“But by a homosexual is identified by their behavior...self identified. Homosexuals are not prevented from marrying and have the same rights for others as all others even before the decisions last week. Furthermore no one is stopping one from engaging in that behavior with a consenting person. A special category is now in place for this behavior after last week and one wonders how else the definition of marriage would be expanded. No clear cut limits now.”
“Marriage between one man and one woman (unrelated adults) is the long standing precedent for centuries in all societies.”
schildpad on Jul 1, 2013 at 00:54:57
“Yawn. Better look up where the word marriage comes from. The Romans allowed gay marriage, didn't hurt them any. And you should read Gibbon(s Decline and Fall before opening your gob about "and look what it got them". ”
“I am referencing the comments made during arguments to the Supreme Court where the petitioner stated that the act of sodomy provided special constitutional protections. Legal status is not being denied to these people as they are free to marry under the same conditions as anyone else. So again the argument being pressed here by those who want homosexual marriage is that there is a special privilege associated with this behavior. Should one be able to marry their brother, sister, mother, father, son, or daughter? If I want to do any of these would my constitutional rights be denied? There is a definition of marriage, I assert it should be by natural law and millennia of precedent or at least by the voters. The Supreme Court last week ruled that they alone can rule on what this definition is irregardless of what the people (of California) wanted, natural law, and long standing precedent. There is no legal, constitutional, or precedent based logic for these decisions. ”
“That is my point. No one is stopping someone from being gay but it is appropriate to have some constraints on what the state views as marriage....is it OK to marry your daughter, sister, or mother?? With regard to physical damage, perhaps a review of the Jerry Sandusky trial for unfortunate details and of course the preponderance of AIDS. Again, society has a consensus that this behavior is OK among consenting adults but it still should not be promoted or provide one with constitutionally protected status (in constrast with protections for gender, race,...)”
“Spending increased from $2.7 billion per year to over $3.7 billion per year with Obama and his supermajority control of the House and Senate 2009 - 2011. It appears you are not in command of the facts.”
“Let’s stop the name calling and have a reasoned debate.
We are talking about classifying people based on their behavior; quite a slippery slope. Should those involved in polygamy also have special legal protections? How about those who engage in fornication? Should I be able to marry my sister? Why not?
Does one get protected status as a homosexual if they partake in this activity only once but heterosexual activity many other times? What legally defines a homosexual? During the arguments to the high court, the petitioner against the California referendum stated that this definition was done through engagement in sodomy.
This activity also is not consistent with natural law. We have a consensus that it is legal behavior but that does not mean it is really acceptable behavior. It is damaging physically, spirtually and emotionally. Although legal behavior it is not the type of behavior to be promoted or encourage; somewhat analogous to cigarette smoking or drinking alcohol - legal, within one's personal rights and privacy but not good behavior and behavior which should not be encouraged or celebrated. Let's get common sense back in play here consistent with thousands of years of experience that mankind has on this issue”
Brian Corvello on Mar 28, 2013 at 07:22:53
“Know what else the Bible says?
"Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." - Exodus 31:14-15
If you believe THIS one, then everyone is a sinner who deserves death. Including Mr. Holier Than Thou Santorum.”
nenitaB on Mar 28, 2013 at 06:22:23
“Very well said, Robert Strauss. F&F.”
Brian Corvello on Mar 28, 2013 at 06:18:51
“To reinforce what Jarihen said, I believe you may have heard it said somewhere, "humans are not the only animal that engages in homosexual acts, just the only one where it is perceived as wrong."”
Javahead Johnson on Mar 28, 2013 at 06:09:28
“This activity also is not consistent with natural law. OH, GIVE IT A BREAK!
Who's "Natural Law"? What is a "Natural Law" (wait I'll look it up, Ah " A body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct."
"unchanging moral principles" So, what you saying, is, you want EVERYBODY to live by YOUR "moral principles". Is that the drift here.
See, YOUR Idea of "unchanging moral principles" and mine are not the same, therefore, your thesis is incorrect, because if the "unchanging moral principles", are not "shared, among all, then it must surely all fall apart like a house of cards.
You say "We have a consensus", but that is the very point! we do not! at our very CORE "moral principles". I say what two people do alone is their bis, if they want to marry and fight over the garbage can duties and check book, FINE! It makes no difference to me if the are male or female.
I am not threatened.”
Roy Heath on Mar 28, 2013 at 06:04:52
“You are not qualified to have any authority over what is "natural". What was natural 150 years ago was that I would have been property. Less than 1000 years ago, women were property based on your biblical point of view. As far as I am concerned, I pay taxes for my government protect and to serve ALL law abiding citizens of the United States- Liberty and Justice for all. What part of that don't you get?
As far as your reference to behavior, that argument is perverse and disparaging to your point. Straight couples do and have practice the same behaviors, yet are allow to procreate and rear children. You are defending inequality and a unjust government for the sake of ignorance. You're entire spiel is based a biblical point of view that ignores 90% of world history.
"The petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." Justice Kennedy- Lawrence v. Texas.
I suppose you are small government Libertarian or republican- make government smaller, get them out of my bedroom.”
Jarlhen on Mar 28, 2013 at 06:04:28
“Thousands of years of homosexuality you mean? Millions of years with homosexuality in nature you mean? This whole thing that it's 'not natural' is a complete fallacy. Animals display homosexual behavior quite frequently and they are seldom shunned by their peers. Obviously that kind of behavior wouldn't work if all animals were homosexual but just as obviously, the vast majority aren't. Funnily enough, that's exactly what's going on for humans aswell. Le gasp.
Furthermore, historically homosexuality have been accepted practice in multiple cultures over thousand of years. Granted, homosexual marriage may not have taken place but there was no other way to procreate in Ancient Greece. Today there is. We certainly don't need heterosexuality to carry on the human race, we simply don't. But regardless of that, homosexuality will forever be a minority, it's as simple as that.
And comparing it to incest or beastiality is absolutely absurd. Marrying your sister would lead to inbreeding. That's not good. It puts a big risk on the mother, it puts a big risk on the child. Same thing with an animal. Polygamy, for instance, isn't inherently wrong. Again, it's common practice historically and in several parts of the world. Unfortunately some of these polygamist practices are marred by very bad cultural practices but that doesn't mean polygamy in itself is bad.”
wilray on Mar 28, 2013 at 06:04:10
“You can't have a reasoned debate if you start classifying homosexuals by their behavior. So pretty much the rest of your argument falls apart. Homosexuals are homosexuals regardless of any particular behavior. Celibate homosexuals are still homosexuals. I knew a fellow who came out to his wife when he was 50+. He had finally retired from teaching. Although he hadn't engaged in any same sex sexual activity prior to that, he knew he was homosexual all that time, and he had been living a lie. A homosexual may behave like a heterosexual including having sex with the opposite gender, however that in no way makes them heterosexual.
You will never have an understanding of homosexuality as long as you classify it as behavior or choice. Stop using words like sexual preference; it is sexual orientation. Insisting that homosexuals made a choice when they themselves deny making it is one of the stupidest things.”
seiedvard on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:56:17
“"This activity also is not consistent with natural law."
You mean religious law, by the way, the bible says that it is a sin to eat shellfish, (Leviticus 11:9-12 NCV).
Should we ban this as well?”
ssmigs on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:55:48
“You seem to be hung up on the "activity" and "behavior" of homosexuals. Special "protected status" for sexual preferences is not what gays want. When I got married no one asked me if I was a legal heterosexual. The court is not debating conferring benefits on a special group but rather what are the justifications for denying legal status to a whole segment of the population based solely on sexuality.”
dan- on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:54:03
“natural law? gravity is a natural law. e=mc2 is a natural law. conservation of mass and energy is a natural law. but nature really doesn't care what body parts two people rub together for whatever reason.”
Elcidd on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:52:24
“The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
You cite no source (but your own sad opinion) to back up your thoughtless claims.
Because there are none.
Have fun on the wrong side of history.
Homosexuality exists in nature look around you chief.
We are here, now either get over it or move to where we are not.....like the SUN”
schildpad on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:47:05
“Slippery slope silliness has nothing to do with reasoned debate, muffin.
Spare us, you're totally transparent - especially when you started in on your moral little high horse.
And as to the thousands of years of experience mankind has on this issue - you obviously know nothing about it.”
Joan15 on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:36:51
“You ask what about fornication, you do realize that fornication is legal, right? Polygamy? No reason it shouldn't be legal. There are cultural and religious histories of polygamy and polyandry.
Allowing gays the same rights is not a protected status. In fact, the opposite is more true. By limiting marriage to one man, one woman, you make heterosexuals a special class with liberties not extended to others.
If it were not consistent with natural law, why have gay relationships (and marriages) existed throughout history?
Have you considered that the reason being gay is damaging physically (which I question), emotionally and spiritually is less from being gay but from dealing with the bigotry it incites in others? And, is it spiritually damaging to them? Something only damages your spirit if it is against your personal beliefs.
Your analogy on cigarettes and alcohol is actually self contradicting. Unlike gay marriage, despite varying opinions on their value, we allow people to make their own decisions on whether to partake and we clearly see that allowing them is not promoting them. In the one case where we did attempt to make alcohol illegal, it did not work out so well.
Why is being gay bad behavior? Is it any worse than any of the vices held by heterosexual couples?
How does gay marriage harm anyone except to make them squeamish in the same way the last generation cringed at seeing an interracial couple (also declared against natural law at one time).”
Brian Corvello on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:35:35
A man and a woman are both drunk when they meet in Vegas and marry at some chapel by a Marrying Sam. It's legal.
A billionaire takes a trophy wife that's forty years younger than him. That's legal.
But a gay couple who has been in a consenting, commiting relationship for twenty years who want to marry in a formal cermony with family invited... Illegal?
It boggles the mind.”
captainpoco on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:34:04
“What special protections?”
PickedName on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:31:24
“I'll discuss it with you.
Nobody should get special protections or perks based on their behavior, specifically marriage. The federal government shouldn't be involved at all. Go ahead, marry your sister, your dog, 15 people you're already related too, more power to you. You have my blessing, even though I think it would be a bit foolish in my opinion. No tax breaks for it, no federal anything for it, except at MOST simple recognition. Marriage is a religious issue, and thus it should be relegated to that. If you can find a church that'll marry you, your dog, 15 people and your sister all at once, then POOF, be married, and have a nice life. Why? It's none of their business who you marry, it's none of mine either, just as who I marry is none of yours. Let's get the federal government out of the marriage business altogether.”
only1Demvoter on Mar 28, 2013 at 05:30:42
“... Yet cigarettes are legal... AND acceptable, according to ' Southern Standards ', Bobby.
“The abusive comments from the left in these passages are unfortunate and unAmerican.
We all need to congratulate Senator Scott and wish him well.
Hopefully my comments will be posted as they frequently are screened out because they sometimes do not fit the narrative.”
Annoula on Dec 17, 2012 at 16:39:14
“Why do we all need to congratulate him?
It's not like he won a free election!
He was just appointed by a similarly-minded governor!
But maybe we should CONGRATUALE him, like his buddy Joe Wilson did in his posting!”
Jason Elias on Dec 17, 2012 at 16:39:08
“Did you wish Obama well?”
GraniteSkyline on Dec 17, 2012 at 16:38:15
“If he manages to get reelected in SC, we'll wish him well at that time.”
MyNameIsMickey on Dec 17, 2012 at 16:36:39
“Thank you, Mr. Strauss for your scripted "1%" response.
It almost looks genuine. Almost.”
Denver Soday on Dec 17, 2012 at 16:35:45
“Who invited you here anyway? Go find Michelle Malkin, she needs her nails done.”
jnratliff on Dec 17, 2012 at 16:34:40
“You on the right have earned abuse by being such fools!”
“And your facts please? I welcome a rebuttal but I really do not know how to characterize your passage. Sadly a large portion of our population addresses issues with the same lack of analysis and thought as you do.
We clearly need leadership and action in the Senate majority. Instead they formulate talking points and inaction all in the name of political advantage.
The result: the entire nation suffers. The Seanate majority and Obama have spent us into a future as a failed power, a nation once the strongest ever reduced to fiscal insolvency.”
kacebelle on Dec 17, 2012 at 15:52:20
“Obama has one of the lowest spending records in recent history. That's why I asked like I did. Again, it seems you are repeating what extreme right wing MSM puts out there.
And to further my point of your ignorance, the great recession started in 2007 and was full blown in 2008, before the election even took place.”
“This is a facade for the ineptitude of Reid and the Democrat majority who have run the nation to the brink of financial ruin. Remember financial issues only need a simple majority and the Senate has not passed a bueget in three years. It is unclear how long the Fedral Reserve can go on buying up half of the debt issued by the US government. Clearly a live for today die tomorrow approach to fiscal management.”
richardajackson on Dec 17, 2012 at 15:53:48
“Financial bills must begin in the House. The fed knows that the bill will come due on all this debt they are creating. All those social programs that the left is so in love with, may just get flattened by all of this overspending.”
Terry Richardson on Dec 17, 2012 at 15:49:53
“i hate to say this but have you been unconscious for the last 30 years”
Hooponopono on Dec 17, 2012 at 15:40:00
“Let's examine your financial ruin claim with some facts:
FACT: Reagan and the 2 Bushs created 70% of our current national debt.
FACT: Most of the Obama debt is a DIRECT result of the Bush economic meltdown.
FACT: When this is factored in, Reagan and the 2 Bushs can now claim more than 90% of the national debt.
OPINION: They could not have committed this fiscal crime against our kids without the support of their conservative base......people like you, Robert.........YOU (!)”
Stampit on Dec 17, 2012 at 15:38:58
“True. Even states by law must pass a budget--which is why California and Illinois are in a world ruled by pensions promised----”
kacebelle on Dec 17, 2012 at 15:33:35
“Do you have any critical thinking skills of your own, or did you get all of that from Fox?”
“Public pronouncements from Mr Buffett and also Mr Soros need to be kept in context.
They are both proponents of higher taxes because they are proponents of large government.
Their support of large government is purely for self interest. Higher taxes promote more sales of life insurance to the rich or which Buffett's firms are major players. Buffett is also a major crony captialist and his portfolio is a government bailout hall of fame. His sweetheart deal for the purchase of Goldman Sachs preferred stock was a no lose transaction that was available only to him. To Soros, larger gtovernment means larger levels of influence and his play is for power. More government, more power. Altruism is not at work here,...at all!”
“The red states are those with the job growth which subsidize the blue high tax states.
High tax blue state dependency subsidized by the Federal tax deduction for state taxes and bailouts to the financial companies. Cost of living in the red states areas are lower too - its not what you make its what you keep.
Clearly the tipping point has been reached and Sununu is right; he is not politically correct but he is right. Takers versus the makers and there are now more takers!”
“The red states are those with the job growth and the low debt while California, Illinois, New York, et. al. wait for bail outs. The red states already subsidize the high tax blue states with the Federal tax deduction for state and local taxes...a reason why Obama wants rates to rise and not accept the same revenue for the GOP proposal for the reduciton in tax deductions”
onionboy on Dec 5, 2012 at 13:09:21
“You couldn't be more incorrect.
Here's the graphic of the data that tells the story. There are 17 states that put more into the federal coffers than they suck up. See how most of them went in the last election. Then look at the bottom 10 states, the states that sucked up the most federal dollars compared to what they put in. See how most of them went in the last election.
“Boy this story a stretch. Truth is ithat this supplier stayed with GM and was a victim of GM's demise. Of course, Romney was long gone from Bain when this all occurred. The truth is that Obama's bundlers profited from the bailout with fees valued in the tens of millions. The Delphi salaried pension which was 85% funded was liquidated! All was lost! This was not handled properly and a proper bankruptcy would have created more a more solvent GM and a more solvent Chrysler. GM's value would have to double for the taxpayers (who still are large shareholders) to be made whole. Chrysler is at risk because they were given to Fiat, who is deeply troubled in Europe, Chrysler could have been bid out to other AMERICAN firms who would have been a better choice than an Italian company which has repeatedly been bailed out in Europe.”
“It is clear that Staten Island has been marginalized. It is clear they have the most need but are getting no response. Sadly, the politics of the response (or lack thereof) has been more important than the response itself. Reports from the residents on Staten Island indicate that there are ten time more dead than being reported. Response from the Red Cross just started and is non existent from the city and from FEMA. Being the smallest borough, one that tends to vote Republican, it is clear that they have been sacrificed and marginalized in the response and also in the reporting for this ongoing tragedy and disaster,”
angrygayguy on Feb 12, 2013 at 10:54:54
“The main rule of restoring power after an emergency is to spend the time restoring it to the greatest number of people possible. Isn't it better to spend 10 hours restoring power to 500,000 people than to leave those people in the dark and spend 10 hours making sure Aunt Effie can listen to her Rush Limbaugh Comedy Hour?”
waetherman on Nov 3, 2012 at 14:28:08
“This idea that people are discriminating against SI because it's largely Republican is absurd; nobody is ignoring SI. Fact is that there are hundreds thousands of other people in New York that are suffering, and many are in much more densely populated areas. The number of people in Manhattan without power was something like 500,000, plus of course the fact that all the trains run through that area, and it's also home to probably 50% of Manhattan's business employing a large segment of NYC.
By comparison, in SI less than 100,000 people are without power. Yes, there was extensive flooding damage and many deaths - probably more deaths and damage per capita than other boroughs of NY, but there are plenty of other areas that are just as bad. This isn't about class, or about politics, it's about helping the most number of people as soon as possible to get this city running again.”
WinstonOno on Nov 3, 2012 at 11:28:08
“staten island is lame anyways”
angie1234 on Nov 3, 2012 at 11:02:13
“It is not the smallest borough. It is three times the size of Manhattan.”
“Thanks! I do want to communicate to tll47ftw that there, indeed would have been AMERICAN takers for Chrysler and that at a minimum, the creditors should have taken control. Chrysler's long term prospects would be more secure. Fiat is in a lot of financial distress right now as they are being hit real hard in Europe and they are behind their competition in China.”
Terinnyc on Nov 3, 2012 at 00:56:23
“If you'd do your research, you'd learn that there were no American takers for Chrysler. None. Why was that? They were all in trouble themselves. Or have you forgotten that the automobile industry was tanking after 8 years of Bush policies (and I use that term loosely)? If it had been left to creditors or to financiers at the time, they would have broken up the company, spinning off only a couple of divisions and putting a whole load of people out of work in the other divisions. Mitt Romney has been flat out lying to gain votes (and banking on people not looking past his carefully worded pronouncements) and Donald Trump, eager for attention and hoping to not slip into total irrelevance (oops, too late!), is perpetuating those same falsehoods. I'm sure Chrysler has had just about enough of these guys talking smack about the company for their own political gain.”