We were warned...from all different angles..

[gypsyman]

thxmrgarand, I think there is you, and one other person I know that listens to NPR. Didn't you ever stop to think why they have to be govt. funded, and ask for donations. Nobody listens to them. The only time I watch any PBS on tv is when they have a money drive on, and they actually put something worthwile on. Most of the time, as far as I'm concerned, it's junk. They keep pushing left wing, liberal crap. Waste of time.  gypsyman

[wareagleguy]

I don't understand.
If you are against the marriage of gays because of religious views why are you not just as outraged about the government taxing by a marriage license?

[thxmrgarand]

In much of Alaska NPR is all there is.  Their state news tends to be all there is to keep in touch with this huge state (an accurately scaled  map of Alaska superimposed upon an accurate map of the Lower 48 has parts of Alaska as far apart as Maine and New Mexico).  Apart from that, it lets me know what the extreme left finds important and how they see things - in both what they choose to report and in how it's reported.  Now that the left controls so much more of the federal government (and the federal government owns about 80% of Alaska!)  it may let Alaskans know what will happen to us next.  Finally, NPR frequently has news segments that last for several minutes on interesting topics that will only be superficially covered, if at all, by commercial news.  For my taste, there is too much "news" on commercial stations about some woman locking her kids in the truck of a car or her boyfriend killing the kids.  All that said, I would much prefer that the federal and state subsidies of Public Broadcasting would go away and that the huge nonprofit left-wing interest group we call Public Broadcasting would go away.  Perhaps if Public Broadcasting disappeared there would be something to replace it that would be both intelligent and balanced.

An example of what I find interesting is the change in how NPR covers Alaska issues since the last election.  For instance, a few years ago the federal government seized "management" of fish and game in Alaska on all federal land and navigable waters.  Alaska had successfully managed fish and game since statehood but our state constitution requires all Alaskans to own fish and game equally.  As we know, the feds don't like equal.   NPR liked the seizure but hated President Bush.  Now they like everything about the federal government (even though there is no federal management, only regulation), and that changes their coverage. 

[teamnelson]

What is not publicly known is same-sex relationships have higher "divorce" rates, higher incidents of domestic violence, both on each other, and any children in the home. Its the only situation where CPS does not automatically remove the child by default because they can't risk a counter charge of discrimination. Suicide is higher, substance abuse is higher, mental & physical health issues are all more complicated. Children raised in the situation have an even tougher time. All of this is documented medically, legally, etc. Were it any other "group" it would be treated differently.

I have been thinking about what 45-70 said though, and I think it may have merit. I've always felt marriage is a divine institution, to be conducted accordingly. I'm not convinced that a legal divorce necessarily registers in heaven anyways since last I checked, God is not subordinate to our laws. And the Constitution is notably silent on the issue. Things with legal status but no other value live longer than they ought to. Remove the legal status, and a form of social darwinism kicks in. Without the legal protection, society doesn't have to worry about stigmatizing or discrimination - you can point at something wrong and call it wrong. Regardless of your faith, most folks look at same-sex, multiple-partner, pedophilia, beastiality, and without much help, reach the conclusion that it's not right. Take away the legal recognition and we can't teach that crap in schools, put up with it on tv, or accept it in mainstream. We can prosecute predators of all kinds. As long as the government is involved in marriage, they can change the rules whenever they want, which only works when the wolves and sheep agree.

[powderman]

Powerman.

People that prey on others should be controlled through law.  However, two adults that want to do something stupid that in no way hurts you or me is another.

Wrong  my friend. By acting like it doesn't matter it gives them a feeling that we accept their deviate behaviour as normal, it isn't. They are abominations in Gods eyes, he said it, not me. Hmmmmm, I guess I just did. Plenty of scripture to back it up. So called celebreties like rosie O, ellen degenerate, perez hilton, try to make the rest of the world see them as poor downtrodden and discriminated against. A few years ago rosie o leased a cruise ship for a week of fun and frolicking for queers and lezzies, wish it had been the titanic 2. Homosexuals should never be allowed to raise kids, or be in authority over them, teachers, scout leaders, baby sitters, etc. If society acts like it doesn't matter, we are seen by them as condoning their perverted, perverted, sicko behaviour. Yes, they hurt us all, especially our children. POWDERMAN. 

[Skunk]

So called celebrities like Rosie O, Ellen degenerate, Perez Hilton, try to make the rest of the world see them as poor downtrodden and discriminated against.

Don't forget the freak Wimpy Goldberg in that list. It's a real trouble maker.

[ironglow]

  Powderman;
  Take heart on this one thing at least; the more some influential folks lead others down the perverted primrose path toward rebellion, the closer it brings us to the return of the Lord or Lords and king of kings...Maranatha..

[powderman]

IRONGLOW. Satan helps scum like those I mentioned. The more folks they convert to their deviate behaviour the more souls lost for God, and more reservations in hell for satan himself. POWDERMAN. 

[Sourdough]

My own view and personal prefferance is one man one woman.  But in my life time I have known many (so called) marriages where there was one man and multiple wives.  Both here in the States, and in the Middle East.

This kind of thing, whether we like it or not, has been going on since the bigging of human time.  You can scream about it, make laws about it, condim it, but you can not stop it.  People are going to do what they want no matter what you or I do or think. 

[Heather]

My own view and personal prefferance is one man one woman.  But in my life time I have known many (so called) marriages where there was one man and multiple wives.  Both here in the States, and in the Middle East.

This kind of thing, whether we like it or not, has been going on since the bigging of human time.  You can scream about it, make laws about it, condim it, but you can not stop it.  People are going to do what they want no matter what you or I do or think. 

With the exception of Matt, people SHOULD BE ALLOWED to do what they want to no matter what you or I do or think as long as they are hurting no one but themselves.

[teamnelson]

Heather, you may not have intended to but you make a necessary point for restriction in society. Matt is in a covenant with you as such he gave up his absolute autonomy and can no longer just do what he wants, even if it does not directly or physically hurt you. Community is a covenant, if I expect you to come to my aid in fire or disorder, you expect me not to play with matches. If your non-traditional family is a disruption to the community, we may not want you here. Just like if Matt wanted to do something you didn't like you might not want him around. Behind closed doors is a myth, there are always third order effects.

Liberty is freedom with responsibility & accountability.

Aloha

[Matt]

umm.... nah... I am not saying anything.....

Matt

[scootrd]

where  in the constitution  does  it  mention marriage

the  government  should stay  out of marriage.........periods

government should  NOT  acknoledge ANY  marriage

the constitution  is  to protect  INDIVIDUAL  rights     only

no  SPECIAL  protection  to  any  groups/ couples  etc

people are  disgussing  a mute  point [or it should be a mute  point]

why  is there a different tax code based on marital status ?    this  is discrimination  not equality

who  cares  if  queers  or 5 folks  or  a man and  his  dog  get  married......or  even  a man and a woman
it  matters  not  until  they get  some SPECIAL  protection from  the government

so   i say  STRIKE ALL  laws  reguarding marriage

I gotta agree with this thought. Why are marriages provided civil/governmental acknowledgment.. Should they not be just religious in nature. Why does the Govt see fit to grant a married couple different rights than a unmarried couple or single individual?
In doing so are not married couples now given special dispensations under the tax code. Does this not contradict a persons individual rights? I'm not smart enough to understand this all .. but the point made does seem valid. 

[teamnelson]

Seems like most folks on GBO are nearly strict Constitutionalists; i.e. leave the 2nd Amendment where it is, and let the chips fall where they may. I have only recently questioned my desire for a constitutional amendment defining marriage BECAUSE of my defense of the 2nd Amendment. If I believe that the right to defend one's life, liberty and property are inalienable, endowed by a Creator, part of natural law then I am in essence saying don't let the government define "arms" or "bear" or any word that might encroach my natural rights. Which is why I am opposed to any firearms legislation or restriction, even age limits.

Why then would I want government to be allowed to define any other term in my life, especially marriage? Once you hand over the reigns, you never get them back.

Without legal protection, homosexuality is a self-correcting problem, and they know it, which is why they push so hard for it. I will no longer support a constitutional amendment on the family. The current political life in the US is enough to convince me that laws, no matter how well intentioned, are only as good as the people enforcing them.

[Matt]

Seems like most folks on GBO are nearly strict Constitutionalists; i.e. leave the 2nd Amendment where it is, and let the chips fall where they may. I have only recently questioned my desire for a constitutional amendment defining marriage BECAUSE of my defense of the 2nd Amendment. If I believe that the right to defend one's life, liberty and property are inalienable, endowed by a Creator, part of natural law then I am in essence saying don't let the government define "arms" or "bear" or any word that might encroach my natural rights. Which is why I am opposed to any firearms legislation or restriction, even age limits.

Why then would I want government to be allowed to define any other term in my life, especially marriage? Once you hand over the reigns, you never get them back.

WOW!!! Great Post!!!! This is basicly what I have been saying for some time now.

Matt

[DDZ]

I tend to agree with, governments hands should be off everything, to a point. My Christian faith recognizes that "government" is also a God-given and mandated thing. Therefore, my view of government needs to match God's view on role of and morality, etc... I think the founders did a great job of doing that.
You made a good point about not giving government the role of defining marriage, because they could make it whatever they wanted to.
I do not believe Government should be defining marriage or anything else. God defined marriage long before there was a government.   

[GRIMJIM]

I just came across this:

A California school district seems intent on teaching pre-school children to accept the homosexual lifestyle.
 

The Alameda Unified School District announced it was considering a supplemental curriculum to eradicate "homophobia" in kindergarten children. Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), said the meeting room for the public session earlier this week was overcrowded with angry parents.
 
"Nowhere at anytime did it give any protection for children being bullied because of their faith, their religion, their size, their race, ethnicity," he points out. "It is only going to give this special anti-bullying protection for homosexuals and transsexuals."
 
Dacus said an attorney from PJI spoke before the board meeting. "And [the attorney] made it very clear that this is an abridgement and an affront to the neutral role that school districts are supposed to play in respecting the rights of parents and not to engage in such overt and open indoctrination and mandatory acceptance of such controversial, immoral lifestyles," he concludes.
 
Parents cannot opt out their children from the curriculum. Dacus says it is important to remember that the children are kindergarten age, and many cannot even write their names -- yet they are being taught that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.


I also think their lifestyle choice is wrong but they are adults and should be able to do what they want. But teaching children that it is acceptable or even preferable to turn out that way is just plain wrong.

[teamnelson]

Years ago my kids did a semester at a public school in England. We nearly started a tea party when we pulled them out on the day for sex training. For 7yo they had cartoon figures having sex. For 9yo they had real people, but 2 guys, 2 gals and a biracial couple unmarried. The British parents didn't know you could disagree with a teacher, who was to PC to confront us. The US is marching lock step behind the UK.

[45-70.gov]

karl  marx  was a big promoter  of education  for the children

funny  how   when  our government  needs  money  they get it in the name  of ''THE CHILDREN''

no  one  has  pointed out  where in the constitution  that  ''civil unions''  of any kind  are defined
or  why  they  need to be.....
i  have  read  some  good  post since  i was  here  last

freedom  isnt  free
some  died  for  your freedom
some  died  because of their freedom
some  are  just disgusting WHEN  THEY EXERCIZE  THEIRS
some  of  you  dont  even  think  god  can deal  with  them  with out your help
freedom.....you beleive in it or you DON'T

[scootrd]

I do Admit ,
I am a bit of a hypocrite, I understand our laws must be there to protect all even if I don't agree with everything -  but to this day I get so angry when I see someone burning the US Flag as an expression of protest and free speech.

So on one hand I understand though it disgusts me , I have to let them do it. On the other hand I just want to explain to them My grandfather died for that flag at the battle of the Bulge to protect their rite to protest all the while I am beating the living !@#$$ out of them for doing so.

I seem to recall a Basketball player who would not stand for Our National Anthem.
To me , I though if I was in his country (whether I believed in his country's beliefs) I would stand out of respect and just think of my country's anthem while theirs played.  Given the $$ this person was making in AMERICA I would have thought he would have been more respectful for the opportunity this country had provided him. Though it may have been his personnel Right not to stand  -  again I felt like a hypocrite cause I just wanted to cancel his contract put his !@# on the first plane out of our country let him return to his 3rd world country and live in squalor.