Sam Brownback points out the problems that come from allowing gay marriage that its proponents don’t want you to think about. “Same-sex marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and that opponents of same-sex marriage are theref…

Worship songs play -
“Wolf in Ann’s Clothing” – Choir
“Bush Killed Our Husbands” – 9/11 Widow’s A cappella Quartet
“America the Terrible!” – Choir

Welcome to the Liberal church! I am Reverend Sammy Sosalist and I am filling in tonight for…

Wrong!. The gay lifestyle is firmly implanted from next door to Key West, Mardi Gras or Fire Island. Television even offers the “queer eye for the straight guy.”

Understand that the gay lifestyle is grounded in physical sex (carnal knowledge) between people of the same sex. Since gay sex, by definition, is barren sex (not possible to produce offspring) there is no particular reason for society to concern itself about legitimacy, near blood relationships, age or even multiple partners. (Unless you want to introduce “values” into the discussion.)

You pose the idea that being against gay marriage is tantamount to wishing for the eradication of gays. Nice try, but Hitler I am not.

I simply do not see why the definition of marriage that has been around for eons should be expanded to include gays? What benefit does society derive from it?

I know what the agenda is for gays: homosexuality is a civil right and carries all the rights and privileges accorded those who qualify for affirmative action, Americans with disabilities, those interned during WWII, Native Americans, military veterans, etc.

All across the country we find men and women who “live together” and produce offspring without being married. All across the country we find gays who “live together” without being married. Both groups borrow money as “couples” for houses and enjoy the benefits of the fair housing acts. Both groups enjoy being free from government harassment.

What is the necessity of gays being married other than to establish a civil rights foothold? What is so magical about chipping away at the meaning of marriage? “Where’s the beef?”

1) Allowing gay marriages encourages gayness, which is bad for society.

2) Endorsing gay marriages gives others a weakened perception of marriage, which presumably, in turn, leads to fewer and/or weaker marriages and weaker families.

Is there anything else? This is by no means obvious. Can you quantify the harm?

As to the slippery slope argument, there need not be a link between gay marriage and any other sort of marriage. If for instance polygamy came up as an issue, anyone can easily identify why its harmful to society. [For one thing, it is bad for women in the marriages]. Notably–and this is my entire point–there is no similar argument for gay marriage.

Is it really that allowing gays to get married will lead people to marry monkeys? Is that all you can come up with? You can’t draw a line? Who wants to marry a monkey? What would that even entail? How would the taxes work? I’d propose we draw the line at some sort of socially accepted norm, like the courts do all the time in cases of discrimination and punishment. What does society tolerate? Now, there are estimates that 5-10% of the population is gay. To me, within limits which I think our current laws cover, that deserves respect. When 5-10% of the population wants to marry chickens or have 5 wives, I’ll listen and probably be able to come up with good reasons to reject the idea.

So, in any case, I hope when congress proposes the anti-man monkey marriage amendment, you can come up with a better argument then allowing men to marry monkeys will allow men to marry fish, which, of course, your values just couldn’t tolerate.

Given the position of activist judges, what would you propose as a solution?

What naturally follows this false cause in logic is to substitute “gay marriage” with a long list of other possibilities. To wit: multiple spouses, father and son, mother and daughter, man and monkey, multiple gays, men and little boys, cats and dogs, etc.

Some liberals will go out on any limb, no matter how weak to attack the established order.

Perhaps marriage has out lived its usefulness and the state should get out of the business of recognizing it. Let child custody, inheritance, parental responsibility, spousal abuse, desertion, dual contracts and the rest all be decided on television in the people’s court presided over by Ophrah Winfrey, Jerry Springer and Madonna.

Gay marriage is the leading edge of recognizing homosexuality as a civil right. Once established, why shouldn’t homosexual sex be taught by an expert practitioner in school health classes as a vibrant and uplifting form of mutual gratification that only the prissy Puritans oppose?

Most of us know gay people and enjoy their friendship. Most of us are related to gay people. Most of us have learned to live with the reality of gay unions. Many of us even have a a friend who is a total “flamer.” But most of the gays we know are not militant “queer nation” types. In sum, we have carved out our treaties for mutual respect. That is why “civil unions” seem to be more readily accepted.

Marriage is clearly a values centered concept. If you don’t believe that, you are out of the societal loop. Sweden has successfully shattered the institution of marriage. Study up on their problems if you want to know more about the model of unbridled liberalism gone amok.

Saw your girl, Ann Coulter this AM on the Today show. Of course, I don’t care for her at all but normally she’s pretty sharp.

She was NOT on point at all.

Did you check her out?

I’ve yet to hear a logical argument against equal marriage rights for Gays, and W. Brady is right: “Has anyone presented an fact based argument as to why gay marriage “destroys” traditional marriage? I’ve followed this issue closely and haven’t heard it.”

If your marriage is so weak that it is threatened by two men marrying then you have much bigger problems than this issue. Gays getting married is as much a threat to the marriages of heterosexuals as the marriage of inter-racial couples was a threat to the marriage of whites. But I have a feeling some of you are still upset with the “activist” judges and the Loving v. Virginia case where the Supreme Court held that laws banning inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional (something about EQUAL protection).

Peter: “Such an amendment will protect the institution of marriage without placing undue burden on those who want a different path.”

(1) exactly how does this Amendment “protect” marriage? and please be specific (2) You would not be talking about no “undue burden” if the burden was on YOU.

John Smith: “If so-called “Religious Conservatives” believe that marriage is under attack, why are they only attacking abortion and gays? Why are they not adding divorce, adultery, fornication, and birth control, to name but three additional threats to marriage and procreation??”

Because the self-righteous will not condemn their own sins. Easy for some to demonize Gays while they themselves destroy their own marriage. Newt Gingrich is on his, what, THIRD marriage?

Finally, a LOT of people need to remember the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, we ALL have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Bush is not The Decider, he’s The Distracter. Amazing how the Republicans have perfected the use of social issues to distract people in order to get them to vote against their own economic self-interests.