Bush schedules pandering session for Monday.
By on Jun 2nd, 2006 at 11:52 am
Bush schedules pandering session for Monday.
AP reports, “President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.” The amendment “stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate,” where it needs 2/3 support.
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
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
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
Not to toot my own horn, but I addressed this in post #11 in this morning’s Think Fast (toot toot).
I’ll cut and paste my post from there:
“Can we address the fact that the White House announced last night that Bush intends to give a speech on Monday regarding his support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
Let’s look at this:
1) The announcement is made on a Thursday night. Why? To get plenty of play in the Friday papers and news cycles as well as the Sunday talking heads shows. This differs from the normal approach of the White House of announcing crappy news late Friday night so it gets burried in the papers and ignored by news outlets.
2) Divert, divert, divert. Since this administration has done so well with the Iraq occupation, the handling of Iran, immigration reform, and that awesome energy policy, let’s all focus on the real problem facing this country. The one issue that will fix all of the other problems we’re facing. That mostest importantest issue that if addressed, will put an end to world hunger, discover a new energy source, fix corrupt politicians, and save the galaxy fom certain destruction: gay marriage.
3) Honestly, GOPers…. you think this has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting passed? You need two-thirds of Congress to vote ‘Yea’ on it. Good luck at that. Then you need three-fourths of the state legislatures to vote ‘Yea.’ Riiiiiiight. 38 states need to vote for it.
Let’s look at this for what it is. A strictly political ploy by the GOP to rile up their homophobic base in order to divert attention from the fact that a majority of the GOP leadership over the past six years has failed at everything they’ve touched.”
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 amThis is just Bush and the American Taliban pushing another part of Pat Robertson’s second term agenda.
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:56 amthis amendment is dusgusting… NOT what the constitution is for… this proposal viotaes everything this country AND the constitution stands for.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:04 pmMeanwhile, his cronies are trying to slip wording into the immigration legislation requiring photo voter ID’s for elections in 2008. This means everyone would have to get one to vote, even if you have voted all your life. The elderly and non drivers might not do it and that would lead to less representative voting. Also they could deny cards to people to try to influence the outcome of the election.
Write your congressperson NOW and tell them to leave the voting system alone. This is a blatant attempt to rig the next election and retain power. The Neo-cons want a dictatorship and they are working to get it. STOP THEM NOW!
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:04 pmI wish these theokleptocrats would practice safe sects.
Condomaniacs?
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:07 pmThe cons have too much “dear” bussiness with gay marriage…
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:11 pmJust another example of the hypocracy of Queen George the Dumb. If it passes he and his handholding and kissing arab prince (that’s why DUHbya is the queen) will have to go back into the closet (tent).
OOPs! Just a senior moment! I forgot he will just issue a signing statement reserving his right to kiss any old arab he pleases.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:12 pmWell, since the elderly tend to vote republican, is this really a bad thing?
j/k
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:12 pmI hope Mary Cheney is happy now.
-GSD
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:12 pma majority of the GOP leadership over the past six years has failed at everything they’ve touched.â€
That’s not true. We got a tax cut and got authorization to liberate Iraq.
Reading post 4, (since it was so on topic) made me think of somewhat of a solution to the immigration problem. I propose a measure in the defense of marriage ammendment, by which the national government actually encourages gay marriage among illegal immigrants. What better way to decrease the immigration problem? Gay marriage means no kids (I’ll have to check and see if illegals can adopt – in which case the kids would already be here anyway – so it wouldn’t matter).
Plus, if they know they will have to become gay when they come to the United States, I think they’ll be less likely to come over here. I think I would even support making the official language English, unless you were an illegal gay couple. Then I think it would be ok to speak Spanish to each other even in public.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:15 pmKing George the Divider.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 pmWhen are the people ar CAP and the Democratic party going to talk about this issue from the vantage point that it is creepy that Republicans think about gay sex so much?
If you tell a person who is anti gay they think about gay sex too much they SHUT UP. It is a fact.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:18 pmThe “Black Bush” video clip from “The Dave Chappell” show would be apropos right about now. At one point the media is hounding Bush about Iraq during a press conference. Finally Bush (played by Chappell) bangs and the podium and screams, “People, gays are getting married!”
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:19 pmMary Chenney doesn’t care. She thinks that her shotgun carrying father will protect her when they march the rest of us off to the camps.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:20 pmThis marriage B.S. is more crap to keep the airwaves that they control busy.
It also gives all of the Repubs that are on the chopping block this Nov. another issue to disagree with half-wit junior bush on, since he is now their poison.
They are an illegally installed administration from the get-go.
They need to be removed, by hand, along with their right wing appointments, and everything else they have done to destroy the working people of our Country.
NEWK FOX NEWZ. NOW.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:20 pmOur Dear Leader, who art in Warshington, ‘hallowed’ be his name. His evil kingdom come, his evil will be done, on earth as it is in HELL. Give us this day the daily propaganda spin. Don’t forgive any debts (trespasses) (911), don’t forgive those who are debtors (trespass against us) (evil usury). Lead us all into temptation (WMD). Deliver us all to evil (war). For his is the evil kingdom (Warshington), his is the evil power (NSA), his is the evil, gory glory (war),
Maybe not forever, but enough.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:21 pmRepublican: “Boy, I hate queers and queer sex. Yucky!”
Normal Person: “I don’t think about other people having sex.”
Republican: “So, do you hunt?”
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 pmThirty years ago, folks in the South were concerned about interracial marriage. Really, how is this any different?
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:25 pm#7 The Patriot Act covers it. It gives the President to kiss whoever he needs to end terrrrrism.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:28 pm#19 Geez, it must say …it gives the President the power to…
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:29 pm#1 – I thought I had read this already. ;)
#18 – No, it’s not any different, I think the level of their idiocy is about the same.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:29 pmA person said this to me the other day. “I don’t really care about mixed marriages I just don’t think they should have children”. When I asked for the reasoning of this they said “The kids would be mixed and would have a hard life and that she didn’t believe that these kids should marry when they grow up or at least find it dificult to do so.” Wrap your brain around that one for a while and let it go when you get too dizzy. Of course she’s a Repub and watches FAUX.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:30 pm#20 – Evil, I like your original wording as well.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:31 pmPersonally I think it is great that Bush is going to push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The rethugs in Wisconsin have a constitutional amendment to the Wisconsin constitution on the ballot this November that would ban gay marriage and civil unions and those of us who oppose the amendment can point to it being another Dumbya idea. Bush has been so incompetent that he has turned off a number of conservatives here who would be leaning toward support of the amendment but might reconsider if it is viewed as a Bush idea. In any number of contested races, Democrats are actively painting there opponents as Dumbya supporters because Dumbya is much more unpopular than rethugs in general. I do not think it has fully dawned on the right how much of a millstone around their necks Dumbya really is and I hope they do not wake up until after November.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:31 pmGay marriage and immigration. Must be election time again. Mid-november Bush will announce that he’s discovered the gay marriage amendment is not necessary.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:32 pm#23 Thanks, but generally is caused by a too direct translation of spanish phrasing… :P
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:34 pm#22 – My mom says the same thing. She’s such a nice person, but she has a major blind spot in this area. She thinks she’s being concerned about the children, but that’s really not it. My middle sister’s biggest rebellion in her teens was bringing home as many black guys as possible. It was a sight to behold!
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:35 pmYes, let’s legislate hatred that is what its come down to for the American Taliban and the homophobic republican neonazis.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:36 pmImagine being a gay-immigrant-woman in this country.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:37 pm#27
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 pmIt was my mom too! Didn’t want to really say it. Love her to death but the nonsense she says sometimes drives me batty, but I don’t push it…too hard. I just try and make her think a little about what she says.
#29 A muslim gay-immigrant-woman? Hell in Earth.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 pm22 & 27,
My card carrying republican mom is stuck not being able to take that stance. I made sure of that. You see, her favorite person in the world is my daughter, who is half Thai (her mom) and half mut (me).
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 pmContinuing my thought in #27: It was strange because the black guys she brought home were so nice and treated her well, but they weren’t liked at all. The white guys she brought around treated her like crap, but they were welcomed by my parents. My mom probably would have popped a vein if any of us brought home a girl. If middle sis had thought of it, she certainly would have done it!
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 pmI have three biracial nephews – one is half black, one is half mexican and the third is half phillipino, so my family loves everyone!!!
One wants to be a doctor (he just finished his sophmore year in college), one wants to be a lawyer (he just graduated high school) and both are so intelligent they have received full scholarships. The third is only eight so I am unsure what he will do (he wants to play baseball – but what good ole american boy doesn’t).
They are all super and I would not trade them for anything in the world…..not even to be rid of Bushco!
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:44 pmMary Cheney is spineless like all other republicans. If it was important to her core beliefs, she should have resigned from the campaign last summer in protest when it first came to be an issue.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:46 pm#32 – Funny how that works out. I know my mom would have gotten over that silliness as soon as her grandbaby was put into her arms. We’ll never know now because we three sisters have shut down the baby farm because we are so damned old. ;)
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:47 pmI agree with bobcat_grad’s comments in #1. Good observation, bc_g.
I would also add (as I did once before) Jon Stewart’s brilliant observation: In the entire history of this country, there has been only one amendment to the Constitution that restricted freedoms. And, coincidentally, in the entire history of our country, there’s only been one amendment to the Constitution that has been repealed.
Since everyone with an IQ in the three-digit range knows that this will never become an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (maybe they support this kind of thing in Iran), the only reason the Republicans are pushing so hard for this (and why Tom DeLay stuck around Congress this long, to vote on this) is to divide the nation up, not unite us.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:52 pmAh, firing up the base again. I guess this will increase voter registration for the pro-discrimination crowd.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:05 pm‘God’ told Bush to invade Iraq, and it’s been hell ever since then.
God is more than happy to damn the ‘Republicans.’
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:07 pm#18 – Because people don’t choose their race.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:20 pmThankfully Bush has done such a stellar job with the economy, the environment and fighting terrorism. Now that he has caught Bin Laden and Iraq is under control he slack off a little and address some lighter things like Gay Marriage, flag burning and declaring English only areas in the God blessed, U S of A. Like a college kid who just aced his final. ITS PARTY TIME!!!! Wooooooooooo!
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:21 pmWell Dubya Dunce Decider was going to announce his anti Gay marriage thing on Tuesday 6-6-6 day, but someone told him that was a bit too Satanic > lol.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm40 posts and troll free.
Wayne: I agree with your statement about the GOP’s goal is to divide the country. They have never been about uniting us. They draw the line in the sand, pick a side, and claim anyone on the other side hates God/America/Freedom/Life/Values/Etc.
Every issue is black or white for the GOP. No shades of grey.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pmKeep in mind, this is Gay Pride month. Very convenient for Bush to personally preach hate at a time when there are going to be plenty of opportunities for his base to go to parades and events and potentially cause violence, all in the name of God or some such nonsense.
But that’s what the Bush administration does best: incite hatred, divisiveness, and fear.
Just like dictators and fascists.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:24 pmAs a “repug” myself, i think this is a silly thing. not to mention a waste of time.
but i do question why the left is so reluctant to let this come to a vote. of course it would fail. the left would actually win something and at least appear in line with middle america. but no. they want to bury it. prevent a public debate. is someone afraid of the power of their opinion?
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:25 pmBecause people don’t choose their race.
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
Please don’t tell me you’re on the ‘Homosexuals choose to be gay’ side of the fence.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:25 pm#18 – Because people don’t choose their race.
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
So tell me – exactly what age were you when you CHOOSE to be a heterosexual? That is assuming you are.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:26 pmI have nothing against shirt lifters – who is anybody to tell anybody what to do in life as long as its not hurting anybody else
the way i see it , it must be some sort of birth/genetic defect that can happen to anybody – I have heard stories you can fall over and bang your head a wake up and be an arse bandit
I dont mind poo burglers many are actually nice people that have better morals than say some religious persons
considering 72 priests in Ireland in the last 5 years have been caught – Now thats very wrong as they took an oath in celebacy –
as far as I care IRI can marry a bloke if he wants
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:31 pmMy middle sister’s biggest rebellion in her teens was bringing home as many black guys as possible. It was a sight to behold!
Comment by Zookeeper #27
Zookeeper,
You poor thing…
…Black guys…
…how disgusting (ewww yuck!)…
…your family must’ve really needed counseling after that…
…did your parent’s marriage survive it?
…Those greasy Black devils didn’t touch any of you…
…did they?
Your sister should be institutionalized…
…and you…
…you’re a real trooper, for having the intestinal fortitude to share with us…
…such a traumatic period in your life…
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:34 pmthe way i see it , it must be some sort of birth/genetic defect that can happen to anybody
Comment by Tobey tall — June 2, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
a defect? A persons orientation is NOT a defect.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:35 pmbut i do question why the left is so reluctant to let this come to a vote.
Chase, I don’t care if it comes to a vote. I just find it a huge waste of time when more important issues remain unresolved or ignored:
1) Energy policy
2) Iraq policy
3) Iran policy
4) Global warming
5) The forgotten ‘Hunt’ for Bin Laden
6) Astronomical debt and deficit
7) 45 million uninsured Americans, many of them children
Instead of addressing those we get:
1) Gay Marriage
2) Making English the offical language
the left would actually win something and at least appear in line with middle america.
You’ve illustrated my point I’ve made before. It’s all about ‘winning’ with you, isn’t it? Get it through your head: WE’RE ALL AMERICANS HERE. It’s okay to have different opinions, but instead of digging your heels in and creating an ‘Us v. Them’ mentallity, let’s try to come to resolutions. And once again, I think there are more important things to focus on than this. I don’t give one rat’s a$$ what two consenting adults do with their lives. I don’t see why that needs to be in the Constitution.
but no. they want to bury it. prevent a public debate.
No, we don’t We’d love to have a debate. But let’s use logic and reason in the debate. Not faith and beliefs.
is someone afraid of the power of their opinion?
Not one damn bit. I’ve yet have this argument with anyone who either ends up agreeing with me with reagards to gay marriage. That or they end up saying, “yea, you make sense, but I just don’t like it.” Great. You want to make a law preventing someone from exercising their right to love someone ‘just because?’
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:35 pmThis is all about Bush wanting to keep his new Treasury Secretary. He had to give his ‘whacko’s’ SOMETHING to shut them up, and their bigotry and hatred for all of the LGBT people ranks MUCH higher than some ‘treehugger’, any day! As hard as it was to find anyone who would take John Snow’s post, (third time is a charm, I guess) Bush did not want to have to face that again. A deal was made here, plain and simple.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:37 pmSo tell me – exactly what age were you when you CHOOSE to be a heterosexual? That is assuming you are.
Comment by Jules — June 2, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
Jules, I use that line all the time. I’ve got a friend who takes it one step further when talking with homophobic people.
He says, “Hey, you remember that time growing up when you were butt naked having sex with your best friend and you thought to yourself, ‘hey, I don’t think this is for me?’”
The typical response is “That’s disgusting, I never wanted to have sex with men. I’ve only ever been attracted to women.”
He says, “Oh, really? When did you choose to only be attracted to women?”
Typical response: “I didn’t choose to be attracted to women. I just was.”
At which point he says, “Exactly.”
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:41 pm#40-Bigotry… that’s a choice.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:46 pmCan someone please explain what “hate” you’re talking about. How did Bush preach hate against anyone?
If I tell a child it’s wrong to lie, but that child lies all the time, is me telling them not to lie considered hate?
There are certain things in society that we should stand for and certain things we should stand against. History is like a pendulum swinging from the right to left and back again. There have been times when liberalism was a good thing because it led to things like the women’s right to vote, abolition, civil rights, etc. But, it has gone overboard. The pendulum has swung too far to the left and it’s on it’s way back again. We live in a world where people think that because legitimate minorities have gained civil rights, all “so called” minorities should be given rights that don’t even make sense.
Gay marriage is a perfect example. The term marriage does not apply to a gay relationship. It never has. Most conservatives don’t have a problem with people doing what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. If they want to have a ceremony and wear rings, more power to them, but when what is seen as deviant behavior by many is thrust into a position to change marriage as defined by society, people will fight against it – and rightly so. Should poligamous marriage be recognized by our government as well? Marriage to a child? To a sheep? Where do we draw the line.
I think it’s great that leaders are willing to take a stand on important social issues of the day. Perhaps it wouldn’t be such a hot topic if “Gay Pride” wasn’t thrown in our faces all the time. But it is and it’s the wrong way for society to go and Bush is taking a stand. It’s not hate, but it is moral.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:47 pmbobcat –
I just really cannot understand how a party who claims to want the government out of their business chooses so often to put their noses into other peoples business.
Does it really matter what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home?
But the republicans are a contridiction on everything. They say they want less government, but everytime we have a repugnut president the size of the federal government balloons. They say they want fiscal constraint, but every time we have a repugnut president the budget balloons.
What a bunch of asses!!!
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:50 pmOf course they choose to be gay. Gay people become heterosexual all the time.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:50 pmSo the preznit wants to alter our constitution to deprive a group of Americans of rights derived from thier creator. The people are not required to ask for the governments permission to marry. No ammendment can change this fundamental truth. Our rights are inalienable, not derived from government but, from a higher power. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be legislated away.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:50 pmCongress comes back on Monday and Bush declares war on Gay guys > Bush is against Gays getting hitched, but he paid for sex with Jeff Gannon so I guess Repubs do not mind?
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:52 pmC Storm You are a f**king moron!!! What part of two consenting adults do you fail to understand. There are TWO – not three, not four – they are CONSENTING – not being forced – they are ADULTS, as in human – sheep do not have the capacity to consent, just as minors do not.
Again, I ask you, at what age did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:54 pmHomos make C Storms feel all icky.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:55 pmOf course they choose to be gay. Gay people become heterosexual all the time.
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
When?
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:57 pmPost 60 Jules > C-Storm is probably like Bush > pay for Gay sex in secret with a male escort like Jeff Gannon, but no marriage allowed > they are hypocrites!
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:57 pm#58 – pursuit of happiness can absolutely be legislated away. If it makes someone happy to murder or rape someone, they are not simply permitted to do so. Our government limits things that make people “happy” all the time.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:57 pmGays living lives of quiet desperation as “heterosexuals” make C Storms feel warm and fuzzy.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:57 pmWow. I’m being personally attacked on a website that is supposed to promote open-mindedness and tolerance. Seems kinda like people hate me.
Hmm. When did I become heterosexual? I’d say I realized I liked girls around middle school age.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:01 pm#58 – pursuit of happiness can absolutely be legislated away. If it makes someone happy to murder or rape someone, they are not simply permitted to do so. Our government limits things that make people “happy†all the time.
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
But one group does not have the “right” to murder while another goup is deprived of that right. If one group is given a right then there must be a valid state purpose for denying the other group that right. Where is the reasoning for denying a gay person the same right to be married?
Do NOT use the bible for a source here. If you are “protecting” the bibical santity of marriage then why are atheists allowed to marry?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:01 pmLol now C-Storm tries to insinuate that Gays wanting to marry are the same as murderers and rapists? Wow I knew the Repubs were Nazis!
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:02 pmGay marriage is a perfect example. The term marriage does not apply to a gay relationship. It never has. Most conservatives don’t have a problem with people doing what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes.
Good. We’d like them to speak up more often.
If they want to have a ceremony and wear rings, more power to them,
Sweet…. we’re still agreeing…
but when what is seen as deviant behavior by many is thrust into a position to change marriage as defined by society, people will fight against it – and rightly so.
Uh oh. Deviant, eh? By whose standard? Yours? The Christian standard? Okay, that’s just one standard. Look, we’re not forcing people to get hitched to their own sex. But it should be available to those people who are homosexual and want to make a commitment to each other.
Let’s say we have two couples.
Couple 1: Monogomous homosexual men. Been together 20 years. One of them had adopted a child. They raise that child together. The man who is the legal father of the child gets sick. His partner doesn’t have visitation rights or spousal privelages because they’re not legally together. The one man dies. The kid, who loves his other dad more than anything, gets placed in foster care.
Couple 2: Dysfuntional heterosecual man and woman. Man abuses woman. They have a child. The child is sexually abused by the father. The mom gets sick. The husband gets full visitation and spousal priveleges. The mom dies, and the father gets full custody of the child who is subjected to more abuse.
Defend how Couple 1 is a worse example of ‘deviant’ behavior than Couple 2.
Should poligamous marriage be recognized by our government as well?
Stop expanding the issue. We’re talking about unions between TWO people here. One. Two.
Marriage to a child?
Nope. Already plenty of laws against that. Once again. We’re talking about two CONSENTING ADULTS.
To a sheep?
That’s just stupid. How does a sheep consent to marriage? A sheep is an animal and therefore property.
Where do we draw the line.
We draw it at defining a civil union between two consenting adults. The end. If a religous organization doesn’t want to ‘marry’ them, fine. But that doesn’t mean that a civil government can’t recognize the legal union.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:02 pmOf course they choose to be gay. Gay people become heterosexual all the time.
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
When did you decide you liked women?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:03 pm#67 – I’d say I realized I liked girls around middle school age.
Comment by C Storms
But if you’d realized around middle school age that you liked boys, that would have been completely unnatural, wouldn’t it?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:05 pmUsing that argument, why would it be wrong for poligamy to be recognized by our government? Why should we deny a group of people who are born with an urge to be married to more than one person the right to do so?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:05 pmpursuit of happiness can absolutely be legislated away. If it makes someone happy to murder or rape someone, they are not simply permitted to do so. Our government limits things that make people “happy†all the time.
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Man, you’re making it so easy on me.
True, ‘pursuit of happiness’ doesn’t give someone the right to murder someone because it would make them happy. You know why? Because there is a victim who isn’t happy to be dead.
How is it wrong to let two men or two women show commitment to each other in a civil union that makes both of them happy? No victims there.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:06 pmIs the name C-Storms homo-code for the practice of male(s) on male bukake?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:07 pmEvery homophobe should rent the movie “Brokeback Mountain” and realize that there are many men in loveless marriages to females who secretly go fishing with their buddies, but really are secret lovers who wish they could be hitched! Why deprive Gays of being happy? If they want to be faithfully married to each other, then everybody should be OK with that!
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:07 pmWow. I’m being personally attacked on a website that is supposed to promote open-mindedness and tolerance. Seems kinda like people hate me.
At no point have I attacked you. You asked for an open and honest debate on this, and I’m giving it to you. I don’t hate anyone. It’s counter productive to accomplishing anything. I can find fault with your opinions and strongly disagree with your viewpoints, but I don’t hate anyone.
Hmm. When did I become heterosexual? I’d say I realized I liked girls around middle school age.
Okay. So you ‘realized’ you liked girls. You didn’t ‘decide’ you liked them?
So if a middle school boy ‘realizes’ he likes boys, and doesn’t ‘decide’ that he likes them, you’d be okay with that?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:10 pm#76 – Silly Jay, now you’re just making sense. Stop confusing the troll. ;)
I loved that movie. The shirts…
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:12 pmUsing that argument, why would it be wrong for poligamy to be recognized by our government? Why should we deny a group of people who are born with an urge to be married to more than one person the right to do so?
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
You know… I’m not sure how I feel about that. It dregs up even more issues with regards to property rights, custody problems, etc.
But since the debate is about unions between TWO people, I guess we don’t need to talk about poligamy, do we?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 pm#71
Yes. It would have been unnatural. I would have been in a tough spot which I know many gays are in. They have desires that are unnatural and frankly wrong if acted upon, just like many other temptations people face. I believe most gays know it’s wrong and unnatural and would seek help if so many in our society weren’t so dang set on making gay behavior somehow normal. It’s not normal.
Why do some people have urges to be with children? That’s not normal, but they have the temptation to do so. Right now, our society still says that’s wrong, but how long will it be before groups of pediphyles (sp) decide to take a stand and demand that their sexual preference is for children and that they are born that way.
Explain how some gay people have changed, if you’re actually born gay.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:15 pmPost 77 Zookeeper > the troll C-Storms is already confused >lol.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:16 pm#80 – Filthy hypocrite.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:17 pm#81 – I know, Jay, just look at his response to bobcat’s #71. Incredible.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pmExplain how some gay people have changed, if you’re actually born gay.
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
First, I do not believe that a person who is gay changes. There are many who supress what they feel. These people often either eventually come back out or they commit suicide.
Second, minors do not have the capacity to consent to a contract let alone a sexual engagement. If anything protection of minors has increased rather than the reverse.
Third, why do you believe that a man and a woman having sex is “normal” but a couple of the same sex is not?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pmOh boy now C-Storms tries to insinuate that Gays are pedophiles? I hate to burst his bubble but about 90%+ of males who molest kids consider themselves heterosexual!
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:20 pmJay – what pisses me off is that this is the arguement they always fall back on. Why would a gay person want to have sex with a child?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:22 pmFirst, I do not believe that a person who is gay changes. There are many who supress what they feel. These people often either eventually come back out or they commit suicide.
Comment by Jules — June 2, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
So do you believe there are a lot of gay people running around pretending to be heterosexual just to fit into society?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:22 pmGO FOR IT GWB
A. Moderates and Independents wont buy the arguement sensing you are out of touch with their issues (healthcare, energy costs, stagnant incomes)
B. RW conservatives wont buy because they will see thru this cheap ploy to pander to them
GWB can then watch as his approval ratings crash thru the 30 percent mark…..
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:25 pmI never said anything about gays being pedophiles. But, there clearly are people who feel attracted to children. So that brings up a couple of questions…
1. Is it right or wrong for them to be attracted to children?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:26 pm2. Is it right or wrong for them to act upon that temptation?
3. Who’s to say what’s moral and what’s not moral?
Yes. It would have been unnatural. I would have been in a tough spot which I know many gays are in.
And you’re just making it easier on them by continuing to persecute them, right?
They have desires that are unnatural and frankly wrong if acted upon, just like many other temptations people face.
Based on YOUR opinion. They find what you do with a women icky and disgusting, but they aren’t trying to make you have sex with a man.
I believe most gays know it’s wrong and unnatural and would seek help if so many in our society weren’t so dang set on making gay behavior somehow normal. It’s not normal.
Okay. You see, this is a perfect opportunity to just aggree to disagree.
You find homosexual behavior unnatural between two consenting adults. Most of us here don’t.
Now, how does it hurt you that homosexuals would like the same spousal privelages that you have with your wife (assuming you’re married)? If it doesn’t hurt you, then why do you care? You don’t see homosexual couples marching in the street demanding that YOU shouldn’t be allowed to marry YOUR wife. They’re just asking for equal rights to marry the person they love.
Why do some people have urges to be with children?
Beats me. But they need help because abusing a helpless child is wrong.
That’s not normal, but they have the temptation to do so. Right now, our society still says that’s wrong, but how long will it be before groups of pediphyles (sp) decide to take a stand and demand that their sexual preference is for children and that they are born that way.
I addressed this point earlier to you, and you ignored it. The debate here is about TWO consenting ADULTS wanting EQUAL rights. That’s it.
Stop with the poligamy argument, we’re not talking about that.
Stop with the ‘marrying a child’ argument, we’re not talking about that.
Stop with the ‘man on sheep’ argument, we’re not talking about that.
Explain how some gay people have changed, if you’re actually born gay.
Two things here. One, I don’t know that they have changed. I believe many have chosen to suppress their sexual urges in order to avoid the crap they get from a homophobic American society. Two, just like you and I were born heterosexual and some people are born homosexual, I think some are born bisexual. I know a guy who has been with men and women, and he says it’s just easier to be with a women so he doesn’t have to put up with the stares he gets when he’s dating a guy.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:27 pmSo do you believe there are a lot of gay people running around pretending to be heterosexual just to fit into society?
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
Yup.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:29 pmSo do you believe there are a lot of gay people running around pretending to be heterosexual just to fit into society?
Comment by C Storms — June 2, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
Absolutely. Society, their parents, their church, whatever, has beaten them down with the “you are not normal” stigma so they are afraid to let people know how they really feel, what they really believe and what they really need for their life to be happy and fulfilled.
But you did not answer my question. What about gays is abnormal?
Do you know any gay people?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:29 pmSo do you believe there are a lot of gay people running around pretending to be heterosexual just to fit into society?
Comment by C Storms
Um, YES! How thick can you get?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:30 pmJules > homophobes always fall back on insinuating that Gays like kids, but then deny it like C-Storms when told the truth that heterosexual men are the ones who have molested kids the most! All the Catholic priests who have been arrested say they are straight guys! Gay priests like other priests and not children!
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:35 pmI never said anything about gays being pedophiles. But, there clearly are people who feel attracted to children. So that brings up a couple of questions…
1. Is it right or wrong for them to be attracted to children?
Wrong. They need help.
2. Is it right or wrong for them to act upon that temptation?
Extrememly wrong. They need help.
3. Who’s to say what’s moral and what’s not moral?
Apparently, you think you get to.
But once again, you veer off track of our ‘debate’ about homosexual marriage/unions, and delve into child abuse.
Please pay attention to this:
No one here is advocating for the union between a man and a child. Or woman and child. Or man and sheep. Or man, sheep, woman, child, lawn furntiture, kitchen utensil, and a small Rhebus monkey.
This is about TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Let’s break that down:
TWO: The cardinal number equal to the sum of 1 + 1
CONSENTING: To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree
ADULTS: One who has attained maturity or legal age.
Now, let’s stay on target here.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:36 pmThe government is not God. I do not need the governments permission to marry another consenting adult. It is my RIGHT. If you cannot understand the difference between a ‘right’ and a ‘privilege’, then you should educate yourself.
Just because the Chimperor decides that homosexuals don’t merit equality under the law, doesnt mean that he is right or that the legislation is lawfull. It is not! It is discrimination.
An unjust law is no law at all. This fundamental axiom of natural law is what our country was founded upon.
The Constitution: Read it or weep!
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:37 pmWhen setting up a sting at a local State Park in Pa. which was having a problem with its restrooms being used as a sexual redezvous, the state police were surprised to find out just how many arrested were married with children and were professionals on their way to or from work. Doctors ,Lawyers,teachers etc. were in the majority.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:38 pmThe real issue isn’t if gays are abnormal or not, it’s that this is a state by state issue, not a national one for deciding.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:38 pm3. Who’s to say what’s moral and what’s not moral?
Comment by C Storms —
Jesus H. Christ (literally)
Remember that “do unto others” bit? If you want a starting point for moralism, that’s it.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:38 pmBush was sniffing the pickle of the young lad who just got admitted into Harvard. Bush liked “Peanuts” pe-nus.
-GSD
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:39 pmThe real issue isn’t if [blacks] are abnormal or not, it’s that this is a state by state issue, not a national one for deciding.
Comment by squegeeboo — June 1953
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:40 pmThat my friend is utter bullsh!t.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:41 pmThe real issue isn’t if gays are abnormal or not, it’s that this is a state by state issue, not a national one for deciding.
Comment by squegeeboo — June 2, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
While true – the fourteenth amendment forbids states from discriminating against gays. So regardless who “decides” gay people should have equal access.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:42 pmI hope the “blast from the past” didn’t upset you overly-much. Squeege, but you must admit it sounds similar in tone.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:43 pmOnce again, utter bullshit.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:43 pmSquegee –
I agree with you on this. Let the community decide. While I disagree with any governmental ban on defining a civil union, this by and far is NOT a federal issue at all.
And C Storms:
It was a pleasure having a ‘debate’ with you. I’m glad that I was able to show you the holes in your ‘arguments.’
I’m outta here, I wasted two hours here, and I have work I should be doing.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:44 pm“I hope the “blast from the past†didn’t upset you overly-much. Squeege, but you must admit it sounds similar in tone.”
It was a good one, great way to paint the opposing side as bigots.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:45 pmBoy, you are just filled with utter bullshit today. What does this have to do with anything.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:47 pmIt was a good one, great way to paint the opposing side as bigots.
Comment by squegeeboo — June 2, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
He did not have to do anything. They are.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:49 pmSpuge_boy
” If it makes someone happy to murder or rape someone, they are not simply permitted to do so.
Boy, you are just filled with utter bullshit today. What does this have to do with anything. ”
To some people, being gay is just as morally reprehensible as commiting real crimes. So to them the logic works, however that view is so displaced from the opposing sides view, you guys see it but can’t imagine that anyone could draw and believe the comparision.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:51 pmAn insatiable desire for control over others, especially other men, is a latent homosexual tendency C-Storms, and other cons.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:51 pmIt doesnt matter whether you like Gays, blacks, women, or whatever, The law protects against discrimination. The arguments against Gay marriage are moot. Its not the governments business to decide what sex, race, or religion you can marry.
End of discussion.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:51 pmWell, if you are using Christian ethics as a basis for why gay marriage should be banned, then of course you must realize that the bible supports multiples wifes right? It also supports selling your daughter into slavery. Do I have to drag out the verses for you or are you already aware of this?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:53 pmEnd of discussion.
Comment by Smack — June 2, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
If only!!!
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:53 pmI bet C-Storms has had urges to be with another guy, so to keep himself feeling straight he rants about Gays being weird > 2 young guys who beat Mathew Shepherd to death in Wyoming claimed they were straight, but then it came out they lusted for each other and hated themselves for it!
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:54 pmAccording to who? You? Christians? Who?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:55 pmJay
“2 young guys who beat Mathew Shepherd to death in Wyoming claimed they were straight, but then it came out they lusted for each other and hated themselves for it!”
Theres a lot of compelling evidence that points to him being killed over drugs, not over gayness.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:56 pmYes.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:57 pmGeorge W. Bush thinks he has that power, same with the Christian whackos.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:58 pmTheres a lot of compelling evidence that points to him being killed over drugs, not over gayness.
Comment by squegeeboo — June 2, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
If that were true why didn’t the defense bring that out at the trial?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 pmPost 117 > Mathew Shepherd before he died in the hospital from being beaten by the 2 guys told his parents that they came onto him sexually! Perhaps they wanted to rob him as well, but they beat him to death because he was Gay! Never heard anything about drugs being involved!
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:03 pm#55- “Marriage” has gone through many changes since the practice began. Waaayyyyy back when, ‘marriage’ was a ‘business deal’. Basically a contract drawn up between men, as women were considered ‘property’, and had no say in the matter. Usually it was for status and wealth and power. Love? Not even a consideration. Possessions do not have feelings. They did what they were told, by Father, then by “Lord and Master”. And they did their ‘duty’, that’s just how it was. And Priests were not always celibate, either. They used to marry, and have children, like everyone else. But the Church got tired of seeing the ‘assets’ of the Priests go to their families, after they died. It was greed, plain and simple that brought about the’celibacy’ requirement. And it is the practice of the Holy Roman Church, other catholic orthodoxies allow their Priests to marry. There is alot more on this subject, but you get my point. Marriage will survive another change, it has alot of practice.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:10 pmGays want Civil Unions anyways > marriages tend to fail alot in the United States, so strange to put it on a pedestal like a goddess of sanctity! Originally the bride wore white to signify her virginity, but how many brides are virgins nowadays?
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:17 pmJay – actually gays want to marry as civil unions still do not provide the full protection that marriage does. For example – a gay couple have a child. One stays home with the child(ren), one works. The working parent dies. The surviving parent does not have the right to survivor benefits under social security. It is even being litigated whether the surviving parent can receive them for the child if the deceased parent has not received legal custody.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:29 pm#124- Jay, it was Queen Victoria that started the “white bridal gown”tradition. She was very young when she married, and her subjects were just following her lead. And women were expected to be virgins when they married, to insure that any ‘heir’ was indeed the blood relation of the father. Typically, men were not held to the same high standards. ;)
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:31 pmTypically, men were not held to the same high standards. ;)
Comment by Cyra Brown — June 2, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
As opposed to now?
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:37 pm“Is this something you relate to? Maybe Tundra is your object of affection? The way you write about him it sure seems so.”
You know it, he’s my muffin.
Jules, as to why they didn’t bring it up, I’m no lawyer, but this is the reasoning that seems to show up the most
“Price now says that at the time of the crime she thought things would go easier for McKinney if his violence were seen as a panic reaction to an unwanted gay sexual advance.”
If you google “matthew shepard drugs” theres a whole bunch of news sources that go into the story on it.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:43 pm#127- Now they just go on the “Maury” show. 21st Century equivalent of the bloody sheet.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pmIf you google “matthew shepard drugs†theres a whole bunch of news sources that go into the story on it.
Comment by squegeeboo — June 2, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Granted I only read one story – but it seems to say that now these individuals – or at least one of them is saying THEY did it because they were on drugs, not because Shepard had anything to do with drugs.
Rather self serving now isn’t it? Being drunk, on drugs, whatever, is not an excuse for committing a violent crime against another individual.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:07 pm“at least one of them is saying THEY did it because they were on drugs, not because Shepard had anything to do with drugs.”
Right, it was a mugging for drug money, while on drugs, that got a tiny bit out of control.
“Being drunk, on drugs, whatever, is not an excuse for committing a violent crime against another individual.”
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:12 pmAbsolutely, but I think that hate crimes gets trotted out a bit to often as a motive, as opposed to just crime.
Isn’t this move really intended to remind the base (and particularly those on the far right that voted in record numbers in 2004) that they must be vigilant…that there is more work to be done…that they mustn’t stay at home in the 2006 midterm election?
If I were asked to predict the Bush and Rove strategy, the following would be my calculations and conclusions:
1) The President is generally unpopular…especially when Iraq is part of the equation. The risk is that Iraq, coupled with corruption, Katrina, big debt, uncontrolled spending, and other scandals might feed a mindset to throw out the Party in power. Therefore they have to change the subject or provide the risks and reasons that would make that a bad idea.
2) What can the President bring to bear on the 2006 elections? He can’t travel the country stumping for Republicans because his presence will remind people about Iraq and the other negatives.
3) However, he can bring what he brought in 2004…a big turnout by those on the religious right. Those voters either don’t vote or they vote their values. The key is getting them to vote by giving them a reason. That is done in consort with religious leaders through the church structure…no need to be out on the campaign trail…the voters will get their marching orders each Sunday.
4) He can do that by reminding those voters (by virtue of a defeat of the marriage amendment) that they must get out and vote Republican. Losing the vote on the amendment is a strategic victory. They wouldn’t bring it to a vote if it made voters stay home in November. The grumbling by the leadership on the right is part of the strategy…they also benefit when their flock is mad…they can raise more money…and they can motivate them to take action. The leadership may be mad at Bush on some levels but they are fully in sync when it comes to keeping their eye on the main objective. Simply stated, if Bush delivers the Supreme Court, all other sins are forgivable.
5) So the goal is to be sure to point out that they succeeded in appointing two conservative Supreme Court Justices…and make it clear that one more appointment will likely mean victory for the movement for the next 20 years. They have to make it clear that if they lose the Senate, they may lose the ability to win the Supreme Court. This is the trump card of the strategy…they simply point out how close the movement is to achieving the “final†victory…they acknowledge to the voters that the administration has had some troubles (recall the admission of mistakes at the press conference with Tony Blair…no doubt part of the overall strategy) but they have never lost sight of the big prize…they delivered two conservative votes and they just need one more…the voters have got to stick with them if they want the big prize.
6) Is there any doubt what drives these voters? Does anyone question the fervor with which they seek to assert their influence? Is it possible they would stay at home if they understand what’s at stake? Not a chance.
read full article here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:12 pmSpongebob – you need to read more than the Vargas report. There are also reports discrediting Vargas’s report.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/_ee/index.php/recount/article/rewriting_the_motives_behind_matthew_shepards_murder/
Read this one also.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:15 pmJules
It seemed to say that it didn’t know if it was a hate crime, or just a crime. But that why it happened dosn’t matter anymore because the gay community had picked it up as a showcase on hate crimes.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:23 pmIt seemed to say that it didn’t know if it was a hate crime, or just a crime. But that why it happened dosn’t matter anymore because the gay community had picked it up as a showcase on hate crimes.
Comment by squegeeboo — June 2, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
Strange how two people can read the same article and come away with totally different opinions.
I do not believe every murder or violent crime is a hate crime. I do believe this one was.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:37 pm#136 – You’re assuming Squeegy read it. Just sayin’
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:48 pmIf it is Marriage they are “saving” then why don’t they create an ammendment banning Divorce?
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:53 pmI can’t stop thnking about gay sex.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:55 pm#140 – Who’d want to…? ;)
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:08 pm#132, Daniel
You are so right! It’s just manipulation and a distraction from the real issues, just like flag burning and immigration.
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:15 pm#139 – It would affect too many of the people who feel a need to control everyone except themselves.
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:18 pm#144 – I know. These people know the sick crap that runs through their own heads, so they figure it must be running through everyone else’s head, too.
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:35 pmPutting a ban on gay marriage just proves how stupid republicans are. They say they are for a strong ecomomy yet they cant see the economic benefit of allowing gay marriage.
Could you imagine how many more dollars would spill into this poor economy if gays and lesbians were having huge weddings?
The wedding industry would double its revenue.
Stupid republicans, the only dollars signs they see are the ones that are obtained illegally.
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:32 pmI guess next week Roe vs. Wade will be the subject of Bubble boys pandering.
What a loser, can’t even satisfy the few that do support him.
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 pmI am an immigrant, French-Canadian-Jamaican-Irish and GAY!!! The poster child of what America is all about. BUSH KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF OF MY BODY and OUT OF MY BEDROOM. Thanks to all the supportive posts I have been reading on this issue. It really warms my heart. My mother had to give birth to me in a “special” hospital designated to unwed mothers of bi-racial “encounters” back in the 60’s. We have come a long way but we still have a longer road ahead…. Especially with BUSH at the wheel…
OFFICER, give this man a DUI!
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:15 pmForget it! IMPEACH the Mother F…cker!!!
Post 137 > Thank you for posting all the information on the death of Mathew Shephard on this TP thread! He was beaten by those 2 hoodlums because he was Gay and it was a hate crime > PERIOD.
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:31 pm#148 – French-Canadian-Jamaican-Irish? I bet you are SO good looking…
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:34 pmWhat’s up with these republicans always bringing up gay marriage? If you don’t agree with gay marriage, then don’t marry one. Call it a gay union. Really, how does gay marriage affect your family? In my opinion, it’s none of your business how people chose to live their lives. God is the ultimate judge, not the right-wing nuts.
In my opinion, here’s what we should be concerned with. The people dieing in Iraq, or how about the billions we spend every month on this ill-conceived war, or the fact that millions of people in this country have no healthcare, or that tuition has doubled, or that there are people who are starving in this world, the AIDS epidemic, or that our wages are stagnant, or that gas prices are through the roof, or that tax cuts are given to the wealthy, or that they tried to pull the plug on Social Security, or that they made a major mess out of the senior drug plan.
It’s time to get Democrats back in charge so we can right this shipwreck.
June 3rd, 2006 at 3:19 amI image most gay people have no problem being gay and that’s great-so typically,we should be about the business of treating each other like HUMAN beings, but those stupid,primative biases creep up again and again. Being black is no problem for ME(hint: I like it) even though I am a reeeeallll DARK BROWN, but I know the psychological, political,economic and social associations conjured up when one even says the WORD:BLACK(it aint WHITE). I imagine when SOME whites(and others) get together and they mention ‘us,’ they suck their teeth and sniff the air and let their primative instincts think ‘abnormal’ when they really, perhaps want to think ‘unique and perhaps interesting.’Our’king’ (Bush,for the clueless) once said that “facts are stupid things” and so I believe are useless biases. The LAST trait our great and diverse nation can afford to dominate this discussion is hate-it’s kind of like ‘wisdom’teeth: they serve no useful purpose, they are carryovers from our ‘primative ‘origins, and should/could be removed when one is young.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:04 amGreat post’s all, well, most all…….I am an old straight woman who has been fighting for equal rights my entire life. I am always suprised when someone is so adamately oposed to Gay and Lesbian unions, when in fact these same bigoted people don’t know any couples and are suprised when they realy get to know any. Diden’t know they were gay is the usual response, then they inject their narrow minded ideal into the entire mess.I have several friends that are gay and couples. They all have long relationships that have out lasted my marriages (plural). They are no diffrent than any one else, employed, well educated and all the qualaties of good friends with one exception. Every couple I know is more caring in general about their fellow humans and life on this planet. The famalies I know the average person would not guess they are gay.. The big unjustice is they can’t have the same benefits as a married couple as stated in many posts above.
My questions to the gay bashers is this. What bothers you so much about consenting adults and what they do.? Why do you care and judge.? Aren’t you busy enough in your own bedroom and life to keep your nose out of you neighbors affairs.? Are you as interested in what straight friends do or don’t do.? What the hell is your problem, that you have to pass on your judgment on others that are minding their own business and not medeling in you life……Time to stop the madness…Stop the wars on all people of the world..Impeach the drunk druggie and his handlers……..Blessings
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:39 amWHAT TROLLOPS MUST DO
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:13 amThis whorish pandering to the TheoRight’s bigotry’ needs may seem despicable and shallow but trollops must do what trollops must do to stay in bed with the Value’s Voters.
(excerpt from “Values’ Voters and Their Courtesans“)
Zookeeper. Thanks. I am really good looking indeed. The most beautiful people come from interacial unions. Just take a look at Halle Berry. Then you look at a the Bush family and the word inbred comes to mind doesn’t it?
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:24 amWho are we to legislate whom someone can or cannot love?
Did marriage originate with the Church, or the State?
If the Church, then defining marriage is a Church issue, and Amending the Constitution to define marriage puts the State in the position of regulating religion.
If the State, then defining marriage based upon gender is gender discrimination and a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
In either case, passing this Amendment causes the Constitution to be internally inconsistent.
But the greater drama in all this, Bush, the Uniter, has united people against Evangelical Christians. Those who would foster their bigotry and intolerance in the Name of Christ upon the rest of us are becoming more and more isolated by their own hatred. Ultimately, the discussion generated by this will educate more and more people. Eventually this discussion will lead to tolerance and acceptance of alternative lifestyle choices of gays, lesbians, and transexuals. Eventually we will catch up with the European Union’s level of protection of equal rights in this area.
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:27 am#155 – Marley, as soon as I posted my comment, I thought, What’s he going to say? He looks like Carrot Top? *shudder* I’m relieved to know you’re gorgeous. ;)
#156 – Well said, Briseadh na Faire.
$153 – Sharon, you’re the greatest, as usual. Scratch the pup’s ears for me.
June 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pm[...] That’s what the President is talking about now. Clearly, this has been on the President’s mind since 2004 and it’s not just some scheme to draw attention from the war in Iraq as some would claim. [...]
June 3rd, 2006 at 3:10 pmThank You Zookeeper, spent the day running after him. The 80 pound wonder slipped his collar and was having a wonderful time on these 5 acres. Jet shiny black and runs like the wind. Unlike most people he is pretty happy and well manared and way to energetic for this old woman……This bush stuff has me so mad I will spit.. We are saddled with a man who has the mind of a dried pea soaked in rum….Sure hope we can prosacute them all….Blessings
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:15 pm- French-Canadian-Jamaican-Irish? I bet you are SO good looking…
Comment by Zookeeper
I’m a bit late in getting to this thread, but that was my reaction, too. I also bet Spudge’s half-Thai daughter is a beauty.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:24 am