- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

Published: Fri, February 14, 2014 @ 9:51 a.m.

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — In a federal court ruling echoing decisions reached elsewhere in the U.S., Virginia on Thursday became the first state in the South to overturn a voter-approved prohibition of same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen issued a stay of her order while it is appealed, meaning that gay couples in Virginia still will not be able to marry until the case is ultimately resolved. Both sides believe the case won't be settled until the Supreme Court decides to hear it or one like it.

The judge's decision makes Virginia the second state in the South to issue a ruling recognizing the legality of gay marriages.

A judge in Kentucky ruled Wednesday the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But that judge did not rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriages inside the state. Decisions similar to that of the Virginia judge have been issued in in Utah and Oklahoma federal courts.

The office of newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring took the unusual step of not defending the law because it believes the ban violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In her ruling, Wright Allen agreed.

"The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry. Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family," Judge Wright Allen wrote.


1billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hummm, I could care less if the GL community get married and their marriages are recognized by who ever. What they do isn't effecting me. If those are screaming are screaming in the name of Christianity then they need to quit screaming about the bible. That's old testament, Christian's follow the teachings of Christ. To the best of my knowledge Christ didn't have problems with homosexuality.

Suggest removal:

2GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Oh billdog, the Bible thumpers are going to be coming on here to give you a lesson....just warning ya.

Suggest removal:

3billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago


Suggest removal:

4billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Ignorance is the defining factor in your lack of argument. Try doing a little research and you'll find that most GL are not out displaying what most that make judgements claim. Most make great contributions to their communities, are involved in public service, volunteer, are more generous than others in their community, but there are always those that judge based on ignorance of facts.

Suggest removal:

5dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Gays and Lesbians deserve to be miserable and trapped just as much as heterosexuals do. I don't know why religion is even involved in this anyway. We shouldn't make laws based on religion. Whose religion would you base it on anyway? Let them marry by law. The church can shun them on their own time.

Suggest removal:

6billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

What does pedophile and bestiality have to do with same-sex marriage? Again your OPINIONS lack fact. Nobody personally insulted anybody, but facts do seem to offend some.

Suggest removal:

7billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

No ignorance is comparing pedophilia and bestiality to being gay.

Suggest removal:

8billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Ignorance of FACTS. Again what judgements with no facts and lack of knowledge is IGNORANCE.

Suggest removal:

9billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

It would only be insulting to those that don't understand the meaning of the word. Again, you lack knowledge. Nobody is asking you to agree with it, I was asking how does it effect you in any way or the other. Possibly someone could disagree with something in lifestyle, should it be outlawed? Maybe they don't like the way you spend your money, what you eat, your health or lack of health regiment, what kind of car you drive, how you treat your children, spouse, or parents, your nationality, religion, color of skin, etc... should that be outlawed because your beliefs are different?

Suggest removal:

10dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

careful Billdog, whatever you do, don't go to number 3. I am scared for you. Let these right wingers alienate themselves from more votes. They will already lose the votes of the
gay and lesbian
and probably some former middle of the road Republicans who can't take it anymore.
But they are rock solid with the wealthy, rednecks, and the religious. They got that going for them.

Suggest removal:

11Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago


You say that SSM doesn't affect you, makes no difference to you.

Then you say that you do NOT agree that SSM is OK, and that you'd like the Supreme Court to outlaw.

If SSM makes no difference to you, why do you care what SCOTUS does on that matter?

BTW, no one has yet insulted anyone on this thread. It's your imagination.

Suggest removal:

1276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Gays lesbians bisexual nd transgender make up 3.8% of the population. Of those, how many actually want to marry? Where is the highest population in the US? Washington DC at 10%. Hummmm.

Suggest removal:

13billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Elf2 if he don't agree with you then he is insulted. I just figured he doesn't know the true meaning the word ignorance.

eivo, so you are saying that the poor, the black, women, Hispanics and gays have no right to vote? Your claim of dead people, illegals and multiple voters is the rally cry every-time a republican looses an election. Some how there is never any prof of this. The possibility does exist that more people think differently than you, than think the same as you.

As far your treatment of children, wife, parents, type of car, etc... effecting others. That is my point. It doesn't effect others, nor does a gay couple getting married effect you personally. It is their life, not yours.

Suggest removal:

14billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Adults don't need to have everybody agree with them. They even have the ability see beyond their own belief system.

Suggest removal:

15billdog1(2695 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Some people just have a total inability to learn. You keep that anger and resentment, I'm moving to an intelligent conversation.

Suggest removal:

16dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

at 76, so what is your point? It doesn't matter if 2 billion or a 1000 want to marry. It is about having a right to do so if they choose. Wouldn't a gay marriage be better that a gay person jumping into promiscuous sex with a stranger every week? I don't particularly agree with the lifestyle, but that is their life, not mine. Maybe more people should just worry about how they live their own life instead of what everyone else is doing. There is only one judge in the end anyway.

Suggest removal:

17dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

oh and add the YOUNG voter too to the list.

Suggest removal:

18dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Well then, I guess the GOP has no problems then. Keep alienating more and more people, and we will see where the party stands 10 years from now. This is not just my views, but even GOP leaders have cited the disconnect between most of these groups, saying that they have to figure out how to relate better to them. But by all means, deny any problems exists.

Suggest removal:

19GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"Well just for the record, for later on down this thread when we get requests for an adult discussion, I would like to point out those that started this thread and who was the first one to fire a personal insult."

Um..you were the first to fire a personal insult, comparing gays with Nambla and beastality.

The Repubs have control of the House thanks to gerrymandering, while they may gain control of the Senate, it will be more difficult than it was to win the House.

Suggest removal:

20dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

you should have just yelled Bengahzi if you wanted to go off topic, but instead go to IRS stuff! (where is the imposter eivo when you want him) And that article is actually accurate. If they are tax exempt social welfare organizations, maybe they shouldn't be spending 30 mil on tv ads attacking political opponents. Maybe they should be paying taxes.

Suggest removal:

21dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

and here is the REST of the article from Fox News Eivo.... which Dems call for fairness in this issue on both sides, liberal and conservatve groups. (from post 34.) Just though I would post the rest of it instead of the little part that you wanted read.

"Both on the left and the right," Shaheen told The Hill. "As taxpayers, we should not be providing a write-off to groups to do political activity, and that’s exactly what we’re doing."

IRS officials acknowledged last spring that agents had improperly targeted tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. The revelation prompted ongoing investigations by Congress and the Justice Department, and the replacement of several top IRS officials.

Democrats have been careful to say that conservative and liberal groups should not be treated differently. Under current regulations, these groups can engage in politics, but their primary mission cannot be to influence the outcome of elections.

According to The Hill, Americans for Prosperity plans to spend an estimated $750,000 on a three-week ad campaign targeting Sen. Mary Landrieu, who is facing re-election in Louisiana. The group unveiled an ad Wednesday attacking the Democrat for supporting ObamaCare.

Last week, Americans for Prosperity announced a $1.4 million TV ad campaign against Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., who has been criticized for her early support for the health care law.

In November, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued draft regulations that would limit the political activities of such groups. The proposed regulations have attracted more than 23,000 comments from the public — a record — according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Congressional Republicans say the regulations are an attempt by the Obama administration to legalize the targeting of conservative groups, though treasury officials argue the regulations would help clarify vague rules about which groups qualify for tax-exempt status.

The House Ways and Means Committee voted Tuesday to pass a bill that would block the regulations for a year. The full House is expected to take up the bill after the House returns from its Presidents' Day vacation.

Suggest removal:

2276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Dontbeafool: point being... Of all the issues facing this country, why is it that this one is at the top? Personally, I want my representatives to concentrate on the deficit and debt which affects every one of us for generations to come.

The divorce rate for gay marriages tends to follow heterosexual couples. Do you really think marriage deters promiscuity?

Suggest removal:

23dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

If it isn't an important issue, then why don't you call your Republican representatives and tell them to just make it legal and quit wasting time fighting against it so they can work on important things? They are the ones who are prolonging the issue!

Suggest removal:

24dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Are you even remotely trying to suggest that the conservatives aren't opposing the legalization of gay marriage? If you are, something is terribly wrong with you.

Suggest removal:

25dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

This guy wants to ban ALL marriages, just so gays can't get married. You really have no credibility at all if you say that Repubs as a whole are in favor of gay marriages.

A Republican lawmaker in Oklahoma has proposed a controversial way to stopping same-sex marriages in the state. According to News9.com, state Rep. Mike Turner (R) has proposed scrapping marriage in the state altogether.

The lawmaker contends that it is the only way to keep same-sex marriage illegal in the state while still defending the U.S. Constitution.

“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner told Channel 9.

Other lawmakers feel the same way, he said. They envision a state that doesn’t recognize any marriages at all.

“That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it’s something that would be part of the discussion,” Turner said.

The Republicans currently have what is called a shell bill in the roster of bills on the state house floor. They can call the bill to the floor for debate or rewrite it at a moment’s notice in order to respond to any rulings regarding the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Oklahoma ACLU executive director Ryan Kiesel said the draconian measures don’t square with the attitudes of their constituents.

“I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans,” he said.

The fuss in the state house, he said, is just political posturing. Never before, he said, has any state threatened to make all marriage illegal just to stop same-sex couples from marrying.

However, Kiesel told Channel 9 that the effort has the feel of a Hail Mary pass on the part of anti-LGBT Republicans that is likely to fail.

“Moving forward I think we’ll see less efforts like this,” he said.

Suggest removal:

26dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

from Time April, 2013
The Republican National Committee voted unanimously Friday to reaffirm the party’s commitment to upholding the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, upending party efforts to grow support among younger voters.

A resolution introduced Wednesday by Michigan committeeman Dave Agema, who came under fire last month for posting an article describing gays as “filthy” on his Facebook page, passed the full RNC by a voice vote and without debate. A second resolution reaffirming “core values” of the party — including opposition to same-sex marriage — was also passed.

Suggest removal:

27YtownParent(416 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Rep. Mike Turner is absolutely correct. The objections to hay marriage are religious. So the only way to constitutionally make and keep gay marriages illegal is to remove the state from marriage altogether and make it a completely religious rite. It'll be interesting to see how many Republican officials and candidates back this idea.

While valid, barring the government from having anything to do with marriage because it's a religious rite has two large problems. First, how many voters are going to give up the tax credits they get by being married? As well as survivors benefits. Second, removing the government from marriage won't stop any church or religious stream that allows gay marriages from preforming and sanctifying them. It'd be each church's First Amendment right to choose what to do with gay marriage on their own. Removing the government from marriage won't make it harder for gays to marry, it will make it easier while removing all the legal protections and benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples.

Suggest removal:

28Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

from 7 hours ago:
You say that SSM doesn't affect you, makes no difference to you.

Then you say that you do NOT agree that SSM is OK, and that you'd like the Supreme Court to outlaw.

If SSM makes no difference to you, why do you care what SCOTUS does on that matter?

Have you figured out an answer yet?? Care to share??

Suggest removal:

29evio(43 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

B b b b b b benghaziiiiiii !

Suggest removal:

30Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Sorry, I meant to address eivo,

from 7 hours ago:
You say that SSM doesn't affect you, makes no difference to you.

Then you say that you do NOT agree that SSM is OK, and that you'd like the Supreme Court to outlaw.

If SSM makes no difference to you, why do you care what SCOTUS does on that matter?

Have you figured out an answer yet?? Care to share??

Suggest removal:

3176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

#47 Democrats keep pushing gay marriage to the forefront dodging the issues of our nearly 18 Trillion dollar debt.

Suggest removal:

32dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

So make it legal in 50 states, quit holding it up, and deal with the debt. I expected more from u 76. Quit making up lame excuses and just come out and say you are against it.
@eivo, I can't believe you didn't even know your own party's stance on the issue.

Suggest removal:

3376Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Correction. #42. (reply to dontbeafool)

Suggest removal:

34Jerryl(105 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"allow anything like this to come to a vote".

The House of Representatives doesn't have to do anything. They only thing they could try to do is start a constitutional amendment.

SSM is in the hands of the court.

Suggest removal:

3576Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Dontbeafool #51
Yep I'm against it and its just a ploy to detract from bigger issues.

Suggest removal:

36GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Eivo, once again, we have to talk on a kindergarten level to get anything through to you.

First wasn't talking about governorships. Talking about the House and gerrymandering.

Second, look at Ohio in the 2012 elections.
For president, Ohio votes Democrat Barack Obama, a statewide race with no gerrymandered districts.

For US Senate, Ohio votes for Democrat Sherrod Brown, a statewide race with no gerrymandered votes.

In the races for Ohio's 16 gerrymandered House districts, Republicans win 12, Democrats 4.

No wonder Republicans put up a fight to come up with new ways to draw up districts huh? Way to steal elections!

Suggest removal:

37GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"In a democracy, majority rules, and the majority of people (for now) or straight, so our ways should not be infringed upon."

Hate to break it to ya bmanresident, but the majority has spoken. Almost every poll taken this past year supports same sex marriage so your thoughts infringe on America. I know like eivo you need proof, the link below shows the reports of all the polls taken.


Suggest removal:

38GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Again pinhead, wasn't talking governors, talking the House. Quit trying to change the subject.

By the way, 31 governorships isn't that big a lead, only need 6 to flip.

Suggest removal:

39dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@eivo, I noticed that when you were proven wrong about Repubs being against SSM, you haven't mentioned it again, just moved on to something else.
@brdman, live your own life, nobody can tell you how to live. Turn off your tv if you don't like it. On the same note, let others live their lives the way they want, as long as they aren't hurting anyone. And these are consenting ADULTS, not an adult with a child, so that comparison is not a good one at all.
@76, if you ask the many GL couples who are fighting for the basic rights that a straight couple get, I bet they would say it is not a ploy. It is important issue to them. It doesn't effect you directly, so it must not be important. You and Repubs can't relate to any issues other than your own, or think outside of your own little box, that is why you will not move forward as a party. Disconnected!

Suggest removal:

40dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

This is a matter of constitutional rights, not public opinion.

Suggest removal:

41Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You say that SSM doesn't affect you, makes no difference to you.(post #3)

Then you say that you do NOT agree that SSM is OK, and that you'd like the Supreme Court to outlaw.(post #15)

If SSM makes no difference to you, why do you care what SCOTUS does on that matter?

Suggest removal:

42evio(43 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Obama is Ok with same-sex marriage,
therefore I have to be against it.

Suggest removal:

43GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

#70. If you must do the opposite of Obama, since he lives in the US then move to Uganda where they hate homosexuals as much as you do. Oh wait you don't care about what gays do or SSM or wait, you do care and want the SCOTUS to ban it.

I'd tell you to make up your mind but it's been proven with all 1071 of your posts that you have no brain.

Suggest removal:

44SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

(whispered to GoPens)...

maybe evio is one of his other personalities

Suggest removal:

45dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I kind of like the "other" eivo better. He is funnier and makes more sense. Eivo, usually you have your token person to try and prove that you don't hate that group, I.e. Ben Carson is your black guy, Rice is your female, who is your gay or lesbian token? I doubt you have one since you compare their actions to beastiality. I hope you are judged the same way that you judge others.

Suggest removal:

46dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Do you know any gay people? I like Sarah Palin, as long as she doesn't say anything.

Suggest removal:

47evio(43 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I don't know anyone.
My other personality is so repulsive most people avoid me.
I'm so lonely that I spend all my time posting drivel, so that people will notice me.

Suggest removal:

48evio(43 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Caught me sleeping...

Suggest removal:

49GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@shedevil. God help us if he's got more than one personality. This ones bad enough.

Suggest removal:

50GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@dontbeafool--Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Maybe there's his token gay.

Suggest removal:

51kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Interesting thread. Even more interesting than Y-town political corruption and whether or not Bert DeSouza is a great journalist or a hack- goes to show that whenever you talk about sex- hetero-homo-or whatever- things get lively. I love what 'dontbeafool" said: " Gays and Lesbians deserve to be trapped and miserable as much as heterosexuals do"

I'm going to print out that statement and pin it over my bathroom mirror because it really summarizes this issue in a nutshell: If you're in a good relationship why screw it up by getting hitched. There's nothing stopping gay couples from living together and enjoying each others company now- so why the mad rush to the altar? Do they want to be miserable? Are they masochistic in addition to being Gay?

Well, No, they're not. I guess they're are practical advantages for them to be married as opposed to living together- Social Security, Pension Rights, etc.

Rather ironic isn't it? The people who co-habit without chance of bearing children are eager to get married and the heterosexual couples who do bear children are encouraged, by our tax and welfare laws, to avoid marriage. Look at the statistics- nationally 50 per cent of all babies are born out of wedlock.

So, I'm not an expert, I'm just a humble plumber, but what do those statistics say about the future of our country- when just about every study shows that children born to unmarried parents don't do very well in life and, historically, all Societies that hit the skids started on that path by undermining their family structure.

But, if we can keep Homosexuals happy that's a great achievement, isn't it? We may not have a country left but gays will have their little childless marriages.

P.S. For the Record: I'm not a Gay Basher. What people do in their bedrooms doesn't concern me- I have enough problems of my own- and I'm not a "Bible Thumper". I've read what it says in the Old Testament about homosexuals and I don't agree with any of that- in fact I loathe it. I do, however, believe strongly in the importance of the nuclear family- a man and woman bearing children- a marriage, in other words, and two guys, or two gals, living together doesn't cut it.

Suggest removal:

52kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I just spent a little time reading excerpts of Judge Allen's Ruling and what struck me was how inclusive her wording was- she talked about a "fundamental right" to marry- a loving relationship between individuals not necessarily "heterosexuals", etc.etc.

I just hope to hell her decision is reversed, because the way it stands just about anybody and anything can apply for a marriage license- "a fundamental right to marry"- It could be a Mormon with six child brides, it could be a guy who wanted to marry his Basset Hound- any sicko you could imagine- people out there advocating pederasty- once a legal decision like that is allowed to stand- Anything Goes.

Meanwhile, the heterosexuals- 50% of them- are avoiding marriage like the plague. There's something wrong here.

Suggest removal:

53kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

So with a decision as inclusive as hers "pedophilia and bestiality" do have a lot to do with same sex marriage-as Billdog asks in Comment No. 8. "A fundamental Right to Marry", that was her ruling. I never heard of such a thing: "A Fundamental Right to Marry". If you accept that as a basic principle than anything goes: If you want to marry your Dog? OK, that's fine- "A fundamental right to marry"- A Mormon who wants to marry six woman? OK, that's fine- "A Fundamental right to marry"- A Masturbator who wants to marry his own Penis? Ok, that's fine- "A fundamental right to marry".

What all this illustrates again is the absolute value of preserving absolute values in all the things that matter most in life and I can't think of anything more absolutely important in life than marriage. It's not something to mess with.

Suggest removal:

54dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

This is how irrational some of you are. Marry your dog? Seriously? Eivo, you often blast people for challenging stuff like 9/11, saying "I suppose you believe the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood too". So is all this just a conspiracy theory from the left to allow people to marry their dogs? Unreal how anyone can go from SSM to marrying kids, dogs, goats, or any other object. Whacko!

Suggest removal:

55evio(43 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Here comes that shark again. Watch me an my dog ski right over top!

Suggest removal:

56GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Well eivo does wants to marry his imaginary friend. No one else can stand to be around him.

Suggest removal:

57kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@ KSU Grad. I spent a little time rereading Judge Allen's Ruling- granted, it doesn't specifically mention extending marriage to include Polygamy or Bestiality- but the ruling is so broad and elastic- "A fundamental Right to Marry"- that it wouldn't take much legal legerdemain to make a case that it included those practices. Here is a "slippery slope" if there ever was one. It's just another blow to the institution of Marriage which is the Cornerstone of Civilized Society.

Suggest removal:

58dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

over stretching once again. There is also freedom of speech, but we all know that there isn't total freedom of speech. Sure you can say whatever you want, but there is repercussions if you say the wrong thing. You guys are reading way too much between the lines.

Suggest removal:

59GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Abnormal to you perhaps. It's perfectly normal behavior to a gay person.

Suggest removal:

60GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Eivo, your warped thinking is abnormal, dangerous, and anti-American. Those on the left and the right can agree on that.

Suggest removal:

61dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

First of all, not everyone is religious, and there is a thing called separation of church and state. Nobody on here was referring to anyone who is anti ssm as right wing whackos. Certain people are whacko because they are talking about marrying kids, dogs, and objects. The bible says a lot of things that you and many others pick and choose which ones you want to follow. So live your life according to God's word the best that you can, and let him do the judging.

Suggest removal:

62dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@anti... I think eivo just proved the point that it isn't always the left attacking the right. In fact, I believe if he wasn't in this thread, an adult conversation could have been had without insults.

Suggest removal:

63walter_sobchak(2055 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

First of all, there is no such thing as a separation of church and state, only a limitation on the government to pass laws to prohibit the free exercise of religion. That is, the founders did not want the state to establish any certain religion as a national church so that the government would not be subservient to that church or its leaders. We have a democratically elected republic with leaders whom may choose to use whatever beliefs they deem appropriate, subject to the approval of their constituents via the ballot box. When unelected judges overturn the will of the people that was expressed in a vote, we have a major problem.

Marriage has evolved over the years with respect to moral, legal, and religious values and traditions. Centuries ago, most marriages were prearranged unions for the purpose of building wealth and power. However, it was deemed normal that the definition of a legal marriage would be between one man and one woman with the express purpose of advancing mankind and the human species via a natural process. Same-sex marriage does not and cannot offer that to society. In fact, it would ultimately lead to the destruction of the human species as it is a recessive trait.

The problem with this court ruling is that not one person is prohibited from being married in the legal and traditional way. A gay man is free to marry any woman he wants as would a lesbian be free to marry any man. There is no discrimination. But, we are a nation of laws and people wanting to change laws to permit abnormal and aberrant behavior will destroy our society.

Suggest removal:

64WilliamC(10 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"express purpose of advancing mankind and the human species via a natural process" - walter

If propagation of mankind were the express purpose, I would have thought that I would find some reference to that purpose in my marriage license application, or my marriage certificate, or perhaps even in wedding vows.

Nope, not there.

So maybe you could show me where I agreed to make babies - so I could have a "legal" marriage.

Suggest removal:

65dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Anti, I made my opinion of you from your statements, not from assuming. For example.... "Now, unless you are a religious person you may not understand what is to follow." (talking down to the unchurched as they are ignorant). YOU then DID use Bible scripture to back your point or belief, so I didn't assume that you use Bible scriptures to back your views, you did it. I also do know that you don't follow every part of scripture in the Bible, because NOBODY does. We all fall short. I was taught to to love all people, not just the ones that resemble you. These people, although I don't really agree with their lifestyle, I believe that is who they are. I happen to believe they are born the way they are, and it is not a choice. Yes, their action to participate in their lifestyle is a choice, but not who they are. Maybe these people view marriage as sacred too, that is why they want to get married.

Suggest removal:

66Sanjay1976(39 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

2 walter_sobchak:

SSM is a recessive trait - ????

Red hair is a recessive trait
Blue eyes is a recessive trait

So far there is no evidence that the human species is on the road to destruction by either red hair or blue eyes.

Suggest removal:

67walter_sobchak(2055 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You mean the license you obtain from the govt to allow you the privilege to become married?

"The Founders’ vision of family is built on the equality of the sexes and individual consent. Marriage’s public purpose or function is the procreation and education of children. This function requires a suitable form, so early laws discouraged or outlawed bigamous, polygamous, adulterous relations as inconsistent with marriage, the proper education of children, and hence the interests of society; public opinion was more severe than the laws. The Founders also made efforts to bring surrounding nations toward the peaceful adoption of monogamous, lifelong marriage."

—Scott Yenor, PhD, Associate Professor of Political Science at Boise State University and the author of Family Politics: The Idea of Marriage in Modern Political Thought (Baylor University Press, 2011).

I believe the Founders held that the traditional institution of marriage was so engrained in our culture that it was not necessary to actually express it as theory. But, without the procreation of children, the republic ceases to exist in short order. Thus, we traditionally have the emphasis on the family. Personally, I don't care if you are a man who prefers to use exits as entrances but we, as a country, cannot nor should not sanction it as a normal and viable human trait.

Suggest removal:

68WilliamC(10 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

My point is that if procreation is the EXPRESSED PURPOSE for marriage, then I would have expected that would have been a condition for the issuance of a marriage license.

If a childless marriage were contrary to "the founder's vision", they would not have countenanced marriage between adults beyond childbearing age.

Similarily, infertile couples should not be able to marry because it their marriage would violate what many have SPECULATED was "the founder's vision"

Suggest removal:

69walter_sobchak(2055 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Not in the traditional genetic sense but, I don't care how many times a man/man or woman/woman engage in sex, they will never make a human offspring. If we cease to have NORMAL (and that really p!sses people off when I express it that way) sexual relations, we will die off. That cannot be argued. Maybe I should have phrased it as a regressive behavior, how's that? Or, maybe a genetic disorder such as Down's syndrome but I feel that would be impolite. They have no choice in the matter.

Suggest removal:

70cambridge(3188 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Walter....you claim "the founders vision of family is built on the equality of the sexes and individual consent." Why didn't they let woman vote if they believed they were equal?

I believe Abraham was one of gods chosen and I believe he had a bazillion wives. Times change, get over it. If gays getting married doesn't affect me it shouldn't affect anyone else. If it does affect you personally please explain how or like I said, get over it.

Suggest removal:

71SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"without the procreation of children, the republic ceases to exist in short order"

Point taken, however I seriously doubt that childless (SSM) couplings of 1-2% of the population in the republic will lead to it's "short order" depopulation.

BTW, I'm guessing that the SSM population is less than 2%.

Suggest removal:

72dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

cambridge, you stole my thunder on the equality of sexes thing. Women were just allowed out of the kitchen a few decades ago. William C you also stole my thunder. I guess infertile people should not be allowed to marry either. It just ticks me off about this "sanctity of marriage" crap when over half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Why aren't these people shunned? If your son or daughter gets divorced, are you going to kick them to the curb because they destroyed the sanctity of marriage? I personally have failed at marriage, maybe that is why I am a little more tolerable. I see these gay couples who have been together for 25+ years, and I think maybe they succeeded at marriage more so than I, so who am I to object!

Suggest removal:

7376Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Follow the court cases for SSM which show this marriage hoopla is not about love or family, it's all about money. Famous case US vs Windsor was about $363,053 in estate taxes. Gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and SSM has a failure rate same as traditional marriage.

The liberal media and government programs have been undermining the family for decades. No accountability for the baby daddy. Government taking the place of primary support. Children being raised by two men, one being the "wife" or two women, one being the "husband".

Suggest removal:

74walter_sobchak(2055 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Yes, times change and sometimes not for the better. I don't believe it was ever codified in law that women couldn't vote. I may be wrong, but I believe that only male landowners were permitted to vote. Sure, that was wrong just as not allowing blacks to vote was wrong as these people have no choice in the way they were born. SHOW ME THE GAY GENE!!!!!! So, maybe we should just abolish the institution of marriage, let the courts decide how offspring should be cared for with respect to finances, and abolish the joint filing credits for all Americans. I agree with 76Ytown, it is about the money. We have the 50th anniversary of the MArch on Washington and we will have the 50th anniversary of The Great Society of LBJ, with the concurrent demise of the black family. Times change, sometimes not for the better.

Suggest removal:

75dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@76 I am glad that you can speak for all SSM, and that it isn't about love or family. That statement is painted with the broadest brush that I have ever heard. How would you like it if someone said that you and your spouse just had a baby for tax purposes and not for love? That was a very ignorant comment. And nobody said that the marriage rates for ssm was any better or worse than traditional. I think it is wrong that if a gay couple who loves each other, are good citizens, pay taxes, etc... are together for 20, but are denied any perks that a married person can get.

Suggest removal:

76cambridge(3188 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Walter....since you didn't state how you are personally affected by gays getting married i will assume you aren't.

I believe it's nothing more than another excuse to hate on people by people that find endless reasons to hate on others.

Suggest removal:

7776Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Acceptable behavior in a civilized society is established because of consequences. Most societies frown on polygamy or marrying your sibling,or dog but no doubt there are people who claim it should be their right to marry since they love one another.

Suggest removal:

78GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@eivo. Got a great, high paying job, contributing to society by paying taxes. My taxes are surely paying for your unemployment.

Suggest removal:

79GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Btw, the thought that SSM is leading us down the path of the human species dying off because of non "normal" sex is hilarious.

Again boys and girls...male-female sex is "normal" to heterosexuals. Male-male or female-female sex is "normal" to homosexuals. Your "normal" does not apply to everyone.

Suggest removal:

80GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You really need to get off the whacko websites that say this will lead to human-animal marriage. The ridiculous scare tactics are becoming tiring.

Suggest removal:

81Jerryl(105 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

eivo: "people who want to have sex with dogs think that's normal"

And how is it that you know this? Personal contacts?

Suggest removal:

82Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

All knowing, all seeing, able to tell us what other people are thinking......NOT!

Though he learned a lesson when he was trying to tell us what veterans thoughts were. Guess not.

Suggest removal:

83evio(43 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Here comes the shark again !
Up...Up...and away!

Suggest removal:

84walter_sobchak(2055 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You may well be correct that some people use this as an issue to hate others that don't conform and that is tragic, ugly, and not correct. However, many issues don't affect me personally but, in this republic, I have a right to express my views and to encourage my elected leaders to enact laws that I feel will advance this great nation. Abortion can't affect me personally as I am a male and can't get pregnant. But, I will most assuredly attempt to have the practice of abortion curtailed as I want to give the unborn a voice. However, I believe same-sex marriages allow some to skate through life without doing their fair share of the work. I am personally opposed to the extension of health-care and other benefits to any partner outside of a legal marriage. IMO, this argument same-sex argument gained steam around the time AIDS was approaching "epidemic" proportions and health benefits were not available. As it stands now, Obamacare has eliminated that issue, hasn't it? Anyway, we dumped billions on that issue and a viable treatment was fortunately found.

Suggest removal:

85GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Sorry evil, BUSTED.


Via NationalReport.net, Dec. 3, 2013:

California Allows First-Ever State Recognized Human-Animal Marriage

San Francisco, CA — On Monday history was made at the Chapel of Our Lady at the Presidio in San Francisco as the first-ever state recognized human-animal marriage took place.

Local resident 35-year-old Paul Horner was the groom during the ceremony. Joining him was his faithful dog Mac who is 36-years-old in dog years. Mac also decided to be the groom but ended up wearing a white veil at the last moment.

Analysis: If you've seen the above article before, you may have encountered it on any number of cut-and-paste blogs that replicate material from other sites, but the text actually originated on a satirical website call National Report. As the site's disclaimer page clearly stipulates, "All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental."

The article is an obvious spoof on reactionary attitudes toward same-sex marriage, the legalization of which in certain states (including California) has been met with the argument that it's a slippery slope to legalized polygamy, parent-child marriage, and interspecies marriage."

Nice try. We've told you time and time again to get off the wacko websites.

Suggest removal:

86GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Haha. Oops, darn autocorrect put evil instead of eivo..then again, maybe it's telling us something

Suggest removal:

87Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

you write.."I believe same-sex marriages allow some to skate through life without doing their fair share of the work."

SSM couples are not workers, or are not doing their fair share (as defined by what?)

Suggest removal:

88Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Yes the evil one is at work again.

If he isn't creating his own fiction, he copies other people fiction.

Trolling is his game.

Suggest removal:

89cambridge(3188 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

eivo.....the point is that you post a lie as if were the truth. You of all people shouldn't be judging anyone one else on any level because you're as low as it gets.

This is what happens when you live for the fix noise network, hater emails and those voices in your head. You are a pathetic fool.

Suggest removal:

90dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Nice try eivo, you copied it as a NEWS ARTICLE. Now that you have egg on your face, you want to spin it. BOY ARE YOU DUMB. Research you cut and paste jobs a little first.

Suggest removal:

91dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@eivo, I am still waiting for your response in this thread.

Suggest removal:

92GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"WOW, are you ever dumb. I read exactly the same article that you read and knew it wasn't real. The point was that there are others thinking the same thing I am thinking."

Eivo, nobody for one second believes that you didn't think that article was real. Nice try.

Suggest removal:

93dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Let us be clear here. We all look at your comments and laugh at them and think, how can someone be so ignorant.

Suggest removal:

94GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

If you don't care then WHY ARE YOU YELLING? Past statements from you prove you thought that was real.

Suggest removal:

95Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

you are deluding yourself if you think that you don't care what other people think.

If you did not care you would not have to name-call other or disparage. You would not have to argue. You would not have to concoct stories, or plagiarize.

If you didn't care, you could just state your opinion and move on to the next thread.

Simply being here and serially posting shows that you do care.

Suggest removal:

96evio(43 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I'm just so lonely. Just me and my dog and an occasional shark. And my dog is nervous around me.

Suggest removal:

97dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@Anti. Intelligent people can form an opinion on just one statement. For example. If you said, all black people are criminals. My opinion of you would be that you are a racist. I think that I would be correct if you made that statement. I didn't ever say that I thought homosexuality was "normal". But I wouldn't want to live in a country where everyone had to be normal by your definition. If only normal people had rights, and were allowed, then Eivo would have to me deported. I bet then he would be all for immigration reform.

Suggest removal:

98dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

What happened to hate the sin, love the sinner? We are regressing back to like the South was against colored folk in the 50's and 60's? Sorry, we don't serve your kind here.

Suggest removal:

99dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

eivo #2, I wish I could find out your real identity so I could buy you lunch or something. Please post more sarcastic stuff other than the dog/shark.

Suggest removal:

100dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

that was one of your most whacko, illogical statements eivo. Idk even what you are trying to say. Stick to the cut and paste.

Suggest removal:

101dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@eivo, and I am seriously starting to think that you have a dog fetish since every other post is about a man and dog love.

Suggest removal:

102GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

We really should pool our money together and get eivo some professional help before he hurts himself or someone else.

Suggest removal:

103kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I think of all the posts on this thread- including my own- the best by far was "Walt No: 119" which I quote in its entirety:

You mean the license you obtain from the govt to allow you the privilege to become married?

"The Founders’ vision of family is built on the equality of the sexes and individual consent. Marriage’s public purpose or function is the procreation and education of children. This function requires a suitable form, so early laws discouraged or outlawed bigamous, polygamous, adulterous relations as inconsistent with marriage, the proper education of children, and hence the interests of society; public opinion was more severe than the laws. The Founders also made efforts to bring surrounding nations toward the peaceful adoption of monogamous, lifelong marriage."

—Scott Yenor, PhD, Associate Professor of Political Science at Boise State University and the author of Family Politics: The Idea of Marriage in Modern Political Thought (Baylor University Press, 2011).

I believe the Founders held that the traditional institution of marriage was so engrained in our culture that it was not necessary to actually express it as theory. But, without the procreation of children, the republic ceases to exist in short order. Thus, we traditionally have the emphasis on the family. Personally, I don't care if you are a man who prefers to use exits as entrances but we, as a country, cannot nor should not sanction it as a normal and viable human trait."

That's about as close to a definitive statement on this issue as I can think of. Marriage isn't about "pleasure", two people wanting to have a relationship, etc- nobody is stopping them from doing that- it's about what the above statement says: "the Procreation and Education of Children". Amen to that.

Suggest removal:

104kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Eivo mentions the California Nuptials of a man to his dog- obviously a "significant other". OK, what's the next stage of the "slippery slope" (that's what happens when you abandon absolute values and substitute "situational ethics").

How about a Male Masturbator who wants to marry his own Penis? Far fetched? Not really- he could make the little guy the beneficiary of his will (if he survived) and say he was his best friend and companion and therefore deserving of legal protection.

Not really so far fetched- if the Bestiality People have legal rights- what about the Masturbators? Sounds Bizarre, but that's the wilderness we've been led into by "situational ethics". It's a Pandora's Box, isn't it?

Suggest removal:

105cambridge(3188 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

kurtw.....thanks for explaining it all in your last post. Now it makes so much sense when you put it that way.

Suggest removal:

106GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

And I just read on the web that SSM will open the door to human-zombie marriages in the upcoming zombie apocalypse.

Can you imagine it? Humans being allowed to marry zombies? This SSM is a slippery slope I'm telling you...

Suggest removal:

107thinkthentalk(286 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

kurtw. Legal marriage is between two consenting adults. Operative word, consenting.

In your perverted right-wing bizarro world, can a dog or a penis say "I DO" and sign a marriage certificate?
There is no slippery slope or pandoras box.

Suggest removal:

108dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

The sky is falling! Typical right wing protocol. If you let gays marry, people will be masturbating to other people having sex with dogs. It is funny how they complain about gov always butting in, taking away your civil rights, invading your privacy, etc, but they are the first to jump in on someone else's rights or what others do in their own bedrooms when they don't like it or agree with it. You guys are out there! One, sex with animals is illegal, secondly, marry your own penis? Kurt, drinking one alcoholic drink is a slippery slope too!

Suggest removal:

109dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Well it is MY opinion, after all, you don't have to agree with it. Just like I don't have to agree with yours.

Suggest removal:

110cambridge(3188 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I heard from the voices in my head and they said someone married a dead dogs penis in Canada.

Suggest removal:

111HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Re #170,

Fine example of ignorance and disrespect.
True enough, a person can have a posthumous marriage in France (and China and some other countries).

However you probably don't know the laws that permit, nor the regulations attached to that.

Start with this reference before you try to equate SSM with posthumous marriage.

Posthumous marriage has been officially recognized for the last sixty years, without the collapse of society.


Suggest removal:

112Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

In Miami Florida in 1987 Isaac Woginak died before his wedding ceremony. On application of his fiancee, the County Clerk was ordered (by court) to sign his marriage license.

Florida has never been the same since they stepped on that slippery slope.

Suggest removal:

113WilliamC(10 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Since you want to reprise walter's argument, I will republish my response to his post @#119.

If procreation is the EXPRESSED PURPOSE for marriage, then one would have expected that would have been a condition for the issuance of a marriage license.

If a childless marriage were contrary to "the founder's vision", they would not have countenanced marriage between adults beyond childbearing age.

Similarily, infertile couples should not be able to marry because it their marriage would violate what many have SPECULATED was "the founder's vision"

Suggest removal:

114GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

It's amazing how many people today know what the Founding Fathers intended nearly 240 years ago and proudly state it on internet message boards.

Suggest removal:

115GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Nice try evio, yet again with another fail.

Suggest removal:

116lajoci(486 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

What a hilarious discussion!

What's left? Today, same-sex marriage; tomorrow, they're comin' ta git our shootin' arns, boys?

Scary to think about how many of these right-wingers are actually attracted to the notions they so fervently oppose, actually getting their jolleys fantasizing about what goes on in other people's bedrooms, even as they swear their abhorrence about those same fantasies!

Hey fellas! We live in modern times! Get real! Try to understand that social mores are human constructs, vulnerable to shifts and changes over time.

I know you like to believe your own personal values are perfect, absolute, immutable, and set in stone, and should be codified in the law, but that just isn't true in all cases, so you really need to get over yourselves.


Get over yourselves.

Suggest removal:

117HSG(162 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Like, 1865' 14th amendment passed!

Like, 1888 some women started to vote!

Like, 1964' civil rights bill passed!

Like, 1965, voting rights bill passed!

It seems like all this, the extension of freedom to all US citizens, took time, but became history. It also seems like the same geographic regions seem to struggle with the arrival of the future.

It must really cause bitterness to be on the wrong side of history.

Suggest removal:

118DACOUNTRYBOY(385 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Sir Chomps Alot, a Florida Gator, craves human companionship. I say that we should allow him to get married to the human of his choice. Who are we to deny others the pleasures that they seek in life? Do we dare draw the line on anything in the interest of happiness for those who have a desire for what we consider repulsive?

Suggest removal:

119dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I'm sure PITA finds hunting repulsive. Killing poor animals. Should we draw the line there, because some find it repulsive countryboy? You aren't going to have the same views as everyone else. People were outraged at the thought of abolishing slavery as well, those people were repulsed at the idea of blacks owning their own land and having rights.

Suggest removal:

120DACOUNTRYBOY(385 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Like the slogan of that famous steakhouse, NO RULES JUST RIGHT. I will be ready with a film crew to document the first human and gator cohabitation. Keep me informed.

Suggest removal:

12176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

As long as we're talking about gay marriage, why don't we change the rules in sports. I think baseball players should be allowed to play in a football game. They can bat the ball instead of kick. Or football players can kick the ball instead of bat in a baseball game. How about tackling the runners as they run the bases? We want everyone to have the same rights. Forget about the rules. Who needs them? Consequences? Forget about consequences? We all want to be able to play. Oh, wouldn't it be fun to kick a football into a basketball net?

The rules in each game are different and there's a reason for the rules you say? Well, I don't see why we can't change the rules so everyone is happy.

So gay marriage changes the game, no longer defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Future generations will have marriages that look like this: A man and an man get married. 2 fathers from one man's side of the family and 2 fathers from the other man's side of the family will be there. Both grandfathers from both sides will also attend the happy union. Friends from all walks of life will be there to celebrate this new family's sacred union.

Suggest removal:

122dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Usually you are somewhat rational 76, but you sounded more like eivo in your last post. Rules in sports change all the time. Why don't people just worry about the sanctity and holiness of their own marriage, and quit worrying about everyone else's lives and relationships? Who cares about what the gay couple does down the street? Is what they do going to affect YOUR marriage?

Suggest removal:

12376Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

evio: "we shouldn't care about what people do in their bedrooms" When it becomes an issue that will redefine marriage and changes the entire structure of our society it becomes everyone's issue. The family unit has been under attach for generations. Funny how money is at the root of the reason for SSM and a major reason that there are so many single mothers.

Suggest removal:

124GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Posts 185, 186, and 187.

Dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

@JS. Oppressing straight people. Shaking my head. Hate to tell ya, there's ALWAYS been gays in the Scouts.

Evio, no comment, we're used to his ignorance. For someone who doesn't care about other peoples bedrooms you sure post enough about them.

Then there's 76... Wow. Where to begin. Family's under attack for generations? How? Worry about the sanctity of marriage by doing something about the divorce rate. And what is the reason for single mothers? Money? SSM?

God help us all.

Suggest removal:

125dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You didn't know that any of them were gay eivo. I'm sure one or two were, and you survived. How did you know that they weren't gay? Because they didn't paint their nails and sing show tunes, or they refused advances from you? Don't let your kids around any gay people because they can "get gay" if they get too close. What if a teacher at their school is gay? Let me guess, home school! I guess they aren't allowed in church either, because there are gay people that go there too. What would you do eivo if one of your kids came out and told you they were gay? I'm curious....

Suggest removal:

126kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Fascinating Thread. I'm glad a few of you liked my little joke about a masturbator getting hitched to his penis. It's a wonderful concept, really, so convenient because you have a couple all in one- and " he" never nags or asks for an increase in his household allowance- or gives you a "Honey-Do" List.

I know, a little lonely, though. We all want human companionship. I have to say, I grudgingly agree with "dontbeafool"- #192- "You didn't know any of them were gay.... etc" I go to the Y three times a week and in the dressing room I'm surrounded by naked guys and- statistically- I know some of them are gay, but can I identify them in any way by their behavior?- No, if my life depended on it, I don't think I could separate the straights from the gays- and I don't think any of us could. It's a stereotype to think gays are overtly recognizable in some way. Not too long ago I worked with a guy for almost two years- a nice person that I really liked (and still do)- and then somebody told me he was gay and had a boyfriend- I was really surprised, I wouldn't have guessed and did my opinion of him change in any way? No, He was still the same person to me- a good person who's company I happened to enjoy.

I'm not a "gay basher"- the only problem I have is with the societal consequences of enlarging the definition of marriage to include anything other than the union of a man and a woman. Other than that, in my view, gays are entitled to the same rights as everybody else.

P.S. Also, another issue- people who might be sexually attracted to each thrown together naked- whether hetero- or homosexual (as in the Boy scouts or the Military, etc)- there's the example of Nudists to consider- I've looked at a few of their websites (for purely educational purposes) and what you see for the most part (unless sex scenes are specifically staged) are naked guys and naked gals together playing shuffle board or roasting wienies in a perfectly normal everyday manner- as if they were dressed- not an Erection to be seen. What that suggests to me is that human beings- regardless of their sexual orientation- are normally pretty good at controlling and inhibiting their sexual impulses when they have to. Of course, you have deviants, but that seems to be the normal rule.

Suggest removal:

127GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Every gay person I've had this discussion with says they did NOT choose to be gay, just like you didn't choose to be straight,so yes evio, there have always been gays in the Scouts. Yes, you have a family member who is gay. Can you blame them from keeping it a secret from you with your attitude and viewpoints?

Suggest removal:

128YtownParent(416 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I have to respond to the whole shower scare posts. Can you imagine the outrage if we started requiring gay students to shower with their female students instead of their male peers. It won't be the gay community that flips out. The conservatives and religious groups with be screaming that the gay community corrupted and destroyed our youth, when 80% of male teenagers suddenly realize they are gay.

Suggest removal:

129dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You are born who you are, then it takes years to discover who you really are. Stateline, I'm sure as a baby, you weren't checking out the opposite sexed babies in the nursery were you? Why not, you were straight? So your comment is basically ignorant.

Suggest removal:

130dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

And another thing, a couple of you seem to think that SSM is all about benefits and money. Well there is nothing in the definition of marriage that states you will receive tax breaks, family rates, and other perks of marriage. All these benefits are man made laws. So how would you feel if they were taken away from you and your spouse? Call SSM a Civil Union or what not, but they should be given the same entitlements as a married couple.
@ytown, simple solution about the showers. Put up stalls to give EVERYONE some privacy. Nothing is probably more embarrassing for an insecure teen, than to get naked in front of all your classmates.
@eivo, it was discouraged and considered unacceptable I understand, but times change. Adulterers were also stoned to death at one time. You still didn't answer my question! Dad (Mr. eivo Sir) I have something to tell you, I am gay. Your response is????

Suggest removal:

13176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

dontbeafool: actually, the tax breaks, family rates and perks are the reason they're trying to change marriage definition...money. Singles are taxed higher, married folks have inheritance benefits and yes, insurance rates have lower family rates. Those laws could be changed.

Suggest removal:

132dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

My point. Marriage is a Holy union of souls, that is it. Why do married folks get these perks? It isn't a religious right to have these financial perks. Why do you think that gay people only want to get married for financial benefits and not love? Did you get married because of the financial benefits, or because you loved your husband? So either give gays who want to be married/civil union the same benefits as heterosexuals, or take away the benefits of heterosexuals who are married. Just be fair about it. I just can't believe that you can't comprehend that most of these couples are in it for love and not just benefits.

Suggest removal:

133Jerryl(105 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Tax breaks... that's what I though originally

However : "The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from some married couples filing that would not be required by two otherwise identical single people with exactly the same income, as well as the higher taxes that one partner to a marriage may pay on marriage, while the other partner receives a "marriage bonus" or lower taxes. Multiple factors are involved, but in general, in the current U.S. system, the earner in a single-income couple usually benefits greatly from filing as a married couple, while the nonearner in a single-income couple and both earners in dual-income couples receive "marriage penalties" whether filing jointly or separately[citation needed]. The percentage of couples affected has varied over the years, depending on shifts in tax rates." - wikipedia

Suggest removal:

134dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

STFU stateline. Pretty ballsy behind a keyboard! I am engaged to a woman, I just know gay people who I work with and am neighbors with who are very nice people. Maybe you are a homophobe who has a secret!

Suggest removal:

135Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

The discussion about SSM reminded me of the following lyric:

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changing.

Suggest removal:

136GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

Very 7th grade of you Stateline. You've contributed a lot to this thread.

Suggest removal:

137evio(43 comments)posted 1 year ago

Support from an unexpected source, Jan Brewer

Suggest removal:

138GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

Yes evio, that's it. ( at this point we must point out the sarcasm because some with mental issues can't grasp that concept--we all know who)

Suggest removal:

139GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

Please point out where I was offended? I just pointed out that you are acting like a child. You want to call me homosexual? That's fine. No skin off my back. Couldn't care less. Every homosexual person I know is a great person.

Suggest removal:

140kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year ago

Great Thread, just keeps rolling along like Old Man River, doesn't it- I guess the subject of Sex- of any kind- does that.

Somebody said- "We're born a certain way"- Gay or Straight (or in between) and I think that's fundamentally true- there's been a lot of research to indicate that Pre-natal experience- the wash of hormones we experience in the Womb- largely determines the sexual orientation of an individual- Gay, Sraight, Bi-sexual- and that the brain structure of a gay person may be somewhat different from that of a heterosexual- closer to that of a female (which may explain why so many gays are highly creative- more verbal- than the average male). As I said in my post, my only objection to Gay Marriage is the societal consequences (Pandora's Box) of enlarging the definition of marriage to include anything other than the union of a man and a woman. In every other respect, gay's are entitled to the same rights as everybody else- that should go without saying.

I like what "dontbeafool" said about individual cubicles for showering in male dressing rooms. I think that makes a lot of sense- it should be that way especially for younger men just entering puberty. At the Davis-Y, for instance, where I go several times a week the showers are private and I like that. I do notice, however, most of the men are pretty casual about walking around without their towels- showing everything they have. Now, I make a point of avoiding that, keeping my waist covered as much as I can and my reason for that is not that I'm particularly modest, it's just as a courtesy to the other men- I wouldn't want to give any of those poor guy's an Inferiority Complex!

Suggest removal:

141kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year ago

Well attacking somebody like "dontbeafool" as "gay" because he supports "gay rights" is just plain dumb.

I support equal rights for everybody- including gays- and I've never lusted after a guy in my life and I'm pretty sure I never will. The only issue for me is that the Definition of Marriage stay the same: The Union of a Man and a Woman as it historically has been- gay's can have other types of unions that give them the same advantages as marriage- besides most married couples are miserable anyway, do you really want that?

Suggest removal:

142dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

Stateline can call me gay all he wants, I know who I am. I was defensive because I knew his statements were made to be derogatory and insulting, so I took it as that. I am very tolerable of most people, but A-holes aren't one of the groups that I'm good with. I know one thing, being an A-hole is a CHOICE!
JS, I have said all along that you are born like that. I don't know where the criminal thing came into it though. So that is why you are homophobic JS? You are afraid that a gay person might lead you down that path of gayness? Funny. Maybe I am just secure in my manhood to know that by seeing or talking to a gay person, I won't be led down that path to turn into one!

Suggest removal:

143GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

Eivo, you sound like that idiot mayor from Sochi who said there were no gay oeople in Sochi.

I guarantee you know gay people. Because of your well stated, bigoted views it's understandable why they haven't come out to tell you. I would pay money to see your reaction if someone close to you ever did come out to you. For their sake I hope it's none of your kids because I fear you'd do something typically eivo-stupid and disown them.

Suggest removal:

144DACOUNTRYBOY(385 comments)posted 1 year ago

Those city boys who are into equal opportunities for everyone support the corruption of our youth. I wouldn't shower with any gays, invite them into my home nor allow my children into their homes.

Suggest removal:

145dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

Well, whether or not you like them or not, gay people aren't going anywhere. So eventually either you will have to stay in your house 24/7, or learn how to interact with your gay neighbor, relative, co worker, boss, etc...
Eivo, you never did answer my question I asked several times. IK you stated that neither of your kids are gay, but just hypothetically, what would you do if one came to you today and said they were? Would you disown them, try to talk them out of being gay, tell them that they will burn in hell, tell them that you love them unconditionally, etc.....? Just curious to see how you would handle it.
Still waiting on JS to respond as well.

Suggest removal:

14676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Statistics show less than 2% of the population is gay.

Statistics show less than 2% of the population has green eyes.

Statistics show less than 2% of the population are Jewish.

Statistics show less than 2% of the population are atheist.

It wouldn't be the first time that a tiny segment of our population had the power to change our society. Remember that it took only one person, Madeline Murray O'Hair to remove prayer from our public schools and Roe v Wade changed America with its abortion law. Interesting to note that in the case of prayer in schools, it's not OK to pray in school but the lives of people in prison are turned around by prayer. Also interesting to note is that the woman at the very heart of Roe v Wade is now a 100% pro life advocate.

All people should be afforded certain financial rights but marriage should remain between one man and one woman.

Suggest removal:

147GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

@stateline--"100% of male child molesters that touch little boys are gay"

And 100% of male child molesters that molest little girls are straight. What's your point? Straight men don't molest children? Uh..ok.

@eivo--if anyone gave you an ounce of credibility then your "insult" of calling me the dumbest poster on here would sting. But coming from you, you can keep the title, it's clear who that is, but keep the laughs coming.

By the way, when is the last time you stepped into a classroom? I want to know the day and date you were in a classroom and the teacher talked about homosexuality as you described it. Not what you heard from Faux News. Your actual ears in a classroom.

Suggest removal:

148dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

Js your answer/ comment made no sense. I didn't raise any gay children.
Thanks for your answer eivo
Youngstown, because I believe in fairness to gays, I am a woman? Nonsense.
Child molesters should be shot. Difference between a gay person and a gay person who commits a terrible crime. That comment was rediculous.

Suggest removal:

149kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year ago

You know, JS, I was trying to think of a good, pungent, one word description of your comment #218 and what I came up with was "Imbecilic".

"The gay life is spread by human contact". What does that mean? Are you comparing Homosexuality to Leprosy? Is that what you mean? It's a contagious disease? So, maybe you think gay's should be shunned- put on an Island- like a Leper Colony. I've always had the feeling that "gay bashers" were guys not very secure in their own sexuality and they felt threatened- so anybody different had to be attacked.

The truth is that the "gay life" is for the most part based on genetics- just about all the research shows sexual preferences are "in-born" so persecuting people because of their sexual preferences makes about as much sense as attacking somebody because of the color of their eyes- or the color of their skin- it makes no sense whatsoever.

Having said that, I still don't believe in SSM- Gays can have full civil rights- marriage is another matter- it's an arrangement (Instrument of Torture?) between a man and a woman. That's my view.

P.S. Talking about being "secure in your masculinity", the Litmus Test for me is being in the Y-dressing room surrounded by "Swinging Dicks" of various sizes. I look around me and, believe me, there isn't even a hint of sexual desire in that direction. I continue, as Jimmy Carter said, to "Lust After Women"!

Suggest removal:

150dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

JS, you are reaching the eivo zone. Who on here thinks what Jerry Sandusy did is ok or acceptable? Are you lumping all gay people into the Sandusky group? Your ignorance on gay people is overwhelming. Not every gay person goes out dressed like the village people looking to molest kids. JS I would like you to answer some of the questions in the comment before you last one. When did you chose to be straight, and what where you 5 minutes before you chose? Also, if you are around gay people, are you afraid of being "lead down the path" to become gay?
@ pile, I would like to here more from you and your perspective on this matter. That is if you can tolerate the juvenile, hateful, comments made by some of these posters.

Suggest removal:

151dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

JS, you are too far out there to even understand. You never answer any questions, just babble about child molesters, which isn't even related to the subject. I don't know if you aren't that bright, or just don't write that well.
@ eivo, pretty good information from 1980. I'm sure that there has been no scientific advancement or testing in the last 30 years showing otherwise. Oh but that is the secular position, so it has to be right anyway.

Suggest removal:

152dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

Here are some studies from this century claiming otherwise. These did not come from the lab at Fox News headquarters though, so I am sure that they aren't trustworthy.

Suggest removal:

153DACOUNTRYBOY(385 comments)posted 1 year ago

The gay viewpoint is that they can do no wrong and and all criticism toward them is condemned. The gay view is that nothing is off limits to their desires.

Suggest removal:

154dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

And dem cunntry boys sees nothin wrong wit fornicating wit their cuzins! So why is everyone condemning us? Cuzins shouldn't be off limits, especially if thire hawt!

Suggest removal:

155DACOUNTRYBOY(385 comments)posted 1 year ago

You sound as if you couldn't entice your sisters boyfriend. There is no shortage of girls so us country folk don't have to prey upon family members. Do you have anything off limit to your desires?

Suggest removal:

156dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

It's not true that all county guys pick up firs at their family reunions? I just thought I would lump all country people into the same stereotyped group as you are with gay people.

Suggest removal:

157YtownParent(416 comments)posted 1 year ago

Oh the irony! What eivo fails to realize by spouting outdated psychological classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is that those classifications would qualify all homosexuals for government disability payments, medicaid, etc.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual crimes against children. But that attitude is what lets all the emotionally disturbed women in their 30s & 40s prey on 12-13 year old boys, often their students.

Suggest removal:

158GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

I see the Moron Twins are still at it.

@JS. So I'm guessing you are likewise as outraged by the assault of little girls by men and little boys by women right? Oh wait, I forgot in your warped world a straight person has never, ever molested a child.

@eivo--back to cutting and pasting again I see. Not only are you plagiarizing 34 year old "research", your "expert" comes right out and says "I firmly believe that...". Firmly believe? Now that's cold hard research there. Even he's not convinced of it.

Suggest removal:

159dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

Not to mention, he has a cure for gay and the person can unlearn it. Interesting.

Suggest removal:

160GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

@JS, this is getting tedious. If a gay man molests a child he ought to be put away. Now for the third time. Do straight men molest children?

Suggest removal:

16176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Boys, boys, boys... focus! Sadly, there are perverts with all kinds of preferences that take advantage of children. This article is about same sex marriage. Should we re-define marriage from what has long been considered to be the union of one man and one woman?

Suggest removal:

162GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

JS. For the fourth time. Do straight men molest children, or is this only a gay thing?

Suggest removal:

163dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

ytown, you are a closet wimp who had his lunch money stolen as a kid, and probably get bullied to this day. You are a wimp pretending to be a tough guy behind a computer screen where nobody can find out who you are. Otherwise your tone and demeanor would change if you seen me face to face. You would coward as you do every other day of your life. You would also be looking up at me through swollen eyelids.

Suggest removal:

164dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

so JS, basically families who have any homosexuals in it are not normal and have severe mental issues. That explains Dick Cheney then.

Suggest removal:

165GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

JS. For the fifth time, has there never been a straight man molest a child or is that only a gay thing?

Suggest removal:

166dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

And I can at least respect Ytownomg for one thing. He at least has the ballz to say and use slurs about gays, which is what 90% of the rest of you want to say but won't. It isn't right, but at least he isn't faking.

Suggest removal:

167GoPens(397 comments)posted 1 year ago

@JS. All it takes is a simple yes or no answer, not your typical beat around the bush, I know what the answer is but if I say it then I proved myself wrong answer that you keep spewing.

For the sixth time.Has there never been a straight man molest a child? Yes or No

Suggest removal:

168dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

well said, I couldn't agree more. And with that said, I can't take anymore of this nonsense (this thread). So barring any personal attacks on myself, I will be departing.

Suggest removal:

16976Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

This is the latest in a wave of statements many interpret as the Vatican softening its stance on homosexuality. Don’t be fooled. Francis is not the first pro-gay pope.

Pope Francis reinforced this impression in his response, when he said—-as he has always said—that “matrimony is between a man and a woman.” Despite the pope’s clear and consistent opposition to marriage equality, many media outlets broadcast misleading headlines, tantalizing the millions of liberal, gay-friendly, marriage-equality-supporting Catholics here in the United States.

Suggest removal:

17076Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Repub: You obviously read misinterpreted the the quote "not the first pro-gay Pope" in much the same way the article refers to the original misinterpretation of the Pope supporting gay unions.

Another look will show that he is NOT a pro-gay Pope and most definitely pro marriage between only a man and a woman.

Suggest removal:

171DACOUNTRYBOY(385 comments)posted 1 year ago

Knowing right from wrong and dousing his victim with gasoline before setting him ablaze to cover the crime. The eight year old boy badly disfigured from burns over 99% of his body succumbed to his injuries at the age of twenty one. His attacker is just now coming to justice.


Suggest removal:

172DACOUNTRYBOY(385 comments)posted 1 year ago

Same as your point. Nothing priestly here and much more henious.

Suggest removal:

173eevo(51 comments)posted 1 year ago

I've changed my mind. Have you seen that Putin guy shirtless? Grrrrrrrrrrr

Suggest removal:

174SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year ago

Pew Research Poll:
61% Of Young Republicans Favor Marriage Equality


Suggest removal:

175southsidedave(5027 comments)posted 1 year ago

Our Country continues to decline and the World laughs at us...very sad

Suggest removal:

176SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year ago

I'm not sure what you are referring to with "the world laughs at us", but since you brought it up...

Here are the countries that have legal same sex marriage:
United Kingdom
South Africa

Suggest removal:

177eevo(51 comments)posted 1 year ago

Putin is laughing, while shirtless bear wrestling!

Suggest removal:

178dontbeafool(1273 comments)posted 1 year ago

When I look at these countries, I do not look at any of them in a negative light, nor think that they are "laughable". Most of them seem to be quiet and totally out of the news completely. I think more people laugh at us because of our politics, double standards, and hypocrisy.

Suggest removal:

179kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year ago

I was going to comment again, but I stopped and decided I would research the issue a little more carefully than I have and see if my gut-reaction- "I don't like the Idea of Same Sex Marriage"- is something that I can defend intellectually. At this point, I am not sure, so, I guess the best thing I can do for a little while is "Shut-up and hit the Books"- i.e. research the matter more carefully and then see where I stand (at some point you have to do more than say: "I just don't like it! and name-calling and sarcasm are a limited mode of response, too.)

P.S. Issues like this- Social Issues- are always, always, harder to decide than purely political ones- like, for instance, "Would the Mahoning Valley be better off with a real Two Party System than being run by a Corrupt Machine". That's one dear to my heart and deciding IT is "easy peasy" compared to an issue like SSM.

Suggest removal:

18076Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

In 2001, the Netherlands was the first country to legalize SSM. There should be some emerging data that tells show trends and consequences.

"Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter."

"The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years."

"In The Sexual Organization of the City..."typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

In Male and Female Homosexuality, ...the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year."

"Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

In contrast:

"A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]"

"Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage."


So when we hear that the argument for SSM is equality, it makes you wonder if changing our definition of marriage between one man and one woman is instead an attack on the traditional marriage. If SS couples do not share the same values of commitment and fidelity but reasons for SSM are mainly financial, then why do we not just address the laws concerning the financial issues?

Suggest removal:

181kurtw(1064 comments)posted 1 year ago

Thank you- 76- a lot of food for thought in that post!

One thing I was wondering: Is there a difference in terms of percentage of long-term relationship vs. transient encounters between lesbians and gay men? My guess would be that women are more likely to have enduring relationships than men.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes