Comments for Obama, Lady GaGa, and the Homosexual Agenda at http://www.jbs.org , comment 1 to 13 out of 13 comments http://www.jbs.org Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:48:03 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2631 When men and women of character and morality MAKE it end! You know, the way we are supposed to defeat all evil... With the swords we sold our garments to obtain! - AmericanFreeman Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:52:09 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2628 ...where does this chain of thought really end? - patriot Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:41 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2613 [sarcasm]After all, he's as "human" as the homosexuals and has feelings that need to be respected. Maybe the courts need to legitimize his repulsive lifestyle choices and allow pedophiles to screw 13 year old girls because that's how his god made him.[/sarcasm] Sometimes I pray for God to smite our cesspool of degradation just like He did to Sodom and Gomorrah. It would do America a world of good. - AmericanFreeman Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:46:33 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2604 ... is based on the notion that homosexuality is legitimate. I'm worried because the last society I'm aware of that openly supported homosexuality is Sodom and Gamorah. We all know what happened to them. When will we learn? - patriot Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:03:04 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2603 You rightly acknowledge that the federal Constitution makes no reference to marriage. However, your conclusions based on this are incorrect. The fact that Congress has no right to legislate on marriage doesn't mean that the Courts should. In fact, it means just the opposite. The truth is that this matter should be left up to the states, although it certainly would be a shame if the federal government would not be able to rob the American people of as much money with their unconstitutional Social Secrity and Income taxes. - patriot Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:59:26 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2602 Adulterers don't have a political agenda. - Yeah, but Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:01:11 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2601 Last I checked, homosexuality is no more of an abomination in the eyes of God than adultery. The penalty is the same. The number of broken marriages and families caused by the sin of adultery is orders of magnitudes greater than anything produced by homosexuality. Pastors and the righteous love the homosexual debate because it affords them the cover necessary to look the other way upon a congregation of good dues paying adulterers. - Eddington Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:04:26 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2597 Be grateful for your freedom to breathe. You don't have the "right" to impose your repulsive lifestyle choices on the sanctity of marriage, anymore than we have the "right" to hang you from a tree for making them. Divorce is unholy enough. Homosexual perversion would just destroy what little sanctity marriage has left. - AmericanFreeman Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:05:19 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2593 Why aren't you folks satisfied with a civil union? Marriage is a "sacrament" of the Catholic religion. Why do we need to change the founding principles of Catholocism for gay/lesbian/transgender people? Marriage in all cultures has always been between a man + woman. Why is the majority suppose to change for the minority? Have your civil unions, and legal rights and leave the sacrament of marriage alone! This is what the liberal left always wants-change everything for the minority. That's why we're having the health care battle also. The majority wants to improve on what we have, the minority wants radical detrimental change. - Cazie Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:59:32 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2592 Our rights come from God not from the constitution or declaration of independence. Marriage is defined in the Holy Bible as a lifelong union between one man and one women. Sex outside marriage is sin for which payment (wages) must be paid. - Larry Brown Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:39:16 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2591 That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity. Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire or even the ability to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows. THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And I suspect that those who want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task. For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it's important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed's point of view, it wouldn't do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically "UN-married" once they decide to move somewhere else. The fact remains that the term "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no "right" for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government’s standpoint. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I'm sure they would prefer NOT to. - Chuck Anziulewicz Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:10:20 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2590 Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society. Married couples support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings. Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements. Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities. Married couples are better able to provide care and security for children, and Gay couples often have children through adoption or other means. So maybe someone can help me understand what negative impact committed loving relationships have on society, and why Gay couples should be excluded from the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage. - Chuck Anziulewicz Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:08:58 +0100 http://www.jbs.org/family-and-freedom-blog/5502-obama-lady-gaga-and-the-homosexual-agenda#comment-2589 This is a load of imflamatory jibberish directed at people who only want basic protections (ones everyone else takes for granted), for their families and children. If the government treating others with some equality offends some "Christians" and their "morality," then so be it. This is America. Find your sense of superiority elsewhere. - Jake H. Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:02:11 +0100