Harris has co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and would prevent states from approving same-sex marriages.
The bill would need two-thirds of both chambers of Congress to approve it, and at least 38 states would have to ratify it.
More
34 comments:
He has nothing better to do with his time and the taxpayers' money?
It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex to "marry".
6:36 your existence is biologically impossible...
There is nothing natural about homosexuality. Those who make the choice to practice it will not be able to explain it when needed.
What a jerk he is.
Bad economy, terrorism, global warming and a thousand other issues need the amount of attention being focused on same sex marriage.
I agree with Andy Harris. I voted for him and I think he is doing a great job. I also think that it is great he stands up for his principals and beliefs. This liberals and homosexuals are out of control.Marriage has always been between a man and woman. There was no Adam and Steve in the bible. I don't think that churches or any other religious organization should recognize homosexual marriages. Being a homosexual is a sin and just right down nasty also.
He just lost my vote in the next election...marriage is a state/federal thing...no longer a religious institution...unless you need a preacher.
It's about dam time.
Thanks, Andy. Keep up the moral fight. We, as a country, need to be allowed to keep our morals and Bill of Rights intact.
Call it whatever PC phrase you want, its NOT natural and shouldn't be called marriage which is between a man and a woman.Society is numb to all kinds of "wrongs" now days. Accepting this issue will come back to bite you.
Joe, what do you think about this?
Gay marriage will never be considered normal even if it is mandated by law. The LGBT community will never have the respect that they desire partly because they are so outwardly hypersexual.
Go Andy Harris. Thanks for standing up for traditinal values. I voted for him and will again!
I knew one of the Trolls posting against this was Chuck Cook. I saw his FB posting about it. Interesting how he also attacked Congressman Harris and the House of Reps with that "derogatory" terminology "Tea Party." I am surprised he didn't call them Tea Baggers this time. Funny how he didn't mention how pressing jobs and the economy were when Obama, O'Malley and all the liberal Democrats fought so hard to get the bill passed in Maryland and other states. Ok let's spend millions getting it passed then we will worry about the economy. Democrats have a warped way of analyzing things. (Analyzing.)
Chuck Cook
Is this the most pressing thing facing the country right now? A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Glad to see the House of Tea Party Representatives is keeping their priorities on jobs and the economy.
Md. rep. still looking to ban same-sex marriage
www.wbaltv.com
U.S. Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican from Maryland, is creating a new push to ban same-sex marriages.
I'm curious about all the folks proclaiming that it's not "natural". It has been something prevalent in our species for as long as we've been on this planet, AND evidence of it is found in other species.
Please, would someone explain, SPECIFICALLY, what they mean by it is NOT natural.
If the argument is that "natural" means "able to procreate", by your logic, anyone who is sterile would also be "not natural" and also not allowed to marry.
Anonymous said...
I'm curious about all the folks proclaiming that it's not "natural". It has been something prevalent in our species for as long as we've been on this planet, AND evidence of it is found in other species.
Please, would someone explain, SPECIFICALLY, what they mean by it is NOT natural.
If the argument is that "natural" means "able to procreate", by your logic, anyone who is sterile would also be "not natural" and also not allowed to marry.
July 5, 2013 at 12:03 PM
I've got a better idea why don't you prove that it is natural. Where is your evidence. I have seen you post your analogy about someone being sterile before. That's comparing apples oranges. Well in this case comparing anuses to vaginas. You are an idiot!
@ 1:25
Unfortunately, that is not the way it works. People here have posited a claim, and when that happens, it must be backed up with evidence/supporting data... which I have asked for. A definition of "natural". The burden of proof lies with the person asserting the claim, not the other way around. What you have asked for is a logical fallicy. It's as if I asserted there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. You said proove it, and I responded with "You prove that it isn't".
What I am looking for, is people to substantiate the claim that it is not natural, and what makes them think so.
I take issue with your name calling, there is no reason to call people idiots. Lets try and keep this civil.
@ 2:30 who says it's not the way it works? My guess is you. You are still an idiot!
What is so natural about 2 men doing each other or 2 women doing each other. Women pretending to be men. Men wearing dresses pretending to be a woman. Sex changes are not natural. Is is natural that homosexuals can't reproduce on their own. Homosexuality just flat out unnatural and nasty !
4:47 PM you hit the nail on the head. Keep up the good work Congressman Harris.
To 12:03 pm. Not only is it unnatural it is perverted and immoral. Read the history of sodomy for Maryland. It is also illegal in the state of Maryland to have non-vaginal sex. What more evidence do you need?
I think they should start enforcing the law about sodomy. That is just sick I would not even do that stuff with my wife let alone another male.Yuk. They should start arresting the homosexuals.
Hey Andy its a two-thirds majority in BOTH chambers of Congress. You are wasting our time and money. Grandstanding on a pointless and fruitless endeavor. Maybe you could attempt to vote to repeal Obamacare? Nevermind that's been done over thirty times. You should be ashamed of yourself every time you receive a paycheck.
@ all responding to "natural" or "moral".
You all have STILL not defined what natural is, and have not explained why homosexuality is NOT natural.
Yelling "louder" and describing what homosexuals may or may not practice in the privacy of their own bedrooms and labeling it "not natural" STILL does not define what natural is, and why you believe homosexuals to not be natural. I posit that you cannot do it, and if you try, it will expose the hypocrisy of your argument.
If your argument is that it is not moral, because your religion says so, then you have the freedom to practice your religion and not be gay. However, that does NOT give you the right to label others as "immoral" because your holy book says so, nor does it give you the right to legislate morality based on your holy book. This is CLEARLY defined by the establishment clause. NO ONE is taking your right to practice your faith. Trying to steal someones freedom and happiness because your holy book says so, well, that is what I would consider "immoral"
"You all have STILL not defined what natural is, and have not explained why homosexuality is NOT natural."
You're really hung up on this. I don't at all care if someone decides they are gay, but I am doubtful as to the 'natural' aspect of it. Sex is, first and foremost, a tool for continuation of the species - sorry to be unromantic, but there it is. That generally doesn't happen if the participants are of the same sex. I am familiar with the tiresome examples of dolphins and penguins and the suggestion that they have homosexual encounters. In those cases, I don't believe that intent has ever been established. Bottom line, I would hold that 'natural' sex is between partners that are most likely to result in procreation.
>>>He has nothing better to do with his time and the taxpayers' money?<<<
Amazing all the progressive types who are so concerned about the taxpayers' money. I have to wonder if they are equally outraged by the Odumbo family's $100 million vacation to Africa...
At 2.23
So by your logic, a couple who could not procreate are unatural? A sterile man and aan infertile woman would be unatural? If the only criteria of natural was procreation.
Do I understand you right?
"Do I understand you right?" No, you don't understand at all. I'm not even certain how you made that inference. I'm talking what is natural to a species. This was a response to the poster who kept questioning the NATURAL aspects of homosexuality.
@ 7:48
I guess then, there is some confusion. If you define "natural" as being able to procreate, and that is what sex ultimately boils down to, then any act of sex other than one for the sole purpose of procreation would be "un-natural". Do I now understand you?
And, if this were the case, heterosexual couples engaging in sexual activities of any kind other than those meant for producing children would be "un-natural" as well?
I think, you are only describing what is necissary for procreation, and not what is commonly occuring behavior in humans.
You have described what is needed for procreation, but I do not think you have shown anything that exposes the "un-naturalness" of homosexual behavior. Nor, have you defined what Natural is in terms of behavior, or why homosexuals are un-natural.
You Go Andy you got my VOTE !!
"If you define "natural" as being able to procreate" Stop right there - I made no such statement. You stated "You all have STILL not defined what natural is, and have not explained why homosexuality is NOT natural." And I explained from a naturalist's point-of-view. The relationship that is most likely to result in continuation of the species is the 'natural' one. Infertility, birth-control and all other incidentals are irrelevant. Sex between a male and female will always be more likely to result in reproduction than sex between 2 members of the same gender. Its that simple. And I don't care one whit if you are gay - more power to you. My comment is only concerned with whether the tendency is natural.
@ 4:42
Ipso Facto then any sexual behavior/or behavior other than the one that results in the continuation of the species, i.e. procreation, would then be "un-natural", yes?
@4:42
Also, if the relationship that will most likely result in the continuation of the species is the "natural" one, would it not be fair to argue that monogomy and marriage inhibit, or limit, the propogation of the species. Could we consider them "un-natural"?
Post a Comment