What is your view on marriage...?

When it's GOOD there's no finer institution. When it's BAD there's no worse....

marriage can be nice & a blue parrot .

Just call me a "twisted sister!" Don't see how loving someone who loves me back is twisted, but hey, you have the right to be a moron. :)

and you have the right to be a flake.

a scam for religious and government groups to get rich...........

It's up to the people involved, no one else.

It worked for Grandparents it worked for Parents and so hopefully it will work for me.

Hmmm...wait till Shariah comes to America...

let's hope that never happens

I could really care less what people do as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Gay people have every right to be married so they endure the anguish of hetero marriages.. (jk)

I believe in the real definition of marriage.

I mean one man and possibly many women where the women are treated as property?

Are you talking about Polygamy? That is not the "Biblical view of marriage."

Sure it is. Many of the prominent figures in the bible practiced polygamy without any harm. The NT never actually states that polygamy is sinful either. And of course every good Christian knows that women are property of men.

Wrong. Deuteronomy 17:17
"And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold."

Interesting. You're the only person to come up with an actual reference on the topic. I also find it interesting that it says you shouldn't become excessively rich right there too. I wonder how Romney feels about that.

He probably doesn't care much, but when it's between him and Obama, a politician whose only legislature is focused on giving Atheists and Homosexuals (a vast minority) legal superiority to Christians (79% of the United States population), I think I know where my vote is going.

Romney is Obama. In fact most of the policies are a dead match.

http://politicoid.blogspot.co...

Why vote for someone who might be slightly lesser of two evils if that when you can vote for a good person instead?

"Why vote for someone who might be slightly lesser of two evils if that when you can vote for a good person instead?"
-I wish I could vote for a "good person," but I'm not going to throw away my vote on a wild goose chase. It's sad the GOP threw away Bachman and Santorum.

So long as Romney doesn't promote homosexuality and legally discriminate against Catholics, he's already better than Obama.

So he'll drive this country into the ground but he won't promote homosexuality so all is good. We'll ignore the fact that he created the blue print for PPACA, raised taxes in his state, used tax money to fund green energy programs which failed, and said that he supports GLOBAL cap and trade which could cause a global economic collapse resulting in massive increases in poverty and starvation around the world.

"So he'll drive this country into the ground but he won't promote homosexuality so all is good."
-I reiterate, Better than Obama.

Perhaps, but Gary Johnson is better than both of them. Vote for a good person not one of the two evil idiots.

You people float up every year and split the ticket so much that the worst possible choice gets elected. If say a hundred of people voted for Johnson, then that's a hundred votes less for Romney and Obama is that much more likely to stay in power.

If you really want Obama out, you'll have to vote for Romney.

And you people allow one of two pieces of scum to be elected each time. That's why we have continued growth of oppressive government at the expense of American freedom and prosperity.

American history is consistent. It is a two party system and third party candidates can never win as a result. Not even Theodore Roosevelt (who was exceptionally popular) could win under a third party ticket.

Because people have been brainwashed by the Republocratic machine to believe so. Do you realize that if people always thought like that Abe Lincoln never would have been elected?

"Do you realize that if people always thought like that Abe Lincoln never would have been elected?"
-The Republican Party was mainstream by 1860; it wasn't a third party. I think it's noteworthy to realize that the election of 1860 was one of a kind and isn't remotely similar to the 2012 election (there haven't been four main parties in any other election).

"Because people have been brainwashed by the Republocratic machine to believe so."
-No, people like you will vote for Johnson and then realize that half of the United States can't legitimately vote for him and it's impossible for him to get enough votes to win. Then Obama will smugly take office again because the ticket was split and ruin America more (if possible).

I'd rather vote for a good man and lose than a lesser evil and win. I will be working on ensuring that evil does not continue to destroy this country, you will be working on ensuring that it does.

You're mistaken to believe that Johnson will make our country any better than Romney. Hell, he has the exact same agendas as Obama for every social position.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.co...
http://www.garyjohnson2012.co...

I don't care about his social position. He won't destroy our freedom. He will let US decide. He won't sign international contracts causing mass starvation. He won't take away our hard earned money and destroy businesses. He won't push for government spending to the point where it collapses.

And you're worried about whether the person defends gay marriage? Get your priorities straight.

"I don't care about his social position."
-So the "soul" of the country, the determination of what it means to be an American, and what the world will be like to our children is unimportant to you?

"He will let US decide."
-Nope. He supports homosexual marriage; the majority of Americans don't. He will force his Liberal beliefs on Americans the same as Obama does.

"And you're worried about whether the person defends gay marriage? Get your priorities straight."
-I am concerned about morality, defense, stability, and the future of America. You are concerned about fiscal policies? You Need to Get Your Priorities Straight!

Same sex marriage is not the sole of this country. If you think it is then so be it, but I'd feel really sad for this country if indeed the sole of society was to prevent two people from loving each other from being together.

Do you want to know what the sole of this country is? Freedom! Freedom from the government telling you what to do! Freedom to decide your own path in life!

http://politicoid.blogspot.co...

"Same sex marriage is not the sole of this country."
-Yes it is. It is a conflict between the Monotheistic religions (82% of Americans) and the Others (Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists) over what is moral. In the end, morality is the only real thing that matters.

"Freedom! Freedom from the government telling you what to do! Freedom to decide your own path in life!"
-Nonsense. Since it's creation in 1776, the United States has been dictating what its citizens can and can't do. Johnson, if miraculously elected, will only continue that legacy. Don't be naive.

You really don't think that this country was founded on freedom, especially freedom from an oppressive government. That's sad. You might want to read the founders views on the topic.

No wonder you have no problem electing Romney, you really do want the government telling you how to live your life.

"You really don't think that this country was founded on freedom, especially freedom from an oppressive government."
-I've studied U.S. history on a professional level for many years; there is no real freedom (at least not in your delusional context). Most countries have much less involved governments than the United States (take any African country and it's far less regulated and involved in the average person's life).

That's sad. You might want to read the founders views on the topic.
-Save your delusional propaganda for the ignorant. Washington to Obama has been dictating what you can and can't do in great detail. The founding fathers wanted to dictate your life instead of the British Empire dictating it; nothing more than ambition.

"No wonder you have no problem electing Romney, you really do want the government telling you how to live your life."
-I am only informed enough to realize that the government will be regulating my life either way. If Johnson was elected today, he'd be legalizing homosexual marriages and destroying the lifestyle that 82% of Americans desire. Romney would be protecting our lifestyle and making sure that disgusting perverts weren't flaunting their sexuality in front of our children.

There is no real freedom. Wow! You sound just like the authoritarian Democrats that I was arguing with a few weeks ago. Enjoy your slavery to the state.

"There is no real freedom."
-Not here in the U.S. anyway. If you want real freedom go to Africa, where there are no taxes and almost no laws.

"Enjoy your slavery to the state."
-I don't enjoy it, but at least I don't delusionally pretend that it doesn't exist. Denying the truth will never help anyone.

Freedom can oppressed by not taken away. You allow the government to continue the oppression while I try to stop it.

"Freedom can oppressed by not taken away."
-Freedom exist not in your terms.

"You allow the government to continue the oppression while I try to stop it."
-No, you support Johnson, which in effect supports the oppression. No matter what you do, vote for anyone, don't vote for anyone, the United States government will always control your life to an extent. I can accept that, if you can't I recommend moving to someplace where the government won't actually intervene.