A Message From Lucianne  







S-G1




























ST-GC


   
 
Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google


The shaky science behind
same-sex marriage

Washington Post Writers Group, by George F. Will

Original Article

Posted By:StormCnter, 3/17/2013 6:32:38 AM

When on March 26 the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about whether California’s ban on same-sex marriages violates the constitutional right to “equal protection of the laws,” these arguments will invoke the intersection of law and social science. The court should tread cautiously, if at all, on this dark and bloody ground. The Obama administration says California’s law expresses “prejudice” that is “impermissible.” But same-sex marriage is a matter about which intelligent people reasonably disagree, partly because so little is known about its consequences. When a federal judge asked the lawyer defending California’s ban what harm same-sex marriage

      


Post Reply  

Reply 1 - Posted by: revdeppisch316, 3/17/2013 7:08:55 AM     (No. 9229019)

Science-- social science--too bad we can´t nix this "inevitable outcome" on moral grounds, since the LAW is based on morality.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 2 - Posted by: EnsignO´Toole, 3/17/2013 7:16:15 AM     (No. 9229026)

Since when is God "shaky science"?

Lev. 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

I have no idea what the Quran says nor do I care, but the Muslims will not be as kind as Americans are to homosexuals law or no law.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


   

 

R-G1
  
R-VAR_AD


 
Reply 3 - Posted by: dcomd, 3/17/2013 7:56:05 AM     (No. 9229065)

Amen #2!!

I do not know precisely what the Quran says but there is a Hidith from the prophet Muhammad which goes something like:

´Let the sodomite, and the one who allows himself to be sodomized, be killed.´

I guess Barky just loves to mock the prophet Muhammad which, incidentally, should be shouted from the highest yardarms!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 4 - Posted by: udanja99, 3/17/2013 7:58:13 AM     (No. 9229068)

Same sex "marriage" is only the law of a few states but we´re already seeing calls for polygamist marriage, group "parents" for children and seminars at places like Yale urging "tolerance" for incest and bestiality. Remember way back when - the homosexual activists claimed they only wanted "tolerance".

Now they want, instead of "Heather has two Mommies", "Heather has two Mommies and a Daddy" or Heather has Mommy and her brother, Uncle Andy, or Heather has Daddy and his Sheep. It´s coming and if we don´t stop it now that´s where we´ll end up. And they´ll demand that we pay for all of it. Goodbye society, hello chaos.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 5 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 8:27:48 AM     (No. 9229087)

If government was not in the business of playing favorites in your relationships this issue would die on the vine the very next day.

How about we conservatives stick with that line rather than thowing Old Testament verses around? Only a church can "marry". The government can then punish or reward the relationship based on how the participants are treated via taxes and government benefits. Sounds a lot like TARP and the GM bailout, doesn´t it?

Homosexuals (male and female) have made up about 3% of every society in recorded history. Any laws the states enforce regarding SSM won´t make one more of less gay person or gay couple.

If you´re worried about traditional marriage, most of recorded history (including the Old Testament) included polygamy. First Kings 11:1-3 indicates that King Solomon had 700 hundred wives and 300 hundred concubines. He was considered wise.

If you advocate for liberty and limited government, this issue can never be used by the statists and Socialists to divide and defeat patriotic, Constitutional conservatives and little "r" republicans.

The biggest issue with traditional marriage is the lack of two-parent parenting in the black community. Some idiot Kardashian has a $10M wedding that lasts 77 days, nearly half of "church" weddings end in divorce, and you´re worried about a tiny fraction of society. Go figure.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 6 - Posted by: Rinktum, 3/17/2013 8:32:53 AM     (No. 9229091)

I am against gay marriage for religious reasons. The Bible is clear that one man and one woman coming together as one is the definition of marriage and society has adopted this definition for centuries. It is troubling to think that man now wants to change this definition which would leave it open to further tweaking in the future. Once the government can define what is essentially a religious sacrament, there is no regress for those of us who do not accept it. It will be "law" and therefore, all will be forced to obey. Two questions beg to be asked: (1) If gays were given the exact same standing legally as a married couple under another name, would that be acceptable or is their goal not actually equality under the law, but enforcement of society to sacrifice their religious beliefs on the altar of tolerance. (2) What other religious sacraments can the government redefine.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 7 - Posted by: RCFlyer98, 3/17/2013 8:35:19 AM     (No. 9229096)

I´m sure you remember the saying, once the camel has his nose in the tent, it will not be long until the whole camel is inside? #4, you are spot on!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


   

 

  


 
Reply 8 - Posted by: 4Justice, 3/17/2013 8:43:42 AM     (No. 9229104)

#2, there is no such word as "homosexual" in the Bible. That is a recent interpretation.

Why is one sin any worse than another? How many heterosexuals engage in sodomy & oral sex? Many more than there are homosexuals in the world. And most takes place among married couples too! But it doesn´t matter. The Bible is a good book but it was still written by men--true, inspired by God, but still fallible men writing for a different time. How many of you cover your heads when in the house of the Lord? How many of you eat shellfish and pork?--also an abomination in Leviticus. To me, the most important words from God are the 10 Commandments, which everyone breaks. They´re the only words that can truly be attributed to God, himself. While the Bible is still great, it was compiled, edited & parts chosen as they saw fit to ensure consistency by the Universal Church. Ok, the slings & arrows are coming. But I can´t sit by & watch people malign others as if their sin was somehow "worse" than any other "sin".

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 9 - Posted by: 4Justice, 3/17/2013 8:47:51 AM     (No. 9229110)

#5, thank you!!!!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 10 - Posted by: Romochick, 3/17/2013 8:56:21 AM     (No. 9229120)



  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 11 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 9:05:27 AM     (No. 9229136)

Joseph Smith was also really good at interpreting God´s word in the 19th century, and he decided God wanted him and his key followers to have multiple sex partners via religious "marriage". Just ask the last GOP candidate for POTUS about his great-grandfather Miles Park Romney and why he moved to Mexico. Hint: it was to avoid one of the US government´s early attempts to define and reward/punish religious relationships.

I am far less concerned about what polygamysts do and whom they marry than I am about their abuse of male off-spring and their exloitation of government benefit programs (me, the taxpayer) to pay for their lifestyle choices.

Choose your battles wisely. Tossing around Bible quotes doesn´t help our cause. The Bible is conflicted on the "traditional" marriage issue to say the least.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 12 - Posted by: Romochick, 3/17/2013 9:11:59 AM     (No. 9229143)

Thank you #5, #8 and #11!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


   

 

B-G1


 
Reply 13 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 9:32:22 AM     (No. 9229174)

....and while we are discussing this, ask yourself this: how did Solomon afford all those 1000 babes and build a huge temple? On the backs of the Israelite taxpayers and slaves a well as military conquests.

Do you think Solomon´s people would have voted to pay taxes to support his astronomical number of sexual play toys? To be at war constantly putting your life on the line so he could live in such style?

We don´t have Earthly kings in our Constitution.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 14 - Posted by: LZK, 3/17/2013 9:33:09 AM     (No. 9229177)

I don´t need the supremes to rule on this "same-sex" thingy......

Since the supremes have given up their moral high ground in favor of "popular political" rulings -- I´ve given them no credibility...

God´s law rules in my house and my Pope Francis speaks for me and mine...

There is NO such thing as "same-sex" marriage. So go ahead and have your civil unions as you wish....

Your business is NOT with the supremes -- but -- someday with God when you stand before him.... It is NOT my business. It is between you and God....

LZK

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 15 - Posted by: Time4AR2, 3/17/2013 9:49:57 AM     (No. 9229205)

If Bible quotes O-fend, how about logic?

1. Marriage existed before governments.
2. Religion existed before governments.
3. Human societies for millennia severely discouraged homosexual behavior.
4. Governments glommed onto marriage to control behaviors.
5. Marriage is a societal construct for the production and welfare of children.
6. Natural Law indicates that homosexual behavior does not promote procreation.
7. No procreation, no more humans.
8. ´Gay marriage´ is a perverse new social construct born of economic greed to cash in on the constructs in societal law that benefit married couples.

Resultantly, marriage is a religious institution, existing for the benefit of children, and ´gay marriage´ is an oxymoron and has no place in a society that values its children.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 16 - Posted by: jorgecito, 3/17/2013 9:54:01 AM     (No. 9229217)

#1 is right. "Science" has nothing to do with this matter.

What it´s really about is this:

1. Whether we must be forced to capitulate to a tiny group demanding that we change the very meaning of the word, "marriage."

2. And then, whether that tiny group may impose its radical redefinition on the entire nation, forcing us all to recognize the absurd and oxymoronic concept of "gay marriage" as the new "law of the land."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 17 - Posted by: uponthecouch, 3/17/2013 9:54:51 AM     (No. 9229219)

Like #5 said, it is the government funding and tax incentives that ought to be correct. I don´t care what people do in private, if they have ´ministers´ who pronounce them ´married´ I am find with that as long as they don´t therefor get a tax break or other funds.

It is gay adoption that bothers me, but apparently I am too late to protest that, it already appears to be a ´right´.

The only way to reduce this is education and you can see how successful that is. Have I mentioned (and I have) that I am opposed to ALL government funding of education at all levels?

What we really want is not to encourage behavior that is damaging to children: adults are free to do damage to each other.

Read all about it: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


   

 

R_DBL_B
  


 
Reply 18 - Posted by: supersid, 3/17/2013 9:57:17 AM     (No. 9229221)

We are a constitutional republic with a religiously diverse population. In this context religious belief is something consenting adults engage in, in their homes and churches.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 19 - Posted by: HisHandmaiden, 3/17/2013 9:59:16 AM     (No. 9229224)

Sorry, folks... The Bible is not conflicted or unclear about marriage.

It has an Old Testament and a New Testament for a reason.

Suggest you read it cover to cover... then get back to us who do believe it is God-breathed and a beautiful Love Story... His inerrant, infallible Word.
On which I put my life ... and death.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 20 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 10:11:36 AM     (No. 9229236)

#15 - your points #3 and #7 are laughable. One presumes that for "millenia", homosexual relationships have been discouraged by "governments". Most governments through those millena have been monarchies and/or dictatorships. Read about the Greeks and Romans and their approach to homosexuality.

I can guarantee you the Muslim world discourages homosexuality, however. They use their religious teachings to even murder homosexuals.

#7 presumes that simply acceting a gay relationship means the entire society "goes gay", and we have no more kids. Highly unlikely. Thoughout recorded history, the gay population makes up about 3% of all socieies.

Nothing makes me look at another man in the gym locker room and think, "Wow, I gotta get me some of THAT!" My wife prefers me and admiring other males to women as well.

As another poster astutely pointed out, as a constitutional republic with diverse religious traditions and practices, government cannot redefine your religious view of what is and isn´t "marriage". It can only try to control with tax and benefits what punishments and rewards it hands on on various behaviors - like extra taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

In the state where I live, it is illegal for me to buy alchol before noon today (Sunday)and it´s illegal to go hunting. The church didn´t want competition, so they pressured government to pass laws to provide them a supposed monopoly on my time this morning.


  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 21 - Posted by: Freeloader, 3/17/2013 10:14:32 AM     (No. 9229241)

Professor Will is well educated, an ABC television "celebrity" and esteemed columnist for The Washington Post.

That said, it certainly doesn´t take a Ph.D from Princeton University to realize acts of sodomy have no correlation to "science."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 22 - Posted by: Belle, 3/17/2013 10:16:53 AM     (No. 9229244)

It is my hope conservatives come up with a simple way to support gay people and recognize there are many views on it. The media makes this a distraction from bigger issues. The gays I´ve known are kind, wonderful, hard working taxpayers who just want acceptance to live their lives without being labeled freaks. I don´t want to be associated with a party who is unkind to them but I can´t go to the liberal side. I´m fiscally conservative and socially - if it´s not illegal it´s none of my business. What party is most like that? Libertarian? That´s imperfect too.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


   

 



 
Reply 23 - Posted by: Republic Can, 3/17/2013 11:04:45 AM     (No. 9229312)

If you leftoids think that traditional marriage is about shackin-up I got news for you.

Marriage=progeny, since time immemorial.

No progeny=no more people period.

The antics of Brokeback Mountain should have NO influence on the people of any civilisation who are engaged in the procreation of our species. Those people deserve support for populating our planet. Thats why we normally agree that tax breaks for raising children is a good and sound concept. If you don´t want the awesome responsibilty and joy of raising children, fine; do what you want. JUST LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE. The fact that this concept is ignored by some people to justify their weirdness just proves their selfishness and short-sightedness.

Survival is a merit-based activity. There are no trophies for second place. Breed or die.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 24 - Posted by: mickturn, 3/17/2013 11:10:04 AM     (No. 9229320)

There is NO science to the fact that man/man or woman/woman can´t naturally have children so there is NO marriage, it is a sham.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 25 - Posted by: Arby, 3/17/2013 11:18:43 AM     (No. 9229338)

But of course this isn´t about law or social science or the welfare of the children. It´s about what might or might not gratify the adults involved. Gratification and choice have become the summum bonum. Thou shalt not deny the narcissistic self-indulgent their pleasures and thou shalt not hurt their feelings.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 26 - Posted by: EQKimball, 3/17/2013 11:27:03 AM     (No. 9229359)

Historically, "marriage" has been the union of opposites. Changing the word to mean any union deprives the historic arrangement of a unique term to describe it. A "pair" of shoes means a left shoe and a right shoe.
A "pie" means a crust and filling. A "suit" means a jacket and pants. If we change those terms to include two right shoes, two scoops of filling, two jackets, we would need to come up with new words to describe a combination of left and right shoes, crust and filling and pants and jacket. And that is the whole point. By redefining marriage society says that the historic union is neither special nor unique, deserving of its own term. That is why it is said that this movement is "an assault on traditional marriage."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 27 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 11:31:52 AM     (No. 9229370)

#26 - gratifition and choice are problems?

Yeah,God forbid we encourage any of that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness garbage around here!

s/off

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 28 - Posted by: kate318, 3/17/2013 11:32:02 AM     (No. 9229371)

My, my, my. Lot´s of pontificating bombast in this thread. Guess a little talk of gay marriage will do that to people. What I don´t understand is, if we all agree that gays make up about 3% of the population, why are we being held hostage to the demands of such a small group of people? I believe the focus here is misplaced. It´s not why gays should not be allowed to be married, but why shouldn´t society promote and nuture an institution devoted to the continuation of the species? I have no problem with civil unions. In fact, I think that if a heterosexual couple has no intention of having children, they have no business getting married. Let them live in civil union. We could offer contracts: one year, two, five, etc. All legalities are covered with shared benefits, etc., but the definition of marriage would then remain intact, and it´s purpose unchanged. And, mark my words, if gay marriage is completely accepted by society, and legal in all 57 states, the next demand will be for science to figure out a way for gays to reproduce. Before you ask me if I´m joking, remember this: the slippery slope may be a supposed example of uncritical thinking, but when it comes to liberalism, it is always fulfilled. Always.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 29 - Posted by: nigella, 3/17/2013 11:36:59 AM     (No. 9229386)

#15, and 16 speak for me...

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 30 - Posted by: chumley, 3/17/2013 11:41:32 AM     (No. 9229398)

#22 says it very well. I do understand what the religious posters are saying, but our law does not come from the Bible. It comes from the Constitution. The federal government has no authority to do anything that is not specifically enumerated there. I have seen nothing about marriage in any interpretation, no matter how twisted. Therefore, it is none of the government´s business, federal or state.
It is the business of the individuals involved and the churches that may want to (or not want to) perform the ceremonies or recognize the union.
If it is wrong for libs to force their policies on people who object, why is it ok for us to force our beliefs on others? Either we cherish freedom or we dont.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 31 - Posted by: Gagolfer, 3/17/2013 11:54:34 AM     (No. 9229419)

Should there therefore be a timeline in which a married heterosexual couple will have to produce children or their marriage will be considered null and void? Will they automatically then be in a civil union or will they have to apply for a civil contract? Will a couple have to declare they intend to have children before they can marry and if they end up not being able to have children their marriage is voided?

So many complications to running everyone´s personal lives. Maybe we should just mind our own business?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 32 - Posted by: Belle, 3/17/2013 12:04:35 PM     (No. 9229431)

While historically gays makeup 3% of the population they touch lives of many more(parents, siblings, co-workers etc.) I think there should be a big tent for a political party who wants to focus on the Constitution. Otherwise should there be political parties where everyone agrees on social issues? Good luck with winning elections. This thread shows that reasonable people can disagree but most of us agree on the Constitution.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 33 - Posted by: columba, 3/17/2013 12:12:23 PM     (No. 9229445)

The Pope has it right: Same Sex marriage is straight from the Father of Lies in his effort to destroy marriage and us.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 34 - Posted by: M Stuart, 3/17/2013 12:15:22 PM     (No. 9229452)

Since the government loves to meddle so much, why not eliminate the marriage tax and make it advantageous to marry? Instead it now costs people, and you even see the elderly who should be examples for young people shacking up.

Unmarried parents are taking the easy way. No marriage=more money, benefits, easy dissolution. They can´t afford to get off the gravy train of food stamps, earned income credit, and higher standard deductions. So we pay.

When did it become MY job to pay for the procreation of others??

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 35 - Posted by: kate318, 3/17/2013 12:23:32 PM     (No. 9229464)

Good questions, #32, but the pain of wanting children and not being able to conceive is its own special anguish. I wouldn´t require those people to do anything else. Besides, they may choose to adopt.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 36 - Posted by: Bluefindad, 3/17/2013 12:45:03 PM     (No. 9229484)

It´s amazing that there are so many here who don´t get it. Only the useful idiots think that this is a campaign to bring fairness and equality for people to commit and love one another.

The real purpose is ´fundamental transformation´. Leftists have always understood that words have a greater power to communicate and encapsulate broad concepts than any other social mechanism. Marriage is a fundamental, universally understood concept. From Marx onward, it has stood as a bullwark against true social transformation.

When you redefine a word that stands for a fundamental concept, you destroy it´s meaning and render the concept unexpressible in clear, unambiguous terms.

This battle is clearly a out the never ending war to destroy the burgoise.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 37 - Posted by: joew9, 3/17/2013 1:21:17 PM     (No. 9229531)

Seems like Will takes a strong position to bash the conservatives and only a very small effort against the liberals. The conservatives worst enemies are those that purport to be conservatives but frequently join the other side in their attempt to show how fair and open minded they are.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 38 - Posted by: absalom, 3/17/2013 1:46:07 PM     (No. 9229554)

#15 makes the case for marriage, a bedrock institution of civilization, simply. Since the dawn of man, it was a societal impulse driven by the need to socialize children and voluntarily self regulate sexual activity. Its religious trappings came millennia later and are unneeded to make a self evident case discouraging homosexuality. All this noise is indicative of the insidious effect of moral relativism on modern culture which insists that freedom is the paramount attribute. This canard is advanced by libertarian cranks who insist that the self transcends the soul and therefore, the universe rotates around the individual. We´d still be in caves if that mentality prevailed through history.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 39 - Posted by: msjena, 3/17/2013 2:08:47 PM     (No. 9229568)

#8 and others, the New Testament does condemn same sex relationships--see Paul´s letter to the Romans. Leviticus was written for the Jews at that time. It doesn´t apply now that salvation has been made available to all: "first to the Jew, then to the Greek (ie, Gentile)."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 40 - Posted by: Chip86, 3/17/2013 2:15:02 PM     (No. 9229574)

Wow, 40 comments. At national review they had over 1000 on the very subject.


Strange how this site has not upgraded to Discuss or other such software. It feels so 2000.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 41 - Posted by: lostinmassachusetts, 3/17/2013 2:17:28 PM     (No. 9229577)

#20, before boasting that your liberal views on homosexuality comport with Thomas Jefferson´s, I think you should first look into Jefferson´s actually said about homosexual behavior. He believed it was a criminal offense, akin to rape, punishable by castration.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 42 - Posted by: woofwoofwoof, 3/17/2013 2:51:19 PM     (No. 9229627)

There is no science at all, but there are shaky libtard social scientists.

Even the best science needs to be understood and interpreted, almost nobody says that in any way shape or form that science ever directly dictates law. A few wackos might, but generally they are lying when they say so, or writing the "science" backwards from the results they want to find. That´s not really science, in case that´s not clear to you.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    9 persons like this.


Reply 43 - Posted by: AutumnJoy, 3/17/2013 4:01:54 PM     (No. 9229706)

All this bickering!

I have a cartoon on my refridgerator that shows a person at the pearly gates and St. Peter looking through The Book Of Life. The caption reads "Ah. Here you are. On the S*** List". Interpret it as you may. Only The Big Guy gets to judge.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 44 - Posted by: Timber Queen, 3/17/2013 4:44:08 PM     (No. 9229749)

#37 Thank you for seeing through the "progressive" BS that at its core is to "fundamentally transform" society. Being against "gay marriage" does not translate to being against homosexuals or lesbians. Some are fine people, some are stinkers; just like all of humanity.

The purpose of marriage in society is providing a stable home for the rearing of children. Even if a couple cannot conceive or cannot adopt, their stable marriage offers an example as they become beloved aunts and uncles fulfilling the extended family role of a stable environment for children.

Since the 19060’s marriage has been under attack. It began with “no fault” divorce when the “progressives” claimed that children would be better off if parents in a “bad marriage” split up. The ravages of divorce on generations of children led to “shacking up”, which led to casual “hooking up” and the promiscuity that has had deleterious effects upon our society as a whole. Our entertainment media purposely portrays traditional marriage as lame and ineffectual while it trumpets deviant behavior. Yet, the argument now put forth by many is that because married people divorce easily, have adulterous affairs, and engage in questionable sexual practices that “gay marriage” is OK. It takes the consequences of the “war on marriage” as proof that marriage is wanting. Just like the “progressives” planned.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 45 - Posted by: Timber Queen, 3/17/2013 4:44:43 PM     (No. 9229751)

If homosexuals and lesbians wish the legal and tax benefits of a “union”, I’m fine with a civil union, but don’t call it a marriage. In my faith, Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament between the man, the woman and God. Marriage requires that it be unitive and complementary. If “gay marriage” becomes a right with “equal protection under the law”, will the law compel Catholic and other Christian faiths to marry same-sex couples? “Gay marriage” is ultimately an attack on religious freedom, as is the mandate to provide contraception, abortion inducing drugs, and elective sterilization. This all comes from the Father of Lies, just as Pope Frances has proclaimed. Do not be fooled by the “feel good” language of the “progressive” Marxists.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 46 - Posted by: cat2, 3/17/2013 4:52:06 PM     (No. 9229769)

Re: the format of this site . . . I am very happy with this format, and find it far superior to sites that indent responses to posts. And I especially like the fact that this site puts the oldest comments at the top of the page. Fie on the sites that make you go to the end and read backward if you wish to follow the drift of the comments.

Thank you to the Lucianne team for all the years that we have enjoyed and learned from our fellow Ldotters. You make it easy.



  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 47 - Posted by: msjena, 3/17/2013 4:54:16 PM     (No. 9229772)

I have to laugh at those who point to the Ancient Greeks and Romans and their tolerance of homosexuality. Where are those societies today? Extinct. Rome was particularly depraved in terms of libertine sexual behavior, cruelty and disregard for human life. It was into this world that Jesus appeared. How fitting, and how needed.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 48 - Posted by: so_free_me, 3/17/2013 5:08:09 PM     (No. 9229795)

Dear #8 and others like you: the Bible is God´s word, i.e. inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not suspect because it was written by men who lived in historical times. God is not limited by time or culture, and his word holds true today. And there is NO way you can study the word and believe that God wants men to have sex with men or women with women. (Nor did God ever hold up polygamy as the ideal.) You´re desperately trying to justify sin.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 49 - Posted by: ArtieC, 3/17/2013 5:38:32 PM     (No. 9229846)

Something people forget and it would be well to remember : the Levitical law was given to Jews, not Gentiles. We should be quoting the new testament admonition against homosexuality.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 50 - Posted by: Belle, 3/17/2013 5:49:17 PM     (No. 9229874)

There are alot of good points and views on this. My question is how does this relate to politics? For those so sure about society collapsing if gays marry - I get it. Who are you going to vote for? When you alienate a segment of people who would vote like you -is that going to save society? Look what we´re stuck with. For those like me that don´t want to be rude and hurtful to good people and think it´s not really my business as long as they´re law abiding - who can I vote for? I think there´s a great opportunity for a fiscally conservative - socially neutral political party. I don´t want to vote on religion. My views are my own through my life experience as are yours. We all get one vote. I respect your views and hope you respect that I´m entititled to my opinion too.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 51 - Posted by: Patchy Groundfog, 3/17/2013 6:05:58 PM     (No. 9229903)

I find it interesting that leftists believe absolutely in evolution but also believe that the human race will continue on forever once we start calling two men or two women ´married.´

Just another one of their glaring contradictions.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 52 - Posted by: ladycatnip, 3/17/2013 6:41:04 PM     (No. 9229970)

This is all a red herring - the slippery slope here is if gay marriage is made public policy or the law of the land, then churches stand to lose their non-profit status if they preach against it. Five, ten years down the line, our churches will have to decide to compromise biblical principles versus their tax exempt status - which they depend upon to help keep their doors open. As our economy worsens under socialism, the less people give. This may mean some churches will be forced to shut their doors because they will be taxed out of existence.

This is an assault on our freedom of religion, not about giving gays equal rights. Why don´t they create civil unions that would give them the same benefits as marriage, but keep it out of the realm of the church. Marriage is a sacrament, civil unions are not.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 53 - Posted by: Harlowe, 3/17/2013 8:24:11 PM     (No. 9230112)

#51 – It would be well to remember that the Old Testament is not irrelevant, it is the Law; the New Testament is the Gospel.

Old Testament: Genesis 19:5, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 7:20, Leviticus 7:21, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:5. Deuteronomy 23:18, Judges 19:22-23

New Testament: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 2 Peter 6-11, Jude 6-8, Revelation 21: 5-8, Revelation 22:14-15

(Note: Chapter 22 is the last chapter in Revelation and it contains 21 verses; in Verse 15 it is again written that the sexually immoral are among those who will not go through the gates into the city.)

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 54 - Posted by: GoodGrief, 3/17/2013 9:39:37 PM     (No. 9230184)

I now pronounce you "Wan and Mife." There, that´s solved.

Oh wait, "Mife and Wan."

Oh shoot, it just won´t work.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 55 - Posted by: Harlowe, 3/17/2013 10:31:57 PM     (No. 9230224)

#40 – The admonition and condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture is as relevant now as it was then and applies to all time, for Jews and Gentiles. The Ten Commandments were given to the Jews, but apply to Gentiles as well; all people are to live by the Law and the Gospel. It is the means of grace, forgiveness, that has changed; no longer through animal sacrifices, but through the blood of Jesus, the Messiah.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 56 - Posted by: tomatonut, 3/17/2013 11:38:25 PM     (No. 9230279)

#5 (aka #20)makes absurd arguments about homosexuality and society. Homosexuality is either positive, negative, or neutral in its effects on homosexuals and the rest of society. That is, positive, negative, or neutral in its physical, social, and moral effects. Only someone who can convincingly argue that the effects are positive or neutral can make a case for same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, the teaching of homosexual sexual practices, and so on. The evidence that homosexuality (and sorry, but only about 1.5% of any population is homosexual)is negative is overwhelming.

And yet militant homosexuals keep pushing their perversion on the rest of us--especially on children in the public schools, usually under the pretext of protecting some youngsters from harm.

I find it fascinating that those who were once considered to be suffering a psychological ailment now have convinced many that it is the rest of us, the "homophobes," who are ill. I also find it fascinating that militant homosexuals practically foam at the mouth if you mention the fact that they have never condemned NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or if you remind them of the landmark work of a famous American psychologist who said that he had never met a homosexual male who had had a good relationship with his father.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    10 persons like this.


Reply 57 - Posted by: get er done, 3/17/2013 11:51:47 PM     (No. 9230289)

The current push by Obama and other liberals as advocates of same sex marriage is another chorus of "It´s all about ME."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 58 - Posted by: Hammock, 3/18/2013 12:43:15 AM     (No. 9230318)

I liked the (former?) site rule of only one, (perhaps with apologies two) post per thread. If one has put up four long-winded posts on the same thread it appears selfish to me.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 59 - Posted by: msjena, 3/18/2013 1:07:27 AM     (No. 9230331)

There is reference in the New Testament to keeping the commandments and "the law." But it is clear that the specifically Jewish law--such as circumcision--was rejected by the apostles as something that applied to Gentiles. Peter even had a dream that told him to eat whatever he wanted. Leviticus sets out things that specifically applied to Jews at that time--things that set them apart as a people. Those rules don´t apply anymore since Christ has come for all mankind--in Galatians it says, there is no Jew or Greek; slave or free; male or female-all one in Christ. Surely, no one wants to kill homosexuals because Leviticus commands it and no one claims that the Bible forbids Christians from eating shellfish or pork.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 60 - Posted by: 4Justice, 3/18/2013 1:16:10 AM     (No. 9230336)

#50, several different "books" were written by different men (inspired by God) over several different time periods. Like it or not, they were still men who are not infallible and who have their own personal prejudices as all people do. Some books were written shortly after things happened and others were written hundreds of years later. There were also sections removed by the Universal Church just as some books were chosen and others (that may have given a conflicting message) were left out on purpose.
You can claim what you want about the choices made as being the proper choices. But remember, the church, like most other political entities was interested in amassing power and wealth...even back then. Why do you think they tried to destroy the gnostics?

And I did not say that homosexuality was not addressed in the New Testament at all...I said the actual word "homosexual" was not used. That is a recent interpretation.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 61 - Posted by: 4Justice, 3/18/2013 1:25:35 AM     (No. 9230342)

By the way, the biggest mistake that conservatives make is using the word "ban". If you don´t want the state to recognize a marriage (which can be performed by any church that wishes to), then say that. Say it should not be legally recognized by the state. But to say you are for "banning" same sex marriage, you are essentially telling people they have no freedom of religion. And then you end up sounding like a close-minded bigot control-freak who doesn´t believe in freedom. Let people marry as they see fit since it happens anyway. Just vote to not recognize it. Yes, there is a leftist agenda, but they grabbed onto a real concern that some people feel should be addressed. They want recognition of the marriage so they can take care of their loved one if he/she gets sick. They don´t want to go through the extra requirement of having to create a legal contract or living trust to have the same benefits (and penalties) as a heterosexual married couple.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 62 - Posted by: LaVallette, 3/18/2013 2:50:49 AM     (No. 9230378)

When science and the Laws of Physics are able to prove that two nuts on their own or two screws on their own can fulfil the functions of a bolt in the way only ONE nut and ONE screw can, only then can the validity of gay marriage be open for consideration. In the meantime no state legislation has the right to legislate what is against the fundamental natural designs and order, the laws of anatomy and of biology, It offends against Science itself which has a nasty habit of kicking back hard when it is offended, be it in the short or long term.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 63 - Posted by: Harlowe, 3/18/2013 3:06:25 PM     (No. 9231431)

#61 –Leviticus was written to teach the priests how to act and teach the people; to care for people who are in sin. Romans is purest gospel and briefly sums up Christian and evangelical doctrine while showing the light and power of the Old Testament. Timothy wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Leviticus is among “ALL Scripture” and, therefore, the teaching, admonition, and condemnation are for all time; the ultimate judgment remains the same—then with banishment or execution, now on Judgment Day.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.



Post Reply   Close thread 727458




Below, you will find ...

Most Recent Articles posted by "StormCnter"

and

Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)




Most Recent Articles posted by "StormCnter"



Hillary Clinton all but erased
from tragic story of Benghazi
Washington Times, by Rowan Scarborough    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 5:55:34 AM     Post Reply
A huge wave of public testimony, reports and documents on what happened in Benghazi now floods Washington, and little of it focuses on the role of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton before, on, or after Sept. 11, 2012. Over the past 18 months, there have been at least seven public congressional hearings and three fact-finding reports on the terrorist attack. If not invisible, Mrs. Clinton is certainly portrayed as being only in the background during Benghazi, unaware of key events. In the early post-Benghazi days on Capitol Hill, Republicans tried to pry “what did she know and when did she know

Obama Effect Inspiring Few to Seek Office
New York Times, by Jason Horowitz    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 5:53:33 AM     Post Reply
LUDLOW, Mass. — Eric Lesser was shaking hands with diners in a Portuguese restaurant last week when he spotted the owner of Manny’s TV & Appliances. “Oh, I’ve got to get a picture,” Mr. Lesser eagerly said, draping his arm over Manny Rovithis, whose low-budget commercials have run for decades in Western Massachusetts. Mr. Lesser’s giddiness about meeting the local celebrity had not faded when he sat down for lunch. “Awesome,” he said. Although Mr. Lesser spent much of the last six years in the company of President Obama and Washington hotshots, now, as an earnest, hug-prone 29-year-old candidate for the Massachusetts

´Barn Drama´ Puts Riders
on Their High Horses
Wall Street Journal, by Lauren Lipton    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 5:51:22 AM     Post Reply
Scot Gillies has a good idea of the kind of horse people who will fit in at Gryffindor Farm, the small barn he helps manage in Lexington, Ky. So his advertisements for new boarders spell it out in detail: Owners must be "laid-back," "happy" and above all, "drama-free." Mr. Gillies, a marketing consultant by day and a horse owner himself, says that during his 14 years in the equestrian world, "I´ve seen the full range of drama that is associated with horse people." A few categories of problematic individuals reign: There are overprotective owners who insist their animals be treated like

Hate group to picket Kansas City funerals
Times of Israel, by Rebecca Shimoni Stoil    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 5:41:09 AM     Post Reply
WASHINGTON – The Westboro Baptist Church, an extremist organization known for its anti-gay activism, announced that it will picket the funerals of the three people killed in Sunday afternoon’s shooting attacks at two Kansas City Jewish sites. The church, which has famously picketed funerals of US military personnel and has protested against the American Jewish community, sent out a tweet shortly after the shooting saying, “Thank God for shootings at Overland Park KS jewish centers! Westboro to picket funerals. God did not passover.” The Topeka, Kansas-based group is not affiliated with any Baptist organization, and has a long history of anti-Semitic

A Secret Fight over Russia
in the Obama Administration
Weekly Standard, by William Kristol    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 5:28:20 AM     Post Reply
The Obama administration has scheduled a deputies committee meeting this week—tentatively set for Tuesday—to resolve a bitter inter-agency dispute over a request from Russia with respect to the Open Skies program. Informed sources believe the White House is likely to side with the State Department, which wants to accommodate Russia, over the objections of the Obama administration´s Defense Department and intelligence agencies. The Open Skies treaty allows the United States and Russia to fly over each other´s territory with planes loaded with certain agreed-upon sensor packages, in order to ensure compliance with arms control agreements and to provide assurance against

Kelly’s vindication
New York Daily News, by Editorial    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 5:22:54 AM     Post Reply
It’s not spying, it’s policing. Good news for New Yorkers, who live, work and play in what remains the world’s top terror target: New profiling rules the Justice Department is drafting will reportedly let the Federal Bureau of Investigation continue the critical work of using nationality to map neighborhoods, recruit informants and look for foreign agents. In other words, they’ll let the often-cautious FBI engage in intelligent and legitimate policing to prevent attacks against innocent Americans. As reported by The New York Times, the feds’ decision, arrived at after years of exhaustive legal and other reviews, is a tacit endorsement of nearly identical

Chuckie Hagel´s New Horse
American Spectator, by Jed Babbin    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 5:07:39 AM     Post Reply
Judging by the horse he gave Defense Secretary Chuckie Hagel a couple of days ago, Mongolian Defense Minister Dashdemberel must be a very diligent student of the defense budget that Congress is now trying to craft. The horse, of course, is a gelding. When the president announced his proposed budget and Hagel went to Congress to state the party line, I wrote that several indispensable weapon systems — the U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, the A-10 Warthog attack aircraft, and half of the Navy’s 22 cruisers among them — would be retired. Under the president’s plan, military pay raises would be capped at

Podesta seeks points for Obama´s
scoreboard before it´s too late
The Hill [DC], by Amie Parnes    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 5:04:08 AM     Post Reply
White House senior adviser John Podesta is running against the clock. Time is winding on Podesta’s objective, which is to make sure President Obama put points on the board in the final three years of his second term through either legislation or executive action. With Obama and the White House flailing in late 2013, Podesta returned to the West Wing in January as part of an Obama reboot. A little more than three months later, the former chief of staff for President Clinton gets good marks from Democrats and fellow West Wingers for helping to improve the White House’s strategy and communications. They say

Our Psychodramatic Campuses
PJ Media, by Victor Davis Hanson    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 4:48:47 AM     Post Reply
Dartmouth College students recently staged an overnight sit-in the office of their president Philip Hanlon. They had over seventy demands. Apparently, they grew out of their alleged suffering at the hands of “racist, classist, sexist, heterosexist, trans-homophobic, xenophobic, and ablest structures.” Translating into English, the students elaborated, “Our bodies are already on the line, in danger, and under attack” — suggesting conditions similar to the teen-aged Marines who stormed Fallujah in November 2004, or perhaps the iron-workers who tip-toe on girders 1,000 feet above Manhattan, or an acquaintance of mine whose work clothes reveal that he pumps out quite messy rural

The next ObamaCare disasters
New York Post, by Betsy McCaughey    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 4:39:51 AM     Post Reply
On Friday the president used the long-awaited resignation of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to again claim victory for his namesake health law. “She got it fixed, got the job done,” Obama said. Right. Sorry, there is plenty of more bad news ahead. It’s not called SebeliusCare, and she wasn’t to blame for most of its problems. The horrors were mostly baked into the law, with some made worse by the president’s dishonest hard sell to get unsuspecting Americans to sign up. Obama claimed Friday that 7.5 million people have enrolled in exchange coverage. In fact, perhaps 20 percent haven’t

Supremacist ID´d As Suspect in Kansas Attacks
Associated Press, by Maria Sudekum    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/14/2014 4:31:25 AM     Post Reply
OVERLAND PARK, Kan. -- The man accused of killing three people in attacks at a Jewish community center and Jewish retirement complex near Kansas City is a well-known white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader who was once the subject of a nationwide manhunt. Frazier Glenn Cross, of Aurora, Mo., was booked into Johnson County jail on a preliminary charge of first-degree murder after the attacks Sunday in Overland Park. At a news conference, Overland Park police Chief John Douglass declined to publicly identify the man suspected in the attacks. But an official at the Olathe jail, speaking on the condition

A Tale of Two Letters: Why the
Peace Process Went Poof
Commentary Magazine, by Rich Richman    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/13/2014 5:46:11 PM     Post Reply
Last week Zbigniew Brzezinski, joined by five other foreign-policy experts from the past, issued an open letter entitled “Stand Firm, John Kerry,” calling for “clarity” on “the critical moral and political issues” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The letter castigated Israeli settlements and proposed “halting the diplomatic process” to “help stop this activity.” At “Pressure Points,” Elliott Abrams dismantled the letter, noting that, among other things, it ignored history. As it happens, tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of one of the more important items of history the Brzezinski group ignored: the April 14, 2004 letter from President George W. Bush to Prime



Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)



Meet the Clinton shoe-thrower
65 replie(s)
NBC Universal, by Emma Margolin    Original Article
Posted By: LittleHoodedMonk- 4/12/2014 5:03:17 PM     Post Reply
Who throws a shoe? Honestly! That would be 36-year-old Alison Ernst of Phoenix, Arizona, who was charged Thursday night with disorderly conduct by the Las Vegas Police Department after allegedly throwing a shoe at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to NBC News, who spoke with a Secret Service official, the U.S. Attorney’s office has declined federal prosecution. Ernst was wearing shoes on Thursday night when she attended a speech Clinton was giving in Las Vegas, but apparently brought an extra one specifically to throw at the former secretary of state. The official said the incident appeared to be “premeditated.”

Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins
´Range War´ With Feds

42 replie(s)
ABC News, by Liz Fields    Original Article
Posted By: Desert Fox- 4/12/2014 3:33:27 PM     Post Reply
A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters. Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally. Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of

Barbara Boxer Says Keystone
Pipeline a Cancer Risk

39 replie(s)
Breitbart California, by William Bigelow    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 4/12/2014 6:54:45 PM     Post Reply
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is now accusing the Keystone pipeline of being a cancer risk. Her first point was that the pipeline “will bring 830,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into our nation every day.” She then segued to point #2 by asserting that the heavy tar sands oil will put people who live near refineries at risk for cancer: Significantly higher levels of dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens have been documented downwind from tar sands refineries, and in these areas people are suffering higher rates of the types of cancers linked to these toxic chemicals, including leukemia and

Why The Feds Chickened Out
On A Nevada Ranch

36 replie(s)
Townhall, by Kevin McCullough    Original Article
Posted By: Drive- 4/13/2014 11:55:18 AM     Post Reply
Let me obliterate a bit of confusion here: the Obama administration attempted to go to war with a rancher in Nevada. Let me amplify a little bit of truth: They tucked tail and have returned home. And let me add a bit of clarity: they had no choice! As the nation began to become familiar with the plight of the family of Cliven Bundy, many of us harkened back to another standoff in which the Federal government attempted to bully it´s outcome: Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidian massacre. It is telling that in the Nevada case the feds pulled out so

Why Hillary v. Jeb Would
Be Great for America

34 replie(s)
Daily Beast, by Mark McKinnon    Original Article
Posted By: Desert Fox- 4/13/2014 6:11:32 PM     Post Reply
They’re both qualified, respectful of each other (shocker!), and represent the vast majority of middle America. So what’s not to like about another Clinton/Bush race for 2016? When you mention the prospect of Clinton vs. Bush 2016 a funny thing happens. First, there is the reflexive response: "Oh no, not again. We don´t need more dynastic politics in this country." But upon further reflection, you realize Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton would be a great race and actually good for the country. Let´s review. QUALIFICATIONS—THEY’VE BOTH GOT THEM. Barack Obama won the presidency because in an election where the premium was on change, it mattered little

The world must shift to solar and wind
power rapidly to avoid catastrophic global
warming, say UN scientists in major report

32 replie(s)
Daily Mail (U.K.), by Ben Spencer    Original Article
Posted By: Desert Fox- 4/13/2014 7:15:31 PM     Post Reply
A rapid shift to wind and solar power is needed if the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming, the United Nations warns in a crucial report today. Emissions of greenhouse gases need to be cut by up to 70 per cent before 2050 to control climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says. ‘Large-scale changes in energy systems’ are required, with coal power stations to be switched off and replaced by wind and solar. And the transformation needs to be made in the next 15 years or controlling climate change will become increasingly harder and more expensive. The report was published

Nevada GOP removes social issues from platform,
moves ahead with pre-primary endorsements

29 replie(s)
Associated Press, by Sandra Chereb    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/13/2014 3:48:58 PM     Post Reply
LAS VEGAS — The Nevada Republican Party stripped opposition to abortion and gay marriage from its platform Saturday as state convention delegates instead focused on judging fellow Republicans on their worthiness to serve in office and adherence to GOP values. The platform, with few changes, was adopted overwhelmingly as the Las Vegas convention stretched late into the evening. The vote mirrors that of the Clark County GOP, which voted earlier to remove platform language defining marriage as between a man and a woman and statements opposing abortion. Many Republicans are re-evaluating their strong stances on conservative social issues as public

Goodbye tea party, hello big tent
28 replie(s)
Washington Post, by Jennifer Rubin    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/13/2014 5:08:01 AM     Post Reply
Say what you will about Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), but they know a train wreck when they see it. They also know when to separate themselves from the cranks and the losers on the right. Although both supported the shutdown and were heartily supported by tea party groups in their own Senate races, neither one has endorsed Matt Bevin in Kentucky, Milton Wolf in Kansas or Chris McDaniel in Mississippi. In fact, Cruz’s office confirms he hasn’t endorsed anyone in the primaries. He may weigh in after the primaries. Rand Paul has endorsed two very establishment

Video: Flash mob of women steal
$20,000 worth of sunglasses
from California store

27 replie(s)
New York Daily News, by Staff    Original Article
Posted By: Ribicon- 4/13/2014 10:50:38 AM     Post Reply
A brazen flash mob has been caught on camera storming a California store and making off with $20,000 worth of sunglasses. Surveillance footage shows eight women piling into a Sunglass Hut and crowding around display cases. Shielding workers from what they´re doing, they quickly stuff dozens of fashion specs into their bags. A store clerk pleads with them to stop, before running out of the shot to get help and dial 911. The thieves then all bolt outside and escape in a waiting SUV. The incident occurred at the Valencia Town Center mall, in Santa Clarita, at 3 p.m. on

Democrat Center Folds
25 replie(s)
American Thinker, by Clarice Feldman    Original Article
Posted By: real fifi- 4/13/2014 7:44:30 AM     Post Reply
It’s hardly been a secret that in recent years the moderate center of the Democrat party has been driven away and what remains is a conglomeration of disparate blocs which, to date, the party has been able to treat as if there were no conflicting interests between them. As the midterm elections approach and the administration’s incompetence, along with the distaste for the president’s signature ObamaCare legislation, drive the party’s chances down further, the make-believe coalition of opposites may well crumble if the opposition doesn’t blow it. Democrats hope to retain control of the Senate and recapture the House by driving

Victory for Nevada´s last rancher!
Federal government backs down and
says it will NOT try to seize cattle from
cowboy at the centre of armed showdown

23 replie(s)
Daily Mail [UK], by Ryan Gorman*    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 4/12/2014 2:34:02 PM     Post Reply
The last rancher in southern Nevada has won his battle to graze cows on public land after a week-long stand off with federal agents. The Bureau of Land Management today said it would stop trying to seize the cattle of Cliven Bundy after armed militia members today continuing to gather in Nevada in a confrontation with federal agents. BLM Director Neil Kornze said: ´Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of

Obama Begins to Say Good-Bye
23 replie(s)
National Journal, by James Oliphant    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/13/2014 5:20:56 AM     Post Reply
Because you can find anything on the Web, you can easily search and pull up a running clock that tells you just how long, to the second, Barack Obama has been president. It moves in real time. It only feels like it´s speeding up. Constrained by crises over which he has little power to impact events, hemmed in by a divided Congress more interested in scoring points with voters than in legislating, and watching as his potential successor assumes more and more of the political spotlight, Obama may be receding into history more quickly than either he or his aides ever anticipated. It was impossible to listen to the president's speech Thursday


Post Reply   Close thread 727458





Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google



© 2014 Lucianne.com Media Inc.

FS