Funny...

When The Almighty Obama changes his stance on something, it's evolution of an advanced liberal mind that the whole country should celebrate and embrace.

When a Republican Presidential Candidate changes his stance, it's the shameless pandering of a flip-flopper that the whole country should fear and distrust.


Just a thought.

How about a more current map?

Bleh on the "red" state bullshit......

Depends on the context? And which media reports it
Everybody has changed their minds on many things in their lives.

Not so much with respect to context. However what media is reporting can make a difference in the coverage.

But as a general rule, the mainstream media are in the tank for Democrats pure and simple.

Just take the example of the story currently running on Mitt Romney - a story the MSM reached back to 1965 to find! Seems high school Mitt may have "bullied" someone FORTY SEVEN YEARS AGO!!!

Now you might think that if the MSM is willing to go digging THAT deep into a candidate's background, we might expect them to apply the same diligence to the opposing candidate. But NOOOOOO... not a freaking peep from the MSM who has access to the AUDIO version of Obama's autobiography where he says, IN HIS OWN FREAKING WORDS, that he drank heavily in high school as well as smoked dope and did DRUGS (the plural use is his) including cocaine!!!!

But the MSM has even batted an EYE at that revelation, or even bothered to follow up on Obama's MANY, MANY very questionable associations with Marxist radicals, domestic socialist terrorists, black liberation anti-American theologists, and outright CRIMINALS!

They've NEVER bothered to try and dig up ANYTHING on Obama, not his school transcripts, his work on the Harvard Law Review, NOTHING!

So I'd say the only "context" that matters to the MSM is WHO is making any given utterance... if it's a leftist - hands off; if it's a conservative - CRUCIFY THEM!

This is the sad fact of the matter today. We have an MSM that has utterly and totally ABANDONED their duty to provide objective and unbiased reporting on the events of the day and to serve as a watchdog over government. Now they are just LAP DOGS for the Democratic Party!

That is the most asinine statement and argument I've ever read.

Comparing the advocacy groups for human rights for consenting adults in same sex relationships and advocacy groups for people who want to screw animals and children is just ridiculous.

The difference is consenting adults but it still goes against nature whether you take your stand on religious grounds or evolution...male and female gender difference exists in the majority of lifeforms even in plants have male and female parts necessary for the continuing of the species. That is another separate reason why I don't support same-sex marriages..they may be sexually attracted to another of the same sex...indeed truly love one another but it is not a natural love even without basing this argument on religious grounds. It is against nature itself...not just against the laws of God which clearly state marriage is a solemn ordinance between a man and a woman.

The boundaries of morals/ethics and decency has been pushed further and further in the last several generations by interest groups such as the homosexual community.,,but they are not the only ones who have pushed for thier right to be accepted.

The only thing that is stopping beastiality and child pornography pocession from becoming the "accepted norm" is that society still considers rightly so... such practices an abomination and our morals has yet to degenerate to that point though I assure you that moral and ethics standards are eroding slowly but surely and it wouldn't suprise me that one day society does abandon all ethics and morals and such things like child pornography that are now considered wicked and evil becomes acceptable.

What part of nature have you been looking at?
In primates the norm is one male, many females. But there's also quite a bit of gayness happening. They have sex for no more than a greeting.
In hive insects it's one female, many males. Most are incestuous, and some are born impregnated with the young they will later use to procreate.
In many arachnids it's one huge female, one male, and when the male is finished he is food.
In lions it's one male, many females. But if that male is challenged by another male and loses, the winner kills and eats the loser's offspring. He isn't attacked by the mothers for this; in fact, they get aroused.
Some fish and amphibians spontaneously change sex. And in many fish and cephalopods, sex occurs outside the body; sometimes offspring are created without the mother and father ever meeting. In fact, that's the norm for pollinating plants, and it's the reason allergy sufferers have it so rough this time of year. Their sinuses are inundated with sperm.
I can go on and on.
This is what God has created. Are you saying that God is wrong?


So it's only a matter of time before sex handshakes, matriarchal polygamy, and cannibalism are commonplace? If you sneeze from hay fever, do you accuse grass of sexual assault as well?

Thank you for this. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. No one is being "denied rights." Every single person born in this country has the right, at legal age, to enter a marriage with one person of the opposite sex, according to the definition of marriage from time immemorial (with the occasional exception of polygamy-- gay marriage is entirely unprecedented).

What the gay marriage brigade is asking for is a special privilege. This is nothing like slavery, in which certain people were denied rights others had. This is nothing like segregation, in which certain people were denied rights others had. Those calling for "gay rights" are not asking for a right they are currently being denied; they are asking for the government to invent a right.

Gay marriage absolutely IS a civil rights issue. If two consenting adults with the desire to get married (and receive the legal advantages of marriage) are denied based on their gender, then their 14th Amendment rights are being violated. It is sex discrimination.

It does not open the door to bestiality, or child marriages ... Animals and children can not give consent. Those are desperate arguments and the same ones made by those who opposed interracial marriages in the past.

IF people were concerned with the sanctity of marriage, then why not outlaw divorce and make infidelity a felony with prison time? Those are much greater threats to marriage than allowing additional people to get married.

No, it's inventing a special privilege. No one is denied marriage under the historical definition of marriage. Consenting adults can receive the same legal advantages of marriage in a civil union without changing the definition of marriage.



But by that standard alone, it would certainly open the door to polygamy and incest.



I'm not exactly in the front lines of the "sanctity of marriage" brigade, so you'll have to ask someone else this. All I wonder is how gays could look at the modern state of marriage (which is atrocious) and conclude, yeah, this is worth getting into!