Comments on: TAKE ACTION!! NOM Vows to Help Overturn DC SSM Bill!

By: john

john — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:58:30 +0000

I find it unsurprising though disturbing that those supporting same-sex marriage (SSM) would frame the struggle as one for "marriage equality." Since marriage to the opposite sex is the only type consistent with the fundamental procreative function of marriage, and thus the only type that makes sense, "marriage equality" should mean the right of every adult individual, no matter the individual's gender, race, nationality, age, physical condition, economic or social status, past marital situation, criminal history, education, or job situation, to marry another adult individual of the opposite sex as long as neither individual is already married. And we do have that so we already have "marriage equality." What the SSM proponents really support is "behavior equality." They believe that two different behaviors should be treated equally, even if a majority holds, and experience shows, that one behavior is constructive and the other behavior is destructive. This belief goes beyond problematic as it leads to increasing social chaos and poses a threat to, and could become a serious contributing factor toward, the collapse of a civilization.

By: S44

S44 — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:27:48 +0000

This just in....

1 dead after early-morning triple shooting in DC
December 25, 2009 11:59 EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Three people have been shot -- including one fatally -- during a Christmas morning altercation.

.Please explain why Fenty has time and focuses on pushing gay agendas SSM. When there is so much violence going on in DC. He is a far left zealot.

By: Chairm

Chairm — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:41:56 +0000

If, John, for SSM to win, marriage must lose, and for SSM to win, religious liberty and freedom of consicence must lose, then, the contortions of the SSM campaign mean you are not moving forward but backward. To a time prior to the preferential status of marriage and prior to religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

The SSM campaign is a throwback to the racialist-like identity politics of the anti-miscegenation system. That system, did what an SSM-merger would do: selectively segregate the sexes and deeply undermine responsible procreation via the filter of an identity group.

Meanwhile, you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch. We'll see what happens next.

By: john

john — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:14:52 +0000

Your side lost. Deal.

I love how you people pretend that the C. Church simply CAN'T continue because of SSM. BS. If they discontinue services that is THEIR choice...and a very sad one at that...for everyone.

Perform all the mental gymnastics you want...demonize us if you need to....fact remains, we won in DC...and we're moving forward.

By: S44

S44 — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:14:48 +0000

Fenty is a moron and I hope someone can be beat him next year. Funny he is ready to sign in SSM and yet he does nothing about the crime problems in that city. I remember just last year a moron ran people over at a festival. This idiot wants to push gay agendas.

By: Chairm

Chairm — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:14:36 +0000

Maggie openly discussed her past -- long before "recently".

Those who'd SSM are not those who'd marry.

Glass houses?

The SSM merger is an attempt to assert the supremacy of gay identity politics; that is closely analogous with the assertion of supremacy via racialist identity politics as per the dismantled anti-miscegenation system.

Marriage eligibility is neutral regarding identity politics and neutral regarding sexual orientation. The SSM campaign seeks to inject both into the law.

Why do SSMers smash their own arguments? I dunno. It may have something to do with misplaced priorities.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:08:17 +0000

So they want to hurt the church, the homeless,the sick, the poor, the downtrodden because of selfish carnal desires?

By: Marty

Marty — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:15:57 +0000

Jennifer,

I agree, but am thankful for the clarity this provides. We'll wait and see if the gay community and/or the "progressive religious" step up to fill the void, or whether it will be filled by further demands on the taxpayer.

I doubt we'll have to wait very long either.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:01:00 +0000

It would be very sad to watch Catholic Charities in D.C. not be able to continue their good work because it conflicts with gay rights legislation. I'm not sure people understand how efficiently they work: using some government money but also many donations and volunteer hours. What a huge loss that would be for the D.C. area.

By: Samantha

Samantha — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:49:02 +0000

SSMers like to hide behind the banner of tolerance and democracy so long as that only means for them. For citizens who only want to have a say on what goes on in their communities, no. "and nothing you right-wing cranks can do will stop us. Get used to it!" Where have we heard that before, A yes,"whether you like it or not", San Francisco. The people got their say there though. Like the people in Maine did recently, but Washington D.C , they're not allowed to. It's painfully obvious to all that there's a different parameter being used in Washington D.C due to the demographic composition of the city. SSMers can deny it all they want but their actions speak louder, and the residents know it.