That's their cross to bear. I've only been married once and for 42 years, so far. Like I said, one can tolerate, but not necessarily condone. Thank you for an example that I could use.

It was NOT a few, the Church said it was just in the US....it was worldwide. Even the Pope's best friend was doing little boys. It was and still is a problem in the church.

I just reached a point at which I could not follow....

I'll see your New York Post and raise you a Huffington Post....

Denmark Is Considered The Happiest Country. You'll Never Guess Why.

Of course no surprise there ... you probably are gay.

Yes, that's what Obama always does ... he shoots the middle finger to conventional morals, standards and instituyions That's why he's a flame throwing lefty and the WORST, most divisive President in our history although Millard Fillmore was the dullest.

Keep the insults coming....just makes my point!

European socialism has contracted a fatal disease ... it's called multiculturalism.

It enables the host to temporarily feel better about itself but destroys its ability to reproduce and defend itself.

In the most delicious of Darwinian ironies, in about 100 years the Islamic invasion will destroy the host, and turn Scandinavia into another 3rd world hellhole like every other Islamic-majority place in this world (except for the oil rich areas)

Very bad, by the way, for "gay rights" as this will be the first to go ... oh well.

EXACTLY right ... excellent point

Interesting Red State article. Also, I can see where some posters get there rhetoric from.

Barack Obama will go down in history as the most successful president since Abraham Lincoln... | RedState

Just because the court said gays can get married doesn't make them married in God's eyes. Sorry if that makes God a bigot in your eyes, but I don't have the power to change that, even if I wished. If you are suggesting that Gays have a civil right to get married, then you are opening a big debate. They have always had that right, as long as they married according to the definition of marriage. One man and one woman. Personally, I think the government should leave their hands off of marriage as that should be a religious practice. And then that open a whole different aspect of the term marriage that the court can't dispute. The church says one man and one woman. Unless you are Mormon and then it's one man and several woman.

NC voters made the decision in that state to put a state constitutional amendment in that said marriage was defined as one man and one woman. That was the not so silent majority. Other states feel the same way. The court does not speak for the majority.

But, before calling someone out as being a bigot, learn the definition. A requirement for the term "bigot" is INTOLERANT. Just because most of America TOLERATES the gay lifestyle does not necessitate that they CONDONE the deviant/abnormal behavior. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with loving another person of the same gender. Where I draw the line of what I condone or not, is that I feel that having sex with the same gender is abnormal or deviant behavior and not accepted as the norm. You can love someone else and cohabitate with them, but many of us feel that marriage is a religious experience that is defined as between one man and one woman.

Actually, I do NOT see marriage as a CIVIL right. You do not have a right to marry if you do not have anyone that wishes to marry you. You do not have the right to drive if you can't pass the test. There are stipulations on every privilege. Marriage has a stipulation (at least it did) that it is between a man and a woman. And that supposed civil right was always available to gays.

To call it discrimination is like saying it is discrimination if two cousins are refused a marriage license, or a brother and sister, or a man and two women, etc. If we start knocking down stipulations every time a small group of malcontents want a change, under the guise of discrimination, then we will have no set of laws, moral or statutory.

To summarize, I don't condone the gay lifestyle, but I tolerate it because I also have close relatives with that affliction. By definition, I am NOT a bigot.
So, if you call me an undeserved name, then be prepared for a long dissertation.

Sorry, I respect your decision.

I get your religious opinion and you have the right to your freedom of religion. But that does mean you get to impose your religion on the rest of us.

Without reading the article, let me guess....Vodka?

I notice a lot the term "silent majority" on this forum. Everybody is old enough to know where it comes from and should wonder if it might be put to rest like "sock it to me".

Silent Majority definition.
A term used by President Richard Nixon to indicate his belief that the great body of Americans supported his policies and that those who demonstrated against the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War amounted to only a noisy minority.

https://youtu.be/8qRZvlZZ0DY

My opinion is shared by the majority of America. Be glad, because we "Tolerate." But, feel free to invite Muslims into the country. Let's see if they "tolerate." Obama does, if that is any indication.