Leaderboard

It shouldn't matter if it's 6 or 6 million. Perhaps it only matters in regard to the amount of attention that it gets from the media and such, but quantity shouldn't define policy. If that were the case we could just ignore rights of American Jews; after all, Jews make up less than 2% of the US population so... eff 'em, right? Bottom line, no matter which side you sit on the debate it shouldn't matter how many butt buddies there are out there. It should matter what is right and what is wrong. Now, we have a split on what the definitions of that is, but when it comes to the validity of a certain group of people, it shouldn't be discounted just because the group is a minority. That isn't what freedom is all about... well, I guess it is convenient when you're the majority, huh? Remember that years down the road if the time comes that socialist liberals significantly outnumber the far right conservatives. Your opinions will mean nothing at that point, and based on your logic, it shouldn't.

You'd think so Strick, but you'd be wrong. You've been talking to the American Taliban.

Hey, I'm proud to be an American Heathen. Seriously, I find the suggestion that this country should legislate based on anyone's interpretation of "god's will" to be quite repugnant. Perhaps we should harken back to the days of our heritage when the King of England was also the head of the Church, and the Pope was his veep. - OS

The Internet is unnatural. So are antibiotic medicine, birth control, condoms and blow jobs. When the gov tells me that I can't have any of those because it is "unnatural" then you better believe I'm going to be using my rifle against the gov. Especially over the last one.

With a mindset like that, it's all fun and games until you find yourself in the minority. Don't think it can't or won't happen.

If only they would see that when the wish to legislate morality and behavior based upon their religious beliefs, they are acting exactly the same the Taliban. I say this not as an atheist or even a very liberal Christian, but as a reasonably conservative one. The Lord's desires for us must be taken on willingly and happily. Just as the liberals get no credit for charity by using the government's gun to support people by way of social welfare programs, we get no credit for morality by forcing folks to live in a manner in which we approve by legislating Christian morality.

Folks that I know that are gay, could care less what any church thinks. That's not to say there are some out there that are this way though. Rather the ones I know, just want to be treated fairly by society and have the same benefits as straight couples. And I think it will happen. Being Gay is no problem to my kid's generation. They are very open and accepting about it in High School now. Another hurtle was crossed when Gays were accepted into the Military. It may not happen overnight, but within the next 10-20 years, I believe it will.

So, assuming a 'civil union' was to be legalized (granting all legal benefits of a traditional marriage), allowing all churches to disallow 'gay marriage' if they wish, would you be against this? I'll never argue that scripture doesn't allow for human imperfections, my questions boil down to this - where do YOU draw the line? Are you wanting a theocracy or a truly liberty-loving government? It sounds like most of those here opposing 'gay marriage' do so because their holy book tells them not to. I caution this line of thinking as that attitude can very well bite you in the butt when the majority believes something different than you do. Governmental religious tolerance (both ways) is the key to real freedom.

The easy way around all this is for Government bodies to recognize only Civil Unions, after a certain date. Governmental bodies would no longer issue Marriage Licenses. Rather a Civil Union Contract would be drawn up between the people in the relationship and would be the legal defining document for benefits, adoption, divorce, inheritance, etc. If couples wish to go further and have the recognized religious organization of their choice, marry them, then they may do that. Let religious institutions recognize "Marriage" and Governmental Bodies recognize Civil Unions, but not Marriage. All Marriage Licenses issued prior to the "Certain Date" would still be recognized, but as a Civil Union.

do you just pick and choose what in the bible to follow? Or do you follow it word by word? Lots of contradiction in them pages. Seems like most people who are against gay marriage are nit picking over the definition to the word marrriage. OS has it right on the head. The only definition of marriage that matters is the one supplied by the .gov. Sooner or later any human will be able to marry any other human being in this country. To suggest animals or car parts or whatever can then marry is lunacy.

Well, it's pretty simple - I'm just curious where it's based. I guess I read here less than some / most as I've never seen it explained. I've seen quasi-constitutional arguments, 'tradition' arguments, etc, but no one seems to have the balls to say "it's based on our religious beliefs" or ... So, since no one will answer the very basic question, I guess it's safe to assume it's a religious-based belief (Occam's Razor and all), which makes all of those arguing against it here incredibly hypocritical. Feel free to enlighten me otherwise. Oh, and for the record, I'm a long-time conservative Christian just trying to figure it all out. Wish I could say I had all the answers, but I can't.

It's strange to me how some of you automatically sexualize gay relationships. All this talk about them keeping it "private" and "in their bedroom" is odd, because shouldn't that automatically go for all people? Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw a gay couple doing anything inappropriate while in public. I can't say the same for some heterosexual couples. Then again, what's inappropriate to one may not be to another. Just like there are a few of those flamboyant and in-your-face gay couples (can't remember the last time I saw one that wasn't on TV), there are those heterosexuals that find it perfectly acceptable to suck face and play grab-ass in the middle of a crowded mall.

you also have folks like me who are not gay but who firmly think that the gay community should have equal rights. Mostly, that means I would see any and all laws/tax codes / etc that are for married couples removed entirely so the government can get 100% out of the issue: if there are no bonuses for marriage, then everyone is equal. The other direction (making laws to say who can marry who and when and where and so on) is too much government involvement at too deep a level. Getting 100% out of the issue and away from it is the only way that I can see it actually working out. Then, after that, if the gay community wants special treatment, we can stamp that "denied" and move on.

And people in the rest of the country barely knows where TN is let alone care about our opinions. That's still a small number when we are talking about steering the opinion and policy of this country. I feel the same way about illegal immigrants, etc as well.

And he killed them with a .22 rifle to boot. It's just too bad he didn't get the other two scum bags. http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/news-northern-kentucky/Boone-County-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder/-/13608792/16463942/-/b33lt6z/-/index.html

WHAT??!! Michael Clark Duncan passes away at 54 yrs old from a heart attack. Sad. He was a cool guy. Just goes to show you, you can work out and take great care of yourself and death can still reap you in a moment. RIP

I have strong religious beliefs against homosexuality and gay marriage. I also believe that lying, stealing, murder, and many other things are wrong, too. The fact that some of these things are illegal and others are not makes no difference. I'm not against murder because it's illegal. I'm against it because it's wrong based on my Christian upbringing. That doesn't mean everything I believe is wrong should be illegal and it doesn't mean everything I believe is right should hold the power of law either. If it did, blasphemy would be illegal and being truly repentant would get you out of jail. So, I believe that gays should be allowed every privilege under the law that I have and that the government should not honor Church marriages. We should all have to get civil unions to appease the government in order to get all the benefits they dole out to get our votes. Likewise, I'll get married in a church, if want all the benefits God doles out.

How do two unmarried adults file their taxes jointly? How does one leave their military retirement to the other? How does one become notified in an emergency (thinking car crash, first responders, etc) as next of kin? I agree that a lot of things commonly called 'gay rights' can be accomplished through proper legal paperwork, but it's a stretch to say that's not the real issue. Most gay folks I've talked to don't much care what the church thinks of them, they just want it to leave them alone. The ones that do want church interaction find it in various ways, including a growing number of gay friendly churches. Dang, OS outposted me.

And no other state's permit would allow a TN resident to carry inside the state of TN. Just ask Voldemort.

Since you're quoting Leviticus, it's safe to assume you follow all of the laws therein, is that right? ETA: Galatians 3:10 "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.""

I was referring to The Tanakh, what you Christians usurped as the Old Testament. - OS

I have stayed out of this thread long enough. Leviticus 18: 22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Enough said! If you want to disagree, converse with the Author. He is available 24/7 + eternity.

Hey, they admitted they made a mistake. That's more than a lot of lawmakers do.

How long do we have to wait for the rest of the season? At least we'll soon have The Walking Dead to pass the time.

Because some people have a problem understanding vocabulary.

FTFY...

Only 3 of the ten commandments are universally unlawful behavior and I include "bearing false witness" (slander/libel/perjury). A fourth, adultery, can be expensive, but is never a criminal act. I suppose you could argue that archaic Blue Laws were a partial fifth. Not to mention the hundreds of other do's and don'ts mentioned in the OT which aren't even followed by the most pious of Jewish sects, let alone find their way into secular law. Murder and theft have been crimes in all cultures as that is the practical way for people to live together in groups. - OS

Four out of five of those examples directly violate the individual liberties of others. The fifth (adultery) doesn't and isn't a crime in the majority of states, and where alienation of affection laws remain on the books, they are very rarely enforced.

The whole Constitution was written based on Religious opinion. To read "Seperation of Church and State" into the context you used you have to read 2A as only being for Militia.

I suspect we are seeing pieces of the Patriot Act being dismantled a piece at a time. I dont expect that the real details of all this will come out; but it appears that the First Amendment won here. This one will be interesting to watch if it goes any further on either side. leroy

And those marriages aren't recognized by the federal government. So there are lots of federal benefits that are denied to even those "married" couples, which is why there will have to eventually be federal legislation one way or the other. I'm on dialup this week, so takes forever to read a link like first posted, but like 56FordGuy, I'd take the 2% figure with a grain of salt. Most polls seem to indicate more of a 7-10% demographic. But, as has been said, at just what % of the population is it okay to deny equal benefits? The "right" involved is that "all are created equal". The state does not concern itself with the religious aspect of marriage, only the secular/legal aspect. I'd opine it will eventually have to honor that legal contract between any two persons regardless of gender. - OS

Hank was reading Gale's journal and it mentioned working with WW. That's what the flashback was about...Hank and Walt discussing the possible WW's that it could refer to. I can't believe Walt would leave that page in the book after having that conversation with Hank. That was as good a cliff-hanger as I've EVER seen! Love that look on Hank's face when he "got it".

In most states, it's the ability to marry and have the benefits that go along with that. The ability to file taxes jointly, hospital visitation, being notified as 'next of kin' in the event of an emergency. There's also Social Security benefits, military support for a spouse, and employer's pensions that can be left to a spouse. The problem is, America has gotten too focused for a variety of reasons on the wrong question. Instead of asking "Why does this group not get those benefits," the better question for the majority of these issues is "Why is the government involved in these 'benefits' to begin with?"

They just wanted to push him around and give him a hard time. The .fed can legally harass anyone who may be getting too big for their britches.

when the percentage affects middle aged white guys.

So what's the cut-off percentage before someone is allowed certain rights?

Although I'm not "pushing" for anything, I believe a gay person should have the same exact rights and opportunities as us regular folk. With that being said, I don't fit into any of your above mentioned generalities.

I don't care if you are gay, but the problem is that gays want me to care and want me to accept you for being gay. It is on the same level for me as someone being an Alabama fan. I only have to accept you as a person and I do. I don't have to worship the type of person you are. Specially if you are a type of person who like alabama

I don't understand either side of it. I don't give two wags of a rats ars if you wanna rub another man's rhubarb, leave me alone about it. What ever happened to the society that left sexual matters in the bedroom where they belong? Why are we as a country, constantly airing dirty laundry in the front yard for all the neighborhood to see? This morally decayed country is disgusting, perverse and sickening. Not for its want of preference acceptance, but for talking about it, putting it on EVERY DAMN TV SHOW ON THE TV and not keeping quietly tucked away as things of this matter are supposed to be? You know, the older I get, the I believe homosexuality really wasn't a deciding factor in Gods choice to leave a blanket of ash on the ground where two cities once stood. I think it was their wantonly open and brazen defiance to the rule of privacy with intimacy. On top of all the other reasons he had, thieves, murderers and the like. Well we as a country have those too. Thieves In the white house stealing from me to make their socialism security continue, murders killing unborn babies. I'm just sick of it all. Ignoring a problem will not make it go away but there are just some things that should not be discussed openly and with such frequency. Again, I don't care if you're queer, that great. STOP TELLING ME ABOUT IT because I don't give a ssss. I would ask "God have mercy on this country" but we don't deserve it.

only one picture needed.

Good for the neighbor. If there were more people like this, maybe criminals would think twice about going where they don't belong.

I'm done playing the devil and naysayer. I stay armed, loaded weapons placed various locations about my home. I have risen more than once with a loaded weapon to aid my neighbor. Out where I live, cops are many, many minutes away when seconds count.

The ACLU has taken on many cases on which you would agree, including gun rights. They've also taken on the Patriot Act in various ways, which I have agreed with in just about every instance. It is a polarizing organization, depending on the current issue they're involved in; their federal lawsuits haven't seemed to care which party was in power at the time throughout the decades. In short, I support maybe half their windmill tilts as they arise, and don't see them as any way "in league" with the Democratic Party. And of course, they don't get a dime of public money. - OS

Has Romney's record as governor of MA changed in the last nine months? I am continually amazed at people's ability to believe the lies politicians tell about what they are going to do when there is a very clear record of what they have done. Leopards don't change their spots, and 9 months later a steaming bag of fermented crap still stinks.

It isn't illegal to tape a bunch of road flares to your chest as a fashion statement and walk into a crowded mall, but doing so is going to get you rolled up by the cops, as it should. This is in the same realm. If he keeps up stunts like this he will end up getting smoked by police or a HCPer.

G17 G18 G19

I thought it was hilarious and brilliant and very much on target. He used an "ah shucks - halting old man" delivery to absolutely skewer the empty chair/empty suit Obama. You get to be a guy or gal over a certain age -- 70 or 80 and you can say or do anything you want, pretty much, including great-grandpa pinching pretty girls on the butt or great-grandma flirting with a twenty-something waiter at the restaurant, or asking a grown grandson if his mistress is pregnant or if he ever paid back all the money he embezzled. They know so much about the rest of the family and the way things actually are that they can speak the truth, even the hard truths. They can speak the truth without restraint at family gatherings because they are old now and what are you going to do to them anyway? Usually you can only laugh it off as senility, or a lack of restraint, and it only makes it harder to laugh off when it's True, True, TRUE. The really masterful part of the whole Clint Eastwood Invisible Obama Empty Chair shtick, the part that's infuriating the left is it's TRUE, and that their Bible, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (read it and weep) says in Rule 5 that the most useful attack is RIDICULE, that it is unanswerable and that you cannot defend against it. And when this RIDICULE is delivered by a smiling, cheerful, perceptive, 82 year old man, an icon of the silver screen, all you can do is laugh nervously and TAKE it. Because it's true and because great-grandpa is saying it. You can't hit great-grandpa off the side of the head with your cane, and you can't yell at him or tell him to shut up. All you can do is choke on your chocolate birthday cake and hide your face behind your napkin.

I got a pretty impressive shoulder rig for when I'm on my segway. Except when I got my outlaw club cut on then its tactical thigh rig all the way. Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2