Comments on: Thanks, Colbert Report!

By: Just Me

Just Me — Sat, 30 May 2009 08:30:38 +0000

There is absolutely NO BENEFIT that accrues to society by having two people of the SAME SEX "marry" one another! Anybody who says otherwise is a flat-out liar who lives a life of DENIAL of REALITY. This whole ridiculous scheme of "same-sex marriage" has ONE major goal: To redefine marriage as a stepping-stone to redefining FAMILY and PARENT, so that the homosexual community can ARTIFICIALLY PERPETUATE ITSELF into the future. This is sick and absurd, and people should stop being gullible and naive as to BELIEVE the garbage being blasted to us daily about the "civil rights" of same-sex "marriage." There is NO CIVIL RIGHT for homosexuals to wed. Period.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:27:47 +0000

I'm struck by the Orwellian inverse of the NOM (and friends) arguments. The most recent rallying point for those opposing marriage equality is that it is their right to deny marriage. Furthermore, they believe it is a violation of their freedom to allow equality in marriage. One might deduce this argument into a simple Orwellian statement, "Freedom is intolerance." This is clearly illogical as the proper statement is, "Freedom is equality." "Freedom is intolerance" demands a special place next to the statements made famous by George Orwell in 1984, "War is peace/freedom is slavery." I stand committed to a future where all may pursue marriage and the benefits it provides society. Not some marriages but all marriages benefit society and strengthen our country.

By: Stefanie, Texas

Stefanie, Texas — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:02:14 +0000

Jeff, please enlighten us with your "specifics, details, hard facts about the damage".

By: Stefanie, Texas

Stefanie, Texas — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:00:31 +0000

Matt, I couldn't agree with you more. Although I'm not religious. I fear for freedom of religion in this country. We can't have a free society without it and yet people in NOM would like to base our laws on their religious beliefs. At what point does it stop and we become a Christian version of the Taliban?

By: Stefanie, Texas

Stefanie, Texas — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:57:46 +0000

On Lawn, you just proved my point. It isn't the government's right to encode into law the purpose of marriage between parties who are able to consent to contracts under the law. Therefore, marriage doesn't have to be between a man and a woman.

By: Melanie Nathan

Melanie Nathan — Thu, 21 May 2009 07:30:27 +0000

"Rabbi Jeffrey Bennett of Temple Sinai, a Reform synagogue in Newington, “My goal is to create Jewish families and holiness - kiddushah - within a Jewish family,” he said, “and that certainly can be done best in a marriage situation, whether it is between a man and a woman, or two men and two women.”

Rabbi Fuchs said that he believes that Jewish same-sex couples should be able to marry, “While I know what the Torah says about homosexual union, I think that the Bible really knows no case of a loving, committed homosexual union. They only speak of homosexuality at least overtly, in terms of war and rape. And there is a prior and superseding instruction that we are created in God’s image. I believe homosexuals are homosexuals because that is the way God made them, if that is how God made them, who am I to question their rights to all of the comforts and privileges of a meaningful life, and to live with the inclination that God planted in them.:

By: amy_eavan

amy_eavan — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:26:42 +0000

Jeff,
I agree Jeff....so just what ARE the specific damages to marriage you are referring too? If you want to win people over, then cite specifics, and leave the hysterics for when they are warranted.
I've looked for specifics, on the web, and I have yet to find one that I find unacceptable. Some are regrettable, BUT based on assumptions (made long ago) that Church and State work together, changing when it suits one or the other. Once that starts to happen, somebody looses. What will _you_ (personally) loose? Think about it...

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:24:29 +0000

I appreciate your efforts on behalf of preserving marriage! In the coming weeks and months, as more state legislatures consider lifting bans on "gay" marriage, I hope you will concentrate your message on exactly what damage such measures would do to people in traditional marriages. People are leaving that part out entirely! Specifics, details, hard facts about the damage -- that's an approach that will, I hope, open some eyes before it's too late. Give 'em the details now!

By: Matt, 26 Dallas, Texas

Matt, 26 Dallas, Texas — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:10:03 +0000

I really don't understand the reason for this debate.

This issue seems clearly divided between young and old. Do old people believe they are protecting us young by denying our friends and fellow Americans equal rights?

I simply don't understand the point to being against equal rights? What is it that makes someone want to deny someone else the same freedoms and liberties that everyone else enjoys?

I also have another fear. As an active Methodist I believe one can be both Christian and open minded, but if some "Christians" are allowed to make laws on religious grounds, then what is to stop them from legalizing their own form of morality? I'm afraid if these people are allowed to deny rights to one group than they might come for me next! Perhaps a Baptist/Evangelical/Mormon version of Islamic law.

Though I respect debate, I will never vote or agree with any attempt to limit another persons liberty/freedom/rights/equal protection.

By: On Lawn

On Lawn — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:24:29 +0000

do you ever see "purpose" encoded in directly in legislation?

By: Stefanie, Texas

Stefanie, Texas — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:06:05 +0000

On Lawn, did I miss something? DOMA doesn't say anything about doesn't say anything about procreation being the core/sole purpose of marriage.

By: On Lawn

On Lawn — Sat, 16 May 2009 23:50:02 +0000

On Lawn, please cite the U.S. law that says marriage is what your opinion of marriage is…

DOMA...

1 U.S.C. § 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

By: Stefanie, Texas

Stefanie, Texas — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:27:59 +0000

On Lawn, please cite the U.S. law that says marriage is what your opinion of marriage is...

"Marriage is a lifestyle choice. If homosexuals feel that they are incapable of that choice (loving, honoring, and cherishing your children and the person you combine with to create those children)"

By: amy_eavan

amy_eavan — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:05:34 +0000

Joshua, might your issue with Gays and Lesbians be your own attitude. I personally know several loving couple...all who are 'good people' and are in LOVE, not lust. Your attitude, and I'm sure apparent disgust, WILL effect how you are treated. As for for this issue being about Civil Rights...that ALL it is. If you stop and think for a moment, you might start to see that. Are you married? If so, you get _civil_ benefits that are denied to SSM's. YOU are allowed to be at the side of a dieing spouse in the hospital. YOU get tax breaks. YOU don't get criticized by any church. These are just a few of the benefits YOU get from being 'married'. So...before you rant on to me. Take a moment, breath deeply. Relax, even if just a touch. And THINK about the issue instead of screaming the same 'popular' statements. By the way, Church and State are _supposed_ to be separate. The one is not _supposed_ to interfere with the other!

By: Joshua J. Israel

Joshua J. Israel — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:23:06 +0000

I wasn't born yesterday, in my youth, I tried to date a lesbian, and she was a horrible irrational monster that strained every ounce of human goodness and consideration I had. But, it didn't stop there, I tried to get to know several others since then, and the only opinion that they gave me is MAN-HATER. I had a boss who was a gay man, and women thought he was attractive; however, he admitted to me that these women made him sick, and he would not even give them the time of day. So, to a man, a lesbian is a true Heart-Breaker; and, to a woman, a gay man is a true Heart-Breaker. GOD did NOT create a heart-breaker for either a man or woman,...Satan did!!
===========
Now, since the gay movement has been on the rise for the past 20 years, the Heart-Breaker routine has increased in traditional man - woman relationships. So, ... do the math, who is corrupting who? And, who is a threat to traditional marriage? This is why the (NOM) existe, they see the threat and the growing trend, and they are taking action.