NOM Marriage Tour: Harrisburg, PA August 13, 2010 - National Organization for Marriage

[Skulander1]

Marriage is not a religious insitution anyways. It's been hijacked by religion but it's social institution first and foremost. And look at your Bible: subjection of women, incest, rape, polygamy... Is that really the "traditional" definition of marriage we want? Gay marriage is a civil right: no one should be allowed to vote to deprive others of their rights. It's as simple as that. Prop Hate is discriminatory and should never have been put up for a vote.

[Marcelony1]

Omg. How wrong this people are and using god to justify this.

[ttmfg]

Pigs don't get respect, and christians are pigs because they do not respect our secular American society.  This is not a pleasant discussion of tea -- it is a battle. A battle they started and we will finish. It is a quintessentially American fight -- and Americans always win -- bigots always lose.

[ttmfg]

Chistians do not follow the bible, they cherry-pick from the bible. Do women cover their heads in church? The bible commands that. Do women totally submit to their husband's will, assuming his head is their head and that the man's head is God's head? The bible commands that. Do they stone disobedient kids to death? The bible. Do they eat shellfish? The bible calls that an abomination.  Cherry pickers.

[CONSVLTVS]

Traditional marriage is limping along with a cane. Redefining "marriage" to include the homosexual lifestyle choice will kick away the cane. It will lead to polygamy and polyamory, since whatever differences there may be between gay marriage and polygamy are not compelling. After that, the definition of marriage will be diluted into meaninglessness. No Republic can remain free without strong traditional marriage and family. This step is cultural suicide.

[JohnTFolden]

@CONSVLTVS There's no logic to what you are stating at all. If the differences between marriage of the same sex and polygamy is not compelling then the same holds true for opposite sex marriages and polygamy. As I recall, the mormons were all for that and it had zero to do with marriage equality. Bzzzzt. Try again...

Marriage equality is merely removing gender discrimination.

[codeblood2000]

Same sex unions do not equal the union of man and woman. What ever you believe in, God and nature made this so .I also disagree with this notion that being Gay and Black are the same thing (supporters and the media is just running with that one), You can hide the Gay you can not hide the Black !!!

[JohnTFolden]

@codeblood2000 Your personal god ideas con not be enforced via US laws. We have our founding fathers and the Constitution to thank for this.

Also, the ability to hide an aspect of yourself, being gay vs being black, does not negate that the fight for equal rights for gays is a civil rights matter.

[JohnTFolden]

@codeblood2000 Are you blatantly ignorant? Homosexuality is completely natural and exists among virtually all mammals. This is a ridiculous strawman, though. You have nothing.

[codeblood2000]

@JohnTFolden Well when i see a gay pride of lions, wolfs, whales then i'll start to believe you.

[JohnTFolden]

@codeblood2000 You don't have to wait. It well documented. There is no shortage of information on it. However, looking to nature seems a bit irrelevant doesn't it? Christianity does not exist in nature... perhaps we should disallow that.

[codeblood2000]

@JohnTFolden because i say god you think i'm a Christian You do understand that non religious people disagree with homosexuality also that is possible u know Are you blatantly ignorant?

[JohnTFolden]

@codeblood2000 Non-religious people don't use gods in their argument. Now that IS ignorant.

Disagreeing with civil rights does not give YOU the legal basis to legislate against it, either... or are you suggesting that since some people disagree with religion, we should get rid of religion altogether?

[codeblood2000]

@JohnTFolden The fact is the media is acting like (gay) is a new race of people. I'm sorry but the question has to be asked IS SAME SEX UNIONS GOOD FOR US. ?????? I don't need to use GOD to justify or make my point .YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT UP WITH NATURE...

[JohnTFolden]

@codeblood2000 Actually, you haven't justified anything yet... and where's your point?

[codeblood2000]

@JohnTFolden Well i see your point you obviously agree with gay marriage and I DO NOT I just can't see how two woman or two men can be seen as EQUAL to The union of man and woman the difference is I respect you opinion you will not acknowledge mine

[JohnTFolden]

@codeblood2000 Actually, there's a huge distinction. If you don't think same sex couples should get married then that simply means YOU, personally, should not enter into a marriage with someone of the same sex. It doesn't give you legal standing to prevent someone ELSE from doing that.

I support your right to enter into a civil marriage with the person you love. Your position is gender discrimination and would withhold civil rights. Why would I validate your position?

[codeblood2000]

@JohnTFolden LOL HA HA HA HA wooooow i guess you got me there now I have to tell chuck it's over . :) Well you are right i don't have legal standing the one thing I do know is I am not the only PERSON that feels this way. And sometimes A nation has stand on moral grounds and look at this thing SSM and be brave with compassion and just say IT'S OK TO SAY NO TO THE GAY !! 

[JohnTFolden]

@codeblood2000 At least you admit your ideas have no legal standing. ;-) It's irrelevant how many people agree with you (or me, actually). "Majority Rules" does not apply to civil rights in the US. Also, last time I checked, gay citizens of the US were a part of the "nation." It's un-American to suggest they are second class citizens. Just for fun though, without resorting to religion, what would the "moral grounds" be? ...and I assume you have valid research to support the answer.

[codeblood2000]

@JohnTFolden Im still new to admitting that i have this feeling when it come to same sex marriage( i do not agree with it )I just can't see how it will be good for us as a nation or the human race (that was not easy to say).But it just seems logical to me that if SSM happens then others will what their unions accepted to homosexuals are not the only group that wants to be accepted. May research is human nature we always want more what will be next or who ???

[JohnTFolden]

@codeblood2000 Same sex relationships already *exist*... marriage or not that is not going to change and most involved are just about done with the closet. However, I'd like to know what ideas you have that would specifically indicate a detriment to the "nation" or human race.

I'm not sure of the "others" you speak about but this sounds similar to excuses made about interracial couples. That was a simple case of skin color, this is one simply of gender discrimination.

[codeblood2000]

@JohnTFolden it can't be easy being gay. but it not easy being black and the notion that black and gay can be compared I REJECT 100% Someones sexual preference is not the same as someones skin-color. For me this is where your argument crumbles . I can go on with the media doing the same thing.I'm also aware Same sex relationships exist . Still The questions have to be asked ? How will it change our society and so on ....???

[JohnTFolden]

@codeblood2000 It's irrelevant whether you reject it or not, no one is comparing the two traits HOWEVER the prejudice and bigotry shown by some against both groups is still the same. Both are civil rights issues... the struggle is the same.

Speaking of preference, religion is a choice. Should we abolish all laws related to religious protection and rights?

How will it change society? Equality IMPROVES society.

[ttmfg]

Imagine the nerve of people wanting to interfere with another American's civil rights when allowing same-sex marriage helps gay families and hurts no one. At the heart of this is simply animus for gays.

[PioKolby]

This is great to see that Americans aren't all suicidal and understand marriage if from Almighty God and most not be played with! I wonder why I didn't hear about this in the news. Great stuff!

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby Civil marriage has nothing to do with your personal religion. Separation of church and state, remember? Read your copy of the Constitution.

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden I am a traditional Catholic. I do not believe in the Freemasonic doctrines of Religious pularism and the Separation of church and state as you say. The Separation of church and state is a trick of Freemasons to raise the State over the Church. I 100% reject this error. Since I live in America I respect the law of the land out of obedience to God. That does not mean it is correct. That does not mean I have to call sodomy marriage now to make perverts happy. Sodomy is Mortal Sin.

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby Thankfully, your personal opinions are irrelevant to the rights of others in the US. You may not believe in the Constitution but it still serves to properly keep would-be oppressors in their place. You'll have to come up with more than "my god says it's icky"...

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden Please don't misrepresent what I said. I do believe in the constitution. I believe it is flawed because it is based on masonic principles. That said it is the law of the land. No where in the constitution will you find a right to sodomy. What you will find is a right to life in the founding documents. Two men committing sodomy or two women for that matter can not bring forth children. Marriage is a union that brings forth children. So what you want to not possible. Sorry 2&2=4

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby Sorry, you are wrong yet again. There are absolutely NO fertility requirements that must be met in order to gain a marriage license. Huge numbers of people get married every day that can NOT bear children. According to your flawed logic, those people's licenses should be null and void... What about the ones that intentionally don't have children?

Once again, you're trying to submit personal opinion as legitimate where it actually has no legal standing at all.

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden No these are not my opinions these are objective scientific facts. Men and women can conceive children. Damaged fertility can be treated. The point is that children are possible. As for those who choose to not have Children by use of birth control which is Mortal sin this would not make a civil license void why? Children are still possible so that union is a marriage. Sodomy can not produce Children. Just as acts of bestiality can not. Could a man marry a cow? If yes why? If no why

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby No, it is ONLY your opinion that marriage is for the purposes of procreation. That is not how it is defined by US law and procreation can not be used as a legal argument. As I stated, there are absolutely NO fertility requirements that must be met in order to gain a marriage license.

Your lame bestiality comment is just that, lame. Ignoring the absurdity of it for the moment, even on the basics of mere logic cows don't have rights under the Constitution nor can they legally consent.

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden But is it possible for a man to marry a cow? Can one man marry a man then a women also is bi sexual polygamy in the Constitution then could he divorce his husband and wife and marry a chicken? Does a man have a right to then divorce his chicken and dig up a dead body an marry that? Can he marry a Child? No sir 2&2=4 no matter how you cut it 2&2=4 you may say 2&2=5 you are a lunatic for saying so why? Because 2&2=4 Sodomy can not become marriage. Sodomy is Sodomy objectively.

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby You seem to be content to delve into absurdities which I've already knocked the life out of.... Cows, chickens, children... even dead adults (unless they're on True Blood) do not have the ability to give legal consent. As I mentioned previously, if you can't come up with anything better than "my god says it's icky" then your opinion is irrelevant.

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden No sir you have no legal moral or logical ground to stand on. No society has ever called sodomy marriage. The animal question is valid because if you say your perverted act is marriage what would stop men who are into sex with animals? Now I understand why Muslims cut people's heads off for sodomy. I wouldn't advocate that your head should be cut off but I do understand why they do it. You lunatics must be stopped or you destroy the whole society. 2&2=4 you can't change that. 

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby You're talking about murder and trying to take the high ground? LOL You must be a throw back to the 1950's. There are now countries all over the world and several states in the US that have legal marriage equality. Stomp your little bigoted feet all you want but progress is going to roll right over your ass... just like it did the bigots against interracial marriage, women's rights, and those against abolishing slavery. The Constitution protects us from lunatic hate mongers like YOU.

[CONSVLTVS]

@JohnTFolden Rude language, as in calling PioKolby a bigot and hate-monger, is no substitute for argument. No matter how loud you yell, you will not get to the truth by shrieking.

[JohnTFolden]

@CONSVLTVS Oh sure... because name calling and making references to beheadings and how you "understand" them is just sooo wholesome and Christian.. oh wait. maybe it is.

Religious bigotry is still bigotry. People who would reference murder in regard to civil rights matters deserve no respect. ..and neither one of you have produced a logical, legal argument yet.

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams --October 11, 1798

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden 2&2=4

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby state - religion = AMERICA

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden Oh really lets see what the founding fathers had to say shall we.

John Adams said "We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" [April 18, 1775] James Madison said “ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.” George Washington said "“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [ May 12, 1779]"  No sir 2&2=4 and I will back that up with my blood will you die for sodomy?

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby Don't you find it funny that the people who's OPINIONS you quote were smart enough to actually omit god from the legal documents themselves and, indeed, go so far as to strip all power from those who would try to use the government to enforce their own superstitions? "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." treaty of Tripoli 1797

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden Wrong! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -The Declaration of Independence Belief in a creator that gives rights is a Religious doctrine. You are in error. If you want to make a new America go ahead. Don't lie about the documents or the history! It makes you look silly. Satan wants sodomy not our Creator

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby You're making yourself look foolish yet again. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for the US. It has no authority over or power within US laws, US lawmakers, or US residents. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. Even so, nothing within suggests support for any single religion. Let's remember Jefferson hated the supernatural mumbo jumbo in the bible and crafted his own.

Satan must be making a liar of you.

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby "an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

[PioKolby]

@JohnTFolden Clearly America is not a theocracy. America is also not a nation based on dialectic materialism. The idea that the founders where secularist indifferent men to matters of morals in government is based only in your mind. These men did not sing hymns to the glories of sodomy and perversion. They sung hymns to Almighty God! You will have to except that you live in a nation that does not share you views on sodomy and it never will. Get back in the closet or prepare for war.

[JohnTFolden]

@PioKolby Hide behind your delusions all you wish. American law does not support your religious bigotry. No one is getting back in the closet, we're winning the "War" already... Hell, your side can't even get people to show up. Marriage equality will continue to spread across the US. You can build all the dam(n)s you want, you can not stem the tide.

[abc1000001]

Thank you NOM for standing up for marriage. God bless you all.

[JohnTFolden]

@abc1000001 They don't stand up for marriage. If they did, they wouldn't be trying to stop people from getting married and they'd concentrate out outlawing divorce, right?

[paulahare2]

I do believe in the power of love and love itself! It overcomes all negativity! Always has, always will!

God does not hate fags, God made fags so your basically telling God he made a mistake?? You have the audacity to tell your own creator he made a mistake?? Get a life and start just accepting that we are all here and worthy of love and acceptance!

[WinstonChurchill]

Man + Woman = Marriage.

[donkeyfly69]

@WinstonChurchill or not

[paulahare2]

@WinstonChurchill no  man +woman=sexual-reproduction ----marriage=too people

[paulahare2]

look at the it d it's