You must blindly accept the Bible by faith. Remember that an open mind is the devil's favorite toy. When you open your mind, Satan jumps right into your head and will show you countless contradictions, inconsistencies, absurdities and downright silliness present throughout the Good Book.

It is important that we not exercise any rational thought when reading the Bible, for such tends to make God look bad and the whole book look like something even Mother Goose would reject. After all, it was God's first published work, and there were no publication houses with editorial departments when it was written. Even God recognizes how outrageous and misanthropic is His first best seller, especially Paul's outrageous writings that condemn so many. The Bible tells us that its every word was inspired by God, Himself (2 Timothy 32:16). God knew Paul's ridiculous rantings (which He inspired) would make no sense, so He actually went to great pains to warn us that those who try to understand Paul's logic do so 'unto their own destruction' (2 Peter 3:16). God also knew that people would start to 'interpret' the Bible into something that wasn't so hateful and violent if given the chance, so He had John write near the end that anyone who adds or withdraws a single statement from the Bible (or at least its last book) will be destroyed (Revelation 22:18-19). Needless to say, God shuns philosophers and free thinkers, describing them as essentially evil (Colossians 2:8-9).

The bottom line is that, in order to have any real shot at Heaven, we must believe every word of the Bible and all its incredible pronouncements. The only way a rational person can believe such jibberish is to accept it by faith, without question. We must turn off our brains. Fortunately for many of the participants here, they were born with very little brain power in the first instance, hence blind deference isn't difficult for them.

Your god bud.....my god says halleulah

Fortunately, this has nothing to do with religion or faith. All it deals with is a legal contract between two people. So rest assured, no one's going to hell.

Loving another person and wanting the sanction of that love in the form of marriage is not a sin.
Slavery was justified by many in the 19th century as being supported by the Bible.
And the Bible (Leviticus) says eating pork is a sin. So aren't you being selective in what you point to as being called a sin?

We live in a secular nation, not a religious one. If you want to live like that, move to Iran.

If we live in a secular nation, how come there are more people who believe in God than those who claim to be "Free thinkers?"

When God applies for citizenship and starts paying taxes, then God can have a say in the lawmaking in this land.

Amen, Clyde.

Hey Harvey, I suggest you read the Treaty Of Tripoli Of 1797.

So we have to go to a treaty that happened in 1797 to get an answer concerning religious believers of 2013? How about statistics from 2013?

Statistics don't mean anything to me or The Constitution. Got that? BTW, treaties are covered by Article VI: Section II of The Constitution.

What's the big deal - since there are only 165 people residing in Rhode Island, and if 10% of them are gay, they'll only be able to issue approximately 16 'marriage' licsences anyway.

But Robert it isn't blindness. Oh Yee of little faith.

The story of Sodom was about harming others needlessly. It was about how you treat others. Sodomites were those who harmed others and refused to follow the golden rule. It had nothing to do with committed relationships based on mutual love and respect.

It has been misinterpreted and misapplied to demonize, dehumanize, and harm others needlessly. It is being used to justify ignoring the golden rule, rather than to promote it as intended.

"The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century AD. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. He also linked "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences" upon cities as being due to "such crimes", during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Sin of Sodom http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

That's not an editorial comment... that's what the bill does. It expressly provides equal marriage rights to all Rhode Islanders, something they don't currently have.

What's troubling is that you don't seem to see the subtle ways in which you are betraying your personal position on this issue. Your readers should not be able to detect your stance on this issue, but we can.

By way of example, the following is a rewrite of the final two sentences of your article:

"41 of the 50 states do not allow same-sex marriage. Rhode Island would join the other New England states and Washington, D.C. in allowing same-sex couples to marry.

In September, a WPRI poll of 501 likely voters in Rhode Island found that a full 36 percent oppose same-gender marriage with 56 percent of Rhode Islanders supporting it."

Let's just focus on one part of this: What is the word "only" doing in the final sentence of your article? If you remove the word "only", your sentence is still factual, if not more so. Why do you need to point out that it's "only" 36 percent who oppose the issue? In my opinion, qualifying the 36% with the word "only" is just as wrong as calling it "a full 36 percent" as I did in my example.

My request is that you please question the purpose and objective of every word you deploy in your sentences, lest you let your own biases creep in to your story.

Also: Would you please identify this bill by its RIGA identification no (e.g., S2001, H7001, etc.)? Without this, it is not possible to verify your comment that the bill "expressly" provides equal marriage rights to all Rhode Islanders.

Thank you for your consideration.

You yourself only mentioned two impacts. You are correct that there will be an impact for children of gay couples. The impact however, will be positive for those children, not negative as Rep. Corvese suggests. All reputible studies, and there have been a number, show that children of gay couples do just as well academically and socially as children of straight parents.

The ACLU's mission is to protect 1st Amendment rights. How would they use the bill to undermine the structures of marriage in law? To allow polygamy? Well, that's another discussion, and worthwhile to think about, since it involves consenting adults. And it wouldn't be the first time a society has allowed plural marriages. To marry an animal or a piece of furniture? That kind of stuff is silliness of the highest order, and demeans the arguments of those against marriage equality.

They just proved they are not Christians. They deserve the fate they get in hell.

Well said, Thank You

To William Stevens:

Excuse me, but not everybody is Christian in this country. One more thing; didn't Jesus say "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"? Picking and choosing from your bible.

William Stevens: what kind of a GOD would create the earth and all its inhabitants, then go condemn 75% of it to hell for not beleiving in YOUR religion? you are free to be as stupid as you like, put please, give some credit for being able to THINK to the rest of us!

Agree wholeheartedly. Corvese delivered a compelling argument against redefining marriage. IF you want to live in a world where mother and father will no longer be on a child's birth certificate; rather they will be known as Parent #1 and Parent #2 and you find that ok, then we have succeeded in deconstructing the building block of our society.

Funny, my religion says "no way" to same sex marraige so I'll go with that. See, your gay perverted community figures correctly that if it is "pushed" on people enough it will become "normal". Man and woman is a good fit, man and man or woman and woman just don't fit right and never will.

They do hurt us and society! They are the biggest spreader of AIDS!

God judges an entire country by the sins commited there. It's not just about a couple of fudge packers. It;s about the direction of society.

Calvin, its not MY community and Harvey you are by far the most ignorant person on this thread..

Romans 3:3,4.Romans 1:24=32, Lev.18:19-30,**ISAIAH 45:21-23, JOHN 8:10,11**!!!!

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

That is the point...it never was and never will be a threat....unless you let it. Some of us...gay or straight...think that the archaic past needs to reflect the more dynamic present and future. See ya

In case the article wasn't clear, the bill doesn't actually change marriage in any way, so there's no threat to anyone. It just opens it up to more people.

It really isn't in your hands whether you will accept it or not. What's legal is legal, and you will have to accept that! You may not like it, and no one can force you to like it, but it will be law.
If marriage is a sacred institution (I am not saying it isn't, having been married for 29 years before my husband died) then everyone should have the right to marry.

nagaer40- thank you! Because some claim to "legalize so-called gay marriage", God will not be mocked! It was also "legal" in Sodom and Gomorrah also, but that did not prevent them from the punishment of God. God sanctified a marriage as between one man and one woman. No church or state or any government can overrule God's law. Make no mistake, they will all be held accountable for their actions, and no excuses will save them. Satanic worshippers have had "gay" homosexual "marriages" since he convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. You can bet your eternal soul that God did not sanctify them or say it's alright! Remember, sin is sin. Call a pile of cow manure icecream, but it's still cow manure and no one will start eating it! God bless you!

Patrick is does change marriage. But in your case we could call an apple and orange and you would say it is ok it doesnt change the apple.

This is an abomination that God will not let go unpunished.

Exactly Correct

No one is forcing you to marry a person of the same sex, nor is your religious belief in peril. The law specifically states that religious institutions can contine to control what marriages they perform and recognize. I don't know why they needed to say this. There has always been a recognition that religious marriage was separate from administrative marriage. You get a "license" to marry from the county clerk, and you can get "married" in the clerk's office. If you then decide to have your marriage solemnized by a clergyperson, that is your right. I just don't see what the big issue is here. It has llong been established that children of gay couples do as well sociallyand academically as children of hetero marriages. Mentioning AIDS, as one poster did, just shows ignorance. Married gays don't transmit AIDS. Promiscuous unmarried people, both str8 and gay, are responsible for spreading the disease. Living next door to a gay couple will not give you AIDS. Being promiscuos with multiple partners will.

Sacred institution? I don't think so. You know that over 50 % of straight marriages end in divorce. One main reason for divorce, is infidelity. Even those marriages that don't end in divorce the wife or hubsand is cheating. Many of you talk about the "sacred institution" while lying and cheating on you spouse. Just mind your own business and take care of your family. OK?

Matilda, do get a grip! Let's say I am a thief..... so does that wrong make murder okay? You are tryig to justify one wrong by pointing to another.... do two wrongs a Right there make? ha ha! Try to think clearly with fewer bias blinders on. :-)

To James Williams:

I don't see God coming down hard on Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa (which should have been came down hard before 1992 for Apartheid). Funny that God didn't come down hard on the U.S. for slavery and Jim Crow (or does God approve of that? Nice god you worship). Also, the difference between Sodom & Gommorah and the U.S.? The U.S. has nukes.

James Williams: you have based your life on human mythology. it is ALL made up by humans, in order to explain, and in order to control. you are a VICTIM. sorry for you.

Amen!

The abomination are you people who use God as an excuse for your homophoiba. I don't understand how you can condem homosexuals when Jesus Christ was so clearly gay he never married hung around with a group of men and don't forget John The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved. all the clues are there you just hav to look.
"Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?"
Jesus refers to "eunuchs who have been so from birth." This terminology ("born eunuchs") was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men. Jesus indicates that being a "born eunuch" is a gift from God.
I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems. On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving.
You can worship a homosexual god so why can't gays be married.

sacred institutions??? go look up Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and tell me how sacred THAT is. Jesus!

So, Robert E are you married? Do you have male friends? Oh, you are so clearly Gay!

Yes Harvey I have been married for 26 years have one son and many frends both male and female and you can't insult me by calling me gay I an not a homophobe like you are. Hope that answers your question.

Nobody is "forcing" you to accept anything. You can stay in your heterosexual marriage and nothing will change. And you don't have to "accept this threat". If you don't like or accept gay people, don't invite them to your home. Those of us who don't accept war as a solution still have to pay taxes to support the military. I don't have to invite soldiers into my home, though.

1st Cor.6:9,10,18, Romans 1:24-32!

please stop googling bible verses

To Ggeorgio:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

right on, Joseph. I hope all the bible thumpers look that one up, and then get out their 50 sheckles for their next road trip.

Vince your ignorance is really showing. There is always a choice. conscious or not. God I'm sure was well aware of Gays that is why HE said do not lay down with people of the same sex. Yes, he loves us all but he also does not want us to be sinners. So, please do not blurr the truth by mixing it with lies.

If God made gays then He is contradicting His own laws . Man shall not lay with man and woman shall not lay with woman.If you believe in God only a little then you know I'm right . Gays are not born that way . It's what they are subjected to as they mature .
I am firmly against same sex marriage. What better way to diminish the population . And they can't produce a child so they should not be able to adopt one .As far as I'm concerned they have no rights .

You know nothing about GOD and he doesn't know you. I'm sure you never read the Bible enough to know Gods position on this matter. Of course, the truth would condemn you and you want to avoid it.
Psalm 50:17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

To William Stevens:

So are you saying that God isn't all knowing when you've said that God doesn't know Vince? There goes that "I've known you before you were born" quip.

William Melton: you have based your life on human mythology. it is ALL made up by humans, in order to explain, and in order to control. you are a VICTIM. sorry for you.

To William Melton:

So are you denying God the right to change his mind?

2nd Timothy 2:15, GOD says: Galations 5:19-21, Romans 1:24-32, Lev.18:19-30, 1st Peter 1:16!

wrong again, Georgio. God didn't say that. the men who wrote the bible said that. and they weren't any smarter than you. damn, isn't that a scary thought?

But they have already had the rights. But some trickery and play on words makes it appear otherwise.

I completely Disagree with you, but you will have to Answer to GOD in the End, and no matter how you try to Justify this Perversion its still WRONG. Don't like it, take it up with GOD

To Skull Taker:

And who will God answer to?

Harvey Wallbanger and Skull Taker (what lovely names you have): you have based your lives on human mythology. it is ALL made up by humans, in order to explain, and in order to control. you are VICTIMS. sorry for you.

The word of GOD, is what MATTERS and GOD says this about SAME-SEX activity: Romans 1:24-32, 1st Cor. 6:9,l0,18, Lev.18:19-30, & Marriage: Genesis 2:18-24,Matthews 19:4,5, Jesus said SIN no more....JOHN 8:10,11!!!!!!

Georgio, you have been fed a pack of lies, and now you are spreading them around. the bible was written by men. god didn't write a word of it. I promise.

you are misinformed. Redefining marriage and interfering with natural law will most assuredly and unquestionably affect every member of society. I will be required to pay for the in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination (which I oppose on moral grounds) for lesbians and homosexuals because they are unable to biologically reproduce a child. We will also be living in a brave new world where the words "mother and father" will be considered hate speech because they involve gender identification. Case in point: Cranston cancelling "father/daughter" dances because they are considered offensive to just "one" person...

Marriage should not be redefinined.

Cranston canceled "father/daughter" dances because they were in violation of state law. You would make a better argument if you got your facts right.

The Father Daughter dance was canceled because ONE person complained. And the one person ruined it for everyone else. And the "Get A-CLU" filed the complaint.

Well, Mr. Cocoa-cola, the Bible is an inspiration by God. 2 Tim. 3:16- 17- “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” The word “inspired” in this verse literally means “God-breathed.” The Bible is not merely the work of man, but are words “breathed out” by God. I am sorry that you mistaken Gods teaching as Hansel Gretal. The only way you can honesty say that religion is a pack of lies is IF you died saw nothing and came back alive. What you probably mean to say is YOU BELIEVE that religion is a pack of lies and YOU refuse to believe it as truth. So, YOU probably hate it when people tell YOU what to do yet YOU feel obligated to tell others how to think which I believe makes YOU a hypocrite.

So the bible is the word of god because it says so. Every religious book written says it is the word of god what makes you book any different. You have to believe the bible because it is the word of god we know it is the word of god because it says so. Thats just circular logic and proves nothing. I could write a book and and claim it is the word of god it does not make it so. Have you ever herd of "kissing hanks butt" it explaines you bible take a look
http://www.jhuger.com/kissing-hanks-butt

One person may have complained about the dance but the dance was canceled be cause it was violation of state law. How many poeple have to complain when state law is violated. If it's illegal it's illegal if it wasn't it would not make any difference how many people complained. So the fact is (I know you have problem with facts after reading your comments on the bible) having the dance would have violated state law ans so that is why it was canceled.

So, WHICH religion are you talking about (That by they way uses a Bible as a foundation of its teachings?) You could write a book ANYONE could write a book and say it is the word of GOD but the difference is your book wouldn't be 3,000 years old. No circular logic there.

One person complained because her daughter could not go to the dance. I ma having problems finding the exact law that says a Father/Daughter or Mother/Son could not have a dance. Yet, Who is to prove whom is related to who? In regards to Religion, Robert E, I am glad you think I am ignorant about Religion. But you should never Blame others for your own ignorance.

So then the egyption gods mus be the true gods because egyption holy books and writings pre date the bible. Age is no proof that something is true there are myths far older then your myths it does not make them true. You can believe me because I am God and you know it's true because I said so and I am God.

Right on, Peter, and LOL! I have a friend who is bisexual. He was married to a woman, got divorced, married another woman, and after his second divorce came out to us as gay. He does not believe in gay marriage. Having been married, he says that he cannot understand why anyone, gay or str8, would insist on being narried!

I still do not understand.....why does gay marriage hurt you? I mean you personally? Gays have lived with each other for centuries....all ...for the most part...being valuable members of society and providing an alternate point of view on things. Why are you hurt by the legalization of their coupling? Or are you just a brazen bigot? All in contrary actions to the spirit of your religion?

unlike YOU, harvey, being a total mockery.

Gary, why do you religious bible thumpers keep posting thies religious stuff over and over? We are not interfering with your religion and your beliefs. You can continue to do whatever you have been doing and believe whatever you want to believe. All we ask is the same respect from you. I think your god also said, "Judge not lest you be judged". Let it go already.

Stop googling bible verses

Hey Gary, even the bible is NOT ABOVE The Constitution.

Amen!

Wasn't Lincoln gay? and do you think George Washington went to hell for owning slaves? nope.. (sal this isnt towards you...you just brought up the constituiton and my statement seemed to fit.)

Amen!

Georgiao, those quotations are taken out of context. in 2013 we have no use for narrowly defined Jewish law which has no bearing on modern homosexual love. it is apples and oranges. and, by the way, have you followed Jesus's command to cast off all your worldly possessions, to follow him?

GOD says homosexuality is SIN! LEV.18:19:30. Romans 1:16;32 & 2:1,2,

God doesn't say that. people say that. and people tend to be ignorant. just look in the mirror, if you doubt me.

Whose god?

Gee, aren't we arrogant to claim to speak for God. Now tell me Skull, why does an omnipotent being like God needs a mere mortal like you to speak for him or defend him?

And when exactly did GOD speak to YOU and tell you this, Skull? Or was it on national TV and I missed it? Oh,wait. I have to belong to YOUR church in order to hear the word of GOD. Sorry. My bad.

And when exactly did GOD speak to YOU and tell you this, Skull? Or was it on national TV and I missed it? Oh,wait. I have to belong to YOUR church in order to hear the word of GOD. Sorry. My bad.

Amen!

hey, skull, take the advice from above and check out Deuteronomy 22:28-29. does the word of GOD really come up with this kind of crap? wow. that's some GOD you've got. you better get on your knees and beg for mercy, because you're in it deep, pal. on the other hand, I prefer to pray to the ghost of Janet Reno. and I don't owe her 50 sheckels every Sunday, either. what a bargain!

then please, for GOD's sake, leave it to GOD, and shut the f**k up.

my prayer:

Dear GOD, Dear JESUS, I pray that you show mercy upon me, and deliver me from YOUR followers.

Amen.

deal accordingly with That, skull faker.

as if any GOD worth two sh**s would have YOU for a spokesperson.

Two women? Then you haven't read The Book Of Ruth (part of the bible).

Gary, you have based your life on human mythology. it is ALL made up by humans, in order to explain, and in order to control. you are a VICTIM. sorry for you.

They have a blindness that doesn't allow them to understand the real condition of humanity. When they try to foist it on us....we all lose. Sad

Does that include hitler, Stalin, Mao, pol pot, ghadafi or how ever you spell that. Also may I point out that it was the churches who were very loud and very brave about emancipation. The abolitionists put their lives on the line and finally succeeded. The churches were also the first ones on the front lines after Katrina and sandy. So don't be so quick to condemn them.

Richard, what you wrote is almost humorous.... in that you do not see.........
I already stated for the record: Your god is one of your own making and not My God which is the God of the Bible. Here is the funny part... you and some others mention quite correctly the various faults of "religion and people" in general: There will always be faults in every institution, nation, and organization, that is just the facts of life. Imperfect people make imperfect things. However, that is not a justification for wrong. You feel it is perfectly correct for YOU and others as yourself to demand your way..... Oh, but it is not right for any of us to disagree with your premise. That my friend is a good example of a double a standard (we never see those do we?).
You can say it's okay, and you can say we need to make laws to benefit your ideas, but woe to us if we do not agree..... and we should keep our (religous) values to ourselves? ha ha! Yeh, right. Try to think about this with a level head. Also please do note: I am NOT attacking you personally, nor even your ideas on a personal level..... I merely, and others like me as well, just simply cannot buy into your logic and we say so..... just as you DO buy into it and also say so. Okay? :-) That is why this is a "discussion blog" and not just "this is the way it is blog."

Richard. Man's beleif does NOT VALIDATE GOD'S WORD, his words are TRUE, because he said them! Romans 3:3,4, Philippians 2:10,11, Isaiah 45:21-23, Hosea 11:9!

Well Said

Cathy,.....Taxes now are the deciding posture?? Churches and socially beneficial organization are exempted since their members ALL pay taxes and they donate (not government money) to make them run. The IRS (c3) exemption is very limited and is based on public benefit. Even so, that does NOT negate the right of any people to state their beliefs and convictions. Right? You know, the basic your Rights and MY Rights type of thing being the same??? It is these same "opinions" that you tell us to shove in a nice way, that made this nation what it is today! Just go look at all the national monuments in WDC if you douobt that! It is written clearly for ALL to see. All of it was based upon the "opinions" of God and the Bible as is clearly written as well for all to see.... you too kiddo. :-) Remember, you do NOT get money back from teh government for any c.3 contribution, it is merely a "loss of income" taken off the top, that you do not pay taxes on. Did you know that as of last year, fewer than 50% of the people in this nation pay ANY income tax at all??? And Of that less than 50%, many of them get money back that they never paid in to begin with??

Ephesians 4:5,6, Genesis 18:25, Psalms 50:6, Acts 10:42, 2nd Timothy 4:8,Hebrews 12:23,***,2nd Timothy 2:15*** PLEASE!!!!

I form the light and I create the darkness. I make peace and I create EVIL for I, the LORD do all of those things.

Isaiah 45:7

Amen, anna.

Kevin, I see.... sooooo.... boiling all you wrote down to a common denominator it would go like this: "Since the whole world (or a very large portion of it) have decided that evil is now good, then we should all agree, and do as they have done." Did I really leave anything out of that defective argument? Try to thnk above the level of a Lemming. (humor intended only, and not a personal slam - honestly.) If everyone wsa a killer.... that will make murder okay, right? :-)
So God must have reeeeally screwed up on this one since we are all SO much smarter than He could ever be!? Right? 9snicker snicker)

Just stating a fact Gary. I will leave you to the pontificating.

Gary, as I have told you before, you have based your life on human mythology. it is ALL made up by humans, in order to explain, and in order to control. you are a VICTIM. and I am feeling sorry for you. you are on the side of the slaveholders in the antebellum South, and the true believers who claimed the earth was flat. you and YOUR bull**** god are keeping fine company. and the thinkers among us wish you would keep it to yourselves, instead of inflicting it on others who are not chained to your belief in unicorns.

Kevin.....There was a time when everyone believe the the world was FLAT! Did their belief make it so? Proverbs 27:20, Psalms 9:17, Matthews 23:33!

Georgio, your beliefs are as false and outdated as those of the dear old Flat Earth folks. get your head out of the first century, and join the twenty first. if God is anything, God is love. God does not create something only to condemn it, and Heaven is not waiting for the likes of you. That was a promise made to keep the peasants from revolting. Think about it.

Vince, relax buddy! For the most part, most of us "religous folks" (who even give you chapter and verses) are NOT being outrightly critical of you nor others at all. There IS a standard. About 50 years ago in and through the public education system came a set of values saying that there were no standards, and there were no valid values but your own: all that as they made miriads of rules and standards for themselves.... pretty funny as an excellent double standard, eh? May I ask you: How is it that you know so much about is all who disagree with you and use the Bible as our guide, that you can call us all, "....bible quoting hypocrits will be apologizing to those you have condemned...." without condemning your own super judgemental self-supiriority????! Yeh, it does go both ways doesn't it.
Try to relax and enjoy the dialogue you all.... it is much more fun and educational.

Thank you Vince. And thanks for sharing. Of course God made you and you are fine the way you are. Regarding your last two sentences though, remember what Jesus said:
"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

Actually Kyle, you do not need to Google the Bible at all if you actually read the Bible for yourself! It really does change ones personal perspective to do so. More than one great antagonist has set out the dis-prove the Bible, it's accuracy, and it's historical record only to end up a believer instead. Kevin,...Pontificating? Really? That is the best you are mentally capable of? I have tried to give you reasoned, clear, and open logic, with the background of moral support specifics and that is all you can answer? No wonder your a Dimocrat. Ha ha!

Thanks, Kyle. Too bad their belief in Dragons In Flyng Saucers has to be thrust so emphatically upon others, in order to keep it alive in their own hearts. they think they are spreading The Word, but really they are spreading Man-Ooor. have a Pepsi!

Well I waste an hour of Sunday by watching The Three Stooges.

you are referring to the sickness of trying to make good children believe in the (pick one:) Allah/God/Jesus/Zeus/TheToothFairy/LukeSkywalker/BettyCrocker kind of thing?

yea, and without God, you said it yourself, you have no real reason for living. so you need a false belief to crutch up your pathetic life. good for you. others have found the courage to live life without crutches, and have done great things.

Gary....Vince here. I do not claim to know everything. I am responding to the great number of Bible-bearing people with their all knowing and condescending remarks towards gay people. If you are not gay, then keep your judgemental comments to yourself. There is nothing wrong with being gay. God made us this way. When you quote the Bible to condemn others you do not truly have Christ in your heart. Seriously though, those of you on here who keep posting your Bible quotes need to be educated. In case you haven't noticed the world that God made is filled with science and biology. We are all God's creatures who are subjected to those laws. No one EVER chooses to be gay. It is their very nature. If you can't understand it then that is fine but you don't have the right to condemn others to hell because you are too ignorant to try to find out about the nature of being gay. Gay people are human too. We are also God's children who He created the way we are. Go take a course in psychology. And then maybe you can come down off of your pulpit and try to be more Christ-like. You tell me to relax. You would get sick and tired of dealing with self righteous holier than thou people who think they know what it is like to be gay when they are actually clueless and probably have never know a gay person in their life. I happen to know a lot of Christians from many faiths who love and accept gay people. It's too bad that there is so much ignorance on one website.

Your god is far from merciful, Skull. If your god created a place for eternal torment, then yor god should not call himself loving either. Your god should be on his knees begging for our forgiveness for all the sins he commited against humanity and the planet.

http://sammanjac.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/death-is-certain-to-those-who-mock-jesus/

If "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" holds true, then jesus the carpenter met his end properly. After all, he was nailed to a piece of wood, wasn't he?

Your death is certain forgot one.
Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God.
He died at the hands of the Romans at age of 33 in a horrible manner.

I looked up ignoramus in the dictionary and your picture was there. I thought it was a misprint then I noticed I had the wrong book. I had a DICK-tionary.

skull taker, your ignorance is only surpassed by your malice. scroll up to find the answer to your question. (btw, is it too much to ask that you then live the rest of your life in shame, as you should? it probably is, because you're so powerfully thick-headed, but I figured it was worth a try.)

You need to just say no to drugs boy , an check yourself into a Rehab Facility.

skull taker: thanks, but I'll pass on the rehab offer. my luck, they'd have YOU as a night guardsman, and I'd wind up "raped in prison." maybe you should try peddling your wares at the local schoolyard, instead?

He might not have made gay people but he sure has a school where they learn to be one, or whatever they call priests these days

Like I've said before, who made you God's spokesperson?

Skull must be hearing voices.

kinda like you, huh, skull?

My gosh! He used the word "Choose".... Are you sure? I heard there was no choice.

Evidence exists both through clinical studies as well as through the personal testimony of millions of gay and straight people around the world who will testify they have no choice over to whom they are emotionally, romantically, and physically attracted.

Bisexual people sometimes confuse the issue as it takes some of them a long time to realize that while they experience attractions to some members of both sexes, they have no choice over being attracted. Like gay and straight people, they only have a choice of whether to act on their attractions.

Sexual orientation is not a choice.

They don't want admit that choice is involved because that would mean they would have to be responsible for their actions. Again, how you are born - no control but it is what you do after. Straights have sex with gays, gays have sex with straights. gays with gays and so on. choice is involved.

Most people are aware of their sexual orientation long before they act on it, if they act on it. Some people choose a life of chastity, yet they still have a sexual orientation. Even people who are physically incapable of sexual activity still have a sexual orientation. Orientation is about far more than sexual behavior.

Additionally, science has shown the enduring pattern of emotional, affectional, and physical attraction that defines orientation is highly resistant to change, and efforts to change it can result in severe harm including suicide.

But even if you believe it is a choice, remember choice of religious belief is protected by the constitution. Equal rights cannot be denied on the basis of choice of religious belief. Your desire to punish gay people as a result of their sexual orientation is unsupportable. Prejudice fails as an excuse for legal discrimination.

You still provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights.

who needs a mod to deal with him? he hangs himself with his own words. and his heart is a cold, cold place to be. imagine the pain he feels every day. God is punishing him already.

Enjoy your night slick74 take it easy bro

you go, Slick. give him a big kiss for Rhode Island, the LAST of the Abolishionist New England States to acheive Same Sex Marriage Equality. and remember, it's shining examples of humanity like "SKULL TAKER" (and what a charming and enlightened name that is, by the way) that brought us slave catchers and jim crow laws. I bet he's leaking in his pants, just wishing he had a baseball bat and station wagon full of "liberals" to go after.. We shall overcome!!

Methinks he's from Mississippi.

Skull thinks that anybody who is for equal marriage is gay. Too bad that he isn't crusading (what an appropriate word) against divorce, shellfish, multi-fabric clothing.

William: it is just this simple; if you're against abortion, don't have one. get it?

ho·mo·pho·bi·a (hō'mə-fō'bē-ə) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Fear of OR CONTEMPT FOR lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

[homo(sexual) + -phobia.]

ho'mo·phobe' n., ho'mo·pho'bic adj.

(American Heritage Dictionary, 2006)

homophobic

adjective;
prejudiced against homosexual people

(Wordnet, Princeton University, 2006)

Why do so many people have difficulty with the meaning of this word?
Dictionaries are wonderful things. If it looks like a homophobe, swims like a homophobe, and quacks like a homophobe, then it is a homophobe.

Robert just because people don't agree with the gay lifestyle, doesn't mean we are fearful. It just means you have a nackling to call people names who disagree with you.

Harvey. I you look at the definitions offered, you will see fear is not a requirement to fulfill the definition. While it may be a condition, prejudice is all that is required.

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."
(Golinski v. OPM)

Prejudice is clearly displayed by refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law.

Dan accusing people of being Bigots so they will agree with you also is considered fear of non-acceptance.

If you look at that quote again, you will see it explains "bigotry" is NOT required for prejudice or homophobia.

While bigotry requires hate, prejudice does not require hate. It may be as simple as "insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

For some people, prejudice results from a simple lack of understanding, not from hate.

Again, prejudice is clearly displayed by refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law.

Additionally, sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. A lifestyle may or may not involve expression of sexual orientation, but they are two different things.

Disagreeing with something only means it is not for me. Calling people a Bigot or a homophobe because they disagree means YOU lack tolerance. At least I know how to spell Bigot.

Harvey. You said: "Disagreeing with something only means it is not for me".

You are certainly free to disagree. But whether motivated by hate or not, no matter what you call it, using the law to deny to others the rights you expect for yourself fulfills the definition of prejudice.

Why don't you take a look at some of robert e remarks

Skull my love your back where have you been I missed you.

The bottom line is that, in order to have any real shot at Heaven, we must believe every word of the Bible and all its incredible pronouncements. The only way a rational person can believe such jibberish is to accept it by faith, without question. We must turn off our brains. Fortunately for many of the participants here, they were born with very little brain power in the first instance, hence blind deference isn't difficult for them.

Your Mom was a petri Dish and your dad was a turkey baster and look how you turned out.

Yeeeeoooowww

Sorry Harvey I turned out just fine and without the delusion that some invisable space deity created me. I support in vitro fertilization so again you are not insulting me I don't view science as evil. Go back to you book of myths that has been proven wrong by science time and again for the meaning of life. Just don't fall off the flat earth that your god made and did not even know it was round when he wrote the bible. For a deity that is supposed to to be infallible he sure is wrong a lot maybe same sex marrage is another one of the things he is wrong about.

You are already telling lies. Sorry, don't remember reading that the Bible has been proven wrong. If it had, wouldn't it make the news? In order to know the Earth was flat, you would of had to have sent a camera into space which actually happened within the last 50 years. So, trashing a period in time because of something they couldn't have had...? And weather Same sex marriage is wrong..hmmm....seems the states that have Ok'd same sex marriage also have the highest rate of AIDS. And you wonder if is wrong? Mr Turkey baster...

Harvey you said "The word “inspired” in this verse literally means “God-breathed.” The Bible is not merely the work of man, but are words by God." So are you now saying it is not the word of god. If “breathed out” the words then god was wrong when he said the earth he created was flat. Science proved when they sent cameras into space god was wrong the earth was not flat and the sun did revolve around the earth. so either god was wrong and confused when he “breathed out” the bible or the bible is not the word of god but the word of man and homosexuals are not an abomonation. So you can go play with your imaginary friend I'll stick with reality. Religion is a delusion. It is literally a mental illness. You find great comfort in the idea that your apparently pointless life is not pointless at all because there will be a great reward after you die. "No need to fear death, there will be a second life of bliss that will last for eternity." And you even have the control element to keep the bad boys in line. "You better be good, or the loving god will cast you into a pit of fire and torture you forever." This is so reassuring that your subconscious blocks any logical questioning of these religious "beliefs" so as to protect the mind from horrible thoughts like only living a short unfulfilling life and then dying, and there is no more to it than that at all.

Robert E, if you would only quit contradicting yourself for a brief moment, you might make sense. WHERE in the bible does it say the earth was flat? God inspired the bible and had man do the writing. Religion is just fine. If you want to see a Mental Illness, go look in the mirror.

That is your interpretation, not based on the teachings of Jesus, who repeatedly told us to treat others as we would ourselves. Your desire to ignore the Golden Rule is not supported by scripture, but by your chosen interpretation of it.

And that is why our laws are based on a constitution that requires equal treatment for all persons, rather than any one person's interpretation of ancient religious texts not agreed upon by all.

But what if Satan is the good guy? What if he rebelled against God because he was aware of God's evil plan to create this kind of world and with it condemn human beings to hell forever? What if Satan told Adam the truth in the garden and wanted him to have a true knowledge about God that was forbidden him? What if God was the one who revealed a lie, that Satan was the bad guy even though he isn't? What if God also had some innocent sap be crucified and subsequently claimed it represented his love for us? What if God laughs that so many people believes what he revealed? What if God is the bad guy? What if this so-called cosmic war is being won by the wrong guy? What if in response Satan is sending prophets (i.e. intellectuals), to tell believers the truth, that God is a liar, an evil egomaniac, a moral monster?

"What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. "On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers."
James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary

Well dan, using your train of thought then any Activity would be ok and condoned. The 1 thing you can count on is the SCOTUS will see through any non-substantial argument as yours and Up-Hold both DOMA and PROP 8 as being Lawful and Valid. Sorry to rain on your little rainbow parade, you can always consider moving to Spain, Mexico or Canada they all the farce of gay marriage in those countries. At least Canada and Mexico can be reached by car.

We are talking specifically about marriage, not "any activity". The only activity here is one that is already condoned by law: marriage.

You derision fails to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Ridicule and pejorative terminology remain your best arguments against treating others as you would yourself under the law. You provide nothing else.

Contempt and scorn fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Hey dan, spout all the non-sensical gobbledy gook you want but the SCOTUS will rule on the Parameters of CASE LAW and NOT whats Popular or Trendy at the Time. The comical part to this SSM nonsense is that the 14th Admend will be the Exact Reason why DOMA & Prop 8 are ruled LEGAL n VALID

Here is something to ponder. All of the States so far that have OK'd Gay Marriage are also the top states with the highest AIDS cases .. except California which has the highest case count the last 10 years.

Almost all homophobic men regardless of religion are secretly gay. Scientific studies have proved this.
"The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

ELI
Sorry if a well reasoned federal court decision appears to you as "non-sensical gobbledy gook".

Notice too, I use this quote to point out "bigotry" is NOT required. Prejudice does not require hate. It may be as simple as "insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

For some people, prejudice results from a lack of understanding, not from hate.

Case Law, provides several trial court and appellate court decisions beyond the ones currently under consideration. I'm not sure what you see in the equal protections clauses of the 5th and 14th amendment that the judges ruling discrimination is unconstitutional are not seeing. Fortunately, they have shown there are no rational governmental interests sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law for gay couples.

Disease information has always been used against minority poulations to demonize and dehumanize in order to justify causing further harm. Yet even misleading information about disease transmission, supports the importance of encouraging committed relationships through marriage.

It also demonstrates the importance of accurate and honest education about disease transmission and risk reduction. Anyone can catch any disease, if exposed in a way that allows transmission.

It fails to provide an excuse for legal discrimination and the continued promotion of the irrational prejudice that leads many to self destructive behavior including high risk sex. Punishing one group for something that involves everyone is irrational.

It also fails to consider gay women are the lowest risk group for disease transmission, while straight people of both sexes are also at risk for all of the same things used to demonize and deny equal treatment to gay people of both sexes.

Statistics are used to track things. In this instance it is used to track a disease that can kill and can put a person in jail if they fail to disclose that they are carriers. Yes anyone can catch a disease. Some are worse than others. The one I spoke of does have direct relation to a certain group of people. Proving your point by picking out the non-risk group does not make the problem go away it just means you can't argue a point well. The courts cannot force me to like anything or vote for anything.

Harvey. True, the courts cannot make you like anything or vote any way. That is why we have a constitution that requires equal treatment under the law for all persons. Equal rights were never intended to depend on popular opinion or any vote.

Was your point that we should promote monogamy through marriage, and comprehensive disease transmission education? If it was to support your opposition to marriage equality, your point remains irrational.

The courts cannot tell me how to vote. Marriage equality means that everyone has the same rights as I. The law stated that I could marry as long as it was the person of opposite sex. I never disagreed with nor did I want to change the law. This was the law for everyone which meant it was equal to all.

Harvey. We agree the courts cannot telly you how to vote, or how to feel, or what to believe.

But your argument is the same one used to justify denial of inter-racial marriage: "everyone has the same right to marry someone of their own race". It ignores the reality that gay people have no desire to marry someone of the opposite gender. Nor does it provide a legitimate governmental justification for refusing to treat otherwise qualified gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect. Gender is not a rational distinction for denial of the fundamental, individual right of marriage.

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

Is it really about race? What race are gay people? I have no want to marry someone of the same gender and gay people DON'T want to marry someone of opposite gender. Good it is equal. Gender is great as it is. Just as they courts will find that you cannot limit to 2 people. polygamy with also be ok. Pretty soon, just as in Sweden no one will get married because Marriage will have a meaningless definition. DOMA only secures the definition of marriage. And despite what any gay person will say, they have the right currently to marry whom they want (just as I) as long as they are of opposite gender. Now you just agreed with me that the court cannot tell me how to think yet as you explained in the last paragraph, I would be FORCED to agree by court decision how to think.

Don't worry Harvey the court will not force you to marry someone of the same sex so you are still free to be a homophobic bigot. You have the right to your view what you don't have is the right to impose those views on others. By allowing gays to marry your rights are not violated as you are not forced to marry another man but by not allowing same sex marrage the rights of gays are being violated. As far as more then 2 people getting married I would think you would support this as polygamy is the traditional marrage outlined in the bible as well as incest. God created a Adam and Eve they had 2 sons Cain and Able who the mated with their mother as she was the only female on the planet at the time and your worried about 2 men getting married. Incest with your mother is not an abomination 2 men togather is? You have one sick god there no wonder the Christian faith is in decline.

Legal recognition of marriage equality does not force you to agree, like it, or marry someone of the same gender. You are still free to believe and think what you choose. A fairly recent poll showed if inter-racial marriage depended on a vote of Alabama republicans today, it would fail. Clearly, many still believe in inter-racial segregation, even though the law does not allow it in the public square. You are still free to discriminate in you home, church, or private club, and believe whatever you choose. You may not use your beliefs to deny to others the rights you enjoy for yourself.

2=2
3 or more does not equal 2

There is no reason more of the same will lead to something entirely different. Allowing same sex couples to participate under the rules currently in effect does not change the marriages of straight people in any way. Poly arrangements require changing the rules for opposite sex couples. They also change the social dynamics for the entire society. They have been found by courts as well as legislatures to be harmful in many ways. While frequently offered as an excuse to deny same sex couples equal treatment under the laws currently in effect, they are a very different argument.

You still provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.

Robert E you prove a point about tolerance - that it exists in only imagination (yours). I'd rather be a Bigot that an idiot like you. If you don't people imposing their views then I suggest you leave the United States because Voting for a presidents involves as you say "Imposing beliefs onto others". But I guess in reality, there is no place for you to live because no matter where you go, there will always be someone who will have a different opinion than yours and you will have no choice but to call them Bigots too.

Harvey. What you keep missing, is the use of the law.

You want to use the law to deny to others, what you have for yourself.

That is the imposition of your view in a clear and demonstrable way. It does not change thinking of belief, but it does impose your view using the force of law in a way that burdens others.

Equal treatment does not deny you of any legal rights. You lose nothing. No burden is created. You are still free to think, believe, feel, anything you choose. It is only you who wants to use your views to deny equal treatment under the law.

So, after 3,000 years of a marriage law I am suddenly imposing my views on others. Maybe others are imposing their views on me. I get it just fine. Maybe we should get rid of all driving laws because it is impossible the states on others who have a right to drive how they feel. I get it just fine. You are right...I am wrong..and I ma a Bigot because I don't agree with you. And I am forcing MY VIEWS on others?

Please show how you are burdened by allowing others to be treated equally to you under the same laws.

Hint: There is no burden. You lose no rights. Your marriage is not changed in any way.

Your position denies equal fundamental rights. It imposes a burden, while providing no governmental benefit.

Not sure how I can make this clearer. Only your position imposes a restriction on the rights of others.

And same sex marriage is nothing new, it just has never been more than a minority expression, as one would expect. Documentation shows it has existed at various times and places around the globe including 4,000 years ago in Egypt.

No matter what your motivation, the effects of legal discrimination remain the same: needless suffering, stigmatization, and death.

I explained to you the meaning of equality. Equality means you have the same rights as I do by definition. Once you start changing the definition of something, the meaning of that something then has no meaning. The harm being done is you are redefining something that has been fine the way it is. If Gay "marriage' is so strong as you say, let it stand on its own and not piggyback on something else. If you are refusing to get married under the current law, you can gain the same rights by using power of attorney. My marriage would not change because I would already be married. Nice play on words. The argument as a whole is really about marriage nationally. How does it change marriage as a country? Burden? Yes, as with anything else there is always a burden when one wants priveledges that goes with something but you do not qualify for that something. Dan it is clear to ME. But your side can't handle a different opinion. You are lead to believe that people have like you and there is no other way. To achieve this HAVE TO like me attitude, you resort to name calling in the hopes that I will think hey I don't want to be called names so I will give up my beliefs. The Gay Marriage in Egypt 4000 years is based on the finding of a tomb where its occupants were buried locked in arms. So, it is assumed they were Gay. But no way to prove if they were in fact Gay or married. I guess it is called a FAIRY tale.

Your definition of equal fails to consider the reality of gay people. It ignores them under the law. Fortunately, the courts recognize this fact of life, and have found discrimination on this basis alone is irrational.

It also fails to consider the legal marriages of gay people performed in neighboring states and countries. Currently, the legal marriages of same gender couples are not treated equally to the other marriages performed in the same jurisdictions by some states and the federal government.

Marriage is defined by the over 1,138 federal rights and protections that automatically accompany marriage, in addition to the state provisions. Allowing gay couples to participate under the same laws currently in effect does not change your marriage, even if you divorce and get married 5 or 10 more times. There is no redefinition of "what" marriage is. The only change is in allowing same gender couples to participate.

Your belief gay couples do not qualify fails the test of reason. Marriage, like speech, is a fundamental right. People qualify for fundamental rights by virtue of being alive.

Fundamental rights may be delayed or restricted if and only when a legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. You provide no such governmental interest. Denial of legal equality provides nothing to opposite gender couples, while harming same gender couples and their families.

A book by the Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes same sex ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

Another book by Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries.

"Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/gay-marriage-goes-way-back/

Even the notorious WBC, in their supreme court breif, claims same gender marriage took place before the time of Noah.

And here is another source, though several entire books have been written, using original doucments as sources.

"At times throughout history, same-sex relationships have enjoyed relative freedom within their respective places.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated. "
(random history .com/ history-of-gay-marriage.)

I understand this may be a waste of effort if not seen by anyone other than these two, yet because real people are harmed by the prejudice and discrimination being promoted, I believe it is important to expose that harmful prejudice and discrimination as irrational and legally unjustifiable.

While some will never change, others who haven't considered legal equality in depth, can assimilate new information that conflicts with the prejudice we were all taught as children. Many have shown they can overcome their prejudice when examined, and often through meeting a gay person or family member.

It is therefore important, however painful, to make sure the record reflects that prejudice and discrimination cause needless suffering and death, while treating others as you would yourself under the law is required by the constitution, and harms no one.

Well Portsmouth Buffoon, thanks for contributing nothing. Maybe you should go back to tending your fireplace for the impending storm and not attempt to justify a a Deviant Alternative CHOSEN Lifestyle, maybe you should work on reading with an Understanding.

ELI. Your reliance on pejorative terminology and expressions of contempt, still fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as require by the constitution.

Ignoring the science and history that demonstrate sexual orientation is not a choice, fails to make it so. If you have a choice, you are somewhere on the bisexual continuum. Most heterosexual and gay people will tell you the only choice is in acting on their attractions, not whether or not to be emotionally and physically attracted.

ELISCOMING and Harvey Wallbanger good news once same sex marrage passes and you two come out of the closet As studies have shown that most homophobes are closet homosexuals you can get married to each other. We can all tell you two are so much in love you would be a perfect couple. Keep posting as more people see your small minded views more people support same sex marrage. Wait now I understand you two are lovers and are just posting to show how ridiculous the Christian argument against gay marriage is. Great job keep posting everybody needs to know what fools these Christians are.

ELI. Your reliance on pejorative terminology and expressions of contempt, still fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as require by the constitution.

Words have meaning that go beyond their connotations.:
Tolerance is displayed by treating people equally under the law.
Intolerance is displayed by denial of equal legal treatment.

Equality also has clear meaning when applied to the law. Treatment is either the same or it is not.

Civil rights also have clearly established legal meanings.

"Homophobia" is often misunderstood. The common definition does not require fear or hate, while the clinical definition requires aversion or mild fear. I tend to avoid using it, unless I am talking to someone I know understands its usage. I prefer the term "anti-gay prejudice" because it is measurable and does not require hate or fear, just a desire to deny equal legal treatment.

Again, ignoring the science and history that demonstrate sexual orientation is not a choice, fails to make it so. If you have a choice, you are somewhere on the bisexual continuum. Most heterosexual and gay people will tell you the only choice is in acting on their attractions, not whether or not to be emotionally and physically attracted. Nor is sexual orientation a lifestyle.

And still no legitimate governemtal interest needed for denial of a fundamental right.

But Camille Paglia denounced Boswell’s research despite having everything to gain by supporting it (‘Plighting Their Troth’, Guardian Weekly, 11 Sept. 1994, p. 18.):

“Despite sporadic qualifications, Boswell repeatedly implies a genital subtext to intense spiritual alliances, even when his supporting manuscripts make clearly uncarnal invocations to martyred paired saints, who died in the service of Christ. …

“Whatever medieval ceremonies of union may have been found, Boswell has not remotely established that they were originally homosexual in our romantic sense. Their real meaning has yet to be determined. Sacrilegious misuse of such ceremonies may indeed have occurred, leading to their banning, but historians are unjustified in extrapolating backwards and reducing fragmentary evidence to its lowest common denominator. "

Of course there will be many who wish to interpret the evidence differently or ignore it altogether. Even your quote admits the ceremonies could have been "misused", implying an admission they were used for same sex weddings. But the titles were called; the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

If you look at opposite gender marriage ceremonies of the time or even today, there is no mention of sexual behavior. It is assumed without question when two people are united in a union.

This also fails to discredit documentation of same sex ceremonies in China and the Americas. Even the anti-gay WBC admits in their Supreme Court brief same sex ceremonies were taking place before the time of Noah.

While we could argue the details all day, it should be clear that same sex couples have always existed, and their unions were approved and disapproved to various degrees at various times and places around the globe.

Yet no matter how you choose to interpret the documentation, you still fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as promised in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments.

Yet Homosexual marriages were still illegal at that time. Again, the article NEVER said if the two men were actually gay as we know it today. I have explained that the law has always been equal for one man and one woman. No one has ever been denied. However, It has been mocked several time by the gay community. But I guess if you tell people enough times that they are bigots eventually they believe it, right?

Over 9,000 gay people have gotten married in Iowa. 36,000 got married in California during the window of opportunity.

While that may not be significant for you, it is significant for them.

But marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. It remains a fundamental right no matter how many choose to exercise that right.

When anti-gay prejudice was heavliy enshrined in the law, those gay people who could hide being gay sometimes married a straight partner just to appear straight so they could keep a job, housing, and be able to avoid being an outcast or imprisoned and experimented upon. But these were not marriages based on choice of partner. Again, would you want to marry a woman and find out later she was only attracted to other women and not you? Would you wish that on a relative or friend? Your choice is fine for straight people, but irrational and harmful for gay people and the straight person they marry.

Again, your argument is the same as one of the many offered to excuse inter-racial marriage. You can marry anyone you choose as long as they are the same race. That is a restriction of choice. Applied to gay people, it removes the choice of marrying someone you want to marry. Again, your denial of this reality is not recognized by the courts.

And no, gay people cannot change sexual orientation. Some bisexuals can be happy committed to a person of the opposite sex, but those on the far end of the continuum cannot be happy with such a choice.

So what we want is the freedom to marry the otherwise qualified person of our mutual choice, regardless of gender. Gender is an artificial restriction that provides no benefit to straight people, and harms gay people needlessly.

You fail to show how allowing same sex couples to participate under the same rules currently in effect changes marriage for straight people. There is no change to their present or future marriages.

Evidence exists both through clinical studies as well as through the personal testimony of millions of gay and straight people around the world who will testify they have no choice over to whom they are emotionally, romantically, and physically attracted. Bisexual people sometimes confuse the issue as it takes some of them a long time to realize that while they experience attractions to some members of both sexes, they have no choice over being attracted. Like gay and straight people, they only have a choice of whether to act on their attractions.

"Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions."

Never said it was insignificant. I am glad sodomy is alive and well. I was just asking a question. So much work to get it legalized and then they win and everything goes quiet. Thought for sure there would be a big celebration - like a parade. Gays have always had the right but if it becomes a right through redefinition then everyone can marry anything. It hurts everyone's marriage because then marriage has no meaning. Pretty soon no one will get married as it has happened in Sweden.

True you did not use the word "insignificant." Your choice of words was "nothing. Nadda".

You fail to show how 9,000 gay people in Iowa is "nothing. Nadda."

Allowing gay people to participate under the rules currently in effect, does not change marriage for straight people. It does not allow "everyone to marry anything". Reasonable restrictions based on age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and being human still apply. There is no rational reason to change any of those restrictions. More of the same does not require doing something else. The current or future marriages of straight couples are not changed. The 1,138 federal rights and protections, as well as the state rights and protections, remain the same. The only change is in allowing otherwise qualified same sex couples to participate.

"Start with Massachusetts, which endorsed gay marriage in May 2004. That year, the state saw a 16 percent increase in marriage. The reason is, obviously, that gay couples who had been waiting for years to get married were finally able to tie the knot. In the years that followed, the marriage rate normalized but remained higher than it was in the years preceding the legalization. So all in all, there’s no reason to worry that gay marriage is destroying marriage in Massachusetts.

The other four states that have legalized gay marriage—New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire—have done it more recently, somewhere between 2008 and 2011. But from the little data we have, it looks as if the pattern will be more or less the same—a temporary jump in marriage followed by a return to virtually the same marriage rates as before gay marriage became legal. Washington, D.C., which started accepting same-sex marriages in March 2010, saw a huge 61.7 percent increase in marriage that year, though it’s too soon to see where it will settle. Again, no signs of the coming apocalypse."

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/05/does_gay_marriage_affect_marriage_or_divorce_rates_.html

And people are still getting married in Sweden.

The orientation is not a choice but it is how you act on it. same for everybody. I am glad you repeat yourself and don't actually read what I say.

If you read my responses, you would see I have addressed your points.

And still you provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights. (but of course, that is because there is no legitimate excuse.)

So Harvey, you acknowledge one's sexual orientation is not a choice, but "it is how you act on it." Are you saying people should not be who they are?

Patrick, I know you are trying hard to find a way to trip me up. Do understand - Life is a choice. Just as I had no choice how I was born I can still choose how to live my life. If you so choose to be GAY then so be it. I choose to be straight. Good for me.

If you have a choice, you are bi-sexual.

Evidence exists both through research and clinical studies as well as through the personal testimony of millions of gay and straight people around the world who will testify they have no choice over to whom they are emotionally, romantically, and physically attracted.

Bisexual people sometimes confuse the issue as it takes some of them a long time to realize that while they experience attractions to some members of both sexes, they have no choice over being attracted. Like gay and straight people, they only have a choice of whether to act on their attractions.

"The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations." AAP

Dan, everyone has a choice.

Sexual orientation is not a choice.

While acting on it is, you wish to deny to gay people the relationship possibilities you promote for straight people.

Haven't denied anyone anything. Some of us prefer no to redefine things. You want equality and if equality means the same as then you can marry just as I as long as it is of the opposite sex. if you choose to have a relationship with some one of the same gender go knock yourself out. Society as a whole should not have to recognize it.

12 states and DC already recognize same sex marriages, including Rhode Island, as does Canada and Mexico in addition to many other jurisdictions.

The question is, should RI treat same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect by allowing them to obtain their marriage licenses here at home, or make them travel to a neighboring state or country to obtain their marriage certificate.

You want to deny them the right to get a license here. You make them travel to obtain a legal marriage.

You are free to remain in denial, but same sex couples are already getting legally married every day.

Stick to the subject. Now you are talking about something different. oh well. You know those lying politicians will do anything for a vote.

Just responding to your comment.

You wish to deny equal treatment to same sex couples.

Society already recognizes those marriages in many jurisdictions, including Rhode Island. You just want to deny them the right to get married at home. Your desire to make them travel is not an altruistic one.

Your desire to make them marry someone to whom they have no attraction is also an irrational one, and again, not altruistic.

Deny Equal treatment....So lets look at the definition of EQUAL: EQUAL means the same as. Homosexuals want equal treatment as Straights. The way it was written for straights was one man can marry one woman. I have never denied anyone access to marriage as long as they followed the law as I am expected. If a certain state decides to redefine the definition then good for them. How the law is to be written for a given state is up to them. If Gays must travel then that is a CHOICE they make - please do not blame me for someone else's problems. Marriage... attraction. The difference between us is you call it a marriage and I do not.

Your definition excludes same sex couples for no legitimate governmental purpose. It provides nothing to opposite sex couples, while harming same sex couples needlessly.

I call it marriage when two people enter the same legal contract we call marriage. So does the state, along with several others.

Married same sex couples in the state are treated equally under the same laws currently in effect for straight couples.

The only difference is, the state makes them travel to get the license.

Again, you provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the license in their local communities.

Through most of human history and in most cultures the most widely accepted tradition of marriage has been polygamy -- one man and multiple women. We're not just talking about exotic island cultures or lost tribes in the African jungle. Polygamy is the family form most often mentioned in the first five books of the Old Testament. For the first 16 centuries of its existence, the Catholic Church held that marriage was inherently tainted by what Pope Gregory the Great deemed the degrading "carnal pleasure" that took place under its auspices. The church decided that a man and woman were married if they had exchanged "words of consent," even if they had done so out by the haystack, without any witnesses or involvement by a priest. Not until 1215 did the Catholic Church make marriage a sacrament, and not until 1563 did it begin to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had to be performed to make a marriage legitimate. Sixteenth-century Protestant reformers had a much more positive marriage a sacrament, and not until 1563 did it begin to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had to be performed to make a marriage attitude toward the blessedness of marriage than Catholics.

But Protestant clerics were stricter than Catholics in enforcing the tradition that marriage should be governed by considerations of patriarchal authority and property rather than free choice based on love. In many Protestant regions, authorities forbade impoverished individuals from marrying at all. And Protestant officials often stepped in to dissolve marriages that had been made without parental consent, even if both parties were adult and children had already been born to their union. Most of the "traditions" we associate with marriage are in fact comparatively new. It was only two centuries ago that people began to marry for love rather than for mercenary or practical considerations. Only 130 years ago did men start to lose their legal right to physically beat or imprison their wives. And only in the past 40 years have we established the principle that within a marriage wives and husbands have equal rights in decision-making. Not until 1979 did the last American state finally repeal its "Head and Master" law, which had given husbands the final say over many aspects of family life. Not until 1993 did marital rape become a crime in every state, overturning the millennia-old tradition that a wife was obligated to have sex with her husband whenever he demanded it.

Trying to revert to antiquated and unfair traditions is not the answer. We need to figure out how to build on the opportunities and minimize the risks associated with the ongoing modernization of marriage. It helps no one to wage futile culture wars to return to a tradition that wasn't half as clear-cut or advantageous as many people believe.

Robert E, unfortunately, I can only go by tradition in the sense of what I have known. Dan, I am glad there are states who recognize same sex marriage. However, if you visit the CDC website, you will also find that the top 12 states who have the HIGHEST instance of all sexual diseases including AIDS/HIV among gay men. So, how does it hurt Heterosexual marriage? Again, one must examine places who already have established Gay marriage which includes Scandanavia/Sweden. After 20 years guess what? No one is getting married. People do not see a need to get married.

H. The common but irrational and false claim opposite sex couples will stop getting married if same sex couples are treated equally, was partially debunked above.

While Europe is different in the incentives for marriage, people continue to get married there. Ironically, they created "civil unions" to appease the religious objectors, and many straight couples are choosing those rather than marriage, but they are still forming committed relationships complete with legally binding contracts.

"In fact, Denmark's long-term decline in marriage rates turned around in the early 1980s, and the upward trend in heterosexual marriage has continued since the 1989 passage of the registered partner law Today, Danish heterosexual marriage rates are the highest they have been since the early 1970s."

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-partnership-divorce/scandinavia.html

H. Not sure where you got your CDC info, but it is wrong.

Of the top 10 states listed by CDC, only NY and Maryland currently allow same sex marriage, and that only happened last year. Florida , Texas, Georgia, and other more anti-gay states made the list.

Yet even that false information fails to show any harm to marriage.

Disease information has always been used against minority populations to demonize and dehumanize in order to justify causing further harm. Yet even misleading information about disease transmission, supports the importance of encouraging committed relationships through marriage.

It also demonstrates the importance of accurate and honest education about disease transmission and risk reduction. Anyone can catch any disease, if exposed in a way that allows transmission.

It fails to provide an excuse for legal discrimination and the continued promotion of the irrational prejudice that leads many to self destructive behavior including high risk sex. Punishing one group for something that involves everyone is irrational.

It also fails to consider gay women are the lowest risk group for disease transmission, while straight people of both sexes are also at risk for all of the same things used to demonize and deny equal treatment to gay people of both sexes.

I also provided documentation showing your information about Europe is wrong as well, but it shows pending. In short, declines in marriage stopped once gay people started wanting equal protections. It is irrational to believe people will stop getting married simply because more people want to.

Anyone can form a committed relationship. If more relationships are happening than marriage, then marriage is on the decline. The CDC information came from the CDC website. Yes, anyone can get a disease. I wasn't talking about that but thank you for trying to avoid the real problem.