who mixes
gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes .... And often
engaging in same -sex relations. ... In many Native American cultures, certain
animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the
form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or
"supernatural" two-spirit(s)....A Zuni creation story relates how the first two
spirits--creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same
time--were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these
creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck
Deer.[23]

Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so
widespread in today's homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help
of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace "a new
paradigm:"[24]

Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by
Biological Exuberance brings us full circle--back to the way of looking at the
world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions
of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves
binary oppositions....Biological Exuberance is...a worldview that is at once
primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are
multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and
transmutable.[25]

Conclusion

In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality
is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory,
is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on
science.

Luiz Sérgio Solimeo joined the Brazilian Society for the
Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) in 1959. As a researcher and
writer, he specializes in philosophical and theological topics and has several
published works. Mr. Solimeo has been in the United States assisting the
American TFP since 1999.

In this article, Mr. Solimeo develops a section of Chapter 11, "Answering the
Movement's Scientific Arguments," of the new book

Defending A Higher Law:
Why We Must Resist Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement (Spring
Grove, Penn.: The American TFP, 2004) -- ISBN 1-877905-33-X -- 232 pages --
paperback -- $14.95 (s/h included) -- To order, call toll-free (866)
661-0272.

[1] The expression homosexual
movement is used to designate a vast network of organizations, pressure
groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws,
customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but
also accepted as good and normal. Hence, movement activists pressure society to
legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such
as same-sex "marriage," while relentlessly assailing those who defend
traditional morals.

[2] For a brief overview of the evidence debunking
the "it is in the genes" and the irreversibility of same-sex orientation
theories see the TFP's flyer "Not Genetic! Not Irreversible! Not Natural!"
www.tfp.org/tfc/boston_scientific.pdf.

[3] Cf. Simon LeVay, Queer

(Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1996). Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal
Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).

Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality

The gay community has taken advantage of the straight community and thier compassion for others. Gays have learned that the majority won't speak out because they don't want to hurt anyones feelings. Gays are taking advantage of the good in people to push thier agenda not based on any real civil rights because they are not denied any civil rights already. No the gay community want special rights. They want to be recognized as the same in marriage as straights even though the difference is obvious. They want to be allowed to join any club they chose even though some clubs may not approve of homosexuality or people who practice it and have rules stating that view. We have laws against hate crimes against people for race and sexual orientation which includes gays. We have laws against job discrimination. Many companies already accept same sex couples on insurance and FMLA options. But you want more. you don't want to just live you want to be "special".

ROFLMAO! Solimeo is not trained in zoology, biology, or any similar science -- he's a theologian, and as such has done NO research nor has he conducted ANY reputable, peer-reviewed studies on homosexuality, in either humans OR animals.

Gays are taking advantage of the good in people to push thier agenda not based on any real civil rights because they are not denied any civil rights already. No the gay community want special rights.

That's the same dumb argument the dumb bigots tried to use against interracial marriage in the 1960s, and it's still just as dumb as it was then -- and just as unsuccessful. The demand is for EQUALITY, which means that EVERY consenting adult will have the right to marry ANY OTHER consenting adult of his/her choosing, whether they are gay or straight.

No wonder you dumb bigots keep LOSING in the courts!

We have laws against hate crimes against people for race and sexual orientation which includes gays. We have laws against job discrimination. Many companies already accept same sex couples on insurance and FMLA options. But you want more. you don't want to just live you want to be "special".

Gays want EQUALITY -- which is no less than they deserve as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country. Greedy bigots like you can't seem to get that through your thick heads.

BTW, the word is "their," not "thier". You might have a bit more credibility -- and be taken a bit more seriously -- if you at least learned to spell. But putting your faith in quacks like Solimeo certainly doesn't give you ANY credibility.

"The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself."

Thanks, Avenger. I'd seen that study before but couldn't remember where. The statement above pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

To say that a slimy, putrid orgy of swamp toads in the pitch dark of night is moral justification for one man banging another is not only ludicrous, it shows just how pathetic the arguments for homosexuality actually are.

Since humans ARE animals, it shows just how pathetic your arguments against the naturalness of homosexuality actually are. The issue of homosexuality in animals is not raised for reasons of morality -- and it is very telling that YOU would look to other animals for your own morality.

And you are willing to accept "facts" from someone who has conducted NO research into animal behavior, and holds NO credentials in animal behavior -- his only "credential" is as a theologian. That speaks to your piss-poor level of credibility, too.

If ignorance were music, the two of you would be an orchestra.

"If ignorance were music, the two of you would be an orchestra."

You just typed that? Really?

Were you, like, proud of yourself and sh!t? And did you, like, have a smug, self-satisfied grin on your little face?

You libbies are too much, but I definitely love you for the entertainment value you provide. The venomous anger that exudes from your responses alone is enough to justify posting up here.

So thank you. No really, thank you...

So ErinNJ what about my suggested scientific experiment ? How do you suppose that will work out ...? i have a pretty good idea how it works out but then I am sure you will simply call it a "dumb " idea right"?

The truth is gays have dug up a bunch of fodder prduced by gays and call it the only definitive information. You refuse to look at anything that doe not re-enforce your view period.

Animals eat their young.

Animals eat their own kind in general.

Animals lick their own arses to clean themselves.

Animals fight and kill each other for leadership.

Animals have sex with other types of animals.

Animals pick bugs off of each other and eat them.

Animals urinate and defecate whenever they feel the urge and do so no matter who's watching.

The list of things animals do that humans can do but don't because it's wrong can go on for quite some time.

Yes, humans are animals, but our humanity separates us from our base nature.

The Biblical argument is similar:

The bible also says we shouldn't kill, we shouldn't sacrifice our children, and we shouldn't lie with animals, but I guess since we've all started eating pork, it would be alright to throw out those other rules too.

Come on.

That still does not negate the fact that homosexuality is found everywhere in nature, thus it is naturally-occurring.

And it still does not negate the fact that the US is a secular nation, and the bible does not make the laws here. Apparently it is the same in France, where marriages cannot be performed in churches.

Ok,so now if you don't support gays you are not Christian?Try it in the Muslim or Islamic world and see how far you get.Most of their gays end up in an unmarked grave so at least be glad you live in a country where they won't kill you for it.

no you idiot, love who you want. we dont care but call it something other than marriage. you want us to accept you for who you are so accept us for who we are. we dont agree with what yall are doing and dont want it made public. we are trying to raise families under conservative and normal ways. i want my son to have a female wife so they can give me a grandchild that has our bloodline in it. everything you people do is not normal so you people need a whole different set of rules.

I find heterosexual relationships abhorrent. Heterosexual marriage should be banned.

Is the above a valid argument? No. So why do you think the reverse is?

@Sloey

Well said.

@Scuba

Do you really abhor the way life is brought into this world? Must be hard being you. I thank my parents for having me. You abhor yours. Good luck with that bro.

Of course I don't. I'm heterosexual myself. I even state that I don't think that argument is valid in my post.

I'm simply pointing out that finding homosexual relationships offensive to you is not a reason to make ban them.

On the contrary opposition to gay marriage is "VERY CHRISTIAN"!

Why is it Christian? Because it say so in the Bible? There is a lot of stuff in the bible that Christians don't seem to have a problem ignoring.

hewill, first off let me ask a question.. Do you beleive in Sant, Toothfairy, Easterbunny? Religion is a fairytale of sorts. The book of lies (bible) needs to be change to christians imaginary little friend. Religion (all religion) was invented because people were and still are afraid of death. Here is hot it really works..You are conceived (and not by some miracle imaginary sky being) you are born, You live your life from a minute to a 100 years, Then you die. That's it the show is over. wake up to reality and cast off this foolishness and see the light.

@Scuba

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone who says they are a Christian actually are?

Christ said, "By their fruits, you shall know them."

@Rick

Why do you think the Bible is a Christian book? It was around way before Christians. Oh and i dont follow your religion im sorry. I dont have a religion.

Bi and gay is very common in French culture. The heterosexual women feel quite threatened, I'm sure. Married men "venture", let's say.

I should had been more clear...ANY religious book is all about lies. and the bible is a christian book... I was once like you fools then I woke up and seen the light. Well if you don't have a religion then why do you have the reference to your silly imaginary sky being?

"I want my son to have a female wife so they can give me a grandchild that has our bloodline in it." What about what your son wants?

CS what if your son realizes he is gay? will you still love him and support him

@Rick,

You are angry and terribly misinformed. Should anyone believe you've read every religious book and proven them wrong? So your opinion is kind of asinine no? And what makes a Creator imaginary?

It only takes common sense. Which is something you seem to lack. Why do you silly christians always think Atheist are bitter and angry and hate your mythical "god" I'm not bitter or angry and I don't hate you"god" I simply don't believe in it. And I haven't read every religious book but I have seen the lies and deception that comes from them.

@Rick

So you are uniformed about many religious texts. And uninformed about me. I am not Christian. And atheism is another religion to me. You have to have FAITH things can be created without a creator. You have to have FAITH that coded language like DNA can occur spontaneously. These things have never been observed. So what time is you church Mr. Atheist, so i can learn more about these impossible things.

Maybe I need to go back and read the article again.

I did not see anything that said the French people who oppose gay marriage are Christians.

I think it said that they were just French people who oppose gay marriage.

There are many people of different nationalities, religions, and atheists who oppose gay marriage and believe in traditional families. It is not just a Christian thing.

What makes a creator imaginary?

The fact that you can't hear him, see him, feel him, measure him, or interact with him in any way, and there is no way to prove he exists. I think that's the definition of imaginary right?

One cannot measure spirituality in physical terms.

Yahh, clearly the gay-lesbian agenda continues to snuff it's nose at Biblical references to homosexuality as sinful (yes, beyond Leviticus..."a man laying with a man" is a sin, as mentioned in the New Testament). But Biblical proof is the only thread needed for the wishy-washy (cafeteria-style) Christian known as a Protestant.

Never mind 1000s of years of Christian doctrine on marrage and sexuality in the Christian CHurch (led and developed by the Roman Catholic Church). Of course you liberals are hissing and cowering and foaming at the mouth now.

Civil rights for blacks is no where close to the issue of the current gay-lesbian agenda. Marry whomever/however/whenever you want is not a human right, nor a simple civil right. If this was simply about "marrying because we want to", then all the laws on the books about siblings not marrying, minors not marrying those of a majority age, parents marrying/fornicating with children and polygamy would be considered breaches of "civil rights."

The clueless continue to spew the garbage that "not loving the gay (agenda) sure isn't CHristian." The foundation is "love the sinner, BUT HATE THE SIN." It's shocking so many think homosexual acts are fine and dandy (yet our society still mocks pedophilia and bestiality, which are other sexually perverse acts).

Where is the gay-lesbian humility? Who would DARE to say that people of the same sex should even marry!?!?! Some things in life you just don't do or consider.

I consider those who hate morality and sexual dignity as "the haters". Not those who stand up for legitimate values and decency.

And, as for any poster on these threads who has no problem calling men "dicks", they have to be prepared for the legit word of "c*nt" being thrown out at the man-hating women that are on the threads, too.

Then again, women have no problem calling each other c*nts on reality TV. You made your bed, now lay in it.

Rick, you'd not be able to figure out God's Truth and how man's inherent errors are the cause for all the bad in the world. God's Truth helps guide man to always strive to do the correct thing.

But, I'm sure you think that is a myth. Just like your logic used to deny God could/should/would even exist.

@Scuba

You are way off. Just read the post under yours.

Funny how you can walk into a building with a crappy design, and not wonder twice if it was created. Yet we're are in an enigmatic universe, but you cant draw the conclusion it came from something greater. Are you a hipocrate?

Not all liberals support gay marriage.

LOL silly christians..one day when you die you will see the truth...wait...you'll be dead...LOL Wake up renounce your religion and see the light.

@Rick

And they should believe you over the ancients for what reason now?

I think the interesting thing about this story is that there are ALOT of gay and lesbian people who opopse gay marriage and gay adoption. I'm pretty sure there's a fair amount of those people here in the US as well. They of course want their lifestyle to be legal and all, but ehy understand that children have a true need for a loving father AND mother, and that those needs should trump whatever supposed "right" they have to be married. Unfortunately I am pretty sure those gay and lesbian voices of reason are drowned out by the LGBT activists who are trying to force social acceptance of their lifestyle on everyone, regardless of its effects on children.

This article doesn't have anything to do with religion.

That is off-topic.

It is about people in France who support traditional families and do not support gay marriage.

Well Atheism is growing by leaps and bounds.. More people everyday is waking up to the lies and deception of religion. Hewill, a couple of questions for you...#1 if your not a christian then why do you care about this and #2 why do you have god in SN?

silverton... Stay on topic? Don't confuse these folks... as some of them seem to be confused enough already. LOL! Too many "experts" methinks.

Rick, your mistakes make you sound uneducated. And isn't there an in-between to organized religion and atheism?

Never said there was a in between. But you didn't respond to my question

@Rick

Your religion is growing...that is true. But its because the world is getting more corrupt. So it makes sense that wicked is growing.

Are Christians the only ones allowed to speak on the issue? Why?

My SN means Israel. Its my father's name. Not everyone who believes in a Creator is a Christian. If you read every religious book like you tried to speak for, you would have noticed this.

Ah ha, but HeWillRule - everyone who believes in a Creator believes in Creation. In that story, "god" uses Adam's rib to make "Eve." We know this today as cloning, and biologically speaking that would make "Eve" and XY male. If you believe in Creation, it necessitates you believing that Adam and Steve were the first gay couple.

after carefully studying scripture , i found out that the LGBT community is correct , ppl that are gay , are in fact born that way to a very large degree.

MMMMmmBeer

Cloning is BS...They cant even cure a common cold never mind cloning.

Logical One-1118456 - On the contrary opposition to gay marriage is "VERY CHRISTIAN"!

Episcopalians and many other Christians would disagree with you, and find your homophobia very much un-Christian.

They think "Christians" like you are exactly like the Southern Baptists and Mormons who opposed mixed-race marriage 50 years ago who, like you, based their bigotry on their bible-babble.

@ Rick:

"CS what if your son realizes he is gay? will you still love him and support him?" Of course. My commentary never meant to suggest otherwise. I was quoting what someone said above.

CS,

I understand ..sorry my bad ..I know parents who would disown their children for a silly thing...

I am studying behavioral genetics at a research university this semester. A lot of behavior is genetically influenced but we don't have any evidence for homosexuality. Differences in phenotype result from deletions, mutations, repeats, etc. Just like red hair, alzheimers, or depression, genes can affect us. Some cause disease, while some are harmless, so you have to ask "does this biological expression negatively affect the person as a disability in any way?" I think homosexuality, for most people does not, but it does prevent spontaneous reproduction between the partners... hence the big controversy.

To be fair, we don't prevent people with disabilities from having the same rights, but since the nature of marriage is for raising children, it does present as a different type of union. Do civil unions not provide enough benefits?

janellect,

Civil Unions do not provide the same protections as marriage. In many places, domestic partnership allows for blood relatives to apply for DP though. Also, with LGBT raising children, yes some they have directly created and some through adoption, the point is rather pointless now as an argument.

I think what people are confusing is marriage and Holy Matrimony. You can go through a religious ceremony and not be legally married. But you can forgo the religious ceremony and be legally married. These are two different concepts. One is a Federally Protected relationship and the other is blessed by the eyes of the god of their choosing.

janellect - To be fair, we don't prevent people with disabilities from having the same rights, but since the nature of marriage is for raising children, it does present as a different type of union.

Marriage is about property and kinship rights, not children. You don't need to be married to have kids, nor is marriage denied to the infertile or willfully childless.

Do civil unions not provide enough benefits?

No they don't, but it's interesting that you support Jim Crow laws and "separate and unequal." How do you feel about racially segregated drinking fountains? No problemo, right?

And the next thing you twisted people will want is for children to marry adults it they want. It is discrimination that children can't decide for themselves if they want to marry you will say. Hey Sarah, it looks like a little boy in the picture with you. He should be able to make up his own mind if he wants to get married now to a older guy or woman. You should be so proud. Right now it would corruption of minors but that will probably change down the road. Just can't wait for those protests.

And of course, we have the, my sibling and myself are consenting adults and we want to marry and have children. Let's get the signs out for that one. What right would anyone have to stop us if people of the same sex can marry. So what if the kid comes out with two heads, that is our right. People stand up for sibling marriage. People, stand up for parent and children marriage. You know it's interesting how many of you gay people are anti bible. I guess you would have to be because it doesn't support your perverted ways. Keep deigning all the way to judgement day.

Michael,

*yawn* Tired and scared arguments.

1. Children cannot sign a contract and psychosocially do not stop maturing until mid 20's.

2. Gay people do not reproduce, as your kind so eloquently put out. No deformed children here! Besides, they don't need the protections of marriage. They are already protected if they choose to be in a relationship because the courts already deem them family. Gay couples are not considered family or spouse. So in many instances, your incest scenario is already happening and with the sanction of the courts. Way to go!

3. Many gay people are Christian. Simply because they don't believe exactly as you do is your issue. So, making a blanket statement stating all gays are anti bible isn't exactly correct. Furthermore, there are a lot of heterosexual Christians that disagree with your particular line of thinking and believe the fullness of Christ extends to their LGBT brothers and sisters.

4. You are entitled to and should be respected for your opinions and beliefs. However, your feelings and beliefs shouldn't interfere with people and their ability to protect their families, even if you don't believe they are families. I am sure there are plenty of people who will find something offensive about your life and lifestyle. But they shouldn't be able to tell you how to live it or what to believe. In no way shape or form does legal marriage interfere with yours or anyone else's Holy Matrimony which is supposed to be between you and your God. Even the bible says to give Ceasar what's his. The meaning couldn't be more clear. The difference between government and legality is different than the beliefs of faith.

Not all liberals support gay marriage.

silverton-2953905 - Not all liberals support gay marriage.

This poll shows that 93% of urban liberals support marriage equality, while 94% of teabaggers oppose it.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/20/713021/poll-tea-party-members-adamantly-oppose-marriage-equality/

"Liberals" definitely aren't the ones opposing equal rights for all citizens. They never have been. Social conservatives have always been the problem on every civil rights issue.

Not all atheists support gay marriage.

And not all Christians support atheists. What's the point? Somewhere, there is someone in America who doesn't support someone for one thing or another. The question comes down to legality of using a feeling and a belief to deny people rights of protection for family and property.

Who is being denied rights of protection for family and property?

I have not read where anyone's rights of protection were being denied by these protestors in France.

You don't recall the legislation in France outlawing Muslim customs from infiltrating schools? Or restricting the use of female face coverings, et al?

ALthough a shocking idea to American liberals (who seem to be filled with "least common denominators"), you can be "liberal minded" but still have a conscience with morals ( a la France).

The muslim rulings were because, if you've been to France you'd see, there are so many Muslim immigrants there (see the video of an enormous number of Muslim men-of course-praying in the middle of Paris streets on you tube) and it was starting to not look like France anymore.

Gimmeabreakoradrink

You idea of 'conscience with morals' is completely subjective based on some old out of date book written by sheep farmers.

NO ONE needs any book to tell them what is morally right and wrong. That is what current society does, not an ancient story book.

And current society says, it's acceptable to be gay and married.

No, France has been deeply intrenched with right wing nuts. Look at the Vichy government and how they accepted Hitler with open arms.

Read the article. The French approve of gay marriage by over 70%. However, less than half think that a child should be raised only by one sex couples.

Roadkill - However, less than half think that a child should be raised only by one sex couples.

Actually a plurality still supports adoption by gays. The dumb bigots are in the minority on all the gay rights issues.

so "sensible" = "deny rights to others"? I guess iran is even MORE 'sensible'? :)

There is nothing wrong with taking their time in making a choice.Just because they don't dive in immediately to suit you means they are wrong.

How hard is this? How much time do you need to figure out that "equal rights = good, deny rights = bad". The question of gay marriage has been around for decades. Should we schedule a vote for 2075 so we can debate it further?

what equal rights are you speaking of ? from where i sit every man and woman in this country has the same rights ..what you want is special rights for your sexual orientation not equal rights

david: lol. Yeah, that "logic" was tried in the 60s and failed then..you know..."yes we have equal rights..anyone of the same race can marry anyone of the same race, mixed race couples want special rights".

We see how that "logic" worked out, didnt we? :)

maybe you should change where you sit? :)

naw im happy where i am thanks tho

but just a quick question ..why do gays always want to tie themselves to the civil rights movement when that was about a race of human beings, not a group of people with a different sexual orientation

I have a question for you David:

Why is it ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation but not ok to discriminate based on skin color?

@Scuba

One is a preference, the other isnt. You cant help what race you are. You choose to have sex with men. Is there no difference?

First off, the science of whether or not being homosexual is a choice is certainly not settled. It very well might be that homosexuals have no choice in their sexual preference. But I'll ignore that caveat because it really isn't important for my counter argument:

Would be ok to deny people rights based on say... how they cut their hair? How you cut your hair is a preference.

And just what again is your expertise that you can pontificate about homosexuality being a preference? And just when did you choose to be heterosexual? Age 13? 14? Off to Ignore Land with you.

@Bobber

Do you remember the day you were born? No one does. We are born not preferring sex at all. You develop that, some at earlier ages than others. But any man who says he was born gay, i would have to call him a liar. Maybe gay as long as he can remember, but no one remembers that early in their lives.

When did i choose to be heterosexual? Probably at 5, when i saw how much my dad loved my mom.

What about me and my question, HeWillRuleAsGod?

Do you think it is ok to discriminate based on how people cut their hair?

Not sure what you would even consider as discrimination. If a guy came up to you looking for a job with a mutilated scalp, or a blonde wig for example, would you not also second guess his intentions?

david-316722, #4.7- I think "always" is the operative word in your question. They don't "always", but do try when it seems like it would be the most convenient; or a quick route there. Inter-racial marriage of the past was not "specifically a marriage issue" like this issue is trying to be made into (at times). The Equal Rights claim made by the proponents is "supposed" to be about Equal Protection of the Law for a recognized and named Class. That's why and how it's going to the Supreme Court here in the US. (Equal Protection of the Law can alternatively and fundamentally-effectively be found and made to happen in "AMENDED" Civil Unions, without "undoing" the Institution of Marriage). period What's to be in those Civil Unions? It would still remain to be seen, including the Adoption of Children and Procreation of "Family" by unnatural and/or artificial means; IE, 3 factors of the equation, 1) Cloning of a Human Being is not legal 2) To what degree does "artificial procreation" to an agenda of intentional ideology parallel Cloning at the fundamental stage of "creation", itself and 3) All Minor Children, once born, are the nuanced-responsibility of Society and The State; always with everything else aside, to the "best interests of the Child" (physically, mentally and emotionally) to be the only starting and focal point. period, again

I don't know the workings of France; supposed, in Law or otherwise, but I think this Article really highlights the problem of Proponents of an issue, even as in this Country, refusing to present, see and seek a solution to a problem "Comprehensively". One of the very basics to Child Psychology is that just as Nature abhors a vaccuum, The Child can get sucked up into WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG, in the issues of the Adult's relationship. I don't believe for one minute, never mind even a second, that a Child belongs unavoidably caught up in the middle of 2 Adults Sexuality issues, be it Homosexual or Heterosexual...but most especially, Homosexual. IT IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY DAMAGING TO THE CHILD (and then spreads to other Children and Others). period

Holy sh*t, people! The Civil Rights issues of the 1960s has NOTHING to do with today's gay-lesbian lifestyle-affirmation agenda.

Where are gays being excluded on modes of transportation? Traded like property? Precluded from schools and educational opportunity? Where are homosexuals denied voting rights? Constitutional rights? (Marriage is not a constitutional right).

There is no such thing as a homosexual. Only people who engage in homosexual acts.

If all this "sexual progression" was really about equal rights, why isn't the gay-lesbian agenda advancing equal rights for celibate single Americans? Their choices, societal murmurings/gossipping and tribulations? Or, with other groups with taboo sexual perversions, a la pedophiles, polygamists, sexually promiscuous heterosexuals, those who practice bestiality, incest, etc.?

HeWillRule,

Well let's say the government decided that only people with a certain haircut could get driver's licenses. You would have no problem with that right? Because haircuts are a choice.

Scuba

I dont even believe you need a licence to drive. But thats another story. And i have a lot of issues with this government. You can try to fit a square into a circle all you want. I was raised smarter than that.

reading these comments about gay rights, i see the same things being said about gun control, except the liberals are trying to take rights away, and not getting right given to. and conservatives are try to keep rights and most conservatives are not so willing or open to gay marriage due to religous beliefs. i personally have a problem with the word marriage, that should be between man and woman, call it same sex union.

Gimmeabreakoradrink - The Civil Rights issues of the 1960s has NOTHING to do with today's gay-lesbian lifestyle-affirmation agenda.

The NAACP and the vast majority of black civil rights leaders disagree with you and say that "marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time."

The courts disagree with you too since the legal issues are exactly the same.

The dumb bigots tend to be the same too - Southern Baptists and Mormons oppose same-sex marriage just like they opposed mixed-race marriage.

"I have a question for you David: Why is it ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation but not ok to discriminate based on skin color?"

Discimination based on skin color, gender, religion = wrong. Discrimination based on a disturbing behavior is perfectly fine.

So I could discriminate against you ohwell? Since I find your behavior of discriminating against gay people disturbing.

I find people who watch Jackie Chan movies are engaging in disturbing behavior. Anyone who does, can NOT get married.

Done.

I feel that people who pray to the sky are disturbing. And since they weren't born that way, it's a behavior and a choice.

Does that mean we can take away their rights to marriage?

You are engaging in behavior that is not only disturbing, but immoral. No marriages for christians, jews, muslims or anyone who believes in "praying" or any other associated and disturbing practices.

This isn't about "loving gays", its about equal rights.

But I thought you were supposed to "love the sinner"? lol. Doesn't sound like you are a very good christian. :)

I think you need to get your Biblical facts "right" We ARE to love the sinner BUT not the sin. And since the Bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination to God, we should not support making it legal. Amazing that we who don't support YOUR position are labeled as a lot of ugly things. I guess we we have the same right to oppose as you do to support. Call me names if you choose but allow me to disagree regardless.

well, if YOU agree that are are to "love the sinner", then my post was right, and paul was wrong. Thanks for agreeing with me!

BTW - the bible says that premarital sex, adultery, gluttony, etc, is also a sin. I assume you aren't a flaming hypocrite and you also support making EVERY sin illegal, right..even those that apply to you? Oddly I have NEVER found a "christian" who wants to make THEIR sins illegal, just OTHERS. Amazing, isnt it? :)

Jesus is the guy who mows my lawn. He's cute...but I don't think I love him.

Just because you disagree with someone does NOT mean you are not a christian. Thankyou Earl-3123686

@ Vermont

All sin is sin. Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc. I speak out against all of it so nice try. We are supposed to hate sin. Especially the abomination that man lying with man is.

Is this really the first time you heard someone speak out against all sin? In your life? You must associate with a lot of hypocrites.

Had any shrimp lately?

ROFL @ ilartxfl. Really wonderful post.

@Bobber

No, i dont eat sea roaches. Thats gross.

How about cutting your hair? That's a sin.

Talking to a woman on her period? That's a sin.

Let a woman into a church? Sin.

Let females teach or have authority over men? Sin.

Got a Divorce? Sin.

Got a Vasectomy? Sin.

Talking to a woman who had a female baby less than 66 days ago? Sin.

Shall I go on?

Scuba

Cutting your hair is not a sin. Mutilating your scalp is.

Talking to a woman on her period is not a sin. Sleeping with her is.

Women are allowed in church.

Women cannot preach. But women are allowed to be teachers.

Never been divorced, nor had a vasectomy.

Where are you getting these from? Certainly not the Bible. Quit while you're behind. I cut sinning out a while ago.

HeWillRuleAsGod

"You must associate with a lot of hypocrites."

Most christians ARE hypocrites. So many things in the bible are sins but are things that 'christian's do daily, even hourly. If I was to put a random percentage on that I'd say well over 80% are, all the way up into the religious hierarchy, "Do as I say, not as I do."

The absolute most verse that christians violate daily is Romans 2:1.

paul,

"a christian is to love jesus not gays"

A Christian is to love everyone, even his enemies. Read the Gospels, especially Luke 10:27.

Oh Paul,is that all you've got? Your made up god?

"'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." - Leviticus 19:27

The Period thing is too long to post here. It's Leviticus 19:19-33. Basically, a woman on her period is unclean and nobody should be near her.

"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." - Leviticus 12:5

@Scuba

That is a new translation. The word should be marred.

The Bible says nothing about talking to women during their unclean phases. Thats your opinion.

That verse in Timothy is talking about in church, not in school or at work, or a queen for example.

Please show me where it says you cannot TALK to a woman after having a girl. Again your opinion.

So when the bible says inconvenient things, it's a translation error or a matter of interpretation?

But when it says that two men laying together is bad, that is justification for denying people basic rights?

If you followed every verse in the bible, I would at least respect your position. But you don't.

Which one of us is the hypocrite?

I hope everyone realizes that the poster named HeWillRuleasGod does not speak for every Christian.

He may be well-meaning, and is correct about a few things, but also misguided in many things that Christians believe.

More replys are pro gay on this forum because they are ashamed of their behavior and afraid to go out in public, so they sit in their closets and pretend they are normal.

silverton,

Considering how many sects of Christianity there are, who could speak for all, except a belief in Christ.

judgemark

More replys are pro gay on this forum because they are ashamed of their behavior and afraid to go out in public, so they sit in their closets and pretend they are normal.

That is a very ignorant statement. I'm pro gay, AND a STRAIGHT MALE. Am currently at work on break (not in my closet). Besides, I'm proud to help my fellow humans get equal rights.

I would like to say, leave the "Bible" out of this conversation. This is about the law, NOT the bible. Which WAS written by man and NOT "GOD" himself/herself/itself. Separation of church and state. Ever heard of that? Leave the bible out of it. If you don't want to be gay, then don't be. This will not affect you. This is about peoples equality. If you really believe in the bible, this won't matter to you, getting into heaven will be about you and not others. If you really think about it, religion is what is hurting everyone. What has killed more in "the name of god" than any other war, ever? RELIGION!!! Man made fairy tale non sense. That book is the ONLY evidence the religious have. And they can't even prove it's true! Take it on blind faith. LMAO!!! No thanks. Need proof before I believe a book that was written and re-written many times by people. If there IS a god, then I will bow before god. Until I know without a doubt, NOPE. Too many people lie.

"Vermontguy: Please do not use Christians falling short of perfection (we are, after all, just human) with asserting the "falling short" (imperfection) should be adopted as the new standard. You would (if correct) put the social fabric of the Nation on a downward moral path, my friend. I sincerely believe that when you draw your last breathe, you will agree. I understand your points but humbly disagree with causing confusion for generations present and those to come with calling homosexual unions "marriage". The LGBT community should focus on "unions" being acceptable as equal to marriage...without distorting the concept of "marriage". As you are likely aware, the first homosexual "marriage" ended in divorce. Please support me in not allowing homosexua "marriage and divorce" to undermine the statistics and erroneously skew the data to imply "marriage" is a bad thing for the heterosexuals - the cornerstone of civilization.

The LGBT community should focus on "unions" being acceptable as equal to marriage...without distorting the concept of "marriage".

And YOU should focus on the fact that you don't own the word "marriage," and that morality is subjective, and the bible does not make the laws in this secular nation.

BTW, the first homosexual marriage was thousands of years ago, in one of the ancient civilizations.

Please support me in not allowing homosexua "marriage and divorce" to undermine the statistics and erroneously skew the data to imply "marriage" is a bad thing for the heterosexuals - the cornerstone of civilization.

I have a better idea: you keep your bigoted, antiquated, erroneous ideas about marriage to yourself, and allow other taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country the equality they deserve.

yup,It does'nt matter what you say he is going to twist it somehow to fit his needs.Like i said before.They can get married all they want to i don't care but,that's not good enough is it.I would say by the dictionary definition,Vermontguy is a bigot.

if by "twist it to fit my needs" you mean "continue advocating for everyone to have equal rights", I agree. :)

And i'm not sure what you mean by "that's not good enough", given that they CAN'T get married now and that is the issue.

kindly show EXACTLY how I am a "bigot"? People arguing for equal rights are bigots? lol. confused much? :)

vermont,there is no sense in telling you.You dont listen anyways.

in other words, you realize you are wrong and are giving up. got it. :)

By its definition, you could call anyone who doesn't follow/like a law or social more as a "bigot."

I think there is ample hate-mongering propaganda being spewed out of pro-gay-marriage citizens, and always playing "the victims."

There is no "gay gene". It's about preferences that someone explores, and then decides to empower and revel in. No homosexuals -- just people who choose to engage in homosexual acts (some people it's exclusive).

Perhaps it's the gay-lesbian agenda who "doesn't listen" or "get it." Men do NOT marry men, nor women marry women. C'est la vie.

Gimmeabreakoradrink - By its definition, you could call anyone who doesn't follow/like a law or social more as a "bigot."

No, we're just reserving the term for those who think a class of law-abiding citizens should be treated as 2nd-class citizens.

And we reserve the phrase "greedy bigot" for those who want special rights and privileges which they'd like denied to the people they hate.

The word "bigot" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever when applied to homosexuality. I see where homosexuals are even attempting to compare themselves with the days of slavery and inter-racial marriages in order to gain sympathy placing themselves in the same catergory which is nothing but pure laughter to me. Thousands of people in France are fed up with the idea of two men marrying and Russia put an end to it altogather stating, "this is not Sodom and Gomorrah". If you want to roll around in bed kissing someone of the same sex, you're sick, period!

Well Bob, 63% of people in France are FOR Gay Marriage.

If you don't like not being able to control what other people are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms, you're sick. Period.

good news! we are talking about "man's law" here, so i'm glad you agree that can be changed to allow for gay marriage. :)

Marriage is between two consenting adults of the same or opposite sex. God DOES NOT make the laws of the United States or any other country period.

Common sense says obeying the Creator makes more sense than obeying the creation. What good is it to be accepted by a few men, but denied by God?

Ill let you weigh that out.

Thank you and I agree with you.

So, that means, 6 billion people on the planet are going to be denied by your god, because they do not follow your christian beliefs?

I'll let you weigh that out.

:) God doesn't judge right? Why are you

@AboutTime

God does in fact judge. Dont know where you got that idea from. Also i am not a Christian, but yes, 6 billion people getting denied by God doesnt seem farfetched at all. Seeing as though life on this planet was destroyed before, save a few individuals.

And have you any idea what judging actually is?

Oh I see...

http://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-judge.html

Enjoy :).

Your language seems to be the problem. HOLY MATRIMONY is between one man and one woman. I agree that a church- any church has the right to decide whom may enter into HOLY MATRIMONY. MARRIAGE is a legal term and a civil right. I do not believe that anyone should be denied a civil right afforded to another.

@AboutTime

I was asking you personally. Not for a source, which is by Christians. You do know the Bible is by Jews and not Christians right? Maybe they should be your source logically speaking.

:). umm yes.. I do know that. However, isn't it interesting that some Christians use the old testament (when it suits their needs) to denounce homosexuality?

:)

To be honest, Christianity as a whole is hilarious to me. Its a hippocrate's faith for the same reasons you've mentioned.

lol I agree w/you. I will always respect others religious beliefs (or lack of) even when I don't agree with them, or their opinions. My whole point on this is a personal one (obviously), but I also believe every american has the right to marriage. Our founding fathers believed in we the people, and to me that applies to everyone.

Appreciate your comments, its good to have a civilized discussion about things

Maybe I need to go back and read the article again.

I did not see anything that said the French people who oppose gay marriage are religious.

I think it said that they were just French people who oppose gay marriage.

There are many people of different nationalities, religions, and atheists who oppose gay marriage and support traditional families.

@AboutTime

You cool man. Thanks for not dropping insults. You must have been insulted for your views once to be so open-minded. My statement however, is that the "founding fathers", (who founded nothing, and arent the fathers of most of us, white or not) did not have the best interests of everyone. Remember the Indians? Slavery?

They should have been more specific when they said "We the people..."

yoyomama, but then there can be NO restrictions on who/what can marry. If laws prohibiting gay marriage are discarded, there is no moral or legal basis for any law that defines marriage. It's open season on non-written societal "assumptions" of what moral character and decency thresholds have to be.

This is what Rick Santorum was trying to state at that college in New England, but the ignorant/naive student body couldn't grasp the holistic argument about "definition of marriage." Santorum wasn't even touching his religious-based views on gay-marriage. Santorum laid out a logical, sound-reasoned argument against gay marriage, yet the gay-lesbian agenda reacted violently and rudely, bvery much showing "hate" and "bigotry."

HeWillRuleasGod,

Ummm, not sure how this thread got derailed into a religious discussion, but your post #7.9 where you said that the "Bible is by Jews and not by Christians" is erroneous and misleading.

The Old Testament was written by Jews, but the New Testament was written by the first Christians who were also Jewish.

No Silver

Both testaments were written by Jews. Not Jewish, and none followed Christianity. Not a single person in the NT called themselves a Christian. Not one. Paul, who wrote most of the Epistles was of the tribe of Benjamin. None followed Judaism nor Christianity. These were invented afterward by Europeans. Its a long story.

We should stop issuing "Marriage Licenses" and just Issue Civil Unions. After all marriage is religious belief. Solves the problem for everyone. We can all start calling our wife or husband our civil partner. Separation of church and state.

Since c.1400, the word has been applied figuratively to any close union or blending of any two things. The word dates to c.1300 and is from the Anglo-Norman mariage. Ultimately it is from the classical Latin verb maritare, to marry, used to refer to people, animals, and the crossing of grapes in viticulture and the nouns maritus/marita, husband/wife.

HeWillRuleasGod,

Sorry to disagree, but the Jewish disciples of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch, a chief center of early Christianity. The city had a large population of Jewish origin and so attracted the earliest missionaries. Its converts were the first to be called Christians.

I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but you seem to be very misguided in some areas that are really quite easy to research to find the correct answers.

Gimmeabreakoradrink - but then there can be NO restrictions on who/what can marry. If laws prohibiting gay marriage are discarded, there is no moral or legal basis for any law that defines marriage. It's open season on non-written societal "assumptions" of what moral character and decency thresholds have to be.

That's one of the moronic argument the racists used to oppose mixed-race marriage.

Gimmeabreak,

your argument is a fallacy. There are no moral components to marriage laws as it is now. You cannot marry an animal because animals cannot legally consent. Rape is an act of sex with out consent; that will not change if Gay Marriage is allowed. Children under the age of consent cannot legally consent to sex and even if they do having sex with them is statutory rape because the law does not recognize their consent.

It is very cut and dry, try getting some education of the legal system and reading comprehension instead of spouting about how morals are the only thing keeping the world from exploding. Big hint, morals have nothing to do with governance nor the laws.

I agree, too much time has been spent by the right on fighting equal rights for all law abiding americans. Pathetic, isn't it?

typical board room monday meeting at MSN ... "Ok folks it is a new week and we need at least 7 stories on gays"

Yes, mass budget spending like crazy... Have to keep raising taxes so the GOP can continue giving 54 BILLION in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Unemployment is NOT at a record high, the DOW just hit 14,000 for the first time since 2007 etc. We do have a considerable number of social issues in this country. Republicans want to force 15 year old raped/pregnant girls to drop out of school, give birth to a rapist child, give no financial support, and then give the rapist parental rights.

We also do have run away spending on social programs for those who are abusing it.. but seemingly, I can't find a number from the republicans to really support that. It must be 47% of the entire US that is doing it, after all, that's what ROMNEY tried to convince us of, and failed.

They want to continue allowing the NRA to spread hysteria about the second amendment being taken away, (which we all know is not the case), let the gun manufacturers continue to make record profits over a false scare, and then BUY MORE Republicans in Congress to do their bidding.

Homosexuals DO have the right to marry someone of the same sex. It's called Loving Vs Virginia April, 10 - 1967 by the US Supreme Court in accordance with the 14th amendment. Denying americans a civil right is unconstitutional and will NOT stand for long.

Perhaps the righties in this country will stop spending our tax dollars and telling us who we are allowed to marry, what our religion should be, family values, and trying to convince us that legitimate rape is acceptable.

what equal rights are you speaking of ? from where i sit every man and woman in this country has the same rights ..what you want is special rights for your sexual orientation not equal rights

david - see above about why "where you sit" is wrong. :)

and these "gay stories" get lots of comment..meaning lots of clicks..meaning more revenue for nbcnews. Capitalism at its finest!

david-316722

umm then you are sitting on the US Constitution and disgracing it. The only special rights here, are yours. The ones where you feel you have the right to prevent two consenting adults of the same sex the right to marry the person they love.

We understand :). Its only a matter of time before your special rights are taken away and EQUAL RIGHTS replace them.

IAT-Just because you have the right under the law to speak your mind, I don't have to agree with what you say and just because all of the screaming from gays has earned them the right to marry, I don't have to agree with it either. It's not impossible that the law that allows same sex marriage could be reversed in the future if the morals of the country change. You know the story about the squeaking wheel don't you?

Greg-2505403

I agree 100%. I am a firm supporter of the first amendment. I don't really care if you want, like, support, tolerate, hate, love, or anything else related to gays/lesbians on marriage. It doesn't really matter. Marriage is a civil right. Read the 14th Amendment :)

P.S. Once SCOTUS makes gay marriage legal in the US, and trust me, its GOING to happen. It will not be overturned. Once you give civil rights, its NEARLY impossible to take them away. :) Please show me your education and provide 1 example of a civil right that has been granted and then taken away

It is no different than what straight folk did in the 1960's.Thry just went to another state.A state who's policies best fit into their beliefs.

Ahh .. but it is VERY different. The federal government didn't refuse to recognize marriages of mixed-race couples if it was legal in the state where they married. On the other hand, the federal government will not recognize state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. Period. People can go to any state that they want, and they will still be denied federal recognition. Even married gay members of Congress can't get recognition (and benefits) for their spouses.

IAT- You pointed out that a Supreme Court decision on gay  marriage is somewhere in the future and I add unsure. A SCOTUS decision in favor of gay marriage would open the gate for a flood of others contests by many such as goatherders. Your 14th Amendment arguement is nothing more than your interpretation.

With the explosion of the Worlds Muslim population I would think the gay future is dim.  

Also, I see no need to expand on my quyalifications or experiences her to either puff myself or satisfy some craving yoiu may have.

Sh*t, we don't fight for the "civil" or "human" rights for the unborn in America.

Oh right, we've been brainwashed by liberals since the 1960s that even though we know that sex results in pregnancies, and that "pregnancy leads to a baby" (which is a human with DNA different than that of the mother), that it's ok to snuff out a new American citizen's life?

Yet, they continue to spew the twisted lie of aborting a developing human about "women's body rights", or "the world is way too overpopulated already" and "I'm not ready to be a mom" (but you're fine with f*cking, eh?). All selfish reasons to deny the reality that aborting a fetus - a blob of cells as they try to diminish it - is ultimately ending life.

A SCOTUS decision in favor of gay marriage would open the gate for a flood of others contests by many such as goatherders.

The cases before the Supreme Court actually have very little to do with same-sex marriage. The case regarding DOMA is addressing whether the Federal government may refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage that is performed in a state where such marriages are legal, while continuing to recognize heterosexual marriages performed in the same state.

The defenders of DOMA have to be able to provide a compelling reason (something that advances the interests of the country) for the discrimination. The fact that some people don't like same-sex marriages is not enough. Even if ALL of DOMA is struck down, there is nothing that will compel states to offer same-sex marriages, although they may need to recognize such marriages performed in other states if they also recognize heterosexual marriages performed in those states.

So, a decision by the Supreme Court doesn't open the "floodgates" to anything, not even same-sex marriage.

Greg-2505403

Apparently you have ZERO knowledge on the US Supreme Court Ruling of Loving Vs Virginia - April 10, 1967.

READ IT. Then read Amendment #14.

Marriage is a civil right and gays/lesbians deserve it. The only LEGAL way to prevent it, is to immediately REMOVE all benefits given to heterosexual couples at the local, state, or federal level. Otherwise...

:) See you in March/June when SCOTUS RULES IN favor of gay marriage.

religion = very very bad.

Current society says what is wrong and what isn't. As mankind educates himself more his thoughts become more and more liberal and demands equal rights for ALL. That is something the bible simply can not do.

I think every one should have the right to marry who ever they wish to.

Yeah, your correct, why should we follow "thou shalt not murder". lol. Absolute comments usually prove to be false.

its about money and nothing else? what makes YOU an expert on the motivations of gays? You'll forgive me if I don't trust you on that score. :)

and yes, gays can get married in some states, but that doesn't give them equal rights.

mas098

The push is about MONEY nothing else

Does that mean all heterosexual marriage are about money? I mean, look at Newt Gingrich. Marriage is between a man and a woman, then another woman, then another woman. ;)

Are you confused. Churches grant "absolution" and not related to marriage at all.

If it is all about money, then why does the federal government continue to lose $1 Billion (B) a year by banning recognition of same-sex marriage in all states?

See: CBO (Congressional Budget Office) report 15740, June 21, 2004, page 1, paragraph 2. The Fiscal Implications of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriage.

GOP finally got around to asking how much money does the government "save" since we passed DOMA in 1996? They got a answer they did not like and shelved the study. None of them seem to want to talk about the fiscal crisis they helped create.

That's $17 Billion (B) lost by the government banning same-sex marriage since 1996. Yep, it' all about money.

I'd like to remind you that in the US we do not look to god for our laws.

John,

There are many Christian liberals who support President Obama but do not support gay marriage.

bobber,

The United States is a predominantly Christian nation, and you are wrong. Many of us DO look to God for our laws.

bobber, To remind you our country was founded on the beliefs of gods laws. Originally laws were written for the good of man and their spiritual beliefs. It wasn't until the 1940s that we started to change the way certain laws were written. Many laws today are written based on the good of the few instead of the good of the many. We in the United States seem to have forgot where we originally came from and what happened for us to get here. Read the first paragragh of the Declaration of Independance.

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

G 007, you do realize that the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with our laws and lawmaking. The laws and lawmaking of America come form the Constitution, which has no mention of any God, religion, or religious text.

Our country was not founded on any religion or religious principles. Please, read about our history. Read what the Founding Fathers wrote. Please.

"God made it so that it required a Man and a Woman together to create a child."

Too bad "God" didn't put it into civil law, the part about sticking around after making a kid.

We do not hire anymore who puts on their resume: Accomplishments - I made a kid.

mis.,

The DOI was our Founding Fathers justification statement to the world, for the creation of our own nation. Without the DOI, there would never have been a U.S. Constitution.

I would suggest you follow the advise you gave G-007, but do with an open mind, it works better that way.

shhhh soon you'll be getting repsonses from the gays that children cant consent to that so they have no right to be normal

So you want to bring up a child in an IMMORAL family? So you want to start raising a child to believe immoral acts are good?

John- Reading comprehension problem?

All of a sudden those that care so much about children (Sandyhook) don't care about a child's right to a conventional family. Who is denying who rights?

How are rights of children being denied? Preventing gays from adopting doesn't magically open up more heterosexual homes? It doesn't prevent a single, heterosexual woman from choosing to raise a child on her own. So, how does discriminating against gays help children?

Greg... RE: John V. "Wish I had a president whom had some." Looks like grammer problem as well.

The protesters in France - those with signs: "A child needs a mom and dad" seem to miss their intended audience, or they just don't care if "mom" and "dad" are "husband" and "wife."

In 1999 France offered gay couple pacte civil de solidarité, commonly known as PACs. 95% of PACS in France are straight couples who choose not to marry. Over 50% of children in France are born to single women. The French divorce rate approaches 50%.

The "protesters" in France are certainly misdirecting their "message" and mistaking their intended audience. Mais, c'est la vie.

What the hell is your point with that posting?

As long as we're dreaming up fantasies, let's say that the race is androgynous and finds the concept of male and female sex revolting. They demand the practice be outlawed. Would you learn to be "gay"?

Homosexuality is a form of overpopulation control.

and then had this too

"Why is it that homosexuals instantly bash someone for not agreeing to promote the lifestyle they choose to live ? "

Ummm.. Go read what you just wrote and then maybe it will "COME TO YOU" why someone may call you a BIGOT.

Common sense? I hate to say this, but that comment may just make you the BIGOT :)

Biologist, not bigot.

Some "moms" in nature do turn into "dads" (switch sexes). And some "dads" in nature do all the nest building, child rearing and all as single parents, or in same-sex groups while "mom" is never seen after copulation.

Biologist? You are not even close. Take the consolation prize, bigot. Get what you can for the effort you put out.

12 countries permit same-sex marriage. 4 additional countries permit same-sex marriage in some jurisdictions. Scandinavia is part of Europe. South Africa is a country. South America is composed of countries. 5 more countries recognize married same-sex couples from other countries.

8 countries in Europe recognize same-sex marriage: Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden.

How many countries in your "world" (your other counts are not credible) recognize "marriage" that is something very different than two adults, consenting as adults, and remaining married for life? How many times over the centuries has "marriage" in other countries in the world changed?

It is our business when a married couple from France come to live, reside and take American citizenship, or one of the couple have American citizenship. Or when married couples in America move to France. Your "big world" seems so small.

Participation in war has never qualified as a determinant of honor, allegiance, or debt of gratitude when it comes to marriage.

You are 100% entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. Marriage is between two consenting adults of the same or opposite sex. Marriage is a civil right in accordance with the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS ruling of Loving Vs Virginia April 10, 1967.

Gays will be allowed to marry and continue to adopt children. Why? The heterosexual world hasnt done the greatest job here have they? I mean, a 53% divorce rate? WOW, such a success :)

Gays should not be allowed to marry and/or adopt a child.

Why?

Barry

Go ask a Gay Priest who likes alter boys...:P

That priest would be a pedophile, not gay. The two are not the same.

"I don't give a poop who disagrees with me. It is my opinion."

Thanks for clarifying right up front that you do not actually have an opinion.

There is no "negative" voting on comments here. Don't feel too smug.

If I stand before "your almighty god" on judgement day. I will thank him for teaching me to respect and not judge those who were made in his image. I'll then ask him why "MAN" invented the following hypocrisy in his name:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?