Fargo Gay Pride March Gets Thousands In Sponsorships From State, Local Government

rbflg

The Fargo-Moorhead Pride Collective is holding their Fargo-Moorhead Pride event from August 8th to August 11th. Among the events are bowling, dances and a 5k run.

What’s interesting is that the event is getting taxpayer dollars. According to the website for the event, both the City of Fargo and NDQuits (a division of the State of North Dakota’s anti-tobacco agency) have sponsored the event in the past, or are sponsoring it presently.

“The Fargo Human Relations Commission was a Pride sponsor in the amount of $500 last year,” Dan Mahli from the City of Fargo told me in an email. “It has not received a request to sponsor the event this year.”

NDQuits has a much more substantial commitment to this year’s event. According to the North Dakota Department of Health’s Tobacco Program Director Krista Fremming, the event has received $2,500 in state dollars which purchases a booth at the event and advertising in the 2013 FM Pride Guide and on the website.

“As you may know, the Department of Health works to educate and provide tobacco cessation support services to all tobacco users, especially to those with the highest tobacco use rates, including the LGBT community,” Fremming told me in an email.

Going beyond the question of whether the government ought to be hectoring us about our personal habits, is it really appropriate for the government to be sponsoring events like this one?

Let me ask you this question: Would the City of Fargo and NDQuits sponsor a gun show? A pro-life rally? A tea party event?

I’m guessing they probably wouldn’t, and nor should they. Sponsoring such events is not the proper role of government.

I’ve got nothing against the Fargo-Moorhead Pride event – as a supporter of gay rights, I hope it’s successful – but it’s irksome to see taxpayer dollars used in this manner.

The war chest state dollars the state’s anti-tobacco crusaders stand astride, in particular, shouldn’t be treated as a slush fund for the aid of political causes. Maybe the anti-tobacco folks think this sponsorship is an appropriate part of pursuing their mandate to combat tobacco use, but it’s not appropriate for the state to be seen endorsing political causes.

Maybe the anti-tobacco folks should have thought of that before they pushed to have themselves enshrined as a state agency.

In related news, SAB readers will remember a previous post about the Fargo-Moorhead Convention and Visitor’s Bureau marketing their community as gay friendly.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    If we don’t support the gay pride parade we’ll be thrown in jail or something.

    Nice side you picked Rob.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’m for people able to enter into whatever unions they want, and for churches to choose to bless or not bless those unions as they wish.

      This is something different.

      • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

        And the people you’ve allied yourself with have turned out to want to throw people in jail if they don’t agree with them. (Re your article on the cake maker).

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Not everyone who supports gay marriage wants bakers put in jail.

          • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

            Since that kind of government overreach was entirely predictable I think they are responsible for the same.

          • HG

            You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
            Gov’t can’t say the marriage discriminates and must be redefined, then allow people to refuse to accept gov’ts redefined “marriage”. Either marriage discriminates or it doesn’t.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            You hypocrite, you support laws that define marriage as you like it, and them accuse those who don’t like your definition of trying to redefine it.

            I don’t want the government to define marriage for anyone.

          • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

            But then you advocate gay marriage knowing that the power of the government will come down on the cake bakers, and the private renters and other private people who don’t want to support gay marriage.

          • kevindf

            I hope the desserts are good in confectioners’s jail.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I reject your premise.

            Allowing gay marriage doesn’t have to mean forcing churches and cake bakers to like it.

          • $8194357

            Common sense gun control, huh….
            Its all we want?
            A place to be free from the cigarette smoke.
            Is all we want?
            Abortion in the case of the mothers life being in danger.
            Is all we want?

            Yes…
            Let Charlie Brown
            “BELIEVE”
            Lucy on this one………..

            FORWARD comrade Rob..
            PROGRESSIVLY FORWARD…

          • HG

            Hypocrite? Nothing hypocritical about accepting the tried and true definition of marriage. Sorry Rob but you don’t get to pretend marriage is without a history and millennia of established use. It’s not my definition, sir.
            Changing marriage to include same sex unions is redefining whether you like it or not.

          • HG

            Rob, there is no way gov’t recognizes marriage without it having a definition. That means gov’t defines it one way or the other.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            There is everything hypocritical in your support for defining marriage as you like it for everyone, and then complaining that other people want to define it differently.

            There is no honesty in your position.

          • HG

            Seems to me, Rob, that both of us are doing that, or am I the only one who wants my definition of marriage here?

            Fighting for the tried and true definition of marriage is fighting for what I believe in. You call that hypocrisy and dishonest. Yeah. Whatever.
            Isn’t your real problem with marriage is that it has roots in religion?.

          • $8194357

            Don’t move the ball now Lucy…
            Rob’s ready to kick this one thru the goal posts for ya..

          • borborygmi45

            Women didn’t have a say in the gov’t for centurys. A history and millenia of established use. Just because something has been around along time doesn’t make it right

          • HG

            Sociology, science, nature, tradition, religion, and history is on the side of marriage as the union of a man an woman.

            Opening marriage to a union as different as same sex unions is just plain dishonest. The two are just to unlike for both to be honestly recognized as marriage. And the level of disrespect for its heritage is wreckless and offensive.

          • Eurekacon

            Sociology, science, nature AND history? Please cite something… dear lord… (pardon my pun)…

          • HG

            I could post numerous social science studies that cite the significance of marriage. It would be a waste of my time and you know it. Much like the list you had at the ready means little to nothing to me.

          • Eurekacon

            No, please post them, I would love to know as a Sociologist myself you would be educating me and the entire field – its definitely not a waste of time. The list I had at the ready? I just spent 5 minutes researching the subject within primary sources in the respective fields.

            The point is that if you are going to make a claim that all of these disciplines are on the side of marriage between a man and a woman than you had better back it up with some hard facts. In truth, those disciplines are on the opposite side of your argument which is fine. You have a point of view that sociology, science, nature and history does not validate. There’s nothing wrong with that, I just felt the obligation to make a correction where its due.

          • HG

            Take a look at the studies supporting DOMA.

            Here are a couple of links..

            http://www.childtrends.org/
            http://www.clasp.org/

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            appove

          • Eurekacon

            Thanks, you have two privately-funded institutions. How do those institutions represent sociology, science/nature and history?

            Clasp had one document with the word “homosexuality” that mentioned it once (in a massive run-on sentence):

            “In 1981, the House adopted an LSC reauthorization bill that would have severely limited lobbying and rulemaking activities, imposed significant restrictions on alien representation, prohibited class actions against government agencies, prohibited representation in abortion and homosexual rights cases, required the establishment of judicare programs, mandated that attorneys’ fees obtained by recipients be remitted to LSC, and required that a majority of local program boards of directors be appointed by state and local bar associations, in addition to other changes in the LSC Act.”

            I couldn’t find any publications from childtrends.

            Thanks for sharing.

          • HG

            Anytime.

          • $8194357

            That diploma really swells your head, huh…

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Big surprise…..yawn.

          • Eurekacon
          • HG
          • Eurekacon

            Did you read this before you pasted it? http://glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690 Its just information that homosexuals males should be aware of or disclose to their doctors. This link: http://www.ivillage.com/biology-leaves-gay-men-highly-vulnerable-hiv-study/4-a-474763 reveals the increased probability of contracted HIV due to anal sex. Did you read one single source I provided?

            Those sources come from Sociologists, biologists, historians and their professional associations. What you posted are issues related to homosexuality that have nothing to do with the fundamentals of sexuality, not matter the discipline. Straight people die from HIV/AIDS as well, and other diseases. Biologically, homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that is not unique to humans, this is widely understood.

          • HG

            Of course I’ve read it. It shows the disproportionate risks associated with homosexuality. The human body just isn’t designed for homosexuality.

          • Eurekacon

            How? haha its like talking to a wall… those same diseases are prevalent in straight couples as well and have the same transmission rate if straight couples engage in the same behavior (oral, anal, whatever). You’re argument is not backed up by the information you’re providing… thats it.

          • HG

            But they are far more prevalent, disproportionately so, among homosexuals. Anal sex is the problem here.

            “In fact, if that kind of intercourse was only as risky as vaginal intercourse,
            researchers report, HIV cases among gay and bisexual men would shrink
            dramatically.” “…80 to 98 percent.”

          • Eurekacon

            So anal sex is your problem. You could have saved yourself some confusion and put that up front, not homosexuality. Homosexuality is still a naturally occurring phenomenon. Here’s a source maybe more on your level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No, he won’t allow you to correctly identify that it’s anal sex that is the problem, because that get’s back to the fact that anal sex is a sin in the bible regardless if it’s heterosexual or homosexual. In the eyes of God, anal sex is equally as sinful……so there really is no reason to isolate homosexuals, except for the fact that that’s their usual form of sexual act.

          • Eurekacon

            Right, but then its correlation, not causation. If you are going to argue that homosexuality is not a naturally-occurring social, biological and historical phenomenon than you need to show why that is the case which is impossible. They can have personal or religious problems but that is just denying reality. In that case, don’t come here and reproduce misconceptions about accepted principles.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            One of the few cultures where homosexuality is not accepted is in Muslim countries that promote Sharia Law……that’s not where I want our country headed.

          • $8194357

            But you always support the islamists
            over the Jews, where Salvation came from.
            Go surfing sharkbait..

          • $8194357

            Reality is the sinful condition of mankind
            and the wages of sin is death..
            Death eternal…

          • LenYol

            If it wasn’t for anal sex, you never would have been conceived.

          • $8194357

            OWS’er.

          • HG

            No. Anal sex is the homosexuals problem.

          • Eurekacon

            If you asked them I’m sure they would say its not a problem, its how most of them are sexually stimulated. They can do what they want, it doesn’t bother me or sociology, nature/science or history. Too bad their sexual acts bother you, I can’t help you out there.

          • $8194357

            A sinful man cannot help anyone, about anything, no matter how smart, or how many diplomas they put on their vanity wall…

          • HG

            Not looking for your help and you won’t see what you don’t want to.
            I’ve no problem with that.

          • $8194357

            Should bother a lot more folks…
            But we have “progressed”
            past all that, huh.
            FORWARD comrade…
            Into the anti christ’s “future?” world…
            Progressive secular enlightenment
            is anti Biblical….Go figure..

            Philippians 1:5-7
            New King James Version
            (NKJV)

            5 for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now,
            6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;
            7 just as it is right for me to think this of you all,
            because I have you in my heart,
            inasmuch as both in my chains and in the defense
            and confirmation of the gospel,
            you all are partakers with me of grace.

          • $8194357

            A naturally occurring phenomenon with sinful fallen mankind..
            (thanks satan)
            Not the Creator’s…
            Natures God…..

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That’s a lie. AIDs is far more prevalent, disproportionately so, among heterosexuals world wide.

            STDs are a huge problem in the military, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the majority of STD’s in the military come from heterosexuals.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Welcome to my world, I have been having the same argument with him for years. It boils down to the fact that he get’s his emotional feeling of superiority on the subject based on what he learned from his church.

          • Eurekacon

            I guess. Or just lack of understanding or education. From this logic, AIDS is a non-natural phenomenon that the body isn’t designed for… What a loaded and misconstrued idea.

          • $8194357

            No amount of secular humanist atheist “education” can make this right.
            That is what all ya all been doing for decades and creating the deconstruction the marxist were aiming for of the wesern society and culture.
            Secular “ethics” is vanity and false morality..
            PERIOD……….

          • $8194357

            Did you pay your taxes yet?

          • $8194357

            Well mr diploma guy?
            How would you have gotten here if the
            Garden of Eden had been just Adam and Steve?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The human body isn’t designed for diving very deep depths, or smoking, or eating certain types of food. The body is designed for reproduction with women, of which dozens of sexually transmitted diseases are passed.

            The only point you are making is that homosexuals sexuality is slightly riskier, but that happens regardless of marriage. Keeping the definition of marriage to yourself doesn’t make a gay person straight.

            Your make comments absent of logic.

          • $8194357

            As always sharkbait..
            Your logic is twisted with secular atheist ideologies.

          • $8194357

            Ya don’t go in..
            the “out only” door….
            You can get an infection, huh.

          • borborygmi45

            Personal preference I would guess but now a good Bj (heterosexual now)….Oh crap that isn’t allowed either. The Devil sure made sex feel good.

          • $8194357

            God made sex feel good..
            the devil perverted it…
            Between a married man and woman?
            I believe it is up to them to decide what constitutes objectable sexual activity.
            If the Lord is sought over it?
            If He don’t answer, it must be ok.
            That being said?
            Common sense dictates that
            anal sex isn’t safe.
            Niether is oral sex…
            But it is between the hetro sexual couple and God and not for state or outsiders to decide for them.
            (I personally don’t care if
            gays have sex either)
            It is upon their souls alone…
            I am all for free will choices even if they are the wrong ones.
            I do care when state and atheist marxist academics push the gay agendas, birth control for teens without parental authority,
            abortion without parental consent..
            ect.ect ect.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What a completely absurd statement. Nothing about heterosexual marriage will change, except for the emotion you have chosen to attach to it.

            I want gays to feel the same special feeling we heterosexuals do when we marry.

            You feel threatened, for some odd reason, but that’s entirely your own personal insecurity.

          • Gern Blanston

            Hanni, can you justify Minnesota (or other same sex marriage states) prohibiting marriage of siblings or first cousins or parents/children? How about prohibitions on polygamy? I hope not, because the same justifications for same sex marriage apply to those situations.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            When gays marry they aren’t siblings, first cousins or parents marrying their children.

            I think reasonable people understand the difference, which is why the Supreme Court had decided that people who don’t shouldn’t be in charge of telling people who they can marry, or who they can not.

          • Gern Blanston

            I am asking for you to distinguish between arguments for gay marriage vs. arguments for polygamy or marriage of close relatives. IF one were to push the legislature to allow the latter two situations, what argument would be made against them? Or are you suggesting that this theoretical situation is so far-out and bazaar that it doesn’t deserve consideration?

          • borborygmi45

            THe only one that would have an argument scientifically based/Historically based would be close relatives. One of the most religious groups I know the Hutterites try to trace ancestory as close as possible so they aren’t marrying close relatives.
            Polygamy……Not sure why you would want so many spouses but if you can handle it go for it. Any one have a reason why polygamy is frowned upon?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            There are many countries that already permit gay marriage, and those countries haven’t seen a spike in a desire to marry animals or their little sisters.

            You are engaging in logical fallacies, and I really don’t have a lot of time to waste on these silly notions.

            Until you show me where you have support rallies of Americans who want to marry their children or sisters or brothers, don’t bother wasting my time.

          • LenYol

            “I want gays to feel the same special feeling we heterosexuals do when we marry.”

            But…but, you’re not married, no one decent wants you. besides, you’re impotent, you can’t reproduce even you were able to find someone ignorant enough to put up with your self centered, selfish narcissistic rages.

          • borborygmi45

            “besides, you’re impotent, you can’t reproduce !” Those poor heterosexual couples that can’t reproduce because of medical conditions. LenYol says you shouldn’t be married. Heaven forbid if you try in vitro also. Not only can’t you reproduce naturally but LenYol doesn’t want you to have any medical or technical help (except to get an erection perhaps) So tell me LenYol if it is proven that you can’t reproduce due to some medical condition should a couple continue to make love, have sex? Just wondering

          • LenYol

            I never said smallwillie shouldn’t be married, I said no one decent wants him. I didn’t say I didn’t want him to have medical or technical help, I said he can’t find anyone ignorant enough to put up with his self centered, selfish narcissistic rages.
            Try not to twist someone’s words too much, it makes you look like a schmuck.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            All you do is twist words and lie. Just because you are upset that nobody wanted to marry you is no reason to project your sad life onto others. Being short is something you are ashamed of, but just because I look down on you.;…it doesn’t mean that you are small, I think you are small based on the stupid things you say.

          • LenYol

            You, being a documented liar and tax cheat calling someone else a liar just proves what a hypocrite you are.
            I’ll let my wife and kids know that no one wanted to marry me. I’m 6’1″ which means I’m at least half a foot taller than you, and your dumpy little mommy and daddy. The only ones you’re able to look down on, and the only ones that give you a second look are the filthy, infected sluts you try to sleep with, chlamydia boy.

            Don’t forget to take your meds, you’re enough of a hazard to society already.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            There is no evidence of what you say, only your word, which is valued at nothing, you’re a habitual liar. And 6’1? That assumes I am only 5’7″, which is tiny compared to my actual height. I am way taller than that. You just don’t have an accurate estimate how tall Gibbs is, or what type of shoe he was wearing.

            You’ve got all your information wrong, you know nothing. Now try to get back to work, herpes kid.

          • LenYol

            Once again your own words and actions, prove that you are just a
            common liar and fraud. Your obama is 6’1″, Gibbs is 5’11” and YOU ARE a runt who is a documented liar and tax cheat who’s character and
            integrity can only attract the lowest filthy,infected sluts. And they
            don’t even want you for more than a night or two.

            “The responsible women told me right before we were going to have sex and indicated they were not having a “break out”. HSV-1 or HSV-2 are usually visual. She just wanted to hit it because we worked together and because of the tension. The second I just lost interest after learning the facts. So I reduced my risk exposure down to one experience only, per woman. I sometimes take pills for Chlamydia because its hard to diagnose and is most common in women.”
            Hannitized on May 10, 2009 at 10:13 am

            I’d post the public document that proves you’re a tax cheat, but everyone has seen it so many times already….awww, what the hell!!!

            HAWAII.GOV Bureau of Conveyances -Official Public
            Records
            Document
            Number R2007203358
            Recording Date
            Recording Date:
            Date instrument recorded.
            YYYY-MM-DD
            2007-11-21

            Document Category:
            Judgment/LienConveyanceMiscellaneousMortgageReleaseUniform
            Commercial Code
            Description

            NOTICE OF LIEN
            (INCLUDES COUNTY, FEDERAL & STATE TAX LIENS; MARITIME LIEN)

            Grantor Grantor:
            Party transferring
            interest.
            BONILLA WILLIAM
            L II
            Grantee Grantee:
            Party acquiring interest.
            HAWAII
            STATE-TAX

            Once again you’re proven to be a delusional liar who only wishes you could live up to all your own lies. But hey, just thank me for putting up the picture you posted of yourself on the internet wearing that ridiculous shirt, and that HUGE nose of yours, You’re so starved for attention, you’re willing to be exposed as a liar over and over just to get any attention at all. You’re a pathetic little runt.

            Brahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Neiman

            There it is – God institutes marriage as only between one man to one woman for a lifetime, He clearly condemns the act of homosexuality. But, Hannitized, always pretending to some vague Christian faith, denies Jesus as His Savior and Lord; and, here passionately defends homosexual marriage and not one word from the Bible supporting his position. This is anti-Christ!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The idea of biblical marriage or family as a union created by God and intended only for one man and one woman is both appeal to ancient wisdom and special pleading. First, the Bible is not a legally binding document. While it may have moral authority to those who follow it, it has no sovereignty over the conduct of secular life, as made clear by multiple US court decisions and the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

            No matter how bad you may wish it away, Neiman, the constitution has separated religion from government and God has given man free will to decide to make their own decision.

            The Bible also has numerous different versions of marriage, some involving one man and one woman in holy matrimony, but others are much darker. The Old Testament is clear that wives are chattel and husbands dominant. Men were allowed to have multiple wives, with King Solomon enjoying 700 (1 Kings 11:3). Forced marriages between slaveholders and slaves (Genesis 24:4), rapists and their victims (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and male soldiers and their female prisoners (Exodus 21:4) were all condoned. This is not the “Biblical marriage” that anyone should be attempting to use as justification for anything related to marriage rights in a modern society.

            Marriage traditions vary greatly by time and culture, and have been “redefined” almost constantly. Arranged marriage, forced marriage, dowry and levirate marriage were common at various times, but are mostly unheard of now, for good reasons. Well into the Middle Ages, a marriage was simply a business transaction between families. The couple was bound together as children, and later, the bride was exchanged for money or goods. These ceremonies weren’t performed in churches, and monogamy on the part of the groom wasn’t expected. Consent wasn’t even required until the 12th Century.

            The modern marriage ceremony, with its traditions of fidelity, shared property and equality, is almost entirely a 19th and 20th Century invention. And even that has seen massive alteration, with interracial and interfaith marriages becoming commonplace, when they were unthinkable or illegal just a few decades earlier.

          • Neiman

            1. For anyone that will claim a belief in the God of the Bible in one breath and then deny marriage as defined by God in Genesis in the next breath, are only fooling themselves. He said, “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall join to his wife: and they shall be one flesh.’ There is simply no allowance for any other definition of marriage for the true Christian, all others are at their best “practical atheists.” Marriage means becoming one-flesh before God, it can only be a reality in God’s economy if that marriage is between a man (male) and his wife (female). These people opposing this truth, need for their own sake to stop pretending a faith that does not exist and get on with their atheist lives.

            2. Only for the atheist can there be an appeal to ancient wisdom or special pleading. For the Christian, the man or woman that has indeed true faith, can only appeal to God’s Word as settled fact. If He is God, there can be no changing, no variableness of turning, no shadows. If He is real, He makes no mistakes, nothing new ever occurs to Him, He cannot take in new circumstances, changes in culture and modify what He has declared or He cannot be God at all. So, for the Christian, the true man or woman of faith, they appeal only to God’s Word, there is no special pleadings of new facts or denying of old facts.

            3. Yes the Constitution did separate Government from influencing or controlling people of faith; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But, it did not prohibit people of faith, religious people from influencing government or from having complete liberty as citizens in every possible way, as liberals are fighting to achieve today, being the Communist Atheist model for America, expressed in many self-serving euphemisms.

            God has indeed given man free will and He expects them to suffer the consequences of their free will choices, almost all of which lead directly to hell. Under free will your side can approve of Gay Marriage, but your approval thereof will never make it right in God’s Court and He will judge you for doing what he has forbidden. That is the price of free will, you wil suffer for those choices, most evermore without end.

            4. The Bible reports many variations in marriage, but other than as He defined it, all variations are sin and lead those so involved to their own destruction. Kings David and Solomon suffered greatly for their adding to their wives and concubines in this life.

            5. Man has redefined marriage, God has not and for any even pretended Christian His definition is the only one that Counts. He was never by the way against interracial marriages, I need only speak of Ruth a Moabite and Boaz a Jew as an example, from whose lineage came David and the Messiah. He was never for the mistreatment of women/wives, He called for them to be loved as weaker vessels as Christ loved the Church, seeking her happiness, protecting her and providing for her life with respect.

            6. Liberals love to talk about changes in things and even love to attack the Church for their changes in attitudes, even when such changes are positive like their leading the war against slavery. But, what man has done has nothing to do with God, it is what God says about the matter that counts and only what He says and it is quite clear, as He is not the Author of confusion for those that come to Him by faith.

            As this discussion is about homosexuality: God never has anything positive to say about homosexuality. When God speaks of homosexuality it is always to condemn that deviant sexual lifestyle choice, deviating from His Divine design for human sexuality. He not only destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, but in Romans promised His wrath upon all that practice such things, He also speaks of healing some that practiced such perverse things as homosexuality. He never speaks of anything being marriage other than one man to one woman and that for a lifetime.

            7. Homosexuality is a sin, gay marriage is an abomination, your support of these things betray a spirit of anti-Christ operating in you, as you openly oppose God in this matter; and, by supporting gay marriage, lead these precious souls into hell by allowing them to think God approves of their sickness. But, like all sins, great or small, yours included; one needs only admit they are sins, confess then to God and by faith accept His Salvation as a free gift in Christ Jesus to be healed and saved. Yet, for you to go on and lie to these dear human beings, into believing God approves of their sins and blesses their marriage to people of the same gender, betrays for all to see that you never knew Jesus, only things about Him, enough to use to lie people into hell.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The word marriage was not used in that scripture you quoted, and you ignored everything I said about arranged marriages, and how the tradition of marriage was nothing but a business deal which did not deal with love.

          • Neiman

            I said nothing about arranged marriages, etc, because the passage I gave you and I could give others, describes exactly how God defines marriage. You avoided the fact that God never says a word of approval for homosexual conduct or indeed, even of homosexuals; nor does He allow for gay marriage in any sense.

            God never uses the word Trinity or anything like it, but we know it is described throughout holy writ. He did not use the word marriage in the passage I quoted, but EVERYONE in Christendom know that is exactly what He is defining.

          • Neiman

            Another source on the subject:

            While the Bible does address homosexuality,
            it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is
            clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and
            unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9
            states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the
            kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned
            in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will,
            and would be, in fact, sinful.

            Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24,
            describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife.
            In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33,
            the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a
            woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a
            woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a
            stable environment for that family.

            The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this
            understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been
            the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in
            world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular
            psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and
            emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family,
            psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which
            both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in
            which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay
            marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to
            “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual
            intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship
            between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues
            against gay marriage.

            So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage
            being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today?
            Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled
            as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition
            is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing
            for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and
            non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay
            couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some
            form of civil union?

            The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows
            that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to
            suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and
            attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize
            homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal
            plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32
            illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The
            truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and
            the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by
            many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an
            indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to
            overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in
            the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the
            modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

            To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give
            approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and
            consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against
            the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong
            and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from
            contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an
            evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a
            woman.

            According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6).
            Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of
            marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians,
            we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of
            God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including
            homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).
            As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is
            personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words
            of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
            If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is,
            you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.
            That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html#ixzz2Ygx4d89v

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The Bible refers to all anal sex as sinful, regardless if you having anal sex with your wife or your boyfriend, it’s all equal to scripture.

          • Neiman

            From Scripture, please show us wherein He destroyed any cities and all their inhabitants for heterosexual sodomy or wherein, as in Romans, he went into great detail and expressed great rage at heterosexual sodomy? Not saying that heterosexual sodomy is not a sin, but God seems to have a particular hatred for homosexual behavior, a hatred for it which you do not share, as you seem approve of homosexual conduct to the point of your approving gay marriage.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            If He hates it so much, Old Pal, why does He keep creating people He knows will do the homosexual behavior?

          • borborygmi45

            I would think that two people of the same sex and same inclinations are about alike as possible. Now if you want something different that would be a man and a woman. Polar opposites.

            “Sociology, science, nature, tradition, religion, and history” Yep those were the same excuses for women not being able to vote, not being able to inherit, own property ….and the disrespect for that heritage is not wreckless or offensive. Progressive thinking.
            “Isn’t your real problem with marriage is that it has roots in religion” considering there are civil marriages I doubt if religion plays into Robs thinking. Sorry if I am projecting Rob.

          • $8194357

            marxist social justice false atheist morality AGAIN…

          • borborygmi45

            What? Where?

          • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

            Government should learn to leave people alone and no matter what the merits of the current popular way of thinking quit forcing it on people.

          • HG

            Exactly. Funny how those who supposedly don’t care about social issues have dug in deep on one of the biggest social issues of our time. This whole relativistic approach to reality is naïve and absurd. This is about dismantling American culture and replacing it with popular culture. There is absolutely no respect for natural law, objective morality, truth, religion, tradition, the history of civilization or any other impediment to their end. They can throw all that aside for the more palatable trends and fads they imagine are superior guides upon which to order and establish society.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Again, you’re a hypocrite. You would force your definition of marriage on everyone else, but then argue that the government should leave people alone.

            Huh?

            Do you really lack that level of self-awareness?

          • HG

            Rob, that supposes that marriage is undefined or without significant meaning. I defend what marriage already is and already is recognized to be. You’re not upset that marriage is between a man and woman. Your upset because you want it to include the same sex unions.

            What I know is that redefining marriage forces that new meaning on all of society.

            You sound just like Hanni on this issue. You make no sense.

            Your arguments have come to this?
            This don’t seem like you Rob.

          • $8194357

            Rob..
            Gays been buggering each other forever..
            Why do we “now” need the heavy hand of state to usurp nature and the Church about it?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            A funny statement for someone who supports imposing his specific view of marriage on everyone else.

          • $8194357

            Founders gave us a Constitution to limit just that; but the collectivist atheists marxists were not happy that they couldn’t use the heavy hand of state to submit us to their “progressive” agendas.

          • sbark

            but they do want them to bend and break their principles and morals to “accommodate” any wishes of the newly anointed elite…….the BLT bunch

          • $8194357

            10X

          • $8194357

            what slippery slope and deconstructive agendas?
            When the Dems tell ya that if they don’t get your guns this time, they will be back again and again and again….
            The same holds true to the other causes and agendas as well, huh…

        • Dakotacyr

          And if a gay couple tries to get a marriage license in Indiana, they face felony charges. so….

      • brad460

        So I trust then that you would be for me entering into a heterosexual only union, one called marriage?

    • sbark

      …better review any history of the radical left……….they don’t stop at you……..Stalin wiped out the entire lineage, N.Korea keeps even those born after the original dissident in prison camps for what…3 extra generations……..

      • $8194357

        Christians and Jews are the global target to help
        instill the end times government of the anti Christ.

  • zipity

    It makes sense that they would support the gay event with tax dollars.

    After all, the gays make up 51% of the population. Right?

    What?

    They don’t…?

    Well then, you must be a homophobe, racist, tea-bagger for even bringing it up.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      That’s not even really the point.

      Gun owners probably are the majority in North Dakota. That doesn’t mean gun shows should be sponsored by the government.

      • zipity

        My point is that Government has a bias towards Liberal pet minorities, and they are aghast whenever it’s pointed out to them. They cannot believe anyone would object to them giving tax dollars to their pet constituencies, while ignoring other groups or causes that run counter to their core Liberal Leftist dogma.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          You’re right, I agree.

  • Jonesy

    Actually NDQuits probably should pay for a booth at a gun show. Data on people who use tobacco would show a correlation (not causation) with people who like guns. The type of blue-collared people who attend that event are, in my experience, more likely to use tobacco in some form. There’s nothing wrong with that, but if NDQuits truly wants to address a target audience, that would be the place to go.

    With that said, are you sure NDQuits has never purchased the right to set up a booth at a gun show, pro-life event, or tea party event? I, like you, would assume not, but are any of those events near the expected size of this gay pride event? What other events has NDQuits purchased booth space at? I’m not defending them as they may very well be in the wrong here, but these are questions that would need to be answered before condemning them.

    As for the City of Fargo’s sponsorship…. that appears inappropriate if it’s not done for other events held in the city and I see no reason for it.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Valid questions, and i’ll get the data re NDQuits.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Let me be clear about the argument I’m making, though: State sponsorship of events such as these are inherently objectionable.

      I’m actually very much an advocate for gay rights. I agree, for the most part, with the goals of the FM Pride people. But I don’t think they should get sponsorship from the state.

      • Jonesy

        I guess it’s a line that needs to be drawn between “sponsorship” and the purchase of booth space and advertising. As an outreach agency, NDQuits is supposed to be advertising and doing other forms of communication in order to inform/scare people away from tobacco products, that’s their purpose. Now is that why they made this payment to the pride parade or is gay pride just a personal preference of the leader(s) of NDQuits? I don’t know.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I agree that the purpose of the group is outreach (or, put another way, anti-tobacco activism, which is why they shouldn’t be in state government), but sponsoring these sort of events isn’t the only way they can accomplish that outreach.

          It’s inappropriate.

      • kevindf

        All “rights have a cost.” How much of your standard of living are you willing to give up to pay for “gay rights?” They already have the highest household net-worth. This is all about special rights for a political lobby.

      • Drain52

        Gays might have a right to demand our toleration of their private doings; do they have a right to force us to support their publicly grotesque behavior?

        Is the North American Man Boy Love Association acceptable to you? Why, or why not? I haven’t seen an answer to the following question yet, so let me pose it again: If a mother wishes to marry her son, or daughter for that matter, on precisely the same grounds gays claim, are we obliged to celebrate it publicly? Can we draw any distinction between acceptable and unacceptable relations, or does anything go?

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          In order for your questions to have any merit, we have to assume that homosexuality is the same as pederasty, or incest.

          Which it isn’t.

          • $8194357

            But they as well will follow the tried and true path, huh.

          • Drain52

            Another evasion. You’d be nimble, if only your footwork made any sense. If you mean “the same” as in the same behavior, of course not. If you mean “the same” as in a bizarre behavior of a type that is contrary to both biology and good sense, then they are the same.

            Not clear? Bank robbery and mugging are two different activities, but are both crimes. Men having anal sex with men is a grotesque practice just as incest is. Do you disagree? Then on what grounds can you support the one and not the other? What criticism of adult, consensual incest can you make that wouldn’t also apply to homosexuality?

            You’ve danced around this question long enough: in what way would you have disapproved of Kathryn Harrison sleeping with her father? If you can’t answer this one question, perhaps you should reconsider your stance on homosexuality, because the objections to Harrison’s actions also apply to homosexuality.

    • cylde

      If NDQuits wants to get its message out to the most people, the place to set up their booth is in a busy commercial mall.

      • Jonesy

        Are the girls/women who go out on their all-day shopping spree a target group though? I’d think they would be a group with a low rate of tobacco use (compared to others) and therefore would not be a group worth spending anti-tobacco money on. Perhaps it’d be a way to get the message to young people though so it’s certainly worth looking into.

    • sbark

      dunno………could see homosexuals using a lot of cigars in the same way Bill Clinton used them…………could be very addictive.

  • Matthew Hawkins

    Were there 4th of July events sponsored by the state?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Of course, but the 4th of July is a celebration of the founding of this nation, not the celebration of a controversial social movement.

      But I’m sure you’ll compare apples to oranges anyway.

      • Matthew Hawkins

        So this is not a fiscal issue for you, it has to do with the controversial nature of gay rights.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          It has to do with my view that the government ought to be neutral, not endorsing activism.

          The anti-tobacco agency is fundamentally inappropriate, given that it’s advocating for a political goal (the outlaw of tobacco). It’s even more inappropriate when they start sponsoring events dedicated to social causes.

          Let me be clear: I wouldn’t want the government to even sponsor a tea party.

          Again, government should be neutral.

          • sbark

            neutral…………like state govt helping overturn 2 direct votes of their own people of calif against Gay marriage………..

  • borborygmi45

    Gay Smokers also get cancer from smoking. Its an informational booth.

    • Gern Blanston

      So you’d have no problem with them sponsoring an informational booth at a Tea Party event, or pro-life rally – you know, because its about reaching out to a large group of citizens who would benefit from their message?
      If so, then you’d be consistent and I wouldn’t argue with you.

      • borborygmi45

        Not at all. It would be odd for a Tea Party to do so. I think John Wayne American has a goood answer.

      • eury

        I wouldn’t care in the least if they put up a booth at a Tea Party rally, paid for public service announcements on right-wing radio, showed up at gun shows, or whatever. It’s not a political issue, in my mind. It’s a health issue, and outreach is appropriate anywhere people gather.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Its a sponsorship for an activist organization.

      You’d be crying the blues of they were giving dollars to a conservative cause.

      • borborygmi45

        No I wouldn’t but thanks for assuming.

    • Kailyn Allen

      Thank you.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        It’s a sponsorship, and you know it.

        ND Quits can get their information about tobacco out without sponsoring a political event.

    • $8194357

      And alcoholics livers go on em….

  • borborygmi45

    “In related news, SAB readers will remember a previous post about the Fargo-Moorhead Convention and Visitor’s Bureau marketing their community as gay friendly.” That works it lets gays know they are welcome and bigots that they aren’t

  • John_Wayne_American

    lets see, it sets a very bad precedent, as there are hundreds of parades in the state every year, how can they now say NO to Tioga or Pembina when those parade committees come looking for sponsor dollars? Its the same a the school building funding coming from the state, once you say yes to a new gym in Watford City, every school i the state comes with their hands outreached.

    this type of spending needs to STOP NOW~ I don’t care if its a gay pride parade or a 100 year celebration parade, if you can’t find 5 biz’s in town to kick in a benny or 2 each, maybe the parade isnt that important to the community.

  • Patrick R. Pfeiffer

    As always in these cases it is quite illustrative to ponder the converse.
    Picture if you will this state entity sponsoring a Christian parade; then picture what would ensure, and you know all you need to know.

    • borborygmi45

      I think that they would love to get the stop smoking message out to Christians who far outnumber Gays.

      • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

        Naw, the left probably wishes we’d all just die.

        • borborygmi45

          Are you kidding, who would pay the taxes?

          • $8194357

            It IS the stated agenda of the Marxist ideology
            to completely rid the world of Christian morality…
            Mock what you do not understand.

      • $8194357

        We may out number gays, but you liberal cause nations are now the majority.
        From tyranny of the protected class minority to tyranny of the soviet empire majority nation built on cause and group.

        • borborygmi45

          Well thats a fine howdy do. You should be pleased since now you qualify for lots of gov’t programs as a minority.

          • $8194357

            White conservative protestants are not a social justice politically correct
            un constitutional protected class.
            As a matter of fact…
            We are the ones everyone else are protected from…
            go figure gurgle…
            go figure..
            And we are not even the majority anymore….

    • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

      I’d like a James Okeefe type to do a hidden camera while he goes and requests funding for his traditional marriage parade.

  • WOOF

    The Fargo-Moorhead Pride Collective is probably a 501c non-profit not a political organization .

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      The NRA has a non-profit arm.

      I’m sure you’d be OK with them getting tax dollars, right?

      • WOOF

        Long as the funds are completely separated.
        501’s are a lot of fantasy and fraud like the
        Watchdog stories filling your blog .

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Yeah, right. You’d be just fine with tax dollars for the NRA.

          For the record, I wouldn’t be. 501’s are still activism, and government should be neutral.

          And you define “fraud” as facts you don’t agree with, so I’ll taking your grumping about the Watchdog stories as a compliment.

          • WOOF

            Facts are 501s get caught supporting political candidates,
            Can’t help themselves,

    • $8194357

      Bet they didn’t have any IRS slow downs, huh.

  • sbark

    Could it happen in N.Dak…….at taxpayer expense? Video at link

    A street preacher was repeatedly punched in the head and kicked by two men at Seattle’s Pridefest this past Sunday – and the entire confrontation was caught on camera.

    In disturbing video footage uploaded on Youtube and reported by Seattle’s KOMO news, two Christian street preachers can be seen standing on a grassy area. One of the preachers holds a sign that says “Jesus saves and heals,” and “Repent or else,” while the other holds a Bible.
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/seattle-gay-pride-marchers-viciously-beat-christian-street-preacher-video

  • Kailyn Allen

    You are very confused about Pride, it’s events, and the way things are paid for and supported. The event that is mentioned is NOT political. It is a social/community building event. All people within the community are welcome. The government does not pay for the event nor do anyone’s tax dollars. A government agency/social agency would pay to host a table to share their information. Like anyone else.

    In the event that a government funded social agency donated money to support events those dollars would be allocated to meet their specific agenda (such as helping people, even gay people, quit smoking) accordingly. It is as appropriate as a government/social agency hosting a table or sponsoring an event specifically for women, or persons of color, or persons with special needs, or persons who own businesses, or…. It is not political. It is social. It is appropriate for them to have a part in it, and again, tax payer money is not ‘paying for the event’. Y
    ou are not only grossly undermining the hard work these volunteers have done to raise the funds necessary to hold a wide variety of events, and devaluing the many generous donations granted by community members and groups, but more importantly, you are feeding unnecessary anger based on half formed conclusions born out of incomplete facts.
    This article is akin to saying “Your taxpayer dollars are going to fund Streets Alive! This is active liberal campaigning against using gasoline! It’s wrong to use government funds to support something political!”

    It’s ridiculous, at best.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      It is not political. It is social.

      A distinction without a difference, I’m afraid.

    • Kailyn Allen

      If you feel so, I hope for your sake you never find yourself on the losing side of social injustice. You may have to change your opinion. These labels and misconceptions are affecting the lives of actual human beings. Creating this kind of anger and division where there is no valid cause is sick.

  • Chuck

    Rob, they aren’t condoning/disowning the parade. They paid to have a booth there, much like they have paid to have booths at other events. Yes, they had to pay the parade to have a booth and I suppose you could call that sponsorship in the most liberal definition of the word, but I prefer to view it as they paid the entry fee to set up shop at the event. Taken directly from NDQuits Website:
    http://www.ndhealth.gov/ndquits/?id=13

    Our Goal

    To reduce disease, disability and death related to tobacco use by:

    Preventing initiation among youth and young adults.

    Promoting quitting among adults and youth.

    Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.

    *******Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related disparities among specific population groups.********

    Well, guess what? That population group has a high rate of tobacco use. It makes sense for them to be involved in curbing smoking among that demographic. Why must everything be so damn political and hit with so much spin by everyone (not just you) these days. Why can’t anyone look at something merely for what it is attempting to do on a broader scale than to pinpoint a way to make it seem like everything is done with ill intent or without thought.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Rob, they aren’t condoning/disowning the parade.

      I’m pretty sure that sponsorship is condoning.

      But you argument is predicated on the idea that NDQuits must sponsor explicitly political events to fulfill its outreach obligation. I’d argue that a) the government shouldn’t be engaged in anti-tobacco activism in the first place (gov is supposed to be neutral) and b) even if government tobacco activism is valid, they don’t need to sponsor political movements to achieve it.

      • Chuck

        They bought a booth as a public service to those in attendance. It’s not like they’re running ads saying “this year’s pride event brought to you by the folks at ndquits. Ndquits is there when you’re ready to stamp out your addiction to tobacco.”

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          It’s not like they’re running ads saying “this year’s pride event brought to you by the folks at ndquits.

          I guess I’m responding to the word “sponsorship” in accordance with its actual definition.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          And the “public service” is anti-tobacco activism.

          Why is the government taking sides?

          • $8194357

            Because the majority ideologies are tyranist.

  • brad460

    Once marriage is defined as any 2 people regardless of sexual orientation is the rule, would Rob like to explain to me what recourse I as a heterosexual have and exactly where I go to obtain a heterosexual-only union, which is what I signed up for when I got married in 2003. When I got married, marriage was heterosexual only. By changing its definition, you are forcing me into an association that I don’t want to be a part of. I want no part of being equated with a homosexual union. Once this is all done, what recourse then do I have? Where do I get my heterosexual union?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn’t change a thing with regard to your ability to marry as a heterosexual.

      • brad460

        It changes absolutely everything. For me to remain married, I have to be willing to be a part of an institution (marriage) that now includes homosexual unions, something that I cannot do and that is not what I agreed to. I do not wish to be part of any institution that includes homosexual unions. I want a heterosexual-only union, which is what I signed up for in the first place. It’s called freedom of association. I chose to associate as I did, now they change the definition after the fact. Therefore I either have to accept being a part of redefined “marriage” or become single, neither of which is morally acceptable to me.
        Where again do I go to obtain a heterosexual only union, which is the degree, union, association, what have you that I had before it was stolen from me. I chose to be married knowing what qualifications it took at the time. Changing it now is like changing the requirements to earn a college degree. Once you change them after the fact, it by definition has an impact on those that earned that title under the prior rules.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          You seem to see marriage as a sort of club for which you want to limit admission.

          But that’s not what marriage is. It’s a contract between two people, not a club with memberships.

          I don’t see why your definition of marriage should apply to people you don’t know and really have nothing to do with you at all.

          • Neiman

            So says the godless atheist!

          • brad460

            That’s entirely the problem. Marriage used to be an exclusive contract between 2 heterosexual people, NOT a contract between ANY 2 people. It has for thousands of years been a contract between 2 heterosexual people. This is precisely the problem with these recent changes as it changes the contractual definition for the millions of people that already entered into the contract.
            When I became married “marriage” was a contract between 2 heterosexual people, which is what I agreed to. It has now been changed to that of any two people (without regard to sexual orientation); and thus my problem.
            Can you show me any other contractual arrangement that I can enter into in which the terms of the contract can be changed after the fact?
            Admission to this contract thas been limited and defined as it was for thousands and thousands of years. I didn’t define it, but accepted it as it was known at the time. I have no issue with 2 homosexuals wanting a union. They should have a civil union of some sort, but that can be done without changing my union after the fact and leaving me without recourse.

    • borborygmi45

      Rob is right on this. Could you please point out where this stops heterosexual unions. Gee my Niece just got married and not once did she say its too bad same sex marriages screw up my marriage.

      • Neiman

        It destroys the institution of marriage altogether, it undermines its very reason for existence. In those countries that have approved Gay Marriage: (1) Very few gays actually get married, they never really wanted marriage in the first place, they wanted to destroy the idea of marriage and the God that instituted marriage. (2) Heterosexual divorce rates soar. (3) Heterosexual marriage rates plummet. (4) Family is redefined, as is marriage itself, it becomes a meaningless farce. (5) This inevitably destroys marriage, the core of any nation’s prosperity and stability.

        So, yes heterosexuals can still get married under God, but the underlying morality of the people and that includes their view of marriage is destroyed.

        • borborygmi45

          Did you or HG look at you wife the morning after the ruling and say” Honey our marriage sucks now because same sex marriage can be legal”.

          • Neiman

            I do not speak for HG.

            For the Christian couple, they are content they are obeying God and he is blessing their union. Yet, every where Gay marriage is approved, as I noted, heterosexual marriage as an institution and as the only healthy environment to raise children and as the only solid foundation for society falls apart, It is not about marriage, it is about destroying real marriage and mocking God.

        • borborygmi45

          Actually this started out as economics move.

          • Neiman

            No it did not!

    • HG

      You’re right. Marriage looses much of its significance by including a union as foreign to marriage as same sex unions.
      Its also the case that just as everyone currently can marry an unrelated, opposite sex person, where marriage is redefined, everyone can then marry a person of the same sex.
      I personally don’t want that “right” and it seems about 98% of the population doesn’t want it either since 98% are not homosexual. Not only do I not want that “right”, my sense of morality, and yes my pride, is offended at it.

      • $8194357

        We Christians and conservatives “ARE” the problem

        and have no right being offended in this “liberal progressive” world..

        • borborygmi45

          Geez you finally got it right. I am proud of you 7.62

          • $8194357

            Ya…We were to tolerant to the devils
            liberal progressive agendas, for sure.
            But Jesus said this would happen before His Return to set the universe back in proper order again, huh..

      • borborygmi45

        How do you feel about your marriage now. Is it ruined, meaningless?

  • LibertyFargo

    Is anyone listening? Do you really think that this won’t happen at some point?
    The argument that churches will be left alone is a “head-in-the-sand” argument void of honest and rational thought. First cake-makers and photographers, the boy scouts threatened with losing non-profit status… next? Churches. I’m not one to lean on the slippery slope argument but is it really that far-fetched?

    http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ca-senator-wants-to-coerce-boy-scouts-other-nonprofits/

    • Jonesy

      Government has been interfering with all business other than churches for a long time. Separation of church and state, the government isn’t forcing the catholic church to allow female preachers even though it prohibits gender discrimination for other businesses.

  • $8194357

    Given over to lusts of the flesh…..
    (according to the prince of the power of the air)
    Or a circumcised heart unto the Lord?
    (Alive thru the Spirit unto Christ)
    Grafted into the Promise
    (the tree of life thru the promise to Israel)

    Ephesians 2
    New King James Version
    (NKJV)

    By Grace Through Faith

    1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
    2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world,
    according to the prince of the power of the air,
    the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,

    3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh,
    fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind,
    and were by nature children of wrath,
    just as the others.

    4 But God, who is rich in mercy,
    because of His great love with which He loved us,

    5 even when we were dead in trespasses,
    made us alive together with Christ
    (by grace you have been saved),

    6 and raised us up together,
    and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

    7 that in the ages to come
    He might show the exceeding riches of His grace
    in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

    8 For by grace you have been saved through faith,
    and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

    9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

    10 For we are His workmanship,
    created in Christ Jesus for good works,
    which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

    Brought Near by His Blood

    11 Therefore remember that you,
    once Gentiles in the flesh—
    who are called Uncircumcision
    by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—

    12 that at that time you were without Christ,
    being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
    and strangers from the covenants of promise,
    having no hope and without God in the world.

    13 But now in Christ Jesus
    you who once were far off
    have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

    Christ Our Peace

    14 For He Himself is our peace,
    who has made both one,
    and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
    15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is,
    the law of commandments contained in ordinances,
    so as to create in Himself one new man from the two,
    thus making peace,
    16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross,
    thereby putting to death the enmity.
    17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off
    and to those who were near.
    18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

Top