Nancy, it is unfortunate that anyone who criticizes anything about the gay movement is considered homophobic. "Queer" comes to mind, yet there's a websight devoted to "queer" acceptance and redemption, using that very word. Too bad I didn't bookmark that link so I could send it to you.

"Homophobia" is commonly shouted as a way to discourage any criticism of a group that sees itself as a protected species. None of that advances the push for fairness.

Erin, neither Bush nor Cheney were very conservative. How else explain the ballooning deficits in those days--ya know, the very thing that has done most in recent decades to seriously hurt the fabric of the country?
The gay marriage movement is an attempt to redefine marriage itself. If you look at the gay activist websites, you'll discover that the aim of those activists is to destroy the very concept of marriage. They are making progress toward their goal.

Ed - "neither Bush nor Cheney were very conservative" – boy, you said it Ed. But that's fiscally.

I think you know I was talking Socially Conservative, for the purposes of this discussion. There's absolutely (and as a science nerd, I take that term seriously) no way one could say that the Bush/Cheney administration projected themselves as anything but socially conservative.

That is why I think it's significant that Cheney is now lobbying for marriage equality. Even establishment conservatives are realizing that no one under 40 cares about excluding LGBT from full rights as a citizen.

Ed - almost forgot your comment: "neither Bush nor Cheney were very conservative. How else explain the ballooning deficits in those days--ya know,the very thing that has done most in recent decades to seriously hurt the fabric of the country?"

Yes, you're right again, the housing, jobs and debt crisis created during that administration does destroy the fabric of the country. What's always at or near the top of reasons for divorce in the US? Is it that a few gay couples live in town? No. It's Money/Financial Distress. If you want to support traditional marriage, let's support those marriages by putting people back to work, helping restore housing values, and sustainable budgets - and stop wasting time on worrying about restricting rights of American citizens.

Ed - I want to clarify. It's not fair at all for me to say those crises were "created" by that administration. I realize it was a culmination of bad decisions from a number of administrations both R and D. However, you have to admit, they messed it up pretty bad during their watch of 8 years. It wasn't just bad luck that things went so terribly wrong on their watch.

Erin, the nub of the problem for conservatives is the attempt to redefine marriage. That is unacceptable. I suspect most conservatives are not going to be too concerned about living choices made by two consenting adults, but that is not the same as traditional marriage. If marriage can be defined as two same-sex people "joined," why must it then be limited to just two people?

The radical gay agenda wants the very concept of marriage abolished. Check out some of the websites.

Erin, you refer to "the housing, jobs and debt crisis created during that [Bush] administration." Who pushed for the Fannie and Freddie debacle? That was legislation sponsored by the Democrats Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd. That is the primary cause of the housing crisis.

As for debt: Yes, Bush signed the bills. The bills could not reach his desk except for the fact that they had Democrat support, and there were sufficient Democrat votes in the Senate at all times to kill any budget-breaking appropriation. I fault Bush for not wielding the veto pen, even if the vetoes would have been overridden.

Ed - I don't know about any "radical" gay websites trying to "destroy" marriage. I'm sure they can be found, but it does not reflect what most gay people are looking for: merely full rights as a citizen.

And really, the adoption of full marriage rights is happening swiftly. It will leave those still displeased about it simply arguing the semantics of the word marriage.

The Social LIberal-in-Charge and his backbone in Congress ARE weak on national defense. For example, the Afghan terrorists see Obama's apology this week as an example of weakness. No sooner did O apologize than al-Queda upped the ante in Kabul and elsewhere.
Has Iran given even a second thought about roiling the nuclear waters? No. Why should it? Paper tigers are just that. We're not talking here about invading Iran; we're talking about the quality of the messages sent to that government that gives Iran no reason to fear anything. It fears Israel more than it fears the USA, and Israel has hardly uttered a word in response to anything Iran has said about "the Zionist entity."

Mr. Beaton, I think you are wrong about the nature of cultural conservatism. Conservatives do not ask that prayer be mandated in schools; they simply want the government to stay out of the decision-making of local schools and/or its students regarding what is done in those schools. "Multiculturalism" is a code word for the radical liberal idea of supporting minority cultures and religions as a way of attacking the Christian element in our culture. If liberals succeed in doing that, they'll then turn their guns on the minority factions themselves. There is no way, for example, that radical liberals can support most of the content of Islam, but they will do so for the moment if it means helping to weaken the Christian influence.
Liberals totally ignore half of what the First Amendment says about religious freedom. And, yes, the liberals in general ignore the Constitution. Not two weeks ago Ruth Bader Ginsberg stated flatly that she does not recommend that developing nations use our Constitution as a basis for developing their own democracies. Does this not tell you something? If you are unaware of her remark, I think I know why: I doubt it had ANY coverage in the MSM. Thank FNC for this tidbit of info.
The "some" in the GOP who want to shut out social liberals are the people who know that the current GOP is liberal-light. Every election has given policies most people reject, judging from all polls taken on the subject. Thus, clean up the GOP.

Jo,

Amen, well stated, now I am in trouble for brining a religious expression into the conversation!

It would be good for people to accept other opinions without personal attacks. How about not criticizing the candidates, but give the positives about your choice and why you align with them. One does not have to take someone down to present their side of the debate. Negative on both sides does no good, just state your case, let others have their opinion and move on.

Jo, great response to this post and other posts like this one on the Patch... it seems as of late both parties keep bringing up religious beliefs; Barack Obama says every other day I'm a Christian. The mayor of Rochester Hills yelled out in the city council chamber crowded with LGBT rights activities I'm a Christian. And Rick Santorum reminders us every day he's one... and the ugly pundits try to remind us Mitt Romney is not. Jo I'm just a tired of all this religious rhetoric as you are. That's why I wish both parties would stay out of our personal lives. I wish we could learn to respect all beliefs without bias. Thanks for your post.

Kristen,

All I am asking is a positive discussion, the negatives and attacks do nothing to move us in the positive direction. Give me a reason why Joanna V is a great candidate without attacking others. She might be the right person for the job, but her supporters on the Patch only attack McMillin as the reason.

If we vote for someone else just because we do not like the current that does not sure we are moving in the right direction. All it ensures is we have left the current candidate, how do we know the new person is better or worse?

First evaluate what is currently needed and prioritize the issues; we will all have similar but different lists. Select the candidate for the skills and abilities to obtain progress on the key issues. Sounds like a job interview. If we picked our candidates like a job interview we would do better, we seem to be using popularity contests and single issues. That is my opinion.

Mr. Beaton, conservatives would object to the Dearborn school board or any other one mandating anything regarding religious expression. That is not in the spirit of the federal Constitution.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself sufficiently in the prior post. I was referring to the voluntary expression of broadly-defined religious sentiments at events. We sometimes forget that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, which meant to the Founders a specific creed, such as the Church of England in Britain. One cannot establish "religion" as such because the term is an abstraction that does not represent any specific creed. A country can only establish a specific creed if it is establishing religion.

". . .we do we need a national school curriculum that educates our young minds without the restraint imposed upon them by any religious beliefs. We need a national curriculum that educates our precious young to compete in a world economy." Mr. Beaton

The Constitution does not mention education. Thus, according to the 10th Amendment, education is the province of the states. Or we must amend the Constitution.

Can you site evidence that the Dept. of Ed. in DC has accomplished much for the years it has existed and the billions it has spent? Heck, Obama just last week released a number of states from compliance with the Ted Kennedy-authored No Child Left Behind Act. GWB invited Kennedy to write this bill, you know, in the early days of his presidency.

What restraints are imposed on education anywhere by religious beliefs? Since Evolution is still only a theory and Darwin admitted that it has a central weakness, do you object to the mere mention in science classes that this is so and that there are alternative theories offered regarding the origins of matter? By the way, the origins of matter are not even the province of science. Science and religion operate on two entirely different aspects of existence.

If you think that public schools can teach religion all day long, I expect you to come to the defense of those school districts targeted by the ACLU or other groups precisely for offering even "comparative religion" classes. No "establishment" here.

typo... throughout the planet... sorry

typo... someday president Ho Chi Minh's... sorry

Mr. Beaton, one way to assess liberals' views of the Constitution is to point out evidence of their support for specific Constitutional points or to the Document in general. You will not find that. You will freqently find, though, that liberals will say they do not have to wear a flagpin or fly a flag, etc. etc. to demonstrate support for our principles. They are right, of course, but the position reflects an unwillingness to demonstrate support.
Elected liberals look for judicial candidates who have adopted "broad" interpretations of the Constitution in their records. In other words, they look for jurists who take the position that the Constitution means anything the jurists want it to mean.
For example: The Supreme Court Kelo decision. The Constitution explicitly states that private property cannot be seized except by government and then only for the common good. Kelo allows governments to take private property and then sell it to other private owners. The Connecticut case involved taking property and selling it to developers in hopes of obtaining higher taxes on the redeveloped property. The property that was subject to this ruling still lies vacant, the former homeowner having been forced to move elsewhere.

I provide these as examples of the general liberal viewpoint regarding government and the Constitution. Keep in mind Al Gore's viewpoint that the Constitution is "a living document." That says it all. Words mean what I want them to mean.

Mr. Beaton, I think I made my point about Ginsberg by merely pointing out how liberals view our Constitution and how the MSM fully cooperates in advancing liberal views. There are best-selling books written that document all this.

As for "multiculturalism," I don't believe the dictionary definition applies. We know from the effects of their efforts what proponents of "multiculturalism" really have in mind. I refer to a Brooklyn school which had banned Christmas creche displays but supported the display of Muslim religious symbols--in the name of 'multiculturalism."
In practice, that term illustrates a very anti-Western bias.

Mr. Beaton, the logic of your reply escapes me. I was pointing out that many of the demonstrators at the Troy Council meeting are into habits of personal appearance deliberately designed to attract attention. How you got to a gay pride parade from that point is beyond my ken.

Yes, I know what a Log Cabin Republican is. From what I've seen of their representatives when interviewed on tv, one would never be able to identify them on the street. They don't seem to be trying to attract attention to themselves.

I also watched the Oscars and was pleasantly surprised: no outrageous behavior by self-appointed liberal activists. What a change from prior decades. Good.

I have a few years on you, mwc, born and raised in Detroit and now not far from you.

Nancy, yes I have a couple gay relatives and over the years have had gay friends. I disagree that this is a "human rights" issue though. Gays are not denied the right to marry, if that is your reference, but marriage has a defined meaning. Conservatives by and large are not arguing against gays being allowed to live together, will their property to whomever they please--everyone can already do that, etc. etc. Changing the definition of marriage once sets a precedent for further changes down the line. Anyone care for a menage-a-trois, or quatre? What about a "human right" to marry anyone or anything one choses?

The problem centers on who is given authority to make these fundamental changes. Marriage is not a construct from any government agency but a reflection of natural law and its place in stabilizing society. Anyone changing "marriage" now can change it at some other time, too. No?

Erin, sorry for the delay in responding. I must begin by stating that the liberalism of today is a far cry from the liberalism even of JFK's day. A liberal is a person primarily interested in using the power of government to create and enforce policies not granted it by the defining documents of that government. A liberal today makes personal responsibility subordinate to the will of the state. A liberal will freely spend money that does not exist and will not alter fiscal practices to reflect this lack of money. Taxation is always the answer for liberals.

Here's a good example of a contemporary liberal right from today's news. A college student at Georgetown U in DC testified before Congress that she expects the university to provide birth control coverage for the students, despite Georgetown being a Catholic school. Although birth control is available as cheaply as $5/month, Ms Fluke thinks it is someone else's obligation to pay for it.

Erin, it might well be that both of us have the same idea of what constitutes liberalism, or should constitute it. I define it by the exhibition of itself today. When last has anyone heard a liberal refer to the most prominent line from JFK's inaugural address? Today's liberals are statists. They refuse even to discuss defining themselves. Ted Kennedy is famous for dodging that question. They cannot afford to be honest about their beliefs because they know the public will not support them.

typo ... BS out there ... sorry

Scot, I agree with you! I also commend you for deciding to be your own boss. In the creative end of advertising, you know full well the power of words, and that that power does not depend entirely on the dictionary or "denotation" of words. There's that powerful element of "connotation."

One of the reasons liberals today do not identify themselves as such is that alternative media, by exposing the liberal mainstream media, have given the word "liberal" a distasteful meaning. Connotation.

As for prayer in school: School authorities have no business planning for it nor requiring anyone to participate in it or even in the organization of it. We agree. At the same time I would refuse the power of government to interfere with prayer situations that arise in other fashions but do not disrupt the primary purpose of the setting itself.

Ed, thanks that's why I made I quite clear let the quarterback pray.

Scot, condemning private property for roads or other public use is expressly permitted by the Constitution. Doing so is not taking from one private citizen and handing it over to another private citizen for development as private property. That's the important difference.

Yes, it took a long time to finish I-696. As an eastsider, how well I remember! However, the citizens' rights to sue were preserved, as they should be, which explains the 30 years. Don't forget, too, that there were disagreements among the cities straddling the roadway: like who pays for police patrol along a road in our town (which takes private property off the tax rolls), a road we don't want in our town in the first place? Ah, yes; I remember it well.

Actually, the 27th Amendment had been proposed about 200 years ago. It was only in 1992 that the required 3/4th majority state legislature decided to ratify it. You may have noticed that many amendments have built-in deadlines for ratification.

Yes, Scot, the word "marriage" has many meanings. The meaning under discussion is the traditional social definition that refers to the family structure. Why, do you think, virtually every society has had the male-female notion of marriage as their own? Natural law. This is not to say that society should ban same-sex living together. Don't call it "marriage," however. It isn't. Homosexuals should no more feel badly about this than I should have felt badly over the years because I did not possess the ability to play for the NBA. Am I entitled to play because I want to?

Ed, 

I was raised Presbyterian, taught "thou shall not judge". I'm not as convinced as you are Marriage has to be between a man and a woman, so I won't judge your opinion. Also thanks to my upbringing I was also taught debate is good too.

My opinion : God/Jesus Christ and Homosexuality.

Old Testament: Genesis the story of "Lot's House" has been misinterpreted into teachings that God denounces homosexual behavior. Not true the story refers to homosexual rape. It clearly doesn't have the remotest connection to same-gender love or relationships. Or Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. If man lies with a male as with woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death." Again this is not God's denouncing homosexual behavior... but related to the worship of Ishtar the pagan goddess of love and fertility. It was a condemnation of such practices ... pagan rituals such as mandated sex between males or temple prostitution ... that this Levitical law was written. It certinaly does not make any reference to same-gender sex within the context of a committed and loving relationship. 

New Testament: Jesus Christ did not denounce or promote homosexual behavior. The only place Jesus really addressed or even hinted at sexuality is found in Mathew chapter 19:11-12 Jesus replied... to be continued...

"Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." A eunuch is a man who has no desire or ability to have sexual relations with a woman. Jesus addressed three types of eunuchs.1... Those born that way. (That's people who are born homosexual.) 2... Those made that way by men. (Those castrated or those sexually abused people who choose to be homosexual as a result of this abuse rather than because it is their natural sexual affinity.) 3... Those who elect not to have a sexual relationship for the sake of the kingdom. (For example a priest or nun. This group makes the decision on their own.) So here, Jesus states that not everyone will marry according to the custom as male and female. He also said that not everyone can accept this. He says that those that can accept it should accept it. Can we accept what Jesus said?

Ed, even the Bible states Jesus can accept those who can except same sex Marriage that's me!  But the bottom line with me is, Government should stay out of peoples lives including Marriage... Ed, will agree to disagree with this one.

"Ed, even the Bible states Jesus can accept those who can except same sex Marriage that's me! But the bottom line with me is, Government should stay out of peoples lives including Marriage... Ed, will agree to disagree with this one." -Scot

It is only recently that government in the form of activist liberals decided to get INTO people's lives through a redefinition of marriage. Conservatives are trying to keep government OUT of people's lives, and they led the way in the drafting of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to prohibit government meddling. The socialist Obama has publicly stated that he ordered his henchman at the DOJ NOT to enforce this law. Since when, we might ask, does the executive have the right to decide which laws should be enforced?

You and I are in agreement. Thus, we both think that the pressure by a government to redefine marriage should be ignored and its elected promoters defeated in November.

Scot,

In reading the dialog you and Ed are having I would like to interject one point. Yes Jesus accepts homosexuals, he accepts all people. According to the bible all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, which is why we need Jesus to intervene to give us forgiveness. This is the foundation of the Christian beliefs.

In my view Jesus is not saying homosexual is not a sin, nor any other sin, he is setting the standard. That is what I believe. I also strongly believe that he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. I have enough trouble keeping myself straight and trying to achieve the standard (I too fall short) to judge someone else. But I do know what the bible teaches as what is right and wrong, which to me is quite clear.

The Republican Liberty Caucus

"We support the separation of church and state as a safeguard of religious liberty and freedom of belief. We support an end to any government role in the definition or administration of marriage. Government involvement should be limited to the registration of civil contracts of union."

http://www.rlc.org/about/statement-of-principles/#10

Ed, Daryl... thanks for your comments when you have time please read, The Republican Liberty Caucus statement-of-principles, and you will get a real good idea where my head is at when it comes to the way we should be governed.

Ed, Daryl, glad to see all of us and Jesus have the same opinion that homosexuality is not a sin. Unfortunately that is not Tom McMillin or Rick Santorum opinion.   

Scot, I suggest to you that we have had marriage long before we have had anything resembling "government." Marriage is part of the structure of society, without which there can be no government at all.

Structure is needed for government. No structure, no government. See Somalia and Afghanistan and the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan, to cite 3 examples.

"Since Evolution is still only a theory and Darwin admitted that it has a central weakness, do you object to the mere mention in science classes that this is so and that there are alternative theories offered regarding the origins of matter?" your quote

"Ed, ok this is where you totally lose me." Scot

How did this lose you? I merely pointed out that science does NOT have the complete answer. By stating that there are other theories--no need to go into detail about them in a science class--the science teacher would only be admitting that the matter is not settled. Pressure groups do not want even this much said about non-Darwin theory. Now, tell me who is fighting tooth and nail about a matter that is not even within its province to discuss?

Scot, the past few decades have demonstrated that conservatives are labelled by liberals as reactionary, stuck frozen in a position. When conservatives challenge liberals on their fundamental positions, however, we see clearly who will not budge. I give you the Social Security bruhaha as an example.

The structure for "paying" for SS was established over 70 years ago, at a time when the population was growing and job-creation was no problem. Liberals today will hear nothing but raising the FICA--despite the fact that there is a shrinking supply of workers and businesses to support an increasing number of retirees.

Tell me who is "frozen in time"! It isn't the conservatives.

Jesus Christ did not denounce or promote homosexual behavior. The only place Jesus really addressed or even hinted at sexuality is found in Mathew chapter 19:11-12 Jesus replied "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Daryl... sorry that I did not interpret your comments correctly, I'm again surprised that you feel you have the right to tell me how to interpret the Bible. "The passage you listed above saying Jesus says it is not a sin is not correct interpretation and out of context. It says he accepts all regardless of their sin, he says we all are sinners." your words Daryl where is the word "sin" in this passage from the Bible?

Let's get then the record straight, please tell me if I'm right or wrong. You think homosexuality is a "sin" I don't.

Daryl,

"What we need do as a country is define the word 'prayer' every definition I can fine has something to do with a God or has something to do with religion. I can't support that in a public school class room. Can students pray in school yes before or after, between class, on their lunch hour yes... even the quarterback can pray before he throws the ball. My opinion... just don't want to force public school teachers into an awkward situation." my words... Let me try to be more clear in a public school class room when class is in session, or after the bell.

Daryl, I think we can agree with the above statement. I never said kids can't pray in school.

Scot,

Again you jump to conclusions, read the comment and understand them before you respond. I clearly stated this is how I believe and my interpretation, I am not telling you that you cannot believe your way. I am telling you that you are taking Jesus’ quote out of context.

We disagree on many things including recent US history, as stated before I am not interested in debating recent history, past history or the bible with you. I believe what I believe and so does McMillan and Santorum and we all have these rights, just like you having the right to believe what you want to. Respect needs to go in all directions.

I am not forcing anything on you, but you seem to be forcing your beliefs on me and calling us dumb for believing the bible literally. Like I said a while back, you lost me when you said people who believe in the bible are dumb and implied the ones that believe in Darwin are smart. Both creation stories take faith and I choose to believe in God's version.

I also believe that not telling the truth is a sin, am I lieaphobic? I also believe stealing is a sin, am I stealaphobic? This is a ridiculous discussion and framed to intimidate others beliefs.

What is your comment about my position on prayer in school?

Scot,

Then you must be outraged on how Ohio is dealing with the shooting last week. In the trying times people turn to God and prayer, what is wrong with that?

Prayer is talking with God, it is a belief by many people and they have the right to do this regardless of the time and place. No one is forcing this on anyone, to keep making the statements that this is the case is misleading.

Daryl, 

Let's get then the record straight, please tell me if I'm right or wrong. You think homosexuality is a "sin" I don't. Was just looking for a yes or no answer. Why is this so difficult for you.

I do enjoy typing with you... why would I be "outraged" did I just not restate I don't have a problem with unorganized 'prayer' in school, the Ohio school district is coping with horrible tragedy in many different ways... and for you to even use that horrible incident in a debate with me on prayer in school is totally ridiculous and beyond comprehension... my opinion. 

Daryl, 

"Answer this question why are there some in the Republican party that support the 'dumbing down of America?'. Support teaching the Garden of Eden in public school science class? Why are those in the 'party'' that would support building national science Museums w/public money that show man a the dinosaurs lived on the plant at the same time? Why does this "party" want to throw out the last 400 years of scientific discovery...  Daryl, my quote in the Patch...

Daryl, This comment refers to public school science class, and my opinion what should be taught. Daryl, Darwin died in 1882 and there have been a ton of scientists who have proven most of his "theory's" to be true. I choose for public school science class; the world has been around for 4.2 billion years, and man has only been on the plant for about 500,000 years. These are scientific facts, and only scientific facts should be taught in science class in public school, which is funded with our tax dollars... my opinion if a student asks the question what created the universe they should be told the truth "we still don't know". Then the teacher could encourage the student when he or she grows up to become a scientist and us find out. But to refer to a book that was written over 2500 years ago as science not a good idea... my opinion.

Where do you get in this comment of mine that I think those who beleave in the Bible are dumb?

P.S. Like the humor, and also have a great Sunday.

Is Homosexuality a Sin? http://dignitycanada.org/sin.html

Is Homosexuality a Sin? 19 theologians of differing backgrounds were asked these two questions.

Question 1 - In your opinion, does God regard homosexuality as a sin?
Question 2 - In your opinion, do the Scriptures object to homosexuality?

Rev Dr William R Stayton (Baptist -- minister, certified sexologist, associate professor of psychiatric and human behaviour, servant on faculty of LaSalle University's graduate department of religious studies, holder of master of divinity from Andover Newtown Theological School and a Th.D. in psychology from Boston university):

Q1: Absolutely not! There is nothing in the Bible or in my own theology that would lead me to believe that God regards homosexuality as sin. God is interested in our relationships with ourselves, others, the things in our lives, and with God (Matthew 23:36-40). There is nothing in the mind of God that could be against a loving, sexual relationship, freely entered into, without coercion, among sincere adults whether gay, bisexual or straight.

to be continued...

Q2: There is nothing in the Bible regarding homosexual orientation. In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with sexual orientation. It does speak out probably against gang rape, male prostitution for religious purposes, and pederasty (sex between an adult and youth). I lead bible study programs on this subject and am convinced that the Bible does not address the issue of a person's sexual orientation.

Daryl, before I make an opinion I read up, and I certainly don't believe everything on Fox News, and I never take words out of context, those who do are afraid of the truth.
When you have time please read the other 18 opinions... thanks

Daryl, I'm just a big defender of LGBT rights and should have not but you in the middle of this issue have great Monday. I don't like bullies, and tired of kids jumping of bridges just because someone video tapes you and calls you gay.

McMillin is running for reelection against Joanna VanRaaphorst. http://patch.com/A-wK17