Obama gay-marriage stance comes under scrutiny from gay-rights advocates

It's the same trip, Gays want equal rights in a loving relationship that leads to a marriage union...ISN'T THAT WHAT heterosexuals aim for also?? But, they feel THAT they are entitled to it and other rights, they deem are their inheritance...GIVE ME A FREAKIN' BREAK...WHO has the authority TO SAY..GAY MARRIAGES WILL OR WON'T BE LEGALLY BINDING...or THAT THEY are in defiance of God's Law?? IF two folks want to marry...WHO REALLY SAYS YA CAN'T?? Whether you are of the same sex or not, underage or of another race or religion?? Ya don't see God intervening, striking ya down dead right there on the city hall steps do ya? Ya know, if America stands for the Land of the Free..allowing illegals to live here and receiving benefits...WHY THE FREAK is a marriage out of the norm..SUCH A BIG ISSUE?? WHAT IS NORMAL AND WHAT AIN'T?? WHO has the FREAKIN' RIGHT to say yay or no? IT'S THE LOVE CONNECTION..NO EARTHLY HUMAN SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO STOP a union binding TWO HEARTS TOGETHER...it's all about control...ROCK ON!

We are tired of our politicians lying to forward homosexuality.

>
10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed
By TFP Student Action
Share
1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man.(Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

Colorado Chick wrote:

It's the same trip, Gays want equal rights in a loving relationship that leads to a marriage union...ISN'T THAT WHAT heterosexuals aim for also?? But, they feel THAT they are entitled to it and other rights, they deem are their inheritance...GIVE ME A FREAKIN' BREAK...WHO has the authority TO SAY..GAY MARRIAGES WILL OR WON'T BE LEGALLY BINDING...or THAT THEY are in defiance of God's Law?? IF two folks want to marry...WHO REALLY SAYS YA CAN'T?? Whether you are of the same sex or not, underage or of another race or religion?? Ya don't see God intervening, striking ya down dead right there on the city hall steps do ya? Ya know, if America stands for the Land of the Free..allowing illegals to live here and receiving benefits...WHY THE FREAK is a marriage out of the norm..SUCH A BIG ISSUE?? WHAT IS NORMAL AND WHAT AIN'T?? WHO has the FREAKIN' RIGHT to say yay or no? IT'S THE LOVE CONNECTION..NO EARTHLY HUMAN SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO STOP a union binding TWO HEARTS TOGETHER...it's all about control...ROCK ON!

what if i want a loving relationship with MANY wives??? who has the right to say? or what if i prefer animals to people? are you gonna exclude me???

Samatha wrote:

dumsht hate blog spam.

Obama is playing politics with this issue. If he comes out in support of gay marriage, then he will alienate large blocs of voters in the black and hispanic communities.

GoodNewz wrote:

<quoted text>
what if i want a loving relationship with MANY wives??? who has the right to say? or what if i prefer animals to people? are you gonna exclude me???

now. It is always funny the way you guys always go there and share your secret desires.

Joey wrote:

Obama is playing politics with this issue. If he comes out in support of gay marriage, then he will alienate large blocs of voters in the black and hispanic communities.

Obama's moderated his views on every issue outside of foreign policy, because he has to govern everyone.

He dropped single payer, he didn't do as much stimulus as most of his economic advisors wanted, he didn't issue and executive order repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but let Congress do it more deliberately, and so on.

The Hispanic community is inline with the just emerging majority of Americans in favor of marriage equality.(It's still close to 50 50 in polling.)

The parts of the black community which oppose marriage equality, as is true of other racial demographics on the issue, tend to be uber religious, less well educated and older, on average.

Samatha wrote:

We are tired of our politicians lying to forward homosexuality.

Hey evilgelical strumpet, those aren't ten reasons.

Those are two justifications, paraphrased:

1. You don't like giving equal rights to glbt people. You dress up your bigotry in vague terms like natural law or complementarity or whatnot. That is, when you are not banging your buybull in theocratic rhythms.

2. You like to pretend that marriage must have something to do with breeding. It doesn't. Str8 people who are elderly or infertile or who have no intention of having kids marry all the time. No problem. Lots of traditional families have non blood related parents. Lots of families have only one parent. Lots of glbt people have kids...in all manner of ways.

You're an ignorant, lying bigot is all.

Samatha wrote:

This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

I agree with you 100%. This nightmare will turn and be over soon.

Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey evilgelical strumpet, those aren't ten reasons.
Those are two justifications, paraphrased:
1. You don't like giving equal rights to glbt people. You dress up your bigotry in vague terms like natural law or complementarity or whatnot. That is, when you are not banging your buybull in theocratic rhythms.
2. You like to pretend that marriage must have something to do with breeding. It doesn't. Str8 people who are elderly or infertile or who have no intention of having kids marry all the time. No problem. Lots of traditional families have non blood related parents. Lots of families have only one parent. Lots of glbt people have kids...in all manner of ways.
You're an ignorant, lying bigot is all.

Believing in GOD's Word is not nor will it ever be bigotry.

How about this? Is this hate also?
Normal people call it the truth.

>

CDC: Homosexual men account for 61% of new HIV infections but only 2% of population

Thu Aug 18, 2011 19:22 EST
Comments (33)







WASHINGTON, D.C., August 18, 2011 - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has estimated that practicing homosexual men account for 61% of the new HIV infections in the United States while they only amount to about 2% of the country’s population.

Earlier this month, the CDC released estimates for HIV infections from 2006-2009 showing that new infections remained stable at around 50,000 for each of the four years.

Homosexual men (men who have sex with men) accounted for 29,300 of the estimated 48,100 new infections in 2009, and homosexual men aged 13 to 29 accounted for 27% of the new cases.

The only group in which new HIV infections is increasing, they say, is young homosexual men – driven by an alarming increase in infections from African Americans. They estimated that the new infections among young black homosexual men increased 48 percent in the period of 2006-2009 (from 4,400 HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009).

The study also revealed that almost 20% of homosexual men have HIV, while nearly half of those who do are unaware of it.

For more information visit the CDC website here.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncide...

more wrote:

<quoted text>
dumsht hate blog spam.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Believing in GOD's Word is not nor will it ever be bigotry.

It is when you only "believe in" the three percent of gawd's word that flatters your personal psycho sexual issues, Cletus.

You don't follow the buybull and neither does anyone else. You pick and choose, you lying hypocrite.

“And now I say to you who are listening to me, Love your enemies.” Luke 6:27

“Now bring me the enemies who didn’t want me to be their king. Kill them while I watch.” Luke 19:27

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)

Samatha wrote:

OK Buttlicker....
<quoted text>

You have a particular sexual fixation, in addition to confusing two lies for "ten" lies, as you did before.

There's no shortage of human perversity. You defame glbt people, but you don't similarly defame smokers who get lung cancer, or heterosexuals who engage in sodomy.

You have a mental illness, a psychological disorder of homophobia is all.

>The group most likely to see itself as impervious [to having its marriages adversely affected by marriage equality] and others as vulnerable [to having theirs adversely impacted by marriage equality] was composed of people with a personality trait called right-wing authoritarianism. People with this trait strongly value tradition and authority, and dislike people not in their own social group.

>Right-wing authoritarians' perceptions of themselves as strong and others as weak might help explain this group's strong opposition to gay marriage, Winslow said. But the study, published April 10 in the journal Social Psychology, also highlights that everybody judges themselves as a little bit better than the next guy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/gay-...

Samatha wrote:

OK Buttlicker, Try these:
>
>
FECAL SEX About 80% of gays
>

lie.

Democratic Talking Head James Carville has an article published on CNN today that says that the Dems and The Obamaniac are gonna LOSE this election !

:)

He should just come out and say he supports someone marrying someone else's colon.

Huffington post Yeah right that's right up there with ucdavis/rainbow! Two of the most pro-homosexual organizations anywhere, who happen to be funded in large part by..........That's right HOMOSEXUALS!

Face it, she cleaned your clock! The report addressed the large number of Gays who contract shigellosis from consuming medically significant amounts feces!

Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:

<quoted text>
You have a particular sexual fixation, in addition to confusing two lies for "ten" lies, as you did before.
There's no shortage of human perversity. You defame glbt people, but you don't similarly defame smokers who get lung cancer, or heterosexuals who engage in sodomy.
You have a mental illness, a psychological disorder of homophobia is all.
>The group most likely to see itself as impervious [to having its marriages adversely affected by marriage equality] and others as vulnerable [to having theirs adversely impacted by marriage equality] was composed of people with a personality trait called right-wing authoritarianism. People with this trait strongly value tradition and authority, and dislike people not in their own social group.
>Right-wing authoritarians' perceptions of themselves as strong and others as weak might help explain this group's strong opposition to gay marriage, Winslow said. But the study, published April 10 in the journal Social Psychology, also highlights that everybody judges themselves as a little bit better than the next guy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/gay-...

That report about Gay feces eating not enough?

Here you go:

Feces Consumption Leads High Incidence of Intestinal Parasites Among Gays

.
San Francisco -- San Francisco public health authorities have detected an unusual increase in cases of shigellosis, an unpleasant intestinal bug that can cause cramps, fever and bloody diarrhea for as long as a week.

So far this year, 205 cases of the bacterial infection, which is also know as bacillary dysentery, have been reported. That is nearly double the 113 cases reported during all of 1999. Of particular concern are the 50 cases reported in July and 60 cases in August -- the highest monthly rates since the city began tracking the disease in 1993.

A majority of the cases reported this year have been among gay men, who can be exposed to shigella bacteria through oral-anal contact. Day care workers also are at higher risk of contracting the illness.

``Because of the sharp increase in cases, it means people are engaged in behavior that puts them at risk for the disease,'' said Dr. Susan Fernyak, San Francisco director of communicable disease prevention.``It takes very few bacteria to transmit shigellosis. It's very infectious.''

There is no vaccine to prevent shigellosis, but it is readily treated with antibiotics. A similar illness, hepatitis A, does not respond to antibiotics, but cases of that illness have dropped sharply since a vaccine to prevent it became available.

Fernyak said those who are infected should not handle food. The bacteria may still be present in the body for as long as a week after symptoms of the illness are gone. It is possible for someone to contract a mild case of the bug and show few symptoms of the illness, but still be capable of transmitting it to others.

Dr. Tomas Aragon, director of Community Health and Epidemiology, said that there is a chronic low-level form of shigellosis in San Francisco's gay community and that periodically the number of cases will rise, particularly during the summer months.

Of the cases recorded this year, 82 percent were among men, and 63 percent of those volunteered information that they were gay or bisexual. Six men who contracted the diseases reported that they were heterosexual.

There were 17 cases of shigellosis among children under the age of 5 -- a rate that has not changed in recent years. Seven out of 10 cases reported this year involve a strain of shigella bacteria called sonnei, which tends to show up when the number of cases of the illness increases sharply. Another strain of the shigella, known as flexneri, is more common at chronic low levels of infection in the population.

Aragon said the number of cases reported so far this year put San Francisco on a pace to meet or exceed the 326 cases reported in 1995.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
High Incidence of Intestinal Bug Among Gays

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

Blair wrote:

Huffington post Yeah right that's right up there with ucdavis/rainbow! Two of the most pro-homosexual organizations anywhere, who happen to be funded in large part by..........That's right HOMOSEXUALS!
Face it, she cleaned your clock! The report addressed the large number of Gays who contract shigellosis from consuming medically significant amounts feces!
<quoted text>

Hey stooopit, sht obsessed fundie, huff post doesn't do the studies. That's where I tend to read about them.

Of course you don't like scientific studies because you think the earth is under 10000 years old like the buybull says and because you don't know what a "theory" is and because you can't figure out this whole DNA thing about how humans and other primates are so closely related in the span of evolutionary time.

There's lots and lots and lots of these studies. The conclusions are not controversial in the least in the psychological or psychiatric or medical or biological worlds.

Try another, rube:

Rob Brooks >The main finding of this paper is that homophobia can arise, at least in part, from the suppression of desire for members of the same sex. The paper rests on a contrast between what people tell you when you ask them, and the implicit associations they make between words and concepts presented in computerised tests. The authors find that over 20 percent of people who, when asked, identify themselves as "highly straight" make implicit connections indicating some level of same-sex attraction.

Rob Brooks >These same 20 percent were also far more likely than other participants to favour anti-gay policy ideas and to be more hostile toward subjects they were led to believe were gay. Two of the authors, Richard and William Ryan, wrote a pithy summary of their finding in last week's New York Times ("Homophobic? Maybe You're Gay").

abstract
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/102/4/815...