Elder Earl on 8/11 at 8:34 am

“The fall of the Roman empire is a great example of moral decadence within its political structure.  And it is a proven fact as they practice, debaucheries, vile affections, fornication, covetousness and all manner of unjustness.  They where too busy gratifying themselves to properly run the Empire.”

___________________________________________________

In what specific way does the above apply any more to homosexuals than to heterosexuals? I don’t think it’s the fact that 1% of the most profitable industry on the Internet, pornography, is homosexual; because the other 99% is heterosexual. Whose debauchery and vile affections are going to bring down this “empire?”

Thinking this democratic republic is analogous to an empire, or wanting it to be one, is more dangerous to its ultimate survival than anything having to do with sex. The Roman Empire fell because it was an empire, not because too many Romans were getting it on.

A web page I found interesting which concerns the orientation of sexually behavior.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/quotes.html

#94448 by Saskia on 8/13 at 3:14 am
(Unregistered commenter)

But homosexuality prevails in most known species of mammals: I would call that pretty natural.
I think that we can safely conclude that whether something is natural is completely irrelevant in this debate. Using a toilet and wearing clothes isnÂ’t natural either.

_____________________________________________________

Here is a letter I though would shed some light toward the law-of-nature and why it is still a choice, for hormones can be corrected through medications.

Mr. Charles Merrill,
Animals are driven by instinct to do things that would seem to promote homosexual behavior.  Example: A dog male or female that is alone and in heat will hump you leg, or any object that would give the animal please. 
Now in nature sooner or later these animals due to instinct will meet a mate and possible produce offspring.  So tell me, who are we trying to fool with penguins, for if they are to procreate it is still mandatory for male and female to breed. 
Mr. Merrill did you make your money by instinct or calculated reasoning’s?  Truly, I would attribute your financial success to your cognitive abilities and not some animal instinctual behavior.

#94448 by Saskia on 8/13 at 3:14 am: “...Homosexuality, a choice or a genetic disposition? .......There is quite some evidence that homosexuality is congenital ......For those who have trouble grasping something being congenital not being genetic, just think of fetal alcohol syndrome: Something happened to the foetus in the womb…”

You mean you were drinking pink gin while you were pregnant, Sakia???

#94404 by Elder Earl on 8/12 at 9:29 pm: “...Homosexuality is a chose and is not a genetic disposition.  As for marriage being religious in nature this was brought about by man’s understanding of God and the laws of nature.  I personally see unions as an agreement between two people and if it requires more than a verbal exchange get the legal documentthat say you are united….”

As for marriage,  this was brought about by woman’s understanding of man and his erratic and wayward nature.

EE personally sees unions between two people require more than a verbal exchange (wow!) so he has to first get the ‘legal document’ that says you are united in sin!?!? Its called a condom, EE…..

Genetic dispositions are made by God according to Her laws of Nature - but homosexuality is a choice??? Report this comment, duh…...

#94248 by dp on 8/12 at 10:07 am
(Unregistered commenter)

#94116
Is there a “civil union” license?  And I would have to disagree with you on why marriages are a tradition in our society.  ItÂ’s as much a financial arrangement as a function to keep society going.  The human race will keep on procreating regardless of laws.  That, in itself, is a “growing” problem.

_____________________________________________________

Homosexuality is a chose and is not a genetic disposition.  As for marriage being religious in nature this was brought about by man’s understanding of God and the laws of nature.  I personally see unions as an agreement between two people and if it requires more than a verbal exchange get the legal documentthat say you are united.

#94245 by Elder Earl on 8/12 at 9:49 am: “...#94090 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/11 at 6:04 pm: “...I guess that “ the simple laws of nature” will ingenerate an urge in you to also start grunting and rooting soon , too…” _________________ “Doug, I see your and evolutionist.  I now understand why politics and ethics are hard concepts for you to grasp….”

Don’t you “Doug” me! I am a “creationist” AND an “evolutionist”. You have merely crawled out of the evolutionary slime…....!!!

Allow me take God out of the picture in helping you understand the laws of nature.  In the advancement of our social structure, unions are based upon preservation of the human race…... some “evolve” and some, like you, “regress”. But,  in the origins of the Universe, all was “created” at the time of the “Big Bang”.

#94090 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/11 at 6:04 pm
(597 comments total)

I guess that “ the simple laws of nature” will ingenerate an urge in you to also start grunting and rooting soon , too???

_____________________________________________________

Doug, I see your and evolutionist.  I now understand why politics and ethics are hard concepts for you to grasp.

#93994 by dp on 8/11 at 10:28 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Can someone please enlighten me?  Is a marriage only a marriage if performed in a church?  Is a marriage a civil union if performed in a park by a civil servant, ie: justice of the peace?  For purposes of this ridiculous argument of civil unions vs marriages, can someone define both?  Does the marriage license make it a marriage?  Is there a civil union license issued in those instances?  And what the hell difference does it make?  Really the legal issues are the only ones that matter.  Two people who choose to throw in their lot together, financially and otherwise, should enjoy the same legal freedoms regardless of their gender, race, spiritual beliefs, as any other two people.  Beyond the legal issues itÂ’s not governments business to choose who itÂ’s citizens spend their time with, or what they do with that time.  Get the government out of our personal lives. Get the religious whack jobs out of our personal lives.

_____________________________________________________

Allow me take God out of the picture in helping you understand the laws of nature.

In the union of two people it requires a written documentby the legal institutions which have been established by law of our lands.  Now our laws in this union of people is based upon the simple laws of nature.  It requires one male sperm and one female egg to procreate.  Thus in the advancement of our social structure, unions are based upon preservation of the human race.

#93999 by Elder Earl on 8/11 at 10:44 am: “...unenlightened reasoning’s which divert from the essence of truth?  The reply I created was for blafo and not for a man who is mentally illiterate. .......I assume, the ignorant reasoning of a man that just does not understand the simple laws of nature ingenerates him to be one that can only rant at what he does not understands….”

Well, that’s quite a little rant, EE. You’re starting to sound like that presumptious and pompous lawyer guy who was run out of here a while back.

I guess that ” the simple laws of nature” will ingenerate an urge in you to also start grunting and rooting soon , too???

Douglas Chalmers

RAE is right that “I am a FREE person….. I will choose…..I WILL ASSUME THAT RIGHT IN SPITE OF THEM…” (#93948 by RAE on 8/11 at 7:52 am). That is true Freedom - not your blind dogma which you seek to impose upon others out of your own miserable fears and hypocritical aversions, EE.
_____________________________________________________
Doug-old-boy why must there be nescient in the remarks you create out of unenlightened reasoning’s which divert from the essence of truth?  The reply I created was for blafo and not for a man who is mentally illiterate.

I assume, the ignorant reasoning of a man that just does not understand the simple laws of nature ingenerates him to be one that can only rant at what he does not understands.

#93960 by Elder Earl on 8/11 at 8:34 am: “...The fall of the Roman empire is a great example of moral decadence within its political structure.  And it is a proven fact as they practice, debaucheries, vile affections, fornication, covetousness and all manner of unjustness.  They where too busy gratifying themselves to properly run the Empire….”

I know you mean well with your ‘government ruling in the name of god’ doctrine, EE. Still, it will be the government’s spooks in your bedroom, not ‘god’, who will be “watching over you”, duh!

Apart from that, this government (and its ‘coalition of the willing’ countries) have already given themselves over to practicing debaucheries, vile affections, fornication, covetousness and all manner of unjustness. Its just that you haven’t noticed because you haven’t dared peek out your church door since the early 1800’s.

RAE is right that “I am a FREE person….. I will choose…..I WILL ASSUME THAT RIGHT IN SPITE OF THEM…” (#93948 by RAE on 8/11 at 7:52 am). That is true Freedom - not your blind dogma which you seek to impose upon others out of your own miserable fears and hypocritical aversions, EE.

“Moral decadance”? Venerable Earl, do you actually know any real-live gay people?

blafo

As for gay marriage, it is no different than any other question of restriction or prohibition imposed by the government upon citizens in this democracy. The Constitution obligates the government to prove a “compelling state interest” that overrides the absolute freedom of its citizens. Maybe someone can relieve my ignorance by pointing me to ANY source where it has been PROVEN that gay marriage will harm or disrupt this society in any significant way.

_____________________________________________________

The fall of the Roman empire is a great example of moral decadence within its political structure.  And it is a proven fact as they practice, debaucheries, vile affections, fornication, covetousness and all manner of unjustness.  They where too busy gratifying themselves to properly run the Empire.

Whether my country and my government in this FREE nation acknowledges my FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to determine for myself how I will live my life, with whom and where I choose to live it and even how I choose to leave it (die),

OR, I WILL ASSUME THAT RIGHT IN SPITE OF THEM.

(Of course, there are rules of conduct and behavior that the collective has decided are necessary to control the chaos that would result if everyone could just do as they damn well pleased. I agree I cannot drive 100 in a school zone. I agree I do not have the right to pollute the enviroment, etc.)

BUT… I am not here as grist for some political mill. I am not some agency’s plaything. I am not here as raw material to be molded into a good, quiet, CONSUMER or as cannon fodder in some stupid, illegal war in which those who set themselves in authority over me choose to participate without my agreement.

I am a FREE person. I will choose. There will be those who do not agree with my choices just as there MANY issues over which I do not agree with my fellow citizens. BUT… I do NOT assume that I have any right whatsoever to interfere with or attempt to control the choices of others. I demand the same treatment for myself.

Arrogant? Perhaps. But I’d rather be dead than live any other way.

Yeah, Kucinich! Where exactly was he in this video, anyway?
John Edwards said all kinds of admirable things, though, but he’s still on the “civil unions” fence, isn’t he?

Obama 1: Same sex? Well, his suit is definitely “old school”, too…..

Obama 2: Gay rights in 2007 as opposed to “Jim Crow” in the 1870’s to 1960’s? It seemed the first time he had thought about it….. and still couldn’t ‘compare’.

Don’t like to be the one to say, i told you so, Kucinich and Ron Paul are the ticket. Completely turn the worlds opine and make history. A bi-partisan ticket, Kucinich and Ron Paul would restore our dignity if only the people, we the people, lead by every artist and leader out there. It could happen, then again with Diebolt,etc., will “we the people” ever have a real voting system or was it a dream i read on some documentor was it “Our” father…give “US” daily bread, Forgive “US” deliver “US” seems pretty clear even to a spanish guy like me. Si, se habar espanol.

Observing the inane ranting and endless verbal bitch-slaps of Cruella deCoulter, it is beyond obvious that she seeks one thing and one thing only: self-aggrandizement. She doesn’t give a crap about anything she speaks against or for. This is the kind of person who invariably ends up having some gnarly skeletons in her own closet. Once the money flow the sensation-mongering media garners from her pseudo-political shtick begins to dwindle, she’ll switch gears and sell millions of books to the J. Springer set about the nasty perverted experiences she must have gone through to make her what she is. It’s either that or she’s just plain evil. Look how a whack job like Hitler was able to dupe so many into taking him seriously. As bereft of substance as this lady is, she still manages to be serious scary.

    I agree with Barak Obama that comparing the Gay struggle to the African American Civil Rights struggle is unproductive. I would go further and say that it gratuitously sensationalizes the issue by   injecting an element of potential conflict that is unnecessarily devisive and irrelevant. It’s as stupid as the issue of whether being gay is a choice or not. Another utterly irrelevant red herring. Even if it is a choice, we live in the FREE United States of America. Adults in this country are FREE to have sex with, fall in love with, and form lifetime commitments with whomever they please.
    As for gay marriage, it is no different than any other question of restriction or prohibition imposed by the government upon citizens in this democracy. The Constitution obligates the government to prove a “compelling state interest” that overrides the absolute freedom of its citizens. Maybe someone can relieve my ignorance by pointing me to ANY source where it has been PROVEN that gay marriage will harm or disrupt this society in any significant way.
    Accepting biblical arguments is out of the question as that would be no different than making unwilling Islamic women wear burkhas because it’s in the Koran. People’s visceral sensibilities about what might be occurring in a gay couple’s bedroom are equally unpersuasive. We as a democratic society routinely overcome or learn to live with such sensibilities as part of our collective growth toward non-harming coexistence.
    Ironically, the principle of compelling state interest is what was used very successfully, and rightly in my view, by the predominantly Christian home-school movement to win the freedom to educate their own children without being harassed by public school districts. In virtually every state, governments were unable to show that home-schooled kids were any less well educated or any less well socially adjusted than public school kids. It’s simply asking the question “where’s the HARM in it?”       
    There is no harm in gay marriage. To those who believe otherwise, PROVE it! You have to in this democracy before you can deny gay people the freedom to marry. Giving gays legal rights in civil unions and saying “what more does actual marriage add? they’re not being harmed by not marrying” is cynical, self-righteous, and un-American. They ARE being harmed by not having the FREEDOM to marry. In this democracy we consider NOT HAVING a FREEDOM to be harmful in and of itself.
    Even the likes of Ann Coulter has the democratic FREEDOM to spew her wrong-end runs in the major media. How many times has Cowboy George invoked the defense of our FREEDOMS to justify the deaths and horrible injuries of thousands of American soldiers and uncountable innocent Iraquis. What an inveterate hypocrite!
  Bottom line people, LIVE AND LET LIVE!
Otherwise, what’s the point?