Elton John Threatens Rick Santorum’s Marriage
By on May 23rd, 2005 at 10:28 am
Elton John Threatens Rick Santorum’s Marriage
Elton John recently announced his plans to marry longtime partner David Furnish.
Why are these men trying to destroy Sen. Rick Santorum’s marriage? From this weekend’s New York Times Magazine:
When I asked him [Rick Santorum] if he viewed gay marriage as a threat to his own marriage, he answered quickly. “Yes, absolutely,” he said. ”It threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
How weak is a marriage that is “threatened” by another’s marriage? It’s not that homosexuals marrying each other threatens hetero marriage, it just threatens Santorum’s (and other’s) yearning for the America of their parents – lilly white suburbs where the riff-raff lived on the other side of the tracks and didn’t consort. They used to hate the blacks – they lost that battle, now it’s time to hate the gays.
We are still not fully melted together. Biggotry continues in this country (strong word? at least it’s correct…) As long as people decide who gets access based on lifestyle, we are still a discriminatory society. Do people really want to write discrimination into the constitution?
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:43 amRuss,
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:09 amRepublicans indeed do want to write into the Constitution as many discriminatory rules as they can come up with. Please don’t look for any moderation from that group of idealogues.
If Elton John wants to marry a horse, I don’t care. That’s his business.
Actually, the Byzantine empire plowed the way.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:14 amFrom reading the entire NY Times Magazine piece, it at least appears that Santorum has some sense that poverty is wrong. The article makes it seem that Santorum even approves of federal funding to the poor.
BUT….he seems totally oblivious to the fact that his beliefs are subjective: the result of his having been born in the US, to Catholic parents, during the 20th century, with the specific package of experiences and neurologic synapses that he has.
Put him back two centuries, and he’d likely believe in slavery, the subjugation of his wife to the point that she could never obtain a law degree, and the need to keep immigrants out of America.
Have him born in Saudi Arabia in the 20th century to Muslim parents and watch him fly planes into tall buildings in America, or beat his wife severely for having the audacity to try to obtain a law degree.
To be completely unaware of the subjectivity of your beliefs, yet willing to fight to the death to have those beliefs inflicted on others–S C A R Y. That’s exactly how “good intentions” end up killing more people than disease.
The article also notes that Santorum congratulated the new Pope on his election, using terms that clearly indicate Santorum believes the Pope to be THE most holy of God’s messengers, or some such. If these people ever do overcome us heathens, how long before the Santorums of the world turn on the Jews and Protestants who don’t believe that the Pope holds that Godly position?
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:16 amAmerican Taliban member Santorum explicitly linked same-sex marriage to national security during the debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment:
“I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:22 amAs Lance Mannion pointed out recently (http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2005/05/no_damn_good.html), the right views homosexuality as a choice. If people can choose to marry someone of the same gender, they just might.
If Elton John can marry a man, then Ricky could marry a man! (or a dog, according to Rick) That’s a threat to his marriage.
Draw your own conclusions.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:36 amSorry, that’s not the link I meant. Now I can’t remember who’s post I was trying to link to. Does that mean I have to retract?
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:37 amCongratulations to Elton & David. My best to them. I hope they do a better job of it than 60% of couples in heterosexual marriages. People entering gay marriage may, at least at first, have more success because they want it more, appreciate it more. I certainly made a mockery of marriage with my own sorry-assed 16 year attempt.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:52 amThis sounds very similar to another hilarious quote:
What is this overwhelming desire to vastly exagerrate the ‘dangers’ of homosexuality? Reps and Senators could at least make an EFFORT to conceal their homophobia.
This is embarrassing for America.
May 23rd, 2005 at 12:17 pmMaybe it’s a threat to his marriage because his wife may have latent lesbian tendencies and decides to leave his ass to marry another woman!
This country has way more important issues to resolve…like drawing up articles of impeachment on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Frist and doing some major house cleaning.
May 23rd, 2005 at 1:30 pmMarriage is for men & women. Those of you who do not understand how America feels about this issue, will just have to sit back and watch your Dem party get massacred again in the next election(s).
How naive. What next? Is the Dem party going to choose the week before the election to try to legalize child porn?
May 23rd, 2005 at 1:35 pmHow does extending civil rights to your countrymen and women include legalizing child porn?
May 23rd, 2005 at 1:45 pmmassacred? I think not.
Equal rights for all as naive? Please.
Eventual progress for gay marriage is inevitable. Why do you think rikki tikki tavi and co. are in such a hurry? Even Pat Buchanan conceded this last week in an interview.
The NYT Magazine article is quite amazing. Dick Santorum will have lot of fun in the private sector.
May 23rd, 2005 at 1:47 pmYes, Buckshot, that’s right. Are you intercepting Howard Dean’s notes or something?
May 23rd, 2005 at 1:52 pmHold on a second now… you can’t legally marry a dog or a horse or any other of God’s creatures because they can’t give consent! Stop raping animals already.
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:04 pmIf homosexuality is a choice, doesn’t it follow that heterosexuality is also a choice? Funny, but I don’t remember deciding to be straight; I just woke up one morning and looked at boys in a WHOLE NEW WAY. The Religious Reich is afraid of gays (why, I can’t imagine; what do they think gays will do to them?); that’s what all this frou-fraw is about.
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:18 pm90% in agreement w/ Jane.
Unfortunately, it’s not limited to gays. The “Religious Reich” wants to tell everyone how to conduct his or her personal life– even while often practicing radically different lifestyles than what they preach.
Medbh Sings did a brilliant rant on this: It’s Saturday night–Do you know where your Repuglican is?. Please check it out.
For just a sample:
##
Are the child molesting, animal sex abuse aficionados, mistress choking, gay sex stud for hire, falafel dialing for sex, First Lady horse sex joke making, drug abusing antics just the tip of the iceberg of scandals?
—-LOS ANGELES – Porn star and former gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey will be joining her boss, Kick Ass Pictures president Mark Kulkis, in attending a dinner with President Bush in Washington, D.C. on June 14.
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:32 pmKulkis was invited to attend the event by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which is organizing the event. Over a two-day course of NRCC events preceding the dinner, Carey and Kulkis will be attending a meeting with presidential advisor Karl Rove, giving their recommendations on important national issues.
“I’m hoping to run as Lieutenant Governor of California next year,” Carey said. Since Arnold {Schwarzenegger} is a Republican, I thought this dinner would be a great networking opportunity for me.
“I’m honored to be invited to this event,” Kulkis said. Republicans bill themselves as the pro-business party. Well, you won’t find a group of people more pro-business than pornographer. We contributed over $10 billion to the national economy last year.”
“I’m especially looking forward to meeting Karl Rove,” Carey added. “Smart men like him are so sexy. I know that he’s against gay marriage, but I think I can convince him that a little girl-on-girl action now and then isn’t so bad!”
Kulkis serves as an Honorary Chairman on the NRCC”s Business Advisory Council, a group of business people who advocate a progressive, pro-business agenda. His company produces hardcore adult videos with a guarantee of “No Fake Boobs & No Condoms.” Carey ran for Governor in the 2003 California Recall Election, while Kulkis served as her campaign manager.
##
That’s Medbh Sings
Buckshot,
I would bet that with all the perversion surfacing in the GOP, that legalizing child pornography is on the Republican agenda!! In fact, isn’t DeLay blocking a legislative effort to investigate sweatshop conditions in the Saipan Garmen Industry on the Mariana Islands, and I think I heard that child forced prostitution was involved.
That’s nice, huh?! How about that dude Hager, anally raping his wife for years?! That’s the GOP we have come to expect. It is only a matter of time before even the Red States turn against the perversion of the Republican Party!!
Styve
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:33 pmThe republicans can’t see the economic value of gay marriage.
Just think how much money would pour into the wedding industry.
Divorce attorneys could double their caseloads.
Is it that Cheney and Keyes don’t want to flip the bill for their daughters weddings?
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:34 pmSusan, lol! And quite frankly, “spot on” as the Brits would say. Exactly right.
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:38 pmI posted and it has not shown up… Does that mean that it was nixed for content, or because I didn’t review the site terms right before posting?
Thanks,
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:51 pmS
There are many reasons why some power-wielding GOP figures attack homosexuality.
1) They’re closet gays themselves. Attacking homosexuality gives them an excuse to “vet” gay porn and tell their followers how bad it is.
2) They’re repressed gays. They’re scared that if the law permitted it they wouldn’t have the willpower to resist trying it, get caught, and be reprimanded by the rest of their party or their religion.
3) They’re closet gays who get a thrill from the illegality of it. Doing something illegal adds an extra thrill. Which is why some gay men in the UK, where homosexuality is legal, go “cottaging” (having sex in public toilets, which is illegal).
4) They’re closet gays who think their kind of passion should be reserved for the elite (who are effectively above the law, as the various Bush family monetary frauds over the years show) and the plebs should not be permitted to enjoy it.
Fortunately they almost always project their failings onto others, so you can be sure that Santorum not only wants gay sex, he wants hot man-on-dog (or possibly dog-on-man) action.
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:55 pmThe only reason I have for opposing marriage of gays is that they are at much higher risk of getting AIDS & STD’s, and their insurance costs (isn’t difficulsty getting health insurance their main beef?) are going to be much higher and will be borne by those traditional couples who pay for their own insurance.
If gays want to leave property to their partners, WRITE A WILL!!!! If your partner wants health insurance, BUY IT.
This issue is only going to harm the dems. If the dems had any sense, they would cut themselves free from gay rights. Otherwise, expect to have it resurface BIG TIME right before every election.
How naive.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:17 pm“The only reason I have for opposing marriage of gays is that they are at much higher risk of getting AIDS & STD’s, and their insurance costs (isn’t difficulsty getting health insurance their main beef?) are going to be much higher and will be borne by those traditional couples who pay for their own insurance.”
If that’s your only reason wouldn’t it make more sense to encourage monogamy in this cohort group?
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:36 pmThe only logical conclusion to draw from buckshot’s comment is that since lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV and STDs, we are the ONLY ones who should be allowed to get married until all the rest of the groups can clean up their sexual acts.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:42 pmAh Christie, you are so correct.. but the poster’s name is “buckshot” which pretty much ensures that he or she (or both) aren’t too concerned with hitting a target, just spraying around.
/naive
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:43 pmFantastic, Christie. Absolutely fabulous!
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:44 pmgo christie…
All in all the dems never attached themselves to gay rights. They simply want whats right, privacy, etc. Many are against gay marriage but even more against republican hypocrisy.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:34 pmChristie,
I just told you my particular objection to gay marriage. I didn’t include gay women in the equation because of the points you mentioned.
I don’t care one way or the other what gays do – I have nothing against gays, nor do I desire to give gays any tax-funded benefits.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:01 pmwhy should they not recieve the same benifits as the rest of the population. that is reall what the argument over gay marriage is about, not religous implications. married couples are afforded many automatic protections, and rights that unmarried couples are not. It is discrimination plain and simple to deny them those rights.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:05 pmMost of these rightwingers really believe that their plots to subvert our elections have resonated with the majority of Americans. They think that by using fear and intimidation through lies, propaganda and half truths that their positions of power are assured “for all time.” Some of them even believe their own rightwing propaganda that tells the myth that they “won” because of “better ideas”. When was the last time you heard those stupid “alerts” by the Dept of Homeland (IN)Security going off AFTER the election??? Yup… better ideas all right… what a sorry bunch of idiots…
May 23rd, 2005 at 7:56 pmOkay, so Buckshot, so we should continue to give YOU our tax dollars for your obviously insecure and lousy marriages??? Are you saying that gays and lesbians by your logic should NOT have to pay taxes to support STRAIGHT people’s marriages AND their children???
May 23rd, 2005 at 7:59 pmHow can we a mear humans judge if gay marriage is right or wrong? Gays are part of the larger cycle of life that the majority of us, including myself, do not understand. I believe that Christ’s teachings include tolerance and love for all. So, I say be married and enjoy. You’ll probably be happier than the majority of heterosexuals that marry.
Make no mistake, Santorum is a facist extremist. Once they shutdown gay marriage next will be inter-racial marriage, then Jew, Muslams, and anyone else that doesn’t fit their master race ideology.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:33 pmBuckshot, writing a will doesn’t cut it.
If a couple is married and one dies, the entire marital property immediately and automatically becomes the property of the surviving spouse. No will, no probate, no taxes, nada.
In community property states, this principle is so deeply enshrined that children typically inherit nothing if a parent dies and leaves a surviving stepparent. It’s very hard to write a will that will get around the spouses’ primary right to the property. (This happened to me: my dad had a will leaving me a small income, but my stepmother’s rights overrode his wishes. She got it all.)
Even with a good will, the best gay couples can get is the right to spend most of a year in probate, with the expectation of paying lawyers, court fees, and possibly estate taxes when it’s all done. This is not equal, any way you slice it.
Also, I’m pretty sure gays aren’t the highest-risk group for AIDS any more. Other groups (drug users and people of color) have long since passed them. And, anyway, wouldn’t being monogamously married tend to improve that situation?
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:45 pmGone at Last is correct,
Black females are now the highest risk group in the country and yes, any monogamous relationship helps to eliminate the odds of contraction of any sexually transmitted disease including HIV.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:49 pmI just told you my particular objection to gay marriage. I didn’t include gay women in the equation because of the points you mentioned.
Oh, please. Is someone proposing gay MALE marriage equality and exluding lesbians or vice versa? Of course not. You’re just bootstrapping.
I don’t care one way or the other what gays do – I have nothing against gays, nor do I desire to give gays any tax-funded benefits.
I don’t want anything you don’t have. Cough it up or give it up, I really don’t care which. Just don’t have one set of laws for me, and another one for you, and we’ll be just fine.
And I assume you are out there trying to eliminate civil marriage for all citizens in the name of tax savings, and not reserving your disapproval for lesbians and gay men?
Of course you are.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:58 pmKrazny,
You speak in such vague terms that it’s obvious you know very little about the subject matter.
Gone at last,
Your probelem is that you don’t understand the law. In most states, a married person has no right to “will” his/her property to a child, as the spouse owns said property upon his/her death.
End of story. Too bad about the income, but you had no right to it. If your father had really wanted to leave you the income, there were many, many different ways he could have accomplished the goal. (a trust, for instance)
A gay person can will his/her property to anyone he/she chooses. A partner, a stranger, the pope, Charles Manson, ANYONE. You need to research first, AND THEN give advice.
Christie,
I just offered my opinion, which is VERY MILD and tolerant, compared to most of xtian America. I really don’t have much interest in gays.
Jimmy,
I was as open and honest as can be. I offered my opinion, ( I could have been clearer) and when Christie brought up a valid point, I conceded.
You should be happy that I can concede a point. I haven’t seen anyone on this blog do it, and I doubt I ever will. The standard procedure here is to call a person a f**ing a**hole.
As far as the insurance point, I didn’t state that gays have a hard time getting insurance. My point was that their medical costs will be higher, due to lifestyle (gay men). Again, I could have worded it better. The “costs” will be borne by the insurer (and spread out among the policy holders).
I’ll try to be more clear.
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:55 pmLet the gays get married and satisfy the anti-abortion fanatics…unless there is a way for same sex partners to impregnate one another that I don’t know about.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:00 pmFellow readers:
I wonder if the freeper troll going by “Buckshot” here is the same freeper troll infesting (true) conservative sites…
Most likely…
G.
May 24th, 2005 at 12:16 amYou don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I could tell you dozens of horror stories of how partners in gay relationships who thought they had iron-clad wills and other legal documents were trampled by some homophobic third cousin who they’d never met who suddenly appeared when there was money/property to be had from their faggot cousin’s boyfriend, all with the willing complicity of the courts. What’s the usual “reasoning”? Back in the pre-Lawrence v. Texas days, it was because they were lawbreakers, sodomites. Now that that pig won’t fly, the usual justification is that there’s no legal standing to the partnership. It’s a classic fuck you: we won’t let you get married but you have no rights solely because you’re not married.
Then there’s the whole hospital rights thing, and the wishes of how to be buried that get ignored by third cousins they’ve never met etc. etc.
Your insurance comment is lame because you know what? Being gay doesn’t equal getting AIDS. I can’t find a source, but I’m pretty sure I read once that smoking and alcoholism cost far more in monetary terms than AIDS. Let’s not insure smokers and drinkers then! If they do both, even better!
Wow, don’t you love it when straight people start lecturing you on the details of gay people’s lives? No, me either.
May 24th, 2005 at 12:19 am“Religious People” are people who are easily threatened by anything. Thats why they have to go to “Church,” so they can meet with people that agree with them to reinforce their beliefs. Religion is like the AA of the superstitious.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:09 ambuckshot: Do you exercise regularly? Do you smoke? Do you eat read meat? Does your family have a histroy of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.? Do you drink alcohol? Do you eat sugar? Do you drink soda? …..
Your point seems to be that your problem with gays is that they drain the pocket books of everyone else with their “high medical bills.” Well, if this is your logic, then to really save the insurance companies money (and thus the policy holders) you should be fighting against all the fat, lazy, smoking, alcohol drinking, red meat eating, etc. Americans, as their toll on medical costs is much higher than any gay man’s would be (HIV positive or not).
Unless you want to attack all these other groups of people who lead “unhealthly lifestyles,” you are being a “f**king a**hole” because you are singling out a particular group of people based on your own prejudices.
P.S. Before you start throwing stones about health insurance costs, maybe you should take your own advice and “research first, AND THEN give advice.”
May 24th, 2005 at 9:55 amBuckshot
It seems to me you make a good argument for gay marriage, because argument against it is so weak. Your health insurance argument is equivalent to someone in the 50’s saying that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to eat in white restaurants because it will increase the popularity of the restaurant and it will raise its prices. If you want to give a good argument against gay marriage explain in a coherent way how gay marriage would create more problems than hetero marriages do.
May 24th, 2005 at 11:56 amCongrats to Elton!!!
Maybe Rick should see gay marriage as the REMOVAL of the threat to his marriage. After all, it removes potential partners from the market, thereby reducing what seems to be a great temptation for him!
May 24th, 2005 at 12:19 pmoops!
May 24th, 2005 at 1:54 pmIt sems the time is rife for medicine to come up with the discovery of the ‘gay gene’. thus allowing an (illegal?) abortion in case of a pre-natal DNA-test.
You can’t even say, that a’–’holes govern, since that would be an insult to homos.
If stupidity would hurt, half the country would be wailing and crying in pain.
Good Luck !
JK,
Your points are valid about other unhealthy lifestyles.
What I find interesting is that when you have a pretty decent argument, you throw everything into the toilet by having a meltdown and calling me a f**ing a**hole.
Your statement that I’m “attacking’ gay marriage is nonesense. I merely stated my opinion, whihc is very mild compared with tens of millions of bible thumpers in America.
Your anger is misdirected.
Tom,
It is not my desire to debate against (or for) gay marriage. I find the whole issue silly.
What I do find worthy of debate is the focus of the Dems on this topic, knowing full well that fifty to seventy million adult voters despise gays and everything that resembles gays.
But hey, if you like lost causes, pick up the battle in the weeks preceding the next election – like last time. The GOP will love you for it.
May 24th, 2005 at 2:49 pmPlease provide evidence of a Democratic “focus” on this topic. Seems to me it’s the Republican Party that’s focusing on it. John Kerry didn’t even support gay marriage in his presidential campaign.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:42 pmbuckshot: You misunderstand my post. I wasn’t having a meltdown. I was merely referring back to your post on people seemingly unprovoked calling you a “f**king a**hole” and pointing out that if you are truly singling out gay men, the way you seem to be, you then indeed are an a**hole. You may find it offensive that people call you an a**hole for harboring such views, but the truth hurts.
About the “attacking gay marriage” thing: I never made any argument about you “attacking gay mariage.” I made an argument about you attacking gay men as leading unhealthy lifestyles and thus increasing insurance companies expenses; but not about gay marriage.
I’ve also noticed you keep justifying your opinion/argument by saying that yours is mild compared to other, more extreme views. So what? Their views are not what’s at issue here. Those people aren’t here to make their case so why are you using them to soften your image? If that is truly how you feel, then own up to it and stop making yourself seem angelic compared to extremists. Obvoiusly you feel your opinion on this matter doesn’t have much merit, otherwise why else would you try to make yourself seem “mild” on this issue?
May 24th, 2005 at 4:13 pmTin Man,
You must have been asleep in the weeks preceeding the last election. Every night on the news, we heard about gays getting married. Scene after scene of gays kissing on courthouse steps in liberal-land.
Liberal judges overturning supreme court decisions in several locations. Perhaps you thought they were conservative judges?
Maybe you just don’t watch the news.
JK,
If you want to spend your time spewing obscenities, well, maybe that’s because your argument has no merit.
You seem to have an issue with my suggestion that gay men lead unhealthy lifestyles and tend to have EXPENSIVE health issues more often than traditional married couples.
Perhaps some research is in order for you.
Another statement of yours shows that you are not comprehending my point. You claim “their views are not what’s at issue here”.
“They” are the American voter. The American voter is predominantly xtian, bible thumping, anti-gay marriage. “They” elected a GOP president, partly because of the nightly broadcasts of gay men french kissing on the courthouse steps in liberal states where judges had made their own law.
You aren’t paying attention. But then, neither is the democratic party as a whole. Just as well. Although I doubt they could have spent any more money.
One thing for sure, the dems would raise taxes on productive people. That’s a bad thing. THAT means a THOUSAND TIMES more than the non-issue of gay marriage to me.
May 24th, 2005 at 10:56 pmI think that the Religious Reich is, at the end of the day, filled with unconscious but enormous rage at anything that allows sex without the inevitable consequences of children. Contraception, abortion, gay marriage, HPV vaccines, comprhensive sex ed, condoms–all of these advances in controlling the risk of unwanted pregnancy are anethema to them because they free women from unwanted or at least carefully planned parenthood. Nothing can be more frightening to them than a woman who cannot be forced to bear a child against her will. It follows, of course, that if a woman can be forced to bear unwanted children, nothing more is necessary to keep her subservient to the men who impregnate her and keep her safely away from independance and power.
May 25th, 2005 at 4:51 amRick Santorum – that sounds like a guy with curly hair that drives an IROC, does a lot of weight lifting and listens to hair metal from the 80s.
May 25th, 2005 at 7:28 amMaybe it is Rick Santorum’s marriage that is a menace to society. I need a milk bone, woof woof!
May 25th, 2005 at 8:00 ambuckshot: By all means, please show me YOUR research/evidence to prove that gay men in committed, monogomous relationships have higher medical bills than their heterosexual counterparts. I would love to see it. Unless you are a gay man (which if you are, I sense some strong internal struggles going on), I’m not sure how you could know about gay men’s health issues. Please enlighten me.
Regarding your arguments. Frankly, you don’t really have any valid arguments of your own. You are merely regurgitating conclusions that you read or saw in the news after the November election. These conclusions, by the way, have since been called into question as to their validity, i.e. it was most likely NOT “moral issues” that won W the election. You can’t seem to stick to one topic and defend it with any evidence or even logic. You are all over the place from last November’s election to taxes to gay marriage. You simply have no coherent points.
The fact of the matter is, I don’t think most Americans know what gay marriage is about and rulings like the one in MA, while seeming to trample on the legislative process, do serve a purpose. And I strongly feel that in time, Americans will see that gay marriage is not going to invalidate their hetero marriages nor will it cause the earth to stop spinning or some other catastrophic event. Sorry to break it to you, gay people don’t control the universe!
I also think that the Christian right is a minority that is simply making a lot of noise right now. The general vibe I get from the news, blogs (and yes, I read blogs from all sides of the aisle), friends, etc. is that the Christian right is overplaying their hand. We’ll see what happens in 2006.
May 25th, 2005 at 8:37 amAnd to think my master’s wife called me a dirty little home wrecker!
May 25th, 2005 at 8:44 amTin Man,
You must have been asleep in the weeks preceeding the last election. Every night on the news, we heard about gays getting married. Scene after scene of gays kissing on courthouse steps in liberal-land.
Liberal judges overturning supreme court decisions in several locations. Perhaps you thought they were conservative judges?
Maybe you just don’t watch the news.
That’s not the Democratic Party, but nice try.
May 25th, 2005 at 3:05 pmTo clarify, buckshot, you wrote “What I do find worthy of debate is the focus of the Dems on this topic,” implying that there’s a party-wide focus on this issue. But all the examples you provide are examples of individual people or judges – not people acting on some central party policy.
May 25th, 2005 at 3:11 pmI’m late jumping into this debate, but I just found it. First, I think buckshot is just a troll and is getting a rise out of creating (lame) controversy. I am married, heterosexual, and I think gay marriage should not be an issue for heterosexuals, because it doesn’t impact on our marriages. It surely doesn’t impact mine. I would much rather see two people in a loving, monogamous relationship, and if that couple wants to be a married couple, why not? I would rather see a stable gay marriage than all the heterosexual divorces in our society. My grand-daughter, who’s parents are married, is the only child in her class who is not from a broken home. So much for stable home environments.
We have some very serious issues in this country that our legislators should be focusing their attention on, and issues of personal privacy should not be taking up valuable time on the floors of congress. But that won’t happen, because once elected, the main thing on the agenda is to remain in office and raise re-election money. Our elected officials are afraid to do anything that will cause them to lose points in the polls. I hate to see the direction that my country is headed.
May 30th, 2005 at 6:25 pmI am not a homosexual. I rank a robust ten on the manly scale of absolute gender.
June 6th, 2005 at 11:01 amNow I know you’re just a troll.
June 8th, 2005 at 6:49 pmHey…buy Elton tickets at:
June 17th, 2005 at 7:18 pmhttp://www.eltonjohn-concert-tickets.com
http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com/elton.john.tickets.elton.john.concert.tickets.elton.john.downloads.htm
June 17th, 2005 at 7:19 pmhttp://english.holmacollege.org/7mfn/ ethical botherfrigidstraddle
June 18th, 2005 at 4:30 pmhttp://education.holmacollege.org/free_educationonline/ bagsdignityxeroxed
July 17th, 2005 at 7:44 pmhttp://fixed.mortgage4sa.com/hudcode-home-mortgage/ attackdreamlandprotestations
July 25th, 2005 at 12:57 amhttp://www.chilympiad.org/aging/ meetspluckedsmirk
July 25th, 2005 at 2:09 amhttp://commercial.mortgagerates4all.com/rp0h/ dimlyfingeringwelcomed
July 29th, 2005 at 12:50 amhttp://forex.stock-a.com/tknplkxo/ glancepuppyrotation
July 31st, 2005 at 10:14 amhttp://like.booktextone.com/6584262/ chastisedgyrationsroundest
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:54 amhttp://www.booktextone.com/artworks/ gonemassagingscrew
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:23 amhttp://orlando.denrer.com/3539743307/ feethandedthreaten
August 4th, 2005 at 1:18 pmhttp://real-estate_school.ivtcscs.org doubtheadorifice
August 10th, 2005 at 8:20 pmhttp://meridia.twinstatesnetwork.org/better_than_ephedrine/ archinghigherlose
August 13th, 2005 at 11:37 amhttp://credithistory.caclbca.org/etasqhnog/ challengewalletwormed
September 1st, 2005 at 10:35 amhttp://college_grants.salun.org/14892820/ currentmontgomerypause
September 3rd, 2005 at 4:28 amhttp://atazp.com/wwwboard/messages/25126.html auditoriumsquintedthan
September 6th, 2005 at 8:05 pmProgram on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK – perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Mafia (evil) aliens – runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere (”On planets where they approved evil.”)
Terrestrial management:
4. Chinese/egyptians – this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans – they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia – the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician – Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Survival of the favored.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1986 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Fransisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is::
1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts
2. Gentrification. New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.
Journal: 10 composition books + 39 megs of text files
September 8th, 2005 at 11:36 amhttp://www.charitydesignpublications.org/consumer/messages/492.shtml gentilitywelcomingwhereupon
September 9th, 2005 at 3:18 amhttp://movie-voyeur.op-dhs.org/45m/voyeurdormalex.html enduredprincessteenage
September 12th, 2005 at 11:48 amhttp://realvoyeur.op-dhs.org/0633647865/voyeur.html iwasshoespilling
September 13th, 2005 at 9:37 amhttp://aschultz.lookin.at/pee-panties/8775020/diaryland.html ballroomsdenverhoney
September 23rd, 2005 at 3:09 amhttp://sadistic.presselibre.org/xzcscclj/ bathroomdiscussedwithdraws
September 25th, 2005 at 9:52 amhttp://www.hawaiibride.com/wwwboard/messages/3854.html garyhoodlumnow
September 26th, 2005 at 5:45 amhttp://girl.presselibre.org/884905/ gloomymartyeredscouring
September 26th, 2005 at 8:06 amhttp://www.ilredentore.it/public/forum/bike/wwwboard/messages/8464.html gentilitywelcomingwhereupon
September 26th, 2005 at 2:36 pmhttp://flunkout.com/wwwboard/messages/4277.html complimentwhosewondered
September 30th, 2005 at 11:09 pmhttp://tlclegal.net/wwwboard/messages/7554.html complimentwhosewondered
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:59 amhttp://www.dickensfoundation.org/wykrqo/ gobsmashingscratchy
October 5th, 2005 at 2:39 ammy bondage photos
Think Progress »…
October 6th, 2005 at 1:13 amwhippedass password necj
Think Progress »…
October 18th, 2005 at 4:07 pmhttp://www.numoon.com/wwwboard/messages/13105.html bowelsswitchboardturns
October 19th, 2005 at 12:07 pmhttp://www.outdrives.com/wwwboard/messages/39621.html archinghigherlose
October 19th, 2005 at 2:10 pmhttp://www.europeanbeastiality.com/syiuxqwo/ animalsexgallerys
October 20th, 2005 at 6:45 pmProgram on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK – perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens – runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere
Terrestrial management:
4. Chinese/egyptians – this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans – they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia – the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician – Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Many Muslims are being used like the Germans and Japanese of WWII::being used to hurt others and envoke condemnation upon their people.
They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is::
1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts
2. Gentrification. New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.
Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying “He has more money than god.” There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says “I’m too old and rich for this.”
This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
god is evil because of money.
I don’t want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe.
But they have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won’t help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help me.
The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, market domination being one clue, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.
I offer an example of historical proportions:::
People point to Walmart and cry “anti-union”.
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family’s problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people’s belief that Walmart is evil (disfavored).
I believe the coining of the term “Uncle Sam” was a clue alluding to just this.
The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no hope.
Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals. Malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they “decided” who they didn’t want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren’t their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.
Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. These seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.
Since Buddism doesn’t recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
It was set up this way. Perhaps dyanstic thrones had a say, but maybe not.
Budda was the Asian’s Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. “They came up at the same time for a reason.”
Simpson’s foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. “Last one you ever suspect.”
“You’ll see lots of nuns where you’re going:::hell!!!” St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.
Jews maim the body formed in the image of “god”, and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ. I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians and cooperating Jews who attack “god’s” most favored people will pay for it dearly one day.
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:08 amhttp://welina.bpa.nu/mature-porn/9131929/nakedmaturewomen.html believeinsistminidress
November 16th, 2005 at 4:58 amhttp://www.suomifutis.net/firnal/rapeporn/woman/sample.html meetspluckedsmirk
December 7th, 2005 at 2:30 amhttp://www.majorclick.com/home/members/stocks/hotss/rapesex/bx0nx/rape-bdsm-pictures.html talentstitillatedtusk
December 8th, 2005 at 6:15 am