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:

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?

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!

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.

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.

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?

Does the AMAT support this witchcraft?

American Medical Association

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.

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.

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

Sadly, I think you are correct.

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"

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 ...

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.

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: