Jeff Stahler for April 01, 2015

Love thy neighbor. Sure, as long as they’re not one of, you know, those people.

Reminds me of an incident 3 years ago when one of my “conservative” neighbors put a note in my mail box informing me that gays don’t deserve marriage equality because they’re unable to experience “love” the way straight people do.

Yup. That’s the real meaning of Jesus’ teachings. Thanks, Jeff, for pointing out the obvious.

Apparently there are a lot of people who don’t understand the obvious.. They just have to try to impose their will on others because they are so much smarter or righteous.

The enemies of the United States could not do a better job than our political parties are doing to divide us on issue after issue.

“But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven…”Matthew 5:44-45

Jesus ate with sinners; who are these hypocrites who won’t serve them their meal?

Still looking for the Final Solution to the Gay question? Move to Indiana. There’s a booming business there building gas chambers.

Do unto others, and beware of hypocrites, may be Jesus’s two most valid points, stated simply.

Well, she may be right in a sense. Legislating people to more or less take part in activity they find offensive only leads to ill-will, which will never be discussed publicly thru fear of re-education camps (aka sensitivity training). You can’t really think that helps matters, do you?.Christianity has been practicing “hate the sin but love the sinner” for centuries (& usually not preaching against the sin if it’s not welcome) – so why make things worse by forcing this issue?.Think about this: the vast majority of the population is simply turned off by the site of 2 men holding hands. So forcing a baker to sell a statue of that is frankly disturbing. WHY TURN PEOPLE OFF by forcing the issue as we’re seeing now? I’ve known plenty of gay people, but I’m now reluctant now; who knows what will happen? Are they going to sue me if I don’t invite them to a party?

@WiseOrator @echoravenThank you.

Often, gay marriage becomes legal based on a court decision. I noticed on the last ballot here (I live in Texas, DFW area), Democrats were running for nearly all the judgeships UNOPPOSED. Apparently just a few Republicans were interested in being a judge.

MY QUESTION, is this the case anywhere else?

I’m really just wondering. Of course TX is a conservative state, but in California I understand that the people voted twice against gay marriage, and twice the courts shot it down.

If you win by using the courts against the will of the people, what does that say for your position? Nevermind racial hatred (for this discussion) – this is behavior that most people are viscerally turned off by (& 25% of THOSE pretend not to be, to be Politically Correct). We don’t want our children or grandchildren to be influenced by this – & that’s why elections get a “NO” vote.

If it turns out that Democrat judges are the largely ones overturning the will of the people, you gotta stop and wonder, about a lot of things. For instance, what does it say for the political philosophy of the left in this country if they rely (deliberately or otherwise) on a plurality of liberal judges to overturn the popular vote? This would prove their philosophy is opposed by the majority, & they don’t care for the most basic building block of a democracy, which is that “majority rules”.

The Bible says it, and that makes it true. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s render unto God the things that are God’s.

Now I’m just a simple country boy and a Christian, but if that ain’t a Divine decree for separation of Church and State, I don’t know what is.

You hit the nail on the head. The whole problem is one of semantics. Marriage has a traditional meaning which includes procreation.

I’m a full supporter of “legal equivalent of spouse” (or whatever you want to call it). Which is a contract between any two people: a daughter and her dependent mother, a brother and sister who have outlived their spouses, two complete strangers; who want to be considered a “couple” for the purposes of inheritance, taxation, benefits, liability, etc.

If the two people want to have a priest, rabbi, shaman or mullah bless the contract, that’s their business, not the state’s.

If they want to throw a big party to celebrate the contract, that’s their business, not the state’s.

If they want to live together, that’s their business, not the state’s.

Sure gays would probably be the largest group to take advantage of such a law, but since there would also be the legal equivalent of divorce, they would be encouraged to work on the relationship rather than dissolving it at the first squabble.

This would encourage “monogamy” which would slow the growth of STDs and this is a bad thing how?

P.S. The other big benefit of the law is that does away with “palimony” cases and frees the courts to handle other cases..

“Marriage = Man + Woman Same Gender Civil Union = Man + Man or Woman + Woman get your own word”Seeing as marriage is codified into law, our law makers can make it mean what ever they want it to. If you want your own word that the icky gays can’t use, then make sure it’s not a legally binding contract.