Obama for transgenders?

[Guest]

Obama just came out and said he backs a ban on conversion therapy to straighten out gay or transgender youths. Is this not a parent's right to get a psychiatrist to put their own children back to being normal kids instead of being perverted?

Big Government is going too far into family life that is dealt with parents knowing what is best. Is Obama trying to turn our youths into a society of gay and transgenders with legislating this kind of perversion as well as what television programs on the same perversions are being televised?

[Guest]

Thank your for your honest posting describing children born as gay or transgender as being perverted and not normal. As it is extremely likely that you believe you are a sincere Christian, how do you reconcile your belief that we are ALL created in God's image which your certainty that children who do not conform to your sexuality are also not created in God's image and are instead perverted and need fixing?

How far does your belief that parents know what is best extend? Should they be allowed to pray the evil away, beat the evil away, burn the evil away? Do you know that cancer is the Devil's test of one's faith?

If converting a perverted gay citizen back to straightness can be accomplished by a psychiatrist as you apparently believe is both possible and ethical, do you have the courage to tell me what it would take for a psychiatrist to convert you from being straight to being gay, or from being concordant in your self identity and your genitals to looking in your pants and instead feeling you had the completely wrong body parts for what your brain knew belonged there. Obama must be the most powerful person every created in God's image if he can " turn our youths into a society of gay and transgenders with legislating this kind of perversion" I look forward to reading the new law which you see coming which will force our youths to be gay and transgenders.

[Guest]

Thank your for your honest posting describing children born as gay or transgender as being perverted and not normal. As it is extremely likely that you believe you are a sincere Christian, how do you reconcile your belief that we are ALL created in God's image which your certainty that children who do not conform to your sexuality are also not created in God's image and are instead perverted and need fixing?

How far does your belief that parents know what is best extend? Should they be allowed to pray the evil away, beat the evil away, burn the evil away? Do you know that cancer is the Devil's test of one's faith?

If converting a perverted gay citizen back to straightness can be accomplished by a psychiatrist as you apparently believe is both possible and ethical, do you have the courage to tell me what it would take for a psychiatrist to convert you from being straight to being gay, or from being concordant in your self identity and your genitals to looking in your pants and instead feeling you had the completely wrong body parts for what your brain knew belonged there. Obama must be the most powerful person every created in God's image if he can " turn our youths into a society of gay and transgenders with legislating this kind of perversion" I look forward to reading the new law which you see coming which will force our youths to be gay and transgenders.

Done yet?
Now how about a few key strokes about what you believe instead of a half page critique of YOUR take on the what the OP believes.
Opinions, recall everybody has one and in entitled to one. Folks are allowed and entitled to say what they think. As the opposition is too. So why do we always have to endure the onging taking to task of a post if different from yours or anybody elses?

[Guest]

Taking a post to task is fair game here. It's hard to cry foul on this forum.

[Guest]

All sides express views over school's refusal to hire gay teacher | Local News - KCCI Home (http://www.kcci.com/news/students-plan-walkout-today-over-gay-mans-job-denial/32251478?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=KCCI%20-%20kcci8)

And now the children are defying the wisdom of the Church and supporting non-discrimination. The end-days are surely near

[Guest]

Done yet?
Now how about a few key strokes about what you believe instead of a half page critique of YOUR take on the what the OP believes.
Opinions, recall everybody has one and in entitled to one. Folks are allowed and entitled to say what they think. As the opposition is too. So why do we always have to endure the onging taking to task of a post if different from yours or anybody elses?

Not done yet. If you can't tell what my beliefs are from reading post #2 then you have poor reading skills. I suggest

How to Improve Your Reading Skills: 14 Steps - wikiHow (http://www.wikihow.com/Improve-Your-Reading-Skills)

[Guest]

Maybe he is . One just never knows

[Guest]

Obama Seeks Ban On 'Conversion' Therapy For Sexual Orientation - The National Memo (http://www.nationalmemo.com/obama-seeks-ban-on-conversion-therapy-for-sexual-orientation/)


The Obama administration not only came out against conversion therapy, they hammered it.

[Guest]

Not done yet. If you can't tell what my beliefs are from reading post #2 then you have poor reading skills. I suggest

How to Improve Your Reading Skills: 14 Steps - wikiHow (http://www.wikihow.com/Improve-Your-Reading-Skills)

How :censored: rude can one get?

So we are to read your personal criticism of another post and instead of answering the question it gets flipped back that we should be able to conclude from your post what you believe. So very unfunny!

All you had to do was answer the question. We certainly could reach a conclusion by simply READING your criticisms and name calling and I am sure you might not like it.

[Guest]

Thank your for your honest posting describing children born as gay or transgender as being perverted and not normal. As it is extremely likely that you believe you are a sincere Christian, how do you reconcile your belief that we are ALL created in God's image which your certainty that children who do not conform to your sexuality are also not created in God's image and are instead perverted and need fixing?

How far does your belief that parents know what is best extend? Should they be allowed to pray the evil away, beat the evil away, burn the evil away? Do you know that cancer is the Devil's test of one's faith?

If converting a perverted gay citizen back to straightness can be accomplished by a psychiatrist as you apparently believe is both possible and ethical, do you have the courage to tell me what it would take for a psychiatrist to convert you from being straight to being gay, or from being concordant in your self identity and your genitals to looking in your pants and instead feeling you had the completely wrong body parts for what your brain knew belonged there. Obama must be the most powerful person every created in God's image if he can " turn our youths into a society of gay and transgenders with legismlating this kind of perversion" I look forward to reading the new law which you see coming which will force our youths to be gay and transgenders.

Well said, yet I fear your correct observation falls on many deaf ears. 2015 an still we have such backward thinking folks amount us. To think you can convert gay to straight is sad. I wonder if they beers rand the pain they inflict on others with such backward archaic thinking. Hopefully this rediulous belief will stop with the the passing of the Baby Boomer Generation.

[Guest]

All sides express views over school's refusal to hire gay teacher | Local News - KCCI Home (http://www.kcci.com/news/students-plan-walkout-today-over-gay-mans-job-denial/32251478?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=KCCI%20-%20kcci8)

And now the children are defying the wisdom of the Church and supporting non-discrimination. The end-days are surely near

I am so proud of kids that stand up against the predudices of the church for what is right for all Gods Children....."
:BigApplause:

[Guest]

Here we go again the immediate reaction from the liberal side is you must be homophobic and a gay hater. Well perhaps there are some of us who view this topic with more objectivity and not personal.

First Christianity preaches hate the sin love the sinner. Secondly the Freedom Restoration Religious Act was not written to deny services to gays but to reinforce an individual rights to practice their religion.

But let's see how all of this came about. In the early 80's psychiatrist all of a sudden removed homosexuality from the DSM. I believe it was a political move. Why ,as an example, ask yourself while homosexuality was removed from the DSM a foot fetish (men who love looking at a woman's foot) is a disorder. Especially since many women focus on a man's hand or calfs, etc At least their attract to the opposite sex as nature intended.

In November 1987 Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote an essay entitled "The Overhaul of Straight America which eventually became a book.

Their instructions were clear and I'll summarize to save space...it was to portray as normal and natural the gay lifestyle. If you notice for a number of years gays have been appearing in more TV shows, movies etc Kirk & Pill's plan. The goal was to make it very socially acceptable and thus normalize it. Young minds are malleable and naive and this gay agenda purposefully and strategically planted has been successful at least for the younger set

I certainly cannot identify with the gay lifestyle and believe it is a mistake of nature like any malady. Because of this I understand the need to ensure that this segment of society not be treated unfairly. However we have moved from a discrimination issue to an alternative lifestyle to a preferred lifestyle.

The attack on the Definition of Marriage by the gay community was not so they could have the right to marry and have legal rights resulting from those unions. all that could and has been legally handled.

The real reason gays want the definition of marriage changed is because it affords their lifestyle legitmacy (ie see our lifestyle is normal)

The problem with a breach of the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is that it is bringing perverts out of the woodwork making claims for the legal right for incest, man-boy relations, bigamy etc.

As to Obama's objection like all liberal movements its one sided.

He does not want parents etc to attempts such conversions but he supports schools providing indoctrination of GLBT studies, etc . In other words let's promote homosexuality so we can draw in more troubled and confused kids and get them into the gay lifestyle ....................

Live and let live so please don't label me because I happen to believe that a normal lifestyle means one man one woman in a union to procreate forming the basis for a civilized society that is the bedrock o this nation


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Here we go again the immediate reaction from the liberal side is you must be homophobic and a gay hater. Well perhaps there are some of us who view this topic with more objectivity and not personal.

First Christianity preaches hate the sin love the sinner. Secondly the Freedom Restoration Religious Act was not written to deny services to gays but to reinforce an individual rights to practice their religion.

But let's see how all of this came about. In the early 80's psychiatrist all of a sudden removed homosexuality from the DSM. I believe it was a political move. Why ,as an example, ask yourself while homosexuality was removed from the DSM a foot fetish (men who love looking at a woman's foot) is a disorder. Especially since many women focus on a man's hand or calfs, etc At least their attract to the opposite sex as nature intended.

In November 1987 Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote an essay entitled "The Overhaul of Straight America which eventually became a book.

Their instructions were clear and I'll summarize to save space...it was to portray as normal and natural the gay lifestyle. If you notice for a number of years gays have been appearing in more TV shows, movies etc Kirk & Pill's plan. The goal was to make it very socially acceptable and thus normalize it. Young minds are malleable and naive and this gay agenda purposefully and strategically planted has been successful at least for the younger set

I certainly cannot identify with the gay lifestyle and believe it is a mistake of nature like any malady. Because of this I understand the need to ensure that this segment of society not be treated unfairly. However we have moved from a discrimination issue to an alternative lifestyle to a preferred lifestyle.

The attack on the Definition of Marriage by the gay community was not so they could have the right to marry and have legal rights resulting from those unions. all that could and has been legally handled.

The real reason gays want the definition of marriage changed is because it affords their lifestyle legitmacy (ie see our lifestyle is normal)

The problem with a breach of the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is that it is bringing perverts out of the woodwork making claims for the legal right for incest, man-boy relations, bigamy etc.

As to Obama's objection like all liberal movements its one sided.

He does not want parents etc to attempts such conversions but he supports schools providing indoctrination of GLBT studies, etc . In other words let's promote homosexuality so we can draw in more troubled and confused kids and get them into the gay lifestyle ....................

Live and let live so please don't label me because I happen to believe that a normal lifestyle means one man one woman in a union to procreate forming the basis for a civilized society that is the bedrock o this nation


Personal Best Regards:

WOW, Sir with the utmost respect, I am apauled at your understanding of human rights and the Christion Faith. Please, go to see your spiritual leader/advisor for counseling. You are so far off the accepted normal, it brings tears to my eyes. I love all man, but I must say, I have reason to fear you sir.

[Guest]

Let me say, that those that post in favor of gay rights, are at the minimum, what I understand as God like. Those that have a problem with gay, gay marriage, are at the least scary and seem to have emotional issues.

[Guest]

If straight people are so against gay people, then why do they keep having gay babies?

[Guest]

Here we go again the immediate reaction from the liberal side is you must be homophobic and a gay hater. Well perhaps there are some of us who view this topic with more objectivity and not personal.

First Christianity preaches hate the sin love the sinner. Secondly the Freedom Restoration Religious Act was not written to deny services to gays but to reinforce an individual rights to practice their religion.

But let's see how all of this came about. In the early 80's psychiatrist all of a sudden removed homosexuality from the DSM. I believe it was a political move. Why ,as an example, ask yourself while homosexuality was removed from the DSM a foot fetish (men who love looking at a woman's foot) is a disorder. Especially since many women focus on a man's hand or calfs, etc At least their attract to the opposite sex as nature intended.

In November 1987 Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote an essay entitled "The Overhaul of Straight America which eventually became a book.

Their instructions were clear and I'll summarize to save space...it was to portray as normal and natural the gay lifestyle. If you notice for a number of years gays have been appearing in more TV shows, movies etc Kirk & Pill's plan. The goal was to make it very socially acceptable and thus normalize it. Young minds are malleable and naive and this gay agenda purposefully and strategically planted has been successful at least for the younger set

I certainly cannot identify with the gay lifestyle and believe it is a mistake of nature like any malady. Because of this I understand the need to ensure that this segment of society not be treated unfairly. However we have moved from a discrimination issue to an alternative lifestyle to a preferred lifestyle.

The attack on the Definition of Marriage by the gay community was not so they could have the right to marry and have legal rights resulting from those unions. all that could and has been legally handled.

The real reason gays want the definition of marriage changed is because it affords their lifestyle legitmacy (ie see our lifestyle is normal)

The problem with a breach of the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is that it is bringing perverts out of the woodwork making claims for the legal right for incest, man-boy relations, bigamy etc.

As to Obama's objection like all liberal movements its one sided.

He does not want parents etc to attempts such conversions but he supports schools providing indoctrination of GLBT studies, etc . In other words let's promote homosexuality so we can draw in more troubled and confused kids and get them into the gay lifestyle ....................

Live and let live so please don't label me because I happen to believe that a normal lifestyle means one man one woman in a union to procreate forming the basis for a civilized society that is the bedrock o this nation


Personal Best Regards:

Excellent post and well stated ... You've nailed it

[Guest]

If straight people are so against gay people, then why do they keep having gay babies?

You could make the same comment about any genetic malady ... but you knew that

[Guest]

If straight people are so against gay people, then why do they keep having gay babies?

LOL. Well said. Give me a gay neighbor, give me a minority neighbor, give me a
Muslim extremist, but please spare me the pain and embarrassment of an old White FOX rasist neighbor.

[Guest]

WOW, Sir with the utmost respect, I am apauled at your understanding of human rights and the Christion Faith. Please, go to see your spiritual leader/advisor for counseling. You are so far off the accepted normal, it brings tears to my eyes. I love all man, but I must say, I have reason to fear you sir.

Only those who worship in the Church of Holy Liberalism need to fear this person's incisive thoughts and analysis ... because it's true

[Guest]

Only those who worship in the Church of Holy Liberalism need to fear this person's incisive thoughts and analysis ... because it's true

I read this twice, and for the lack of marijuana or, LSD, that I do not believe in, you are too weird for me.

[Guest]

It's difficult to understand how a gay or lesbian marriage effects a heterosexual marriage. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't infringe on another person's civil rights.

[Guest]

LOL. Well said. Give me a gay neighbor, give me a minority neighbor, give me a
Muslim extremist, but please spare me the pain and embarrassment of an old White FOX rasist neighbor.

Great post and it portrays you for the complete idiot you are :)

Your Muslim extremist neighbor gets to cut off your head or blow you up ... and you're peachy keen with it. Incredible but no doubt accurate because, if nothing else, you get to reduce your carbon footprint?

[Guest]

It's difficult to understand how a gay or lesbian marriage effects a heterosexual marriage. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't infringe on another person's civil rights.

I think those offended by same sex mirage, think it is an obomination of the teaching of God. Sad, but many racists and homophobes misunderstands the bible and Gods intent. Love is the key. Heterosexual marrage is bad if no love is present. Gay marriage is wonderful if love is there.

[Guest]

It's difficult to understand how a gay or lesbian marriage effects a heterosexual marriage. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't infringe on another person's civil rights.

What you say in your second statement above is correct. But, here is the problem. The CIVIL rights of homosexuals has not been the issue, as civil unions have been allowed for some time. The problem erupted when there was an insistence that they be allowed to be married in churches and in the eyes of God. To those of us of faith, who perceive marriage as a holy sacrament, and based on biblical scripture, as between a man and a woman (note the Bible speaks in terms of husbands and wives), it then becomes an abomination from that perspective. To me, it does not matter whether I view homosexuality as right or wrong - just like anyone else they are Americans and deserve the same respect and civil rights as any citizen of this country. On that we can agree. I just don't understand the push to desecrate other people's religious beliefs when they already had the rights of every other married couple, with the recent additions of healthcare benefits for partners, adoption, etc.

As far as your first statement above, the concern is that the effects can be far reaching. In other words, what's next? Who else will take claim to marriage rights and how much further will it dilute the sanctity of the biblical marriage covenant? IMHO, it is the beginning of a moral free fall.

[Guest]

I think those offended by same sex mirage, think it is an obomination of the teaching of God. Sad, but many racists and homophobes misunderstands the bible and Gods intent. Love is the key. Heterosexual marrage is bad if no love is present. Gay marriage is wonderful if love is there.


I can't help but wonder what bible you are reading and how you seem to know so well the intent of God. As a person of faith, I am one of those of whom you speak, but I am in no way a homophobe, and where racist factors in doesn't even make any sense! I come from a very mixed family - bi-racial cousins, gay cousins, all mixed in with the rest of us. I am not phobic regarding ANY of them and love them all. But I also believe what I believe because of my faith - it in no way makes me a hater of any man or woman regardless of race, orientation, religion, or whatever. In fact, quite the opposite.

[Guest]

I read this twice, and for the lack of marijuana or, LSD, that I do not believe in, you are too weird for me.

That's because you did not understand my point, nor have you likely ever considered it ... to wit, political liberalism is essentially a secular religion.

"The Church of Holy Liberalism" has its teachings and belief systems, high priests, heresies and a lot of other defining characteristics. At some point I plan to start a thread on this topic but for now, that will have to do.

At least we agree on not using marijuana or LSD ... progress of sorts.

[Guest]

What you say in your second statement above is correct. But, here is the problem. The CIVIL rights of homosexuals has not been the issue, as civil unions have been allowed for some time. The problem erupted when there was an insistence that they be allowed to be married in churches and in the eyes of God. To those of us of faith, who perceive marriage as a holy sacrament, and based on biblical scripture, as between a man and a woman (note the Bible speaks in terms of husbands and wives), it then becomes an abomination from that perspective. To me, it does not matter whether I view homosexuality as right or wrong - just like anyone else they are Americans and deserve the same respect and civil rights as any citizen of this country. On that we can agree. I just don't understand the push to desecrate other people's religious beliefs when they already had the rights of every other married couple, with the recent additions of healthcare benefits for partners, adoption, etc.

As far as your first statement above, the concern is that the effects can be far reaching. In other words, what's next? Who else will take claim to marriage rights and how much further will it dilute the sanctity of the biblical marriage covenant? IMHO, it is the beginning of a moral free fall.

What is moral? Who determines what is or is not Moral? I feel sermon on the mount is moral. I feel FOX network is immoral. I have witnessed the most perverted immoral marages between a man and a women. I have also witnessed the most loving wonderful marriages between two women and also between two men as the most honorable loving relationships in my long life.

[Guest]

That's because you did not understand my point, nor have you likely ever considered it ... to wit, political liberalism is essentially a secular religion.

"The Church of Holy Liberalism" has its teachings and belief systems, high priests, heresies and a lot of other defining characteristics. At some point I plan to start a thread on this topic but for now, that will have to do.

At least we agree on not using marijuana or LSD ... progress of sorts.

I love you brother, but I do not understand you. That may be a first step.

[Guest]

That's because you did not understand my point, nor have you likely ever considered it ... to wit, political liberalism is essentially a secular religion.

"The Church of Holy Liberalism" has its teachings and belief systems, high priests, heresies and a lot of other defining characteristics. At some point I plan to start a thread on this topic but for now, that will have to do.

At least we agree on not using marijuana or LSD ... progress of sorts.

Ahhh......thank you! I think you may have answered my question/concern in the post previous to yours even though it wasn't directed at you obviously. :smiley:

[Guest]

I love you brother, but I do not understand you. That may be a first step.

That is a great answer and as you said, often times a good first step. A little more understanding and a little less flame throwing on this forum would probably go a long way.

[Guest]

What you say in your second statement above is correct. But, here is the problem. The CIVIL rights of homosexuals has not been the issue, as civil unions have been allowed for some time. The problem erupted when there was an insistence that they be allowed to be married in churches and in the eyes of God. To those of us of faith, who perceive marriage as a holy sacrament, and based on biblical scripture, as between a man and a woman (note the Bible speaks in terms of husbands and wives), it then becomes an abomination from that perspective. To me, it does not matter whether I view homosexuality as right or wrong - just like anyone else they are Americans and deserve the same respect and civil rights as any citizen of this country. On that we can agree. I just don't understand the push to desecrate other people's religious beliefs when they already had the rights of every other married couple, with the recent additions of healthcare benefits for partners, adoption, etc.

As far as your first statement above, the concern is that the effects can be far reaching. In other words, what's next? Who else will take claim to marriage rights and how much further will it dilute the sanctity of the biblical marriage covenant? IMHO, it is the beginning of a moral free fall.


And what will your reaction be if the Supreme Court rules later this spring in favor of same-sex marriage in all states? Thirty-seven states already have made same-sex marriage legal, but the highest court's ruling would include all 50 states.

[Guest]

And what will your reaction be if the Supreme Court rules later this spring in favor of same-sex marriage in all states? Thirty-seven states already have made same-sex marriage legal, but the highest court's ruling would include all 50 states.

Not sure what you are asking here......my reaction? What would change? Just because society says that something is right that I believe not to be, are you asking if I will change my mind? If so, the answer would be an emphatic "no". The bible I go by tells me that I am in this world but not of it. It also says that in many ways I will be hated by it - so be it - as long as my response is not to hate back, I'm good with that.

[Guest]

What is moral? Who determines what is or is not Moral? I feel sermon on the mount is moral. I feel FOX network is immoral. I have witnessed the most perverted immoral marages between a man and a women. I have also witnessed the most loving wonderful marriages between two women and also between two men as the most honorable loving relationships in my long life.

Going from the Sermon on the Mount to Fox News on your personal sliding scale of morality ...

I think that is a bit unhinged actually. ... in fact a lot unhinged.

[Guest]

Going from the Sermon on the Mount to Fox News on your personal sliding scale of morality ...

I think that is a bit unhinged actually. ... in fact a lot unhinged.

Thank you! I was struggling with how to answer that post, but I think you did it for me. :thumbup:

[Guest]

It's difficult to understand how a gay or lesbian marriage effects a heterosexual marriage. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't infringe on another person's civil rights.

The term gay marriage is an oxymoron. Civil unions, equal protection, non-discrimination ... no one is opposed to that.

But rewriting the definition of marriage that has permeated civilization for thousands of years, and opening the doors to the inevitable perversions that "progressives" will eventually insist on (polyamory, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality etc) is foolish and destructive to society.

This should not even be a controversial topic.

[Guest]

The term gay marriage is an oxymoron. Civil unions, equal protection, non-discrimination ... no one is opposed to that.

But rewriting the definition of marriage that has permeated civilization for thousands of years, and opening the doors to the inevitable perversions that "progressives" will eventually insist on (polyamory, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality etc) is foolish and destructive to society.

This should not even be a controversial topic.

Wow, talk about a homophobe! :22yikes:

Personal best regards.

[Guest]

Wow..... you are all living in the dark ages. Sexual preference is genetic.... not a choice. Start reading scientific facts and not mythological nonsense from religious texts. Of course Obama is against it.... any logical thinking sane person would be. This is what leads to categorizing and prejudice.

[Guest]

Wow, talk about a homophobe! :22yikes:

Personal best regards.

Not homophobic at all ... just a statement of reality when it comes to what's best for society overall.

[Guest]

here is the problem. The CIVIL rights of homosexuals has not been the issue, as civil unions have been allowed for some time. The problem erupted when there was an insistence that they be allowed to be married in churches and in the eyes of God. To those of us of faith, who perceive marriage as a holy sacrament, and based on biblical scripture, as between a man and a woman (note the Bible speaks in terms of husbands and wives), it then becomes an abomination from that perspective. To me, it does not matter whether I view homosexuality as right or wrong - just like anyone else they are Americans and deserve the same respect and civil rights as any citizen of this country. On that we can agree. I just don't understand the push to desecrate other people's religious beliefs when they already had the rights of every other married couple, with the recent additions of healthcare benefits for partners, adoption, etc.

I'm sorry but your analysis and concerns are completely contrary to the gay rights movements goals. Marriage is not a civil union. There are specific laws both Federal and state which clearly differentiate the benefits of marriage vs a civil union. Married people can file a joint tax return, civil union cannot. Married people can inherit without tax or probate, civil union cannot. Married can have pensions, hospital visits, protection of privileged communications etc etc. What the gay rights movement has been fighting to achieve for decades it that all the civil rights afforded to married couples apply fully to married gay couples. Not a single gay rights organization has ever insisted that a religious ceremony must be made available although they have wished it would be and many denominations that read the same holy book you do have agreed that they will perform those ceremonies. Marriage is a legal contract. A religious marriage that does not include a legal contract (a government issued marriage license signed and returned to the state) is just a religious service. Your religion is not under attack. Your attempt to force your religion's definition of a proper legal contract is under attack as it denies equal protection to gay persons.

Your errant belief that the rights of gay persons to adopt is established shows your lack of awareness of the thrust of the GOP to thwart gay adoption. Today
Florida House Approves Bill To Let Adoption Agencies Refuse Gay Parents (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/09/florida-gay-adoption-bill_n_7037076.html)

[Guest]

There is no legal recognition of civil unions by the state of Florida. The courts have ruled that Florida must allow gay marriage just this year. Prior to that Florida did not, and our GOP leaders fought every attempt to allow either civil unions or marriage. Some democratic controlled local governments had establish domestic partnership regulations but they did not have any force on the state courts.

[Guest]

WOW, Sir with the utmost respect, I am apauled at your understanding of human rights and the Christion Faith. Please, go to see your spiritual leader/advisor for counseling. You are so far off the accepted normal, it brings tears to my eyes. I love all man, but I must say, I have reason to fear you sir.

Dear Guest: Point to one word thought or action in my post that would give you reason to fear me? Did I not approach this topic with an acknowledgement of concern and respect for GLBT's. Did I not say hate the sin but love the sinner.

Personally I believe that each person has his/her personal view and relationship with God. I am at a loss when it comes to the God concept but do marvel at the greatness of nature and the heavens This a work in progress for me owing to the incongruity of nature suffer the little children, etc

My views with topics such as GLBT, abortion and along those lines is as a naturalist. So that in this case I view homosexuality as abnormal just the same as any malady. I have heard many homosexuals announce that homosexuality was not a choice and that since a young age knew they felt different. Does that not denote a biological difference ? And the concept of man-women relationship fit nature's demands for replenishing the species. Yes I understand the advancement in science on this issue but it still has to evolve around nature's model

What homosexuals call defending their civil rights really boils down to you must accept and validate that my homosexuality is normal.

Ask any straight guy how he feels if approached by a gay. The last thing you will hear any of them say is that they were "flattered".

In summary I have no desire to interfere in the lives of people who just want to fit into society but don't brow beat me to accept this lifestyle as normal because it is not and passing a law in every state to legitimize same sex marriage doesn't make it right it only demonstrates the political cowardice of our national leaders and justices.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I'm sorry but your analysis and concerns are completely contrary to the gay rights movements goals. Marriage is not a civil union. There are specific laws both Federal and state which clearly differentiate the benefits of marriage vs a civil union. Married people can file a joint tax return, civil union cannot. Married people can inherit without tax or probate, civil union cannot. Married can have pensions, hospital visits, protection of privileged communications etc etc. What the gay rights movement has been fighting to achieve for decades it that all the civil rights afforded to married couples apply fully to married gay couples. Not a single gay rights organization has ever insisted that a religious ceremony must be made available although they have wished it would be and many denominations that read the same holy book you do have agreed that they will perform those ceremonies. Marriage is a legal contract. A religious marriage that does not include a legal contract (a government issued marriage license signed and returned to the state) is just a religious service. Your religion is not under attack. Your attempt to force your religion's definition of a proper legal contract is under attack as it denies equal protection to gay persons.

Your errant belief that the rights of gay persons to adopt is established shows your lack of awareness of the thrust of the GOP to thwart gay adoption. Today
Florida House Approves Bill To Let Adoption Agencies Refuse Gay Parents (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/09/florida-gay-adoption-bill_n_7037076.html)

The problem with our communication seems to be the difference between your definition of marriage and mine. Many couples (straight and gay) have civil ceremonies at a court house. Although by law, that is a legal union, it is not considered a marriage by many people of faith. To those of faith, marriage is a holy sacrament performed in a church where one is making a commitment before God and asking for His blessing. The latter is what I am opposed to for gay couples - not sure if that clears up the intent of my comments or not. As far as any other legal rights that gays are able to obtain through our legislature, I have no control over that, so it is what it is. I am just not convinced that it is a good thing for society as a whole and that is JMHO.

[Guest]

The problem with our communication seems to be the difference between your definition of marriage and mine. Many couples (straight and gay) have civil ceremonies at a court house. Although by law, that is a legal union, it is not considered a marriage by many people of faith. To those of faith, marriage is a holy sacrament performed in a church where one is making a commitment before God and asking for His blessing. The latter is what I am opposed to for gay couples - not sure if that clears up the intent of my comments or not. As far as any other legal rights that gays are able to obtain through our legislature, I have no control over that, so it is what it is. I am just not convinced that it is a good thing for society as a whole and that is JMHO.



Do you also oppose divorced couples from being married in a church where one is making a commitment before God? How about adulterers? Aren't both of these sins mentioned in the bible?

[Guest]

Dear Guest: Point to one word thought or action in my post that would give you reason to fear me? Did I not approach this topic with an acknowledgement of concern and respect for GLBT's. Did I not say hate the sin but love the sinner.

Personally I believe that each person has his/her personal view and relationship with God. I am at a loss when it comes to the God concept but do marvel at the greatness of nature and the heavens This a work in progress for me owing to the incongruity of nature suffer the little children, etc

My views with topics such as GLBT, abortion and along those lines is as a naturalist. So that in this case I view homosexuality as abnormal just the same as any malady. I have heard many homosexuals announce that homosexuality was not a choice and that since a young age knew they felt different. Does that not denote a biological difference ? And the concept of man-women relationship fit nature's demands for replenishing the species. Yes I understand the advancement in science on this issue but it still has to evolve around nature's model

What homosexuals call defending their civil rights really boils down to you must accept and validate that my homosexuality is normal.

Ask any straight guy how he feels if approached by a gay. The last thing you will hear any of them say is that they were "flattered".

In summary I have no desire to interfere in the lives of people who just want to fit into society but don't brow beat me to accept this lifestyle as normal because it is not and passing a law in every state to legitimize same sex marriage doesn't make it right it only demonstrates the political cowardice of our national leaders and justices.

Personal Best Regards:

Did you feel the same when inter-racial marriages was legalized?

[Guest]

Did you feel the same when inter-racial marriages was legalized?

Then it was based on a man and a woman. The closet door was not even ajar at that time!

[Guest]

Then it was based on a man and a woman. The closet door was not even ajar at that time!

And this is all that needs to be said - thank you! Too many posters on here trying to veer this train off its tracks.......typical tactics.

[Guest]

I'm sorry but your analysis and concerns are completely contrary to the gay rights movements goals. Marriage is not a civil union. There are specific laws both Federal and state which clearly differentiate the benefits of marriage vs a civil union. Married people can file a joint tax return, civil union cannot. Married people can inherit without tax or probate, civil union cannot. Married can have pensions, hospital visits, protection of privileged communications etc etc. What the gay rights movement has been fighting to achieve for decades it that all the civil rights afforded to married couples apply fully to married gay couples. Not a single gay rights organization has ever insisted that a religious ceremony must be made available although they have wished it would be and many denominations that read the same holy book you do have agreed that they will perform those ceremonies. Marriage is a legal contract. A religious marriage that does not include a legal contract (a government issued marriage license signed and returned to the state) is just a religious service. Your religion is not under attack. Your attempt to force your religion's definition of a proper legal contract is under attack as it denies equal protection to gay persons.

Your errant belief that the rights of gay persons to adopt is established shows your lack of awareness of the thrust of the GOP to thwart gay adoption. Today
Florida House Approves Bill To Let Adoption Agencies Refuse Gay Parents (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/09/florida-gay-adoption-bill_n_7037076.html)

I object to the continual use of the term "gay" when the term homosexual is more accurate. That is, it's not "gay marriage" but "homosexual marriage." It clarifies the topic, and is honest as well as descriptive.

Seems as if the Left always tends to use language manipulation aka propaganda-type terminology to sell it's ideology.

[Guest]

The problem with our communication seems to be the difference between your definition of marriage and mine. Many couples (straight and gay) have civil ceremonies at a court house. Although by law, that is a legal union No by law that is a marriage, it is not considered a marriage by many people of faith.Your faith based opinion should not control the law, see the first amendment about establishing a faith To those of faith, marriage is a holy sacrament performed in a church where one is making a commitment before God and asking for His blessing. The latter is what I am opposed to for gay couples - not sure if that clears up the intent of my comments or not. As far as any other legal rights that gays are able to obtain through our legislature, I have no control over that, so it is what it is. I am just not convinced that it is a good thing for society as a whole and that is JMHO.

The problem with our communication is that you believe that your understanding of what is a marriage has some basis in your religion. You believe that a marriage is a sacrament and your definition of holy or God should be the governmental definition of marriage. It is a false argument and I believe you are smart enough to know it. Marriage is a legal contract that does not require the blessing of any deity nor need it be done in a temple of the high priest or by a representative of your deity. On your tax return it does not nor has it ever asked who married you or in the name of what deity. Your particular church can insist that to be called married by YOUR CHURCH you must follow its doctrines or be tossed out of its loving arms but YOUR CHURCH has no right to impose its doctrine on the rest of us. Your church does not own the word marriage although you cling to it as if it is yours. My country is not obliged to adopt your church's definitions even if it accepted it in the past. My country may recognize the damage and suffering your church's definition has imposed on the rest of us and instead move to a more egalitarian and legal understanding that all of us have a right to enter into the legal contract of marriage. You may keep your church based belief within your church and within your heart. You may even have your own new term. Why not call what I seek to be marriage and you can now have religious union. Those not in a religious union may not participate in the rites of your church. All married people can be full citizens with all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage under Federal and local law.

[Guest]

The problem with our communication is that you believe that your understanding of what is a marriage has some basis in your religion. You believe that a marriage is a sacrament and your definition of holy or God should be the governmental definition of marriage. It is a false argument and I believe you are smart enough to know it. Marriage is a legal contract that does not require the blessing of any deity nor need it be done in a temple of the high priest or by a representative of your deity. On your tax return it does not nor has it ever asked who married you or in the name of what deity. Your particular church can insist that to be called married by YOUR CHURCH you must follow its doctrines or be tossed out of its loving arms but YOUR CHURCH has no right to impose its doctrine on the rest of us. Your church does not own the word marriage although you cling to it as if it is yours. My country is not obliged to adopt your church's definitions even if it accepted it in the past. My country may recognize the damage and suffering your church's definition has imposed on the rest of us and instead move to a more egalitarian and legal understanding that all of us have a right to enter into the legal contract of marriage. You may keep your church based belief within your church and within your heart. You may even have your own new term. Why not call what I seek to be marriage and you can now have religious union. Those not in a religious union may not participate in the rites of your church. All married people can be full citizens with all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage under Federal and local law.

Several points ...

1. nice job at slipping the "cling" descriptor in there

2. the term "CHURCH" seems to be a hot button for you. How about if you substitute the phrase "Judeo Christian principles" or "Judeo Christian morality" instead?

3. Out of curiously, other than the fierce warriors of Ancient Thebes, can you cite any other examples in Western history where homosexual marriage was legalized and sanctioned by any previous civilization? If not, why not?

[Guest]

Does the AMAT support this witchcraft?

[Guest]

American Medical Association

[Guest]

The problem with our communication is that you believe that your understanding of what is a marriage has some basis in your religion. You believe that a marriage is a sacrament and your definition of holy or God should be the governmental definition of marriage. It is a false argument and I believe you are smart enough to know it. Marriage is a legal contract that does not require the blessing of any deity nor need it be done in a temple of the high priest or by a representative of your deity. On your tax return it does not nor has it ever asked who married you or in the name of what deity. Your particular church can insist that to be called married by YOUR CHURCH you must follow its doctrines or be tossed out of its loving arms but YOUR CHURCH has no right to impose its doctrine on the rest of us. Your church does not own the word marriage although you cling to it as if it is yours. My country is not obliged to adopt your church's definitions even if it accepted it in the past. My country may recognize the damage and suffering your church's definition has imposed on the rest of us and instead move to a more egalitarian and legal understanding that all of us have a right to enter into the legal contract of marriage. You may keep your church based belief within your church and within your heart. You may even have your own new term. Why not call what I seek to be marriage and you can now have religious union. Those not in a religious union may not participate in the rites of your church. All married people can be full citizens with all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage under Federal and local law.

And why must the majority change the definition of marriage for a minority? (see highlighted statement above in your post).

[Guest]

And why must the majority change the definition of marriage for a minority? (see highlighted statement above in your post).

Because it will be the law of the land after the Supreme Court rules, just like Roe vs Wade is the law of the land.

[Guest]

And why must the majority change the definition of marriage for a minority? (see highlighted statement above in your post).

Usually because the majority is silent.
You have the younger generations coming up that either know no difference or don't care.
Plus the current generation permissive anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings or affect them personally...much like the don't care crowd.
Plus the dying off of those of us that have been around a while.
And finally the silent that seem to care but are content as long as it does not affect them directly.

Therefore: ............the majority loses another one.

[Guest]

I know before too long we won't be the majority. By then it won't matter to most of us.

[Guest]

Usually because the majority is silent.
You have the younger generations coming up that either know no difference or don't care.
Plus the current generation permissive anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings or affect them personally...much like the don't care crowd.
Plus the dying off of those of us that have been around a while.
And finally the silent that seem to care but are content as long as it does not affect them directly.

Therefore: ............the majority loses another one.

Sadly, I think you are correct.

[Guest]

And why must the majority change the definition of marriage for a minority? (see highlighted statement above in your post).

Because the activist minority that pushes this is addicted to the use of central power to force the rest of us to declare them "normal"

[Guest]

Yeah, the minorities should be put in their places. Us old white men got no use for them. Shush, Fox News is just coming out with another reason the white cop should not be charged with killing the black man in South Carolina. :popcorn:

[Guest]

Yeah, the minorities should be put in their places. Us old white men got no use for them. Shush, Fox News is just coming out with another reason the white cop should not be charged with killing the black man in South Carolina. :popcorn:

Your demented, and often inane, replies are always entertaining to read ...

[Guest]

Yeah, the minorities should be put in their places. Us old white men got no use for them. Shush, Fox News is just coming out with another reason the white cop should not be charged with killing the black man in South Carolina. :popcorn:

I no longer think they are entertaining.
Just a disrespectful fool who takes pride in being an antagonist no matter how stupid their posta are.
And are a shameful representation that I would not give the benfit of calling the opposition.
The person obviously does not car as they lurk and are only emboldened by their anonymity.

I cannot imagine they are welcome in any legitimate entity in the thinking USA regardless party affiliation, race, religion or anything else. A self annointed embarassment.

[Guest]

The US Supreme Court will make its decision soon on gay marriage and it looks as though everything points to a victory in favor of gay marriage. It will then be the law of the land. Legal abortion is the law of the land. Womens right to vote is law of the land. Equal protection of all races is the law of the land.

We have had a minority President, we most likely will have a female President in 2016.

The USA is a great place to live!

[Guest]

The US Supreme Court will make its decision soon on gay marriage and it looks as though everything points to a victory in favor of gay marriage. It will then be the law of the land. Legal abortion is the law of the land. Womens right to vote is law of the land. Equal protection of all races is the law of the land.

We have had a minority President, we most likely will have a female President in 2016.

The USA is a great place to live!

Would that be a different most likely than she was in 2007/2008?:shrug: