Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Same sex marriage will leave society ‘spiritually disoriented’

March 6, 2013

To the editor: This is in response to the Feb. 28 “Planning the next step in marriage equality?”( PFLAG interview....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-29-13 10:45 AM

For being no better nor worse than everyone else, you sure spend a lot of your effort spewing hatred of others, especially white people. So that does make you a racist bigot.

1 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 11:09 PM

hey westline - The Republican lie getting us into an unfounded and unfunded war with Iraq will cost us 6 Trillion when all is said and done. Do you think that cost just ended when W left?

How about that unpaid for Medicaid Big Pharma giveaway? The one that Obamacare has saved 6 million people, $6 billion fixing?

Medicare costs actually going down year over year and - as always - costing lower than the private sector insurance.

How is it that we still have 40 million uninsured in this country, yet still pay twice as much as every other developed country?

I mean, we could go into data set after data set and in EACH, the GOP's economic ideology gets trumped both in results and actual rhetoric to effect. Yeah - the crap the GOP spews about the effect is ALWAYS wrong. Over promised, under delivered... if delivered at all.

Get off the Foxaide.

Stop letting them scare you into stupid decisions.

16 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 10:58 PM

I, Rusty, am not a racist. I am one of the priveledged class in this country - white and male.

Unlike you and your ilk, however, I understand that I am naive to the degree of my white priveledge. That is only because I understand that I have a white priveledge. I am no better, nor no worse than, any other human on this planet, be they male, female, gay, straight, theist or atheist. I get it.

You and your bigotted ilk mostly don't get it but mostly because you believe you are entitled to that priveledge.

You yap about a Democratically controlled congress - but there was never a 60 a vote super majority required now due to the dishonorable and intransigent conservative minority who are actively working toward the destruction of the US Gov't.

This is a Gov't of, by and for the people of this country and your and your ilk's open hatred of the Gov't is an open hatred of the people of the country for whom it is of, by and for.

16 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 10:57 PM

Ok, deficit you want. Bush years 2007- $161 billion. 2008-$459 billion. obama years 2009-$1413 billion. 2010-$1293 billion. 2011-$1300 billion 2012-$1089 billion. That is like your babysitter hitting your kid over the head 161 and 459 times per year, so you get a new babysitter, who does it 1413,1293,1300, and 1089 times per year. And then you want to pin a medal on his chest for "reducing the deficit" That, my dear rockdart, is hogwash.

1 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 10:48 PM

Copied from my own post-"7 and a half years into his presidency, Obama will be responsible for more national debt than all previous presidents have amassed over 233 years" National debt, rockdart, I refer to national debt, not a word did I say about deficit.(more on that later, since you seem to think obama has that all figured out. I think you needed to pay attention in reading class just as much as obama needed to pay attention in economics class.

1 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 8:37 PM

rockdart - you are a racist and you must have the race card taped to your forehead so every time you look in the mirror you can see yourself for what you are.

1 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 3:04 PM

westline - you are correct and as usual rockdart is rewriting history - the Dems controlled Congress during Bush's last two years so they have a 7 year record of huge deficit spending. If that isn't the case, why does the debt ceiling poised to be hit this summer - again?

Must have sat next to hartman in economics class.

2 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 12:40 PM

westline, you are completely incorrect. Obama has actually reduced the deficit year over year, despite an intrasigent GOP, but was saddled with an inheritted budget bomb given to us by a Republican president and congress who followed and a party that continues to follow a litterally bankrupt economic ideology.

And Rusty - I quoted you from below, verbatim. So it's YOU that continues to be a liar.

My example of Loving vs Virginia was to put context to your @$$!n!ne homosexual parent 'argument'. Anyone with any thinking skills can discern that.

So you just go right ahead and continue to carry your rusted out water bucket of white whine for bigotry and ignorance.

17 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 9:54 AM

7 and a half years into his presidency, Obama will be responsible for more national debt than all previous presidents have amassed over 233 years. (Cyprus, anyone?)If you want to find a poster boy for successful biracial children, you could maybe point to someone at least honorable.

1 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-27-13 7:21 PM

I have never issued any comments about biracial children. So yet another lie by you.

My extended family has many biracial adults and children.

So get out your goofy hat and put it on.

4 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-27-13 7:18 PM

rockhead - once again you are lying and saying things that aren't true. If you followed my posts over the past year or so, then you would know that I have addressed all your issues raised.

But being the lazy and opinionated sort, you would rather lie than deal with the truth.

Someone must have dropped you on your head when you were younger and addled your ability to think and respond. Good luck with the continuing shock and drug therapy.

Are you gay?

4 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-27-13 4:59 PM

Rusty writes "Marriage is primarily for procreation and the raising of children".

So, in his crumbling, oxidized world, if you are sterile, you can't get married. If you choose not to have children you can't get married.

I wonder what he'd say to Judge Thomas, who has no children in his marriage to Ginny.

Or to Judge Sotomayor who was married and had no children.

Or to Justice Roberts, who had to adopt.

Can a lesbian still have children? Can a gay man still conceive a child? Are test tubes only viable for heterosexuals? How about surrogate mothers?

Rusty, et al bigots: your continued "white whine" about things you just want to 1) have exclusive control over and 2) want to keep as an excuse/cover for your bigotry, are falling by the wayside quickly.

These same arguments that you spew now were spewed during Loving vs Virginia over how biracial children will fare in this world. See: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for that answer.

18 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-27-13 12:40 PM

The answer is actually quite simple. Government needs to get out of the marriage business and get into the civil union business. Have the debate over the definition of what a civil union is and what "rights" you get there and leave marriage to the churches. This argument is so stupid. CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON THE ECONOMY!!!

3 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-21-13 8:36 AM

hartman75, thank you for a good dialogue. I very much enjoyed it.

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-21-13 12:16 AM

eburke, for someone who couldn't present a logical, much less convincing argument, the fact you think you can judge my level of ignorance is really quite amusing. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

18 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-20-13 8:26 PM

hartman75, whether my "reaching" transforms into "reached" is dependent upon your posts. I will reserve judgment whether you have achieved the level of ignorance if or when those posts occur.

8 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-20-13 6:05 PM

monkeyman - one of the few exceptions and they are to be commended.

As I said most are in this for benefits and not for raising children.

Jan and Cathy never answer this question, either.

3 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-20-13 3:34 PM

Sure eburke, just let me know when you're done "reaching".

17 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-20-13 2:18 PM

"Based on their own merits" - quite a mouthful hartman. What are the benefits of gay marriage and why is that different from any of the other combinations put forward? Unless of course you are a bigot.

3 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-20-13 1:57 PM

"I don't see too many success stories about gay couples raising children. In fact I know of none."

Kenneth Faried. Small forward, Denver Nuggets. Raised by 2 moms. Google it if you don't believe it al.

19 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-20-13 12:59 PM

hartman75, the key word is "reaching." I didn't say "reached," which would be the definitive statement that you are ignorant. I'm having difficulty understanding why you can't understand my posts. I understand yours.

11 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-20-13 12:35 PM

“I'm not comparing incest to same sex marriage, I'm just warning of the loopholes we're creating.”

Merritt, you could logically assert ALL of our constitutional rights have loopholes – isn’t that why we have a judicial system? Are you suggesting that creating a "loophole" is a reasonable foundation for denying rights to a whole class of individuals?

There is NO basis in fact that allowing same sex marriage will lead to polygamy or inter-family marriage. Any attempt to legalize those relationships must be based on their own merits which are very different from that banning same sex marriage. Those here who oppose same sex marriage are deflecting the argument away from pertinent facts by introducing irrelevant assumptions. The ban on gay marriage is NOT supported by our constitution and no one has presented any evidence to dispute that fact.

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-20-13 11:00 AM

"I am reaching the unfortunate conclusion that you are ignorant..."

"I don't have enough observable events to draw that conclusion, which is why I did not make a definitive statement to that effect."

I’m puzzled eburke. You concluded quite definitively I am ignorant but now claim you didn’t “make a definitive statement to that effect”. Seems to me you are talking in circles and really have no idea what you are talking about. Based on that observable event could I then conclude you’re ignorant? Of course I’m not making a definitive statement to that effect.

The “heart of the matter” is that gay marriage is not a federally protected right. Every adult should have the right to marry no matter their sexual orientation. The laws concerning bigamy and inter-family marriage are NOT gender based. The law banning same sex marriage IS ONLY based on gender. That’s why there is no comparison. Would you suggest a ban on heterosexual marriage since it could lead to polygam

17 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-20-13 9:06 AM

hartman75, to answer your question, my approach in speculating about your degree of ignorance, if any, is an inductive approach. I examined an observable event, one post in particular, and then engaged in inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion as to whether you were ignorant. One observation is not statistically significant, buy many observable events may permit one to draw a hypothesis that statistical significance exists. I don't have enough observable events to draw that conclusion, which is why I did not make a definitive statement to that effect.

11 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-19-13 6:07 PM

I stand by my statements and questions.

Back in our playground days, I'm guessing hartman had the reputation as a gutless wonder.

4 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 89 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web