Breitbart.tv

of course it’s not the same Ellen. You don’t have genetic offspring from your partner. Marriage is about tying two families together with kids and their genetic material. You simply cannot do that Ellen – either by your choice or by your biological fate (if you are in fact “gay” through rare biological chance). You can have a “contract” and you ‘might’ get the “right” to call it a marriage, but really it is a hoax. Because you cannot have children. Marriage, again, is about the union, spiritually and genetically, between two people and their families. You’ll never get there from here, Ellen. You are a nice enough person, very entertaining, but Marriage is for heterosexuals only. “Civil Unions” are what gay people can do to align their legal issues.

McCain wimped out. What an embarassment. He couldn’t do better than this? DeGeneres was prepared and McCain wasn’t. Is this how he is going to do in the debates.

Here is the answer.
“I believe that even though some gays are born that way, for the overwhelming number, it is a behavioral choice and therefore should not be equated with other civil rights. If they want to enter into legal agreements, so be it, but Marriage is a sacrament given to us by God and that sacrament is between a man and a woman who in the ideal can and do procreate. This is what I believe and this is what I am going to stand on and I am sorry if you disagree, but I stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans. I also am against gay adoption because I see it as a means to foster the gay lifestyle because any right thinking person can understand that a much higher percentage of these adopted children will become gay than the percentage of current people supposedly born gay. As much as gay adoption will put the lie to the “born that way” argument, I oppose it for the reason I stated.”

That is a winning answer for a conservative politician.

Unfortunately, I believe the battle for marriage is already lost in this country. The next big battle will be for the right to disassociate. As with most of the liberal agenda it comes down to control and power. It won’t be long before they will forcing pastors and clergy to marry homosexuals in their churches and refusal to do so will result in legal punishment.

Sin will never rest until by any means available whether force, coercian or deception it is reclassified as a virtue.

Its only a State marraige not recognized by any other entity.
Just create gay marraige rights and be done with it.

David is brilliant. If he was Mcanes advisor McCaine would win in a landslide. Please please David call up McCains campaign and volunteer to advise them and tell him what to say, do not take No for an answer. we cannot afford to let Hussein Obama or Rodham Clinton ruin this great Country. You owe it to us a brilliant mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Chill Garret, Dave is brilliant, However, it’s quite evident that President Bush must have purposefully destroyed the Repub party. If not, he couldn’t have done a better job if he tried. Senator McCain was chosen by the MSM and they manipulated the Repub primary so he would win. Google George Soros and separately Senator McCain, Clinton, and Obama, you’ll see he has been a major funder for years for all three! McCain has been chosen to LOSE. And he is doing a good job of it. We have a choice between an “ELITIST” racist commie, an EVIL supers*o*c*a*list or a deranged old senile mean spirited man sufering from dementia spouting Chairman Mao! Its walk, skip or run to the New World Order!

what a wuss. mccain looked so uncomfortable spewing that crap, it’s obvious that there’s no logical reason for any distinction between straight and gay rights yet he’s forced to tow the party line so as to remain electable. get some balls mccaine.

Given my age and social life, I have attended many weddings. At the conclusion of every one of these ceremonies, without exception, and in every other circumstance of marriage that I have ever heard or read of in the RECORDED HISTORY of man, there was a HUSBAND and a WIFE. In a presumed homo so-called marriage, who is the husband and who is the wife? Who decides? How do people know? Also, no one in the world has or ever has had two Mommies or two Daddies. There are birth parents (the breeding pair), adoptive parents, and step-parents. That is all there is. Calling my dog or car my baby or my child does not make it so. By the way, did anyone see those cows run in the Preakness last Saturday? Don’t dare write back and tell me that they were horses. I say that they are cows, and one of them is my wife.

Why have marriage be sanctioned by the government at all? I say let the government sanction civil unions for straight and gay couples and leave the marriage ceremony up to whatever religious organization the couple belongs to, be they straight or gay.

That way the civil-rights-related issues are resolved and the moral/religious issues are taken out of the governments hands.

Thanks to David for being so succinct in your comments about this hot button issue. You’re right on!
Ellen, there’s no way you can equate the struggle for making “all things equal” with heterosexuals with your references to women’s and blacks’ struggles for voting privileges and other equality issues in the past.
A woman is a woman, a black is a black, and a homosexual is, (now get this Ellen) a creature of their own making.
And no, Ellen, your love isn’t “the same” as that of heterosexual couples. It is a perversion of that love. Spiritual, physical, and emotional love between a man and woman is the ideal, the ultimate; as man and woman were intended to express that perfect love.
Ellen–have a chat with your former lover, Anne Heche’s, mother. This brave mom has a lot to share, and it could prove to be instructive to you.

So David… If a hetero couple gets married but are infertile, or choose not to have kids, are they not really married because “Marriage is about tying two families together with kids and their genetic material.” ?

For Ellen to equate the right to vote for women and blacks with the right to marry for homosexuals is laughable. A black person can’t wake up one day and choose not to be black, nor can a woman wake up and choose not to be a woman. As for the argument “they were born that way”, if that were true it would stand to statiscal analysis that the porportion in society would be evenly distributed, like left-handedness, or intelligence. But alas, it’s not, studies show in areas where it is a widely accepted and celebrated lifestyle the numbers are greater than where it’s not. It’s a choice plan and simple. Choices have consequences, aids, drug abuse, suicide, adultry, promiscuity etc.

Being gay is not a choice. Otherwise it would imply that any straight person could also choose to be gay if they wanted to, which as a actual straight person, I find to be laughable.

Frankly if you feel like you could choose to be gay then I think you have closet issues. Just because you choose to SAY you’re straight doesn’t make it so.

I choose to be a superhero!

David, Kate, and the rest….sigh.

How exactly does this affect YOU?

If Ellen finds love, WHY do you care? Does it
THREATEN you?

Why?

No one is asking for SPECIAL rights- regardless of what Bill O’Reilly might be telling you.- Just the right to recognized- as ALL Americans are promised in the Constitution.

Once again, the knuckle-dragging righties spew hatred-and lies- for anyone not like them, ignore their OWN hypocrisies
and claim they know better because GOD is a Republican!

Its getting soooo old………..

David,
I am sorry but your position is laughable. As Dalton pointed out… your rationale would suggest infertile couples can only be joined for civil unions because of their being unable to produce “gentic material” through “fate”
Since when did our basic rights and freedoms as Americans to pursue happiness have anything to do with “genetic material”

Personally i think you missed the biggest concern there is… I am worried about all those damn heteros trying to get into civil unions.

Im with you James, but the majority of anti-gay marraige comes from the African American circles and we know which party they vote.

That said…I would do her “wife”

My main question is how much “Gay Marraige” will cost me the tax payer, loss tax revenues, SS spouce payments, etc. Other than that I could care less what two consenting adults due to each other. Of course, would you want to be adopted by two Gays? I’m kinda glad I had a Mommy and a Daddy!

David,

If a woman or man is infertile, should they forfeit their right to marry? You seem to imply that having offspring is the primary purpose of marriage that disqualifies homosexuals from the right.

So what about infertile heterosexuals? What about heterosexuals that choose to get married but NOT to have children?

James,

It does affect all of us. Marriage is a fundamental glue that holds society together and is under assault from all sides. Your side will prevail on this issue so you will be able to observe first hand the damaging affects of the tearing down of traditional marriage.

European societies that have legalized homosexual marriage have discovered that the institution of marriage has become so degraded that their people are abandoning it altogether in favor of temporary and frequently childless relationships.

Unless your daddy beat the hell out of you…
cheated on your Mom or vice versa…

we are using Ellen as the example here…and call me crazy…but I think she and Portia DeRossi could provide pretty well for their child.

Also a comment was made about Ann Heches Mom by Kate, and why we should “listen” to her… Ann is kind of a mess…and much of that is probably because of her upbringing… so it isn’t worthwhile to listen to what she wishes to dish about Ellen.

Dalton – Yes, infertile (by choice or by chance) hetero couples are still married, because there is a biological basis for their union. There is zero biological basis for a union between to homosexuals. Emotional and sexual, yes. Biological, no. Any homosexual couple that stays together for years and years, will never, ever, yield biological children that share their DNA through any natural means.

Biologically, homosexuality is an evolutionary ‘dead end’. There is no “biological future” to such a coupling, as they do not pass their DNA on to the next generation. Darwin would say that these couples are being “selected against” and are losing in ‘the big picture battle’ of preserving their DNA through their offspring. The DNA in living people today is literally millions and millions of years old. And for gay people, it stops in their current generation.

The great traditions are based upon biological truth. And no matter how much “modern culture” you heap upon these truths, it does not change the facts.

Marriage was (and is) to celebrate a union between a man and a woman and their respective families, and to legitimize the imminent arrival of new children to the world. Some married couples do not reproduce. They are still married, however, some would say they are just not as lucky as those that do. For marriage is the very foundation upon which civilizations are based.

The same cannot be said for a homosexual union. As any ‘civilization’ that could be developed based upon homosexual unions would last exactly 1 generation. The current one. It goes nowhere. It dies when they die.

Homosexuals don’t reproduce. They recruit.

It’s obvious to anyone that has a reasonably functioning brain that homosexual activity is not a normal action in nature.

Im sure homosexuals realize this too, and try harder to be accepted as “normal”. This is why they want marriage, kids ect…. They want things that dont go with Homosexuality.

They feel threatened by their own situation, and displace it on others. Legislation becomes a tool to legitimize their situation.This FORCES others to RECONGNIZE homosexuality, not to PROTECT individuals as they would lead the public to believe.

Personally because of this veiw, I believe homosexuality should be, and is, as far as Im concerned a NON-ISSUE. It should not be found any where in legislation. There are laws already on the books that protect individuals rights and freedoms. Homosexuals should in no way be considered any more special than redheads.

Thank you for your time.

What can poor McCain do. He has to say what they want him to say. When in the gay crowd support gays. When in the Black crown support blacks. When in the Mexican crowd speak Spanish… He is just a sock puppet after all. Any situation that requires him to actually think on the spot for himself will be a giant problem for him. He is the weakest candidate I have ever seen actually make it to the November election. But the GOP needed a warm body to fill the hole and they got one. In a way, it is good to keep the good GOP candidates on the shelf and not waste them in this election.

McCain displayed a appropriate respect yet did not compromise his position. The left would love to stick him with a mean label. He avoided that. Besides, it’s not as though he’s going to change anybodies minds by getting on a soapbox. The fundys just want to see him swat the lesbian.

That being said, gay population is an unfortunate result of a lot of children whose sexual identity was confused by same sex molestation. Thats the dirty little secret the scientists and sociologists don’t want to research.
How can homosexuality be genetic? According to the Darwinists, it would go extinct in a generation. Any trait that is not hereditary is a mutation. Every mutation is supposed to enhance survival and perpetuation of the species or else it is a mutation that makes the specimen unfit for selection.

I wonder if he would be willing to walk down the isle with Mary Cheney and Heather…

“I wonder if he would be willing to walk down the isle with Mary Cheney and Heather…”

And would their marriage make their child legitimate…

http://www.familypride.org/blog/wp-content/cheney.JPG

McCain would probably do what ever he thought would get him the most votes.

Homosexual men maybe comprise 10% of the human population, lesbians comprise maybe 2% of the human population.

1.) What are the heteros afraid of?
2.) Perhaps homosexuals should be protected as rare and endangered.
3.)Lesbians and gay men are different from heterosexuals. The same moraes should not apply, ie) children mandated as a requirement of union.

Tiger -
You are correct.
“3.)Lesbians and gay men are different from heterosexuals. The same mores should not apply, ie) children mandated as a requirement of union.”

Thank you for pointing out that they are “different” and that the same mores should not apply.

This is precisely the point. They can have a social contract i.e. “Civil Union” for their domestic arrangement. This is similar, legally, to a marriage.

The point the heteros are making is exactly your’s. The gays are different, they are not the same, and therefore they should not have a traditional arrangement known as “Marriage”. They are different, have different mores, cannot sexually reproduce with their partners, and therefore are not entitled to the same type of marriage. Seems perfectly clear to me. Heteros don’t want to dilute their tradition with something completely different and lacking the same mores.

Call it what you will, but it is not a marriage. We hear all the time that people should be able to do what they want. What a stupid statement. This is perverted and misplaced lust.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

“It’s obvious to anyone that has a reasonably functioning brain that homosexual activity is not a normal action in nature.”

Except that it is. Homosexual activity has been observed in many species in nature. It is quite common, actually.

Perhaps people with reasonably functioning brains should do a little bit of research and spend some time thinking about issues before commenting on them.

The problem with arguing against gay marriage is that every argument is so easily refuted or based on a question religious basis that, quite frankly, it has no place in making the laws in this country.

Some of these comments above are really like low hanging fruit:

1) Marriage should be protected because its an institution developed to facilitate breeding.

Fine – if that’s the case, then a married couple should show evidence of attempted procreation on their tax returns. No federal benefits if you chose to be married but not have children. You are free to enter into a contractual arrangement however.

2) Every marriage I’ve been to says “husband and wife.” That’s because you’ve only been to straight weddings and, guess what, gay “weddings” are not legal (that’s why we are here discussing it, right?). Your argument is similar to saying – every McDonalds I’ve been in has cheeseburgers, so all McDonalds must have cheeseburgers. That would be true until you go to Israel. Your experience isn’t reflective of anything but your experience.

3) Being gay is a choice and shouldn’t be protected.

Again, this just isn’t true. Do you really think that 10% of the population would just wake up one morning and make an affirmative decision to face huge amounts of discrimination to sleep with the same sex – to deny the same sexual urges that we all have (because, so the argument goes, if gay people just tried hard enough, they could be attracted to the opposite sex). That’s just not the way nature works. Science has also made great strides in proving this. Its called Google – look into it.

4) Citing biblical scripture is simply a non starter. When’s the least time you read a supreme court opinion citing God (anyone’s) as binding authority. That’s right, you haven’t. That might happen in the religious courts of the Islamic countries you christian conservatives love to hate, but it doesn’t happen here. Perhaps you should move.

5) And my favorite – “That being said, gay population is an unfortunate result of a lot of children whose sexual identity was confused…How can homosexuality be genetic? According to the Darwinists, it would go extinct in a generation.”

Again, simply not true. I know a ton of gay people and none of us have been molested. And what happens to people molested by people of the opposite sex? Do they turn out to be REALLY straight?

Also, all sorts of genetic traits exist that discourage (or biologically prevent) reproduction, which continue to exist in nature. By your argument, infertility would also not last more than a generation. As a starting point for your education, go Google “recessive gene”. And there is also speculation that the biological cause of being gay may not necessarily be tied strictly to genes.

So in accepting that line of logic, the homosexual is a breed of people with a naturally occurring defect that causes the extinction of its self.
I am also aware of the studies on the homosexual activities of animals, but the difference with the animal is most will go on to breed and that behavior was observed in adolescence. What was the percentage of adults that were observed with this behavior?
The homosexual without aid, the support others and science would die off within 80 to 100 years.
If homosexual men were put on an island, how without the woman, would they procreate? So much for the theory of evolution. Oh, and isn’t there some law about survival of the fittest in that theory?
They need a lot of help to say around.
No religion in this.
.

John,

You make good points and your side will win. It is extremely difficult to argue from a moral stance when the people no longer value the institution of marriage between a man and a woman as sacred and fundamental.

However, I’m sure that many of these people who have become “accepting” still have lines they won’t cross. How far are you willing to go before you say enough is enough. Should two women be able to marry one man? If not, why not? Should a man be able to marry a horse? Why not? Should brother and sister be able to marry? Why not? ad infinitum…

You see we do have rules regarding marriage and most people would agree that they are sensible. You obviously are in favor now of gay marriage, by what logic will you argue against these other types of marriage?

Do you have any idea what the long-term societal ramifications will be of legally sanctioned gay marriage? Does it matter? Do you care?

David, your statement that there is a “biological basis” for the marriage of an infertile couple makes no sense. What is that basis? It would seem that the “basis” that you are talking about is the biological ability to produce offspring, an ability that is equally absent in marriage between infertile couple, and marriage between two of the same sex.

As a political issue, the sanest view is the one held by Ron Paul and Bob Barr: leave this and most other divisive issues to the states. Eventually people would really care about this matter would move to states were the majority of voters share their moral values.

As a moral issue, I say recognize that nature, and God, occasionally makes what appear to our eyes to be mistakes. Yes, I’d prefer my child to enter into a traditional marriage and have children. But if this is not possible, due to infertility, or “misorientation”, or mental retardation, I would like them to find other ways to live in as a happy and fulfilling of a life as possible, in spite of their disability.

Logic,

in most other deviant marriage possibilities, there is the issue of the inability to enter into an agreement (underage marriage, marriage to a horse). In the issue of plural or group marriage, these arrangements threaten the institution of traditional marriage in ways that same-sex marriage does not: by removing from the pool of potential heterosexuals able and willing to enter into a traditional marriage and have children. If the women in the polygamy group in Texas were not in the arrangement they are in, they would likely be in traditional marriages. The same does not apply to same sex couples.

[...] But conservatives are hypocrites, and if you want proof that devil worship dissolves the backbone, watch this. It has distressed James that his hero, Pat Buchanan, is not a whole lot more courageous. "No, [...]

Support the Stupak Amendment to ObamaCare…..NO taxpayer funded abortions.

Better yet KILL the BILL!!!!

I don’t get it. GBLO’s evidently want what it is impossible for them to ever have: respect from the adherents of the major religions of the world.
If they want something that resembles that, they’ll have to keep what the majority of us regard as sin their well-kept secret. The Old Testament, New Testament, and Koran are a matter of record and can never be edited. Until they can demonstrate their superiority to GOD, they’ll have to just get over it.

If they attach such importance to clearly unnatural biological acts (platonic relationships are not immoral), why would they possibly cultivate such intense agitation about what they must certainly regard as a linguistic fabrication?

oh poor lil ellen feels discriminated against.,blahblah.,so what jackazz liberal. everyone is discriminated against in one way or the other.,fat ppl, skinny ppl, dumb ppl, smart ppl,toothless ppl, hairless ppl, black, white, brown,green.,these emotional mindless liberals are a pain in the ass.

pps: don’t vote to reelect rino McCain.,jd howard the conservative is the guy arizona and the country wants, not duffus mccain

Hell’n'Degenerate: what a filthy lesbian slut! get her the hell off the airways and out of the post-office and into the sewer where she belongs!

Homosexuality is an aberration, and not natural.

God never intended on 2 people from the same sex to sexually excite each other for the purpose of what? Procreation? What is the purpose then? Because they “love” each other?

No, it’s because of their twisted morals and beliefs and somehow were morphed into gayness at a young age.

Great Information and really helpful posts. I quiet like the idea of your presentation. Pictures are very nice and hope to see such posts in future.

Ellen, yes we are all the same. You can marry a man, and so can I.

It all started when she began to say "we're all the same". The way that gay rights proponents deal with the situation is by using the "identity" argument. Disassemble that argument into a behavioral one and you can identify homosexual behavior with any other deviance. The protection that people who engage in homosexual practices have intricately woven for themselves is one in which they are not responsible for their behavior, and they have done it extremely well. The point that needs to be argued consistently is that to be gay is a CHOICE, not a genetic characteristic in the same way that race, color, or gender is. The power that gays have is in the semantic reinterpretation of the word "homosexual" itself, in that they consistently identify themselves as having no choice in the matter. The more severe problem with this identity argument is that it is slowly but surely being extended to more severe and non-consensual forms of behavioral problems and soon people will be claiming they have the right to molest children, murder, rape, and steal, because they were "genetically predisposed" to such behaviors. There really is no dividing line. The concept of perversion has been lost under the umbrella of tolerance, acceptance, and deterministic ideology. Humans (unfortunately) have begun to consider themselves victims of their own circumstances and lacking any free will.

I totally agree! With RINOs like McCain, Graham, Collins and Snowe the Dems are being very successful with pushing their secular progressive/Socialsit agenda of no standards, no judgemnets, multi-culturalism and moral relativism, entitlements and victimization. Our country was quietly stolen from us by the incremental approach used by Democrasts- a little here- a little there- pretty soon you have your whole agenda. While we were buying houses, cars and toys we could not afford the Dems were busy passing laws that stole our way of life. I doubt that we can ever return to that which we once had and took for granted!

maybe ellen should check out a moo-slim country if she wants all inclusive.,she wouldnt live through the night.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.