CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

T.J. — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 05:31:09 -0000

They can get a church ceremony and live together forever. The only thing missing is legal benefits, most of which are about tax.

Re: Question of the day

NW burbs — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:14:08 -0000

TJ, what subsidies? I'm married -- what subsidies do my wife and I enjoy?

What are you even talking about?

Re: Question of the day

Left Leaner — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:08:30 -0000

I still can't understand why (the reasons) people are scared that gay marriage will tear apart American society? No one, in my opinion, has ever leveled a good, defensible position on this topic. In the end, it boils down to you're a bigot, or your not. There is no grey area on this.

Re: Question of the day

T.J. — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:50:54 -0000

For those of you who are against gay marriage, do you not realize that gay people have lifetime partnerships and are having families anyway? The only thing you would be voting against is to deny these people basic human rights.

No, the only thing I would be voting against is to deny them taxpayer subsidies.

Re: Question of the day

NW burbs — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:10:22 -0000

Anon wrote: "anon - Tuesday, Jun 27, 06 @ 7:32 pm:

Objective Dem said-

Ã¢â‚¬Å“This is an attempt for religious fundamentalists to impose their views on people who do not share their beliefs.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Give me a breakÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. Why is it that God fearing Christians who believe in the bibleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s teachings might be forced to accept gay rights and obey all these silly laws but then go to church and have faith in their religion that opposes homosexuals?

Talk about having extremists imposing their views on people who do not share their beliefs! "

Where in the Constitution does it indicate one American's religion trumps another's?

Not all religions practiced in the US -- indeed, not all Christian denominations -- believe in intolerance against gays.

Have you read the books of the Bible in their original Greek, Latin, etc texts? In context many of the passages referring to "homosexuality" in the modern English versions originally discussed prostitution.

Besides, if your church doesn't want to accept gays or marry gays nobody's saying they have to. That's a red herring if ever there was one.

But considering non-religious justices of the peace can also marry two people ... discriminating against gay marriage becomes a moot point.

-----

Jethro -- We're talking about marriage between two people who have committed to each other for the rest of their lives out of love.

Polygamy involves more than two people and it's clear there is no way for all the members of a polygamist relationship to be held equally in the relationship (unlike in a couple where the relationship's members are co-equal).

Completely different argument and your rants make no sense. In fact, since so many of the people against gay marriage are against it purely out of intolerance for the homosexuality involved, maybe that's why you're into heterosexual polygamy Jethro to, ya know, spread the hetero love.

----

All -- I found this Tribune article on a KKK reenactment in McHenry to be very interesting for this passage:

"A retired high school history teacher portrayed a local Klansman making a fictitious appearance before the Seneca Township Board in 1922. During last week's performance in front of an audience dressed in period clothing, the man sought permission for a meeting to recruit white, Protestant, native-born Americans into the KKK.

Enhancing the authenticity of what might have happened, the actor used a real prop, passing around a petition once circulated in McHenry County that supported a ban on interracial marriages.

Historians agree that confronting the unpleasant events of the past is one way to draw parallels to the present." (emph. added)

Hmm... what goes around comes around I guess.

Re: Question of the day

zatoichi — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:51:10 -0000

"Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice of deviant sexual behavior and as such, should not be put in the same category of marriage as in a man and a woman." Genetic research is pointing a different direction. Still, there are millions of straight couples who engage in the exact same behaviors as gay couples. Are they equally deviant? Is the assumption that ALL gays are wildly out of control in their behavior while the high number of heteros doing the exact same behavior is acceptable. I guess the huge numbers of people who simply go about their lives, treat people decently, work hard, love their families, attend church, and support their communities can only be non gay. What someone does in their home with consenting adults is their business. I know, read my Bible for proper guidance. The stonings will start at 6:00pm and slavery is reinstated beginning Saturday.

Re: Question of the day

Strawberry Pistachio Man — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:29:17 -0000

Jethro, please stop being a moron.

The fact that an income tax exists doesn't mean 100% of income is taxed.

Re: Question of the day

Disgusted — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:51:01 -0000

For all you supporters of this ban on the belief that homosexuality is something new to the 20th and 21st centuries, don't bet the farm on that. It's been around since the beginning of recorded history and it also occurs in animals. If it's not hurting you in any way, leave it alone. It has nothing to do with the condition of or the future success of your marriage. That depends on you.

Also,Strawberry Pistachio Man, I also will not be voting for Repubs because of the condition they have this country in, but don't you see that Blago has the state in the same, if not worse, condition? Both men are egotistical, not very bright, money-grubbers, who surround themselves by some of the worst personalities in this country. And it appears that none of them saw a need to serve this country militarily, while, particularly in the case of the federal administration, having no problem sending other mothers' sons and daughters off to be killed. Add hypocritical to those descriptions, along with unethical.

Re: Question of the day

Jethro — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:18:45 -0000

Now, why is gay marriage okay and not polygamist marriage? Why must you spread this hate? Being a polygamist is a lifestyle, just like being a homosexual.

It's not just an argument used, it's the truth. If you allow gays to marry, you must allow polygamists to marry... it's my right, right?

Re: Question of the day

Budget Watcher — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:16:55 -0000

I'd like to see this amendment debate go away so I don't have to hear anymore from the self-righteous on one side and bigots on the other. Bigots are easy to dislike, while those who tell us how tolerant and compasionate they are - they just irritate me.

Re: Question of the day

Lincoln Lounger — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:14:04 -0000

I'm a Republican and not sold on gay marriage, but I think equal protection through civil unions or domestic partnerships is OK. Knowing who is behind it -- Roeser's band of malcontents, idiots, and bottom feeders -- I will vote against tinkering with the Constitution WITH RELISH in order to stick it to Jack Roeser, Peter LaBarbera, Doug Ibendahl, and all the other self- appointed God Squad who make the GOP look frightening and narrow to the typical Illinoisan.

Re: Question of the day

ZC — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:07:42 -0000

Or to clarify: of _course_ law is all about morality. It seems to be the fear of opponents to gay marriage that, to permit gay marriage means that marriage no longer has a basis in morality, and thus everything has to be permitted, including polygamy.

The flaw in this argument lies in assuming that you can't draw a moral circle that includes gay marriage but that excludes polygamy. For the people who really consider homosexuality a sin something close to murder, I can see why they can't imagine this diagram. But that's a minority of the population, and an ever-shrinking one.

Re: Question of the day

ZC — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:01:18 -0000

"If Gay Marriage is allowed, polygamy must be allowed!"

Err - why exactly?

Suppose in the 1940s and 1950s, somebody said, "If interracial marriage is allowed, then interspecies marriage must be made legal too!"

I think we'd all agree that's just an offensive and incorrect statement. The gays - polygamists link also seems incorrect and offensive to me. It seems more like a rhetorical strategy to scare people than a real argument with any coherent force. One moral core of modern-day marriage has always been the mutual commitment between two individuals. You could easily keep that essence, and just agree to let gays legally partake of it.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:48:51 -0000

I probably won't vote to trifle with the Constitution.

Re: Question of the day

Jethro — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:45:32 -0000

If Gay Marriage is allowed, does this also mean that I get the right to marry two women if I choose? And they could both marry other men? And those men could marry other women as well?

Can I marry 19 women if I choose? If Gay Marriage is allowed, polygamy must also be allowed!

Also, could I marry my sister? or my mother? how about my grandmother? It is the same concept as gay marriage isn't it?

Re: Question of the day

Burn — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:43:57 -0000

Hey Slash, using your reasoning you would vote AGAINST an amendment banning slavery of Africans, on the rationale that it did not ban slavery of, say, Serbian- or Czech-Americans. Nicely said.

Re: Question of the day

smh — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:04:31 -0000

This is the strangest group of bloggers I've seen since yesterday's Pantagraph.

I made the "voice of reason" argument with my daughter and her husband about a month ago. They both agreed with me. Unfortunately, they live in a red state.

If it ever gets to the ballot, I will vote no. Let the state regulate civil issues and let churches decide who's unions can be blessed. I was married at the sangamon county courthouse and it wasn't blessed by any church.

Re: Question of the day

Strawberry Pistachio Man — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:20:11 -0000

You shouldn't legislate morality beyond don't do anything to somebody or their property without their consent. That's it.

Also, I agree that not all people against gay marriage are hate-filled. Some are just dumb or ignorant.

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:58:25 -0000

Stop with this "hate and ignorance" talking-point crap. I am sick of hearing it. When cities ban smoking in bars, is that out of hate and ignorance? When the government sets a speed limit, is that out of hate and ignorance? When Bill O'Reilly critizes these judges that give serial child molesters 30 days in jail, is that out of hate and ignorance. Some people say, "You can't legislate morality." I would argue, morality is the only thing you can legislate. It is what Locke and Hobbes called a "social contract." We the people have decided that people have a right to life, liberty, and property. You can be as gay as you want in this country, that is your right, but does that mean that I am a hate-filled monster for not wanting two gays to get married? No, it is just my perogative that they probably shouldn't be allowed to get married (though still undecided on how I will vote). It is the same thing from the same crowd... they like to say, "Do not judge me," while they condemn me. It's MEAN, plain and simple (sarcasm).

Re: Question of the day

Bridget Dooley — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:04:11 -0000

Not in a million years would I vote to add discrimination to the constitution! This is hate and ignorance at its very worst.

I am surprised that more people have not mentioned the harm that this will cause unmarried, straight couples.

I am 100% behind the idea of the state issuing civil unions to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. The government shouldn't be in the business of authorizing religious traditions.

Rights such as the right to see a loved one in the hospital when he/she is on his/her deathbed.

Rights like allowing a family to share a health insurance policy in a country where the cost of healthcare is already far too high.

Russ Feingold had it right when he spoke of Wisconsin's gay marriage referendum: it's MEAN, plain and simple.

Re: Question of the day

todd — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:16:34 -0000

I will vote for the ban. Remember the bible.

Re: Question of the day

bbishere2 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:33:16 -0000

I will vote for it, not out of ignorance or fear of homosexuality per "Objective Dem" - Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice of deviant sexual behavior and as such, should not be put in the same category of marriage as in a man and a woman. Therefore I also believe that if two consenting adults want to live that lifestyle, it's their choice but they should not be allowed to adopt children and raise them in their supposed "normal" environment. It is far from that. There are other numerous reasonable objections to it including a plethora of financial and insurance-related reasons that would burden not only private industry but the government as well.
As far as morals and religious reasons - yes it is wrong. You people out there claiming to be Christian had better stand up and take a stand because the liberal left wing agenda is doing everything in their power, including the brainwashing of our school kids to breakdown not only the family environment but this country as a whole.

Re: Question of the day

anon — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:32:41 -0000

Objective Dem said-

"This is an attempt for religious fundamentalists to impose their views on people who do not share their beliefs."

Give me a break.... Why is it that God fearing Christians who believe in the bible's teachings might be forced to accept gay rights and obey all these silly laws but then go to church and have faith in their religion that opposes homosexuals?

Talk about having extremists imposing their views on people who do not share their beliefs!

Re: Question of the day

Yellow Dog Democrat — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:20:48 -0000

Non Gay Parent -

Thanks for making my point for me. Just keep telling yourself and your kids that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, global warming is not real, and the Chinese will never surpass good-old fashioned American know-how. Oh yeah, and keep shopping at Wal-Mart: They're Good for America.

Gay Parent -

Thanks for trying, but God does not waste time on people filled with so much hatred. Every day I wonder how many Americans will die in Iraq before folks like Non Gay Parent will wonder whether it was such a good idea for the military to discharge so many Arab-speaking translators for being gay. Maybe in 6 or 8 years when it's Non Gay Parent's son returning from the Middle East in a body bag. But I'm not holding my breath.

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:10:32 -0000

Non gay parent- I bet I know what the result of your sicko post will be. You need to be banned from this site. Rich handle it.