Finger wagging means so much coming from one that dines with totalitarian dictators that jail, torture and kill people for expressing a different opinion.

I'm just thankful Mr. Penn addressed 'The Academy' as "you commie, homo-loving sons of guns." That finally explains Al Gore's award a couple years back. . . .

Whould someone please tell Mr. Penn that we do not appreciate being preached to by a Celebutard whose IQ is smaller that his shoe size. Every time he opens his mouth he shows his desire to be something that he will never be…important!

Since most people aren't spending their time and money on his movies, Sean Penn has no choice but to behave like his obnoxious, self-righteous self. If he's the left's best mouthpiece on these issues, I'm hardly worried.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/

To the left, every viewpoint on every subject revolves around hatred. They spend so much time hating anyone who doesn’t think the exact same way as the left wing that hatred is now their favorite emotion.

I think Sean Penn damaged his brain during the filming of fast-times at Ridgemont High. He has never been the same since…Yahhh dude.
One of my favorite Penn-Idiot moments was when he had his Glock stolen out of his favorite Buick Grand-National, (One of the all time greatest Mega-Carbon-Footprint-mobiles).
He has long championed gun control and taking away firearms from the huddled masses which makes sense when one looks at who he calls friends; Hugo Chavez Raul & Fidel Castro…
I can hardly wait for his next single-word great film project that nobody will watch: “Burr – The story of America’s greatest mis-understood hero.”
I am pretty sure People magazine and the New York Times would run their review along the lines of: “Hollywood powerhouse Sean Penn stars in an epic saga about the life and untimely death of Aaron Burr, America’s greatest revolutionary war hero!
A man who paid the ultimate price trying to prevent the horrific bloodbath caused by that baby-killing warhawk, George Washington and his unruly band of white euro-centric thugs”.

Ed McMahon: It's time for a visit with the great Carnac the magnificent
Johnny Carson: Thank you Ed, now lets get on with the answer.
The answer is……….. Sean Penn's A**.
Ed: and what's the question Johnny?
Johnny: Well Ed the question is………"What Sean Penn's head needs to come out of?"

I'm not sure whether I care whether you hate someone when you vote to have the state deny equal legal rights to a group of people. It's still wrong and offensive. Hate is a convenient shorthand, I suppose.

Personally, I would like to resolve the whole mess by separating marriage and state. Civil unions for all! Let churches define marriage as they like.

Oh no, Sean Penn promoting tolerance and acceptance of others! He was right, though. Our grandchildren will view our mistreatment of homosexuals the way I look at my grandparents's generation's mistreatment of African Americans. I cannot imagine how people could sit aside and allow segregation to occur, and my children and grandchildren will wonder why homosexuals were not granted equal rights. It's all about equality, people. Oh, and none of this "protect marriage" bull. If protecting marriage is that important, why is divorce legal? Divorce goes directly against the sacred institute of marriage and breaks apart the traditional family. But it's alright if we deny a minority's right to marriage, but we certainly can't deny the majority's right to divorce. Hyprocracy, much?

Oh, and Penn gave the best performance of the year.

Who is Sean Penn?

And we care about what this left-wing nut thinks because….????????

Fictitious, tedious moral scold resembles tedious scold with fictitious morals. I like it.

BEST. BLOG. EVER.

Let the church say…"Amen".

You're right…upon further reflection it is a step below

You're absolutey right! How can we deny a minority's right to marriage?! Those of us who want two, three… ten wives? Those of us who want to marry 10-year-old boys? Those of us who want to marry our chimpanzees? How dare they deprive us this right!

I think a better question to ask of future generations is how we ever allowed women the convenience of slaughtering viable third trimester babies in the womb by sucking their brains out, crushing their skulls, pulling them out and tossing them in the trash.

Cheesy Potatoes….point well taken! My apologies to all the nuts out there!

I understand what you're saying about honoring the people's voice with Prop 8, and can't help but agree. But that doesn't mean that people can't speak out against it. It's still a violation of human rights, and let's not forget that just 50 years ago, a huge majority opposed recognizing interracial marriage. Eventually gay marriage will be legalized

Hear Hear!

I think the main issue here is semantics. Call it "domestic partnership", and open it to all people who live together (i.e, roommates who've shared an apartment for the last 10 years, your spinster aunts who live together, etc) and I think it would pass. People object to calling it "marriage", as marriage is a union created by God.

That's actually an interesting idea. The government tends to dilute anything it gets involved in, the idea of marriage appears to have suffered the same fate in the hands of government. Giving it back to churches might be good for marriage. I wonder if anyone (other country) has tried this or studied this?

It's amazing how far some people will go to reinvent virtually anything to be accepted by those unlike themselves. I pride myself on being me and not forcing others to accept me or include me in their world.

This is too good to be true. According to Variety, Penn is in talks to star in the Valerie Plame movie, and quite possibly will play Joseph Wilson.

Please let this be true. If only to watch the heads explode in here.

Also, I know intellectual consistency isn't your forte, but can you both deride Penn's 'looking down his nose' at your political opinions while looking down your own nose at his? Or is it bold and principled when you do it, and comical and vain when he does?

The problem is that most places would be all right recognizing civil unions for gays. I certainly don't have a problem with it, but I do have a problem with it when someone tells me that's a marriage. The government does not a marriage make. Marriages are sacred and viewed as such by the world's religions, and when government redefines marriage arbitrarily it makes a law that interferes with freedom of religion for lots of folks.

Let gays have civil unions as contracted by the government and the other legal rights the government gives to married couples, but if gays wish to be married, let them find a religion that will carry out that sacrament as it pertains to that faith. That is the best compromise I can come up with.

But if gays are seekng acceptance of their behavior through this then they need to understand that tolerance != acceptance.

And a good thing you did, too. One of my mom's Lhasa Apso's won best in breed at Westminster this month, and that little dust mop of a dog is WAY cooler than Penn.

Thank you for resorting to personal degredation over a basic question.
I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack, but as I have chosen not to pay money to view the film, not because of the subject matter but because of Mr. Penn, I was interested enough to ask why you considered Mr. Milk a patriot. BTW It does take more than one statement to make a patriot. I would think that his activism for Human Rights, would have been a better choice as an answer.

So, if I am not bright enough to be a member of a liberal democracy because I ask why, so be it.

Liberal Democracy??? Gee, all this time I thought we were a Constitutional REPUBLIC–you know rule of law and all of that. Those inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (If I remember correctly. ) It doesn't necessarily mean the redefinition of marriage. Leave marriage alone. Just change the tax codes. There are thousands of pages in the tax codes. It's got to be in there somewhere. And since we're down to loving it and/or leaving America, my ancestors were here FIRST! Take your liberal democracy fascism garbage and go elsewhere. I understand Sweden is nice this time of year. What about France?

Old Tom,

You've touched on another reason why gay marriage is unpopular among Black voters. To get their way, gay marriage activists try to use the courts to steal the voting rights of their opponents, including Black people.

Is it me or are the gay activists' tactics similar to the KKK's during the Jim Crow days?

There are even gay celebrities like Elton John who don't think "gay marriage" is a worthy goal:

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said [Elton] John. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/elton-john...

I don't know your situation, but if you're a white/heterosexual/male (or any combination) you haven't suffered much because of "who you are." So it's pretty easy for you to not care if you're accepted. For other people it's a big deal.

But like I said, I don't know who you are, so I could be wrong. I don't know you, and I don't pretend to.

Ewww. A nice, mature response, Drie. If you don't think marriage is part of the "pursuit of happiness," I feel sorry for your spouse.

Yes, I'm serious. They have the same civil right that you and I have. What they are demanding is something else. Looked at from the flip side, you can't legally marry a man and neither can I. Therefore, we have equal rights under the law. It only becomes unequal when I'm allowed to do something that you are not permitted to do. Your preference for doing it is irrelevant as a point of law. Why can't you understand that as a simple legal argument?

Wow indeed. Comparing civil rights activism to a terrorist group just crosses the line of human decency.

How many people have been lynched for their opposition of gay marriage? None.
How many anti-gay cults have been firebombed? None.
How many anti-gay activists have been murdered like those three men in Mississippi in 1964? None.

I love church ladies. They are some of the best people around and they get so crapped on in our culture. Calling Sean Penn a church lady is an insult to church ladies. (but I get your point and it's a good one)

So which of King Solomon's nearly 700 wives was the most "sacred"?

During the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, the "will of the people" was to keep blacks and whites separate. That didn't stop Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and other heroic figures from standing up to injustice when it was the unpopular thing to do. On an incredibly smaller scale, that's what is occuring now. The courts must recognize Prop 8, but that shouldn't stop people from speaking out against the inequality because, as MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." It's just a step towards acceptance and a celebration of diversity.

I notice Mr. Milk couldn't be bother to quote the document without editing it. Mayhaps Mr Milk should have read it as it was written.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It seems to me like Mr Milk tried to erase some of those words, mainly "BY THEIR CREATOR" from the Declaration of Independence. Seems to me like he was projecting.

Sean was doing fine until he used the platfform at the Oscars to spew his rhetoric. He should have just thanked "The Academy" and shut the eff up and got out of there. I am decidedly no fan of Sean Penn. I have always thought Jeff Spicoli had more sense than he does.

I'm not opposed to anything other than consent, simply because minors aren't mature enough to make decisions like that for themselves (mentally speaking, with brain development). But I honestly have never seen anything wrong with polygamy.

**I'll concede one point to you, Bryan. It is hard to defend the "sanctity of marriage" as the divorce rate soars above 50%. **

Really? Does that mean that the "sanctity of life" comes into question if the murder rate rises above X percentage? Do our lives have a lesser value because some choose to abuse lives–their own or others–or is the value of our lives the same regardless of those who abuse it?

Even if "the sanctity of marriage" has been damaged by those who abuse it, why then should we allow further damage be done to it? Saying that we should allow gay marriage because we allow divorce is the equivalent to saying, "Well, Jimmy broke all the windows, so we might as well let Billy burn the house down." Using that logic, we **all** end up homeless.

Love isn't the issue. The law is. The law allows anyone to marry anyone of the opposite sex. the law makes no mention of love. The law has no care for love.

Under your argument, then if a man loves a sheep then he is being discriminated against because he can't marry that sheep. Or if a pedophile loves a child he should be able to marry that child. If it should be about love, then why not let them marry? Because marriage isn't about love. The institution of Marriage is a religious institution that binds together a man and woman. The modern Idea of marriage for love is just that, modern. Throughout history marriages were made for political or economic reasons, not for love. I'm not saying love isn't important, but I am saying that Love is not a prerequisite for marriage. In fact, arranged marriages, which aren't based on love, have a much lower divorce rate.

Sheep can't sign marriage licenses. Young boys don't have the legal authority to enter into marriage until they're 18. That's consistent with legal rights across the board (the whole you have to be 18 to independently make government-related decisions thing). And who cares what marriage was about in the past. For some it's arranged, and I have no problem with arranged marriages. But many people marry for love, so why should only heterosexual couples be afforded this right?

This is known as "Jamming", one of the three main tactics of Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen's "After the Ball- How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s." – Penguin Books, 1989. The idea is to make an emotional equivalence in one's mind between racism and opposition to homosexuality, and in so doing, generating a negative reaction to the opposition to homosexuality similar to that which we associate with racism.

You can read about "Desensitization", "Jamming", and "Conversion" here:

http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after...

Ok I'm tired of posting the same thing to multiple people, so I'm just going to sum it all up:

It's all about acceptance and recognizing love. Gay marriage doesn't negative affect heterosexual marriage, so I don't see the problem in just letting them marry. I mean, who cares? Let them marry and be happy. I don't know why we are denying their recognition of love. You can get married, they can get married, everyone is happy. Proposition 8 should be recognized. But that does't mean that people still shouldn't speak out against it. It's injustice. We will have a difficult time explaining to our grandchildren why this was such a big deal. There's really no justification for oppressing rights when they don't impede on anyone else's rights. Again I pose the question: for all those against gay marriage, will you be in favor of banning divorce? It goes against the sancitity of marriage and destroyes the traditional family. Why should divorce be legal and gay marriage not, if they both supposedly have the same negative consequences?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King Jr.

Another issue regarding Love is that of Love itself. How many marriages fail because people think they 'love' some one but in reality its just lust? How many gay relationships are like that?

I think the Bible best describes love.
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Are those who violently fought Prop 8 have shown neither Patience no kindness. I see nothing but pride in the preaching of Senn Penn or Tom Hanks. The movement is nothing but self-seeking, and the protests show that they are all to easily angered. As for keeping a record of wrongs, thats a big part of the movement. I do not see much of love in the movement, but see much more of those who wish to force us to accept their lifestyle.

The abortion debate is for another topic. I see nothing wrong with polygamy, and would have no objections to its legalization. You need to be 18 to sign any government-related paper independently (voting, military draft, etc). That rule is consistent across the board. Chimps can't sign legal contracts, and there's no way to determine if it's consentual.

And last but not least. Sexual preference is not the same as skin color. One cannot choose the color of their skin, but they can chose how to live their life. They decide what urges to act upon. Just like the man who is attracted to sheep, the man that is attracted to another man must decide if they are going to act upon that urge. Thus it is a choice.

I cannot argue with that.

I want to marry my dog. That's my pursuit of happiness.

Isn't that legal in Vermont?

i am confused. isn't hollywood full of homosexuals that should have, could have played the milk role???
by casting penn, isn't hollywood being GAYCIST ??
just wondering…

Yes.

I cannot imagine how people could sit aside and allow segregation to occur, and my children and grandchildren will wonder why homosexuals were not granted equal rights.

Bryan, I don't know you, so I'll try to cut you some slack, but this statement just reeks of hyperbole and a complete lack of understanding of the word context (not to mention quite possibly being racist in the level of insult to the black race). Segregation included such things as people not being allowed to live in certain areas, work in certain businesses, eat in restaurants (at least not the white sections), ride in the front of public transportation, mistreatment by the police and legal system, different (inferior) schools, and unequal coverage from the press.

Could you name me any of those that has routinely happened to gay people?

You can make your case without saying ridiculous things and basically insulting everyone's intelligence (including the black race, who I should reiterate ACTUALLY ENDURED SEGREGATION). You should be embarrassed.

Again, you can't compare skin tone to sexual preference. One doesn't make a choice regarding the tone of their skin. One does, however, make a choice regarding who they do and do not sleep with and which urges they act upon.

Oh yeah, that'll work. Tell the MILLIONS of heterosexual people aiming to enter into non-religious (i.e. justice of the peace etc) marriages that you're going to take the right away from THEM, too, in order to make absolutely certain that the gays never get it.

I say go for it, kids. I mean, there's NO chance in hell that this would, say, infuriate people and increase the opposition to your side a hundredfold or anything. Sounds like a plan

Again, The law isn't about love. Straights and gays have the same right, to marry people of the opposite sex.

As for the rest, I'm sure the men that love sheep would tell you that you're denying their right to marry the thing they love. And the same for pedophiles. And the legal age for people to marry varies from state to state. They make the exact same arguments as the gay marriage movement. Why should gays get special treatment and not them?

Obviously America cares about what it meant in the past, that's why traditional marriage is continually upheld across the country, even in California, one of the most liberal states. Its not a matter of Hate, its a matter of everyone being treated the same under the law.

AMEN to that! It doesn't matter what well reasoned responses I give to them as to why I do not want the definition of marriage changed. But instead of engaging the reasons I give, they dismiss them and continue to say it's because of hatred – as though somehow they know my innermost thoughts, my motivations, and my heart better than I do!

No one ever asks this, so allow me…

Let's just say that "social conservatives" are RIGHT and that widespread acceptance and/or "normalization" of homosexuality (which, yes, is at the end of the day is what this is all about) will lead to the collapse of traditional morality and possibly the traditional family structure – that we'll end up swapping-out monogamy for a general consensus of "anything (between consenting adults) goes" polyamorous free-for-all… America as The Shining Playboy Mansion on The Hill.

Let's just imagine that this IS the innevitable long-term "consequence" of Gay Marriage. Now, with that image firmly establish in all of our heads… could someone tell me why, exactly, this would be a BAD thing? Cuz… I'm not really seein' it, to be honest. Flip phrasing, yes, but serious question. Anyone? Anyone got an answer for me?

But Doug, liberals are open minded. They can't possibly be more dogmatic than us. They preach to us because they care. And because they're open minded.

That's why so many of them forego their fortunes to live next to the poor people they fight for, or lead by example to save the planet, or emphasize the good things America does for the world. It's because they care. And because they love their country despite how uncool or un-edgy that might seem.

Liberals are awesome.

Not really. They can tell anyone they want that they are married. They are their own church. Your church can decide they aren't married. I doubt they will care.

And that's the rub. Without the government to back them up, churches would have to face up to the notion that only their own members would care about their special marriage rules.

That's the nice thing about viewing the government's role as enforcement of contract — chimps can't contract and neither can 10-yr-olds. If 10 adult women want to marry you — well, my hat's off to you and I will be honored to buy you a drink.

I utterly agree. Let the state enforce civil contracts between adults that pledge them to mutual support and the care of minor children, and let the churches and other voluntary communities use the word "marriage" to mean whatever it means to them.

Ship it.

I didn't ask if it'd be bad for society… I don't give a damn one way or the other about "society." Or "community." Or "the greater good" or any other such malarkey. If a more chaotic society is the worst you can predict, then I'm still not onboard – a healthy degree of chaos is natural and healthy for us. It prevents contentment from breeding corruption and compromise, and it helps Natural Selection do it's job.

You fail to recognize that not everyone agrees with your definition of marriage. I would start with that before I went around "feel[ing] sorry" for others.

Also, Mr. People's Rights Penn sure didn't care and wasn't compassionate when he was beating the crap out of Madonna. People want to vilify and have Chris Brown arrested for his abuse of Rhinna, what is the difference? How come it was excused so easily when Penn did it? We were told he was "temperamental" and a "hot head." As someone who was an abused wife, that is total horse crap, he is a bully. He has some sort of inferiority complex, and is a total jackass. His comments last nite were classless, and detracted yet another point, from the useless as tits on a boar hog group of idiots who preened and indulged in gratuitous back patting to booster themselves all the while disgusting the flyover country folks. What a massive disconnect.

OK, I'll sum it up too. Marriage doesn't necessarily make people happy, so why do gays wish to overturn 10,000 years of historical precedent and force people to change the definition, just to suit them?

That already exists. It's called the ghettos. I can take you into a neighborhood in Chicago where any night of the week you can find a 14 year-old girl walking the streets to make enough money to pay her drug habit. If the outcome is what you suggest, than yes, I'd be completely against it.

Personally I don't think that would be the outcome, which is why I'm not against gay marriage. The thing is, I can't quite advocate for it because of the stress it puts on society. I think we need ten or twenty years to get used to civil unions, at which time the debate could be handled with far less acrimony. I can't imagine any scenario where by the time my daughter has her own children, it isn't the law of the land.

What inequality?

The fallacy of your argument is that homosexuals are not banned from marriage; actually the fact is, homosexuals have married since the dawn of marriage, have had children, divorced, remarried etc. etc. etc.

Further, if I so choose I am able to have a diverse sex life with gay, straight, bi, tri or vibrator however skin color is not choice so please stop comparing sexual behavior with the Civil Rights struggle.

Lastly, MLK was a Republican because he knew the Dixiecrat Dems were the slavemasters of
the '40 acres and a mule' plantation and the KKK were the strong arm of the slavemaster's law.

I'm sure you couldn't care less about the answer. You threw your little grenade and you smuggly pumped your fist and gave a little 'Yeah, Take that hypocrites'.

The book that you are referencing mentions Solomon as a man of uncommon wisdom. A man who used that wisdom to bring peace and prosperity to his people. It also records a warning to him against vanity and of taking many wives as he did. Despite his wisdom, his wives turned him from the service of his God and his life ended, not in a celebration of his Godly wisdom, but in a demonstration of the damage vanity causes, something he had so eloquently explained earlier in life before he disobeyed and took on those 700 wives (I'm surprised you didn't mention the concubines as well).

If you would like to discuss Hebrew polygamy, the Mosaic Laws proscriptions or the restatement of the 'one man, one woman' standard by Jesus (referring to God's original purpose) that's fine. But you really don't, do you?

Should be Mosaic Law's. Sorry. Typing too fast!

Actually, that is not correct. For example, in Virginia it is illegal for corporations to provide employee medical insurance to the unmarried domestic partners of employees unless (this is cute) the company is large enough to self-insure. This keeps large corporations like Microsoft (which has domestic partner benefits) from moving facilities out of state while still legally punishing gays who work for smaller companies.

Only if he is in a wheelchair since Vietnam. I mean, Iraq. And in the moving finale, the federal government takes over healthcare and makes him walk again, using a special cocktail of Honest Tea and fetal tissue.

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
(John Edwards, 2004)

I have had this discussion with my son on several occasions and have yet to fully understand. OK, so I am an old guy. What is the difference between "Marriage" and "Civil Union"? As I understand, and I may be wrong, Civil Unions are legal in California, but marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. So, if same sex partners can be united under the "Civil Union" banner, what is the push to have the banner of "Marriage"?

Thus why we don't have laws banning fundamentalist Muslims from being allowed to practice their religion. And its also why, despite the best efforts of men such as Bill Maher, and women such as Rosie O'Donnel we still have Christianity.

Yes. I'm just pointing out that we do not base requirements for equal legal protection solely on characteristics you have absolutely no choice over.

I'll bet you didn't know that heterosexual marriage wasn't guaranteed under the constitution, that it is not recognised by the constitution and most likely shouldn't be recognised by the constitution, because the more you legalize something the more the government can dictate terms–or haven't you been paying attention to the furor over the bailout? Can you please read these documents that you choose to quote and stretch your mind a little further? And you dropped that snarky little gauntlet " America love it or leave it" I was responding in kind. Be well, be blessed, seek Jesus because he is coming soon and you need him.

Love!

"You either don't have anyone you really care about other than yourself. You certainly don't have children, or have been regularly exposed to them. Or if you do, you are unfit."

I have many people I care about. What I do NOT care about is propping up institutions or ideals for the sake of some theoretical, quasi-socialistic "greater good" at the expense of the freedom and self-fulfillment of The Individual.

I agree. I belive that all of this vile is over one word in order to gain acceptance not equality. It is about the fact that not all people have the same opinion about any subject and in most cases, that is alright.

I would be more comfortable if everyone just admitted that openly. Constantly referring to this as a civil rights issue is misleading because it plays on the emotions. It's not about rights. It's about homosexuals wanting their relationships accepted by those of us who do not agree.

And instead of dealing with it the way a civilized society deals with problematic issues, by voting and legislation (which is exactly what Prop. 8 was) they resort to berating (like Sean Penn), bullying, threatening, riots and violence.

A ban on marrying across religions? I've never heard of that one, although I have heard of Christians marrying Jews, Christians marrying Atheists, and even Baptists marrying Methodists. That last one is rare, but it does happen. I haven't heard of Muslims marrying outside of Islam, but then that's probably a personal safety issue.

Ignorant, arrogant AND militant. The perfect storm. You think nothing that came before you matters. Not very wise. You did not earn the wealth and freedom that you enjoy. None of us did. We are privileged. Maybe some day you will learn that it is purely in your self-interest to protect this unique and wonderful society. But probably not. You would break something you don´t understand. Historically, there is a name for people like that.

I think the comment group at Big Hollywood are the funniest, wittiest, smartest on the net. I'm learning and laughing along the way.

True, but the laws on marriage are the same for most people with in the US, men can only marry women, and women can only marry men. We all have the same rights, why should a certain group get special rights? If we allow gay marriage, why not allow human/animal marriage? The people that like animals would say that their rights are being infringed upon because they can't marry who they want.

However, I understand that I, as a Christian, am to love my neighbor, so I'm against denying equal rights to homosexuals. They have equal rights, they can marry the same as anyone else. I would have no problem if they want to overturn laws such as the one you describe, Fritz, but thats not what's being argued.

#3 Fallacy of Necessity: Placing too much necessity upon one premise
A.Only those who have struggled understand struggle.
B. Minorities have struggled.
C. Therefore You do not understand struggle because you are not a minority.

#4 Appeal to Authority: By saying we can't understand because we aren't minorities is like saying "Global warming is true because most scientists think it's true."

See, four years at a public university has been good for something.

Okay. Lets play under your reasoning. "Good until it isn't anymore" Okay, this pesky notion of tolerence isn't good for me anymore, I think I'll go lynch some one. And these laws against theft, they're not good anymore, I'm bigger and stronger then most people, I should be able to take form them what I want, its only Darwinism at its finest. Oh, and rape, being an alpha male, it should be my duty to impregnate as many women as possible to pass on my genetic material. And murder, If morals are nebulous and changeable as you suggest, and Darwinism is the rule of the Day, then I should be able to eliminate those who could possibly breed besides me to ensure that only my genes are carried on.

""If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
(John Edwards, 2004)"

Said after Superman had already gone on to the big Fortress of Solitude in the sky.

"Thanks for showing your hatred and intolerance of those who do not think like you."

That's nothin', you should see my hatred and intolerance for people who DO think me

I guess Milk wasn´t a saint – he certainly did not deserve to be murdered – either way, Penn is a vile bastard for sucking up to thugs like Chavez and Castro. But then he is a small time thug himself.

Too bad I cannot reply to this post, since this sentence makes no grammatical sense whatsoever.

Yeah, you're right. We need to get rid of those archaic "moral" codes: Do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, honor your father and mother, love your neighbor, help the poor and oppressed, minister to those in prison, avoid drunkenness, gluttony, sexual immorality.

Thankfully, I am blessed in that I cannot envision a world missing these "blunts" to your "help", "fun" and "justice".

History suggests there´s no going back whether it works or not. What else can someone with a conservative temperament say? Possibly you will get gay marriage so that you have to look for another progressive cause. You will be old one day, you will look at the world you helped to create. You will grunt "people are crap" and "screw society" because that hubris and self-pity may not go away no matter what. Then you will die and everybody else will be left holding the bag. Hey, if it works for you…

Good point, if we're going to talk about suffering, then Jews and those who have lived under Communist governments have suffered far more then anyone else living today. Gays in America haven't suffered by comparison, they have all the same rights as every other American.

It's amazing to me how many homosexuals or those who support the homosexual lifestyle absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there are many, many people who once were homosexual and now are not. (Which, as you said, shows that it is a choice, unlike skin color/race.)

It's like those people do not even exist.

CONTINUED:
…Heck, take a modern example: Right now, it is considered morally WRONG to have sex with children. Now, you and I would both agree that this particular moral code is correct. However, a student of history will tell you that correct or not it's a relatively recent (in terms of human history) invention. For CENTURIES what we would (correctly, I reiterate) would call child-rape was simply called "something to do on a Friday," but we've reexamined that thinking and found it to be incorrect. Likewise, for CENTURIES homosexuality was abhorent and gay marriage was likewise – upon examining it today, I find no logical reason why this should be the case.

No, It was socially acceptable 200 years ago to own a slave, it wasn't moral. You're confusing things that a society accepts as Morals. they are different things.

Moral, Adj: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical

Societal norms are different things. Just because a society accepts something doesn't make it right. Under your theory, the rightness or wrongness of things changes with time, it does not. Slavery is and has always been wrong, but some societies have accepted it. Do you remember in high school how there was always a teacher with a poster that said "What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right." That's what you're not understanding about Morals. What is moral isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always moral.

CONTINUED:
…but that presents a possible conundrum: If the "permanently right" morality flows from this particular God, then what of the societies that were not introduced to him until much later, or those that existed prior to the point when man came to know him. I mean, unless you want to take the pre-flood Old Testament as a 100% reliable timeline, the J/C God has only been known to mankind since sometime during the Sumerian era and from then until Roman times only to a relative handful of us, yes?

Actually the constitution protects the freedom of both, no one is getting arrested for either. You are free to practice your religion or sexual prefference.

Yes, the Morality comes from the Judeo-Christian God, the only God. And no, his morality hasn't changed. Just because His chosen people did things doesn't mean he approved of them. In fact, if you read the book of Judges, it explains this quite clearly, that people did what ever they wanted and fell away from God. And the Bible also makes it clear that Polygamy isn't good. Each person that was a polygamist has problems because of it, Read the Genesis accounts of the Patriarchs. And as For Solomon, the biggest example of polygamy, all you need to do is read Ecclesiastes. And the same thing with Slavery. Read the books of the Law, there is thing called "Year of the Jubilee" during which all slaves were to be freed. God understood people, over time, do things they shouldn't, so he set provisions to keep them from being institutionalized in the Jewish society.

Liberals tend to confuse "rights" with "wants". Our right is to freely work towards happiness, that is the pursuit part, not that the Government has to garuntee our success.

you'll also notice that no where is Happiness deemed an unalienable right, on the persuit of happiness.

"This is not about equal rights. It is about homosexuals getting society to accept their lifestyle"

Equal recognition is an important part of

Civil Union is socially inferior to marriage. If there was a "homosexual" equivalent of marraige then maybe it wouldn't be such an issue(but it'd be silly – not to mention it already gets coined as "Gay Marriage" as opposed to "Marriage for Gays"). You cannot deny this much at least. Why is it that straight couples get to be recognised as "married" and not same sex ones? That's what it boils down to. Why does one religion, or one set of traditions rise above all others?

Gay marriage is basically the same thing as straight marraige. That's why "they" want to drive the point home – only the gender is different.

I could argue it isn't even homophobia, but sexism. Why is a man allowed marry a woman, but not another woman? Actually it IS sexism since a big part of "sexism" is enforcing gender roles.

So not only are you intolerant toward those who hold to a different opinion on same sex marriage than you do, but you are also so arrogant that, without even bothering to even ask, you presume to read someone else's mind and heart and know why they hold that opinion.

Thank you for sharing that on a public forum. It's good that other people can see your intolerance and arrogance.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-19-2...

As much as the Daily Show can be obnoxious, this hits the nail on the head.

Conservatives are using the same tactics they bitched about Liberals for using in some ways less than a year ago. Only they're much louder and obnoxious.

How can you bitch about finger wagging when even now you're wagging your finger at homosexuals, environmentalists, pagans, and god only knows who else?

Same Church Lady, different gender.