[quote][b]avenger[/b] - Feel better now? Anyone else to blame? It's remarkable how there's only blame on one side, huh? [/quote]

Speak for yourself. You're the guy who breaks the vase and blames it on Bush. Like clockwork.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - For better or worse, Pelosi, during the 110th Congress proposed and passed 309 pieces of legislation and 254 in the 111th Congress. In almost 7 months[/quote]

That's what happens when you have as supermajority. You can pass anything you want. So that's a bit skewed, and disingenuous.

@Emperor1972: Loving vs. Virginia was superseded by Baker v Nelson. Just so you know.

This redefinition of marriage is like trying to call margarine "butter" or peanut butter "jelly." It's quite odd the first people they try to see justification from are from people who disapprove of their lifestyle. This debunks the theory that homosexuality is something that one is born with. At first I thought that was the case. But if it were really a genetic defect, then the general thinking is you wouldn't care what I thought. You would ignore me, not try to see justification from me.

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - You aren't a "good friend" if you think there is something wrong with how they live their life.[/quote]

You can't be a good friend if you fail to give the same understanding you expect in return. You don't realize something, I went against just about everything I was taught to be friends with you. There are not many people like me in my faith. I never hated you. I always respected you. And regardless of what you thought, I did show understanding. That's something my Grandmother herself was and is unable to do to this day.

But the moment I spoke out, you tore me to shreds. What kind of friend does that? What kind of person runs away the moment someone expresses a dissimilar opinion? I never expected such cowardice from you, mel. Not one bit.

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - True Christians are followers of Jesus Christ and his teachings. Christians reject what is in the Old Testament for the new laws of the new testament.[/quote]

I do. But Jesus never abolished the Old Testament, nor did he ever justify me condoning homosexuality. You accused me of "wallowing in my ignorance" when in all actuality I was guilty of trying to reach out to you.

When Jesus was tempted in the New Testament by Satan, he invoked teachings from Old Testament law, "It is written." So if I were to ignore the Old Testament, I should ignore the Ten Commandments...

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - What exactly did Jesus say about homosexuality?[/quote]

See the above. But as I told you before, nothing I say will satisfy your want for knowledge on the subject. The link is there for all to see.

It is sad that it had to come to this mel. I thought you didn't care about what I believed. Alas, you were offended by it.

Good day to you,

I got into an argument with a good friend this afternoon on this subject. I think its reasonable to give same sex couples the same rights we have. I tolerate her as much as I can, simply because this person is a friend. I try not to ignore her sensibilities without absconding mine. But I did some soul searching afterwards. I am a Christian before I am an American. I put the teachings of the Word of God before the laws of men in all things.

But somehow, I am mean and bigoted, intolerant and indifferent, spurious and unconsidered; all because I do not support homosexuality as practice. I am afraid for my way of life.

I guess I must be a pretty mean person for wanting to stand up for traditional marriage. I must be hateful or bigoted. For all of my life I was taught that marriage was between a man and woman. Now I'm at a crossroads. Do I let my morality take hold? Do I stick to my values? Or do I succumb to the growing national consensus that agrees with same sex marriages?

I feel like I am a member of a dying breed of people. One day, I may be only one of a few that hold the beliefs I do... It's scary, living your entire life thinking you're right... then having almost all of your countrymen side against you. I have been told that I should be guided by the law and not by my own morals, and that the scriptures of my faith should be no longer the basis for the law.

It's extremely disconcerting. I fear that one day I will be seen as an outcast for what I believe in, or for wanting to stand up what I believe in. Things that not long ago were encouraged in this country. I cannot recognize my country anymore.

I am extremely worried. I don't want to be mean.. I don't want to be hateful. I sure as heck don't want to lose friends over this, but I don't want to let go values I hold dear. Is there something so wrong about that?

[quote][b]snarkydude[/b] -
Barney Frank
Chris Dodd
Teddy Kennedy
I guess they were all Republicans.
[/quote]

You forgot a few. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and etc.

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - The whole article just took the religious arguments we always hear and replaced them with patriarchy and cis-centrism.[/quote]

I don't read articles like that. Trust me.

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - Well there are magnitudes more single celled organisms on the planet than multicellular. And also, cell division is even present in multicellular organisms, as its the way that individual cells reproduce themselves.[/quote]

Yes, we call it cell meiosis and mitosis. Not asexual reproduction. This is still not an excuse for such a blatant error in what was being posited as a factually sound argument.

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - Not knowing you or the circumstances of your birth, it is a possibility that you were a product of in-vitro fertilization, and its within the realm of possibility that one of your biological parents may have been an anonymous donor or a surrogate. [/quote]

I assure you, I know my father, I've seen pictures of my biological mother. I was none of those things.

[quote][b]Digdug[/b] -
What the heck happened to Costello??
[/quote]

Frankenstein got to him. Had to find a new partner.

[quote][b]Anonymous Dude[/b] - He has just blown your comment out of the water; a proper reply to your disingenuous assertion that only left wing activists perform corporate sabotage.[/quote]

Aren't you the people saying "corporations are evil"? What now? Huh? Did you have your head up your backside when Occupy was going on? Sure, Republicans are a danger to corporations. (Guffaws) Good one man.

@Colonel McCheese;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction

http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/content/26/3/386.abstract

"Sexual reproduction is the primary method of reproduction for the vast majority of macroscopic organisms, including almost all animals and plants."

"The majority of animal species reproduce sexually."

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-0898-1381/unrestricted/MF...

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - This couldn't be farther from the truth. Overall "nature" favors asexual cell division as a method of reproduction. [/quote]

Wait what? I was spawned? Two people didn't come together to sexually reproduce me? I have a problem with that. A big one.

What I was taught in school was that the majority of species in nature reproduced sexually. Only a smattering of species reproduced asexually.

Now if you can refute your claim, I am all the more happy to see it. Otherwise, this statement has completely discredited parts of your argument.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] -
YOU HAD TO VOTE BECAUSE IT WAS INEQUITABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY WERE DENYING HUMANS THEIR RIGHTS IN 1964! Same as they are now, just gays not blacks. They SHOULDN"T need a vote, but when the law is bad the only way to undo it is a vote.
[/quote]

So in essence, the people are not allowed to make laws for themselves, as the Constitution grants? So the only way we could introduce something like this is by proposing it as a law or an amendment. So I guess I shouldn't vote on anything else, since the court has the right to reverse my vote, and therefore my opinion.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - They are involved because the previous government involvement was impartial to only one side of it and they are trying to MAKE it neutral![/quote]

So by taking up one side, they are in a sense trying to be neutral? That doesn't jibe for me.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - I don't think I should have to tolerate not being allowed to buy a beer on Sunday because some religious group gets more votes for their belief system, but that is how it is.[/quote]

So does it work both ways? Mine and yours?

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - The issue is that some things. like equal rights, shouldn't need a vote!!!![/quote]

So, I guess a lot of other things didn't need a vote either.. say the Civil Rights Act of 1964? At what point does an opinion even matter anymore?

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - BUT, when government involves itself in it, they have to be equal to all, unlike a church.[/quote]

But in this case it ISN'T. You have the entire Obama Administration filing amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in defense of gay marriage. It isn't being neutral, it is being partial. If it were to be completely neutral government, then they should stay out of it period. They should make laws and statutes according the ruling put forth by the court.

@ppensyl: And somehow I feel (despite what others have told me) that I am obligated to tolerate homosexuality. I don't want to be. And by voting against it, I am exercising my right to vote for what I believe to be true and justified, not just of pure religious zealotry. But then again, I have been accused of "legislating someone else's rights" by voting period. My vote is my voice, my vote is my right. I don't think the court should hold the overtly pluralistic ability to systematically overrule the will of the people.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - .they are already out of gay marriage by not allowing it or "governing it".[/quote]

Actually it remains involved in the marriage issue by making cases for its (gay marriage) allowance. If were indeed truly neutral, it wouldn't defend either side. That's how I see it.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - I noticed you and RWE negged that answer, so it must be religious issue for you then.[/quote]

Well @Pologize: likes to make a habit of antagonizing me, negging my posts and plussing anyone who disagrees with me. He never explains why.

It is as much a religious issue for me as a legal one.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-i-the-constitutional...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-ii-the-arguments-for/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-iii-the-arguments-ag...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-iv-the-courts-options/

@ppensyl: So in making your point, mine has been made. The definition of marriage is a states issue. It would be improper for the federal government to define marriage because you have states conflicting with others on such a premise. You can't completely rule government out of marriage either, you need some type of governance over such.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - Not sure how everyone paying the same tax would be better for one than another[/quote]

I didn't say everyone I just meant LGBT couples.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - But a reduction to equity is still equitable.[/quote]

Care to expound, for the layman?

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - Replace Citizen with Gay citizen, or any other adjective of your choice (black, white, atheist, christian, catholic, jew etc...) and re read section one. [/quote]

If you are wanting to read Section 1 for what it is, it makes no mention of homosexual, blacks, whites, Atheists, Christians, Catholics or Jews." Furthermore, it does not clearly define what a "citizen" is.

Unless you read the transcript of the debates that took place when the 14th Amendment was being introduced as legislation.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] -
How so?
[/quote]

I believe a flat tax would be lower than the average. It would seem to me that it would be a tax break for them, and not for straight couples. Ironically, Rand Paul has made a similar case.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - It actually uses the word privilege in the 14th amendment .[/quote]

You're right, it does. Didn't catch that. Speed reading has its flaws.

But at any rate, the 14th Amendment confines jurisdiction to "the states wherein they reside." That makes it a states issue. And as it stands, the states have already exercised their rights to define marriage. ALL OF THEM. So if the court overturns these state amendments, is it taking their rights to define marriage away from them? Because as I see it, even the ones that have legalized it would have to start from scratch, you take one state's rights away, I believe you take them ALL away.