Beliefs Columns Culture Jana Riess: Flunking Sainthood Opinion

Same-sex marriage garners support among most American religious groups, study shows

The rainbow flag is a highly recognized symbol for the LGBTQ community. Photo by Ludovic Bertron/Creative Commons

(RNS) — Most religious groups now support the legalization of same-sex marriage, according to a study released Tuesday (May 1) from the Public Religion Research Institute. The survey, which was based on more than 40,000 responses collected during 2017, finds that twice as many Americans now support same-sex marriage as oppose it, 61 percent to 30 percent.

Not surprisingly, support is strongest among members of religious groups that tend to be politically liberal, such as Jews (77 percent), the unaffiliated (80 percent) and Unitarians (an overwhelming 97 percent).

What is more surprising is how quickly support for same-sex marriage has grown among religious groups that are more politically diverse. Two-thirds of Catholics, Orthodox Christians and white mainline Protestants now say they are in favor.

What’s more, majority support now includes African-Americans, whose support for same-sex marriage has increased from 41 percent in 2013 to 52 percent today. Hispanic Americans also saw double-digit increases, with support rising from 51 percent in 2013 to 61 percent today.

Source: PRRI, 2017 American Values Atlas

 

Majorities of Americans in most states support same-sex marriage, with the exceptions all located in the South. Even in the handful of states that do not have more than 50 percent support for same-sex marriage, they also don’t have 50 percent opposition; Alabama is now the only state where a majority of residents say they oppose same-sex marriage.

Support growing more slowly among Mormons and evangelicals

While support is robust among most religious groups, white evangelicals and Mormons remain holdouts and do not express majority support for same-sex marriage: 40 percent of Mormons and just 34 percent of white evangelicals say they are in favor.

On the other hand, “there is evidence that even these groups are trending toward majority support,” says PRRI.

For one thing, opposition has decreased by double digits in both groups since 2013, and is now at 58 percent among white evangelicals and 53 percent among Mormons. A few years ago, opposition had broad support among both groups – 71 percent of evangelicals and 68 percent of Mormons said no to same-sex marriage.

For another, the trend lines are clear that younger evangelicals and Mormons are significantly more supportive than their elders. Among evangelicals, for example, twice as many young adults favor same-sex marriage (53 percent) as those over 65 (25 percent). Mormon millennials also showed majority support (52 percent) compared with Mormons over age 65 (32 percent).

The study also points out that white evangelical Protestants and Mormons represent a declining “market share” in the American religious landscape today, as their numbers are dwindling or remaining stagnant in comparison with the rapid growth of secularism. While they may hold “outsized political influence,” combined they represent fewer than 1 in 5 Americans today, says Robert P. Jones, PRRI’s CEO.

Most Americans oppose the ‘baker exception’

The study also showed that 6 in 10 Americans oppose the idea of religiously based service refusals, which is the issue at the center of a major Supreme Court case this year. The court is considering whether a Colorado cake baker should have the right to refuse service to LGBT couples who are getting married if doing so would violate his religious beliefs.

Members of most religious groups said business owners should not get to choose which clients to serve. This was particularly true among black Protestants, 65 percent of whom say that business owners should not have the option of denying service to LGBT customers.

Again, Mormons and evangelicals are the outliers. In both groups, 53 percent say that business owners should have the right to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples.

Source: PRRI 2017 American Values Atlas

On a separate question, every religious group had a majority supporting nondiscrimination measures that provide equal legal protections to LGBT people. The lowest was among white evangelical Protestants, at just 54 percent support, and the highest among Unitarians, at 95 percent.

Mormons, the study pointed out, are unique in the large gap that exists between their views on different, but related, issues covered in the survey.

“Only 40 percent of Mormons favor allowing same-sex couples to marry, yet nearly 7 in 10 (69 percent) support laws that would protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, and employment — a 29-point gap,” according to the report. “Among no other major religious group is the gap on these two issues larger.”

The margin of error for the entire sample is plus or minus 1.2 percentage points.

About the author

Jana Riess

Senior columnist Jana Riess is the author of many books, including "The Prayer Wheel" (2018) and "The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church," which will be published by Oxford University Press in March 2019. She has a PhD in American religious history from Columbia University.

728 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “What is more surprising is how quickly support for same-sex marriage has grown among religious groups that are more politically diverse.”

    This is happening for one simple reason: Contrary to all the predictions of doom and gloom in advance of the Obergefell case in 2015: that the sky would fall, that civilization as we know it would come to end if gays were allowed to marry at city hall, none of that happened. Instead, life went on as usual. Honest people of goodwill saw that nothing happened, except that gay friends and loved ones they knew could now reap the benefits of those 1138 statutory provisions civil marriage guarantees to all U.S. citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

    They understood that, all along, this has been a justice issue. Where injustice once reigned, justice has now, at least in this one area, been restored. Though it should not be forgotten that the Trump team, THE most homophobic in modern U.S. history, is working quietly behind the scenes at the state and local levels to undo Obergefell at every turn, and their work is hardly done, it is only beginning. Which means this story is not over. Not by a long shot. As always with the advancement of any civil rights movement, it’s always one step forward followed by a swift, angry backlash and five steps back. That’s where we are now.

  • This is one of those articles where heading for the source and skipping the article provides much better information.

    The headline “Same-sex marriage has support among most American religious groups, study shows” would lead one to believe that most American denominations support “same sex marriage”. But that it is not what the study itself indicates.

    https://www.prri.org/research/emerging-consensus-on-lgbt-issues-findings-from-the-2017-american-values-atlas/

    What the study indicates is that Americans who self-identify as various denominations, or no denomination, generally have lessened their opposition to “same sex marriage”.

    Embedded in the study is “Most States Now Support Same-Sex Marriage”, which also misstates what the data supports. *Every* state is compelled by Obergefell v Hodges to “support” same sex marriage, not *most* states.

    Missing from the source, however, is both the questions and methodology used to arrive at the conclusions reported.

    The result is consistent with the general opinion prior to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that – in the classic sense of American fairness – same sex couples should be given some of the legal protections that married couples have as to health care decisions, the transfer of property at death, and so on.

    Now that – like it or not – the solution imposed on achieving that by judicial fiat is “same sex marriage”, most people accept it.

  • At this point we do not know what the long range consequences of Obergefell v. Hodges might be.

    I would venture that – by your standards – the Washington administration was by far more “homophobic” than the Trump administration.

    I would expect that, as with Roe v. Wade, as the implications and effects of the court decision work themselves out the American public will develop more nuanced views on Obergefell v. Hodges.

  • “I would venture that – by your standards – the Washington administration was by far more “homophobic” than the Trump administration.”

    I said in “modern U.S. history.” Try to keep up.

  • Lots of things are decided every day by “judicial fiat” in the court system – that’s why we have a judicial branch of government. But people only say they are “imposed by judicial fiat” when they disagree with the decision.

  • No, lots of things are not decided by judicial fiat.

    In theory legislation is done by legislatures, and the resulting laws are applied by courts to fact duly ascertained.

    When a court steps aside from the law as it exists and is written and reasons to establishing new law based on this that or the other, it is legislating by judicial fiat.

    It is doing that whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision.

    As one of our sitting justices wrote over a decade ago”American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda” and as a result they are “failing to reach out and persuade the public”.

    American liberals are therefore circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and this has led to a compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent, leading to their “overweening addiction” to using the courts for social debate, which is “bad for the nation and bad for the judiciary”.

    The job of the justices should be “to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be – not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.”

  • The proof that “(t)he long term consequences have been nil” is nil given that 13 years is not “long term”.

  • Most people really do not care if two people who love each other are the same sex. Most people think everyone should be allowed to enter and buy things they need equally. Most people do not get their panties in a bind by homosexuality. There are more important things in most people’s life than same-sex marriage.

  • Excellent news! The dwindling number of American Christians who stubbornly cling to hatred of gays are going to watch their churches fade and die out, as they so richly deserve.

  • “Judicial activism” is always nothing more or less than “rulings I disagree with.” Why some fanatics try to extend it into a general condemnation of having a judiciary at all.. well, that’s beyond me.

  • It’s happening as we speak. I was speaking with a woman from Canada just the other day and she told me that churches where she lives are closing their doors in record numbers. She said hardly anyone goes to church there anymore.

  • Are you speaking as a legal expert or just someone who adopted the name and image of a Roman emperor so despised for being a pervert and ne’er do well that his own soldiers killed him and threw his body in the Tiber?

  • Poor snowflake is annoyed his bigotry not only lacks color of law, but also popular support. How sad. 🙁

  • I see someone’s been doing his homework, though naturally you left parts out. It’s true that the Roman Emperor whose name I took as a screen name thumbed his nose at Roman sexual mores (part of the reason I chose that name.) He also wanted to make his own sun god to be the official religion of Rome. He was from Syria and the Romans didn’t like that – they had their own gods. He was murdered at age eighteen on order of his power-hungry aunt, Julia Maesa, who wanted her own son, Severus Alexander, on the throne. He too was murdered thirteen years later. That sort of thing happened a lot to Roman emperors back then as one power-hungry person murdered another for power.

    But let us go with your contention that he was murdered for being gay, which he was. Not much has changed in places like Iran, where within the last few years eighteen year-old boys were hung for being gay (see picture below.) That’s also what the Christian Taliban you represent would like to do, according to scriptural mandate. Curiously, I hear none of you clamoring for people like not-my-president to be stoned to death for the sin of adultery as Leviticus 20:10 mandates. Funny that.

    http://inthesetimes.com/images/30/01/gayiran.jpg

  • The argument is an admission that one’s view lacks legal merit. It is usually followed up by some nonsense about “judge made law” (which has been part of our judicial system even before independence) and “usurping of legislative power” (despite the fact that civil liberties are not subject to majority vote).

  • Mike, your inability to read English with comprehension is showing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus

    “According to Barthold Georg Niebuhr, ‘The name Elagabalus is branded in history above all others’ because of his ‘unspeakably disgusting life’.”

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/the-crimes-of-elagabalus-the-life-and-legacy-of-romes-decadent-boy-emperor/418066.article

    “From his fevered worship of an exotic Syrian sun-god (Elagabal, from whom he got his nickname), to presiding over child sacrifices and his insatiable sexual appetites, Elagabalus is a dream to write about.”

    https://www.ancient.eu/Elagabalus/

    “On March 13, while at the Praetorian Guard camp, Elagabalus and his mother were executed, beheaded, dragged through the streets of Rome and dumped into the Tiber.”

    Next time aim BEFORE pulling the trigger.

  • He was murdered because he was incompetent, presided over child sacrifices, and even by pagan Roman standards led an “unspeakably disgusting life”.

  • He’s completely obsessed with what gay people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. How many truly heterosexual people do you know who do that?

  • The notion that “judge made law” does not exist is an admission that one has accumulated his or her legal knowledge from the back of cereal boxes and reading comic books.

    The entire Bill of Rights was subjected to a majority vote.

  • Notice that I have NEVER in any post gotten into the issue of what gay people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

    Your problem, sport, is that you have a memorized one-size-fits-all shtick and the actual content of the posts your respond to has little or nothing to do with what you write.

  • Here we go again: two men could have eaten the same fruit Adam and Eve ate. They eat the fruit, but what do they eat? We lift the curtain, for a wary peek. Through a forest of mystery hiding it all, we see a body, naked and weak. This BODY is the garden in whose center grow, the two famous trees, but never a weevil. Here is the tree of life and the one, of knowledge of good and knowledge of evil. Because the two trees are right next to each other, care must be taken to avoid the one bad. For THE FRUIT OF BOTH TREES IS PLEASURE, so the pleasure is there to be had. To be fruitful and multiply, eat from the first. But eat from the second, and no one conceives. So here we go now: one, two, three–pleasure, shame, fig tree leaves.

    This is more than just another poem–it is as relevant to today’s topic as anything can be. Links cannot be posted here, but a quick internet search for “first scandal” will show exactly how relevant the poem is. The searched site will be either #1 or #2 down the page.

  • This from the guy who has not cease kvetching about the election of the current president a year and a half ago.

  • I suppose in your mind that change in demographics and society will take place when LBGT people breed a new generation.

  • Let’s see: if we’re to take this story literally, Adam and Eve had only two sons as mentioned in the Bible, Cain and Abel. Are we to assume that Eve had incestuous sex with one of her sons in order to produce the rest of the human race? Just asking, since you seem to be admonishing the rest of us to follow this ancient myth as very important relevant information for living in the modern world.

  • “The entire Bill of Rights was subjected to a majority vote.”

    By white, male, slave-owning land owners, the only people who could vote on anything back then.

  • Only Cain and Abel are mentioned by name, but other offspring are referred to.

    Genesis 5:4

    4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

  • “At this point we do not know what the long range consequences of Obergefell v. Hodges might be.”

    You mean like everything else in life? It’s been 13 years since it was first legalized in Massachusetts and there have been no real negative consequences. How often do we really have the ability to make decisions based on what we know will happen 20, 30, 40 years in the future? How often do projections that far ahead actually turn out to be true?

    It’s been 13 years since it was legalized in Massachusetts, 3 since the rest of the country followed suit. Nothing much has changed outside those couples who were able to marry. There’s no indication that anything will anytime soon. Sure, one day we’ll look back and say “because of gay marriage, x, y and z changed”, but so what? That is true of literally everything. I have no idea what the long term consequences of this post are going to be, but does that mean I shouldn’t make it? If you’re so concerned with worrying about what the consequences will be a century from now, you’ll never fight the injustice sitting right in front of you.

  • To be honest, I didn’t have much of a clue what your post had to do with anything relating to this article.

  • Do you know how to use Google? I really do not wish to sound rude, but, as I stated, I cannot post a link here for numerous reasons. Thus, the necessity for the internet search.

  • And hasn’t been subject to a majority vote since then! One requires a supermajority to amend it.

  • Canada legalized marriage equality one year later. It was incredibly nonsensical to talk of the alleged negative effects of SSM as a future a hypothetical when it was already implemented for a bunch of nations before us.

    If the bigots had legitimate concerns over the consequences of it, they could have pointed to something over there as an example. But none are to be found.

  • No, I do not mean like everything else in life.

    The mind mavens campaigned and advocated for relaxation of the laws over divorce to make the lives of children better by removing conflict.

    The laws were relaxed.

    It took another four decades before Judith Wallerstein’s landmark longitudinal study demonstrated that the long-range impact on children of divorce was profound and did not exhibit until adulthood.

    The mind mavens campaigned for the presumption of maternal custody based on theories of “tender years” and “maternal privacy” in the 1920s.

    It took another forty years to determine that the scientific basis for that approach was nil and that the damage was profound and life-long. And yet some jurisdictions, and many mind mavens, still pontificate as though the research never arose.

    It took Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” to awaken the world to the long-range effects of DDT.

    And on and on and on.

    Asking whether we really have the ability to make decisions based on what we know will happen 20, 30, 40 years in the future argues AGAINST Justice Kennedy’s fortune cookie logic in Obergefell v Hodges.

  • That crowd couldn’t even come up with coherent negative consequences there either. It was a lot of analogy and silly conflation. The real consequences being that anti-gay bigotry under the color of law now has been put under the spotlight in a way which hadn’t for decades.

  • In all fairness nobody needs to care about the election results anymore. But Trumpies obsess over it as a way to avoid discussing what he has done since taking office.

  • “All social progress is made, not by convincing regressives that they’re wrong (this is impossible), but by simply waiting for them to die out. Then the next generation grows up wondering what all the fuss was about.”

  • Just as Trump warned BEFORE the election, thanks to his vast insider knowledge, all courtesy of Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, et al.

  • It is not only not “incredibly nonsensical to talk of the” possible long-range “negative effects of ‘SSM'”, it incredibly nonsensical not to.

  • Odd how you’ve mentioned it in various fora a half dozen times in the last month.

    And how the Democrats continue to obsess over it to avoid discussing their remarkably dim-bulb nomination for the 2016 election.

  • There are no negative effects. You are just a bigot, with a boring sex life.

  • I would not worry about sounding rude in responding to Elagabalus.

    Elagabalus will not worry about sounding rude to you.

  • And I suppose you are the one who gets to decide what is considered “long-term.”

  • When did you adopt a belief in a deity, or this just more of your off-hand ill-considered comments?

    Btw, I’m still waiting for the cut-off date for “modern”.

  • We’re getting hit with off-load from the National Catholic Reporter, which shut down its comments section, and JoeMyGod, where folks tire of agreeing with each other and har-har-harring about the “Christianists”.

  • No, the “incontrovertible truth” is the number of actual churches in eastern Canada that really are closing their doors for good. The reasons for the collapse of the modern church you can debate all you like, but it won’t change the reality that’s happening right before our very eyes.

  • I strongly disagree. Not once in the history of the United States of America has a hostile foreign power intervened in our election process in order to install their preferred candidate – that is, until 2016. I, for one, will never stop talking about it until this farce of a presidency has finally come to an end and Russia’s Manchurian candidate is locked up for the rest of his life. It can’t happen soon enough.

  • If you’re worried about childrearing, that’s been studied quite thoroughly. Same-sex couples do just as good a job as opposite-sex couples. Multiple studies have tracked the children for many years and found they do just fine. So it’s not as if those studies haven’t been done, and over a longer timeframe.

    Wallerstein’s studies didn’t separate the effect of divorce from the effect of bad marriages. She needed to have a control group: married couples who wanted a divorce but couldn’t get one. Her results can’t be attributed to divorce, only to bad marriages.

    I’ll assume you didn’t mean the comparison of gay marriage to pesticides to come out as offensive and jump straight to that being an apples to oranges comparison. It doesn’t take 40 years to find out that DDT is toxic. It can be easily tested in lab conditions. Not sure why it didn’t happen for DDT (probably politics and/or lack of proper oversight), but the effects of gay parenting have been studied already.

    Let me ask you this: what study would you need to see before you thought the injustice faced by gay couples was worth doing something about?

  • Thanks for the non-biblical Hallelujah Sunday School lesson. There are dozens of “explanations” for Genesis, not just the one that you put forth. According to the ancient Hebrews, the differing accounts for the creation of woman in Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 are due to God creating two women for Adam. By their values, half-sibling “incest” was no incest at all, and they suggested that Cain was the son of “Lilith” through Adam just as Seth was the son of Eve and Adam. Thanks for sharing your creation myth, but it’s not the only one. That’s why you folks continue to be “myth-taken” on the whole LGBTQ issue.

  • You must have quickly forgotten how I responded to you and then you responded back to me. Might I suggest having your eyes checked, since the proof is staring you in the face, or that you go get checked for Alzheimer’s.

  • “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.”

    “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


    Jesus.

  • Well, denial of reality is kind of a specialty for certain “devout believers.”

  • Thanks for demonstrating why I advised him to be unconcerned with sounding rude in responding to you.

  • Actually you were right that not once in the history of the United States has a “hostile” foreign power intervened in our election process.

    Based on the election results, the preferred candidate won – unless you happen to live In California or a handful of other states.

    Btw, that “hostile” foreign power was the same foreign power the losing party informed us was no longer a problem.

  • At least I know where you’re shoveling for manure.

    No, that’s not been studied quite thoroughly.

    The few positive studies were short-term, conducted by women favoring same sex marriage, not peer reviewed, and dealt only with lesbian couples.

    So “Multiple studies have tracked the children for many years and found they do just fine.” is hogwash.

    Wallerstein’s studies dealt ONLY with the effects of divorce and could by not stretch of science or imagination be palmed off “to bad marriages”.

    It took decades to find out exactly what DDT did to bird populations.

    In the aftermath of “Silent Spring” it took additional years to determine where DDT could safely be used.

    I have no intention of getting into hypotheticals with you.

    We have zero idea of what the long-range impact of Obergefell v Hodges will be.

  • Note that the gun supporter, deluded Christian nutcase, and NRA shill presenting himself in this thread as “Bob Arnzen” variously and dishonestly uses a variety of names on RNS such as Bob Arnzen, José Carioca, and others. However, there is actually no real Bob Arnzen, and there is no real José Carioca.

  • Note that the gun supporter, deluded Christian nutcase, and NRA
    shill presenting himself frequently in this thread as “Bob Arnzen” variously and dishonestly uses a variety of names on RNS such as Bob Arnzen, José Carioca, and others. However, there is actually no real Bob Arnzen, and there is no real José Carioca.

    The José Carioca account for this present post is used as a parody of “Bob Arnzen”.

  • Everyone here should know that the gun supporter, gay basher, deluded Christian nutcase, and NRA shill presenting himself frequently in this thread as “Bob Arnzen” variously and dishonestly uses a variety of names on RNS such as Bob Arnzen, José Carioca, and others. However, there is actually no real Bob Arnzen, and there is no real José Carioca.

    The José Carioca account for this present post is used as a parody of “Bob Arnzen”.

  • Obviously he did not, “Bob”.

    Note that the gun supporter, deluded Christian nutcase, and NRA
    shill presenting himself frequently in this thread as “Bob Arnzen” variously and dishonestly uses a variety of names on RNS such as Bob Arnzen, José Carioca, and others. However, there is actually no real Bob Arnzen, and there is no real José Carioca.

    The José Carioca account for this present post is used as a parody of “Bob Arnzen”.

  • Says “Bob Arnzen”, one of “Bob”‘s many assumed names.

    Note that the gun supporter, deluded Christian nutcase, and NRA
    shill presenting himself frequently in this thread as “Bob Arnzen” variously and dishonestly uses a variety of names on RNS such as Bob Arnzen, José Carioca, and others. However, there is actually no real Bob Arnzen, and there is no real José Carioca.

  • We’re getting hit with the load of the gun supporter, deluded Christian nutcase, and NRA shill presenting himself frequently in this thread as “Bob Arnzen”.

    That poster variously and dishonestly uses a variety of names on Disqus such as Bob Arnzen, José Carioca, and others. However, there is actually no real Bob Arnzen, and there is no real José Carioca.

    The José Carioca account for this present post is used as a parody of “Bob Arnzen”.

  • I suspect you will agree with me that the purpose of the anus is expulsion of feces, even though the anus, like so many other openings (car exhaust pipe?) can also be used for penile sex. A man having sex with another man’s feces hole is the reason for opposition to gay marriage. For this reason, opposition to lesbian marriage is much less. And yes, a man and a woman can also do the anal stuff too, but they have a secret choice for their intercourse, while two men do not have that choice if they wish to have intercourse. (Intercourse sounds so quaint in 2018.)

    I do hope you will do the Google search for “first scandal” as I suggested. I believe you will be receptive to what the search will yield. As I said earlier, the searched site will be either #1 or #2 down the page.

  • By your “logic,” since menstruating women spew smelly blood and various other bodily fluids out of their vaginas during menstruation, no straight man should ever have vaginal sex with any woman because it’s “icky” when doing it with a menstruating woman. I’ll say no more, except perhaps that you might want to Google the word “enema” and see what that means.

  • Which is precisely why they’re sold at every drug store in America and indeed the world.

  • “It is not only not “incredibly nonsensical to talk of the” possible long-range “negative effects of ‘SSM'”, it incredibly nonsensical not to.”

    Well………..Go on then

    What negative effects of SSM do you forecast/imagine? How do you propose to identify the cause of something you think detrimental in 15/25/50? years as being directly caused by SSM?

    Either put some reasoned argument on the line or stop rattling the (empty?) cage

  • Your bizarre preoccupation with gay men having anal sex is curiously telling. I know of no straight men who are as interested in this subject as you, except for Bob Arnzen, of course.

    And for the record, not all gay men enjoy that particular activity. Again, by your “logic” I guess you’ll allow those who abstain to get married, right? Similarly, by your “logic” all straight couples who engage in anal sex (44% of men and 38% of women) should have their marriage licenses revoked, right?

  • I thought we were “done”.

    Why in the world would I even consider starting a conversation with you on a topic in the USA, where you don’t live and about which you have no clue, when you have a track record of starting off as though you were going to engage in fact-finding, only to find you bailing out when the going gets tough and facts emerge which call into question your presuppositions?

    It is interesting to note, though, how closely this hews to the natural law discussion, as this deals with yet another example of the left supposing that a million years or more of evolution count for naught, that human beings and our social structures are nearly infinitely malleable, and all the rest of that rot.

    I think you need to stop rattling your own (empty?) cage.

  • “I’ll assume you didn’t mean the comparison of gay marriage to pesticides
    to come out as offensive and jump straight to that being an apples to
    oranges comparison”

    I wouldn’t make such an assumption. Reductive and offensive language is pretty run of the mill for such points of view. Hostile connotation was almost certainly intended

  • Here is an interesting question:

    How are the acts between two consenting adults in the privacy of their homes possibly your business or something worthy of legal sanction and attack on civil liberties?

    Your emphasis on procreation as the purpose of marriage is a severe redefinition, far more insulting and reductive to the institution than what you claim marriage equality has done. You have turned marriage simply into a baby making license and ignored any notion that sexual congress is also an expression of intimacy. It speaks poorly of your concept of marriage and how you would treat a spouse.

    https://memegenerator.net/instance/57906710/why-the-fuck-if-sex-is-a-pain-in-the-ass-use-more-lube

  • How about this Bobby, when you are made the official inspector of sexual congress between couples by order of law, then we have to give a flying crap what you think of what consenting adults do in their spare time.

  • My point is that it is used by supporters of President Cheeto, to avoid focus on the farce the presidency has become in the present. An open invitation to whataboutism and deflection rather than to address what is going on.

    Focusing on the election is to try to refight a past battle which can’t be won or in the case of conservatives re-livingthe high point of a low president.

    Either way it just wastes time on criticism for what is more immediately important.

  • Yup

    same old blather and avoidance.

    What negative effects of SSM do you forecast/imagine? How do you propose to identify the cause of something you think detrimental in 15/25/50? years as being directly caused by SSM?

  • He also conveniently ignores the enormous number of straight people who most certainly do NOT consider procreation to be the raison d’être of sexual activity in this over-populated world of the 21st century. Hence the sheer volume of contraceptive devices sold all over the world. But heaven forbid that anyone should ever take pleasure in having consensual sex with their of-age partner. We can’t have that now, can we?

  • I have zero problem that you hew to fantastic views, but I do have a problem that you consistently engage in conversations which you walk away from when the going gets tough.

    Just save us both time and aggravation and walk from this one you’re attempting to foment now.

    Otherwise you’re about to get blocked so I can avoid the same old blather and avoidance in the future.

  • The ones whose the argument about “redefining marriage” are the ones redefining marriage in the most insulting and asinine form they can think of.

    As a hereto man married for many years, I find his definition extremely insulting and offensive to the concept marriage.

  • Doesn’t really matter what your name izz or ain’t or why. It’s the **arguments** that matter.

    So lose the drama, get topical, and offer up some considered arguments!

    (P.S. Gay marriage is Totally No Good on its best day. Now that’s a considered argument!!)

  • I’ll play: anything from the past fifty years to the present moment I would consider part of the “modern era.”

  • I see your point – it certainly has some merit. On the other hand, we will never, as a country, be able to move on until we lance the boil of what happened in 2016 and let the pus flow where it will. Only then will the possibility of national healing begin. I merely think we have to move through this sordid epoch rather than around it in order to get to the other side.

  • I figured it a little levity was needed. Plus I can totally imagine those lines in Patrick Stewart’s voice.

  • I’ve always liked Patrick Stewart. (I was an early Trekkie way back when.) His enduring friendship with Ian McKellan is a wonderful model of friendship between gay and straight men. He’s one cool dude, that’s for sure.

  • Hmm. I bet you’ll **care** if Trump gets re-elected!

    (Bye-bye no-good Obergefell!!)

  • What negative effects of SSM do you forecast/imagine? How do you propose to identify the cause of something you think detrimental in 15/25/50? years as being directly caused by SSM?

  • On the one hand, THIS IS GOOD FOR THEIR BIBLE CHURCHES & MINE: that “white evangelicals … do not express majority support for same-sex marriage.”

    On the other hand, THIS IS BAD FOR BIBLE CHURCHES & MINE: that “consensus for nondiscrimination measures that provide equal legal protections to LGBT people … was among white evangelical Protestants, at just 54% support”.

    If my people of faith – THE LOST SHEEP IN AMERICA these days – most likely don’t know the radical difference between the one and the other, I highly recommend they revisit THE APOSTOLIC RULE OF CHRISTIAN CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.

  • I’ll wrap this up forthwith so both can go on with our respective lives.

    – You inquire “What negative effects of SSM do you forecast/imagine? How do you propose to identify the cause of something you think detrimental in 15/25/50? years as being directly caused by SSM?”

    – I’d respond with “Unless we know there are no negative effects, a societal change of this magnitude is irresponsible. Since no one can predict what the effects of 15/25/50 years of SSM might produce, looking into my crystal ball and trying to propose identifying it or them is a rather silly exercise.”

    – You’ll respond with some comments saying something along the lines of my response being blather and avoidance, a subterfuge for religious bigotry, and so on.

    – I’ll point out that the track record of revisionists of society, starting in the Weimar Republic and the implementation of Magnus Hirschfeld’s ideas into law, going right into the feminist wave we are in the process of coming of and coming to our senses, has been less than salutary, and that the onus is on the innovators to prove BEFORE the innovation that it won’t be damaging. I would expect around 450 words at this end illustrating some of the social catastrophes innovators have perpetrated.

    – You’ll go in one of three directions – something about rights based on your particular political theories, or your personal views on the infinite malleability of humanity in its evolution towards what you seem to think are your enlightened views, or some combination of the two.

    – I’ll take that apart fairly vigorously.

    – You’ll say you’re out since you refuse to have a discussion with a troglodyte or words to that effect.

    Now that this is behind us, I won’t be responding to any further of your comments in the discussion at

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/same_sex_marriage_has_support_among_most_american_religious_groups_study_shows/

    Have a good night’s sleep and bon voyage.

  • I won’t play. The latter part of the 20th century – WWII forward – is considered as contemporary history and early modern history commences in the early 16th century:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history

    I just wanted to see if, given a chance, you’d do the right thing or try to rig the conversation in your favor.

  • Sorry the subject is not dystopian fantasy. Trump will be lucky to survive his term. Either stroking out or getting impeached.

    Obergfell isn’t going anywhere. Haters can’t even consider themselves a majority let alone get the numbers to amend the constitution to upend it. Like interracial marriage, once the right is put out there, it is virtually impossible to take back.

    But it doesn’t stop you from getting grifted by fiscal conservatives. To vote for people who attack the interests of those who work for a living. You are a shill for a wannabe kleptocrat.

  • Of course, unless other impaired, those straight people COULD reproduce, and same sex couples bank on that if they plan on forming a family.

  • Yes, I am sure you are “hereto” man.

    “Here to” what is the next question.

  • So you resist all change on the premise that there might be some adverse effect at some time in the future even though you have no idea what it might be.

    That, IMO, is very sad.

    I assume SSM is unlikely to impinge on your life unless it is made compulsory. Which means that your vague, non-specific fear of unforeseeable possible future consequences is more important to you than the happiness of those who, unlike you, are discriminated against when following their, to them, natural inclination.

    I am not one to advocate that change is always good – but it inevitably happens and, in my experience, relishing addressing the challenges that change may bring is a much more life-enhancing attitude than fear and refusal to engage.

  • It’s the same fear that led George Wallace to say, “Segregation now, segregation forever!”

  • You’re blocked.

    I did try to warn off you since the conclusion with some mystic “it inevitably happens and, in my experience, relishing addressing the challenges that change may bring is a much more life-enhancing attitude than fear and refusal to engage” blather which simply disregarded both the risks and the experience trying social engineering was foregone as soon as the exchange began.

    However, after several experiences with you I’ve determined I can spend my time more productively, and now so can you.

  • There are same sex couples with biological children of their own, FYI.

  • “I have no intention of getting into hypotheticals with you.”

    That seems to be your way of saying there is no information on consequences of gay marriage that would satisfy you. Which is just another way of saying you don’t actually care what the data is. If there’s no new information that would matter to you, then clearly your protests that we shouldn’t do it because we don’t know the consequences are a sham.

  • That’s the only way to state that nothing prepared the USA for the dire consequences of the he Eighteenth Amendment, prepared Germany for the moral collapse of the Weimar Republic with the adoption of the views of Magnus Hirschfeld, the courts for the dire consequences of half-baked theories on divorce and custody, the women for the perverse effects of some strands of feminism, the environment for the effects of DDT and other chemicals, and on and on and on.

    You really don’t care what the data is, you just want what you want when you want it.

    Your entire shtick can be condensed to that, and any pretensions that you give a fig about consequences to anyone but yourself, or that you have beginning of a clue as to what the risks might be, are a sham.

  • There are same sex couples with someone else’s children or with the children of one or the other. There are none with “their own” children.

  • Your ancestor must’ve been the one who when the wheel was invented said “Nope, too round.”

  • You are confusing the exegesis of the second and third chapters of Genesis with my opinion, the first of which I have stated clearly, while the second of which I have remained silent.

  • Tell that to Catholics who can no longer provide adoption services in Illinois or MA.

  • What about your left-wing bigoted attacks on Catholic schools, trying to teach them that sodomy and buggery are morally acceptable ?

  • Sorry, objections to homosexuality are no more bigoted anymore than objections to liberalism or socialism.

  • Except that he was a reactionary Democrat espousing a minority view. Opposition to SSM was a consensus view.

  • Why BobbyJoe or Joe Blob, whichever one of you is writing today…

    EXACTLY THE POINT.

    I don’t know how you managed it,

  • And exactly what is your fascination with the Anal sex you are not having and convinced that every gay couple is having? Why is that that is the first place you and your ilk go?

    This bizarre preoccupation that so many bible believing Christians seem to have with anal sex— the first place you go, the only thing you can see, the only way you can understand two men in a loving, fulfilling relationship— is indeed, VERY TELLING.

    Statistics tell us that about 38% of heterosexual couples have anal sex. That means there are more heterosexuals havIng anal sex, or more accurately, admit to having having sex, than there are gay people IN TOTO. Look at some heterosexual porn— not that you would admit to it— and you see the anal sex is a HUGE preoccupation of hetero men.

    If it bothers you so much, maybe you should stop thinking about it as much as you do. I can assure you that I don’t think about the sex other people are having if I find the those people or those sex practices abhorrent.

  • When we are not busy taking care of the cast off, unwanted products of irresponsible heterosexualsexuals’ reproduction,

  • But did anyone study what happens when people remain married in a terrible relationship that also damages the lives of their children?

    No they did not. That issue was not studied or controlled for.

    My parents did remain married, and my two brothers are total messes. Well, one of them is a total mess. The other committed suicide.

  • Of course you are arguing hypotheticals, the moment you said “no one knows what the effects of same sex marriage will be.”

  • White evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians, especially in my South, are an embarrassment. This article and the one concerning Islam shows the hateful and negative attitudes their brand of Christianity breeds.

  • Yes, they studied the impact of conflict in marriages.

    The solution they proposed was as bad or worse than the disease.

  • That’s interesting. We all know what the Bible says, we all know what happens when people ignore God’s mercy and blessings, and keep on spitting in God’s face. But Spuddie and Elagabalus wanna say “God hasn’t judged us yet, therefore He will NEVER judge us.”

    If atheism is true, then Spuddie and Elagabalus are actually correct. But if atheism is false, then their position is Pure Suicide, and America is in deep trouble.

    So let’s do a “PRRI study” on THIS: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+18:7-10

  • LGBT people are genuinely grateful to their heterosexual parents for giving birth to each generation of LGBT people.

  • They are welcome to provide services in MA if they don’t discriminate. They CHOSE to leave the state because they insisted on discrimination in the name of dogma. They would rather children remain in foster care or orphanages than not discriminate. Good riddance to them.

  • Catholic officials worked very hard to teach us that the sexual abuse of children by their priests is acceptable, so what’s the big deal?

  • So you have nothing on the alleged potential problems of marriage equality besides threats from your invisible sky daddy coming down to punish us all.

  • That pretty much wraps up “Of course you are arguing hypotheticals, the moment you said ‘no one knows what the effects of same sex marriage will be.'”

  • MY attacks? You mistake me for another poster or are just using a canned line here.

    Eat a bag of crap m0r0n.

    Catholic schools are free to teach whatever bigoted nonsense they want. They just aren’t entitled to any kind of public tax payer subsidy to do it.

  • No, you are mistaking yourself for someone whose views on such subjects needs to be taken seriously.

    What you think about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not only none of your business but a poor argument against the civil liberties of others.

  • Oh, you prefer Sociology instead of Scripture?
    No problem; the customer is always right.

    “This institution (heterosexual marriage) has always been intended primarily, however, to serve the needs of children. It provides an ideal scenario for parents and children.
    Not every individual or individual couple lives up to the ideal, of course, but the ideal remains effective nonetheless except, of course, in societies that are breaking up.”

    — Paul Nathanson (gay) and Katherine Young (pro-gay), McGill University

  • Still nothing there. A half baked declaration lacking a conclusion.

    Still nothing addressing alleged problems marriage equality is supposed to create.

    Besides the fact the statement applies to things like divorce or single parentage as well as admonishes widowhood.

    No link to the statement? Any reason you don’t want us to see the full context of that line?

  • So you are declaring you are a really big bigot then. One who not only hates gays but anyone who is not a reactionary.

    Yes we get it, the right wing has decided to be anti gay. One more form of bigotry to turn into a political platform and get fools to vote against their economic interests.

  • You sure spend a lot of time over at JMG for a straight, Christian. Gun loving winger.

  • Those segregationists became the backbone of the republican party. Segregation was a majority view as well. So not only are you the political descendant of segregationists, you use their arguments as well.

  • There is another damaging aspect of gay marriage that people don’t talk about much, but it’s absolutely true. You check this out. Christian writer David Sliker points out:

    “What lies at the core of the debate is not the right of men to live with other men and enjoy civil and political rights and privileges; it is about men being able to engage together in intimacy and have that union considered as holy and sacred as the union between a man and a woman in “holy matrimony.” In other words, the greatest desire in redefining marriage is the redefinition of morality itself, what is sin and what is not, and what is shameful – and what is not.

    So check it: People of ALL religions (because virtually all the world religions draw the line at gay marriage), see gay activists using the power of government to mess with their religion, their lives and their children’s lives. Gay activists seek to exploit the government to use the penalty of law to force each religion to surrender to the Gay Religion’s re-definded”morality”. Much like the former USSR using the dreaded KGB and “Gulag” system to force Russian Christians to shut up and hide.

    Which is a clear violation — a clear wipeout — of American constitutional religious freedom. Americans have a lot to lose, with gay marriage.

  • The only Jose Carioca is the face Jose Carioca.

    You should know, right, Jose who calls himself bob when he isn’t calling himself Jose?

  • Actually, the divorce rate went down slightly. So there was a consequence.

  • The Catholics chose to go out of business because they couldn’t get state. Only, and because they would not be allowed to discriminate inate against tax paying, productive citizens.

  • So, you and David sliver are complaining that people who have different religious beliefs than you could possibly have a legal right to have different religious views than you.

  • The only Ben in Oakland is the face Ben in Oakland, who calls himself …. what is that term of your endearment hubby uses – “Pookie”?

  • Don’t are about the data? 75 studies have concluded children raised by gay parents do just as well as children raised by straight parents. 4 have concluded otherwise, although at least 1 of those 4 didn’t even look at children raised by gay parents and really doesn’t deserve to be in this list.
    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
    What specific issues are you so worried about? And how much more data do you need before you admit your concerns are unfounded? Oh wait, you don’t actually care about the data or what the consequences really will be, you just want a fig leaf for your homophobia.

    You know what else had consequences no one saw coming? Penicllin. Electricity. The internet. The microchip. The Emancipation Proclamation. Women’s Suffrage. The Space Race. And just about every discovery or historical event ever. We have more than enough data to show that fears about the most obvious potential harmful consequences are unfounded. Whatever else happens, we’ll deal with. If you really are so scared of change, go join an Amish community.

  • You sure spend a lot of time at Religion News Service for a homosexual religion-hating left-wingnut.

  • Except that you don’t know of any and admit you don’t know of any and deny that when you claim To know of any you are not arguing about hypotheticals which you also claim should never be argued eCept when you do it.

    Intellectual dishonesty is about as close to honesty as you will ever get, Mr. Bob who is also Mr. Jose.

  • You need to address the gender-complementarity point that Nathanson & Young are making there. Doesn’t work for you to duck it.

    “For a long time I thought, if I could just find the right partner, we could raise my kids together. But it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom.”

    — Doug Mainwaring, “Kids Need Both Mom and Dad, Says Gay Man Opposed to Gay Marriage”, Christian Post, 01-29-2013.

    But you’re right about the Nathanson/Young link. Tried to copy it in there. Anyway, you gonna LOVE trying to refute the “full context” that you asked for.

    https://catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/answering-advocates-of-gay-marriage.html

  • There have been numerous articles about the “studies (which) have concluded children raised by gay parents do just as well as children raised by straight parents”.

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

    The quality of the studies, all of which dealt with lesbian parenting, leaves quite a bit to be desired. Many of them were conducted by people with axes to grind.

    You would know this were you objective rather than a running dog for a particular outcome.

    I first encountered the objections in a scholarly article taking apart the APA committee’s hastily assembled “conclusion”.

    The conclusions are politically derived, not scientifically based.

    So, what you’re suggesting is f-ck the children, let’s a take a flier on the future, because after all I GET WHAT I WANT.

    And that is the sum and substance of your position.

  • A societal change of WHAT magnitude?

    Gay people now have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Same as heterosexuals. THERE is your first hypothetical.

    Imagine the horror of it all. gay people being treated the same as heterosexuals, instead of the threats to society which are implicit in every single one of your comments.

    The same types of arguments were made about Jews, about women, about black people, about everything that presented a threat to the established order. why, believe it or not, the Roman authorities made the Same comments about Christianity.

    When the Supreme Court decided in favor of sodmy laws in 1986, one of their citations was the ELIZABETHAN belief that homosexuality caused earthquakes. Every single viciously antigayreligionist for the past 500years has argued along the same lines. The lord destroyed sodom and Gomorrah for something that isn’t even remotely a part of that story, and will destroy any society that’s even thinks about treating gay people as full and valued human beings.

    It is simply breathtaking, but absolutely no surprise, that this is the level of your argument. Bigotry, bias, fear mongering.

  • You might to reread your first sentence, which makes absolutely no logical sense at all.

    Then again, what else is new?

    After all for you it’s always “I GET WHAT I WANT”.

  • You can’t help yourself. Every so often. You tell the truth. But you are wrong about the propagates of the propaganda

  • Anyone who does not see it your way is engaged in “bigotry, bias, fear mongering”.

    “The same types of arguments were made about Jews, about women, about black people, about everything that presented a threat to the established order. why, believe it or not, the Roman authorities made the Same comments about Christianity.”

    And the same types of arguments were made about the Nazis.

    There’s a message there, but you’ll never get it because “I GET WHAT I WANT” is your sole and only criterion.

  • No, I get what you don’t want me to have based upon your bigoted beliefs.

    Too bad, Snowflake.

    Cry me a river.

  • No, I would rather continue working on a constitutional amendment to bypass you and your codependents.

  • But I am not a religion hating person, just a dominionist, fascism pretending to be religion hater.

    I am hardly left wing, but to someone to the right of Attila the Hun, I might appear so.

    Cry me a river, Snowflake.

  • Good morning Ben! You and Spuddie are up early today, it seems.

    Oh, and I mean “homosexual sociologist and scholar Paul Nathanson.” Because he really IS a sociologist and scholar.

    (Regardless of sexual preference, we all want to see good scholarship around here, don’t we?)

  • You are most certainly anti-religion, as I have demonstrated repeatedly by simply quoting your own posts.

    Ditto left-wing.

  • No, he just thinks that gay people are a contagion, kind of like you.

  • No, it wasn’t. It was a bigoted religious view that has no place in government, much like segregation.

  • But I am not a religion hating person, just a dominionist, fascism pretending to be religion hater.

    I am hardly left wing, but to someone to the right of Attila the Hun, I might appear so.

    Cry me a river, Snowflake.

  • Nonsense. Objection to same-sex marriage is no different from objection to interracial marriage.

  • I don’t need to address anything here. I am not trying to attack existing marriage rights here or making claims of some inherent danger which requires somehow we remove them for some citizens.

    All you have is quotemining from sources you are afraid to provide links to, despite being obvious cut and pastes. No links mean one can assume it is out of context or fabricated. Christians are too well known for using fake quotes to support shaky premises.

    Personal beefs and self styled declarations here are not evidence of anything here. Your quotes mean nothing. Tie it together with something you can concretely say as a problem here which would need to be taken seriously here.

    Tell me how they tie into the subject here as reasons to attack existing marriage equality rights. I don’t see it.

  • “the greatest desire in redefining marriage is the redefinition of morality itself, what is sin and what is not, and what is shameful – and what is not.”

    Here’s the deal: we live in a pluralistic country with laws that are not based on your definition of sin but rather on the U.S. Constitution.

    “Which is a clear violation — a clear wipeout — of American constitutional religious freedom.”

    There is no freedom guaranteed under the Constitution to use your religion as an excuse to discriminate against me. None.

  • It’s truly sad that so many people are buying into the belief that a land mine is a firearm. As for the question about bakers, the question itself pre-supposes a viewpoint, and falsely describes the situation. If asked is business owners should be forced to participate in or provide support for activities they consider sinful, I suspect the results would be different. And none of the businesses I’ve heard of refused to serve gays or lesbians for any reason whatever.

  • This is what happens when evil is legalized. Just like abortion. When the courts legalized it, we have more murders of babies because people think that when something is legal, its right.

  • Yes, let’s be totally honest.

    “Paul Nathanson is a Canadian religious studies academic. He has a BA[wp] in art history (1968); an MLS (library service, 1971); a BTh[wp] (Christianity, 1978); an MA[wp] in religious studies (Judaism and Islam); and a PhD[wp] (1989). He began his academic career by writing Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America, “about the convergence of sacred[wp] and profane[wp] patterns in popular culture.”[1]
    Together with Katherine K. Young[wp] Nathanson has published a series of works on the subject of misandry, which the authors assert is a form of prejudice[wp] and discrimination against men and boys that has become institutionalized[wp] in North American society.”

    Not even remotely a spciologist, but a catholic apologist.

    And then there is this.

    Nathanson is currently working as a senior researcher in the McGill University department of Religious Studies, while testifying as a paid expert on behalf of social conservatives opposing legal recognition of same-sex marriages. In Varnum v. Brien Nathanson’s testimony concerning purported social effects of recognizing same-sex marriages was stricken by the trial court, which explained that the opinions Nathanson expressed were “not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or . . . on empirical research in any sense.” Since then, Nathanson has been proferred as an expert in Perry v. Schwarzenegger by litigants who intervened in the case to defend a California constitutional amendment stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry. Just before the trial, the defendant intervenors against gay marriage removed him as a witness, but the trial court judge allowed his prior videotaped deposition to be entered into evidence by the marriage-equality plaintiffs. At trial, plaintiff’s expert witness Professor Gary Segura testified that some of Nathanson’s claims were “misleading”, “bizarre in the extreme”, and “almost nonsensical to respond to”.

    But it sort of like trump. You can be a lying, adulterous, fornicating, creep, but as long as you support the Christian Right,you get a mulligan.

    Try again.

  • Whereas your position can be summarized as “I hate this and absolutely nothing, no matter how thoroughly researched and backed by empirical data, could convince me otherwise”.

  • No, my position is:

    “The current regime was instituted by judicial fiat led by someone known for fortune cookie reasoning, not by democratic processes.”

    “I believe that a million or more years of evolution mean something, and based on the science and experience, I believe tampering with nature should be done with fear and trepidation, especially when dealing with the core structures of human society.”

    “Since there is essentially zero thoroughly researched empirical data, but there is well-documented and well-funded propaganda campaign to alter basic societal structures, my guard is up and remains up.”

    Your position is political, period.

  • Sorry, Bubba, but we now have a Supreme Court decision to back me up. You may not like it, but it’s the law of the land.

  • Thank you for demonstrating your contempt for democratic processes and your definition of “bigotry” as “disagrees with me”, again.

  • sweetheart. you have been duped. not even the supreme court can refute logic with nonsense.

  • “Not even remotely a spciologist (sic), but a catholic apologist.”

    Your citations fail to support “a catholic apologist”.

    “At trial, plaintiff’s expert witness Professor Gary Segura testified that some of Nathanson’s claims were ‘misleading’, ‘bizarre in the extreme’, and ‘almost nonsensical to respond to”.”

    Amazing. The opposition’s expert disparaged its opponent’s expert.

    Gary Segura is an expert on “the politics of America’s growing Latino minority”. He has a B.A. in Political Science from Loyola University of the South and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    I look in vain for any indication of training in sociology.

    I do note that Segura served as an expert witness for the pro-LBGT side in 2013 and 2015 in Windsor v. United States, Hollingsworth v Perry, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

    Sounds like a paid LBGT apologist.

  • Of course you characterize anyone who has different views than yours as a “bigot”.

  • Actually there is.

    The only restrictions are in interstate commerce and political rights.

    Other than that anyone can discriminate 24/7.

  • Actually the 14th amendment supports recognition of a same sex union in state B after it was entered into in state A.

    Had Obergefell v Hodges stopped there, it would have been on sound ground in legal reasoning.

  • They are free to provide adoption services in those places. They just don’t like obeying the non-discrimination laws.

  • You are going to have to define “sodomy and buggery” for everybody…and tell us if heterosexuals do not also engage and enjoy that activity?…If they do, then explain why homosexuals cannot enjoy it too !!

  • Having that mouse in your pocket so that you can use the royal “we” must really make you feel important, but no “we all” don’t know “what the Bible says.” That’s why there are so many different translations of it. Furthermore, folks like you act as if the Bible fell out of the sky already translated in the way you prefer to read it, when in fact there are at least 4 differing versions of the Bible in length and numbers of books included, let alone translations of it. Furthermore, regardless of version or translation, the Bible itself refers to source materials not included in the Bible that none of the compilers of the four or so competing versions felt merited inclusion in the final cut, even though the Bible text itself does. And then, there’s the whole issue of how the Old Testament and New Testament have a huge gap in tone, doctrine and narrative that gave rise to the patchwork dogma most Christians consider fundamental known as the Trinity, but is itself a man-made effort to bridge that gap. So, no, “we all” don’t know “what the Bible says,” and we never will.

  • This is an important survey report, showing clearly that most people of this nation want LGBT marriage to be legal and do not want discrimination against LGBT people or LGBT marriage in the market places to be allowed.

    There is much more support for fair and non-discriminatory treatment of LGBT people than we would know if we just listened to politicians or just read most newspapers. I think it important that people ask candidates about their position on these issues in public forums, bring up these statistics if the issue comes up in conversation, AND vote based on this issue. There is much less division than one would think – just some well-funded loud voices raising a ruckus over an issue that most of us have settled in our own minds and hearts.

  • That’s a whole lot of wordage to say nothing of value at all. “Gawd” help anyone who has to listen to or read such drivel on a regular basis. Fools “proving” their horse manure to be “wisdom” by piling it higher and deeper only prove that they are full of it. What Obergefell actually does in the world of religion is separated the bigoted chaff of humanity from the pure wheat with the “pure love of Christ” or charity in their hearts. Railing against equal marriage puts you on the wrong side of Christian charity, plain and simple

  • Read it. It’s garbage.

    It treats marriage equality and gay families as a hypothetical. So it is obsolete in of itself.

    Relies entirely on stipulation and assumption rather than supportable ideas and is offensively reductive of all marriage. Worse still is its wildly bigotry based premise that get couples are inherently poor parents by dint of being gay.

    Also just be sure you believe your version of marriage is somehow superior to others, doesn’t mean others have no right to get married.

    Standard irrational nonsense. So loopy they you couldn’t even bring yourself to even try to argue its points and had to refer to it indirectly.

    Now that we have marriage equality, I have yet to see you bring u pwhat hazards it has brought to our country besides the aching butthurt of bigots who couldn’t act like civil human beings.

  • Exactly and funny how it’s the kids and grandkids of the racist bigots now railing against Obergefell after the fact. I can remember Mormon bigots still talking against interracial marriage even after there were interracial Mormon families.

  • Hey, that’s good Ben. You went to all that trouble to search for Nathanson, so let’s look a little further. Why would anybody ever get the idea that gay Paul Nathanson can be considered a sociologist?

    1. Probably because his textbooks, “Spreading Misandry” and “Sanctifying Misandry”, (co-authored with Young), are listed in the, umm, Sociology section of McGill-Queen’s University Press. Also, Google.com classifies them under “Social Science / Popular Culture” and “Social Science / Gender Studies.”

    2. Probably because Nathanson/Young’s works are recognized for their sociological importance, although their PhD is Religious Studies:

    “Dr. Nathanson and Dr. Carole (Lieberman, of “Dr. Carole’s Couch”) walk this minefield of the war between the sexes, in the context of current events and the Golden Globes, as a sociological snapshot of the state of affairs between men and women. And it ain’t pretty. Dr. Nathanson gives an historical perspective of this war, since he has been studying it for the past 30 years.” — VoiceAmerica.com

    So what you have here, Ben, is no lie. You have two PhD religious studies professors and researchers, who have made their professional mark writing a series of sociology-impacting textbooks about the war between men and women.
    So you won’t be the one to show that they **aren’t** sociology scholars as well as religion scholars. Sorry Charlie. Meanwhile, nobody can refute what the two scholars wrote about gay marriage. The End.

  • You don’t get it. Like others on this thread, you get in touch with your feelings and confuse the exegesis of the second and third chapters of Genesis with my opinion, an opinion that I have not stated. The exegesis does not care about your feelings, and the exegesis does not care about my feelings.

  • WTF do you know about legal reasoning?? Your ignorant and bigoted homophobia is anything but reasonable.

  • That’s cute. Except humans aren’t naturally a monogamous species living in isolated pairs. Our pre-civilization ancestors lived in non-monogamous groups with extended family, ergo we’ve already “tampered with nature” for the last couple thousand years by having marriage to begin with. Not to mention cities, medicine, agriculture, etc. Gay marriage doesn’t even rank in the top 50 most unnatural things our species does. BTW, homosexuality occurs all the time in nature.

    And there isn’t zero empirical data. There is empirical data from decades of studies. The strength of the studies may be debatable but their existence is not. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If you think something needs to be done better, propose a study that you would believe the results of. Otherwise admit that you don’t care about the results.

    Since we’re clearing out the strawmen, my position is that the research has been done. 75 studies done over the last few decades have found zero evidence of any negative consequences of same-sex parenting. Other social consequences have had over a decade to manifest in Massachusetts and none have.

    Your utter dismissal of dozens of studies done over decades and your characterization of gay marriage as unnatural make your true motives entirely clear. The only question is whether you realize it and can own up to it.

  • Without more detail about how the survey was conducted, a fairer guess as to the import of the poll is that people want to be fair to LGBT individuals as to property, healthcare, and so on. The “same sex marriage” solution is a fait accompli.

  • Jesus Christ — who is the final authority on “Christian charity”, do you agree? — was not a gay marriage supporter at all. Oh no. In fact, for Jesus, actual marriage ONLY exists in one form. One design. One arrangement. Either you obey God’s express gender-complementarity — or you got NO marriage, period.

    4 “Haven’t you read,” he (Jesus) replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
    5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
    ?

    And what is Jesus’ response to homosexual behavior? Jesus is the one who cleans it all up and removes that thing from you, because otherwise somebody IS at a very huge risk of a very bad something.

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
    11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

  • The evidence is that humans are a naturally monogamous species, with various permutations according to certain local needs, just as the evidence is that incest is a universal taboo, as is cannibalism, again with some local variations.

    The exceptions prove the rule.

    I am not sure what pre-civilization customs might have to do with civilized human beings, civilized for at least 3,000 years and in places longer than that.

    That “homosexuality occurs all the time in nature” is both untrue – “all the time” being the error – and irrelevant, unless you suggest humans should live like animals.

    We don’t have a high probability of having every third male killed hunting wooly mammoths or a similar percentage of women dying in childbirth leaving children of tender years behind.

    My “utter dismissal of dozens of studies done over decades” is based on science and my “characterization of gay marriage as unnatural make” is based on natural law, also based on science.

    I’ve already seen the damage to families caused by mind pundits and “experts” since WWII, I think you need to take your politically-motivated experiments to an island somewhere with a group of people who share your beliefs and we’ll note the results in a couple of generations.

  • You’d be shocked WTF I know about legal reasoning, although given what you know about legal reasoning you might not comprehend it.

  • How about, “We all have different religious views but YOUR religion — the intolerant Gay Religion — is trying to use government bullying to take away OUR diverse constitutional rights to express and work towards OUR diversely religious opposition to gay marriage.” Now that’s an accurate statement.

  • For your bigoted information the passage that you quote but don’t cite from Matthew 19 is clearly about divorce and not homosexuality:

    3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    But since you holy hypocrites swap spouses regularly, you feel the need to retask the passage to another purpose that doesn’t make you look like the hypocrites that you are.

  • Sorta like gay marriage, really. Essentially, it’s poison on the installment plan.

  • Stupid scare tactics and fostering the hatred of atheist—I say you are giving ‘false witness’ and you don’t do the “good Christians” of the world any favors. In fact you malign them.

  • your citing garbage….One person doesn’t speak for the entire gay rights community (I’m straight but I’m not NARROW!). petty-petty nonsense.

  • you are a time waster with your pathetic attempts to get Spuddie and others to look into your raillery. Who needs it. You can’t think straight and your posts are garbage.

  • awww, the little snowflakes like Nathanson want to be taken seriously.
    Your attempts to do a ‘gotcha’ for Spuddie and the rest of us are lame to extreme. PhD’s can be loonies, too, and you are a shill for two of them.

  • pathetic argument. What people do behind closed doors in the privacy of their home harms no one. A man’s home is his castle and even the SCOUTUS ruled on this. There is no “American constitutional religious freedom”

    What are you nattering on about. This is lunacy.

  • True. I also think its worth warning people of how deadly and harmful it is. Don’t you?

  • there is no “Gay Religion”! You are making things up out of your paranoia and hatred.

  • privacy rights apply to private conduct in the privacy of one’s bedroom. The SCOTUS has upheld this. Privacy is at the core of the constitution.

  • JP you have now entered the zone of unreality. And you’re talking in circles.

  • we live in a diverse country, religiously, socially, racially. Christianity is not the state religion nor is there an establishment church. Our founders saw to that. You, sir, are a Christian zealot and your posts are irrational and you show you are a complete religious nutcase.

  • Why, are you thinking of obtaining a JD?

    Doing so would certainly cut down on the output of nonsense.

  • in Boston, just before the Catholic priest sexual abuse crisis broke on the country, the right wing catholics were writing letter tot he editor defaming the Boston Globe (and the famous Spotlight team which published the accusations about the Catholic Church in Boston, were saying that the Globe engaged in “anti-Catholic vitriol.” The defenders of the Diocese and the criminal acts of Cardinal Law (who covered up and switched pedophile priests from parish to parish) sounded like you Corvette.

    You can’t rerun or change the past of the perfidy of the Roman Catholic Church and its pedophile priests. Yours is an attempt to deflect animosity on GLBT. Too bad your pope has done NOTHING to stop further pedophilia. NOTHING was done because the Curia and the Vatican blocked him.

  • Catholic and religious extremism is the poison in our society now. Go read about Roy Moore.

  • scared aren’t you. Can’t come up with a cogent argument so you want to block someone. Scared shitless.

  • Footnote: “floydee” displays the two “qualities” that I associate with “holy hypocrites:” the burning need to judge others unfairly and a willingness to knowingly deceive others so as to justify their need to judge. The misuse of the passage from Matthew 19 is prime evidence of both of those two sad “qualities.”

  • Abortion is not murder. It is a medical procedure. You are what happens when theocracy sneaks up on you.

  • That’s a real problem. You don’t know what I am talking about AND you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Must suck.

  • …other than what has already been determined in light of Constitutional principles and prevailing law.

  • Not particularly.

    He and I have danced this dance multiple times, and there comes a point when one of us simply needs to bring unproductive exchanges to and end.

  • Shorter Floydlee:

    My invisible skydaddy is going to punish you for disagreeing with me!

  • Keep hugging that cis het male privilege of yours. I’m sure it makes you feel special and important.

  • You are so afraid of “mind pundits”. Is that Christian for “people who think”? Because your opposition to gay marriage is most certainly not based in science or “natural law”: you just have a boring sex life.

  • Good-bye, then. Gay people will continue to get married, without your approval, because your opinions don’t matter.

  • Bigotry = denying the same rights to others (in this case, same-sex couples) that you enjoy yourself.

  • Many conservative religious people are realizing that they need to focus their oppositional voice on abortion, not gay marriage. Their arguments against gay marriage were weak, often based on a false history of marriage (“always and everywhere between one man and one woman.” which is empirically nonsensical) and the confusion among Catholics about the difference between marriage–a universal institution not confined to Christianity–and the Sacrament of Matrimony, which only applies to Catholics and Orthodox. Their false claims must at some point have become embarrassing.

  • This article is about the civil legality of gay marriage. Its equivalency to “holy matrimony” is not really at issue. You can get married in any church you wish, and consider your marriage to be sacred, but in the end, your state-issued marriage certificate is the same as any gay couple’s.
    In any event, whatever the world’s religions may have to say on paper, the study here demonstrates that most religiously-identified individuals approve of SSM’s civil legality.

  • It does seem puzzling that the Christian God, always called a god of love and sometimes even of mercy, would create a class of people for whom the alleged rules of this god would condemn this class to lifelong sexual torture and depression (if obeying the rules) and ridiculed and treated with contempt by the pious (even if obeying the rules) . The only sane conclusion is that the Christian god is not a god of love or mercy. And that conclusion would fit well with the behavior of so many Christians.

  • Perhaps not. The LSATs weed out people with no reading comprehension or organized thinking skills.

  • That would be the study by Paul Amato of Penn State about low-conflict and high-conflict marriages.

  • “Oh, you prefer Sociology instead of Scripture?”

    There’s a proper role for both.

    Faith AND Reason.

  • A man having sex with another man’s feces hole is the reason for opposition to gay marriage

    And plenty of men have sex with a woman’s “feces hole”. So, do you also oppose hetero marriage?

    Why do homophobes always focus on the butt sex? Not all gay men have butt sex with other gay men and plenty of hetero men have anal sex with women. From what I understand it’s roughly the same percentage.

  • Does considering a fetus “human life” (an undeniable scientific fact, when phrased that way) somehow preclude Matthew Shepherd from being a human life?

  • I suspect phrasing on that question, more than any other, drastically influences the result.

  • Lets see what the CDC says:
    “A Snapshot
    Overall, MSM account for:
    • 56 percent (estimated 615,400 persons in 2014) of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the United States.
    • More than two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year (70 percent, or an estimated 26,200 infections in 2014).
    While CDC estimates that four percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among them is more than 44 times that of other men (rate ranges from 522 to 989 per 100,000 MSM compared to 12 per 100,000 other men). “

  • Mother and Father are also verbs. You need to be mothered, loved and cared for, nurtured and encouraged. You need to be fathered, to be tough and stand up for yourself, taught honor and character, disciplined. Those aren’t gender roles defined by a penis or vagina.

  • Marriage is a legal term. That is why atheists can have a marriage. That is why you need a lawyer and not a priest to end one. AND that is why the minister must say “…by the power vested in me by the STATE of (NY) I now pronounce you …..” It is a state function and ANY religious involvement, regardless of which religion, is OPTIONAL! Your freedom of religion also affords me the freedom FROM religion….they are 2 heads of the same coin.

  • 14th Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Marriage is an equal protection.

  • Then you will want to actually try, umm, refuting the very clear (and also quite scriptural) point that I offered to Spuddie.

    Doing so will demonstrate to all readers, that I am indeed giving “false witness.”
    (If you succeed, that is!!)

  • Yeah, that one is a bit more blatantly false than most, by generalizing the situation.

  • I likewise prefer both “Faith & Reason”, but in a mixed-company forum like THIS one, you gotta make a good-faith effort to deal with the customer’s preference.

    (Which helps you to Power-Bomb the customer off the Top Rope with Scripture!! I can’t help it, I just love those WWE Power-Bombs.)

  • There’s honestly no rational way to divorce the “civil legality” of marriage from either its central biological aspect (Science as it pertains to males and females) or its central theological aspect (Scripture, both Jewish and Christian and the other world religions, as it pertains to males and females.)

    The exclusively gender-complementarian nature of marriage is where Science and Scripture join forces. This complementarity is not only proven by the “Outside Plumbing”, but also by the “Inside Plumbing” of men and women. The inner strengths, virtues, values that the two amazing genders bring to marriage & family. This overriding gender complementarity can even be seen in lesbians and gay men. I’ve seen it myself.

    Hence at NO time, under any metric (Biology, Bible, Virtues, Values), are men and women interchangeable, even for a childless marriage. Polls can’t change that fact. Gay marriage is therefore Fake Marriage, a damaging sham for both individuals and our nation that relies on the societal glue of marriage & family. And like Mainwaring said, gay marriage writes “Deprivation” on kids’ hearts

  • Now, let’s look at this. Given Jeremiah 18:7-10, which makes clear that not even America The Great is immune from God holding it directly and devastatingly accountable for its sins, L. Ray’s response is to come up with an atheistic argument that is designed to destroy the authority, accuracy, historicity, and reliability of every single truth claim in the Bible, from Gen. to Rev.

    (I’m not saying that L. Ray is an atheist. Don’t know yet. I’m just saying that the argument he’s using, IS atheistic. Attacks God as much as attacks Bible.)

    But you already see some problems. How can L. Ray even use the phrase “real Christians” when he’s already removed any rational basis for determining (from Scripture) what a “real Christian” is? How can Ray even say “…the Bible, when read accurately”, when Ray has employed an atheistic argument that rationally means the Bible can NEVER be read accurately?

    And those are just the easy questions. That’s merely with 30 seconds of reflection. Ain’t even got into the actual responses Christians have already offered to counter those other statements in L. Ray’s post.

  • Well, he was aborted. Hey, you can’t impose your values on people in another state, Charlotte, that’s a theocracy, honey.

  • Try looking at the ghetto filth in the Democratic Party if you want to find “embarassments.”

  • Hey Penny….why don’t you tell us why The Globe praised the Catholic Church and Law for treating priests and letting them return in a 1990 editorial ?

  • They can enjoy whatever they want. I just don’t want it taught or promoted or used to recruit innocents.

  • They were free to provide adoption serives for 100 years before the term “discrimination” was used against us.

    No matter: now we retalliate and close our social services and schools to non-Catholic blacks. Let the anti-Catholic Negroes who voted to attack the Church and Catholics rot.

  • Sorry, disliking something is not “phobic” just rational. Just like I dislike anal sex or Marxism.

  • Except interracial marriage was legal in most states and had been normal for centuries.

    SSM is a fraud and not a marriage in any sense. Like marrying a man and a donkey. Or a porcupine. Or a piece of feces.

  • Hey bub……the Bible condomns homosexuality and Sodomy.

    Stop being so…..anal.

  • Actually, the new racists are urban black bigots like Keith Ellison, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the race sludge in the Democratic Party.

    Your party just replaced rural, Southern racists with urban, Northern and big city racists.

    The New Southern Strategy will take care of your party. Unless you are willing to divorce yourself from that ghetto race sludge.

    Jew-hating black bigots = Willie Horton, Part 2

  • No, natural law demands a man and a woman to procreate.

    You need to take Sex Education 101, honey.

  • Thanks for staying true to the two signs of being a holy hypocrite: 1) feeling “called” to judge others in place of God as if you were God; and 2) using deception mingled with truth to claim to yourself power and authority that simply is not yours.

  • Nonsense. Self centered, self indulgent, selfish nonsense.

    My marriage does nothing but displease you. Your “opposition”has a radical affect on my life, should it be realized.

  • Oh, I get it all right. You believe your understanding of your ancient book should have dominion over my life.

    I’m not comfused. You are confused about where your religion ends and my participation in society begins.

    If you don’t like anal sex, stop thinking about it.

  • You mean they are ridiculed among academics for their pseudo sociological nonsense.

    His testimony at the prop 8 trial was so bad that the antigays took him off the witness roster, andthe court put him on the witless roster. It was so bad that our side entered it into evidence.

    Grow up.

  • What is amazing is what you ignore. The antigays withdrew his test8mony, and it was entered into evidence as evidence of bias,

  • I believe it was a voltaire that said, “God made man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment.“

  • And it would be so nice if you worried about that and told that toall of the heterosexuals who breed and breed and breed and who have no thought for the children they produce.

  • Marriage is manifestly unnatural. Men and women don’t need marriage to procreate. And they don’t, frequently.

  • Naturally monogamous? Like trump? Like Mormons? Like Christian polygamy in Africa? Like IslamicMarriage? Like marriage in China? Like biblical marriage.

    Face it Blob. You are no more interested in truth than you are in democratic principles. Unless they favor you.

  • Stop thinking about anal sex. You’ll feel better.

    Or better yet, give into your darkest desires. You’ll feel better.

  • Sand that’s why th constitutional amendment you so desperate wish were to become real will say that, right? And all of your arguments about the dangers of gay marriage are just so much hogwash, right?

    Your hypocrisy is showing, blob.

  • Oh, a hood.

    I thought that you were wearing a giant c-ndom to go to a costume party as a p-nis.

  • The issues of abortion, “same sex marriage”, and a number of others belonged to the states, not the Federal government.

    However, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” does provide a nexus for compelling state A to recognize marriages made according to law in state B.

    As to “And all of your arguments about the dangers of gay marriage are just so much hogwash, right?”, well no.

    Since we have been through this at least a dozen times already, I will simply remind you that what I think the law is, or what the law should be, is always trumped by what the SCOTUS declares it to be, whether or not I like it.

  • Exceptions prove the rule.

    Let’s face it, Bennie, you’re only interested in what you want right f-cking now, and “be quick about it!”

  • The ideal situation is a traditional nuclear family sans conflict with an extended family supporting it.

  • That is a complete non sequitur. Marriage does not occur in nature. It is a human invention. Homosexuality, however, does occur in nature. All the time. In 1500 animal species and counting.

  • Except that it’s not. Perhaps if you hadn’t hung out in restrooms and park bushes to pick up your men you would be more healthy.

  • LOL. What were the klannies and nazis chanting in Charlottesville?
    “Unite the Right”.

    It’s your history. It’s your present. Own it you lying racist troll.

    “Unless you are willing to divorce yourself from that ghetto race sludge.”

    And you guys aren’t flaming racists who use bigotry as a political platform. The great thing about the “Democrat plantation” argument against conservative racism is how ironically racist it is.

  • You need to learn respect for gay and trans people. Take Constitutional Law 101, honey.

  • Christianity is a fraud, saying that a virgin gave birth to a guy who came back from the dead.

  • Don’t have anal sex or be a Marxist, then. Your bigoted religious beliefs have no place in the government.

  • Imposing their “values” on other people is all that Christians are good for, honey.

  • No, it is part of another human being’s body. Get your opinions off my body.

  • TMI! Why should I care what you do in the privacy of your own home?

    More importantly what kind of sick pervert cares what others do there?

    You are still a lying weasel who had to make stuff up for an argument.

  • I can’t see the long term consequences of same sex marriage being any different than the long term consequences of heterosexual marriage.

    People will fall in love, get married, some will have children, some will get divorced, some will live happily ever after, some will live miserably ever after, etc. You know, like people do.

  • No. The fetus is not an organ of the mother’s body but an independent entity that has its own organs etc. No mother should have the right to murder her baby.

  • Actually, the divorce rate went down slightly. So there was a consequence.

    Oh! The horror! Save us all!

  • Here is just one of the many indicators of how unhealthy and deadly homosexual sex is:
    From the CDC–” Overall, MSM account for:
    • 56 percent (estimated 615,400 persons in 2014) of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the United States.
    • More than two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year (70 percent, or an estimated 26,200 infections in 2014).
    While CDC estimates that four percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among them is more than 44 times that of other men (rate ranges from 522 to 989 per 100,000 MSM compared to 12 per 100,000 other men). “

  • Stop raping women, then they will have less of a need to abort your rape sperm.

  • What power? What authority? What judge? I don’t have any gigs on that.

    But make no mistake: God is the Final Ultimate Gig on all three counts, and He says in both the OT and NT (the Bible whose reliability you clearly deny), that:

    (1) He ain’t into gay marriage.

    (2) He can get a person out of the gay stuff if they want out.

    (3) He does all kinds of mercy, patience & blessings on everybody anyway, but there IS a genuine Point-Of-No-Return.
    And He won’t back down if a nation — ANY nation, no matter how prosperous & democratic
    — goes there.

  • Yawn. Not everyone believes in that god of yours, and you have no right to force your beliefs on others.

  • I have no power to force anything. But God says He has power to do stuff, (Jer. 18:7-10.)

    Both Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln, explicitly warned America not to forget God. But in 2018, America has forgotten God. Living on borrowed time, borrowed mercy.

  • Or were you talking about this:

    A man having sex with another man’s feces hole is the reason for opposition to gay marriage. For this reason, opposition to lesbian marriage is much less. And yes, a man and a woman can also do the anal stuff too, but they have a secret choice for their intercourse, while two men do not have that choice if they wish to have intercourse.

    This doesn’t even make sense. Two men make the same “secret choice” (whatever that means) when they decide to have intercourse.

    So, you oppose gay marriage because two men might have anal sex? It doesn’t matter that they might love each other. It doesn’t matter that they would like to be each other’s “next of kin” in case one dies? It’s just because one man might stick his penis in another man’s “feces hole'” Why do you care so much?

  • The businesses in the well-known lawsuits might not flatly refuse to serve any gays or lesbians, that’s what makes them sympathetic parties. The broader danger is that the laws and regulations being promulgated under the Trump regime would allow businesses to make such general refusals. In any event, there already have been refusals by pediatricians to treat the child of lesbian parents (*note that the “I’m afraid of getting HIV” defense favored by one prolific RNS commenter wouldn’t really apply to lesbians, a group at lowest risk). In fairness, this example happened when Obama was president.

  • The Mormon Church numbers just show how strong the LDS Kool-Aid is on all LGBTQ issues. The Mormon Church calls LGBTQ Mormons heretics for marrying LGBTQ and then tells rank-and-file Mormons that everyone’s money is just as green, no matter how they were designed to love. That’s the modern “Prosperty Gospel,” Mormon style: hate the “sinner” but love the money they have to spend. And Mormons wonder why so many LGBTQ Mormon teens attempt suicide every year.

  • Asked and answered: “But make no mistake: God is the Final Ultimate Gig on all three counts, and He says in both the OT and NT (the Bible whose reliability you clearly deny), that…”

    You state your bigoted personal opinion as if you were God’s appointed mouthpiece and that your opinions are actually part of God’s Word and Will. None of the details that follow really matter, the self-appointed “Judge for Jeezus” has spoken. It’s on us “fools” afflicted with common sense to rid ourselves of all logic and subject ourselves to your “divine knowledge and will.”

  • That’s ironically true, but not in the way you pretend. The propaganda is your shtick, while social justice is ours.

  • Oh, look, someone else point out how you declare yourself “Judge for Jeezus” and then want to declare the “Wurdnwil” of “Gawd.” Your hillbilly Bible-thumping is wearing thin.

  • If three of 100 *Unitarians* can be opposed to legal gay marriage, then you’ll always be able to find gay authors like Mainwaring etc. Their existence doesn’t really prove anything, other than the fact that there are outliers in just about every case. For that matter, if your theological arguments are correct, 100% of evangelicals should be on your side. This article demonstrates that it’s far from that, and it’s getting worse (for you).
    In any event, you’re really just proving my point. You can say anything religious against gay marriage, it will have zero effect on its legality and was not directly connected to the question asked in the poll.

  • That’s not precisely true, as in vitro fertilization implants an embryo directly into the uterus. The spermatozoon (yes, I feel like using big words today) is long gone.

  • Too late — the internet is insuring that everyone is being taught…As conservative parts of the country know…red states are some of the highest porn consuming states.

    Innocents of all sexual orientations have already left you behind !! (No pun intended)

  • Sounds like a good solution to that is to promote stable, monogamous relationships through a legal contract. Like Marriage!!

  • Well, it’s just a tragedy the the SCOTUS never bothered to consult the great “Bob Arnzen” regarding their decision.

  • Sorry, behavior that is offensive is not bigoted to be disliked. Are you a carpet muncher ?

  • Homophobes have little imagination. What imagination they do have is focused on their fantasies of homo-sex, which usually have little to do with reality.

  • The only stable relationships can be a marriage between and a man and a woman. Only they can be truly married.

  • I’ve noticed that. They always go straight to the butt sex.

    He’s yet another one suffering from Haggard’s Law.

  • Nope. That would be the sole domain of the holy hypocrites in both religion and politics. The “Prosperity Gospel” nonsense makes religious prostitutes out of the religious right. They fornicate their humanity for their “30 pieces of silver.”

  • So far the SCOTUS has never consulted with me.

    Nor have they consulted with the great Canis Pulchrae, either.

  • I would draw you a picture, but I have a feeling the censors would remove it.

    Obviously there are differences, the long-term of which are unknown, and whistling a happy tune does not change that.

  • So. Your argument boils down to: Some unknown thing maybe possibly happen someday to support your position.

    Sure. That’s a thing. Call us all when that happens.

  • I don’t recall saying the other wasn’t. But neither did I say it was. Personal opinion, I suppose. Everyone needs to do whatever they need to do.

  • True. But with the abortion issue they can claim to be “pro-life” rather than pro-discrimination and anti-democracy.

  • No, that is not my argument.

    But since I went into at some length already, I ain’t planning doing it again.

    You can catch it by perusing

    https://disqus.com/by/bobarnzen/

    The onus is on the innovators, not the other way around.

    However, as a matter of law “same sex marriage” is a fait accompli in the USA pending a constitutional amendment, which will take a propaganda campaign at least expensive and prolonged as the LGBT campaign was to try to equate it with the civil rights movement.

    On the positive side of that, the shrill reaction to the Masterpiece baker’s case indicates that, as with abortion and the radical abortion rights folks, the best campaigners for an amdendment will be the recipients of the “same sex marriage” largesse.

  • But why do you need to fixate on people who are not you, and imagining them doing what you have no desire to do? Why is what you imagine my sex life to be so important to you? I don’t invite you into my bedroom, I don’t ask your opinion of my sex life, I don’t have sex in front of you or in public, and generally speaking, do not discuss it with people who are not my husband or me.

    Why must my participation in the full benefits of society depend upon what you think, or claim that your god thinks, about something that is simply none of your business, or his, especially considering that I am not a member of your faith and don’t accept what you think your god thinks about it? This is especially important on that christian conservatives claim an absolute right to believe whatever it is they believe, but are not willing to afford the objects of their disaffection exactly the same rights that claim for themselves, especially the rights of religious freedom without interference from other people who don’t share those religious beliefs.

    This is the question that I have yet to hear answer for,

  • So, in short, you are agreeing that heterosexual sex is not required for heterosexual marriage.

    There goes that argument.

  • LGBT rights are civil rights. No one cares about your sexual hangups.

  • Here is what the “laid” get:
    “Total combined cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reported in 2015 reached the highest number ever, according to the annual Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Report released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    There were more than 1.5 million chlamydia cases reported (1,526,658), nearly 400,000 cases of gonorrhea (395,216), and nearly 24,000 cases of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis (23,872) – the most infectious stages of the disease. The largest increase in cases reported from 2014 to 2015 occurred in P&S syphilis (19 percent), followed by gonorrhea (12.8 percent) and chlamydia (5.9 percent). Chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis are the three most commonly reported conditions in the nation and have reached a record high level.

    “We have reached a decisive moment for the nation,” said Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. “STD rates are rising, and many of the country’s systems for preventing STDs have eroded. We must mobilize, rebuild and expand services – or the human and economic burden will continue to grow.”

    In recent years more than half of state and local STD programs have experienced budget cuts, resulting in more than 20 health department STD clinic closures in one year alone. Fewer clinics mean reduced access to STD testing and treatment for those who need these services.

    Chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis are curable with antibiotics. Widespread access to screening and treatment would reduce their spread. Most STD cases continue to go undiagnosed and untreated, putting individuals at risk for severe and often irreversible health consequences, including infertility, chronic pain and increased risk for HIV. STDs also impose a substantial economic burden: CDC estimates STD cases cost the U.S. healthcare system nearly $16 billion each year.

    Young people and gay and bisexual men continue to face the greatest risk of becoming infected with an STD, and there continue to be troubling increases in syphilis among newborns.

    “The health outcomes of syphilis – miscarriage, stillbirth, blindness or stroke – can be devastating,” Dr. Gail Bolan, Director of CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, said. “The resurgence of congenital syphilis and the increasing impact of syphilis among gay and bisexual men makes it clear that many Americans are not getting the preventive services they need. Every pregnant woman should be tested for syphilis, and sexually active gay and bisexual men should be tested for syphilis at least once a year.”

  • So… my 32 years with my husband is unstable? Our marriage has endured longer than 50% of heterosexual marriages, many of which are abusive. Doesn’t sound so stable to me.

  • Wrong. Every advance in LGBTQ civil rights is based entirely in the facts. It’s the howling holy hypocrites who proclaim their “Jeezus Jihad” as made up facts and then want everyone to get on board with their fresh loads of horse manure.

  • Let’s face it, blob. You don’t have the beginning of an understanding of what “the exception proves the rule” means. And further, when you were caught making a stupid comment in contravention of all reality, you simply resort to a personal attack.

  • Killing a newborn or someone who is old and frail isn’t the same as killing a young adult either, but that difference alone doesn’t make it not murder.

  • The Full Faith and Credit Act required it…..and if not for DOMA other states would have been required to recognize it.

  • 6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

    8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

  • When SCOTUS decided Loving v Virginia in 1967 the national approval of interracial marriage was about 23%….it did not reach majority approval until 1993. Same sex marriage was denied gay couples until it had clear majority support.

  • Over 1500 species of animals have homosexual members that form pair bonds. That means it happens in nature and makes it natural. Not the majority….but a predictable norm none the less. Normal.

  • When I see that loud-mouthed Christians are caring for those outside the womb as passionately as they defend a fetus inside the womb, then maybe I would consider your point of view.

  • Science has a great deal to say about sexual orientation. You’re a liar to the core.

  • The difference being that I don’t presume to know better than they, as you arrogantly do.

  • Yet world wide 96% of those infected with HIV/AIDS are heterosexual.

    44 percent of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV …..would be heterosexual then.
    In Indiana due to Gov Pence stopping a clean needle program a cluster of 143 young people became infected with HIV….all HETEROSEXUAL.

  • There is no science in “natural law”; it’s the typical superstitious theory of your cult.

  • So much for “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”.

    Who knew Thomas Jefferson was a cultist, along with those Yanks over there in the colonies.

    But they were and are in good company:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

  • Of course I do.

    I give an example:

    In Latin “homo sapiens” means “wise man”, the name of our species because our intellectual capacity exceeds that of our primate relatives and predecessors.

    And then there’s you, the exception which proves it.

    Unfortunately you’ve destroyed your standing to complain about personal attacks with all your personal attacks.

  • He was talking about male sperm and fertilizing the female egg.

    How did that become “heterosexual sex is not required for heterosexual marriage”?

  • Not sure what your point is, but it appears to be an attempted metafallacy backed up by circular reasoning. There’s really just no end, is there?

    I don’t actually label abortionists murderers, but that really comes down to a pretty precise definition of murder. I do, however, think that those who hold the idea that abortion is murder because it is the voluntary taking of a human life is pretty solid logic, and anyone challenging that logic ought to have a reason for doing so.

  • I do believe your simplistic, broad-brush perspective limps.

    Soldiers voluntarily take human lives in combat. Do you call that murder, too?

  • “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”… unless you’re a homo.

  • Well, you’re a liar to begin with, so yes, it is debatable. You’ve provided no proof that you’re heterosexual.

  • Ah, Beautiful Bitch, you’ve reached the bottom of your barrel of things to say, and now you’re going to throw poo.

    That’s nothing that was unexpected.

  • No such thing as a homosexual marriage. To have a marriage you must have a husband and a wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. Without 2 opposite sex people in a marriage you don’t have a marriage.

  • Yeah, that’s not a valid argument. Imagine the following: “Get your opinions off my bank account” (with respect to taxes); “Get your opinions out of my family” (with respect to parental corporal punishment); “Get your opinions out of my bloodstream” (with respect to mandatory immunization). I mean, there are valid privacy and bodily autonomy arguments to be made; that’s just not one of them.

  • Like I said, I don’t call abortion murder (although I think it’s immoral and should be illegal in most cases), but I see the logic. Similarly, I see the logic to calling soldiers who kill in war murderers (voluntary taking of a human life). In both cases, I disagree with the conclusion (in the case of war because the moral judgment rests on the decision-makers, not the soldiers, and in the case of abortion because killing someone you can look in the eyes requires more malice than killing something you can make all sorts of rationalizations about).

  • Well, I live in America, where same-sex MARRIAGE is legal and recognized. Boo hoo for you, whiner.

  • You have no right to tell other people what to do with their uteruses. Get used to being wrong.

  • I remember the case of the pediatrician that refused service to the child of a lesbian couple, and it has no resemblance to the bakers/florists/photographers — in fact, it DOES fit the poll question as phrased. It also has no 1st Amendment justification. And the judges shouldn’t be ruling based on any “broader danger,” but on the specifics of the situation before them where the 1st Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion DOES apply.

  • Direct correlation: the more people focus on individualism and reject the idea of accountability to an outside group, code, God, or so forth, the more likely diverse behavior will be encouraged. See a direct correlation with how many in Christian religious groups don’t believe their Bible is true in all it says.

    I wonder if the same trend will catch up with Islam in the next generation or two. The one consistency to all this change is selfishness, people want to do whatever they want to do and want everyone else to leave them alone to do it.

  • One could argue that postmodern though is infecting almost every aspect of institutional and corporate life in the US (education, media, moving into politics, many sectors of business) especially of the Derrida variety. Erase all identities, boundaries, restrictions, expectations, accountability; anything that norms behavior.

  • Under what specific circumstances is it “murder”? Go ahead, keep dancing your stupid dance. It’s entertaining.

  • The pediatrician had no less of a free exercise argument than do the bakers etc. She could just as easily argue that it’s a violation of her religious beliefs to treat the child because to do so would be “participating” in or “endorsing” a family she thinks should not exist. If you think that’s a ridiculous argument, then you’ll know why the courts have consistently rejected the baker/florist/photographers free exercise claims.
    The baker, specifically the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker, has a free speech argument that is somewhat unique and probably led to the Supreme Court’s interest in the case.
    The broader danger I’m talking about is related not to the Masterpiece case, but to the laws and regulations currently being put out by right-wing activists seeking to decimate antidiscrimination laws.

  • If your definition of murder is “the intentional killing of another human”, then it’s clearly murder. Like I said several times, that’s not how I would define murder, but it’s a reasonable definition.

  • You have no right to kill another human being.

    Arguing is easy when all you have to do is state your conclusion…

  • Your homophobia is a personal attack against gay people. Apparently, that’s all you’re good for.

  • All you’re good for is throwing poo at gay people. This is why millennials are killing Christianity, one keystroke at a time…

  • Spoken like someone who has never been raped, or ever even considered having an abortion for any reason.

    Being wrong is easy when you have no facts to back up your opinions.

  • You are not reasonable. A fetus is a part of another person’s body, not an independent human. That is a reasonable definition of a fetus.

  • Mary was no more a virgin than your mom, if she even existed in the first place, which I doubt.

  • No, it is only “pure suicide” if God is actually the same as the one described by fundamentalist Christians.

  • one who writes on a discussion board should be aware of counter arguments. Your interpretations of scripture are that. Your interpretations are part of a worldview that most people shun and avoid. They are contingent on your worldview and far from being scripture.
    Other people study scripture and come to different views. You are wrong to try to portray yourself as the sole scriptural interpreter of truth when you are so evidentiary biased and narrow.

  • Go tell that to the scientific community. (Below is just a sampling; I’ve got dozens of others.)

    The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

    “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

    From Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55:

    “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”
    Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17:

    “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

    Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43:

    “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
    Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2:
    (updated, still the same)

    “Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

    T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11:

    “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”

    Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2:

    “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

  • Charlotte, I find it ironic that you lean on “the facts” as your basis of argument when you have not presented any facts, but rather your bald assertions. (See my other response to you for an example of what facts look like.)

    At any rate, I think a rape exception to any potential abortion ban is appropriate since the pregnancy is not the result of the mother’s voluntary action. The exception, however, should not define the rule.

  • Change of opinion about marriage celebrated by the Church is lagging behind, but following, the change of opinion about civil marriage. A growing percentage of Christians understands the will of God for same-sex marriage that is revealed in the Bible — understands that the moral law for sexual conduct and the conditions on God’s blessing marriage are exactly the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals and for men and women. A growing percentage of Christians perceives that traditional interpretation of the Bible is wrong in finding God’s condemnation of homosexual behavior as such, and is wrong inferring that God would not bless any homosexual marriage. Eventually, truth will be apprehended generally in all denominations and the Church will celebrate homosexual marriages just as it celebrates heterosexual marriages. May God’s will, in this regard, soon be done on earth!

  • It’s about god giving instructions for abortion.

    Seems not all fetuses are considered human according to god.

  • I never offered a definition of murder. You painted yourself into a corner. And it still makes no sense.

  • What part of this doesn’t make sense? It seems like you are being willfully obtuse.

    Edit: Also, I know you didn’t offer a definition of murder. I offered a definition that some people use and explained that, using that definition, the logical conclusion is that abortion is murder. My definition of murder includes malice, which is the thing absent in abortion and individual soldiers in war. The absence of malice, however, doesn’t make abortion morally right.

  • You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. I asked specificially what circumstances would render abortion as “murder”, but you didn’t answer.

  • 38 states to be exact and the SCOTUS ruled that doing so was unconstitutional. Since marriage is a legal term and has legal protections the 14th amendment applies.

    14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal PROTECTIONS of the laws.

  • Yes I did. I answered that it would depend on your definition of murder. I had expressed that abortion would “not necessarily be murder”, and my response clarified that the variable was the definition of murder.

    You, on the other hand, have not provided any reason why abortion would not be murder under that definition.

  • Massachusetts has a Republican candidate running in a primary for governor against the moderate Republican governor we have who keeps Trump-think at arms length. Right-wing bigot and anti-LGBT, preacher. He’s pro-Trump to the max. Worse yet at the Repub. state convention 28% of the conventioneers voted for this zealot. It’s the latter group which is worrisome. His base.

  • Ah, but the “right to privacy” is enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decisions which protects women’s right to seek an abortion. I can hear your teeth gnashing as goobers like you read this. RvW was rightly decided and you are out in the cold, you and the rest of you rabid anit-abortion zealots.

  • You mean the “right to privacy” which appeared nowhere in the Constitution but which was found in its “penumbra” in 1965 by Justice William O. Douglas’s in Griswold v. Connecticut.

    Roe v. Wade enshrined nothing. It is an opinion, and the current law of the land, but privacy is subject to regulation and limits, and particularly can be amended by a constitutional amendment.

    Speaking of “goobers like you”, you never did identify what religion you represented in your pro-abortion “religious coalition” in Massachusetts.

    Wiccan?

  • you really have some self-education to do. I have dozens of friends who are Wiccan. And they don’t go around shoving their Effing religion down people’s throats.
    PS the WORST thing that would happen to the religious right extremists would be if Roe V. Wade was outlawed. All you goobers (soggy boiled peanuts often served in the South–their disgusting) would be out on your arses and shunned for a millennia.

  • Once again no answer.

    You sure to like to pontificate about this, that, and the other and call other people names.

    I’ve been in Massachusetts. You’ve gotten nothing on the folks in the South, or anywhere else.

  • Just to back up the following discussion, this is a nonsense statement. It is written sounding like the Leave it to Beaver family was the family model for thousands of years. I would put my money on children being historically essential to the economic survival of the family unit – at least pre-Industrial revolution.

  • I’m not saying MA is any better than the south.
    PS I don’t do the research and study you should be doing.
    But go ahead, stay ignorant and narrow, and be ignored here.

  • Does sexless marriage also count as fake marriage – apparently reported in the US about 15-20% of heterosexual couples?

  • A child conceived when birth control fails, or when the husband is just short of raping his wife, is also not a result of the mother’s voluntary action.

  • You still haven’t answered my question. Your definition of “murder” falls short. I do not, in any degree, believe that those women who elect abortions, and the doctors who provide them, should be called “murderers”.

  • Interesting, as far as your citations go. Neither says that the fetus IS a human being.

    “This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” Not a human being.

    “and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” not a human being

  • I don’t believe your opponents and critics understand your argument.

    Let me see if I understand it:

    1 – Life is a cycle which is a continuum. A sperm and an egg are not life because neither contains the entire DNA of a unique being. When they unite they form a new thing which has unique DNA and , if all goes well, will become capable of going forward into the rest of the life cycle. At some point that continuum concludes when something occurs which makes it impossible to continue and death takes place, and that ends the life cycle.

    2 – The act which is immoral is taking it upon ourself to do something which makes it impossible for the life cycle to continue and ends the life cycle if the being is human, assuming we are not defending our own life cycle.

    3 – The words “murder” and “person” are equivocal. There may be as many definitions of each as there are people defining them. For example, if your definition of murder is “the intentional killing of another human”, and you define the object of the act as human, then it’s clearly murder. Similarly whether “the fetus” IS a “human being” is completely definitional. But the act described in (2) is immoral without regard to these definitional issues.

    4 – The notion that the fetus is part of the woman’s body can only be true if the mother can have two heads, two brains, four arms, four legs, two different blood types, and two different DNA.

  • Are you talking about a marriage between people who have no gender or people who do not engage in sex acts?

  • The phrase “Since marriage is a legal term and has legal protections the 14th amendment applies.” does not make logical sense.

    There was under the Constitution no “right” to marry.

    The SCOTUS, which invented a right to privacy (supposedly found in the penumbra of the Constitution) in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut, invented a new right – the right to marry – apparently found in the penumbra of the previously discovered penumbras.

    This led under the guidance of Justice Kennedy to an assertion of Federal authority over what heretofore had been the province of common law and the states over marriage altogether, including the assertion that it could scrap thousands of years of natural law practice of male-female marriage and create a new definition altogether based on what five justices thought was swell.

    At that point, having invented everything which preceded out of thin air, the Court asserted the 14th amendment precluded not recognizing the newly coined definition.

    That is, unfortunately, the law unless and until we are able to get a constitutional amendment repairing the damage.

  • A rape exception is also not a result of a voluntary action on the part the life being ended, and so it is my impression that a case can be made that a rape exception is immoral.

    However, as a practical matter, a law which does not provide a rape exception is unacceptable to the vast majority of the public, which renders the theoretical moot.

  • Or, to put it another way, a growing percentage of Christians are finding themselves on their way to becoming ex-Christians as they accept the notion that the revelation has not ended and that therefore in theory anything goes.

  • I have answered your question. Several times now. No one cares about what you believe. People could potentially care about the reason you believe that you do, but you haven’t provided any reasoning for how abortion isn’t murder. I know that, based on how this conversation started, that logic and argumentation aren’t your strong suit, but you should at least attempt at something approaching a logical argument.

  • It is the result of her consent though. If I go play football, it may not be my active desire that I get injured, but before I put on my pads, I understand that there is some risk of injury. As a result, I can’t sue anybody or hold anyone else accountable if I get injured on the field.

  • First, I don’t see how you could say that something is an individual organism of the species homo sapiens and not conclude that it is also a human being. Second, did you actually read these?

    “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”

    “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

    “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

    Here’s more if there is still any doubt:

    Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3:

    “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

    Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86:

    “The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”

  • Yeah, that’s pretty much the argument, summarized and restated very well. I think it’s interesting that legally speaking, we treat conjoined twins as distinct persons, even though they share more in terms of biological processes and DNA than mother and child.

  • Certainly the pediatrician can make the claim, but that doesn’t mean that the claim is automatically accepted by the court, those making such claims need to prove their case. In the case of larger religions that’s simple — a Quaker refusing to serve in the military during war for example. but I don’t know of a single religion in the US that calls for its adherents to refuse to have any interaction with gays, or even their families, and I doubt this pediatrician belonged to one — which meant that he would have to prove his case without pointing to an established religion, which is difficult. Just ask the conscientious objectors that weren’t (for example) Quakers, or more recently the couple that tried to argue that their (newly established) religion required them to smoke pot.

  • I think there are very good arguments that a rape exception is immoral, but as you point out, I land on the side of favoring a rape exception because the “the fetus is an intruder” arguments in favor of abortion rights have some legs in that circumstance.

  • Both are legal terms.

    I take it you’re acknowledging that in both contexts the phrase “legal term” is meaningless.

  • The definition of marriage was not changed. Just like when blacks were allowed to eat at Woolworth’s lunch counter didn’t “redefine” the word dining. Just like women having access to the ballot box didn’t “redefine” the term voting. And just like ending separate drinking fountains didn’t “redefine” thirst. Marriage equality didn’t “redefine” marriage. It allows for equal access to a legal protection as stated by the 14th amendment.

  • Yes, the definition of marriage was changed.

    In fact the decision in Obergefell v Hodges states that the definition of marriage is being changed.

    Perhaps you and Justice Kennedy should coordinate your scripts?

  • If we don’t have a right to privacy….you don’t have a right to worship. Privacy is central to freedom. If the government is involved in your every move….are you free?

  • The First Amendment guarantees the right to worship:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    all by itself without any reference at all to privacy.

  • Genesis 2&3 are not that difficult to figure out. It’s a middle eastern version of the Pandora’s Box myth. A woman does something she’s been forbidden to do and the whole world is cursed because of it.

    These ancient myths aren’t all that deep.

  • Your right….both are legal terms. Atheists can be raped too. Rape is a crime. it is against the law.
    Marriage is legal protection. Marriage is good.
    RAPE is a CRIME. Rape is bad.

  • Except you can literally have children and not have a marriage OR you can have a marriage and have NO children. They literally are 2 separate things. One is not dependent on the other.

  • You provided no explanation regarding which abortions are “murder” and which ones are not murder. I do not believe abortion is murder because the fetus in its early stages is inextricably connected to the person carrying it. It is a decision for the woman to make.

  • Except it can be regulated out of existence through taking away privacy.
    Freedom of religion only exist with the freedom FROM religion. If you make laws based on any religious beliefs it then means the government is involved in religion for others that don’t belief the same as you.

  • They ca still provide adoption services….they chose NOT to. Because their ideology was more important to them than the welfare of children.
    Funny only in a small number of states did they OPT out yet across 48 states they didn’t discriminate

  • The government could impose a law that requires you to not display any reference to religion publicly. It would be legal and pass the 1st amendment.

  • No, the Obergefell decision does NOT state that the “definition” is being changed.

  • You are suggesting that murder and birth are meaningless too.

    People are laughing at you.

  • expanded to include all humanity universally…the prior definition exclude millions of good and decent people. Only a rightwing christian-fascist would be against that.

  • pathetic excuse for a discussion point. You trot out the most absurd argument and are NOT to be taken seriously.

  • and many of us straight allies cheered that good and loving people could be married and be respected

  • The right to worship, because it is a civil right, cannot be regulated out of existence.

    As it appears in the first of the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, the level of review needed before infringing it is “strict scrutiny”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

    Also, the notion that if “(i)f you make laws based on any religious beliefs it then means the government is involved in religion” is not precisely accurate.

    What the Constitution prohibits is “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

    That means the government may make laws all day long that are consistent with this, that, or the other religious belief, but it can’t declare Church A as right, or the church to go, or the church not to go to.

    As a result laws against incest, same sex marriage, bestiality, theft, murder, and more – all consistent with majority religions’ beliefs – have been passed and enforced since the nation’s founding.

  • More to the point “marriage” is claimed to be a religious term, but in fact a religious “marriage” has NO legal standing. One can be married outside of a house of worship. In MA anyone can get a license to marry two people who love each other, as my friend conducted the marriage of his son and his now daughhter-in-law.

    It’s only for the convenience of the religious that churches are allowed by the state to conduct weddings. A marriage is NOT legal until ithe marriage licensed is filed in the town or city hall in which the marriage took place. I know. I’ve conducted both same sex and heterosexual marriages.

  • Yes, laws are like that – some things are included, some things are excluded, some things are approved, some things are disapproved.

    Attributing that to “a rightwing christian-fascist” when it predates Christianity indicates the author is a left-wing looney.

  • No, I am suggesting that your argument was both silly and meaningless.

    I wasn’t laughing at you until this last comment to which I am responding, I now I am starting to.

  • you are the pot calling the kettle ‘loony”
    This kettle is kept clean and clear of claptrap.
    Find a time machine and go live in the Dark Ages, troll.

  • floydlee, so you have a book. The Muslims have a book. Mao had a little red book that every one in China held high so as not to be persecuted. You know what you can do with your book–put it where the sun don’t shine.

  • which Christians?? the 81% of white evangelicals who voted for your Savior, Donald J. Trump. They are theocrats and can be ignored. Their empire is an ideology which is coming down fast. Young people are leaving religion in droves.

  • I doubt Ben is paid. You, on the other hand, are craven enough and such a zealot, you give it away for nothing, all your hate speech and lies.

  • “The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases.”

    “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.”

    “Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.”

    “The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

    Justice Kennedy, Opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015)

    The last sentence constitutes the redefinition.

    I would quit while you’re behind, but do it your way.

  • The data which underlies “81% of white evangelicals who voted for … Donald J. Trump” appears to be suspect.

    Actually young people are becoming more, not less, religious.

  • Well, kettle, you may be not be clean or clear of claptrap, but I’ll grant you are loud.

  • standing up to a wing-nut is so easy. So many zingers to throw at your Royal Uselessness.

  • watch out Bobble Head, there’s plenty of Hot Water inside. And like many here, we have a head of steam that will eventually blow your silly notions apart.

  • Whether a religious marriage, a common law marriage, or any other form of marriage has legal standing is contingent on the laws of the state in which the parties reside.

    That’s because until Justice Kennedy, he of the mystical fortune cookie legal logic, engaged the matter marriage was dealt with at the state level.

    It’s only because the state wants good record-keeping and wishes to enforce its laws on marriage (e.g., incest is a no-no) that it requires marriage data to be filed anywhere.

    I cannot imagine a marriage between any two or more whatevers you would not conduct.

  • If you asked a hundred people on this page, most would point to the inhumanity of your and Floydlee’s posts. You would deny the LGBT population their rights to be legally wed and enjoy all the legal protections and benefits of marriage. Only a stingy little bigot would to out of their way to call people subhuman.

  • If a hundred people jumped off the bridge, would you jump off the bridge?

    Of course.

  • I would refuse to marry people who are bigots or bullies. If you are married, who married you? a fellow priest or pastor who is equally a bigot about LGBT people??
    My god is expansive and loving. Yours??

  • you and Floydlee are outnumbered 100 to two. Ah, the embattled Christian wing nuts. You are a minority which is declining as we speak. If you only knew how many potential Christians you turn off, you’d stop. But you are blind to your effect on young people. You turn people off. Few can stand your vile positions and the rough, nasty way you communicate.

  • Or perhaps you can’t realize that the deity in your book of shadows is actually a megalomaniac.

    Research how many people your deity has killed some day. It’ll really open your eyes.

  • I have no idea if you “god is expansive and loving”.

    In fact, despite your incessant babble about alleged religious connections, I have no idea if your god is a three-inch tall plastic figure or an imaginary Cosmic Muffin.

    Which, of course, pretty wraps up that line of discussion.

  • Or perhaps your reading of the deity in that book indicates you have a priori assumptions and reading comprehension issues.

    Research how many people were killed in the name of atheism in the 20th century.

    It’ll really open your eyes.

  • And yet millions of good and decent Christians love and honor a god who is expansive and loving. Yours is the god of Calvin, it would seem: the punitive, judgmental, harsh and hateful god.

  • marriage was grandfathered in.
    You have a very skewed understanding of the Constitution.

  • Actually, you do bring up the point. It all depends on how one approaches the bible. Some see it as a literal word of god and treated as such.

    Others, like myself, see it as an anceint collection of fragmented texts from highly superstitious and primitive warring tribal peoples filled with often violent tales of demons, deities and demigods. Thus it has no more reverence than The Iliad or Harry Potter. Interesting reads all, but that’s about it.

    Have you ever tried counting how many people were killed by the deity in your book of mythology? Just a hint: It’s in the millions. I tried posting a link to a site that actually has counted every single one. But apparently this webpage has issues with lincs…

  • NO! That last sentence holds the door open to gay people who have been denied that right. That is not a “redefinition” but a recognition of marriage as a right. A civil right. Civil rights are available to all….not a select group.

  • You are suggesting that words are meaningless simply because you disagree with the use.
    People are indeed laughing at you. I’m guessing that english might not be your primary language if you don’t understand words and how they are used and what they mean.

  • The last sentence follows the Court’s explicit recognition that marriage had never been defined anywhere as between two men or two women, and that the states – acting on their own authority reserved to them under the Constitution – had differing definitions, limits, and rules.

    Since marriage as a “right” rests upon the Court’s new definition, which in turn rests upon what the late Justice Scalia referred to as Kennedy’s “sweet mystery of life” whimsy, the Court does a two-fer – new definition and now a “right”.

    Of course using the same logic three men and a woman, three women a man, a brother and sister, and on and on and on have the same “right” for the same reasons.

    Oh well, as long as you got yours, who cares?

  • If you don’t believe in the “anceint (sic) collection of fragmented texts from highly superstitious and
    primitive warring tribal peoples filled with often violent tales of
    demons, deities and demigods”, you can hardly believe any people were killed by the deity in the book you’re carping about.

    Karl Marx, however, was a real person and we can actually count the people killed in the 20th century.

  • What in the heck does “marriage was grandfathered in” mean?

    I am not sure you have any understanding of the Constitution.

  • No, I am suggesting your words are meaningless because you use them in ways that demonstrate you do not understand what they mean.

    The epithet “People are indeed laughing at you” is a pretty sad attempt at erecting an argument.

  • The establishment of religion….ie religious belief. The government can not make law based on religious belief period. Every law must serve a secular purpose. What secular purpose is there to prohibit same sex marriage?

  • So, what you’re arguing is that because not committing murder is one of the Ten Commandments, thus making it a religious belief, the government cannot make that into a law.

    I don’t think you’ve thought this through very far if it all.

    As to the secular purpose, try this brief filed in Obergefell:

    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ac76ScholarsOfMarriageOkToPrint.pdf

    There is zero religious content.

    The nuclear family has been the building block of Western civilization since ancient Greece.

  • Nothing in the Constitution that prohibits 2 people of the same sex getting marred either.

  • No, not committing murder has a secular purpose. They can be both at the same time….but they must have a secular purpose.

  • The legislature determines if a law has a secular purpose.

    The check on that is the courts, and they don’t see it quite the way you do since they presume there’s a secular purpose absent evidence to the contrary.

    Marriage was, and to a large extent remains, regulated by the states which preclude polyandry, incest, underage, and a host of other unions which are also precluded by the major religions.

  • You are also ignoring that gay people have been forming families since ancient Greece as well. Just because it hasn’t been “recognized” doesn’t mean it hasn’t been happening.

  • Marriage is not a physical thing. It is an idea/action.
    If a group of men play with a ball and hoops it is called basketball. If a group of women play with a ball and hoops it is called basketball….and if a group of men and women play with a ball and hoops it is called basketball. They do not define the action, they are only the participants.

  • That “you can hardly believe any people were killed by the deity in the book you’re carping about”, and are therefore blowing smoke.

  • The same way I can conclude that an acorn, or even a sprouted acorn, is not an oak tree.

    I did read it. THE BEGINNING.

  • No, marriage BANS on SSM were passed in 40 states, My Esteemed Cyberspace Opponent.

  • Of course they “discriminat” — they discriminate in favor of the normal versus the abnormal.

  • Ignoring reality doesn’t make it go away. Gay people have existed since the beginning of time.
    You spouting FRC or FOF drivel doesn’t make it true.

  • You’re in a circular argument, and it’s time to make your point and wrap it up.

    That “gay people have existed since the beginning of time” is not relevant to the matter at hand.

    People with Down’s Syndrome have existed since the beginning of time, kleptomaniacs have existed since the beginning of time, and so and so on and so on.

    What that does not establish is that marriage is a right, which the SCOTUS asserted, that there is Federal jurisdiction over marriage, or that “same sex marriage” is a public good of any kind.

    There is no significant history in Anglo-American law and jurisprudence that would justify the proclamation of “same sex marriage” by judicial fiat in lieu of the democratic processes sorting through the relevant issues over time.

    There is no significant history in Anglo-American or Western history that provides a basis for “same sex marriage”:

    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/14-556-bsac-Scholars-of-History-and-Related-Disciplines.pdf

    It is the law, good, bad, or indifferent.

    Of course that can be corrected by a constitutional amendment, removing the SCOTUS’s fingers from matters over which the Constitution did not give them power, and I am reasonably confident that the way the LBGT community is handling things public will develop in that direction.

  • Over 1500 species of animals have homosexual members that form pair bonds that make sit natural and it occurs at about a 5%-7% rate….that makes it normal. Not a majority but normal none the less.

  • That is not what YOU wrote:

    “Have you ever tried counting how many people were killed by the deity in your book of mythology? Just a hint: It’s in the millions.”

    A non-existent deity has killed zero people.

    If you claim this deity killed even one, you’ve admitted it exists.

  • Loving v Virginia (1967)
    Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man”

  • “There is no significant history in Anglo-American law and jurisprudence that would justify the proclamation of “same sex marriage” by judicial fiat in lieu of the democratic processes sorting through the relevant issues over time.”

    EXCEPT that’s exactly how we got interracial marriage LOVING v VIRGINIA (1967) so YES, there is judicial fiat to that fact.

  • Had it said “and we define marriage to include same sex couples” you would be cooking with gas.

    But it didn’t.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html

    It said “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. “ referencing Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

    The phrase “fundamental to our very existence” tips you that it’s referring to marriage as it was defined in 1967 and procreation.

    When we go back to Skinner v. Oklahoma, we find that the case involved a statute of Oklahoma providing for the sterilization, by vasectomy or salpingectomy, of “habitual criminals”. Obviously the relevance to a “same sex marriage” is zero.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html

    But this does illustrate the odd, circuitous, and convoluted legal legerdemain used by Justice Kennedy to back into his preconceived conclusion without regard to anything that preceded it.

  • How can marriage be a civil right for some and not others? In 1967 it was still against the law to be gay. We know that it is a harmless variant on sexuality. An innate trait that people are born with….something that cannot be change anymore than skin color. It’s who someone is.

  • Loving is actually completely irrelevant, despite Justice Kennedy claiming otherwise.

    The law stated that a man and a woman could not get married if one were white and one “colored”. They exited Virginia, got married, and returned to the state. They were tried convicted for violating § 258 of the Virginia Code:

    “Leaving State to evade law. — If any white person and
    colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.”

    Obviously a white person and a colored person of opposite sexes can procreate just as readily as two persons of opposite sexes of the same race.

    Following the line of decisions flowing from Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) the Court voided this law citing the Fourteenth Amendment which banned invidious racial discriminations.

  • LOL….you must be napping during the sermon. Take a look around the 18-35 demographic is missing in almost every church. As time goes on that will expand to another generation and eventually religion will collapse due to financial losses. Gotta pay the bills and they younger generation is not buying the BS.

  • That’s how religion works….allude to a boogeyman and claim the world is crumbling because of something and try to control other through fear.

  • But the Christian deity in their theology killed no one.

    You appear to be offering YOUR opinion.

    You need to rework that sentence completely. As it stands you’re endorsing the existence of that deity.

  • You claim it irrelevant….but an actual SCOTUS justice does say it’s relevant.

  • LOL … you really like to regurgitate unverifiable things you apparently read on the internet.

    I read this nonsense from PRRI as well.

    https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/

    Of course they missed most of the facts and reached the wrong conclusions.

    What is happening is that the 18-35 demographic are not joining denominations (with exceptions) but going it alone. That’s a shift in how they relate to religion, not a a dropout from belief altogether.

    In addition some religions are increasing, especially among the young:

    https://assets.weforum.org/editor/L6yhr5HWe1eR5V88ccIPxrralrqzj1Ct2_i87y3gja0.png

    Muslims, Hindus, and Christians are actually getting younger and have fewer superannuated members world-wide.

    This is also related to birth rates:

    https://assets.weforum.org/editor/rlJPr8I2t3OUPjh8W-9oO8dtYxKe9eXNhgGtSkc_VDg.png

    So, the answer is no one can predict exactly where this all going to be in 5, 10, 15, or 20 years.

  • Of course. Justice Kennedy, he of the “sweet mystery of life”, wrote the opinion.

    I have no choice but to accept the decision.

    On the other hand I have no problem at all pointing out that if you think it is relevant, and that Justice Kennedy wasn’t piling on the sh-t to back into the decision he wanted, I have a bridge for sale.

  • It is actually quite simple, look up Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878).

    Btw, it is NOT a matter of fact that sexual orientation is an innate genetic trait.

    It is a theory.

  • Then when they are backed into a corner, either declare:

    “My Invisible supernatural sky daddy will punish you for your insolence”. or

    “I will given a tell you to go —- yourself in a passive aggressive manner concerning prayer”

  • Kennedy is a Republican appointed by Reagan. But I guess that’s when law and principle meant something instead of ideology “trumping” everything.

    That’s right you have no choice but to accept it. It’s REALITY and REALITY has a liberal bias.

  • Except we can predict….the Netherlands has had marriage equality since 2001 (almost 20 years) and with each passing year more and more countries accept the reality of marriage equality and realize the BS of those ideologically opposed is just hogwash.

  • If only there was a way we could communicate with homosexuals to prove it’s innate.

    LOL…..96% of us say it’s innate.

  • Have you actually spent any time in the Netherlands?

    Nothing they do strikes me as something to emulate.

    Watching a local policeman on a bicycle who is high from smoking marijuana drive his bicycle right into a canal was an eye-opener.

    The ideological BS is all emanating from your side.

  • ….and yet they are one of the happiest countries in the world…..BTW… US ranks 18th

    I’d rather a policeman drive his bike into a canal than see him shoot an UNARMED black man.