Comments on: Republicans could join Obama on same-sex marriage

By: ShaunSeaman

ShaunSeaman — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:31:51 +0000

While the spirit of what President Obama has done by supporting gay marriage does put his character on the right side of history, the act itself does not. In pushing for gay marriage legalization, the government is effectively making the institution of marriage a greater social norm than it currently is, and in doing so creates a society that encourages a union that is one size fits all. A divorce rate hovering at 50% indicates that this isn’t working for everyone. The best way to create a free nation of equals is to let the people make personal, life shaping choices as individuals, rather than a herd. As a gay man, I’ve experienced inequality, and I long for change, but a change for true freedom and equality, not the illusion of them. I don’t want my chains loosened to be as comfortable as everybody else’s- I want them removed.

By: Aberombie

Aberombie — Sun, 13 May 2012 00:52:10 +0000

How dare you speak of human beings this way? Homosexuality is not a disease or disorder, or anything you ignorant people call it. Please educate yourselves.

By: AngelMoroni

AngelMoroni — Thu, 10 May 2012 21:52:47 +0000

Homosexual has the same right that straigt people, the main thing is that thy want reconnoissance from the society, they do not want as Obama say the right to marry they want be accepted as a acceptable behavior

By: skteze

skteze — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:04:07 +0000

Glasslady’s comment on name changing – word games is cogent. Hermaneuticists love the name game. It gives (them) cover for all sorts of chicanery.

HOWEVER, she might want to read the actual (quoted) words of her “guru” before intentionally “sinning.” Waiting around for an event with a sexually perverse sounding name is antithetical to said guru’s command to be actively engaged in (at least) promoting “discipleship” and “caring for widows and orphans.”

Besides, what happens if, as no less a civic-minded servant than John Calvin thought, the “rapture” proves to be a metaphorical allegory? Could be a long wait ;-0

By: teamsolution

teamsolution — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:42:19 +0000

For all those that support the choice to bew in a homosexual relationship, where do we draw the line regading “other” choices people make in thier sex lives. Why can’t an individual love more than 1 other individual at the same time, polygamy? So, it’s OK for a man to love a man and a woman to love a woman but not for a man to love a man and a woman or two woman or two men? How is that any different? Gay marriage is not about the sex it’s about loving relationships. Yet we condemn polygamists. Has anyone ever stopped to consider the costs associated with gay marriage? We’d have to rewrite so much legisilation that the cost would be enormous. But one talks about this. We are a country built on religious freedom. Yet, this issue clearly disavows anyone’s religious thinking? But, it’s OK to trample on their rights? Well it is in this case. And doesn’t anyone wonder why this movement has exploded to such a degree now. I stop and wonder if there has always been this many gay people in our society or is this a movement of popularity? I don’t care what anyone does in the confines of their bedroom as long as it’s consenting between the parties. Why do we as a society condemn swingers and the swinging lifestyle? They are consenting adults. They aren’t looking for special recognition. They just want to have the right to express themselves in a manner acceptable to them. Yet, mention swinging and the population gets up in arms. Disgusting, revolting, etc.

By: glassylady

glassylady — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:18:11 +0000

First the name change from queer to gay, now gay marriage to marriage equality. Its word games! Lets face it, society it being deluged with perversity. I for one am waiting for the rapture to end all this nonsense.

By: 123456789ME

123456789ME — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:10:00 +0000

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay. html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/uni ts/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.

The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the Civil Rights Act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity.

By: MLNemo

MLNemo — Thu, 10 May 2012 12:53:14 +0000

Ms. Kohn, where did you get your numbers that state the Republican party has attempted to block civil rights? If your citing the Civil RIghts Act of 1964, a simple internet search will show that House Republicans voted 138-34 (80%) to pass the bill, House Dems 152-96 (61%) to pass the bill. In the Senate, Republicans voted to pass the bill 27-6 (82%), Dems to pass 46-21 (69%). It was the Democratic party that tried to block passage through filibuster in the Senate. Are you referencing other issues? If so, what are they?

A very critical point of discussion in this debate on gay marriage-is it okay to be intolerant of others beliefs in the name of tolerance? Who is trying to force views on whom?

By: LoveJoyOne

LoveJoyOne — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:59:14 +0000

It seems that the Democratic Party is now the one which is clearly on the side individual liberties, freedom and human rights.

That hasn’t always been the case. The Republican Party seem to have forgotten their roots in Abe Lincoln. They were the party that worked to set the slaves free. They were the ultimate party of human rights.

Now it would seem they want to be the party of intolerance.

A lot of my friends are Republican and I know that the vast majority of Republicans are not this way.

However, the Republican Party leadership has courted the hardcore religious fanatic right wing, just for the votes they represent. This very same hardcore religious right wants to impose its morals and values on the rest of the country. Such behavior goes against the core principles of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. It contributes to making America un-American.

The Republican Party leaders should stop courting these fanatics and let them form their own political party, if they so choose. I’m sure the Republican party would benefit very rapidly by drawing in a lot of independents and conservative Democrats who cannot currently support the religious fanatic agenda.

Nicolas Sarkosy recently spent a lot of effort trying to court the extreme right wing of the French electorate. It may have cost him his re-election bid. It certainly will put a blotch next to his name in the history books. Inside, Romney is probably a pretty decent guy. But if he caters too much to the religious fanatics, he will just be a footnote in history after losing this election.

By: stanman63

stanman63 — Thu, 10 May 2012 06:43:00 +0000

I disagree with your premise. History will eventually show that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle choice much as alcoholism or drug abuse. This issue is often incorrectly associated with civil rights.