Religious Right Seeks Unprecedented Constitutional Convention To Ban Gay Marriage Without Congress
Religious Right Seeks Unprecedented Constitutional Convention To Ban Gay Marriage Without Congress
Earlier this month, efforts to ban gay marriage by amending the Constitution failed badly in Senate. Now the religious right is considering appealing to state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention under an obscure provision of Article 5 that would allow amendments to the Constitution without congressional approval. The Evans-Novak report has the details:
Meeting after the big failure at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement — Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others — discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention — which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it.
Right-wing pundit Bob Novak, who writes the report, appears to be pushing the idea even as he calls it “rather fanciful.” Novak argues banning gay marriage through a constitutional convention would be difficult but not impossible:
[I]f such a convention were to pass a marriage amendment, we estimate that 28 states would easily ratify it. Another eight states may do so only after a protracted and bloody political fight (which could span an election cycle). That leaves supporters with two more states to go to reach the threshold of 38 (three-fourths), and only the most difficult ground to fight on — states such as Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon and Nevada are probably not ideal places to win such a fight, although not all would be unwinnable.
Novak notes that such a convention would give liberals the opportunity to write their own amendments. He’s convinced, however, “that there are more than 13 states with legislatures willing to block anything too far out on the left.” That’s a relief.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Let’s get this party started!
June 15th, 2006 at 10:46 amThere’s a new book coming out that hits on this issue beautifully. It’s now available as an “E-Book”, called “Straight Into Gay America” written by Lars Clausen, a former Lutheran pastor. He talks about the role of religion in this debate in a profound way. It’s worth a read. The first three chapters are available free online and you can also sign up for a Page-A-Day in your email for free.
Check out http://straightintogayamerica.com
June 15th, 2006 at 10:47 amunbelievable
June 15th, 2006 at 10:49 amA constitutional convention would, from my understanding, scrap the document altogether and start again. After calling such a convention there’s no reason to believe that the result would look anything like our beloved republic.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:49 amWith the nation involved in an increasingly unpopular war of choice, an ever-growing deficit, the US’s ports still insecure, a lack of interpreters of Arabic/Middle Eastern/Afghani language interpreters still more than 4 1/2 years after 9/11, etc., I would think there are more important issues for Americans than whether or not Mary Cheney can marry her lesbian lover.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:49 amI can’t see how gay marraige threatens my own marriage. Probably the only people who feel threatened are those who can’t deal with their own latent homosexual feelings, and the politicians who pander to them.
Why don’t we convene a convention to add a constitutional amendment that revokes the religious community of tax exempt status?
June 15th, 2006 at 10:50 amHow far will you people on the right go into destroying what made America great? Freedom from oppresion and religion were the foundations for creating this country. Gay people didn’t destroy marriage. Divorce is what is causing marriage to fail. If you outlaw gay marriage, then you must outlaw divorce.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:53 amBring it on. I smell ridicule like we’ve never seen before.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:59 amWhy don’t we convene a convention to add a constitutional amendment that revokes the religious community of tax exempt status?
Comment by King Spirula
Actually I agree thatif the religious organizations want to wade into the political arena, then we do need to remove any tax exempt status for them.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:01 amPolitical organizations do not ( and should not ) get tax exempt atatus
Theocracy here we come.
Does this sound self serving to any of you? I mean, if these yahoos do bring about a convention and institue their views on the rest of america, the resulting civil war WILL bring on the apocolypse.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:03 amJeff Baker:
A convention could overturn the current Constitution with a vote. But the Constitution is not scrapped by virtue of convening the Convention alone.
Either way – I’m curious why yall on the left are opposed to debate of these issues. If the American public is in favor of gay civil unions, debate it! Bring it to a vote! Unfortunately, I think most can see the writing on the wall – put on the spot with the choice between “gay marriage” and “no gay marriage”, a majority of Americans would vote against it. That’s why debate is foreclosed upon.
Trust Democracy.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:05 amNovak is a pig.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:05 amnext thing the gay community will ask for is minority status and hiring quotas.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:05 amArticle 5 is NOT an ‘obscure provision’.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:06 amunreal! it’s just too ironic that the most repressed amoung us is the most controlling! how the hell did that happen!?
June 15th, 2006 at 11:07 amGreat! Let’s add an amendment for term limits for Congress!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:08 am#11, you are on track. they do not want a vote. they know they cannot win. thats why they take it straight to an activist judge who they know will bang the gavel for them and skip the vote
June 15th, 2006 at 11:09 amThe extreme religious far-right have gone completely insane now in their bigotry and hatred of Gays! Their idea of a states convention to force the ratification of a nationwide ban on Gay marriage is completely crazy! They are scapegoating and fomenting another civil war in US!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:12 amLet’s start a movement for a constitutional ban on the religious right brand of christianity.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:13 am#17
Exactly.
I would think folks here would be happy, that they would see the silly amendment that failed to obtain cloture last week as a victory of the Democratic process and welcome the attempt for a Constitutional Convention. Talk about a living civics lesson!
Instead it’s discussed with fear and anxiety. Trust me, if they can convene a Constitutional Convention, the Left has much more serious problems to concern itself with than civil unions.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:14 amI think we should just make the Bible our Constitution and scrap the Supreme Court in favor of nine clerics to interpret it. A similar set up worked well for the Taliban…
June 15th, 2006 at 11:15 amI just don’t get what their obsession is with such things so utterly none of their business. When they look at a gay person, do they really only think about his/her sex life? I mean WTF? As for abortion, I think for the “pro life” men, it has to do with keeping patriarchal control of the women.
my favorite bumpersticker said:
Pro child
June 15th, 2006 at 11:16 amPro family
PRO CHOICE
absolutely. their main mission is only to keep the issue on the front page thru the 08 elections. which they will one way or another. whether some people like it or not it is an imortant issue to them. and there are millions of them. and they vote
June 15th, 2006 at 11:18 amTP should start the ball rolling for a convention that will annul the Bushco retroactive t0 1/20/2001. The amendment should call for total reparations from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Rice, and all other Bush cronies, Halibutron and all the other contractors awarded sweetheart contracts, the oil, pharmaceutical, insurance corporations, all other corrupt politicians, all receiving Bush’s rich man’s tax cut. and Ann Coulter and Novak. Each state could add their own as well. The treasury is to be restored to the level of surplus left by Clinton. The amendment shouls also provide for one extra term for Bill to give the Dems time to get all the bastards named above firmly placed in Gitmo until the NSA has time to review all their phone calls to determine the amount owed to the Country.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:18 amThink how much could have been and could still be accomplished with all of the wasted effort people have spent on this stupid issue.
You know, there are still 45 million uninsured Americans out there, “Christians.” How about using your influence to call upon Congress and political leaders to help them.
That’s right, “help.” If you could get past your fear and hatred of homosexuality for just two seconds and realize that there are people out there that could benefit from your help, that’d be great… thanks.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:19 amMeanwhile, gays are getting married without much fanfare in states like Massachusetts, and in countries like Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Canada, which (double whammy!) recently held its first gay MILITARY and ROYAL MOUNTIES weddings.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:20 amthe whole issue of legislating morals CANNOT BE undertaken by governments without becoming FASCISTS.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:24 amInstead it’s discussed with fear and anxiety. Trust me, if they can convene a Constitutional Convention, the Left has much more serious problems to concern itself with than civil unions.
Comment by Chase — June 15, 2006 @ 11:14 am
Yea, like health care, the war in Iraq, a sound energy policy, political campaign contribution reform, a balance budget. You know, all of those issues that have been pushed aside by the right for the ever important issues of homosexuality and abortion.
Look, folks on the right, us ‘crazy moonbats’ aren’t trying to force you to marry someone of your own sex or forcing you to have an abortion. If it’s against your religous beliefs, fine: that’s between you and God. Don’t marry the same sex. Don’t have an abortion. But those of us that don’t want a single religion as the basis for secular law would kindly ask that you stop imposing your views on us.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:25 amThe convention simply will not happen, because it is so drastic an option that it looks downright obscene under the circumstances. Bringing it up is just sabre-rattling on the part of the theocratic right, which makes comments 11 and 17 downright hilarious – in general, Republicans are not seriously planning to do this; they do not “want a vote,” either. No sane American does. That they are bringing it up may actually be useful, since the perverse enthusiasm of the Chases and Amys (and of course, certain more prominent figures) of the nation exposes them as willing to risk completely dismantling the constitution – nobody knows what the hell would come out of a convention, so stop pretending that you do – in order to get in a spiteful knock against people with a different (and perfectly harmless) sexual orientation.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:26 amWhy don’t they just put blacks back into slavery and revoke women’s suffrage and right to own property while they are at it… Only the neocon zealots would think that the Dark Ages are a time to be re-lived…
June 15th, 2006 at 11:30 amyeah lets get rid of all the laws you find imposing
June 15th, 2006 at 11:32 amThis is truly scary.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:33 amSeveral years ago I wrote an outline of a short story/movie script called “Constitutional Convention.” It ended in a civil war and disintegration of the US into a number of smaller countries. It seems to me a nearly certain result.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:33 am#11 – “Trust Democracy”
You mean like the Democratic process that prohibited black people from being free and took a civil war to correct? How about the Democratic vote of the south to prohibit black-white marriages? Or the Democratic vote of the Dixiecrats to not allow civil rights? Or the Democratic vote of the Dixiecrats-turned-Republicans to abolish affirmative action?
Sometimes, the majority isn’t always right. Sometimes it is. Don’t forget, the “majority vote” in 2000 was for then-V.Pres. Gore, not for then-Gov. Bush.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:34 amyeah!!! lets just sit around and remember as much stupid shit as we can. that’ll show em
June 15th, 2006 at 11:38 amBen, I actually agree with you.
I don’t think a Constitutional Convention is a good idea for the same reasons you give. I do think, however, that it is a legitimate exercise, in the remote instance it happens.
Even more, my “perverse” view of the recent “hot-button” issues is that neither gay marrage (which I personally oppose) and flag burning (which is a yawner to me) don’t rise to the significance of requiring an amendment to the Constitution.
I much prefer the mechanisms already in place: state constitutional amendments banning or supporting gay marrages. After all, states have traditionally been the arena where marriage laws are enacted. As for flag burning, as much as I would rather not see individuals burn the flag in protest, I don’t think we need an amendment “defending” the flag itself.
But, if you recall in the aftermath of Kelo, both state and federal legislatures took many steps in an effort to prevent the taking of land for economic redevelopment. This is an expected response when the view of an unelected judiciary is out of step with the electorate. Flag burning is just another example.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:38 amYou know who you dont EVER hear from during this whole brew-ha-ha regarding gay marriage………
Gay people themselves…its always politicians or some religious leader condemning these people…could the media maybe just maybe interview one gay family to “balance” out all the negatives regarding this issue…
just saying
I digress…this Consitutional Convention nonsense these obviuosly sex obssesed religious leaders are pushing is laughable…..you mean to tell me with all the death and destruction caused by the man THEY ELECTED.. …the only thing in the entire world that matters to them is to prevent gay people from marrying…..????!???
ha what am I missing something…really..let the issue die …not everyone is a bigot
whats next a Constitutional Convention to ban Mexicans, the poor, liberals even??
cmon preachers use you religious pulpit for GOOD….not political divisiveness…
June 15th, 2006 at 11:38 amWe were having a religious debate in another thread and I thought this was worth inserting here:
In comparing the ramifications of high religious democraphics with low-religious ones, a closer look at Africa (high) vs. Europe (low) – and how this should be a warning to an America on the verge of a theocracy….
Courtesy my Hammond World Atlas – the birth rate in Europe is 10/1000, while the death rate is 11/ 1000. This is positive, because it means that the existing system can comfortably accommodate the current and future population. Africa, however, has 39/1000 births, but only 14/1000 deaths. This means that there are not enough natural resources to accommodate the population that is doubling every 22 years. Hence starvation, disease, and despair are the results.
In Europe, birth control is used and abortion legal because the majority of the people there do not buy into the religious agendas, unlike Africa where condom use and abortion are religiously frowned up, and therefore not used.
Europe, a less religious country, has a high quality of life. Africa, where religion is dominant, has a low quality of life. And if we want to bring crime rates, employment rates or infant mortality rates into the picture, it only strengthens the argument that organized religion is detrimental to a country and it’s people. Precisely why our Founding Fathers created a system with a seperation of church and state, believing that the future of this country would be Enlightened and not theocratic.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:41 amWow, at least they were paying attention in civics class.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:42 amIf the far right keeps up their crap then some states might opt to secede from the United States altogether! Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine could form their own nation; California, Oregon and Washington state as well; Hawaii could become independent too! America cannot survive as a Union of States with bigoted low-life religious rednecks freaking out and abusing Gays and minorities!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:42 amhows life in that bubble dude
June 15th, 2006 at 11:44 amWhy do liberals have such a problem with people – no matter how radical they might seem – who work within the framework of our governmental structure to push their agenda. If it’s not legitimate then it will fail.
Liberals on the other hand have been very successful at working outside our government’s proper structure on this very issue, with the courts basically ordering legislatures to make laws.
What gives.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:44 am40. – the only thing is, they would spend their whole existence finding ways to invade us!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:44 am#27 Speaking of Morals…
So some of us can talk about morals but other are not allowed to?
June 15th, 2006 at 11:47 amC’mon Chase. We know you’re itching to add “flag burning” to the mix.
Let’s bring up all the visceral heart pounding controversial subjects just before an election & sweep all the important day to day items like budgets, taxes, war and the environment under the rug.
It’s just such an obvious ruse to whip up the frenzy in the conservative folks. We all are agast that you don’t see that.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:47 amRe the article’s “obscure provision of Article 5 that would allow amendments to the Constitution without congressional approval” description.
Oh, come on. Unless you’re saying the whole Constitution is obscure, that’s a ridiculous description. I remember when we covered the amendment process in junior high school, and so should your writers!
That said, I look forward to the legislatures shooting this down, state after state after state.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:48 amamen 42 amen
June 15th, 2006 at 11:48 am“A constitutional convention would, from my understanding, scrap the document altogether and start again.” Did you even pay attention in school? The last time we (the U.S.) convened a constitutional convention was to repeal the ban on alcoholic beverages. They did not “scrap the document altogether and start again†they simply repeal that amendment. In that same type of forum they can also ADD an amendment to the Constitution or change a portion of the document. Sorry but they are not going to trash the whole thing and start over. Please repeat 8th grade government class and pay attention this time.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:50 amBob Novak is a TRAITOR. He has nothing to say.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:50 amSo some of us can talk about morals but other are not allowed to?
Comment by C Storms — June 15, 2006 @ 11:47 am
How you leap from one statement to such an absurd conclusion is truly mesmerizing. You should get out of the blogosphere and go do magic tricks instead…
June 15th, 2006 at 11:50 am#6 – Why don’t we convene a convention to add a constitutional amendment that revokes the religious community of tax exempt status?
Comment by King Spirula
That would help the fundies sort out their priorities in a fast hurry — and give them something else to think about — other than gay sex.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:50 am40 and 43 -
Although I know you clowns are joking around, it’s sad and insensitive to even joke about succession.
Succession and Reconstruction decimated the South and left in a state of economic disrepair from which it’s only now showing signs of emerging.
I would suggest you keep you plans in the spectrum of “serious” or “plausible”.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:52 am#44. Okay – here we go with semantics once again.
GLOBAL WARMING, an issue that affects every living being on this planet.
Two people who love each does NOT affect anyone, and is NOT a MORAL issue. Because you say it is does not make it so.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:52 amPost 43 > yes they probably would try to wage war on the states that secede! Perhaps the entire Northeast states could break off from the US and build a 20 ft wall below and around New York state to keep out the unwashed religious redneck hordes!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:53 amUm. Obscure? Really? I thought everyone who had junior high or high school civics knew this. It’s one of those things that we’re all supposed to know about how our government works. The wording just strikes me as a bit spinnarific.
Maybe that’s me.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:54 am#11: we’re debating it right now. And, it’s been voted on, you should read the news from last week.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:55 amAnti-Gay Goes Big…
Stung by repeated losses in Congress to ban homosexuals from getting married, the anti-gay Right is going to the states to get their amendment….
June 15th, 2006 at 11:55 amyeah – everybody remembers every word from jr high
June 15th, 2006 at 11:56 amBigots run the USA today. Nazi Germany…move over.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:58 amkindness – I did talk about flag burning (if youre interested, @ #36).
June 15th, 2006 at 11:58 amheh. the original Constitutional Convention was loaded up with crazy leftists pinko commies.
A representative government? 3 co-equal branches? Damn left wing wackjobs.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:58 amThe “right” is truely leftist. A true free market economy would not involve stealing 34% of one’s paycheck for the benefit the corporate elites. Looks like Germany during WWII: consolidation under one party, money doled to the military-industrial complex, dissenters labeled as unpatriotic/weak, never ending conflict with a scapegoated race, etc.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:59 amOn another note: you homophobic right wingers sectretly crave a big ol’ bowl of dinks. Your actions betray your true intentions: to sodomize the American public and the Constitution with your unamerican (Corporate/quasi-religeous) policies. You would be less angry if you admit to the world your collective gayness.
#57 if its gonna be an issue, thats where it shoulda been in the 1st place
June 15th, 2006 at 11:59 amI would say, bring it on. this thing will not get past the 3/4ths majority needed. I don’t believe that an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage will ever be added.
The best way to approach this “debate”; everytime somone brings it up, ask about the national debt, war, pollution and topics that really are important. If the right wants to make a big deal out of an issue, let them. you can’t have a fight if the other side doesn’t show up.
the dems need to get their shit together and tackle the issues that are important. Stop letting the right define the debate. Go on the offensive. ask about the war about taxes, about debt. Talk about the US’s role in the world, international terrorism, port protection, VA benefits, corporate welfare etc…
June 15th, 2006 at 12:00 pmWhy do liberals have such a problem with people – no matter how radical they might seem – who work within the framework of our governmental structure to push their agenda. If it’s not legitimate then it will fail.
C Storms:
Because it’s a gigantic waste of time.
See post 28.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:00 pmWhy isn’t that lowlife Novak in jail for outing Valarie Plame? Honestly, I will buy a round or two at the bar the day I hear that old turd has dropped dead and fallen into the arms of Satan where he belongs!
June 15th, 2006 at 12:01 pmListen gays:APPEARANCES,APPEARANCES. Marry a beard/skirt, close your eyes and make a couple o kids, stay in the closet, an hit IT on the side, just like all good Republicans and clergy. Dammit! Set an example for your children
June 15th, 2006 at 12:01 pmThese religious hypocrites take from the law of their god whatever they need to achieve their moral-economical goals and forget the others. Moses said (if he really said so): You wont kill.
Well, a bomb in an abortion clinic is probably not what Moses referred to or the thousands in Iraq or the hundreds in Afghanistan or… Religious fanatics are plain murderers.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:02 pm# 64, i agree. — their goal is not to change the constitution, they know it won’t happen. but to keep it on the front page thru the elections. period. and its workin for them
June 15th, 2006 at 12:03 pm64. I totally agree. I swear, sometimes I feel like my head is going to explode. I fantasize about believing that ignorance is bliss.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#64,
Kranzy, I did that in post 28. It was ignored by the right. They don’t want to talk about the screw ups of the Republicans or the issues that need addressing while riding their moral high horse. It’s too hard. Kinda like thinking on their own. That’s hard, too.
Know what else is hard? Presidenting.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:05 pmBetter yet,
lets link these guys with the good reverend Fred Phelps. You know the guy who protests at funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. The guy who says he is thanks God for IED’s to kill our troops, because this country turning to homosexuals. Let the right deal with that albatross.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:12 pmThese religious hypocrites take from the law of their god whatever they need to achieve their moral-economical goals and forget the others.
Comment by Juan C — June 15, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
If you think about it being a system withouta shred of evidence, proof or facts of any sort, which demands in return your entire life – it’s really not rational. Hence, irrational expectations that they can get anything else they want without evidence, proof or facts…
The whole system is based on make-believe. Can we really expect them to behave rationally?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:16 pmOne aspecy of this situation that I haven’t seen mentioned — Article V states only that Congress shall, “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments…” This leaves the structuring of the convention — its membership, scope and procedures — entirely up to the current crop of political criminals infesting our government. I can’t imagine a more perfect setop for national disaster.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:17 pmOpening the constitution via a con con (con convention) could give the Right the chance to recreate the US government into a new form, much like the one Bush wants, one without individual rights and protections.
The new government would look much like the Mussolini government that was dominated by fascist ideology in the last century.
It sounds scary but I don’t think at this time there would be enough state support for such action. I can’t remember a time in my life that a con con would have ever occured.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:17 pmHa Ha. Great idea. Let’s have a constitutional convention. It might be interesting when things come up for a vote within the convention. I wonder what that will look like without Diebold there to count the votes. I suspect on every controversial issue what used to be referred to as the Silent Majority is made up of phantom paid operatives and will be poorly represented. Don’t look for your convention to happen anytime soon because I suspect the people that pay those operatives will not welcome the effect it will have on the markets.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:20 pm#72…
Saw a video of an interview with a lady from that group…. wow. Even Hannity thought they were nutso.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:22 pmThe best way to kill this Convention idea is come up with great amendments of our own.
One Amendment I have is taking away the Bill Of Rights from corporations. How they ever got to be considered the same as people in the first place is beyond me.
And this would be hard to argue against in middle America.
If something like this amendment gained traction, so many billions would then be spent by corporations to kill the very idea of this convention. And if not this particular amendment, something just as scary to the American Aristocracy.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:23 pmBring it, bigots! Let’s put this out into the open so everyone can know just what a bunch of hateful, despicable people these supposed “people of god” are without trying to hide behind their political shills.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#77
the funny bit is Phelps has managed to unite the right and the left. Alot of folks started going to shut them up at the funerals Phelp’s group protested. Folks on the left and right.
apperantly disrespecting greiving relatives is not viewed as a good thing by anyone but a nutcase.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:27 pmComment by unbelievable
When it comes to laws for everybody we certainly should. The worse aspect of this people is their lack of criticism, discussion and culture. Just a quick review will probably tell them that Jesus was one of the first to make a revolution precisely what they are fighting now (Spartacus was probably the first one famous). Also, Vatican is the richest country in the world (per capita) who had ties with the Nazis and other prolific dictators all over the world. Why do they dont give that money to poor people if Jesus taught you (I will not include myself, I am not guilty of his crucifixion) to be humble and not greedy? Now, we have to believe that a woman was inseminated by a miracle?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:31 pmWell, ok, lets do something: you believe in whatever crap you want, just dont thread on people´s rights if you dont want to really start praying.
Chase and Amy:
You want a debate? Fine. Bring it on.
I want to know how gay marriage affects the “tradition” of marriage. Part 2: how does it affect traditional marriage any worse than divorce does?
I want to know how gay marriage is going to affect my heterosexual marriage, now approaching 7 years.
I want to know how gay marriage is going to affect the future marriages of my 21 year old niece and my 17 year old twin nephews, all of whom are heterosexual.
I want to know why homosexuals who I’ve worked with in the past have never tried to convert me to homosexuality, or never did or said anything to affect my engagement to my fiancee. I’ve certainly had my share of religious freaks knock on my door and try to convert me to a Jehovah’s Witness, or poke a bible in my face, tell me to read a passage out loud, and then convince me that if I don’t accept Jesus Christ as my savior right then and there on my front porch, I’m going to hell.
And don’t start with that crap that “it would be against tradition.” BS. That’s a cop-out. The issues that Unbelievable points out in post #30 and Dem Soldier points out in #34 show that there have been other “traditions” that we’ve done away with and we’ve survived just fine.
C’mon. Tell me. Convince me that homosexuals affect my everyday life and will lead me down the path of destruction.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:33 pmIn response to #11 from Jeff Baker
Jeff We are not afraid of a debate on the issue. Why is it that you do not understand that the issues has been debated several times? Most recently our Sentate debated the issue. Guess what Jeff… It went to a vote and failed.
In an ironic twist several people that voted for the amendmet said that the American People want marriage to be defined as between a Man and a Woman only. They ofcouse neglected that the same number of Americans do not want the consitituiton ammended.
Go ahead Jeff Get things going! Keep the debate up. How else can conservatives win this November. Talk about the budget? No Talk about all of the sucsess in Iraq? No Talk about how great W is doing? No The solution for imigration No Restoring our Nations Military morale? No
Bottom line Jeff. The debate is over and the conservatives have lost. Even Novak says it is difficult but not impossible. WOW! What GREAT NEWS!
In closing Jeff. Get a new issue.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:35 pm# 78
See “The Corporation”, a canadian film with Chomsky, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein and others. I didnt get right the legal issue of what you mention…but it is really scary.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:38 pmLots of guys would like to go back to “traditional marriage”
…now how many wives did Solomon have?…
June 15th, 2006 at 12:38 pmThere’s no issue too trivial, too mediocre to have an opinion about, to hector one another to and fro, to back-bite and snivel about in the name of legitimate political discourse.
Whether someone said something to someone else about sun glasses. What that someone said back. How the party of the first part apologized.
Whether homosexual men, having sex, presumably, should have a piece of paper saying they’re married, or shouldn’t be allowed to. Hetero-sexual marriages last a couple of years. Maybe homosexual marriages will last as long as a Constitutional Convention.
This is what America is today.
There’s no presidential war going on. There’s no larger war looming on the horizon. No return of conscription. No Homeland Security. No gross national product doing a vanishing act to such a degree real estate sales and insurance have to be included to create the illusion that products are being created by American workers.
Sun glasses. That’s what’s important. What someone said about them. Whether homosexuals have a piece of paper saying they’re married.
This is America. This is the brave new world. You are what we’ve become.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pmI think this is great. It will force these christianist bigots to go on local talking tours and display their religious intolerance and outright bigotry and racist attitudes. If authoritarian government is what the people want – well then so be it. But I think when they spew their hatred it will finally work against them.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pmOne quick question? I marriage religious or civil?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:42 pmIf religious then each church and faith should be allowed to decide who may or may not marry with divorce allowed or not. (Yes, even if they want to be radical right or left.) If civil, then it should be open to ALL citizens equally. Something about equal under the law. Right now it appears to me that many of us have forgotten that we marry in a religious ceremony that is recognized by the government but the divorce is, for the most part, conducted primarily in the courts.
I agree with the post above, if we (the U.S.) want to make marriage a religious right/rite then we should also eliminate divorce. Perhaps fewer people would get married. I know I wouldn’t have.
One quick question? Is marriage religious or civil?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:42 pmIf religious then each church and faith should be allowed to decide who may or may not marry with divorce allowed or not. (Yes, even if they want to be radical right or left.) If civil, then it should be open to ALL citizens equally. Something about equal under the law. Right now it appears to me that many of us have forgotten that we marry in a religious ceremony that is recognized by the government but the divorce is, for the most part, conducted primarily in the courts.
I agree with the post above, if we (the U.S.) want to make marriage a religious right/rite then we should also eliminate divorce. Perhaps fewer people would get married. I know I wouldn’t have.
Wow. I’m so sick of these go nowhere sensational issues, from both sides. Gay marriage is going nowhere. Neither are these crazy constitutional changes.
All this sensational coverage does is stir the shit and turn out voters excited for the wrong reasons, many of whom are ignorant to the real issues of the day or at least desensitized to them due to the constant hype around cultural issues.
For one example: global warming. It’s real and may kill hundreds of millions in the coming decades as weather patterns change and there are massive draughts, floods, and crop failures as a result. Already there is decreased rainfall in Africa which is killing tens of thousands and prompting civil wars, and that will only get worse as global warming continues.
Another issue is Net Neutrality which is a close battle between those protecting the free exchange of information and the cable and telephone companies who seek to control it. This issue literally has the power to either promote freedom of information as we know it on the web, or allow a 1984 or China-like like censorship of the web from a few powerful network operators.
There is something incredibly decadent and short sighted about worrying over things like gay marriage when there are such more important issues facing humanity. I think we need to start recognizing the far left and the far right both fit the “ugly American” mold for selfishness, ignorance, and self serving decadence.
I’d expect that of country-bumkins; but I’d hope liberal, educated, political people could do much better.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:46 pmgood! I hope they do ban so called gay marriage . This will force the radical left in america to show it’s ugly face. There is no reason to allow so called gay marriage. this is just another gimmick to justify homosexuality. What should happen is there should be a referendum and let people vote, in every state that has had a referendum gay marriage has been soundly defeated and that is good. let America decide not some activist judge.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:46 pmThat is a major part of the issue CB,
There are automatic rights, and tax breaks applied to married couples, that a single person does not get. If it was a purely religious issue then I agree let each church and sect decide. However it is not purely religious.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:47 pmIt seems these people aren’t paying attention; conditions have been met for demanding a constitutional convention and it hasn’t been started yet. Google the following for details: ” Walker v Members of Congress “
June 15th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#48 – Dang it! I have to agree with you in that the Constitution is not just a rigid document, it’s amendable with super majority votes and (eventual) ratification by the state.
It’s incredibly remotely possible that the far-right will push through an amendment. The solution to this type of bigotry will be repeal.
All you have to do is look at the history of repression:
blacks were slaves, then popular opinion changed and they were freed;
women couldn’t vote, then popular opinion changed and they could vote;
minorities were denied their civil rights, then popular opinion changed and they were granted their civil rights.
As the times change, so does popular opinion. With gay people, 40 years ago it was considered “acceptable” to beat the crap out of a gay person for no reason at all. Now the popular opinion is that gay people shouldn’t be treated like second class citizens. Give it about 20-30 more years for the ultra-radical right-wingers to die off, and this will become a non-issue.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:50 pmFundies make me sick. They make me embarrassed not only to be an American, but they also make me ashamed of the human race. How can we let these sick bastards tell all of us how to live???? How are we humans capable of being such tools?
Fundies will push their agenda too far and will be done in by themselves. Can’t wait for the show. I will be there with popcorn and soda.
What are we coming to in this country?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:51 pmgood! I hope they do ban so called gay marriage . This will force the radical left in america to show it’s ugly face. There is no reason to allow so called gay marriage. this is just another gimmick to justify homosexuality. What should happen is there should be a referendum and let people vote, in every state that has had a referendum gay marriage has been soundly defeated and that is good. let America decide not some activist judge.
Comment by reddog — June 15, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Several people here want a debate. I hate to disappoint. Read my post #82 and let’s get it going.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:52 pm#91 – Even better, what we should do to “save marriage” is remove the ability to get a divorce! THAT’LL make people either stand up for or against marriage!
You’re either “for” marriage, or you’re “against” marriage!!!
June 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#11. Debate is fine, and let’s get to it. But this is a matter of natural rights, recognized and protected by the Constitution. Our natural rights are not subject to the will of the majority, and must never be made such.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:01 pmThank you, Democrat Soldier. I agree. Let’s ban divorce! Surely, that would save marriage in this godless country and bring us closer to the lord. Also, can we throw in a flag burnign clause in there somewhere?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:02 pmYou know, this isn’t the first time the South called for its own constitutional convention. I seem to recall a similar effort back in the 1860s.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:02 pmWhat an incredible idea! If we can circumvent congress, then we can strip you liberals of all of your rights!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:02 pm#96 – Actually, Chase doesn’t seem to be as bothered by the possibility of gay marriage. Amy, on the other hand, must have some serious problems with her sexual orientation to get THAT upset over this subject. Or something.
The fact is that gay’s do not impact your rights in any appreciable fashion.
It would be like saying “Oh, my God! gays can get married! I should rush out and get a divorce right now!”
Aint gonna happen. Unless you really don’t care about the marriage you’re currently in, and that has nothing to do with gay’s getting married.
By the way, Canada has allowed gay people to get married for almost a full year, and I haven’t heard of straight people rushing out to get a divorce, or that straight marriage has declined in any fashion. In fact, God has yet to smite them all dead either. I guess God doesn’t have a problem with it.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#98
Right on!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:03 pmComment by reddog
June 15th, 2006 at 1:05 pmYeah, right. As if homosexuality needs to be justified. It was, It is and it will be here just as another preference of people.
Reddog does not know that Bush is Bisexual/Gay since he paid Jeff Gannon the male prostitute for sex! GOPers are very weird because a lot of them are closeted queens who secretly pay male hookers for sex, but the idea of guys or gals being in love with each other frightens them, because they just want raunchy sex with no love attached!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:08 pmCan anyone tell me how there is anything “sane” about these right wing religious extremists being addicted to the obsession of the sex lives of other people?
If these people think they are going to bring about a civil war over their personal obsession with other people’s sex lives and civil liberties, I say, bring it on. Because they will lose — utterly, completely, terribly, and be left to skulk back into the shadows where they, with their pea-sized brains, belong.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:08 pm#101 – Why stop there? Why not strip blacks of their rights, cuz they tend to vote Democrat more than Republican? How about strip women of their rights, cuz they tend to vote Democrat over Republican?
I hate to break it to you, Herman, but the Constitution applies to ALL people in America. You’re is a very minority and excessively radical opinion.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:08 pmWell, ok, lets do something: you believe in whatever crap you want, just dont thread on people´s rights if you dont want to really start praying.
Comment by Juan C — June 15, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
I think orgainzed religion is the most hypocritical and egocentric system going. Which is very different than someone having a spiritual side. I’m a hard-core atheist, but I agree that people have every right to believe in something make-believe. It’s the organized aspect of it that is dangerous… The pack mentality that has turned what is suppposed to be private and humbling into something that is corporate, viscious and irrational.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:13 pmPerhaps fewer people would get married. I know I wouldn’t have.
Comment by californiabear — June 15, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Both of my parents came from divorced families (and my father was from WWII generation). They both worked hard to keep their marriage together, but also encouraged me, their only daughter to not make marriage a priority. As a result, I’m at mid-life without having gotten married and have no regrets. Not that some marriages can’t be wonderful, but with a divorce rate nearly 60%, I find it naive for people to think marriage is a cornerstone of anything. If people were actually ‘meant’ to couple together for thier whole lives – we wouldn’t need marriage to commit them to one another. Or rings to show others that they are ‘off the market’. Sorry to the hopeless romantics, but I think marriage is vastly over-rated…
June 15th, 2006 at 1:18 pmI read #82, WC, and I applaud it.
I’ve been saying the same thing to right wing folks, and I’ve yet to have any of them actually engage in this debate, They are too focused on the hateful rhetoric to be able to logically approach the issue.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#102
You are correct…Chase seems to be pretty cool about it, even though he does not support gay marriage. And that’s fine. But he supports further debate on it, and that’s fine, too. If someone doesn’t want to support gay marriage, I’m OK with that. They have that right. But this is an intrusion into people’s personal choice and beliefs, and that’s just out of bounds.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:19 pm11 and 17: Basic civics kids. In our government, your voice in national policy is reflected through your elected representatives. Your reps either voted for or against the amendment as presented. So the answer isn’t having a debate with citizens or doing an end run around the Congress. What you want is to elect bigots. That’s fine as long as you realize that’s the way to handle it.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:20 pmreddog: NOW we get to the meat of the matter for the right-wingers and other assorted bigots. It’s not “gay marriage” (about which Jesus says NOT A WORD)– it’s about homosexuality itself (again, something about which Jesus says NOT A WORD). It’s the fact that, despite their explicit and shrill disapproval, most people– especially young people– ACCEPT homosexuality as a fact of the human condition and accept the basic right of homosexuals to exist.
I think the bigots are still smarting that an activist judiciary managed to eliminate miscegenation laws (remember Loving vs. Virginia, people?) when a sizable majority of Americans were against mixed-race marriages (prohibited in many places in the Bible). More than those currently against gays being able to marry. They may also still be worried that, if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry, they’d do it better and be visibly happier and having more fun at it.
By the way: Since the bigots want to impose Levitican law upon the rest of us, why aren’t they bulldozing Red Lobsters across the country, since eating shellfish is, like homosexuality, an abomination (Lev 11:10)?
The government’s interest in marriage has to do with its standing as a LEGAL CONTRACT between two adults, governing rights and responsibilities of spousal care, property ownership, debts service, inheritance and parental duties. Remember– the religious ceremony is nice (for that day, the bride gets to be the Princess, the Center of Attention, a Goddess in Her Community!!), but it’s a costume party until the marriage license is signed.
If Jews barge into a Baptist warehouse-cum-megachurch and demand to be married, the minister can rightfully say “no”. Gays and lesbians can be turned away from churches that don’t want to perform their religious marriage ceremony; it’s bigoted and stupid, but it’s the churches’ right. However, under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, there’s no legal reason to prohibit gays and lesbians from entering into the legal contract that marriage really is. And any sign of legitimacy that is bestowed upon homosexuals drives the right-wing nutjobs crazy.
What’s next– round up gays and put them in prison camps?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:20 pmC’mon. Tell me. Convince me that homosexuals affect my everyday life and will lead me down the path of destruction.
Comment by WC — June 15, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Funny how you still have no takers…
June 15th, 2006 at 1:22 pmRedneck Hick–I think it would be a great idea for the south to secede. We’ll follow the Constitution and you can try to govern through your bible. You can call your new counry “Jesusland”, where snakehandlin’s legal. However, eventually, the snakes would prevail proving Darwin’s concepts of survival of the fittest and evolution.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThe whole world revolves around sex. Those who are not getting it oppress those who are getting it.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:26 pmThe government’s interest in marriage has to do with its standing as a LEGAL CONTRACT between two adults, governing rights and responsibilities of spousal care, property ownership, debts service, inheritance and parental duties. Remember– the religious ceremony is nice (for that day, the bride gets to be the Princess, the Center of Attention, a Goddess in Her Community!!), but it’s a costume party until the marriage license is signed.
If Jews barge into a Baptist warehouse-cum-megachurch and demand to be married, the minister can rightfully say “noâ€. Gays and lesbians can be turned away from churches that don’t want to perform their religious marriage ceremony; it’s bigoted and stupid, but it’s the churches’ right. However, under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, there’s no legal reason to prohibit gays and lesbians from entering into the legal contract that marriage really is.
A-freakin-men.
Infact, if you don’t mind, I’m going to borrow the Jews asking to be married in a Baptist church example in the future. I’ve always addressed this issue as a civil union vs. religious marriage situation. Homosexuals aren’t asking that any religion changes its beliefs or rules, just that a secular government recognizes their union.
Remember the whole separation of church and state thing, right wing? Doesn’t seem like it.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:27 pmeventually, the snakes would prevail proving Darwin’s concepts of survival of the fittest and evolution.
Comment by Jack Lambert — June 15, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
Jack – that was hysterical! Of course I live in Georgia, so I’d rather that not happen just right yet. Though, in so many ways, it already has :). And to think that this state gave the country Jimmy Carter, MLK and REM… There’s s friend of a friend who had a theory that being the minority makes you stronger. Interesting…
June 15th, 2006 at 1:32 pmThe whole world revolves around sex. Those who are not getting it oppress those who are getting it.
Comment by Mickey — June 15, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
Those who are not getting it – Married people… hmmm… you’re on to something :)
June 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pmMy god. What has happen to my nation in these six short years? And in whos country will I wake tomorrow?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pm#
Those who are not getting it – Married people… hmmm… you’re on to something :)
Comment by unbelievable — June 15, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Please alter to read some married people. I am happily married, almost a year now, and while I won’t go into specifics, we are doing pretty good.
=P
June 15th, 2006 at 1:46 pmI read #82, WC, and I applaud it.
I’ve been saying the same thing to right wing folks, and I’ve yet to have any of them actually engage in this debate, They are too focused on the hateful rhetoric to be able to logically approach the issue.
Comment by bobcat_grad — June 15, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Thanks dude!
I too have posted these or similar questions on other threads here on TP, and also have yet to get anyone on the right to engage. Maybe later today…
The only place I’ve seen any responses to these types of questions has been in a recent edition of our local paper. A guest columnist wrote an article on the Opinion page in support of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He addressed some “myths” that another (weekly) columnist recently wrote about in support of gay marriage.
Two “myths” addressed, and his responses, are as follows:
(1) Gay marriage does not affect our everyday lives.
His response was to point readers to the following bible passage: 2 Peter 2, verses 4-9. That’s all he provided. I checked it out and don’t see his logic.
(2) Gay marriage does not damage the tradition of marriage any more than divorce does.
His response took the reader to Scandanavia, the first country, he says, to legalize gay marriage. He said that prior to gay marriage, people in that country were waiting until after the birth of their first child to get married. However, after gay marriage came along, people started to view marriage and childbirth as separate issues. Now people are waiting until the birth of their second child before getting married.
Yep. I swear that is what he wrote (yeah, I know…it’s not nice to swear). No studies, no interviews, no supporting data to show a correlation between the legalization of gay marriage and choices regarding childbirth in a heterosexual relationship.
Amazing.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:46 pmWC,
the study about Sweden’s marriage rates, was most likely done by the same group who “found” that 485 of gay couples sexually abuse children in thier care.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:54 pmPlease alter to read some married people. I am happily married, almost a year now, and while I won’t go into specifics, we are doing pretty good.
Comment by Krazny — June 15, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
I’ll tell you what – I will after you’ve been married five years and can still say the same thing :). Nothing personal, but most of my friends are or have been married and well, let’s just say the long-term track record isn’t strong… About the third year, they go from being the adoring couple to bickering over nonsense, and about the point when I start refusing to be with them in the same room at the same time. And these are the ones who are happy… Which is why I remain happily single…
June 15th, 2006 at 1:55 pmLet’s review…my partner and I ( yes, two gay men!) have been for 15 years in a mongamous, loving relationship. We live in Florida so we can’t marry, but we pay our taxes which help to send other married couple’s kids to school, and support the more than 1,000 benefits that married couples recieve through their publicly sanctioned unions. We have to pay an attorney to draw up papers for the things straight couples take for granted: hospital visitation, inheritance of assets (even our jointly owned house!), etc., yet no matter what we do, we cannot receive the other’s Social Security benefits, pensions, etc.
But somehow, and you right wingers help me here, my relationship somehow HARMS your marriage??? Two conservatives that come to mind immediately, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, have done much more than I to harm your marriage. Consider this: Rush Limbaugh, married and divorced THREE TIMES, is now “living in sin” with CNN anchor Daryn Kagan. Newt, divorced twice is now on marriage #3! If we are going to protect marriage with an ammendment or constitutional convention state-by-state, we had better include divorce in that ban…it is doing much, much more to harm marriage than my 15 year relationship, NO?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:55 pmUm,
To those that support the idea of a constitutional convention fight.
When a constitutional convention is called, literally any amendment can result. Hell, they could even delete stuff that’s been in there since the beginning. It would be a free-for-all.
We could ultimately end up with it being unconstitutional to walk and chew gum at the same time. Who really trusts the state legislatures to not bargain with each other for crazy things? Maine may support a ban on hot pants in order to get a right to pee in a dogs mouth.
Maine is pretty kinky that way.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:57 pmthe modern institution of marriage in the united states is one of two separate and distict organizations. the state, which controls ones CIVIL RIGHTS versus the church which controls ones RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. the united states was founded on the premise of the separation of church and state. regardless of the founders religious issues of the past, they recognized that their nation, while needing religion as a personal asset, did not need the church to be included in the business of government.
NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE…
the church can preside over their form of marriage and their ceremony performers will also hold the valid credentials to perform the civil union as part of their religious procedures (acceptance of the current marriage vows). JUST THE WAY IT IS NOW! others who desire a civil union receive the same civil rights afforded to any other set of individuals without the religious ceremony. JUST THE WAY IT IS NOW!
FACTS:
a secular versus non-secular ceremony/joning/vow taking/… is the choice of the individuals.
the government only defines laws applicable to issues exclusive of religious dogma.
the government does NOT legislate religion.
religion does NOT legislate government.
legally administered civil unions between 2 individuals are currently afforded basic civil rights. ask anyone married by a justice of the peace or and elvis impersonator!
legally administered religious unions between 2 individuals by a licensed individual are currently afforded these same civil rights. ask anyone married by a priest, rabbi, monk.
whether it’s elvis or the poobah, they all have the ‘license’ to say, “..and by the power vested upon me by the… i now pronounce you…”.
in granting civil rights to perhaps two women, the only change is to the statement, now declaring ‘wife and wife’ or ’spouse and spouse’.
THE SAME CIVIL RIGHTS MUST APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS IN A SECULAR UNION AS TO THOSE IN A NON-SECULAR UNION!
CIVIL RIGHTS APPLY TO ALL!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:58 pmdoh meant to say 48% sorry
June 15th, 2006 at 2:00 pmthe same group who “found†that 485 of gay couples sexually abuse children in thier care.
Comment by Krazny — June 15, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Which is completely opposite to the studies found by the institutions who run adoption and foster care systems.
If I had a child I were putting into adoption and I had the choice between giving the baby to a gay couple who were open-minded, secure and happy, or giving the baby to a redneck family, I would go with the gay couple without hesitation. I’d rather have my kid grow up with tolerance and love than without.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:00 pmLet me amend part of #123:
His response was to point readers to the following bible passage: 2 Peter 2, verses 4-9. That’s all he provided. I checked it out and don’t see his logic.
I read the King James version; the passage may have a different translation in other versions.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:01 pmI would pay some serious money to see this convention take place. I hope we can schedule it in the summer, after the NBA playoffs are over, because TV gets pretty lousy then, and this would be entertainment on a level never seen before. I’d love to get the rights to distribute a DVD of the whole event.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:02 pmWe got married later in life then most unbelievable. I was married young once, and that did not work out for the best. I do love my son from that marriage. You are right, we will see how we are in 5 years, but well this is far different from a young 20’s lust/love.
=)
June 15th, 2006 at 2:03 pmThe Family Hate Council, More Hate Majority, Christian Coalition of Haters and Bigots, Focus on Who to Hate et al. are not religious organizations. These peopla are Religious Frauds. They use religion to gain power and steal money from the ignorant masses who drink their Kool Aid. Truly religious people are tolerant and caring. They are people like Mother Teresa. These people only use religion for their own agenda including the Hater-in-Chief.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:04 pmBlueGregInRedFlorida -
Please understand that there are people out here who find the crap you have to go through to live your life a tragedy. I’m a married, heterosexual man with a son and a second child on the way, and I make it a point to address the issue of homosexual civil unions and my unwavering support for it to anyone who will listen.
I can only hope that as time goes on, more people will be open minded, and the scared homophobic folks fade into the sunset.
Congrats on your 15 years with your partner. That’s longer than a lot of ‘traditional’ marriages in today’s society.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#126
Great post! And welcome to ThinkProgress!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:09 pmWhat a ridiculous waste.
That’s right, pick-up the failed “gay marriage” thing (which was nothing but a political distraction of the American People), pick it up and run with it anyway.
What a waste; I thought that ridiculous distraction had crashed and burned a week ago Wednesday; but I guess there are folks at this web-site more than happy to pick up the pieces and rebuild that distraction…
Folks unable to ignore the danged nonsense; unable to restrain themselves from ACTING UP.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:09 pmkeep stirring the pot. i live right smack dab in the middle of texas and, being a buddhist, am being attacked constantly. fortunately, this is the best place i can possibly be to learn how to be a true human being. if the folks around here stopped attacking, i’d be forced to mouth off again to restart the attacks. mockery, as being displayed here, is the best way to destroy an opponent. the conservatives have employed the same tactics out of fear. the fear brings the attacks but it also brings an unbelievable ease in the ability to being manipulated. if you understand what people fear you can drag them around by their nose without them ever knowing. I’m not sure of the ethical implications of that but it’s pretty obvious what their ethical implications are.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:11 pmSame-sex marriage has been legal in Mass. for more than a year…what disasters have befallen the opposite-sex marriages in that time? Is the institution crumbling???
June 15th, 2006 at 2:11 pmSince we’re over 100 comments, I realize there’s no chance anyone’s gonna read this, but what the heck. Let me clear up a few misconceptions. The repeal of prohibition did *not* use the constitutional convention method of proposing an amendment, that amendment was proposed by congress in the usual way — but it did use the state convention method of ratification. A constitutional convention has never been called (except for the one that wrote the constitution). We almost got one during the Reagan years. Republicans tried to get a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget — ain’t that a blast from the past. Congress couldn’t pass it, so they started a drive through the states to call a con-con. Something like 32 states passed this before it blew over. Interestingly, the grassroots movement fighting this included lots of right-wingers who didn’t want anybody messing with the constitution, a sentiment I applaud. I think we can expect lots of right-wing opposition to this con-con as well.
Two other things: first, any amendments proposed by a con-con still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, so they do not in fact have sole power to rewrite the constitution. Second, the push for a con-con mentioned above had the states calling for a “limited” con-con, specifying the topic on which it could act. I suppose SCOTUS would get to sort out whether such a con-con fits article V, and, even more interestingly, if it really is restricted to that topic.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:12 pmI read the King James version; the passage may have a different translation in other versions.
Comment by WC — June 15, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
GASP! You mean the words in the Bible weren’t written directly by God?
GASP! You mean it’s been translated hundreds of times throughout history possibly resulting in completely different text from the original?
GASP! You mean that since MEN were doing the translating, they could have intentionally changed the word of God to suit their means?
Say it ain’t so!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:12 pmJerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the other religious far-right bigots are afraid that if Gay marriages are allowed then their wives might divorce them and run off with other women! GOPers treat their wives badly, so I would not blame Laura if she divorced Dubya and ran off to get married to another woman! They are also afraid their mistreated sons might run off to get hitched with other males! They are terrified about this happening, but their abuse would be the cause if it happened, and not Gays luring their wives or children into homosexuality! The far-right are pathetically stupid, and unhappy people, who are frustrated sexually with their own lives, so they desire everybody else to be miserable with them!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:13 pmreddog lol I hope your wife, if you have one, leaves you to run off with another female! You deserve it you vile dumb bigot!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:17 pmbill Bennet was on the daily show, he is against gay marriage, but he sees the writing on the wall so to speak and said that gay marriage will eventually be recognized. I suppose just like desegregation, women’s suffrage, and outlawing of slavery, there will be people who will need to be dragged kicking and screaming forward.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#78 asks: “One Amendment I have is taking away the Bill Of Rights from corporations. How they ever got to be considered the same as people in the first place is beyond me.”
That was a fine bit of “judicial activism,” if you will, by the Supreme Court in 1886.
As for me, were I invited to a Constitutional Convention, I would propose an amendment specfically enumerating the right to privacy, which is not specifically stated in the Consitution.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:19 pmreddog -
Bill O’Reilly called. He wants to let you know that if you continue to infringe on his copyright surrounding “losing a grip on reality,” he will sue you. That or sexually harrass you and then write a children’s book.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:20 pm#144 Such a disgraceful retreat. Good bye.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:21 pmhomosexuality is not a civil rights issue , it is a mental health issue. there will never be gay marriage – get used to it.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:22 pmbut well this is far different from a young 20’s lust/love.
Comment by Krazny — June 15, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
I’m sure that does make a difference in your day-to-day interaction. I think our culture expects too much from romantic relationships. That they are supposed to make us happy, rather than tell us that a happy relationship is the result of people who accept responsibility for their own happiness…
June 15th, 2006 at 2:23 pmBob Novak is a traitor and should be in jail instead of appearing on TV. With his ugly mug he’d be safe in prison. It amazes me he outed a CIA operative and NOTHING happens to him. A very strange repulsive world we live in. You are beaten up if you are honest and promoted if you are incompetent. It’s the culture of corruption by the Bush administraiton that allows this kind of crap to keep happening.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:24 pmSTAY OUT OF PEOPLE’S PERSONAL LIVES!!!
Psychiatrists long ago removed homosexuality from the ADA.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:24 pmThe far-right are pathetically stupid, and unhappy people, who are frustrated sexually with their own lives, so they desire everybody else to be miserable with them!
Comment by Jay Randal
I hate to break it to you dummy but nobody, Conservative or Liberal likes homosexuals. Everybody thinks they are mentally ill and nasty. Only the fringle left wing loons including those on the MS bench think rump rangers should be given the right to call themselves married.
Personally I think the Butt Brothers should be required to marry bull dykes and thereby suffer like any normal married man.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pmPsychiatrists long ago removed homosexuality from the ADA.
Comment by Krazny — June 15, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
(Say this like the kids on the Trix commercials when talking to the Rabbit)
Silly Kranzy, facts are for liberals.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pmUnbelievable, your ideas are too sane to be considered in the new and improved Amerika, Inc.
Comment by Jack Lambert — June 15, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
Why I’ll probably end up in Europe when they start building their Wall across the borders… :)
June 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#135 & 136, et al…thanks. I know that there are PLENTY of level-headed folks out there like yourselves who raise their kids to be tolerant and open-minded, and who in turn raise their kids in the same manner. Many republicKKKans are clearly grasping at straws right now in hopes of saving their majority in the fall elections…so it works to their advantage to demonize the one group that can the party faithful can rally round to defeat. Same-sex marriage will continue to be a hot-button election issue until it is resolved one way or the other. Nothing brings out the conservatives quite like guns, gays, and of course, God.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pmOkay, who let IRI out of his cage?
June 15th, 2006 at 2:29 pmBigotry is a mental disease and reddog has a bad case of it > lol.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:29 pmYou only seem to get 4 posts everyotherday… Shouldn’t you make them better than this sort of absolutist nonsense?
I hate to break it to you dummy but nobody, Conservative or Liberal likes homosexuals. Everybody thinks they are mentally ill and nasty.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:31 pmComment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Moderated by Admin
June 15th, 2006 at 2:31 pmPsychiatrists long ago removed homosexuality from the ADA.
Comment by Krazny —
It was about 1971. Since that time they’ve written glowingly about sex with animals and children under age 10. You figure it out.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:32 pmhomosexuality is not a civil rights issue , it is a mental health issue. there will never be gay marriage – get used to it.
Comment by reddog — June 15, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
You must be a dog that can not read. People have been getting married in Mass. for the last 5 years. (Get used to that!) I believe in the 1960’s the mental health association said homosexuality is NOT a mental illness (That was 40 or so years ago for those of you who can’t read), It is a civil rights issue.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:33 pmPeople that are that afraid of gay people must be fighting their own issues of being gay. Relax, only idiots care about people’s sexual orientation.
LO post 54 I-RIGHT-I > I thought you ran off with Denny to get married in Vermont? Have not seen you on here in awhile, so we figured you were on your honeymoon! Stop being a closeted queen who hides behind homophobia!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:33 pmOkay, who let IRI out of his cage?
Comment by bobcat_grad — June 15, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Haven’t you heard that some parrots can unlock their cages with a stick? Occasionally he gets out, but usually not for very long.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:34 pmPost 154 I mean!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:34 pmHey Reddog…I hope you handle it better the day one of your kids tells you they are gay…or better yet, the day you look in the mirror and admit to yourself that you have deep, deep issues! Yes, I’m laughing just thinking about the irony, you CRACKER ASSHOLE.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:34 pmBigotry is a mental disease and reddog has a bad case of it > lol.
Comment by Jay Randal
I prefer his brand of bigotry over yours any day. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:35 pmOkay, who let IRI out of his cage?
Comment by bobcat_grad — June 15, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Haven’t you heard that some parrots can unlock their cages with a stick? Occasionally he gets out, but usually not for very long.
Comment by unbelievable
It’s a flaw in the system or Judd is on lunch. This won’t last too long.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:37 pmLiberalism is a mental disorder.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
Seriously, you’ve got about one post to go unitl Saturday and you haven’t yet said anything valid or mature…
June 15th, 2006 at 2:39 pmAIDS cures homosexuality.
Comment by reddog — June 15, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Is that right, genius??? Tell that to all the kids dying of AIDS while assholes like you make the stupid, uniformed comments that you do.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:39 pmhahahahahaha. poor homos . I hope you all get so mad your heads explode. yeah Massachusstes is a good examle- the only state in the union to have actually lost population for the past 3 yrs. gang murders every day in boston, ted kennedy , john kerry, yeah good example Massachussets- the most liberal state in america and people are leaving in droves. In Mass ONE JUDGE legalized it and now the gay crusaders are fighting against having gay marriage on the ballot to let the people decide. yeah democracy in action in Mass. You have no idea how much america hates you for pushing this gay marriage bullshit.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI-RIGHT-I is the leader of the homophobic Bush loving bigot trolls on here! reddog and the others are his slaves > lol.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:41 pmAIDS cures homosexuality.
Comment by reddog — June 15, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Nope – but knowldege cures ignornace. Go educate yourself.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:42 pmEr, “I-RIGHT-I”, may I see the exact writings you cite to make that outrageous claim in #162:
Since that time [the APA have] written glowingly about sex with animals and children under age 10. You figure it out.
Oh, I forgot: Right-wingers don’t bother themselves with “facts” when “character assassination” can work so well with the Wal-Mart/NASCAR crowd. Too bad so few of them are found here!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:43 pmI guess ignorance, poverty, disease, hunger, war, and whatever else ails the world no longer make God’s hit parade. Cool. That stuff’s boring anyway. No doubt God’s chillin’. He or she probably figured out long ago if there’s not enough love in this world of plenty to fix a simple thing like hunger, then there’s surely not enough love for anything else either, especially gay marriage.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:43 pmThe bigots in the state of Mass. are leaving and good riddence to them! Redneck homophobes, like reddog, are not even allowed to vacation in Vermont > they are told to turn around and go back to Oklahoma > lol.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:45 pmDon’t expect a response form IRI, the system thinks he is spam and after about four posts he gets blocked until it clears itself… Though he thinks he’s being played…
June 15th, 2006 at 2:47 pmLET ME TELL YOU ,YOU YOU UNBELIEVABLE SCAG.
I HAVE NEVER MADE AN ATTACK AGAINST GAY PEOPLE ON THIS WEB-SITE.
UNBELIEVABLE–GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT YOU BUSY-BODY SPINSTER HAG!!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:48 pmEr, “I-RIGHT-Iâ€, may I see the exact writings you cite to make that outrageous claim in #162:
Since that time [the APA have] written glowingly about sex with animals and children under age 10. You figure it out.
Oh, I forgot: Right-wingers don’t bother themselves with “facts†when “character assassination†can work so well with the Wal-Mart/NASCAR crowd. Too bad so few of them are found here!
Comment by radicalleftiemoonbat
Articles have been published in the APA journal that supported both and even now there is a push to lower the age of consent to almost the age of birth. You may if you look for it find out for yourself by doing a search on APA/homosexuality/pedophilia/ect. You’ll also find out exactly WHY the APA took homosexuality off of the list of disorders. It had a lot to do with violence and threats of violence from radical homosexuals. It’s a well documented but little reported event.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:49 pmreddog:
Rush Limgbaugh called. He’d like his listener back. Soooooo….. go now.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:51 pmDon’t expect a response form IRI, the system thinks he is spam and after about four posts he gets blocked until it clears itself… Though he thinks he’s being played…
Comment by unbelievable
Seriously, I think Judd is home sick today or taking a long lunch. This ammount of homophobic, mysoginistic, race baiting hatred and bigotry from a flag waving right wing Christonazi hasn’t been allowed in the past three weeks. It’s fun though isn’t it?
June 15th, 2006 at 2:52 pmHey I-Right-I, put your hate away for one second and tell me how me having sex with a man impacts you IN ANY WAY! I want to hear your serious, intelligent response.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:53 pmIt’s a well documented but little reported event.
Awesome. Then you should have no problems pointing us in the direction of all these documents.
I’ll wait.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:53 pmI-R-I and his ilk are the so-called straight guys who diddle little boys in restrooms! Pedophiles are mostly heterosexual males who were molested by their fathers, so in turn molest children! It is a severe mental disease that many doctors claim is incurable!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:54 pmRedneck homophobes, like reddog, are not even allowed to vacation in Vermont > they are told to turn around and go back to Oklahoma > lol.
Comment by Jay Randal
Speaking of Vermont. Normal people are leaving that state in droves. Pretty soon they’ll be begging for Red Staters to come and live there.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:54 pmI-RIGHT-I: I want to see a link. You want to post these ridiculous things, then go ahead and substantiate them yourself. And if the links go to some insane Christianist/Dominionist website, then we know how much we should take them seriously– that is, not at all.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:54 pmWhat this country needs is an enema! Let’s call a constitutional convention and “tear this motha down.” Given the radical right’s hold on this country, its courts, its institutions, its military, its press, and the inability of any opposition to form a coherent alternative, a constitutional convention is just what we would seem to need. Let’s dump the two party system, let’s publically finance elections, let’s limit unfettered access to automatic weapons let’s fully fund education as a national priority, let’s return citizen influecne over our government, let’s establish real national priorities, let’s allow for efficient removal of incompetent national “leaders”, etc. etc. etc.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:56 pmHey I-Right-I, put your hate away for one second and tell me how me having sex with a man impacts you IN ANY WAY! I want to hear your serious, intelligent response.
Comment by BlueGregInRedFlorida — June 15, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
It’s simple, Greg.
IRI is so focused on thinking about you having sex with your life partner that he can’t get anything else done. IRI just can’t stop thinking about men having sex. It consumes him.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:56 pm#22:
“I just don’t get what their obsession is with such things so utterly none of their business. When they look at a gay person, do they really only think about his/her sex life? I mean WTF? As for abortion, I think for the “pro life†men, it has to do with keeping patriarchal control of the women.”
Well homosexuality is a similar issue because theres no man controlling a woman.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:56 pmAmy,
June 15th, 2006 at 2:59 pmQuotas are illegal…what are you, stupid?
Moderated by Admin
June 15th, 2006 at 3:00 pmI am a progressive, and I think a Constitutional Convention is a *great* idea.
I say, let’s the Reich-wing Christian Mafia have their “feel good moment” and let’s see if they can get their hate amendment past 38 states.
For progressives, such a convention would give us an opportunity to bring up other ideas for amendments.
I myself would advocate three “freedom amendments”: 1) a right to privacy for all people in their person and effects; 2) a right for individuals to say anything about organizations and their products/services/practices without retribution (effectively ending SLAPP suits); and 3) a permanent ban on blacklisting of any kind.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:00 pmIt’s simple, Greg.
IRI is so focused on thinking about you having sex with your life partner that he can’t get anything else done. IRI just can’t stop thinking about men having sex. It consumes him.
Comment by bobcat_grad — June 15, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Ok, now you’re starting scare ME! LOL!
June 15th, 2006 at 3:00 pmIt’s fun though isn’t it?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
Or maybe Judd just fixed it for you. I’m sure you weren’t exactly at the top of his list for that…
You know I don’t take you seriously enough in here for it not to be fun. :)
Though we could use some sane debate instead of teh same old Rush Limbaugh talking points repeated ad nauseum by your vampire brethren. Why don;t you elevate your game? Surely thins can’t be so much fun to a guy who is as intellectually gifted as you think you are? :)
June 15th, 2006 at 3:01 pmAwesome. Then you should have no problems pointing us in the direction of all these documents.
I’ll wait.
Comment by bobcat_grad
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi
June 15th, 2006 at 3:01 pmThese people had better hurry up and pass their insane judgmental amendment. Strictly through the process of attrition, they will lose steam with every year because younger voters tend to be more liberal when it comes to people’s private lives.
Perhaps someone on the left should bring back the ERA. That would frost the uptight self-rightous hemorrhoids with their new religion that has nothing at all to do with Christianity.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:02 pmI agree post 190 > we need a real constitutional states convention that would represent the 70 % of Americans who are against the Iraq war and all the other Bush Regime crap! The 30% far right crowd would get drowned out and out-voted on everything! We could pass legislation for reservations for bigoted people > states of Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia would be set aside for them to live in > lol.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:03 pmOoops….can’t link to Scroogle searches.
try this link to search…..Google doesn’t get a dime….
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
then type in APA homosexuality, APA sex with animals, APA sex with children. You’re on your own. Your momma didn’t give you to me to raise.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:05 pmThese people had better hurry up and pass their insane judgmental amendment. Strictly through the process of attrition, they will lose steam with every year because younger voters tend to be more liberal when it comes to people’s private lives.
Perhaps someone on the left should bring back the ERA. That would frost the uptight self-rightous hemorrhoids with their new religion that has nothing at all to do with Christianity.
Comment by Tony Page
Actually you are wrong. Young college age people are becoming more conservative. It probably has something to do with being raised by liberal losers.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:07 pmWhat the hell is Scroogle? Google for Republican Scrooges?
June 15th, 2006 at 3:08 pmwell, maybe at Bob Jones University…but thats about all.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:09 pmWhy don;t you elevate your game? Surely thins can’t be so much fun to a guy who is as intellectually gifted as you think you are? :)
Comment by unbelievable
What fun is there in beating up the kiddies when they don’t even know they’ve been whipped?
June 15th, 2006 at 3:09 pmI-R-I > Jeff Gannon called to say your sex session has been changed from 4PM to 5PM today and he said to remember to bring $200 for the hour of him dominating you > lol.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:10 pmOoops….can’t link to Scroogle searches.
try this link to search…..Google doesn’t get a dime….
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
then type in APA homosexuality, APA sex with animals, APA sex with children. You’re on your own. Your momma didn’t give you to me to raise.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
IRI,
While you may be in the practice of typing in phrases such as “sex with animals” and “sex with children” into search engines, I am not.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI-Right-I, I would love to know your family background and what kind of job you have…unless you are a trust fund baby, you have at some point benefitted from some program that a “left wing, liberal loser” instituted…maybe a student loan, social security, GI bill…you figure it out.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:12 pmEr, the anti-gay websites are all maintained by Christianist/Dominionist organizations!! So their contribution to the issue deserves not a whit of serious consideration. They want homosexuality eliminated from the face of the earth based on a couple of verses in the Bible. Yet slavery is mentioned many more times in the Bible, why aren’t they pushing to bring it back?
June 15th, 2006 at 3:12 pmFundie rednecks are getting pissed. Watch out; they’ll shoot you in the face with a shotgun (a pansy 410 gauge–I might add). I think I am beginning to understand the redneck gun fascination. What would Frued Say? C’mon rednecks, get out of the closet. Admit you like big “guns”. Or find a NASCAR post and debate Jeff Gordon’s sexuality or or the legality of cockfighting. You’re for that I’m sure–metaphorically speaking.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:13 pmActually you are wrong. Young college age people are becoming more conservative. It probably has something to do with being raised by liberal losers.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Your opinon alone does not suffice. College age people are just as liberal as they’ve always been.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:14 pmsomething to do with being raised by liberal losers.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Your mother is a liberal… are you calling her a loser?
Actually, in many regards, the younger kids are more liberal. When I went to high school here a guy who went out with a white girl was threatened to stay away from her or he would be assaulted. Now, it’s no longer taboo to be in an inter-racial relationship. And it doesn’t get much redder than here.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:14 pmIt had a lot to do with violence and threats of violence from radical homosexuals.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
ROFL I used to work in a pretty diverse place, included a bunch of homosexual men and women. I have would never use this to describe any of them. Sorry IRI 90% of Homosexuals, like hetersexuals are decent people who want to live thier life, pay thier taxes, and be left alone.
If it is “well documented” as you claim please provide supporting links.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:14 pmWhat fun is there in beating up the kiddies when they don’t even know they’ve been whipped?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Well, you’ll have to let me know when that eventually happens, so I can see it for myself :)
June 15th, 2006 at 3:18 pmreddog: “good! I hope they do ban so called gay marriage . This will force the radical left in america to show it’s ugly face. There is no reason to allow so called gay marriage. this is just another gimmick to justify homosexuality. What should happen is there should be a referendum and let people vote, in every state that has had a referendum gay marriage has been soundly defeated and that is good. let America decide not some activist judge.”
PSST…They did vote. It lost 49-48. Moron.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:18 pmIn the architecture industry, I worked with a lot of people who were gay. Mostly men. Most of them were actually ultra compassionate because they knew what it was like to be discriminated against and not be open to be themselves. There was one who was an ass, but that was because he had serious inferiority issues and tried to act dominant to keep from feeling that way. One out of dozens was a jerk. I’d say that was far better odds than only one out of a hundred Christians being a jerk…
June 15th, 2006 at 3:23 pmPost 216 that one Gay jerk you mention was probably a Log Cabin Republican > they are very confused because they are GOP members, but hated by most of their party > very weird group!
June 15th, 2006 at 3:29 pmIf it’s going to be illegal for gays to get married then it should be illegal for straight people to get divorced! Oh yeah, these are the people talking about the sanctuary of marrage as long as there still able to get married and divorced as much as they want…….Priceless….
June 15th, 2006 at 3:29 pmreddog: “good! I hope they do ban so called gay marriage . This will force the radical left in america to show it’s ugly face. There is no reason to allow so called gay marriage. this is just another gimmick to justify homosexuality. What should happen is there should be a referendum and let people vote, in every state that has had a referendum gay marriage has been soundly defeated and that is good. let America decide not some activist judge.â€
PSST…They did vote. It lost 49-48. Moron.
Comment by segmentation fault — June 15, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
OK, since I-R-I won’t tell me how me being gay affects him or the so-called sanctity of his marriage, YOU tell me. I want you to educate this dumb, “radical” fag…while you’re at it, tell me why in your opinion I’m trying to “justify” homosexuality. Seriously, explain it to me.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:33 pmp.s. Didn’t the Defense of Marriage Act prohibit one state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state? More proof that the republikkkans are doing this ONLY to radicalize the debate.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:38 pmBoy am I glad slavery, desegregation and womens suffrage were never put on a ballot.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:38 pmGreg,
IRI once came clean with me on that issue. He has meet to his knowledge anyway zero gays.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:38 pmJay,
The guy wasn’t a Republican, but he was ashamed of being gay. His father was a career military officer, his family was religious, and he grew up in Ohio. I don’t think his parents knew that he was gay or living with a long time boyfriend, who he would call ‘his friend’ even though he was living in San Francisco where 95% of our co-workers were liberal and about 25% were openly gay… He was someone who had to tell you he was gay because he hid it so well.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:42 pmKrazny…I suppose IRI thinks a man is not gay unless he has a penis in his mouth and waving a rainbow flag. I’m sure he knows a few gays/lesbians, but he doesn’t KNOW them. Why would they confide their personal life to such a hate-filled bigot???
June 15th, 2006 at 3:42 pmIF you ask me all those in favor of the gay marriage ban are themselves gay but wont admit it to their selves…
June 15th, 2006 at 3:43 pmHe has meet to his knowledge anyway zero gays.
Comment by Krazny — June 15, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Yeah right…
Oh, and he’s open about this – he’s divorced. I’m sure it’s all your fault Greg :)
June 15th, 2006 at 3:43 pmWell Seth, they are afraid of something, but no one will tell me why I scare them so.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:45 pmLOL, I forgot that his was one of the marriages I ruined. I’m so bad…
June 15th, 2006 at 3:46 pmI-R-I in the past has explained in every detail on here what Gay guys do in the bedroom > only someone who is closeted and lusts for sex with another guy would post stuff like that on here! He reminds me of Ken Mehlman who visits Gay bars with a fake mustache, to shield his identity, to pick up a guy for anonymous sex!
June 15th, 2006 at 3:47 pmI couldn’t tell you Greg, I have worked and currently work with Gays. No big issue in my mind. We are what we are after all.
I am sure that IRI has met, or knows a homosexual or two. I found out from a friend who came out after high school, that he used to ummm have fun with members of the straight football team.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:49 pmPersonally I think if there was zero stigmata to being gay, there would either alot more gay men, or alot more bisexual men.
Post 223 that is sad unbelievable > he sounds like Ennis in the Brokeback Mountain movie > to scared to live his life in the open as a Gay man, so tries to hide it in misery!
June 15th, 2006 at 3:52 pmThe hippies tried this in the 60’s. It went nowhere.
The American Taliban fundamentlists are much better-organised and better-funded, but I still think this is going nowhere.
What a bunch of clowns.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:52 pmYou are right Krazny. I have single gay friends who meet PLENTY of “straight, married” guys to play with.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:55 pmHell one of the guys I worked with ages ago, said he dated far more “straight” guys then gay guys.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:56 pmBring it on! Like Gorbachev’s effort to downsize the USSR, once started, a Constitutional Convention is under no obligations to enshrine the bigoted ideas of those that called it. What a great opportunity for the netroots to organize and populate those who would write a new Constitution. Perhaps they could remove the concept of corporations as people, license the multinationals by the state. Convict a corporation of fraud, pull their license, liquidate the suckers, sell the pieces off to more honest competitors.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:57 pm“A convention could overturn the current Constitution with a vote. But the Constitution is not scrapped by virtue of convening the Convention alone.
Either way – I’m curious why yall on the left are opposed to debate of these issues. If the American public is in favor of gay civil unions, debate it! Bring it to a vote! Unfortunately, I think most can see the writing on the wall – put on the spot with the choice between “gay marriage†and “no gay marriageâ€, a majority of Americans would vote against it. That’s why debate is foreclosed upon.
Trust Democracy.
Comment by Chase — June 15, 2006 @ 11:05 am ”
“Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what is for dinner”. This is why we have a Republic. The truth is “marriage” is a religious institution and any denomination can do as it wishes. This should not be debated at all rather Government should stick to National Defense and stay out of micro managing its citizens. I would argue that most people would not support inter racial marriage 40 years ago. Does that mean it was wrong to allow that? This is a red Herring designed to take the focus from the more important issues where our government is lacking.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:00 pmi have an idea for a few amendments that probably would have just as much a chance of passing through a convention as the gay marriage amendment:
• safe, legal, comprehensive family planning available to all women. this includes abortion, birth control, prenatal care, and regular check ups and pap smears (throw in the new HPV vaccine while youre at it), all covered by insurance.
• revoke tax exempt status for religions. if lavey’s satanism could survive paying taxes, im pretty sure all the rest of them can too.
• and finally, a counter-amendment stating that while marriage may be only between a man and a woman, domestic partnerships will now carry the full rights and priveleges of a marriage, and will be open to anymone.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:02 pmLots of so-called straight men secretly have sex with other guys > some hire male hookers like Jeff Gannon and some look for a one night stand fling cruising at Gay bars or hanging out on Gay chat rooms! GOPer males tend to be closeted, and very afraid to admit their lust for sex with another male, so they do it secretly! They do not believe in LOVE with another guy, because that might shatter their masquerade traditional marriage with a woman!
June 15th, 2006 at 4:05 pmakzidenzgrotesk…A simple and brilliant idea. What do you say, republikkkans?
June 15th, 2006 at 4:06 pmThe Christian Right is so crazy that a Constiutional Convention would leave open the re-writing of the entire constitution. You know what that means. The end of separation of church and state for one thing. One thing the CR states over and over is that “there is NO separation of church and state”. The other thing they do is to pit one part of the Bill of Rights against another. Jefferson speaks of a wall of separation between church and state. The CR says “well, what that means is bla, bla bla bla bla.” What it means is clear. It says NO law. Even the Repulican congress did NOT approve “Faith-based” funding. Bush just did it by “decree” like he does everything.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:07 pmi have an idea [Snip radical ideas]
Comment by akzidenzgrotesk
I have an idea for you…move to Kanaduh
June 15th, 2006 at 4:08 pmI-R-I do not forget your appointment with Jeff Gannon at 5PM at the Watergate Hotel in DC! Remember each hour costs $200 for the Bulldog to be the TOP > lol.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:11 pmWell folks, I’d love to stay and continue the brilliant conversation with the right wingers, but I’ve been on the site so long that I’ve been neglecting my real job. I mean, this afternoon I haven’t destroyed even one marriage, haven’t raped a dog, or even converted a little straight christian boy to the dark side! If I don’t shape up, the radical homosexuals are gonna make me go straight!
Have a good afternoon, fight the good fight!
Greg
June 15th, 2006 at 4:12 pmBye Greg > have a nice afternoon > I-R-I and the other bigots are defeated on here > time for me to go as well!
June 15th, 2006 at 4:16 pmIf two men decided that after a lifelong friendship they wanted to live as a legal union, designate each other to make medical decisions for the other, bequeath their estates to each other, and enjoy all the benefits of a legal partnership, the conservatives would go nuts.
But, if two lifelong friends decide to form a business partnership together, designate each other to make medical decisions (to control proprietary information – only about half a dozen people know the formula to Coca-Cola), pass their interest in the partnership to the other, and enjoy all the legal protections that come with such a union, the conservatives would probably say they were smart businessmen and support it.
So, let’s suggest to gay people that they incorporate themselves, then legally merge their two “corporations†and specify all the parameters that the two businessmen above did. They should be able to do this legally and their families shouldn’t be able to break the agreement since it’s one between corporations, not individuals.
It’s not what gay people want and I agree that they should have the same legal status as a marriage between people of opposite gender, but (unless I’m missing a major flaw) they would enjoy most of what they would ultimately like to have. One “protection†that married people have that these men wouldn’t would be the legal protection of not having your spouse testify against you involuntarily.
It’s not a perfect solution, and I admit that I know nothing about the details of the law, but at first glance it sounds like it might give these fine folks what they want. It’s just another of my crazy ideas.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:19 pmSorry IRI 90% of Homosexuals, like hetersexuals are decent people who want to live thier life, pay thier taxes, and be left alone.
If it is “well documented†as you claim please provide supporting links.
Comment by Krazny —
Too lazy to use a search engine?
June 15th, 2006 at 4:24 pmThe Sad part about this is GAY people are PEOPLE! TAX PAYING, LAW ABIDING AMERICANS..WHO IS THE GOV’T TO TELL THEM/US WHO TO LOVE AND COMMIT TOO??? GAY PEOPLE HAVE FAMILIES/CHILDREN TO PROTECT – YES, JUST LIKE HETEROS….HOW DARE, THESE SUPPOSED “CHRISTIANS” USE JESUS & GOD IN THIS EVIL WAY!!!!!! AMERICA IS FOR ALL AMERICANS! CORRETTA SCOTT KING WAS A STAUNCH SUPPORTER FOR GAY AND LESBIANS AND THIER FAMILIES! SO – I GUESS CORRETTA WAS WRONG? DOUBTFUL – SHE’S AN AMERICAN HERO AND ICON..FOREVER REMEMBERED FOR HER SUPPORT OF CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLE!!!!!
June 15th, 2006 at 4:26 pmhomosexuality is not a civil rights issue , it is a mental health issue. there will never be gay marriage – get used to it
reddog
homosexuality hasnt been considered a mental health issue since about 1948. go do a little research. its now widely believed that human sexuality falls on a bell curve, just like everything else. thus, while some people are all the way straight, or all the way gay, most are a little bit of both. there is no disorder involved in homosexuality, and no choice. it just IS. and that is that.
excessive stubborness in the face of reason, lack of empathy, and uncalled for attacks on others, however, are symptoms of mental illness. its called being a sociopath.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:31 pmMr. Novak fails to point out that he would most likely be long dead before things were resolved either way.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:31 pmWhat an awesome idea!! Then lets ban blacks from getting with whites. Oh, and we don’t want Christians & Jewish people together do we? Yeah, I think you’re on to a great idea.
I mean if Jesus taught us anything it’s to show hatred to those who are different from us, right?
June 15th, 2006 at 4:32 pmi would also like to point out that not only do secular canada and sweden allow gay marriage, but CATHOLIC SPAIN and CHURCH OF ENGLAND UK have also legalized gay marriage. and its working out just fine.
anymore comments from the bigoted peanut gallery?
June 15th, 2006 at 4:35 pmToo lazy to use a search engine?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
It’s called ‘burden of proof.’ You make a claim, you have to back it up.
You don’t go into court, claim some guy killed someone and then tell the defense lawyer to come up with the prosecution’s case.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:38 pm[...] Some people need to find a fucking hobby that doesn’t involve destroying the Constitution. It boggles my mind that these people can be so single-mindedly obsessed with gay marriage. We’re not talking about national security or civil rights; it’s not like they’re fighting for their lives or freedom on this issue. I go back and forth on the matter–I definitely favor full civil unions, but there’s a clear majority in America for not calling it marriage, and I don’t think that’s something that should be outright ignored–but whenever I see these asswads and their transparent hatred, it’s enough to make me want to go to Boston and get married to a man right now, then have my honeymoon in James Dobson’s office. categories: politics « Previous Post [...]
June 15th, 2006 at 4:39 pmWhat the hell every happened to the idea of protecting minorities from the tyrrany of the majority in this country? Have they stopped teaching that in civics classes? We need to be a little more vocal about the fact that the rights of minority groups in the US have absolutely nothing to do with the will of the majority. We’ve been through this before, whether it be miscegenation or voting rights for women. We have a Constitution that bestows equality before the law for all. I don’t give a rat’s ass what someone in Kansas or Missouri thinks. A plebiscite regarding a US citizens lawful rights? Please.
To get this point across, perhaps some of the more liberal and thoughtful and humane states should put a vote to the people to outlaw Christianity in their states. It relies on the same argument that these hateful and intolerant dolts are using—the will of the majority has no bearing on the legal rights of any US citizen.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:39 pmTalk about your organizing tool! If they want the fight, I’m prepared to fight to attend as an eleted delegate, armed with my draft amendments and reaffirmations. Privacy rights, anyone? No warrantless no-knock searches? Equal Rights Amendment?I think the radical right would find out pretty quickly how out of step they are with most Americans on most issues. Constitutional Conventions don’t scare me, and should be welcomed by every freedom-lovin’ liberal and libertarian.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:40 pmTalk about your organizing tool! If they want the fight, I’m prepared to fight to attend as an elected delegate, armed with my draft amendments and reaffirmations of core principles. Privacy rights, anyone? No warrantless no-knock searches? No Presidential right to unilaterally initiate war? Equal Rights Amendment? Victimless crimes no longer a federal offense? I think the radical right would find out pretty quickly how out of step they are with most Americans on most issues. Constitutional Conventions don’t scare me, and should be welcomed by every freedom-lovin’ liberal and libertarian.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:42 pmSorry. Hit the cancel button too late it seems.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:43 pmSpeaking of Vermont. Normal people are leaving that state in droves. Pretty soon they’ll be begging for Red Staters to come and live there.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
actually, its states like ohio that are hemhorraging people like there’s no tomorrow. why do you think rent is so low in cincinnati (a bastion of republican values) and so expensive in places like baltimore (the most liberal city in the most liberal state in the union)?
just thought id point that out.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:43 pmJust imagine:
Jesus was in his mid to late thirties when he died.
Jesus was not married…. odd!
Jesus allegedly never had sex … odd!
The last supper as all males … kind of odd!
But… the Da Vinci code was wrong, Jesus wasn’t married to Mary, he was havving an affair with Judas and broke it off because he found some one new!
Judas turned him over to the Romans because he was pissed!
Ergo, Jesus was gay, and you, and I mean Reddog, IRI Chase and the sweet miserable sexless Amy can’t prove he wasn’t!
So Don’t be too unhappy, just remember some of your best friends may be gay, and you don’t even know it.
Ignorance IS bliss and you are in a state of bliss.
lSo
June 15th, 2006 at 4:52 pmI live in Ohio.
I hate it here. I’d move in a heartbeat if my wife’s family wasn’t all here…. not that I like them all that much. But I can’t pry her away from them.
This state has been swirling down the toilet for a while now. We’ve lost more jobs in this state since Bush took office than any other state in the union. The economy is tanking. Taft’s approval rating is around 18%. The Republican led state Congress is a joke. We have Bob Ney for freakin’ sakes. Yet, the state went red in 2004.
I cry for my state.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:54 pmIf they would just stick with this idea (which is so lame that it can’t possibly pass), they will have their feeble minds off of more important issues which might help to get something done. I say to them, “hit it” and may you fail miserably. The rest of us can then address global warming and world wide aggression while they try to stop Armeggedon their way.
And we always thought the pilgrims just dressed a little funny.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:54 pmall i have to say is, bring it on. psycho-fascists.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:54 pm“Since that time [the APA have] written glowingly about sex with animals and children under age 10. You figure it out.” The gentlething (?) is confused; APA also stands for the American Philological Association, the professional group for Classics scholars. Certain priests found validation for their inclinations in the writings of some ancient Athenians, and the Golden Ass of Lucius Apuleius describes bestiality in a non-censorious way.
It’s also wrong about college students. We are university administrators, and while young people today are less activist and more brand-conscious, they do take for granted many basic “liberal” principles, such as respect for the earth and for other people. What they do to annoy their liberal parents is smoke, since tattoos and bad rock are a complete frost.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#260 – Don’t lose hope for the sanity in your state! It looks like the Republican culture of corruption is becoming apparent to more people every day. I have hope that the ethically and morally challenged Republicans will be turned away this coming election, and some sanity will begin to emerge in your state.
Who knows! Maybe the state will turn blue after they realize how badly Pres. Bush’s and the Republican policies have raped your state! One can only hope!
June 15th, 2006 at 4:59 pmHow about an amendment that ejects states from the union that don’t carry their weight financially.
Oh wait, most of those would be red states.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:59 pmby the way IRI, i would love to move to canada (or UK), but for now i think ohio needs my liberal values much more than canada does.
and noboby thinks homosexuality is icky besides people insecure in their own sexuality. ive lived with both a lesbian couple and a gay male couple, ive kissed other girls and i go to gay bars, and i can still proudly look at my reflection and know that i am a straight, proud woman, who loves my man AND myself. i only wish that everyone else could do the same, then maybe a lot of things would be a whole lot easier.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:03 pm#262
I said the same thing (well, almost) way back in post #82 almost 5 hours ago, and no one from the rightwing crowd has yet to answer my most basic of questions regarding gay marriage and its effect on heterosexual marriage. Maybe if I pay them…
In post #219, BlueGregInRedFlorida asked a similar question, and directed it at 2 of the resident rightwingers here. Same thing…no response.
Which, I think, proves a point: the rightwing religious fanatics don’t want a debate. They just want to tell their followers what they are supposed to think. Don’t question it…don’t rationalize it…don’t think about it. Gay marriage is bad, and that’s just the way it is. End of discussion. Case closed.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:16 pmProgressives should welcome the convening of a constitutional convention, vote down the amendment banning gay marriage, and then propose and vote in favor of amendments protecting the right of women to choose, public financing of all elections, abolition of the electoral college, environmental protections for endangered ecosystems, and repeal of, or at least significant changes to, the 2nd amendment.
The Right to Privacy and other important issues in the 21st century should not have to rely on tortured legal arguments based on 18th-century words — they should be explicitly enshrined in the constitution. Why should the constitution be considered a sacred document — the far-right obviously doesn’t think it is (when it suits their purpose)??!
June 15th, 2006 at 5:17 pm“Trust Democracy”? Like we trust the democracies in Palestine and Venezuela? When will you people realize that the democratic process has been hijacked? Have you heard of “Tyranny of the Majority”? I’m pretty sure all of the people in Germany prior to WWII voted in support of Hitler and his government. It doesn’t make it right. Open your eyes to what the real issues are in this country. Our record debt, a floundering war in Iraq, no Social Security for our children, the middle class being destroyed by tax cuts for the rich and inflation, skyrocketing energy prices killing our economy while Exxon-Mobil makes record profits. Who gives a shit about gay people getting married or burning a flag? Is that crap going to feed your children? Wake the hell up!!!!!!!
June 15th, 2006 at 5:26 pmby the way IRI,
….noboby thinks homosexuality is icky besides people insecure in their own sexuality.
Comment by akzidenzgrotesk
Yep, that’s what the perv’s say every time. Never mind the feces eating that goes on in homoville and the myriad of disgusting diseases they contract between themselves and the fatal ones they inflict on the unsuspecting. Never mind the outrageous prissing and mincing affectations and the negative impact they have on every community they inhabit and their insane and demented demands that children be taught to accept that behavior as normal.
I got news for ya sweetcheecks, you’re a small minority of radical goofballs and the word nobody only applies to people like you.
Kissed another girl huh? That’s sad ‘ya know it? I wonder who your “significant other” has been kissing…and where.?
June 15th, 2006 at 5:37 pmWho gives a shit about gay people getting married or burning a flag? Is that crap going to feed your children? Wake the hell up!!!!!!!
Comment by Rick
What good is making money when you’re living in a shit hole?
June 15th, 2006 at 5:39 pmBring em on! They want a Constitutional Convention no problem.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:43 pmThat’s it for me today from VRWC Central deep in the heart of Mexican territory Tejas. I’d like to thank Judd for taking a long lunch and allowing me to spew my profane homophobic flag waving bigotry all over John Podesta and George Sore’s blog. By the way George sorry about that insider trading conviction, it should have been Hillary, not you….and I’d like to thank Fez and the girl what’s her name for calling in sick today.
Hope you all have a great evening, no telling when I’ll be allowed back . I enjoyed it.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:48 pm[...] You can find it here [...]
June 15th, 2006 at 5:52 pmrandal I hunt and fish and camp in vermont every summer. the good people at take back vermont are very nice and do not appreciate their good state being associated with gays.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:53 pmto the sharpest knife in the drawer : I was talking about states voting on so called gay marriage. no state that has allowed their people to vote on so called gay marriage has voted for it.
you self proclaimed “progressives” and open minded liberals have made one good argument for you little cause of homos marying . not one. use all the small minded attacks and twisted logic you want but gays will never be allowed to marry. it is a ridulous concept and not needed or wanted. all this rancorous whining only serves to turn America against your cause and you are so blinded by your self righteousness and pomp that you can’t even see it.
everytime one of you nutjobs attack somebody here who is against your so called gay marriage you prove my point.
If they do call a convention, can dems write an ammendment that absolutely, positively forever and ever bans any church involvement in government, especially involvment involving the state area of marrige?
June 15th, 2006 at 5:53 pmNo 48. Retired Republican Soldier got it wrong. The Constitution has never been amended by a convention process. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution was repealed by the 21st Amendment proposed by Congress and not a “Convention of States.” I am surprised that Retired Republican Soldier failed to check the facts. For your edification RRS here is a good site for information on the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html. I don’t know about you but as for me; if the Christianists attempt to call a constitutional convention I’ll show up and do whatever it takes to thwart their treasonous acts to destroy the Republic!
June 15th, 2006 at 5:58 pmreddog go crawl back under your rock > nobody wants anything to do with homophobic bigots! People like you are throwbacks to cavemen > go live in Idaho with the Nazi skinheads > lol.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:06 pmI am so sick and tired of the religious right and thier adgenda of hate.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:06 pmCool. Tell me where to send my donation to help them get this thing going. This will be a great way for middle america to see how much these lunatics just want to take over and ram their shitty views down the throat of the nation regardless of the rule of law or Reason. The more attention the wingnuts draw to themselves, the worse the rethuglicans do in the polls.
BRING IT ON!!!!
June 15th, 2006 at 6:13 pmIn 1967, reddog, not many states would have passed voter initiatives permitting mixed-race marriages. It took smart judges, correctly applying the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, to make anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional (Loving vs. Virginia). Like it or not, the Constitution’s protections exist to prevent minorities from falling victim to the tyranny of the majority.
Tell us, reddog– do you support the right of a man and a woman of different races to marry? Despite various Biblical condemnations (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8 and 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27)? And despite fairly strong public opinion against it (in 1965, 42% of northern whites and 72% of southern whites opposed mixed-race marriage, according to Gallup polls)? In 1967, mixed-race marriages were permitted throughout the US. And lo and behold– the US survived. There’s a full generation that doesn’t know that people of different races couldn’t marry at one time in this country.
And some day– not too far off– our children will look at this argument and say, “What was the big deal?” Granted, a lot of very, very stupid, bigoted white guys have to die first.
And we’ll miss you, reddog.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:15 pmsooner or later marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sex will be allowed. It may not be in a 2 years, or 5 years, or even 10 years, but it will happen.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:25 pmradicalleftmoonbat how aptly named you are did you give that name to yourself or is it honorary?? you also have to realize, as we do, that many, many moonbats will have to die in order to preserve common sense, the rule of law and to stop the scumbag left from forcing us to accept their sick , degenerate homos from polluting this great country.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:31 pmyou equate my views with racism and that is typical moobatasshole funny! if you had half a brain in that drug addled brain of yours you would realize how much the African- american communty hates the gay agenda and slimeballs like you equating so called gay marriage with the real civil rights movement. you prove with every lame argument you throw out just how stupid you are. grow up punk!
someday we will look back at these times and the struggle to maintain traditional marriage and how the insane , slimy progressives tried to re- define marriage to promote sexual deviance and we will ask what the hell was wrong with those scumbags?
how the hell can you miss me when I will never leave. we will never give up the fight against you left wing idiots….. never.
reddog,
you should go talk with Fred Phelps over at godhatesfags.com. I am sure you two will have much in common.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:32 pm40.
!
52.
Considering that “the South” has wanted to move along courses that did not parallel the northern tier of states as far back as the Revolutionary War and that there still remains a question as to the legality of a secession. I would suggest that Lincoln was in error in preciptating a war over the question. If the scism had been allowed to occur peacefully, a lot of lives and a lot of treasure would not have been lost.
They may have banned slavery after a while and they could now be able to define marriage narrowly. They would not be a drain on our public will and public coffers.
That a con-con might precipitate a breakup can be viewed as a plus. Should the “South” raise again and desire do go their own way, I, for one, would bid them Bon Voyage and good riddance.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:33 pm#281….well said and eloquent!
June 15th, 2006 at 6:38 pmDo these twits have any shame?
June 15th, 2006 at 6:38 pmNever say never reddog > I believe that bigots like yourself will be remembered like the cavemen > a race that died out and are just fossils or skull fragments now! The age of the far-right bigots is coming to an end and the dawn of enlightenment approaches!
June 15th, 2006 at 6:38 pmModerated by Admin
June 15th, 2006 at 6:42 pmReddog…I’m STILL waiting for one of your band of morons to explain how my 15-year relationship with a man has hurt your marriage how legalizing it would destroy the sanctity of marriage. Come on, educate this silly fag.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:45 pmTo #42 and those who want an actual gay person to speak on this subject:
I’m truly sick of this totally bogus “activist judge” crap. $42 asks why “liberals” can work within the governmental structure. Well, if you knew any history at you, you would know that in all the same-sex marriage cases tried so far, they have ALL worked within the system.
1. Hawaii. The gay plaintiffs won their trial, it was sent to the high court, which sent it back to the legislature, which made a compromise and proposed compromise legislation which gave some benefits to gay couples.
2. Vermont. The gay plaintiffs won their trial, it was sent to their high court, which — interpreting the Vermont Constitution, found for the plaintiffs because denying them their rights was unconstitution. The high court sent the case back to the legislature, instructing them to either amend the constituion, allow gay marriage or some equivalent. The legislature decided on civil unions instead of marriage (this solution will one day be challenged because civil unions are a case of ’separate but equal’)
3. Massacusetts. The gay plaintiffs won their case, it was sent to their high court which — interpreting their constitution (one of the most noble state constitutions, written by John Adams) — found that barring gays from equal marriage rights was unconstitutional. This case was not returned to the legislature. The state then tried to amend the constituion and that failed. Massachusetts now has gay marriage.
The system worked. Judges did what they’re supposed to do — interpret laws. Legislatures did what they’re supposed to do – legislate. And the people tried to amend contitutions. Everything worked. No such thing here as an activist judge. So take a history lesson #42, you ignorant ____.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:47 pmLol reddog go climb a tower with a rifle so an FBI sharpshooter can take you out! Your homophobic life is doomed with Pat Robertson and the GOP!
June 15th, 2006 at 6:48 pmReddog, civil rights are CIVIL RIGHTS whether concerning a racial or other type of minority. THEY, as you call African Americans, are not PISSED, its a few right wing radical ministers that are pissed. The average American, whether white, black, brown, or whatever, knows this fight is wrong and that the right wing is only using it as a wedge.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:50 pmHey Reddog, what state are you living in?
June 15th, 2006 at 6:51 pmBlueGregInRedFlorida I hope you finally get help for your sickness. the only person that can educate you obviously is a mental health professional and you of course have to want to change. my sympathies.
SusieQ it is not up to just one judge to overturn the will of the people at the behest of a few deviants. if you were so sure that your so called gay marriage quest is viable why not take it to the people.This is not up to a few liberal judges to decide. we don’t live under a few dicatatorial judges who can just change marriage like that. that is what’s called tyranny. take it to the people or else shut up and take the consequences of the people.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:55 pmReddog…I have no desire to change myself…after all, God made me in his image. YOU, my friend, are the one who need help. You are rabidly attacking people who have no bearing on how you live your day-to-day life. I’m still waiting to hear how I affect your life. EDUCATE me!!!!!!
June 15th, 2006 at 7:00 pmreddog, you still haven’t answered my question: Do you yourself support mixed-race marriage?
Someone– I can’t recall who it was– observed that the gay marriage brouhaha has at its core a strong desire to re-criminalize homosexuality– well, specifically the sexual act(s) of sodomy. Which, by the way, is/are not only practiced by homosexuals. Wait– now I remember. Antonin Scalia once let this opinion slip in a speech he was giving lamenting that the US Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws. (Well, if the wife were more proficient at the BJs, Scalia would be on our side…!)
There is also a strong undercurrent of hatred on the Right against gay men. Lesbians, being women, don’t fly on their radar screens (well, not so surprising, since women who consider themselves something other than “property of their men” and “baby incubators on the hoof” are beneath contempt for most Fundie rightwing nutjobs). And of course, those lesbian fillies just need a good, red-blooded Real Man to turn them into baby-queefing machines!! Don’t you know that’s what all the Republicans are thinking about Mary Cheney…?!
Oh, one quick note. If you want to see a drug-addled idiot, may I offer as Exhibit A Mr. Anal Cyst Chicken Hawk himself, the Hillbilly Heroin Kid, thrice-married Rush Limbaugh, oxycontin addict and professional dufus? I don’t even use aspirin.
No, reddog my “man”, in reading your random, moronic regurgitation of Focus on the Family and godhatesfags.com talking points, I’m more convinced than ever that rightwing nutjobs like you are the ones that are the endangered species– even more than correct spelling, proper grammar and coherent thought are endangered in your postings. I repeat: The fact that young people are NOT threatened or grossed-out by homosexuals, homosexual marriage or “sodomy” gives hope to the world, and it must be driving you insane that your bigoted worldviews are, one-by-one, being expelled from society.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:02 pmOur Constitution is a precious document….our plan of government. If and when it is amended it needs to be done in a soberly, thoughful way. Amendments should be in order to protect our rights….never to take them away. Individual states should handle the matter with a vote and live with the results. “Jim and Steve” getting married does not harm me or take away my freedom in any way, but a Constitutional amendment telling “Jim and Steve” they can’t get married would be keeping them from their pursuit of happiness, and their freedom of speech.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:13 pmradicalleftiemoonbat = kick-ass orator
June 15th, 2006 at 7:19 pmModerated by Admin
June 15th, 2006 at 7:22 pmI for one say that the gay people start with suicide bombing of churches and that’s just a start. They want a war I say we fight. I’m tired of these people. I don’t think we will ever have the organization of money of matter in elections that matter. I urged the people I know at a state gay rights groups to stop spending money or energy on lobbying. Instead, we bring all terminally ill gays to our state, we take care of them, we support them. we house them, but their last act is to be a suicide bomber. Others in repressive societies have had to resort to extreme measures. I think now is the time to fight. BTW, my state is Virginia.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:28 pmCorrection. I don’t think we will ever have the organization or money to matter in an election. The democrats are now abandoning the gays. Which party is left?
Sorry, I get so upset I can’t see straight left alone type.
charlie-imac
June 15th, 2006 at 7:32 pmFirst off, douche bag, just because I live in Florida doesn’t make me a South Beach Queen, although you seem to know what one is, LOL. Secondly, other than knowing I’m gay, you know nothing else…like that my father would kick your ass for talking down to any of his children. Let’s see…”wanted to be just like mommy”…no…”thoughts of suicide”…no…my parents raised three normal, sane, loving children. “then found a mate to help you thru trauma….nope..wrong again. You truly know nothing about me of any import, only that I have sex with, and love another man.
I don’t hate anyone, except narrow-minded, hate-filled bigots like yourself who try to hide behind the bible or a mis-guided republikkkan admistration to try to make themselves a man.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:34 pma con-con cannot rewrite or add or delete anything to/from the Supreme Law of this country. a con-con is simply the states brainstorming about what we might want to do now as a nation. the article v clause providing for such is in the constitution specifically for a situation like we’re experiencing today.
the state applications for an article v convention are in the congressional record this very minute and congress is failing to carry out its constitutional obligation and issue the call to the states. a federal lawsuit Walker v. Members of Congress (05-35023 U.S. Ninth Circuit) is about to be appealed to the supreme court. we need help with funding the certs.
please go here: http://www.cc2.org
for a short documentary on the suit, go to youtube.com and type “walker + cc2″ into the search function. if anyone has any comments or questions, please contact me: john@cc2.com
we should all welcome talk of a con-con, the only thing which will come of it is a roster of ideas. i for one would like to see that roster, and then i’d like to hear what mr. novak and others think of it.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:36 pmHow much pain do you have to be in to have a 30-pill-a-day oxycontin habit?
No, that much Hillbilly Heroin is only taken because you like being stoned all the time and have built up a wicked tolerance for the stuff. What’s a little hearing loss when you’re on an oxy high…?
June 15th, 2006 at 7:42 pmModerated by Admin
June 15th, 2006 at 7:42 pm[...] Via Think Progress comes news that the recently defeated Religious Reich wants a Constitutional Convention through an obscure part of Article 5 that allows for constitutional amendments without Senate approval: Meeting after the big failure at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement — Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others — discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention — which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it. [...]
June 15th, 2006 at 7:46 pmI don’t want a state. I just don’t want the Christian Taliban. What Denny’s do you go to? I see if I can’t add that to our list.
charlie-imac
June 15th, 2006 at 7:48 pmWhy are these supposedly religious men so driven to hate and hurt other people?
They remind me more and more of the taliban and other Muslim religious extremists. It’s not enough for them to live by their beliefs, they want to force everyone else to live by them as well.
Religious extremism is always a bad idea.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:48 pmModerated by Admin
June 15th, 2006 at 7:54 pmWhy are you running? Toss the name of that Denny’s over here.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:59 pmYou know I already have my own ways of dealing with your type. When you come into the emergency room I do everything but throw your chart out. I will misplace it, put it at the bottom of the list, not clasify your symptoms as servere as what they may be, etc. Oh, I’m not the only one!
charlie-imac
June 15th, 2006 at 8:06 pmReddog, my father is dead, but he’s still more of man than you ever can be. Next time you venture down to South Florida, pull up to any of those “fruitcups or fairies” and tell them what you think of them…I hope it happens to be me!
By the way…what God and bible teaches you such hate and intolerance? And what is it deep down inside you that makes you so miserable to try to put down other people to make yourself feel superior? You are a classic case of a self-loathing, closeted faggot. I’ll bet you feel a little twitch down in your shriveled little dick every time you see a good looking guy, don’t you? Come on, you can tell us…your little secret is safe with us.
June 15th, 2006 at 8:13 pmHey Folks,
As Spanky and the Gang use to say: “Let’s put on a show!” Do the ground work, get the State votes and put on a constitutional convention to eliminate the Electoral College. Instead of complaining about the religious right, embrace the power you have and make it possible for Americans to actually vote in their choices for national representation.
Until the Electoral College is eliminated and Americans get out and vote, religious fanatics on the left and right will be able to keep a stranglehold on the national debate and agenda.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:11 pmModerated by Admin
June 15th, 2006 at 9:28 pmWe all know that the constitution will not be amended for this, and that the courts will continue to strike down state bans. This is being used to gin up the extreme right vote for the mid-terms.
“damned fake…Religion is all bunk…All bibles are man-made.” – Thomas Alva Edison
June 15th, 2006 at 9:42 pmBen,
You said, ” That they are bringing it up may actually be useful, since the perverse enthusiasm of the Chases and Amys ”
When I first read it, I thought it said Chasing Amys and I had to chuckle. The female lead (Amy) in that movie was a lesbian.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:13 pmNovak is a pig.
Comment by Anon1
Don’t insult pigs. I once saw a BBC documentary about how intelligent pigs are; they can even be taught to use computers. And if you don’t believe in their intelligence, at least you might find them useful and tasty as food.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:22 pmMr. No-facts is a useless blowhard. I agree with posters #49 and 152 who called him a traitor.
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
June 15th, 2006 at 11:23 pmThis may be what we need a nice revolution in our own coutry rather than fighting in a far away land. The chicken hawk can feel what war is like at home from those that have put the union form on to serve our country and refused to be a republican.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:26 pmI say let’s have one.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:33 pmAnd then let’s get rid of the electoral college.
Let’s have some sort of proportional representation in Congress, like a real democracy would have.
Let’s get rid of House-Senate conference committees that permit amendments that were never voted on to become law, or that delete key provisions that were passed in both houses.
Let’s scale back the power of the Senate so that 20% of the population doesn’t get 80% of the representation.
Let’s define corporations as non persons, not entitled to unlimited bribery under the guise of political contributions and lobbying.
The list is endless.
heh, BIG GAY CHRIS IS HERE (AKA “REDDOG”)! BET YOU ALL HAVE GUESSED BY NOW CHRIS IS A SERIOUSLY REPRESSED HOMOSEXUAL.
HE’S BEEN RANTING LIKE A BIG GAY ELF PRINCESS IN THE INHOFE THREAD FOR A WEEK NOW – AT LEAST 50 POSTS THERE ALONE! IT’S AN AMAZING DISPLAY OF ALMOST NON-STOP DEDICATION TO GAYNESS.
go ahead, check out how obsessed with gayness chris (”reddog”) is:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/inhofe-gay-marriage/
it’s clear that reddog is absolutely transfixed by homosexuality. it commands his absolute attention day and night. his closet must be more like a padded cell. there’s no other way such utter homosexuality could be held back.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:39 pmStates can initiate impeachment of the President, so yeah — let’s have a convention. anyway…. Novak is a bitter, alcoholic traitorous frog who should have been strung up for treason and who also likes to think he is relevant.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:16 amBlueGreg,
June 16th, 2006 at 12:36 amFirst, congratulations on your committed relationship, which has lasted longer than many marriages I know of.
I have long supported civil unions for same-sex couples at least to give them some rights, if the radical right is going too ballistic over the term “marriage.” I even managed to persuade an older friend, who is not exactly a homophobe like repressed Chris/redhog but was a bit leery of legalizing such relations, by emphasizing to him that without civil unions in some states unmarried gays wouldn’t even have hospital visiting rights. Being a decent person, he could see that people ought to be able to see the ones they love when sick or dying in a hospital.
But recently I have been wondering if my support of civil unions, instead of the term “marriage”,” is a cop-out the way Blacks felt about “separate but equal” facilities before desegregation became the law of the land. My closest gay friend, who is now dying of cancer (not AIDS), was never interested in marrying, as he liked to have the freedom to travel frequently, etc. So if you don’t mind, would you please tell me if you find civil unions adequate or a cop-out? I’m very interested in hearing the opinion of a person like yourself in an obviously loving and committed relationship.
It is time to smackdown on these people and shut them up. You have got to be kidding me that this is the most important issue facing this country right now. Wake up people . First of all there is no such thing as a republican. If you vote republican because you think the people who claim that they are are going to do anything at all for your cause then you are a stupid uneducated moron. Ann Coulter is truely what it means to be republican. Smear people, step on whoever gets in the way, sound like you believe in what you are saying and publish a book. Then slam a few more people so you can get on tv to pimp your book. Second of all God does not = Republican. This is the worst abusive, malicious use of God in the history of this country. Ken Lay is a prime example of my point.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:38 amBoy reddog is one of the worst homophobes I have ever seen on a TP thread! He is far worse than I-R-I who rants about Gays a lot too! If reddog also comes on here as Chris he needs therapy or institutionalized!
June 16th, 2006 at 1:24 amPost 330 I am too nice of a person to go fishing with reddog in Vermont, but he probably takes Rush Limbaugh along for his Brokeback Mountain campouts > lol. Kinda reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart who ranted about Gays all the time and then he was caught in a car with a 20 dollar hooker getting a BJ!
June 16th, 2006 at 1:53 amSharia Law and Gay Marriage
So the American religious right want to hold their own “Constitutional” convention to ban gay marriage?
Why stop there? Why not call for sharia law and impose all their religious views on the rest of us?
Don’t they get it? The religious right — and other fanatics like them — are part of part of the problem, not the solution. There is separation of Church and State in the United States, whether these folks know it or not.
Their gathering will simply be another American religious tent revival. Without participating in the democratic process these folks deserve nothing more.
Speaking of Constitutional Conventions…why not hold one to eliminate the Electoral College? If we don’t value the power of choosing our national leaders directly — then perhaps America does want religious fanatics to tell them what to think, how to vote and how to live?
But some how I doubt that.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:12 amGood morning…
Lora, to answer your question…yes Civil Unions are a cop-out. If a CV were equal to marriage in all its protections and benefits, why not just call it marriage? If its not equal to marriage then it would still be discriminatory.
My partner & I don’t need a piece of legal paper to legitimize our relationship, 15 years together does that and having a religious ceremony is easy enough. What we do need is a legal paper that affords us the same protections & rights as other married couples. Why should I pay an attorney to draw up papers for basic rights such as hospital visitation, inheritance, financial issues, property rights, childcare in the event one of us dies,etc. Even with all the legal protections an attorney can help us with, we have no access to things such as the other person’s Social Security benefits, GI benefits, company pensions, and hundreds of other benefits automatically awarded to married couples.
Oh yes, I’m STILL waiting for someone to tell me how my relationship is harming marriage! ANYONE???
June 16th, 2006 at 8:15 amBlueGreg,
June 16th, 2006 at 8:50 amThanks for your response. Please don’t hold your breath waiting for anyone to explain rationally how your relationship could harm marriage.
Incidentally, I am Caucasian married to an Asian man–something that would have been illegal in several US states not so many decades ago.
SusieQ it is not up to just one judge to overturn the will of the people at the behest of a few deviants.
Comment by reddog — June 15, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
too bad its not just “a few deviants” who think that gay marriage should be legal, but half the country. there’s no reason to deny someone rights because 50% if the population doesnt want equality. same with abortion, same with a lot of things. when rights are in question, its always better to err on the side of more rights, not less. how would you feel if 50% of the country felt that guns should be illegal, and the government wrote an amendment saying that owning a gun was a felony. well, about half the country DOES support strict gun control, but since it’s only half, the government errs on the side of more rights, thus, you can keep you guns. you dont agree with gay marriage, then dont marry a man. ditto abortion, ditto guns.
June 16th, 2006 at 9:14 amThis just shows that the religious right is willing to tamper even with the very foundations of the republic to get what they want on each and every issue no matter how inconsequential that issue may be to the life and health of the nation. They want what they want and don’t much care how many pandora’s boxes they open in the process. Filibuster? Pshaw. The Constitution? Fiddlesticks. The balance of powers? Ho-hum. None of that is more important than keeping those queers where they belong. Amen.
June 16th, 2006 at 9:49 amOh yes, I’m STILL waiting for someone to tell me how my relationship is harming marriage! ANYONE???
Comment by BlueGregInRedFlorida — June 16, 2006 @ 8:15 am
Hey…same here. I followed up from the last post I read yesterday up to the ones today and still see nothing. I think I posted a similar set of questions under the Inhofe thread a few days ago as I did in post #82. As I get time I’ll check back there and see if there were any responses.
My next plan is to pose these questions to my Senator (ugh!), Dr. Frist, if nothing more than to see what kind of crap he comes up with in response (if he even bothers to directly address the questions). As well, I’m going to send a note or call one of the state reps from my district, a Democrat, who supports a bill to be presented this month to the state legislature that proposes to amend the state constitution by inserting a definition of “marriage” as a union between “one man and one woman.”
June 16th, 2006 at 10:10 amhey if yall want homo s to marry you should move to another country, making homs legal would be the end of this country
June 16th, 2006 at 10:32 amI spent more than 15 minutes on the phone with an official in the DC office Sen. Mel Martinez (R. FL) the day before the Senate vote. Martinez was a co-sponsor of the smoke & mirrors amendment. We had a calm, intelligent conversation and even he could not tell me how granting same-sex couples their rights would hurt marriage! I suggested that if the Senator REALLY wanted to protect marriage, he should add a divorce ban to the amendment and of course he had no response to that.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:38 amhey if yall want homo s to marry you should move to another country, making homs legal would be the end of this country
Comment by john hutson — June 16, 2006 @ 10:32 am
Well genius, please tell me how it would be the end of this country? Seriously, HOW??? If you had crawled out from your rock earlier, you’d know that its same-sex marriage has been legal in MA for quite some time…guess what?….nothing happened!
June 16th, 2006 at 10:43 amOh, by the way, JOHN HUTSON, if you want a theocracy, you should move to another country…try Iran for starters…I’ll pick up your ticket.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:45 amMike c. (comment #139): Hang in there. I am a buddhist in central oklahoma, and I completely sympathize you. You seem to be able to handle being surrounded by fundamentalists much better than I do, as I tend to get a bit testy with them.
Cheers!
June 16th, 2006 at 10:58 am#113.
It is true that Christ does not specifically address the issue of homosexuality in the Bible.
However, Christ does address the issue of appropriate sexual relations
In Matthew 19 beginning at verse 3
http://bibledev.azaz.com/bibleresources/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Matthew+19&book_id=47&version1=31&tp=28&c=19
Christ, who is quoting from Genesis, endorses in this one answer the Genesis account of creation and the relationship between a man and a woman as “…the two will become one flesh…â€
Many Christian take this to mean that God created marriage. Furthermore, many Christians take the “…be fruitful and multiply…†command – the prime directive if you will – found in Genesis as an invitation from God to participate in Creation.
If you reject this, as homosexuals do, you are in essence telling God that what he did isn’t good enough.
It goes without saying that same gender sexual relationships – homosexuality – are not one flesh.
I believe any Christian who doesn’t convey this idea of appropriate, beneficial sexuality – one man; one woman; forever –
is misrepresenting the Bible.
Christ, who doesn’t mention homosexuality directly, does allude to the most noteworthy story of homosexuality ever recorded.
In Matthew 11 verses 23 and 24
http://bibledev.azaz.com/bibleresources/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Matthew+11&book_id=47&version1=31&tp=28&c=11
Using your reasoning here please note that Christ doesn’t say that the destruction Sodom was a mistake.
This quote from Christ is about rejection, but it does endorse the Genesis account of the destruction of Sodom, a city renown for its homosexuality in ancient times as well as in modern times
June 16th, 2006 at 11:07 amModerated by Admin.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:14 ambitblt wrote: Many Christian take this to mean that God created marriage. Furthermore, many Christians take the “…be fruitful and multiply…†command – the prime directive if you will – found in Genesis as an invitation from God to participate in Creation.
If you reject this, as homosexuals do, you are in essence telling God that what he did isn’t good enough.
As a non-Christian, *I* reject this view. So you are saying that marriage is purely a religious institution? I was married in a civil ceremony with no mention of any deity at all. Am I not married??? Read some fo the other posts here, since a number of them point out pretty clearly the nature of civil marriage.
Just because Christians *might* take their book literally enough to think that a deity created marriage, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to pay any attention to their religious beliefs. I am in no way bound *at all* to anything written in that book, and find it perfectly irrelevant in my life (its not even good fiction).
If you would like to live in a country where the bible is the ultimate repository of truth and the perfect guide for civil law, I suggest that you gather up some folk and create your own country somewhere. The rest of us will stay in the United States.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:19 amDoes anyone have a coherent, fact-based argument for Mr. BlueGregInRedFlorida? Or are we only going to hear from ignorant people on this issue?
June 16th, 2006 at 11:20 amI-RIGHT-I:
And Britney Spears didn’t/doesn’t make a mockery of marriage? Why are you and bitblt not this upset over divorce? Are you basically saying that gay people can’t be allowed to get married because it makes you feel icky? embarrassed? mocked? Are you (bitblt) disturbed that their are people that don’t share your religion?
Well, those seem to be your problems. You really would have to think of better reasons than that to ignore Article 14 of the Constitution.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:25 amnext thing the gay community will ask for is minority status and hiring quotas.
Comment by amy — June 15, 2006 @ 11:05 am
Idiots like this are what created the gay minority to begin with. They would not be a minority group if it weren’t for close-minded people insisting on treating them like one. The simple fact is that gay people are people just like everyone else. They shouldn’t need special protection(but obviously do because of the aforementioned bigots), but they sure has hell don’t need to be discriminated against. America is about freedom and the right to pursue happiness as long as it hurts nobody else. It is not about denying rights to certain people because you don’t agree with their orientation, gender, political views, religion or color. Look how well Prohibition worked. There was no real reason for it except for peoples’ moral issues. It created so many more problems than it fixed that it had to be repealed. I guarantee the if this amendment ever does actually get passed, it will not last as long as the American people believe in the tenets that this country was based upon. If not, then America might as well be ruled by the Taliban. RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN GOVERNMENT!!
June 16th, 2006 at 11:35 amI-R-I…I’m so happy for ignorant, bigoted folks like you. Why? You expose the true motive for the marriage amendment…and that motive is HATE. It has nothing to do with protection of anything. The only true “obligation and duty of every real man in this country” is to provide for his family, support his country, and be a productive, contributing part of the human society…seems you’ve failed, my friend.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:39 amI-RIGHT-I:
And Britney Spears didn’t/doesn’t make a mockery of marriage?
Comment by hogweed
She’s a pig and an ignorant slut. Totally different question that has totally different answers. Stick to the topic.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:45 amOk I’ll stick to the topic…How does Rush Limbaugh’s three divorces and Newt Gingrich’s two divorces affect the institution of marriage? Are they not doing what you claim same-sex marriage would: “ridiculous on it’s face and makes a mockery of the institution which by the way is a founding pillar of human society.”
June 16th, 2006 at 11:54 amI-R-I…I’m so happy for ignorant, bigoted folks like you. Why? You expose the true motive for the marriage amendment…and that motive is HATE.
Comment by BlueGregInRedFlorida
I don’t hate you Lucy, I don’t even know you. I hate what you do and what you represent. Radical activist homosexuals are a threat to our country. You girls should have stayed in the closet.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:58 amHow one man sees it…..
Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Kerry, who ran against Bush, was supported by homosexuals and nudists. But it was Bush who won [the elections], because he is Christian, right-wing, tenacious, and unyielding. In other words, the religious overcame the perverted. So we cannot blame all Americans and Westerners.
But unfortunately, because the Westerners – Americans and others – want to flatter these people on account of the elections, a disaster occurs. In order to succeed and win the elections, he flatters these people, rather than saying to them: No, you are sinning against yourselves, against society, and against humanity. This is forbidden. Instead of leveling with them, people flatter them to win their votes. This is the disaster that has befallen humanity.
[...]
Interviewer: How should a homosexual or a lesbian be punished? We mentioned the story of the people of Sodom and how Allah punished them, but how should someone who commits this abomination be punished today?
Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: The same punishment as any sexual pervert – the same as the fornicator.
[...]
The schools of thought disagree about the punishment. Some say they should be punished like fornicators, and then we distinguish between married and unmarried men, and between married and unmarried women. Some say both should be punished the same way. Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement.
[...]
The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.
Interviewer: There is an issue that some people may find strange. If homosexuals and lesbians belong to the same category – an inclination towards the same sex – why are there different punishments for men and women, for homosexuals and lesbians?
Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: A punishment for who?
Interviewer: For homosexuals and lesbians – the punishment for a woman who favors women, and for a man who favors men.
Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Lesbianism is not as bad as homosexuality, in practical terms.
He thinks two women getting it on is hot. I guess that’s why they call him a “moderate”.
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1170#
June 16th, 2006 at 12:02 pmI-RIGHT-I:
I am sticking to the subject. You said that allowing gays to get married is a mockery of the institution. I asked how you feel about Britney Spear for two reasons: first, to see just how pure the institution was to begin with; and two, to figure out if there aren’t any other things that might be greater “threats” to the institution. So, as you can see, I am perfectly on topic.
So, why don’t you answer the question then? BlueGreg has been looking for an answer for quite some time now, and many others of us would like to hear it as well.
The thing is, regardless of how much you dislike the notion, the bar that you have to clear is the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Just saying that gay marriage is a “mockery” isn’t clearing that bar. If simply “mockery” did it, they would be talking about a constitutional ban on Britney Spears, Newt, Rush, etc., getting married and divorced at the drop of a hat. And that, I-RIGHT-I, is sticking to the point. Care to give it a try?
June 16th, 2006 at 12:03 pmWell Bubba, the bile that comes from you can only be a by-product of hate. What will you say next, “you hate the sin, not the sinner”??? You hate me because for some crazy reason you actually think “homosexuals are a threat to our country”. That is LAUGHABLE & pathetic. Why is it that you are so consumed by what I do in my bed??? You, my friend are a sick, pervert.
p.s. Bubba, my name’s not Lucy, it’s Mary! hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
June 16th, 2006 at 12:08 pmOk I’ll stick to the topic…How does Rush Limbaugh’s three divorces and Newt Gingrich’s two divorces affect the institution of marriage? Are they not doing what you claim same-sex marriage would: “ridiculous on it’s face and makes a mockery of the institution which by the way is a founding pillar of human society.â€
Comment by BlueGregInRedFlorida
Are you trying to say that two wongs make a white? But let’s face it…at least they had a chance. Homosexuals have ZERO chance.
The media portrays the homosexual lifestyle and relationships as happy, healthy and stable. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences. Many ‘committed’ homosexual relationships only last a few years. This raises doubts as to whether children raised in same-sex households are being raised in a protective environment.
A. There are very high rates of sexual promiscuity among the homosexual population with short duration of even ‘committed’ relationships.
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).
Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many ‘lesbian’ women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)
Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within ‘committed’ gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed†relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)
In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; http://www.glcensus.org)
The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that ‘gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.’ (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)
B. Among homosexuals, highly risky sexual practices such as anal sex are very common.
The majority of homosexual men (60%) engage in anal sex, frequently without condom and even, if they know that they are HIV positive. (Mercer CH et al. Increasing prevalence of male homosexual partnerships and practices in Britain 1990-2000. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8) As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others. (www.netdoctor.co.uk; http://www.gayhealthchannel.com;)
There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex. Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who ever had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV than those who never engaged in anal sex. (Valleroy L, et al. HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men. JAMA. 2000; 284: 198-204.)
The term ‘barebacking’ refers to intentional unsafe anal sex. In a study of HIV-positive gay men, the majority of participants (84%) reported engaging in barebacking in the past three months, and 43% of the men reported recent bareback sex with a partner who most likely is not infected with HIV, therefore putting another man at risk of contracting HIV. (Halkitis PN. Intentional unsafe sex (barebacking) among HIV-positive gay men who seek sexual partners on the Internet. AIDS Care. 2003; 15: 367-78.)
While many homosexuals are aware of HIV risk, a large number are unaware of the increased risk of contracting non-HIV STDs, many of which have serious complications or may not be curable. (K-Y lubricant and the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association survey)
While ‘always’ condom use reduces the risk of contracting HIV by about 85%, Condoms, even when used 100% of the time, fail to give adequate levels of protection against many non-HIV STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, Herpes, Genital Warts and others. The only safe sex is, apart from abstinence, mutual monogamy with an uninfected partner. (Sex, Condoms, and STDs: What We Now Know. Medical Institute for Sexual Health. 2002)
C. Homosexuals have very high rates of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV which pose a major burden to the health service.
Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. November 2004).
The recently observed dramatic increases in syphilis in many large cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, but also in London and Manchester, UK are in the majority observed in homosexual men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in primary and secondary syphilis and HIV infections in men who have sex with men. MMWR 2004; 53: 575-8. and Nicoll A. Are trends in HIV, gonorrhoea, and syphilis worsening in western Europe? BMJ 2002; 324:1324-7.)
D. There are increased rates of mental ill health among the homosexual population compared to the general population. Many studies show much higher rates of psychiatric illness, such as depression, suicide attempts and drug abuse among homosexuals then among the general population. The homosexual lifestyle is associated with a shortened life expectancy of up to 20 years.
In a New Zealand study, data were gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders among gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people. At the age of 21, homosexuals/bisexuals were at fourfold increased risks of major depression and conduct disorder, fivefold increased risk of nicotine dependence, twofold increased risk of other substance misuse or addiction and six times more likely to have attempted suicide. (Fergusson DM et al. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80.)
In a recent US study of the mental health of homosexuals, it was found that gay/bisexual men had a more than 3-fold increased risk of major depression and a five-fold increased risk of panic disorder. They were three times as likely to rate their mental health as only ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ and to experience high levels of distress. Gay/bisexual women had a nearly four-fold increased risk of general anxiety disorder and both groups were more than three times as likely than the general population to require treatment in a mental health setting. (Cochran S. et al. Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003; 71 :53-61.)
It is claimed, that the high rates of mental illness among homosexuals are the result of ‘homophobia’. However, even in the Netherlands, which has been far more tolerant to same-sex relationships and which has recently legalised same-sex marriages, high levels of psychiatric illness, including major depression, bipolar disorder (’manic depression’), agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder and drug addiction are found. (Sandfort TG, et al. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.)
Furthermore, if ‘homophobia’ and prejudices were the cause of the high rates of psychiatric disorders and suicide attempts among homosexuals, one would similarly expect to find higher rates of suicide attempts and suicide among ethnic minorities exposed to racism. However, this is not usually the case.
In a Vancouver study, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, it is estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. (Hogg RS et al. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. International Journal of Epidemiology.1997; 26:657-61)
Wow…and there are liberals out there that want to take away my cheeseburger, fries and coke because it’s not good for me.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pmI-RIGHT-I: Um, so now you are letting a Muslim extremist do your talking for you? You agree with him so much that you just cut and paste his views? Are you suggesting that the problem in the USA is that there isn’t enough sharia-based law?
June 16th, 2006 at 12:10 pmYes, hogweed, I believe he is…
June 16th, 2006 at 12:13 pmI-RIGHT-I:
You just made an argument *for* gay marriage: the promotion of monogamy.
Actually, more than a few of the statistics you copied-and-pasted here apply to straights right here in central oklahoma. Maybe we should ban straight people from marriage because 60% of those marriages end in divorce here in OK. And children? Forget it. With a divorce rate that high, straight people should not have them at all.
In fact, if you are so concerned about AIDS and its connection to the institution of marriage, you should pass laws that would regulate marriage based on the relative chance of HIV propagation. Since gay men are at the top (in the US, not in most of the rest of the world, where it is straight men), it would look something like this:
Gay men *must* marry, and divorce for them is illegal.
Straight men *must* marry, and divorce for this is difficult.
Straight women can marry if the want, and divorce at will.
Lesbians: run wild! You have the lowest rates of STDs of any group!
So, if this is what you are advocating, why not come out and say it?
June 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pm[...] Religious Right Seeks Unprecedented Constitutional Convention To Ban Gay Marriage Without Congress [Think Progress] [...]
June 16th, 2006 at 12:20 pmHogwood wrote in #345:
So you are saying that marriage is purely a religious institution?
My opinion is the marriage “supercedes†being a religious institution. The book of Genesis says, but not explicitly says, – you have to read the major events in the book – that marriage is older than religion.
In essence a man and a woman are married when they declare that they intend to live together as husband and wife. The laws that support this relationship came along later, and they – the laws – simply recognize the relationship.
Two men, or two woman, can not declare that they intend to live as husband and wife. Sorry, but the parts just don’t fit. ( All double entendres intended. )
I was married in a civil ceremony with no mention of any deity at all.
Dude, I got married under a tree. I was married by a minister of the Gospel, but that was just a title that the state recognized on the paper – the license.
My wife and I stood and proclaimed our intent to be man and wife, and the minister simply said at the end, “I pronounce…â€
The license was the state recognition of that declaration.
Am I not married???
Did you and your wife declare your intention to live together as man and wife? If so I think you’re married.
I think a good question here is do you feel as if you and your wife are “one flesh.†I know that’s a bit vague, but I tend to believe that some people who’ve lost a spouse – death or divorce – would describe the emotional pain as like having your flesh ripped away. I have lost a spouse and that would describe the loss for me.
If you would like to live in a country where the bible is the ultimate repository of truth and the perfect guide for civil law, I suggest that you gather up some folk and create your own country somewhere. The rest of us will stay in the United States.
I do tend to think that the US is the “US†because many of the people in the US have believed “the Bible is the ultimate repository of truth.†You can decide if the ones who don’t believe will be taking the US to a “better place.â€
BTW, “separation of church and state†does not mean that the US is to be free from belief. The phrase doesn’t mean the word God can never be spoken.
Hogwood wrote in #347
Why are you and bitblt not this upset over divorce?
I am upset but I thought this thread was about a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage.
Adultery and divorce have caused more pain and more loss that homosexuality has ever though about – so to speak.
It’s real common for Conservative Christians to say that if the heterosexuals were behaving, the homosexuals would go back into the closets. I don’t know about that, but these – undesirable, detrimental behaviors – are the only thing that links the issue of so-called “gay marriage†and the high rate of divorce. Both are undesireable and detrimental.
They are different issues, and whether or not there should be same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the number of marriages that end in divorce.
Is there an implicit suggestion in mentioning divorce in a discussion of so-called “gay marriage†that “gay marriage†is superior?
Believe I’ve see some reported comments on the suitability of polygamy as a mode of marriage, and I believe I have a link somewhere to a newspaper article on some guy in Missouri. The comments on polygamy were from Utah, but they came about because some state have be issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples. The man in Missouri wants to marry his horse.
There are often reported views that if marriage is not defined as being between one man and one woman, then marriage will come in many different modes. The only mode that’s beneficial for society is one man one woman. This is the only sexual relation that is marriage.
Are you basically saying that gay people can’t be allowed to get married because it makes you feel icky? embarrassed? mocked?
I’m saying that two same-sex people can’t be married.
Icky, embarrassed, mocked? I don’t think so. I was a medic and I’m married to a RN so I tend to stay aware of disease issues. Homosexuals are very often diseased because of their behavior. (BTW, very few homosexuals want to be married.) In addition, some studies of “committed†homosexuals show that the partners had, on average, six other partners in the course of a year.
That sort of behavior is real good for disease.
Six partners a year – now that’s committed. I think most would give this commitment the same credibility that they would give an adulterer who’d had six or sever affairs. When the adulterer comes to their spouse and says, “Honey I’m sorry!†there’s not going to be much belief there.
Are you (bitblt) disturbed that their are people that don’t share your religion?
I believe the behavior guidelines in the Bible are for our protection. After all I believe in the God who created sex, and I believe He knew what he was doing.
Like most guidelines you can follow them and benefit, or you can ignore them and suffer the consequences. So far I think I’ve benefited.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:31 pmthanks for the shoulder up, hogweed. i used to be just like they are. i guess that’s why i can let go of the need to stay testy all the time. i get frustrated at times but i always seem to find my way back to the dharma. it’s the only thing that’s kept me alive and semi-sane in a world full of hate and condescending mockery. i’m not complaining. i’ve learned to appreciate the small things and ignore all the racket. i think that’s what you and i are supposed to be doing. all this back and forth is disheartening but inevatible. attacking the attackers only ensures the continuation of hostilities. i don’t really know what the answers are. i just wish they would leave these poor folks alone.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:41 pmBoils down to legislating one group’s morality on everybody else and that’s wrong no matter the statistics. There are statistics to prove anything you want to “prove” but they do not give anyone the right to dictate the behavior of anyone else unless it directly harms someone. Not generalities, but the specifics of each situation. I personally believe that a lot of the emotional problems gays suffer from as one poster referred to stem from the general nonacceptance and outright hostility they receive from the “moral” majority. Gay people run the gamut of emotianal stability just like straight ones. The only thing gay marriage threatens is the self-esteem and righteousness of a crowd of bigoted, deluded jerks who think that god made the world for them. Based on conversations I have had with my gay and lesbian friends, sexual orientation isn’t just a preference of parts. The non-gay community seems to think only in the sexual when responding to homosexuality. I was guilty of that for a long time too. For many people, it is about finding love. Some people just can’t find what they need traditionally. I firmly believe that there is a genetic basis for this preference. Stronger in some than in others. It is not a sickness or a choice, simply a variance in the already varied human race. It’s hard to rise above the bigotry of your youth and what society deemed acceptable. I personally think that anal sex is disguting. I wouldn’t even engage in it with my wife. Luckily she feels the same way. That does not give me the right to judge others who like it. I have many, many straight friends who enjoy this act. I don’t understand the attration. Not understanding can lead to fear which can lead to hate (thank you Yoda). Hatred of gays is no different than hatred of black people or Jews(etc.) It is intolerance and mean-spiritedness by people who want to feel they are somehow better than others and it is wrong. An enlightened person will rise above their personal disgust and fear and realize that they should not judge others by their standars. I in no way will impugn upon your right to believe what you want, but your morality should not be legislated to become the nation’s morality. These are two different things and they should be kept seperate. Religious states are the worst kind of fascism.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:50 pmBoils down to legislating one group’s morality on everybody else and that’s wrong no matter the statistics. There are statistics to prove anything you want to “prove” but they do not give anyone the right to dictate the behavior of anyone else unless it directly harms someone. Not generalities, but the specifics of each situation. I personally believe that a lot of the emotional problems gays suffer from as one poster referred to stem from the general nonacceptance and outright hostility they receive from the “moral” majority. Gay people run the gamut of emotianal stability just like straight ones. The only thing gay marriage threatens is the self-esteem and righteousness of a crowd of bigoted, deluded jerks who think that god made the world for them. Based on conversations I have had with my gay and lesbian friends, sexual orientation isn’t just a preference of parts. The non-gay community seems to think only in the sexual when responding to homosexuality. I was guilty of that for a long time too. For many people, it is about finding love. Some people just can’t find what they need traditionally. I firmly believe that there is a genetic basis for this preference. Stronger in some than in others. It is not a sickness or a choice, simply a variance in the already varied human race. It’s hard to rise above the bigotry of your youth and what society deemed acceptable. I personally think that anal sex is disgusting. I wouldn’t even engage in it with my wife. Luckily she feels the same way. That does not give me the right to judge others who like it. I have many, many straight friends who enjoy this act. I don’t understand the attration. Not understanding can lead to fear which can lead to hate (thank you Yoda). Hatred of gays is no different than hatred of black people or Jews(etc.) It is intolerance and mean-spiritedness by people who want to feel they are somehow better than others and it is wrong. An enlightened person will rise above their personal disgust and fear and realize that they should not judge others by their standars. I in no way will impugn upon your right to believe what you want, but your morality should not be legislated to become the nation’s morality. These are two different things and they should be kept seperate. Religious states are the worst kind of fascism.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:51 pmbitblt:
I appreciate your response. You should keep in mind, though, that as much as you like the bible, I am in *absolutely* no way bound by it, and actually will likely suffer far less in the future because of that. I practice a different religion, and have no problem with you mentioning your deity in public (I don’t know why Christians feel so persecuted on that count, as I have never seen anyone say that you can’t mention your deity here). The problem that I have is that people of your religion are trying to impose their relgious notions on the rest of us out of a sense of superiority.
If you prefer not to be married to someone of the same sex, then please don’t do it. I would hate for anyone to feel any obligation to engage in practices that contradict their faith. But please explain to me what gives you the right to prohibit others from doing so? How exactly are you harmed by gay marriage? And just saying that it goes against your religious beliefs is not enough. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal in this country that go against my relgions beliefs; but I recognize that my religiuos beliefs are religious beliefs, and as such, nobody else has an obligation to follow them.
“Because my deity says so” is really just not a good reason.
The whole book of Genesis couldn’t be more meaningless to me, so it really doesn’t provide a good basis for building an argument as far as I am concerned. There are a whole bunch of better written books out there, and far more interesting, consistent and compelling creation myths to choose from. I don’t get the particular merit in that book. Nor am I obliged to under the laws of the USA.
You might think that I will “suffer the consequences” of ignoring the bible. Whatever. Do you follow the prohibitions against shellfish in Leviticus? Do you make the burnt offerings that that book recommends? If so, great. Don’t expect other people to do that, though. If you have found a particular spiritual discipline that provides you some happiness, great. Just don’t expect the rest of us to bow down to a deity that we don’t believe in, or a book that we interpret differently, etc.
Now, the guy who wants to marry a horse issue. Marriage, in the legal sense, is a contract. People might add on all kinds of things like “love,” feeling “one flesh,” etc., but as far as the laws of the land are concerned it is a legal contract. Under the 14th Amendment, the laws of the land should apply equally to all. The reason that the guy can’t marry a horse (and the reason that this slippery-slope argument is pointless) is that the horse can’t sign a legal contract. Sure, the man may love the horse, the horse may love the man. But the horse can’t enter into a legal agreement — wether its buying a house, opening a business, or getting married. Two men can. Two women can. A man and a woman can. It really is that simple. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is not about love; it is a legally binding agreement that affords rights and obligations. Otherwise the state would have to do some kind of “love test” on couples before granting a marriage license.
I feel kind of silly having to explain this kind of stuff to a doctor.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:02 pmI agree with you about anal sex. my one experience of it with a former wife wiped out all curiosity. that fact doesn’t give me any ability whatsoever to judge anyone elses experiences.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:03 pmmike c.:
Yeah, I kind of get testy with this and other issues. I have quite a few gay friends around the country and the fact that they don’t enjoy the same legal rights as my wife and I gets my gander up.
In addition to that, the whole religious thing is really troubling. When my daughter was 5 ( just a few months after we moved here) she already was berated by little christian children telling her that their deity was going to torture her for eternity because she didn’t believe in him. Nice. So with people like bitblt who think that citing the bible is reason enough and just assume that it will convince you, I feel an obligation to remind them that not everyone is christian.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:10 pmMany years ago in California (in the late ’70s or thereabouts), a measure was being pushed to remove all homosexual teachers from the California public school system. Simply being gay would have been reason enough for termination. There was a lot of conservative, right-wing support for this measure. The Republicans were behind it 100%, the Christians, i.e., the usual suspects that always get behind and push the “get the gays” campaign. It looked like the measure was going to pass. The polls indicated it would pass, the media told us it would pass, the man on the street, when interviewed, said it would pass. Yet, the measure did not pass. They may have spoken one thing in public (since god forbid anyone, especially in the late ’70s, should appear to support gays), but in the secrecy of the polling booths, people voted with their consciences and their hearts. I don’t believe that government sponsored prejudice against gays is appealing and wanted by anyone except for the radical right, religious zealots and hard-core bigots. None of the aforementioned groups can come up with a logical reason why gay people should be denied the right to marriage except to bring up the buzz words such as “agenda” (the emptiest word on the planet, since the word alone seems to scare these people, even though it is the equivalent of an empty can) or as one bigot mentioned herein “that the next thing gays will want is hiring quotas.” Such is the rhetoric of the bigot, the same bigot that did not want schools to be integrated, blacks to be seated in the front of the bus, etc. I have no faith that these bigots/zealots/radicals will ever change their minds on the subject. I do, however, have faith that some people may publicly state opposition, but secretly realize it is wrong to oppress any minority. In the end, I believe for all the blather, kicking and screaming, that gay marriage will become legal and accepted in the United States. And all of this nonsense were hearing about now (and it is especially nonsensical when the U.S. has more pressing issues such as Iraq, an out-of-control government, immigration issues, global warming, etc. to attend to) will be just a very bad memory. I know I’ll catch a lot of heat for comparing the gay civil rights movement to the black civil rights movement, but just let me say this, for those who are old enough to remember how whites fought tooth an nail to keep our world segregated, all this folderol over gays seems to be very, very similar to that time.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:20 pmbitblt wrote : Is there an implicit suggestion in mentioning divorce in a discussion of so-called “gay marriage†that “gay marriage†is superior?
Um, I don’t think that anyone is making that argument, no. I am not sure where you get that.
Also, BTW, very few homosexuals want to be married.
Does this mean that those gay people who don’t want to get married should have veto power of those that do, simply because they are “very few”?
Also, I believe the behavior guidelines in the Bible are for our protection. After all I believe in the God who created sex, and I believe He knew what he was doing.
I don’t. The god creating sex and knowing what he was doing thing is irrelevant to me. I simply don’t believe that he exists, and am certain that if there is such a thing as your deity he/she/it cannot be at once omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.
Also, keep in mind that the behaviour guidelines in your book are pretty scary in some sections. Read through Leviticus and tell me that that is a good way to lead a life. Slavery? Right there, as long as the slave is from a neighboring country! Stonings? Galore!
My point is not at all to belittle your religion. I do think that most christians have a hard time accepting that people of other religions don’t find their beliefs very convincing or very wise. That you cited the bible in support of your argument about what is essentially an issue engaging the 14th Amendment leads me to believe that you expect others to accept that authority. Just a friendly reminder that those of us who do not accept it have very good reasons for not accepting it.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:22 pmIf any religion wants to ban same-sex marriage based on their beliefs, that is obviously the choice of its leaders/followers. They do not have to right to impose their beliefs on the public at large. If they’d like to get political and impose their beliefs on public policy, we can remove their tax free status and treat them as any other public/private entity. Otherwise, stay out of my private life, my bedroom, and our constitution.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:31 pmbitblt wrote: Two men, or two woman, can not declare that they intend to live as husband and wife. Sorry, but the parts just don’t fit. ( All double entendres intended. )
Are you denying that gay people have sex? Um, do you need a picture drawn for you?
Also, The only mode that’s beneficial for society is one man one woman.
This is demonstrably false. There is a lesbian couple with two daughters that lives down the street from me. Their daughters attend school with mine. They bought a home together, which is beneficial for the economy and something that they couldn’t have done seperately. They pay taxes. The do fundraising for the school. They take time off work to attend school events. They coach sports. They are raising two extremely well-adjusted young girls who are nothing but a positive addition to any society, just like their parents. They wouldn’t be doing these things unless they lived together as a couple — unless they were essentially “married,” though they don’t have the legal rights. I would venture to guess that they contribute more to the community around them than do most of their neighbors.
So, the idea of “one man one woman” being the “only mode that’s beneficial to society” is simply false. It might be what your religion says, but when I look at the world around me in my small town in central oklahoma, this is what I see.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:41 pmas i stated above, i used to think exactly like these people. their reactions and fear are easily understood if you consider the fact that they are being shoved around by a conditioned ego. it’s hard to snap yourself out of this state when there are so many around you that are propping up your take on reality. what i’m saying is their fear is just as real to them as our resentment is to us. perhaps there can be some sort of dialogue opened up in a non-hostile framework that acknowledges both sides. maybe we just need to hang steady, with no accusations, until they see that nobody wishes them harm. that we just don’t agree with them. right now, this looks to have as much chance of flying as a lead balloon. but think of the long term. with no hostilities.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:42 pmMike C. — these people you discuss are the ones to bring on the hostilities. And we’re supposed to understand them and be patient with them? Puh-leeeez. These people are not children. They are adults. If they WANTED to learn, then people might give them a little lee-way. However, what is proved time and time again is that they DON’T want to learn — they want to stay exactly where they are, think exactly as they think, and hate exactly as they want to hate. The problem is that THESE bigots have been babied entirely too long. It’s time for the parent to say no to the children. No children, you will not be allowed to oppress a sector of our society because you don’t like them. No children, we will not support your bigotry, because it is wrong. This is how children learn. They are told no. Unfortunately, we have a government that spoils it’s chosen children while it punishes the ones who do no wrong. Tolerance starts at the top and is taught by the parents. We need “parents” in our government who teach tolerance, not the intolerant hateful bunch we’ve got now.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:56 pmyou’re probably right, pinky. i just keep thinking that the only way the intolerant even begins to understand what tolerance really is is for it to be demonstrated by tolerant people. i’m going analog here and it’s probably best if i retire from the discussion. i can’t seem to fit myself into the format. thanks for listening to my foolishness. carry on
June 16th, 2006 at 2:11 pmIf I can, Pinky, I would just like to point out that there is a difference between what is happening with reddog/Chris and what bitblt has going on. Chris obviously has unresolved issues that are causing him some angst.
bitblt, on the other hand, has a very different set of problems: he is convinced of the infallibility of a certain interpretation of a certain book; he believes that everyone else must also conform to that book, or they deserve to be tortured eternally; and he believes that simply bringing up his religious beliefs proves his case and that everyone else will somehow (or at least *should*) simply nod and say yes.
I am not sure if this really makes that much difference at the end of the day. But I do think that getting bitblt to realize that the bible contains no convincing arguments with regard to public policy essentially erodes the basis for all his claims. Chris/reddog is a different story…
I also get the gist of what mike c. is saying, and I hope that I don’t come off as disparaging of anyone else’s religion. Being a devoted practitioner of my own, my intention is hardly to belittle anyone for their faith. I do want to firmly let christians know (and I do so at every opportunity) that arguments based on appeals to the authority of their religious texts are meaningless, and that they are meaningless for good reason. Sometimes I am perceived as being a bit harsh in this, but that is likely because it is very difficult for many christians to understand the difference between “being mad at god” and simply not believing in him.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:13 pmBoils down to legislating one group’s morality on everybody else and that’s wrong no matter the statistics. There are statistics to prove anything you want to “prove†but they do not give anyone the right to dictate the behavior of anyone else unless it directly harms someone. Not generalities, but the specifics of each situation. I personally believe that a lot of the emotional problems gays suffer from as one poster referred to stem from the general nonacceptance and outright hostility they receive from the “moral†majority.
[...]
I in no way will impugn upon your right to believe what you want, but your morality should not be legislated to become the nation’s morality. These are two different things and they should be kept seperate. Religious states are the worst kind of fascism.
Comment by sick of labels like liberal and conservative
It doesn’t bother you that the radical homosexuals and their enablers in the congress and the courts shove their “homo rights agenda” down the throat of the vast majority of Americans though does it? You’re a hypocritical idiot.
Oh, homosexuals are so unhappy because they know deep down that they are f’ed up mentally, physically and spiritually. I’ve already cited a study that shows that they feel that way no matter how accepting the general population is and the suicide rates prove it.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:22 pmMike C. — Minorities, in particular gay people, are the most tolerant people in the land. Minorities live in a daily reality of waking up every morning and knowing hate is right outside the front door; yet gay people get up, love one another, have families and love them, go to work, pariticipate financially in the economy, pay income taxes, pay property taxes that send other people’s children to public school, and suffer the day-to-day attacks that are in whole or in part sponsored by the President of the United States. Try living with that reality. The time has come to speak out against the hateful attacks. Yet gay people even do that in a tolerant fashion. The message gay people put forward is this: you live your life the way you see fit, and we’ll live our lives the way we see fit. Live and let live. It’s easy. The radical right religious zealots ought to try it on for size.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:23 pmI-RIGHT-I — everyone here already knows you’re a narrow-minded hateful bigot. It’s not necessary to prove it on a daily basis by posting your poison pen letters here. Live your life. Hate away all you like. You’re not going to make any points here with your hate speach. And that’s all it is. Hate speach of the very worst kind.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:29 pmI-RIGHT-I wrote It doesn’t bother you that the radical homosexuals and their enablers in the congress and the courts shove their “homo rights agenda†down the throat of the vast majority of Americans though does it? You’re a hypocritical idiot.
As a straight American, I am not sure what behaviors are being “shoved down my throat” by gay people having equal rights under the law. I am not obliged to have an affair, not obliged to leave my wife to marry a man, etc. You do understand that if gay marriage ever becomes legal throughout the country that it would be optional, right?
Just what behaviors have you had to change because of the “homo rights agenda”? How has it diminished your rights? What has this agenda “forced” you to do? Please explain, because you are obviously quite upset by this.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:30 pmHogwood wrote in #371
Are you denying that gay people have sex? Um, do you need a picture drawn for you?
Thanks but no thanks. Man and woman parts fit for a reason. This “fitting†makes an offspring. These offspring preserve society. I call this the evolution argument against homosexuality. I’ll continue to call it the evolution argument unless of course you think evolution is trying to make a “new genderâ€.
The one man one woman relationship benefits society. Children raised in a household with a mother and father benefit society. It’s kind of an old story.
I don’t think your new version is better.
This is demonstrably false.
There is a lesbian couple with two daughters that lives down the street from me.
I hope the children of whom you speak are happy and secure.
But to me there seems to be a number of assumptions in your account. I’ll draw these assumptions out with some questions.
Are you saying they’re better cared for than they would be in a hetero- household?
Are you saying the daughters will grow up to be heterosexuals, or are you saying whatever is they grow up to be will be Ok? It doesn’t matter.
Are you saying that they’ll know how to deal with men better that woman raised in a m-w household?
Are you saying that having the “love of two mothers†is better than having the “love of a mother and father?†Or, is it just a good as?
Are you saying that some day these women will leave home and enthusiastically recommend being raised in a w-w household? Will they thank the two homosexuals who raised them for doing it that way?
Are you ready to declare that this is a “…lived happily ever after…†situation,†or are you ready to extrapolate a better and bright future for them because they have been raised in a w-w household?
Are you saying that in 100 w-w household raising daughters that the outcome will be positive X% of the time? What 10% or the household?
What about m-m households? Do you have enough experience to project success in m-m households?
Are you sure there’s not a suggestion in your assertion that same-gender relationship are better – or just as good as – as m-w relationship?
Based on what you’ve written here I have no difficulty understanding that you’d probably imagine the same perfect outcome raising young men in a m-m household.
I hope the daughters in this household do well.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:34 pmbitblt — No one is saying a gay household is better or worse than a heterosexual household. It’s not better. It’s not worse. It’s about people of all kinds having the freedom to have a household at all. Thanks for caring about the well-being of the children in gay households. Frankly, though, if caring about children is your goal, you might want to care about the children raised in heterosexual households too. Why? Because one household is not better than the next based on the sexuality of the parents. A household in which is child is reared with love and taught to live and let live is the better household. That can occur in a household with parents who are gay as well as parents who are straight. One simply is not better than the other.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:44 pmBecause Christians are taught to ‘blame the Devil’ rather than take personal responsibility, they have to define teh Devil as someone who they aren’t. Hence they blame everyone who isn’t them – gays, non-Christians, and non-humans for the ills in the world. That would allow them to remain innocent, virginal and pristine..
That’s why they hate gays. Easier than blaming themselves for their short comings in their own lives – including their failed marriages.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:50 pmComment by I-RIGHT-I — June 16, 2006 @ 12:09 pm:
1) plenty of heterosexuals engage in promiscuous sex. look at the hollywood gossip rags or the plot line of any soap opera in existence if you need proof.
2) homosexuals are not really any more or less at risk for various STDs. technically speaking, women are the most vulnerable group to STDs, so are you saying women should not get married because they have the risk of contracting cervical cancer from sex?
3) homosexuals are just as likely to engage in monogomous relationships as straight people. and just like straight people, they can be promiscuous in their youth, get away with out contracting STDs and then settle down for a long term, monogomous relationship later in life. JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
4) its not like straight marriages have a much better track record, all things considered. they just are more likely to have some restrictive belief system that forces them to suffer through a bad relationship for years before finally breaking it off.
5) promiscuity and length of relationships are not a good enough basis for denying anyone of anything. if it was, movie stars and high school dropouts wouldnt be allowed to marry either.
6) no one wants to take away your burger and fries. yes, they may be bad for you, but thats your own problem. mcdonalds isnt going anywhere any time soon.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:52 pmI-R-I…you spend a HUGE amount of time researching homosexuality! What is in your closet, Bubba?
June 16th, 2006 at 3:10 pmI-R-I…you spend a HUGE amount of time researching homosexuality! What is in your closet, Bubba?
Comment by BlueGregInRedFlorida
This is simple stuff. You’re not the first pervert on the net that tried to make me think head bobbing was as American as apple bobbing.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:16 pmbitblt:
Let me see if I follow you.
1. marriage is about procreation. people who are unable to procreate because their “parts don’t fit” or any other reason (e.g., two women; a parapalegic; a couple that doesn’t care to have children) should not be allowed to marry? So you favor laws against not just gay marriage, but any marriage that won’t produce offspring, or between any two people whose “parts don’t fit”?
2. If these two women were not together these two girls would have just one mother. The biological mother was never about to marry a man.
3. Their relationship has already lasted over twice that of the average marriage here in Oklahoma. They have been together for around 15 years. Most marriages in Oklahoma last about 5.
4. If the girls would be “better off” with a w-m couple: who knows? I would hazard to guess that they are best off with the parents that they have known all their lives. You apparently disagree. Are you suggesting that these children be forcibly taken from their mother so that they live in a home that conforms more closely with what *you* want (and which statistically would be less stable)?
5. I suspect that these girls are no more likely to be lesbian than girls raised in a m-w household. Several studies back me up on this.
6. I also suspect that when these children grow up they will be thankful for the job that their parents did. Period. If some kid raised by a “Christian Conservative” in Oklahoma (odds are the product of a home with divorce) teases them about their mothers, I would guess that they know the proper things to respond. They are smart kids.
7. I am not ready to declare this a “happily ever after situation.” Marriages split all the time. The number one reason for this, though, is not “gayness,” it is the inability to deal with financial problems (of which the number one cause is the healthcare crisis). What I can say, is that they statistically have surpassed their neighbors and seem quite happy to me. Are you saying that gay people should only be allowed to marry if they can guarantee that they won’t ever get divorced? Are you willing to say that abbout *all* people?
8. You seem to think that I am claiming that these people are perfect. Read me post. I did no such thing.
9. I personally do not have any m-m male neighbors with kids, so I am not speculating.
The thing is, bitblt, you are speculating. You are creating all kinds of hypotheticals to try to justify why these women should be separated and their children taken from them to be put into m-w households (which will likely end in divorce). I am not speculating. I am talking about a specific family in a specific place. None of your speculation of what “might be better” for the kids is relevant. The kids are with their parents, and since I have seen how the kids get along with my daughter and can apply the same criteria about them that I apply to all the kids that my daughter plays with. And these two seem very well adjusted.
So, the bottom line is that your statement that “only man-woman relationship is beneficial to society” is obviously wrong. I really only needed to come up with a single case to show that it was wrong, and I have done so.
I am not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. If it is a religious thing, maybe you could just do the same thing that most people do: use a little more reason and objectivity in interpreting your religious texts. I am sure that you don’t believe, as a doctor, that Eve really was created out of a rib, do you? I imagine that you recognize that Cain and Abel were able to find women where there should have been none, right? So why not realize that their might be — in actually existing reality — a family that is perfectly happy, and that contributes to society, regardless of whether or not it conforms to your book.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:16 pmI-RIGHT-I: And your sources for your bogus research are…? Let’s get some links. And I repeat: If they link to Christianist/Dominionist websites, their validity vanishes. And if they link to “ex-gay” websites, same thing.
You seethe with hatred and loathing. You’re frankly sickening. Our world’s problems aren’t caused by gays and lesbians– they are caused by hate-filled, rotten-souled bigots like you. You and bitblt are a vanishing species, railing anonymously against a world that has no patience for your idiocy. That’s why we’re called Progressives; we welcome Progress in personal and social and political relations.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:17 pmsigh.
pedophilia has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. most pedophiles are straight men. or priests. yes, there probably are a few pedophiles who are gay. there are also plenty of pedophiles who are straight, being that pedophilia is a power thing and not a sexual attraction thing, just like any other rapist. sure, the greeks had a thing for little boys, they also had a thing for sacrificing animals and going to oracles.
the only reason a child of same sex parents would be messed up would be becuase of other kids with intolerant parents using their parents sexuality as ammunition. they arent any more “likely” to become homosexual than other kids, they would just be more likely to admit to their homosexuality because they wouldnt have to face the terror of coming out to their parents. why do you think so many kids are “straight” until they go to college, and then suddenly “become” gay? its becuase theyre scared. homosexuality is not contagious, although tolerance is. end of story.
same thing goes for the suicide rate. would YOU want to live your life with everyone (possibly including your family) constantly telling you that youre a sexual deviant who’s going to hell? it takes a strong person to weather through that.
and while the human race does have a bit of an aversion to sexual deviance IN OTHERS its also true that everyone is deviant in their own way. i think its icky for an 18 year old girl to sleep with a man old enough to be her father, but i have no problem with gay sex. some people think masturbation is gross, others dislike oral sex or woman on top. that doesnt mean any of it should be illegal or considered deviant, or that practicioners these various acts should be denied any rights.
and ALL families are dysfunctional, regardless of thier makeup. stop reading studies that are over 10 years old, and maybe you would actually learn something.
and just becuase someone is married and has children does not make them an expert on anything.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:21 pmI-RIGHT-I: And your sources for your bogus research are…? Let’s get some links. And I repeat: If they link to Christianist/Dominionist websites, their validity vanishes. And if they link to “ex-gay†websites, same thing.
Comment by radicalleftiemoonbat
So, you reject any source other than one that advocates for homosexuality. I guess when the pervert says to you, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes”, you believe him. Believe this then, I’m not trying to change your mind. First you have to grow one and frankly I doubt I’ll live that long.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:25 pm“You do understand that if gay marriage ever becomes legal throughout the country that it would be optional, right?”
I think you hit the nail on the head. This moron and others like him are simply afraid that if it were socially acceptable, they might slip down the slippery slope of homosexuality. I-Right-I is obviously repressing some deep seated feelings.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:29 pmsigh.
pedophilia has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. most pedophiles are straight men. or priests. yes, there probably are a few pedophiles who are gay.
Comment by akzidenzgrotesk
One pathology leads to another just like soft drugs lead to hard and sexual deviants of either persuasion need to get nastier and nastier to get the same thrill. I don’t know about “most pedophiles”. I’d say you’re right considering that “most” men 98% are straight to begin with. But I do know that most serial and compulsive child molesters are homosexuals. Take the RC priests for example. Those dipshits were diddling boys, not girls.
If elected President I promise to put you all back in the closet where you belong. No Boy Scouts for you guys, no sir. No TV shows either. That’s a promise.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:33 pmI-Right-I is obviously repressing some deep seated feelings.
Comment by sick of labels like liberal and conservative
There you go again mistaking fear for contempt. The fact is no real man is afraid of a sissy. Five or six big leather clad sissies, maybe…..
June 16th, 2006 at 3:35 pmbitblt:
After looking over your post again, it is obviously you who are making the assumptions, not I.
I have seen this before. You seem to have a need to interpret every positive assertion as a comparative assertion that denigrates something else. You seem to think that if someone says that ‘gay people fall in love” what they are really saying is “gay people fall in love better than straight people.” I say that two women seem to be doing a great job raising their kids, and you think that I am making the assumption that “two women are better at raising kids than a man and a woman.” Just for the record, when I say that “I know a person who likes strawberry icecream and he is a good soccer player,” I am not saying “people who eat strawberry icecream play soccer better than everyone else.”
That is a pretty fundamental problem in reading comprehension.
This is similar to your earlier inference that I was somehow claiming that you can’t mention your deity in public, simply because I said that basing your argument on a book about him wasn’t convincing. Nobody implied any such thing, and yet you somehow feel that if I don’t believe in your deity that I am telling you that you can’t either, or at least that you can’t talk about it. I am not. I am just telling you that it is not terribly convincing.
Now, you wrote The one man one woman relationship benefits society. Children raised in a household with a mother and father benefit society. It’s kind of an old story.
Yes, one man and one woman relationships can benefit society. Many do, some don’t. Most children raised in a household with a mother and father benefit society. So do most children raised by single mothers, most children raised by single fathers, most children in households with combinations of mothers/fathers/stepfathers, etc., and most children rasied in same sex households. And yes, it is an old story. So is homosexuality. Elton John was not the first gay man, if I am not mistaken.
You clearly have an enormously restricted worldview and a problem with things that aren’t binary opposites (hence the “parts fitting together” thing).
By the way, those kids are doing *much* better than one of my daughter’s other friends whose (straight) Evangelical parents just got divorced (his first, her second). Is this difficult for you to understand?
June 16th, 2006 at 3:38 pmI-RIGHT-I: Again, we get it. You are a bigot, and proud of it. In an older thread re Imhofe, “Chris” went on and on ad nauseum about his homophobia. By the end of it all, he really made himself look like a closeted homosexual. I don’t think that’s the impression you want to give here. Just admit you’re a bigot, and get over it. You’re a bigot I-RIGHT-I. You won’t find any words here or elsewhere that can defend your bigotry, no matter how hard you try. Of course, if you wish to continue on with your anti-gay hate speach, then, as happened with Chris, by the end of it, everyone here will have deduced that you are a latent homosexual out to prove you’re straight.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:40 pmIt is wrong to write discrimination into the Constitution.
Throughout American history, the Constitution has been amended to expand and protect the rights and liberties of the American people. It has been amended to abolish slavery, and give women and young people the right to vote. It should not be used to single out some Americans for discrimination.
It is wrong to use the Constitution as a political tool to motivate base voters.
“Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civic unions. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay-bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.” —–Coretta Scott King
June 16th, 2006 at 3:43 pmAs I read through the postings I keep finding the conservative postings to refer over and over to “Activist Judges”. I suppose they have been to busy spewing their hatfilled rectoric on the internet to really look into the judges that have made these decisions particularly into the political partys they belong to. Most of these decisions, including Massachusets, were rendered by Republican Appointees. These are not just liberal judges, but mosly conservative judges who when placed in the situation where rederic needed to take a back seat to reason all came to the same conclusion. That being any consitution with a equal protection clause had to be taken to actually mean equal protection. These findings actually serve to protect all of us, unfortunatly the right in this country wants to have the protections afforded them but has no conceren with anyone else. They cling to frredom of religion but work to deny everyone else their freedoms. I think they truly believe the first amendment to read “Congress shall make no laws infringing the christian fundimentalist, all others are damned to hell so have at it”
June 16th, 2006 at 4:38 pmhogweed #387
Pulling out the Aristotelian on me, huh? None or some or all…
I really only needed to come up with a single case to show that it was wrong, and I have done so.
And of course I need only to come up with one case that demonstrates that some children raised by a s-s couple are negatively influence by the experience.
That was the point of the questions, and as I noted, these questions were about assumptions I supposed you to be making. I didn’t believe you had enough information to remark about the long term influence of a w-w household in addition to the fact that the knowledge about one household only qualifies you speak about that one household – which is what you did.
I’ll stand by my statement: The one man one woman relationship benefits society.
If you need it qualified, I’m Ok with, “The one man one woman relationship benefits society best.â€
In the area of being responsible for children, all society is best served when the parents do what is best for their children. However, as we all well know there are only a few qualifications for being a parent.
On the other hand, there may be many more qualifications for preserving a society.
That was the point of the question about your implied assumptions. You don’t have enough information to say for certain – the future’s of the daughters has been positively or neutrally influence by the experience of being raised in a w-w household.
Sorry you missed the point.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:40 pmPinky #381.
What is basis for this assertion:
That can occur in a household with parents who are gay as well as parents who are straight. One simply is not better than the other.
You know one of the things we adults have to do is to make decisions about the “goodness†or “badness†or the “appropriateness†or “inappropriateness†of ways of thinking and of acting. This is especially true in the area of taking care of our families and preparing our families to take care of themselves.
Tolerance is neither the “greatest good†nor a substitute for discernment. Discernment is the church word we use to mean, “know the difference between right and wrong.â€
June 16th, 2006 at 4:42 pmTolerance is neither the “greatest good†nor a substitute for discernment. Discernment is the church word we use to mean, “know the difference between right and wrong.â€
Comment by bitblt
You’re wasting your breath talking about discernment to people who call good evil and evil good. If you didn’t know that’s who you’re talking to…now you do.
Have a great weekend all and I include our sexually confused friends as well.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:01 pmbitblt, you wrote: And of course I need only to come up with one case that demonstrates that some children raised by a s-s couple are negatively influence by the experience.
This is absolutely not the case. You made a positive assertion that “only” m-w couples benefitted society. Showing that there is a case of a same sex couple that doesn’t benefit society proves absolutely nothing about your statement and disproves mine in not the least. That would be like saying the fact that I don’t play soccer very well does nothing to prove the efficacy of strawberry icecream as a performance enhancer.
Come on. This really is elementary logic, and I would be lying if I said that I was more than a bit surprised that you don’t understand that. If you are not prepared to engage in logical argument, go back to quoting your book.
Again, you have only shown what *your* assumptions are, not mine. I made no sweeping generalizations, made no claims that this couple was typical of s-s couples. I did nothing of the sort. I simply provided an example that was a real-life counter to your exclusivist assertion. Since I haven’t made any exclusivist assertions, providing a single example neither refutes my argument nor does anything to yours. It would be the same if I had countered that I know a divorced couple and that that disproves your statement that only s-s couples benefit society. That would be a logical fallacy.
You clearly are having a hard time following a basic, logical argument. Now, I understand that in your religion that really is a minor thing, but in a public forum we tend to use logic and reason to build arguments, and cite examples from the actually existing world. In your religion it appears that you rely on the authority of a text, and reason and logic play second fiddle at best.
In the real world, though, you kinda hafta use logic to be convincing.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:03 pmbitblt: You’re still a bigot and a Christianist fool. I know the fact that so many disagree with your selective adherence to Levitican law (have you ever eaten shrimp? It’s an abomination (Lev 11:10); are you wearing clothing made from two different threads? The Lord states that you should be stoned to death by your fellow townspeople (Lev 24:10-16)) must have you apoplectic with rage. Here’s something to help you and your ilk over the edge:
Right this very minute, somewhere in the world, gays and lesbians are having great sex. And not feeling guilty about it. And their family and friends love them unconditionally. And they’re more successful and healthy and happy than you. And they laugh at people like you, then look upon them with pity because one should treat morons with compassion.
Has your head exploded yet, you idiotic schmuck?
June 16th, 2006 at 5:04 pmKey word is church. Not government. Churches represent a system of beliefs, not facts. When you start to assume that your beliefs are facts that apply to everyone, especially those with different beliefs, you are a fascist. Fundamentalists will never convince most educated, non-superstitious people of their viewpoint. I wish you would stop trying. You are making the world a horrible place to live.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:08 pmbitblt wrote Discernment is the church word we use to mean, “know the difference between right and wrong.â€
Again with the binaries, but I’ll play along.
So discern, then. You seem to have right and wrong confused. Treating people as equals in a democracy = right; legal discrimination based on an old book of Hebrew folk tales = bad.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:10 pmOh, and bitblt, just in case you get the idea that I am somehow a crazy relativist for pointing out that your “right and wrong” discernment thing is you again clinging to binaries, you should be aware that in practice people of your religion abandon such notions all the time.
Don’t believe me? Well, look at the president. If I understand correctly, there is a “thou shalt not kill” commandment somewhere in your book, apparently uttered/written, whatever, by your deity. So, killing must be “wrong.” Yet, he fried more people on death row than any governor in history. He started an unprovoked war in which thousands have died and more die everyday. Not direct enough for you? He hunts. Oh, you mean that there is a context here, there are circumstances, that it isn’t so black and white?
June 16th, 2006 at 5:16 pmWow.
400+ posts and still no direct answers to what this really boils down to. I’ll repost the questions I asked yesterday (with a bit of editing):
(1) I want to know how gay marriage affects the “tradition†of marriage.
(1.1) How does it affect traditional marriage any worse than divorce does?
(2) I want to know how gay marriage is going to affect my heterosexual marriage, now approaching 7 years. I need to know the warning signs.
(3) I want to know how gay marriage is going to affect the future marriages of my 21 year old niece and my 17 year old twin nephews, all of whom are heterosexual. Again, I need to tell them what to look out for.
(4) I want to know why homosexuals who I’ve worked with in the past have never tried to convert me to homosexuality, or never did or said anything to affect my engagement to my fiancee.
Still waiting…
June 16th, 2006 at 5:19 pmGAY MARRIAGE IS NOT THE POINT!
If they pull this off, the legal framework for the United States of America goes into abeyance. The ENTIRE constitution and ALL laws deriving from it are up for grabs. Forget gay marriage – focus on basics like 50 states, three branches of government, voting rights, checks and balances, civilian military command, everything.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:35 pmI was debating Seixon on Global Warming. Or rather, correcting his ignorance… Pointless. So, what did I miss? Oh, yes… IRI…
It’s got nothing to do with hate or failed marriages beautiful, it’s got to do with common sense and a cultures moral and ethical prejudices. Before you get too excited Sugar, look up the word prejudice. It means things we know that we like, dislike, approve or disapprove because GENERATIONS of trial and error and experience is a better guide than what some pop culture guru tells you.
You mean Evolution? But that contradicts your entire religious stance.
Sure, we develop certain prejudices, but they tend to be for things like sweet foods, warmer climates and social gatherings. Hating a group of non-threatening people is purely cultural. The Middle Easterns who wrote your Bible started it because it was common among pagans. It’s not an evolved prejudice, it’s a religious one.
The entire human race has a prejudice against sexual deviants and there’s plenty of good reasons for it and if I’m allowed I’ll post a few more
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 16, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
The problem is where you are definitng sexual deviance. Being gay is a part of nature. There are numerous cases of homoosexuality in other species, not just humans. Hating them for being who they are is a part of religion. Two separate issues dear.
Enjoy your weekend as well, though I see you left work early already :)
June 16th, 2006 at 5:50 pmBitbit, et al,
If by “discernment” you mean judging how you should act in the world according to your values, I believe you are in accord with Christ. If you mean judging (or diagnosing) others according to your values, then I think it is something other than Christian discernment you are practicing. I choose to exercise Christian love and acceptance in my home, and my children have learned Christ’s love and Christ’s acceptance. They love and accept their lesbian cousin and her life partner unconditionaly. And, their discernment is not hampered in the least. In fact, I want to suggest that it is a sense of personal humility and love for God that inspires in them to accept greater personal responsibility.
Maybe this doesn’t make logical sense to some. I guess I am inspired by my children to believe that loving the world is the path to making it better.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:53 pmI’m with you, WC.
Hey ulitave, this president and his minions have already wiped their asses with the constitution. I agree with you, we aren’t seeing the big picture, and thats just what their plan is. When white suburban soccer moms need to take their knocked-up daughters to Canada for a little procedure, they’re gonna say, “what happened to this country?” When married couples are arrested for having sex in positions other than the missionary, they’re gonna think, “hmmm, maybe those lefties were right.”
June 16th, 2006 at 5:53 pmTo the bigots posting here today: You are bigots and no matter what words you use, how you invoke your bible, etc., the end result is that you are just bigots trying in vain to justify your bigotry.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:03 pmA true marraige ammendment. one marrage only no divorce. God hates divorce.
Keep the faith.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:22 pm1) marriage is between a man and a woman period.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:39 pm1.1) divorce is wrong just like gay marriage- two wrongs don’t make a right
3) homosexuals getting “married just makea mockery and joke out of real marriage.
3) see #1, hetero is normal and gay ain’t
4) they HAVE converted you idiot, not you think they are normal .
all these posts and anybody who disagrees with the homosexual agenda gets the same treatment from the gay nazis. and you can’t figure out why people will never accept gay marriage and why people hate liberals
Wow– WC asks some very reasonable questions, and the best the wingnut Christianist fascists can come up with is Mr. fags shut up?
Great debating skills, Demosthenes! Are you saving your coup de grâce for later: “I know you are but what am I?!”
Bigoted loser. When your IQ exceeds your shoe size, post again.
June 16th, 2006 at 7:19 pmmy IQ is 165 and at least I am smart enought to know homosexuality is deviant behavoir and marriage is between a man and a woman. typical moonbat… if you don’t allow gay marriage you are either dumb or a nazi or both. how lame and stupid and how ususal.
June 16th, 2006 at 7:37 pmTo BlueGreg,
June 16th, 2006 at 7:48 pmI really don’t want to get involved any further in this debate, as I have some other matters to tend to. However, from reading some of I-R-I’s many posts on other threads, I gather that he is divorced. In other words, he didn’t protect his own marriage and, thus, isn’t qualified to discuss protecting marriage.
Yo, “fags shut up” — please elaborate, point by point, on exactly what the gay “agenda” is. If you had read the entirety of these posts, you would read that I pointed out “agenda” is the first word out of right wing nut jobs like you because you know it pushes the panic button in the uneducated (and no, you do not have an IQ of 165; 16.5 maybe, and that’s a big maybe). As I pointed out earlier, the word “agenda” is the equivalent of an empty can. It’s only a word, and you will be damned to write exactly what the “agenda” is that you speak of, because there is no gay agenda. Let’s call a spade a spade, you are just yet another lowlife bigot and likely candidate for latent homosexual. Just like the rest.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:15 pmTo the bigots posting here today: You are bigots and no matter what words you use, how you invoke your bible, etc., the end result is that you are just bigots trying in vain to justify your bigotry.
Comment by Pinky
That’s the same reasoning people use to support illegal immigration. If you’re against it you’re a racist. Never mind that the country suffers because so many illiterate, American hating Mexicans flow over the borders bankrupting social services and filling our prisons to overflowing. By the same token Pink-E, the radical movement to normalize a sexual dysfunction and mainstream it from kindergarten on up isn’t something that will make us a better people.
I don’t care if they “can’t help it”. Serial rapists, murders, thieves and other assorted losers that for whatever reason suffer from a mental disorder can’t help it either but we don’t throw them a parade and tell them to be proud of it do we?
I can’t think of one way a homosexual or a group of homosexuals make this a better country. I see no inherent benefit in homosexuality or those who practice it. What is see is misery, disease, death, bad decorating tips and very annoying body language. Show me where I’m wrong.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:21 pmI-RIGHT-I — You’re a bigot. You’re to be pitied. You’re beneath contempt. You are pure garbage and the lowest form of humanity, although I think calling you human is stretching things. Go away. You’ve heard those words before, haven’t you. It’s what all your women tell you to do after the first date (if you even get a first date — odds are you don’t). Have a great weekend!
June 16th, 2006 at 8:29 pm#413
Wow. The only thing I can say to you is what an ass you are. The “answers” you provided don’t even come close to answering my questions. Try again, Dick. Apparently reading is not one of your strong suits. To help you along, I’ve reposted your answers with additional comments:
(1) marriage is between a man and a woman period.
Again, this damages traditional marriage how?
(1.1) divorce is wrong just like gay marriage- two wrongs don’t make a right
Never said it did. I asked how gay marriage is affecting traditional marriage more. I didn’t ask if divorce was right or wrong.
2) homosexuals getting “married just makea mockery and joke out of real marriage.
Your are so smart…tell me how this affects my marriage.
3) see #1, hetero is normal and gay ain’t
Still doesn’t answer the question.
4) they HAVE converted you idiot, not you think they are normal .
all these posts and anybody who disagrees with the homosexual agenda gets the same treatment from the gay nazis. and you can’t figure out why people will never accept gay marriage and why people hate liberals
Read the damn question again, fool.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:59 pmI can’t think of one way a homosexual or a group of homosexuals make this a better country. I see no inherent benefit in homosexuality or those who practice it. What is see is misery, disease, death, bad decorating tips and very annoying body language. Show me where I’m wrong.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — June 16, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
All “bad” things that can also be seen under the heterosexual way of life.
Yet I don’t see anybody pushing for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting pre-marital sex, which would wipe out a hell of a lot of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, unwanted children, and prevent many failed marriages because two people get married even though they don’t love each other. For all you religious types out there, I’m sure you could find plenty of support for this in the Bible. I’ve seen 2 failed marriages in my family alone because of this.
I don’t see anybody pusing for a Constitutional amendment that requires all individuals be tested for AIDS or any other STD before they become sexually active. That would wipe out a lot of the disease and death you speak of. I’m sure you could find support for this in the Bible as well, if you looked hard enough.
Where you are wrong is telling homosexuals that you don’t like the lifestyle or behavior they practice and then proceed to tell them what they can and cannot do. All under the guise of religion and/or law. Not all people in this country believe in God. Just today in our local paper, another gay marriage opponent was once again quoting the Bible to voice their opposition. Are you fine with people wanting to force their religious beliefs on them anyway? Is this the kind of country you want? Or do you not consider that this is part of the issue?
June 16th, 2006 at 9:25 pmAmerica was originally thirteen colonies. The British had us under their thumb, we finally organized, and with the help, threw off a long train of abuses, and secured freedom. We had the Articles of Confederation and it kept us and our new freedom intact.
Then some people thought some revisions needed to be made, and Alexander Hamilton led a group that went door-to-door to the states selling the idea that it was time to call a convention. Most everyone finally agreed—except Rhode Island, they never made a sale there—and the Founders convened in Philadelphia. After the first few hours they realized they were split in two between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted a centralized government. The Anti-Federalists were like, “What?! We just got free from the British! Centralized government?! Just a matter of time before money corrupts, and then what?! Another war for independence?!†Some of the representatives who had shown up turned heel right then and there and left hollering at the top of their lungs that evil was afoot.
The crowd was shocked, but those who stayed hashed things out because there were problems that needed to be solved. After it was written, the Federalists had to go out and sell this new Constitution to the thirteen states.
When you really want to sell something, and it’s a tough sale, you have to have solid rebuttals. And the final rebuttal to the Anti-Federalists, who thought it was a mistake to place all that power into three branches of government, was Federalist 85. And Hamilton wrote that sales pitch himself. He said—look, if things ever get out of control and Congress becomes so corrupt that it’s no longer expressing the will of the people—if corruption ever becomes institutionalized—the states can step in, call a convention, purge it. The clause, when satisfied, is peremptory, done without debate, and Congress has no option in the matter. That’s the essence of the American spirit, that we consent to be governed, and when things go bad we can alter or abolish. That was the rebuttal that made the sale, and that’s why we ratified the Constitution and became the U.S.A.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law because every other in all fifty states—whether it’s about operating a boat off the coast of Maine, or driving a tractor in Texas, or disposing of paint in Oregon—every single law across the land is linked directly to its seven articles and twenty-seven amendments.
Under the authority of Article V, the Constitution says once two-thirds of the states apply, Congress has to issue the call. Just as there shall be three branches of government, Congress shall call a convention once the applications hit the doorstep. This is the direct language of the law all elected officials of America and members of our U.S. military swear an oath to uphold. In short, the Founders anticipated the political question doctrine way back then and dealt with it directly, that’s why the convention call is ministerial in duty, not discretionary.
Now fast forward to the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s, when talk of a convention started going around. Look at editorials from those days: “No—no convention! If a convention happens the Constitution can be torn to pieces! Or maybe a runaway convention, and suddenly hundreds of amendments, and everything’s a joke!†It’s the same argument politicians and the media trot out every time America starts discussing whether or not it’s time to call a convention. Not to mention that politics are already a joke, Americans have been conditioned like Pavlov’s Dog to fear a convention because of what might happen—that it would be some kind of Pandora’s box. But what the newspapers and politicians failed to mention is the ratification process. They only told us half the truth, and as the late great Ben Franklin mentioned, half the truth is often a great lie. The ratification process requires seventy-five percent of the country to agree before anything is put on the Constitution. The Founders knew that to get three-quarters of everyone to agree to anything is so difficult that any idea that is even slightly questionable, is toast. It has no chance of being ratified. Only the ideas that are obvious would be ratified, and the thing scaring everyone away with over the decades—a runaway convention—is actually a good thing: go ahead delegates—propose away—whatever you think—put it on the roster. And that’s what would come of a convention, a roster of ideas. To fear a convention, basically you’re fearing a brainstorming session—the very thing which has to happen for any hope of survival. The Founders knew then what we know now, that governments can become corrupt, and that’s why the legal mechanism of the convention clause was placed in the Constitution. It’s the King Kong sitting there to keep any monsters—corporate or otherwise—from getting between the American people and their government.
So, if Article V was supposed to be the mechanism to save the day when things got corrupt, then why are things the way they are? And there’s an answer. In order for there to be a convention for proposing amendments—those are the four words—there has to be applications from two-thirds of the states; and the reason we’re living under a cap of disinformation called the military/industrial complex, and the reason there’s no healthcare, or an education for whoever wants it, is because there are over five hundred applications requesting a convention and Congress has never called it. All the state applications are there right now in the Congressional Record and Congress is ignoring them. Laches, it’s known as legally—ignoring something on purpose. The people who pay for congresspeople to get into office, are paying them to ignore the Constitution. I mean this stuff isn’t rocket science or anything.
So the truth that we’re not allowed to talk about, is that besides those who no longer care, whether you know it or not, we’re all either Conventionists or Anti-Conventionists—you’re either for a convention or you’re not, and if you’re against a convention you’re either ignorant, in denial, or part of the problem. And because the problem is causing the levels of misery in the world that it is—so a few can benefit from the many—makes it a moral dilemma. Thoreau already said it all in Civil Disobedience. If a government turns you into an agent of injustice, and taking a moral stand means ending up in jail, then sometimes the only place for a just person is jail. When we refuse allegiance, and officials resign their office, the revolution is accomplished—and what I really wanted to get across to you, even if we never get it—is that a convention is a peaceful revolution. That’s why the Constitution is so great, because it provides for peaceful revolution.
Anyway, we’re trapped by whatever forces control banks and corporations. And if we need to get out from underneath that, an Article V Convention is the way to do it. I’m not saying we should all be out on the corner with a banner and a bullhorn foaming at the mouth about a convention, but we should at least know what ought to be done. Isn’t that at least important? To be aware of what ought to be happening? The way you see things affects the way things look. I mean at the very least we should be making it the butt of jokes—the bathroom is out of toilet paper—someone call a convention!
Imagine this: Congress issues the call to the states with a date to convene. The states hold special elections for delegates, and before long we’d start getting the human interest stories of who these Americans were, and what they wanted to propose. Then they’d fly to the Capitol and the gavel would fall, calling the convention to order. On live TV we’d get to watch the delegates propose ideas—the good, the bad, and the ugly—and in the process a few modern-day Jeffersons and Madisons would emerge. They’d be on the news and late-night TV just like Senators are today. Then after all the ideas were proposed, the gavel would fall again, ending the convention, and everyone would go home. Then we’d start getting the stories about which states had approved which ideas, and as soon as any one of them reached the 38 state threshold—boom—ratification. Think about what that process would do to the political landscape. It would be amazing. It would be a peaceful revolution.
Whenever you debate with an Anti-Conventionist though, and they give the same invalid reasons—that the whole Constitution can be torn up—which is a lie—so they can remain in denial—ask them why it’s there? Why is the provision for a convention there in the first place? Try it, they won’t like it because the answer is so ugly to them—that some delegate might come up with a good idea to make things right again. In fact, because all the applications are on record, it’s a constitutional requirement a convention be called, so to be an Anti-Conventionist today is actually to be an Anti-Constitutionalist.
But just ask an Anti-Conventionist why—why is the convention clause in the Constitution in the first place? They don’t like it.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:05 pmherrera — beautiful! I like that kind of writing.
Folks, I was under the impression that the Far right –who do have an “agenda” which is, sadly not an empty can but a quiver of poisoned arrows — were until relatively recently not attacking Gay Marriage — most of them hadn’t heard much about gays who would be interested — but attacking Sodomy. Pushing for tougher Sodomy Laws.
Sodomy meaning any kind of sex where the “parts don’t fit.”
But then it all went to the Supreme Court, who, being certified Republican appointees mostly, were expected to fall into line — and, no! They held private bedroom behavior to be — well — private.
Resoundingsilence for a day or tow, then — “homo marriage! gotta prevent homo marriage!”
I don’t know about Massachusetts, but Multnomah County in Oregon legalized gay marriage in REACTION to the witch hunt.
Punishment was swift. All the people whose marriages had been solemnized here — some of whom had been together for over fifty years — were annulled after a campaign of hysteria and disinformation, along with a lie that “if they lose marriage we’ll cooperate with them on civil union — we’re only talking about marriage here.” Which was reneged on when the Senate, led by an honest and upstanding Republican, voted for civil unions as promised, and sent the bill to the state House, where the Speaker left it on her desk and, when the House prepared to ovverride her, dissolved the session.
So much for lefties being the ones circumventing the process.
There’s a great atlas called I think the Atlas of Woen in the World. It takes U.N. data and shows which countries are doing badly by tehir women. Genital mutilation, male control of abortion, causing twenty m illion a year of illegal abortions — mostly to married women who already have too many children — 80,000 of them die — rape within marriage legal, rape underreported through fear of reprisal and shame by a factor of fifty — not 50%, FIFTY — as in 2% of rapes reported; domestic violence, death in childbirth, believe it or not.
Quite a bit of all this horror is concentrated in central and sub-saharan Africa, but there are swaths of sheer meenness across the globe. One’s eye is easily drawn, in these maps, to Two kinds of cultural strongholds in particular: Islamic and Roman Catholic.
The same ones where homosexuality is severely punished.
Meanwhile, the countries where women have pretty equal rights, access to abortion on demand, aren’t beaten to a pulp by their husbands, aren’t killed by having babies, and on and on — where they seem to have it pretty good — are concentrated mostly across the Arctic Circle. Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada. And, oddly enough, gays are treated better too.
I see linkage in the stats. Just as I pay attention when I discover that the Nazis that rounded up gays for the concentration camps were working for the “Ministry to Combat Homosexuality and Abortion.”
To me this argues control of marriage, abortion, and gays as simply patriarchalism — a behavior more easily understood by watching wolf and chimpanzee troops. Alpha wolf gets the most nookie. Republicanism used to be about getting more and better nookie by being the best banker. Now it’s about who owns the oil under other people’s sand.
These weddings so many people are afraid of. It’s a shell game — don’t look at the oil grab –and it’s being orchestrated by neo-cons who think they are using the Dominionists and Dominionists who think they are using the neo-cons.
These people are going to SERIOUSLY harm us all while we bicker over the non-issue they’re throwing at us.
Ruined Canada? Netherlands collapsing? Spain on the ropes? South Africa destroyed, Belgium sinking under the weight of its sin? Not quite yet? Maybe next year?
So, what’s this about how gay marriage is going to “destroy this country?”
I hear Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the U.S.
Meanwhile, what about those born neither exactly male nor female?
You can get someone with Androgen insensitivity Syndrome, looks, like a girl, is raised as a girl, gets married, but can’t have kids. She’s got X and Y chromosomes. Does this anti-gay marriage law invalidate her marriage? Seems like it would.
Yes, I’d move to Canada if I could. Seems a wholesome place.
T’would beat having these no-knocks come and tear down my door for being married to the same woman for 30 years — four kids. Threee lovely granddaughters. We’re both women, you see …
These people are sterile
June 17th, 2006 at 6:23 am“these people are sterile” was supposed to be a deleted edit in the Intersex para, apoplogies for the other typos, dears, it’s 330 in the morning…
June 17th, 2006 at 6:31 amI see the neo-fags have run up a littany of typical left wing logic for the legitimization of the gay lifestyle. All the words written and all the crazy idology. All the insults, hate speech and juvenile anger over not being able to get your way . America and the world has gotten by just fine since the dawn of history with homosexuality and now we suddenly need to have so called gay marriage. Why? not one good argument has been presented her as to why we as a society should legalize and encourage the gay lifestyle, not one! Homosexuality is the ultimate narccissm and the ultimate manifestation of todays selfish sex obssessed culture.
June 17th, 2006 at 4:26 pmanytime anybody from the most mundane to the most strongly worded argument against this legitimization of gayness gets attacked, ridiculed and labeled in the meanest and foulest of ways. Intelligence is questioned, religious beliefs equated with nazis, and when the battle is lost the people who make rational arguments against homsexuality are themselves called gay. You cannot on one hand tell foks how good gayness is then in the same breath use gayness as an insult andhave any crediblity. This is like arguing with a grammar school kid as to why he can’t have his way.
it would be almost funny, these neo-gay temper tantrums if it was not so scary that you pro gays are beyond religious fervor in your defense of gay legitimization. I can only imagine how thes small minded, self centered people got to be this evangelical over gayness.
we already have spanish inquistion like fervor in some places over anybody that dares question the gay littany. The attacks on people who dare question the homosexual agenda is the new McCarthyism as is any un-political correct speech in general. Before you start equating americans who do not agree with the gay agenda you all ought to take a look in the mirror. Political correctness, especially pro gay propoganda is exactly the same modus operandi used by Hitler and McCarthy to stifle free speech and demonize and kill anyone who dares disagree. The new left wing gesatpo will tear apart any way they can anybody who deos not follow party principles .
This is the most un- american thing to come out of the far left ever and it must be and will be stopped by americans who care about their country. We will not let the far left fascists steal this country, it’s heritage and it’s sense of decency by some far left insurgents and moral terrorists.
Chase, civil rights should never be put to a popular vote. If that was the case, it would have taken states in the South another 100 years to abolish slavery and segregation. Wby should the rights of a few be at the whim of the rights of the majority? What if you were in the minority — how would you feel then?
June 17th, 2006 at 6:07 pmwhat’s next then?? claiming beastiality and child molestion as a civil right?? people damn well have the right to vort and have a say in what kind of society they are going to live in . You make my point for me dean. fascism is when the government decides what’s acceptable and not the people . the people are suppose to be the government in this country and not succeptible to the whim and fancy of a few.
June 17th, 2006 at 7:11 pmtrying to equate homosexuality with civil rights and slavery just shows how warped you people are. So waht’s next then affirmitive action for gays?? you are already trying to get special protections with so called hate crime laws to protect gays and trying to outalw any language that questions the gay agenda as hate speech.
I just can’t wait for the gay rosa parks and rev martin luther king jr. then of course we can have a gay holiday for all the contributions and sacrifices gays have made …. don’t make me laugh. gay “rights is not a civil rights issue it is a mental health issue.
Gee, guy, I’m impressed that anyone thinks little old me can or would tear anyone apart. I thought what I as doing was reporting on some reseach I’d done. I repeat: maltreatment of gays is high where maltreatment of women and denial of abortion is high. These tend to be indicators of religious fanaticism, totalitarianism, or both. It could happen on the Left, but most often I see it happening on the Right. Same type that waqnts to wife-beat seems to waqnt to fag-bash. Just an observation after examining the record.
Question, unanswered, was — what about the intersexuals? Here’s a population — as high as one in every 1,000 births — clearly born different, not just with a different bundle of nerves, in the hypothalamus, like me , but with in many cases a visibly female body, born and raised such with XY chromosomes, or vice versa. . A couple of famous actresses, some supermodels, and one very famous right-wing commentator/author are said to be examples of complete AIS.
The Olympic committee, thinking to catch men masquerading as women due to the suspicious appearance of some East German athletes, tried for years to screen out women athletes with genetic anomalies, but some of the people they were dumping were surprised to learn that they were “men.” One of the barred athletes, I read somewhere, subsequently had a baby — possible for a few types of intersexuals — most are completely sterile. So, this idea was given up — though the Olympic committee has taken a lot of heat for it, from people who simply haven’t done their homework.
So — one man, one woman. If the woman is 34-26-38, has never been anything but a girl in the eyes of all who know her, wants to marry her guy, do we deny it to her? Remembering that down through history ALL such women had the right to marry men?
Remember, she has undescended testicles.
Does she get to marry a girl or only a guy, or — neither?
June 17th, 2006 at 7:16 pmsure, turn this into a feminazi rant .
June 17th, 2006 at 7:24 pmTROLL ALERT
June 17th, 2006 at 7:43 pmstop the fagness is chris/redhog.
Same poor English usage, same complaining about imaginary hate language from the left (whom he also calls “nazis”) while spewing his venom all over the place.
I suppose it’s better to let him have his temper tantrums here than going out and torturing his neighbors’ pets. But, boy, is this guy tedious.
have you heard about Tempura house?? it the new shelter for lightly battered women.
June 17th, 2006 at 8:08 pmjust because you aren’t heterosexual white male doesn’t mean you are a victim. THAT is tedious.
as for torturing animals .. is that how the left wingers debate civil rights?? calling anybody that disagrees animal torturers?? Thanks , once again you prove my point about hysterics.
and by the way I helped significantly in the Katrina Animal rescue and I volunteer and homeless animal shelters and have adopted abused dogs miz smarty pants . you hysterical liberals destroy your own argument every time you open your mouths.
stop the fagness
June 17th, 2006 at 8:43 pmThanks for proving beyond doubt that you are Chris/reghog.
As for myself, I haven’t ever posted here that I am a victim. I am a white heterosexual, Ivy League-educated female; but, unlike you, I do feel sympathy for oppressed minorities. I also feel that what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is their own business.
Sorry to have accused you of animal torture. I guess from the examples of Bill Frist’s history as a cat killer and George Bush’s game of blowing up frogs and cats, I assumed it was a rightwing tendency. Obviously, it doesn’t apply to you, and I apologize for that. But I bet you will never apologize for any of your unfounded accusations. Goodbye, as I will probably not be answering to any more of your rants, chris/redhog/stop the fagness.
wow ivy league female… no wonder you are such a condescending and snotty. i do apologize when i am wrong. Apparently you have a very bigoted view of amybody who disagrees with you. Too bad they did not teach you to keep your mind open in that very, very expensive and exclusive school.
June 17th, 2006 at 9:50 pmfunny all the people you rail against are conservatives which is indicative of your bias. Did they teach you only white conservative men do bad things?? I would be willing to bet you had a lot more open mind before you went to a liberal ivy league school.
So, we don’t get to address the question? Gee, fella, I thought it was a pretty legitimate one. Don’t remember calling myself a victim, either. I’ve had a pretty good, quiet, stable and very fortunate life.
For intersexual info, Wikipedia has pretty good stuff. Here’s the CAIS part.
lessee can I mange these tags, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#1._Complete_AIS
June 17th, 2006 at 9:55 pm#433 chris/redhog/stop the fagness
June 18th, 2006 at 6:14 amI rather expected that you would be railing against Ivy League universities if I mentioned that I attended one. I suppose, of course, you don’t mind that George W. Bush got into Yale as a legacy and that Ann-thrax Coulter, off spring of a wealthy anti-labor attorney, went to Cornell. But if someone like myself, the daughter of parents without college degrees,got an Ivy League education mostly on fellowships, your immediate reaction is to call it “elitist” and “snooty.”
For your information the majority of my teachers were white men, so it was certainly not in their interest to teach me to despise Caucasian males. In graduate school I had exactly two female professors, one Asian and tenured, the other Caucasian and not tenured. Since I was in East Asian studies there were some Asian male professors, but I don’t think I had any Black or Hispanic teachers after graduation from high school. Among the Asian professors, most of the Chinese men hailed from families that left the mainland once Mao came into power, so I had more than adequate lessons in the excesses of Communism.
I have also visited East Berlin, when it was still Communist and very bleak, as well as some former Iron Curtain countries since they became free of Communism. I am quite aware that most people in those countries are very happy since the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain came down. I have also never advocated the abolition of private property and pointed that out to you when you were posting as “chris,” but you continue to call me and others “Commies.” I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for your apology, but you are very wrong; and I have proven you so. I have a much more open mind than you. I haven’t suggested, as you did, sending people who don’t agree with me politically to Gitmo. I have a few friends who still support George Bush; I seriously doubt you have any Democrat friends.
And in case you haven’t noticed, chris/redhog/stop the fagness, Communism is all but dead except in Cuba, China and North Korea. I don’t think Cuba is much of a threat to the US, and China is more because of all the outsourcing to it by companies like Walmart and all the treasury bonds the Bush administration has sold to it. On the other hand, the dictator of North Korea has been bragging for years that his nation has nuclear capacity. But instead of doing anything about it, the Bush administration chose to attack Iraq, a country that neither had WMD nor was involved in 9/11. The latest news is that North Korea may now have missiles capable of reaching the US. So to get back on thread, I think to true American patriots this should be a much greater matter of concern than what Mary Cheney does in bed with her lesbian lover or what Ken Mehlman does to the guys he picks up in gay bars.
thanks for the autobiography , but it was not needed. Look congratulations on your hard work and detting ahead. I have just come to believe that most colleges are liberal brainwashing centers. I have seen it happen with kids that go in normal kids and come out hysterical, self loathing, and full of dat good ol white guilt. Kids don’t seem to learn as much as have liberaliam preached to them, but that is not the point or subject tof debate.
June 18th, 2006 at 9:40 amYou are right. I do not care what gay people do behind closed doors. Of course you had to get a dig in on the Bush administration but I expected that, it the standard now. My point is nobody cared what gays did behind closed doors . The whole problem came when gays laughably wanted to get “married” . They brought the problemn to us we did not bring the problem to them. Amercica would have been just fine having a live and let live approach to homosexuality, I know I did. But when the gay legitimization agenda started going into schools and and forcing the concept of “tolerance and diversity” to eight year olds and the so called gay marriage debate out then THEY brought their own proclivities and ideology right in people’s faces. Nobody asked them to make themselves targets, they could have and should have just donr their thing and not try to push it on us. As rational, thinking people we realize that this gay marriage thing is absolutey not about marriage at all but about seeking to legitimize the gay lifestyle and mainstream it. I really don’t give damn who you sleep with , just don’t tell me about it, don’t force it on my kids and don’t ask me to accept it as normal and we’ll all be fine. Don’t ask some liberal judge to overturn and negate traditional marriage aginst the will of the people, that is tyranny.
fascism is when the government decides what’s acceptable and not the people .
Well, it seems the people don’t get revved up about this issue until the politicians (i.e. the government) start talking about it. Gosh, haven’t seen any street marches in my red & religious section of Northeast Tennessee lately. Never see a steady stream of letters to the editor in the local papers until around election time, when the government (i.e. the politicians) bring it to the forefront. Funny that the only time in recent memory when Congress critters in Washington publicly spoke about their offices getting bombarded with constituents’ calls was over the ports deal. Haven’t heard a peep from them indicating the majority of their constituents demand a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and want it NOW.
not one good argument has been presented her as to why we as a society should legalize and encourage the gay lifestyle, not one!
Gosh, I didn’t catch the part that anyone wanted to legalize the gay lifestyle. I kinda figured it was something that folks enjoyed as part of living in America. You know, one of those thingies covered under the heading of “freedom.” Sort of like I can walk down the sidewalk to work without having any kind of legal permission. Or two lovers can kiss in public and hold hands without any legal permission. Or those same two lovers can spend the night together and sleep in the same bed without any legal permission. Sure, you may not like it much, but it really isn’t any of your fuc*ing business, any more than it’s my business who and how many men or women (depending on your gender) you had sex with last month. If it was three, then fine. If it was your wife, then fine. I don’t give a damn because it isn’t my business.
June 18th, 2006 at 5:25 pmIt always strikes me as amusing that the Left clams to be all for democratic values — right up until the moment that the people get it into their collective head to implement policies that are not “progressive”. At that point, the Left is hell-bent on keeping shutting them up and shutting them down.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:00 amThe left has no purpose other than to change America into a third world socialist heap. They hate America and talk just for the sake of hearing themselves talk. in their minds they are all little Che Guevarras .
June 19th, 2006 at 10:09 amThe left has no purpose other than to change America into a third world socialist heap. They hate America and talk just for the sake of hearing themselves talk. in their minds they are all little Che Guevarras .
Comment by moonbat patrol —
TROLL ALERT
June 19th, 2006 at 10:55 ammoonbat patrol=stop the fagness=chris=redhog=liberal morons
NO, chris, you hate America. You’re the one who wants a one-party totalitarian state and to send all dissenters to Gitmo. No liberal/progressive poster has ever suggested that you be punished for your belefs. Now scat! We get the message that you don’t like us.
I have been a strong believer that religious entities SHOULD NOT be excluded or exempt from paying taxes. When a “religious facility” earns over 50 million dollars a year, (Houston), and – not only – NOT PAY TAXES on such garganduous amount of income, but also lease/rent a facility that was formerly used to house a professional basketball team-whose lease amounts to about 18 million dollars – AND NONE OF WHICH ARE “TAXALBE”… NOT EVEN PROPERTY TAXES…Then I think that apitimizes the bias of our system. If religious “entities” are not to pay or be a part of our system and they don’t pay into our system, in a local, county, state and national level – then one of 2 things should be enacted – for the sake of equality – 1) Lobbying to our congress for political gain towards changing laws and a system-(that they do not even pay into) should be banned. If you do not pay even a minimal portion of the million-dollar business that has become of the new “evangelical system” — THEN YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO CHANGE LAWS AND PRESENT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS of a system that obviously does not apply to you. (2) If you don’t pay – you must return to the people – by providing social programs that assist the lower income families – REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ARE A “MEMBER” OR NOT. These MILLION-DOLLAR elite churches do not offer help or any kind of “assistance” to anyone that is not a MEMBER of their “secret society”. I am tired of people attempting to wave their faith and religion and shoving it in everyone face – those who do not believe the extreme views – are “athiest” – THE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND FOR THESE PEOPLE, MUCH LESS ANY NOTION OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS…IT has to stop somewhere.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:21 pmMEMO TO “STOP-THE-FAGNESS”
THE PURPOSE OF LEGALIZING SOME SORT OF OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF A “MARITAL UNION” IS MOST IMPORTANTLY PUSHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOGNITION. NOT ON A “AMERICAN-IDOL” TYPE LEVEL, BUT ON A LEGAL LEVEL SO THAT LIFE PARTNERS WILL NOT BE OVERLOOKED, OVERPASSED AND IGNORED FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE PURPOSES, FOR MEDICAL – HOSPITAL RECOGNITION WHEN A PARTNER IS ADMITTED, FOR THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE AND DEATH DECISION MAKING AS WOULD A WIFE OR HUSBAND IN ANY CRITICAL SITUATION. IF YOU SPEND 20 YEARS WITH A PERSON (REGARDLESS OF THEIR GENDER) YOU KNOW THAT PERSON BETTER THAN ANYONE, INCLUDING THEIR PARENTS, THEREFORE, THE LAW SHOULD PROTECT AND RECOGNIZE YOUR UNION AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN “A SITUATION TO BE IGNORED”. WHEN YOU ASK YOUR GOVERNMENT FOR SOME SORT OF PROTECTION FROM OVER IMPOSING DESCRIMINATING OUTSIDE ENTITIES/PERSONS, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE RELIGIOUS COME OUT SCREAMING AND DEFENDING A BOOK THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REALITY OF THE PROBLEM! BY THE WAY – THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY OF OUR FOREFATHERS…NOW KNOWN AS THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY – SINCE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY THESE EXTREMIST VIEWS. WE MUST STOP LOOKING AT THIS as a “moral – religious” issue, This is human rightS issue. our constitution cannot be used as a tool to opress and deprive our fellow citizens of their rights to be recognized as what they are: Humans exercising their rights given to them by our great Constitution. So I suggest you go to your libaray and check out a book other the your bible-and find out what AMERICA is really about and if the US Constitution protects you and your views as an anti-homesexual person/entity, then it likeise protects any gay person or union! Ignorance is not bliss…it’s a disease – and it spreads faster than any disease known to man!
June 19th, 2006 at 1:15 pmMight want to “…check you regs…†there dude!
#442
Comments by ed.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Constitutionqal Convention? Oh YES! We can start out by making politcial campaign promises contracts and sue the bastards when they don’t deliver. Ditto for “foreign policy” statements. No WMD’s? No uranium enrichment plants? No ties between Saddam and Al aida? Sorry, Mr. President, your excuse for invading Iraq is OVER..time to pull the troops out and go home right now! Also, we could tighten up campaign laws and nonprofit organization laws and all of those Fundimentalist churches and ministers would loose their tax breaks. They aren’t chruchs and they certainly aren’t Christian’s anyways. I can think of some other things I would love to have enshrined, too. How about making corporate theft a capitol crime? (Hey Mr Skilling, no need to worry about suicide, we’ll help you!) For good measure we could remove any sort of protection or tax relief for any company that outsources even one job.
June 19th, 2006 at 3:35 pmbitblt wrote: Are you a bit confused by the fact – that unlike abortion, sodomy, and so-called “homosexual marriage†the free exercise of religion is specifically mention in the Constitution? In fact, it’s the First Amendment.
Are you suggesting that those of your religion are allowed to impose their will on others provided that it is written down in your book? You can enslave people as long as they are from neighboring countries (Leviticus), and the rest of can’t stop you because it is written in your book? It sure looks like that’s what you’re saying here.
*Nobody* is trying to get you to stop practicing your religion! I am confused as to why anytime that someone here has suggested that religion need not play a role in determining civil law — in telling those of other faiths or of no faith what they can and cannot do — you seem to somehow think that this is an attack on your constitutional rights. My educated guess would be that your book tells you how persecuted you are, so you search for signs that you are persecuted. Finding none, you invent them.
It certainly does sound like you are asking for special rights above everyone else, though, just because you practice a certain religion. You would like to decide who can and can’t get married (regardless of the religious beleifs of the actual people involved). And the rest of us can’t say anything, just because your book tells you to do it?
From your comments it is clear that you have some problems with people not accepting your religion as their own. I understand that for many christians this is seen as a terrible, terrible thing. I suggest that you get used to it, though. We don’t live in a theocracy, at least not yet.
Your response to ed’s comment is really bizarre. He in no way was saying that you can’t spout nonsense whenever you feel like it — he is in no way suggesting that you don’t have a right to your invisible friend. He does appear to be frustrated that that nonsense tends to drown out actual rational debate. And I would have to agree.
So, just to be perfectly clear: I see no post here that is suggesting that you can’t practice your religion. If you see it, please explain it to me. As someone who actually *is* a member of a religious minority, I myself am very sensitive to anyone telling me that I can’t practice my own faith (or suggesting that their own is superior without any rational basis, as you have done here a few times). I would love to see the actual evidence that you present.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:02 pm#440 lora now take a midol like agood girl. I will not “scat” ia heva every right to air my views and will do so. I thought you left wingers were sooo 1st ammendment. I guess that only applies to what you are saying right?
June 19th, 2006 at 4:32 pm#441 it will stop as soon as the homosexuals go back to their closet where they belong. You dare talk about respect?? you have no respect for religion, tradition, marriage, normalcy and America itself. We did not ask you to make so called gay marriage and issue you did and now you have to deal with the consequences.
#445 nice trybut rather long winded- are you trying to convince me or yourself?? if you tried to convince me you did’nt. so called gay marriage is not a civil rights issue it is a mental health issue. just because you whine, cry and stamp your feet does not mean society is going to change the true definition of marriage between a man and a woman,. to change marriage for the legitimization of homosexuality is ludicrous and just plain stupid. These poor people don’t need legitimization for their affliction they need profesional help.
#446
Oh my god! I thought only people on TV thought or said things like that (ie: Britney Spears) for ratings and/or lack of grey matter in their skulls. Apparently, we’re too late. The memo informing us, the American people, that the Crusades have commenced. All I can say is that anyone that angy and adamant about abolishing any other human beings’ constituional right should be the one in need of “professional help”. AND for the record, it is important that people like you that like to throw around the Constitution-always saying that it was based on “the book”, it protects EVERYONE’S right to their religion-ANY religion. That includes the other religions that do not have the same belief as you. So that “first Amendment” that you like to throw around and use at your convenience, does not in any way, support or endorse force feeding YOUR individual opinions and beliefs onto others. And making any constitutional amendments that will enact the religious belief of some, is a disgrace to our country and our constitution. Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves at such a sight.
Mr. bitblt : You should really try and READ the constition with out your bible. Maybe then, you can understand it without interpreting it to your convenience only. Today is a sad day in America, because I just found out that ignorance remains to sole driver in our society. Maybe it’s just me.
But I have been motivated! I will now begin to volunteer and do my part in hope of salvaging tomorrow’s adults. So that in my old age, I won’t have to witness the Crusades part II.
June 19th, 2006 at 5:32 pm#446
Oh my god! I thought only people on TV thought or said things like that (ie: Britney Spears) for ratings and/or lack of grey matter in their skulls. Apparently, we’re too late. The memo informing us, the American people, that the Crusades have commenced. All I can say is that anyone that angy and adamant about abolishing any other human beings’ constituional right should be the one in need of “professional help”. AND for the record, it is important that people like you that like to throw around the Constitution-always saying that it was based on “the book”, it protects EVERYONE’S right to their religion-ANY religion. That includes the other religions that do not have the same belief as you. So that “first Amendment” that you like to throw around and use at your convenience, does not in any way, support or endorse force feeding YOUR individual opinions and beliefs onto others. And making any constitutional amendments that will enact the religious belief of some, is a disgrace to our country and our constitution. Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves at such a sight.
Mr. bitblt : You should really try and READ the constitution with out your bible. Maybe then, you can understand it without interpreting it to your convenience only. Today is a sad day in America, because I just found out that ignorance remains to sole driver in our society. Maybe it’s just me.
But I have been motivated! I will now begin to volunteer and do my part in hope of salvaging tomorrow’s adults. So that in my old age, I won’t have to witness the Crusades part II.
June 19th, 2006 at 5:32 pmi want to clarify myself. the posts i made above only represent my own observations. i never stated anywhere that these people in power shouldn’t be kicked out on their collective asses. it’s just a fact that the life path i’ve decided to follow prevents me from doing it. at this station in my life the best i can hope to do is be some type of mediator. even this seems highly unlikely since both sides patronize and condescend to me. i do know that in order for the type of world i’d like to see emerge, it will probably take a much needed purge. i’m not telling anyone anything about that process. do what you think it takes. i would like to warn you, whatever your take on the south is, you best not take it for granted that you understand them, unless you are one of them. especially texas. yew best watch what you say, boy. you libel to get ‘at smirk shoved ded, smooth-runnin, roght up yo asss. respect is required for all.
June 19th, 2006 at 6:08 pmSomething on which we can agree.
#446 seli commented:
“Our forefathers†never imagined a nation where the dominant “spiritual influence†wasn’t Christianity, and they certainly didn’t intend the First Amendment to mean that Christianity, and even the word “God,†would be excluded from the public square.
If you have some references that any “forefather†had any notion that any founding document for this nation could provide a mother with a “supposed†right to destroy her unborn child or could provide two men with a “supposed†right to marry, I’d like to see it.
They, the forefathers, must be “…turning over in their graves..†They’re agonizing with the question, “Do you people want to continue to exist?â€
“Why have you used your rights to build a culture of death?â€
I believe the forefathers would tend to agree with Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. (This is the Alabama Justice who had a problems with his Ten Commandments monument.)
Reference at link:
**** Caution: Conservative Christian Think Tank URL ****
June 20th, 2006 at 10:04 amhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2355
bitblt wrote they certainly didn’t intend the First Amendment to mean that Christianity, and even the word “God,†would be excluded from the public square.
I am curious what laws you are referring to that have made Christianity or the word “God” excluded from the public square. What laws are these? What court rulings prohibit you from going to the corner of your street, praying to your deity and yelling his name at the top of your lungs? Please inform me. I am very, very concerned about issues of religious freedom, yet I see no indications that Christianity is excluded from the public square. If anything, it is privileged: look at your currency, the pledge of allegiance, listen to just about any speach by any politician of virtually any party, and recognize that Christmas enjoys the exclusive status of being the only religious holiday that is also a federal holiday.
Sure, you can cite Roy Moore. He is hardly someone that I would consider to be on an even keel, and the whole notion that if you stop imposing the rules of your sky deity on the rest of us all civilization will collapse.
I just don’t see it. You say the founders never imagined that Christianity wouldn’t be the “dominant spiritual influence” in the USA. So what? They also didn’t imagine that whites wouldn’t be a majority, or that women would vote. *Some* of them — by no means all — couldn’t imagine a world without slavery, or where black people would enjoy legal equality, or where interracial marriage would be accepted. They also didn’t imagine cars, planes, nuclear weapons, or ipods.
Are you suggesting that we simply do away with all of those things because the founders didn’t imagine them?
Again, your repeated assertions that people are somehow prohibiting you from practicing your religion is STUPID AND HAS NO BASIS IN REALITY. Sorry for the bold caps, but you don’t seem to get it.
bitblt, it is again clear that you only think in binaries: you encounter resistance when people object to you imposing your religion on them, and assume that that means you can’t practice yours. Either everyone conforms to your view of a certain religion, or nobody can.
Needless to say, this is childish. Grow up.
Point me to the specific restrictions and oppressions that Christians face. Be specific. Show some evidence, instead of just claiming how much of a victim you are, and how every problem that our society faces is a result of people not paying attention to your invisible friend.
What I see instead are many so-called Christian so-called conservatives who think that any resistance to their *right* to impose their beliefs on others is a deep infringement on their right to practice their religion. How else to view the issue of gay marriage? Surely letting *other* people do something that goes against *your* religion is a violation of your rights … to impose your theology on others.
Now, I realize that you don’t feel any need to show evidence or use reason, because that would contradict your deeply held religious beliefs. I also understand that you feel no need to respond to me (you haven’t addressed any of the issues that I have raised in my previous posts), probably because you feel no need to have any dealings with those people who your deeply loving deity will joyfully torture for all eternity for not believing in the folk tales.
Just don’t expect anyone here to take you seriously until you actually build an argument that is based on something we all share — reason and evidence — rather than on your book of folk tales.
June 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pmbitblt wrote: “Why have you used your rights to build a culture of death?â€
I assume that this is an attack on pres. Bush. After all, he oversaw the execution of more prisoners in Texas than any other governor in US history. He started a war of convenience in Iraq in which tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. He keeps the nuclear option open. He has done nothing about the thousands of US citizens who die everyday because of lack of healthcare. He hunts. He fantasizes about a big war that will end not just the entire human race, but history itself.
Culture of death indeed.
June 20th, 2006 at 12:18 pmWhy don’t I address anything to your remarks?
#451
Your tone is mocking.
You address what you imagine my beliefs to be, and then you make a case against what you imagined. Don’t know if this is just your technique, or if you intentionally mean to mislead or deceive. I tend to lean toward intentionally misleading.
You build your own straw man and then you attack it.
You don’t know what the relationship is between Christianity and the Old Testament book of Leviticus. You suggest what you think is the ways Christians are suppose to act or suppose to believe based on your lack of understanding of this relationship. You flaunt your ability to do this in a mocking tone.
After all, you previously mentioned that it was about my belief. I don’t have any trouble saying I’m talking from the viewpoint of my faith.
You also suggest that there’s something wrong with the way I think. It’s not clear to me whether you think that because I’m a Christian or because I simply don’t agree with you.
I don’t let tolerance replace my discernment. The simple fact is that not all beliefs are equal, and not all ways of living – heterosexual versus homosexual – are equal.
Why don’t we start with something in #450?
Just take the Justice Moore quote, for instance. I wrote that I believed that the “forefathers†would be more inclined to agree with this quote.
Do you think the forefathers would agree with Justice Moore?
As implied in the Justice Moore quote, this question is applicable: “Would there be a United States with out the influence of Christianity?â€
June 20th, 2006 at 1:01 pmYou assumed incorrectly!
#452
The culture of death is the practice of abortion and homosexuality.
People behave sexually irresponsibly and the results are death – either from abortion or disease. This is the culture of death.
But thanks for proving one of my points –
#453
You build your own straw man and then you attack it.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:03 pmbitblt:
Well, I really don’t think that I am building a strawman at all. Judging simply from comments that you have made here, you seem to think that there are laws are bills pending that will restrict your freedom to practice your religion. You have mentioned in several posts (#s 361, 443, 450) that the constitution protects your practice of religion, and then imply that there are people and/or laws that seek to “exclude” your religion from the “public square.” I see no such thing. I ask that you point it out to me so that I might investigate it, and so far you refuse. Where is the strawman? Simply read your own words.
You also repeatedly assert your own religious beliefs as the only viable source of morality. They certainly are not. You have asserted your own religious text as the only reliable source of morality. It certainly is not. You imply that *your* religious view (not that of the founders) is the only legitimate source of secular law. It is not.
As for the Moore quote, I imagine that some of the founders of the country would agree, some would not. Jefferson, for example, probably would not. Notice that Moore claims that the premise for “organic law” in this country is the Declaration of Independence. It is not; the Constitution has that role. The Constitution does not mention your deity. It does not mention Jesus. What is the basis for rights in the Constitution? Well, it is right there in the first words of the Preamble: “We the people…”
This is basic Enlightenment thinking, and was the great source of advance over the theological tinge of monarchist political philosophy. Monarchists believe that sovereignty ultimately lies outside of humanity with a deity and is delegated downward; one of the primary innovations of the Enlightenment was the assertation that ultimate sovereignty lies with the people and is delegated upward.
Sure, when the moment for whipping people up for a violent conflict was at hand, religion was invoked (some religions are particularly useful in getting people to support violence). So the Declaration of Independence has religious references. When the moment came to actually set *law,* however, the principle of popular sovereignty was invoked. If the founders were really so theologically/politically close to Moore, they would have thrown Jesus left and right into the constitution. They didn’t, and they didn’t for a reason. Moore really is not all that smart; or maybe he is simply a demogogue.
If you think that I am mocking, I guess that is really just a response to the tone of your own posts. You have claimed that your religion is the exclusive repository of morality (read the Moore quote) and have asserted your right to impose that on others. Anytime that someone has called you on that here, you have claimed that your very ability to practice your religion is under threat. I have been trying to making it clear to you that nobody has any obligation at all to believe in your theology, and that it simply does not form a good basis for making claims about what *other people* can and cannot do.
You wrote: After all, you previously mentioned that it was about my belief. I don’t have any trouble saying I’m talking from the viewpoint of my faith.
You also suggest that there’s something wrong with the way I think. It’s not clear to me whether you think that because I’m a Christian or because I simply don’t agree with you.
I have no problem that you believe in a religion that is not my own (though judging from your comments it certainly looks like you have problems with others not believing your religion). Talk about your faith all that you want. Tell everyone that you think homosexuality is a sin, and that you won’t be engaging in it. But at least realize that this is a religious notion that applies only to those who believe your religion. Don’t think that other people aren’t perfectly content doing things that go against your religion, and that they have every right to do so.
The problem that I have is that you asserted — beginning with your very first post — that your religious belief is a source of authority. It is not. I and many others here do not share your faith, and no amount of quotes from your religious text (or Moore) will change that. This might be a wonderful form of debate — the appeal to the authority of a religious text — within your own religion. It is not convincing at all outside of that religious context. So, what I have been trying to get you to do is actually show evidence, use reason, and engage logic. I honestly don’t know what you think, since I haven’t seen it yet. So far you have largely limited yourself to invoking the authority of your religions texts and your theology. It’s not that I think that you should abandon your faith; it is simply that *your* faith is not an excuse or a very good reason to tell others what they can and cannot do, and invoking it as a source of authority is certainly not very convincing to me. How do you think that you would respond if I invoked my religions texts and told you that you were simply wrong because you didn’t follow them? My guess is that you would ask me to use reason and evidence instead.
If you feel insulted by my use of the term “folk tales,” your own assertion that you can “discern” right and wrong for others when it does not affect you is pretty offensive too. I also use that term as well as “invisible friend” to remind you that not everyone believes your religion. You gain no moral highground by invoking it, anymore than I would gain moral highground by invoking my religion. Since we don’t share religious views, and I am not willing to cower in a corner in deference simply because you invoke your religion (an all too common response nowadays), why don’t we engage eachother on terms that we share (or should, at least): reason, evidence, logic. I guess that I am just not quite ready to let you assert the superiority of your religion; I see absolutely no reason to do so.
You have repeatedly said that the US would not be what it is today without Christianity. Obviously. It also would not be what it is today without being bi-coastal, heavily forested, with good navegable rivers, or temperate. It also wouldn’t be what it is without its history of slavery. It also would not be what it is today without the *very wise* provisions that delineate the areas of state authority — such as making sure that the state neither endorses nor favors any particular religion. It would also not be what it is without the 14th Amendment, which states that the laws of the land apply to all equally (ie, regardless of their theology, etc.).
So again, I ask: where is the threat to you practicing your religion? You have invoked it repeatedly (posts # 361, 450 and 443), but have yet to cite a single example. This is a pretty serious claim and one that I am deeply concerned with. As a member of a religious minority and a father, I am always concerned about the possibility that my own religion might be restricted (for example, people of my religion are not allowed to say the opening prayer at city council meetings where I live, even though members of other religions are encourage to say their’s), or that my daughter might be forced to participate in assertions of religious belief that are not ours (e.g., the pledge of allegiance, the teaching creationism in the classroom).
This is a very serious issue, so surely you have the evidence to back it up. Please let us know what that evidence is.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:52 pmbitblt wrote: The culture of death is the practice of abortion and homosexuality.
People behave sexually irresponsibly and the results are death – either from abortion or disease. This is the culture of death.
Are you saying that these are the only forms of death? Are you indeed against the death penalty, war, hunting, fishing, etc.?
Are you saying that as long as people practice safe sex you are fine with that? Are you saying that as long as gay men are monogamous (and thus don’t contribute to the spread of STDs), you are fine with that? Are you suggesting that encouraging gay men to be monogamous would strike a blow against the “culture of death”? If so, why don’t you support gay marriage?
Are you able to present scientific evidence (not just religious claims) that human life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion therefore is killing a baby?
Please clarify. The term “culture of death” is in danger of becoming a Republican talking point and void of all meaning, something that I am sure you don’t intend. So please clarify your stance for me so that I can understand where you are coming from.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:00 pmThanks for the extreme effort you made in #455 and #456. Believe they were both a tab more focused.
Check my first post again. I believe you’ll find that I related. I reported to you what is recorded in the Bible. I don’t believe I ever said in my posts that anyone had to do anything.
On the other hand, I didn’t “…qualify out of existence…†every statement I made.
From #455…
How do you think that you would respond if I invoked my religions texts and told you that you were simply wrong because you didn’t follow them? My guess is that you would ask me to use reason and evidence instead.
I would not ask you for reason and evidence. I’d ask you what you’re authority was.
Faith is not about logic. Sorry. But it’s not. See Hebrews 11 verses 1,2,3, and 6 if you’re interested.
http://bibledev.azaz.com/bibleresources/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Hebrews+11&book_id=65&version1=31&tp=13&c=11
Logic and reason bring many people to the stepping-off-point of belief in Jesus Christ – of being a Christian, but when you get to where you’re going it’s faith. Faith is it’s own thing. It’s a different way of perceiving.
That faith is not about logic is not an easy lesson. It’s a lesson that doesn’t come easily to many Christians, and I’d be one of them.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:58 pmbitblt:
Why bother citing your religious text if you weren’t making an assertion. Perhaps it expresses more succinctly are eloquently a non-religious point that you were making? It sure looks to me like you were appealing to the authority of your text in that first post.
I agree that faith is not *necessarily* about logic. I personally find that Christianity in all the forms that I have encountered simply does not stand up to logic at all. In my own experience, Christianity really requires faith *despite* logic, not because of it, starting with the assertion of the existence of a creator deity that is at once benevolent, omnipotent and omnsicient. For me, once logic enters in, the Abrahamic religions are non-starters. I can’t imagine myself believing in a religion that doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny of reason and evidence, at least for its most fundamental assertions. But then again, I know many smart and decent people who are also Christians, so I am certainly not ruling it out for others.
Providing me with the quote from Hebrews just confirms this for me. I really find the citation unconvincing. It might be fine for you and I do understand the attraction, but essentially saying that steadfast belief in a certain deity is good because it pleases the deity just doesn’t cut it for me.
Now, I also don’t believe, as you wrote: Faith is not about logic. Sorry. But it’s not. It most certainly can be. My own use of logic and reason regarding my religious texts and beliefs has only strengthened my own faith. It is something that I engage in every single day. Believing in a religion *despite* reason and logic rather than *because* of it is not something that I can see myself doing anytime soon. But if you want to, nobody is stopping you. The notion that “faith is its own thing” — as you write — simply does not resonate with me at all. Faith should be able to engage reason or it really isn’t faith at all — it is blind faith.
You wrote: I would not ask you for reason and evidence. I’d ask you what you’re authority was.
Really? What if I responded — as you basically have — that the texts are inherently authoritative because they come from an omniscient source? (e.g., you wrote that “God knew what he was doing,” or words to that effect.) Would that really be acceptable to you? (It would be aghast if it were — I would need you to verify them experientially and/or logically whenever possible, as faith without reason stands on shaky ground). What reason would you have to accept them as authoritative if they are not the texts of your religion? Or are you asking me what my authority is to cite them?
You wrote: I reported to you what is recorded in the Bible. I don’t believe I ever said in my posts that anyone had to do anything.
Am I to understand that your posts here are really simply assertions of faith? They do kind of read that way. I guess I was under the impression that you were hoping to convince people, since you were posting on a forum for political debate.
Then what are your objections to gay marriage? I understood that you were citing religious authority to say that homosexuality was “wrong,” that the US legal system ultimately rested on religious belief, and that thus the state could not allow same sex couples to enter into the same legal contract that it allows heterosexual couples to engage in (thus negating 14th Amendment). If that was not your intention, why bring up the contentious issue of religion at all? Why not just limit yourself to reasoned argument using evidence?
June 20th, 2006 at 4:40 pm#456 hogwood had some questions:
People behave sexually irresponsibly and the results are death – either from abortion or disease. This is the culture of death.
(1)Are you saying that these are the only forms of death? Are you indeed against the (2)death penalty, (3)war, (4)hunting, (5)fishing, etc.?
(1)The answer is no, and the question is off topic. Why are these questions important to you in a thread about a Constitutional Convention to ban so-call “homosexual marriage?â€
So you’ll know…
(2) No. Number one responsibility of government is to protect us from those who would do us harm.
(3) No. I recognize a need for war, but I don’t accept that Christians are free to participate in war – with question. This is off topic.
(4) No.
(5)No.
(6)Are you saying that as long as people practice safe sex you are fine with that? (7)Are you saying that as long as gay men are monogamous (and thus don’t contribute to the spread of STDs), (8)you are fine with that? (9)Are you suggesting that encouraging gay men to be monogamous would strike a blow against the “culture of death� (10)If so, why don’t you support gay marriage?
(6) No. Not even remotely saying that.
(7) No. Not even remotely suggesting that. Are you aware that the idea of a monogamous male homosexual almost exists only in the minds of heterosexuals? If you look long enough for it on the INet you can find writings that amount to “the homosexual philosophy.†These writings say something to the effect that you can’t understand homosexuality unless you’re promiscuous. Furthermore, STDs are not the only health issues that seem to plague homosexuals.
(8) Absolutely not.
(9) This is a real question? What percentage of homosexuals want to be married? What percentage want to be in a monogamous relations? (10)Believe I’ve made my opinion clear on the so-called “homosexual marriage.†There is no such relationship. A marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. The fourteenth amendment didn’t cover marriage because there was no need to allow marriage.
(11)Are you able to present scientific evidence (not just religious claims) that human life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion therefore is killing a baby?
(11) Not even going to try. Can you say that there is some point from the moment of conception when what is conceived is not human? Paraphrasing either Al Gore or HRClinton – I believe, “Every time there’s a abortion something dies.â€
(12) Please clarify. The term “culture of death†is in danger of becoming a Republican talking point and void of all meaning, something that I am sure you don’t intend. So please clarify your stance for me so that I can understand where you are coming from.
(12)“Culture of death†is the neat, little word package put into play by the Republican. It means those sexual activities that bring about death. It’s shorthand for getting the idea of abortion and homosexuality into the same sentence. Below there’s another idea relating the practices.
It does seem that the abortion party (Democrat Party) took the issue –abortion – home with them, and now it won’t leave. People would understand abetter what the Democrats believe if they – the Democrats – could be a bit more binary.
If you were to check my first post you see the following:
Many Christian take this to mean that God created marriage. Furthermore, many Christians take the “…be fruitful and multiply…†command – the prime directive if you will – found in Genesis as an invitation from God to participate in Creation.
Many forget that part of the beauty of the creation account in the Old Testament book of Genesis is that God created all life. Life was a gift that He wanted us to have, and He asked that we give it to our children. I understand from “my book of authority†that this means I can be grateful for every breath I take, and I am.
People who destroy their unborn child or people who have same-same gender sex refuse to participate in giving life. It was the Creator’s greatest gift.
Not life, therefore death! Is that binary enough for you?
The culture of death is the practice of abortion and homosexuality.
Another way in which you can find abortion and homosexuality juxtaposed in an interesting, frightening way is go to some “gay pride parades.†There is a report of parade participants dragging baby dolls with ropes around the necks of the dolls. Is this symbolic enough for you? Does it convey the idea of a “culture of death†adequately?
I’m not personally seen this. The reported parade was in Dallas and I probably a link several years ago on something like the Operation Rescue site.
Believe there’s another twist on this phrase – culture of death. I believe neoDarwinism falls into this category, but that’s just my personal opinion and not what this thread is about.
Ah, you say! That’s science, which is an intellectual tool. Well, neither science in general nor neoDarwinism in particular can says that life is better than death.
God said life is good!
June 20th, 2006 at 5:26 pmSo, bitblt, for the record, and to boil things down, you’re saying God and Jesus Christ hate homosexuals? You contend that God and Jesus are capable of hate? Or are you just the messenger of hate for God and Jesus Christ because they just can’t do their jobs? Either way, the message seems to be clear that “Christians” such as yourself hate people. Is that really what Christianity is all about? If it is, then I say (and after all this gay-bashing and hate speach a lot of people are with me on this one) no thanks to Christianity. I thought religion was about love. I guess I was wrong. Lately, it just appears to be about hate hate hate. Again, no thank you.
June 20th, 2006 at 8:45 pmbitblt wrote The answer is no, and the question is off topic. Why are these questions important to you in a thread about a Constitutional Convention to ban so-call “homosexual marriage?â€
Um, you were the one who brought up death, not I. I simply asked for clarification.
And I do get it now. When you say “culture of death” you use both “culture” and “death” in an extremely selective fashion, your own special way. I now understand that when you say “death,” you only mean certain kinds of “death” and not others. You simply delete out the kinds of death that you support (like the death penalty). When I — who has a conception of “death” that is not beholden to Republican talking points — ask for clarification, you say that it is irrelevant, even though you are the one bringing up “culture of death” in the first place. Republican-approved “death,” I now understand, is really not so bad at all.
We clearly speak different languages. When I saw you write “death,” I innocently assumed that you meant “death,” when what you really meant was “the Republican talking point known as `the culture of death.’” Because clearly you have no problem with most kinds of what is commonly referred to as “death.” I now understand that the “death” of a fertilized egg is real death (although nobody can say with scientific certainty of what), is a heinous crime and part of the “culture of death,” but that the execution of a real living, breathing human being held in a maximum security prison is really no big deal. Its not like they are a person, after all.
I guess that I just never will understand that whole “thou shalt not kill” commandment. It seems pretty clear — couldn’t be much clearer, really. But I guess it really is just a matter of putting it in line with Republican talking points. Makes it much easier to practice. You have just given a whole list of times when you think it is fine to kill and things that you think are fine killing. Perhaps your deity didn’t really mean what he was saying? Or is there a secret “except when…” addendum to that part of the book?
I’ll keep that kind of um, well, “flexibility” in mind next time a Christian lectures me on morality. Clearly your book provides a wonderful set of moral guidelines — you just have to massage them the right way. For such a philosphically primitive religion it sure is complicated!
I did read your first post. And now you write: Many forget that part of the beauty of the creation account in the Old Testament book of Genesis is that God created all life. Life was a gift that He wanted us to have, and He asked that we give it to our children. I understand from “my book of authority†that this means I can be grateful for every breath I take, and I am.
I am happy that you have found a creation myth that makes you feel happy. I read that book and found it impossibly improbable. Don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of reasons to be happy. Belief in an old Hebrew folk tale about the origins of life simply ain’t one of them. And I really, really don’t think that this makes me morally inferior as a result. In fact, judging by the kind of weird ramblings that you have written here, plus your support for different kinds of killing (that somehow aren’t “death” to you), I would venture to say that your own morality really doesn’t sound very consistent to me.
So let’s leave it at this: you have a religious problem with homosexuality. So don’t engage in it. You have a religious problem with same sex marriage. So don’t have one.
It really is that simple.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:15 pm#460
Well, Pinky you seem to have difficulty discussing this issue with anything but a conjured-up stereotype.
So, I’m going to try and explain it the way I understand it.
I’m going to respond to your “charges†as if you really want to know something. I’m going to allude to scripture, and I’m going to quote scripture. So if you have a problem with the Bible you should probably stop reading now.
Pinky had some comments in #460.
(1)So, bitblt, for the record, and to boil things down, you’re saying God and Jesus Christ hate homosexuals?
Don’t believe I’ve used those words.
Believe the Bible – probably in the Old Testament – does say specifically that God hates divorce. Other than that I think you’d have to say that God hates sin – a condition from which we all suffer.
Sin is the condition that separates people from God, and it is a condition that all people have.
However, the New Testament records that Christ was without sin. Because He was without sin Christ was the perfect sacrifice, which is what happen at the crucifixion. His perfect sacrifice is the reason that the sacrifices commanded in the Old Testament book of Leviticus are not imposed on Christians.
Sexual sins are condemned in both the Old and New Testament. Sexual sins are any sexual expression outside of the one man one woman forever constraints; i.e., marriage. This would certainly include homosexuality.
God doesn’t think about these things – sin – the way we do. The New Testament very specifically says that God’s ways are not man’s ways that His ways are higher than our ways.
The relationship between God and people is a relationship between Creator and the created. He owns us. He can do whatever he wants. This is difficult to understand. Probably the closest similar relationship on earth is the relationship between a King and his subjects. Not a modern King but one of the old fashion English types who could do anything he wanted with anyone. Yeah! I know. This is a difficult concept for a modern mind.
(2)You contend that God and Jesus are capable of hate?
The standard reference her is John 3:16,17,18,19,20,21. Verse 16 is very well know.
http://bibledev.azaz.com/bibleresources/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=John+3&book_id=50&version1=31&tp=21&c=3
Please note that I didn’t write this. I’m only report it to you.
Also please note that this is very binary. There are those who believe and those who don’t believe. Those who believe “…have eternal life.†and are “…not condemned.†I take it from these verses that one who doesn’t believe does not have eternal life and is condemned.
So, are God and Jesus capable of hate? I don’t understand that major downside here to be the results of “hate.†I understand the condemnation to result from the characteristic of God that makes it impossible for Him to be in the presents of sin. The New Testament says elsewhere the Christ’s blood covers us and makes us presentable to God.
(3)Or are you just the messenger of hate for God and Jesus Christ because they just can’t do their jobs?
Either way, the message seems to be clear that “Christians†such as yourself hate people.
A messenger of hate does tell someone what I just told you. To my understanding I have just told you the most important thing I could have possibly said.
(4)Is that really what Christianity is all about?
Christianity is about believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The belief influences your life. It influences how you live and how you behave.
(5)If it is, then I say (and after all this gay-bashing and hate speach a lot of people are with me on this one) no thanks to Christianity.
I don’t know any Christians who hate homosexuals. I believe Conservative Christians tend to pity homosexuals who are not widely perceived as being particularly happy people.
On the other hand, conservative Christians are not going to be forced to endorse the behavior of homosexuals.
(6)I thought religion was about love. I guess I was wrong. Lately, it just appears to be about hate hate hate. Again, no thank you.
See (3) and (2) above. Otherwise, you’ll have to take it up with the Creator.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:32 amWow. An entire rehearsal of a particular version of Christianity. What you think that this actually proves is entirely lost on me. I, for one, don’t believe that your deity exists (as this contradicts actually existing reality), so this really is entirely unconvincing and irrelevant in a debate about laws in a country with no state endorsement of a particular religion.
bitblt wrote, among a bunch of other stuff that might be interesting to certain kinds of Christians but really has no relevance to the rest of us, this: On the other hand, conservative Christians are not going to be forced to endorse the behavior of homosexuals.
Of course the won’t. Nobody is asking this of them. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is really not open to anybody’s “endorsement.” Nobody expects anyone of any religion to “endorse” behavior that goes against their religious beliefs. That is totally not on anyone’s agenda, and it certainly sounds more than a little like paranoia born out of an exaggerated sense of self-importance. I don’t think that even a gay person whose paycheck is essentially cut by the so-called “religious right” in this country — I am thinking of Mary Cheney — loses any sleep thinking about how she might gain Jerry Falwell’s “endorsement” of her relationship.
Of course, under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, the rights and obligations under the law apply equally to all. The question is whether or not we as a society are willing to step up to the plate and actually enforce this.
Your particular kind of Christians are not the Constitution; your particular kind of Christians are not the legal system; your particular kind of Christians are not the state.
There are plenty of “behaviors” that Christians dissaprove that are nonetheless perfectly legal and really none of their business. Just as there are many behaviors that are perfectly legal that go against what is considered appropriate behavior in my religion. I don’t “endorse” these behaviors; of course, I also don’t have the arrogance to assume that just because something goes against my relgious beliefs that other people can’t do them. Would you really let me restrict your legal rights based on nothing more than my religous beliefs? If not, why do you think that you have the right to do that to others?
In your particular reading of your religious text, your deity finds homosexuality an abomination. Without getting into all of the logical inconsistencies that this in itself raises (and they are many), I would simply encourage you not to engage in homosexual behavior. But don’t expect your religious dogma to be enforceable upon others. Nobody of any other religion gets that luxury, do they? Are you suggesting that your particular version of Christianity should get special treatment under law and that you should be able to impose your theology on others? If that is the case, I guess you really would have to do nothing short of actually re-writing the Constitution, in order to address this clear oversight on the part of the founders of the country.
Simply put, nobody is restricting your practice of your religion simply by engaging in behaviors that you don’t approve of. I guess I am not entirely clear why this is difficult to understand.
You wrote: Otherwise, you’ll have to take it up with the Creator.
Wow. Sounds like one mean sky deity. (Now, if you think that I am mocking you, of course I am. But then again, look at the tone of what you yourself wrote: you essentially just threatened someone with your invisible friend.)
But why not simply leave it at that? Let consenting adults do what they want in the privacy of their bedrooms without feeling the need to deny them the legal rights granted to others. Then just let your deity figure out how to deal with them. If he really exists (he doesn’t) he will surely know what they have done (he doesn’t exist so he can’t) and will also know exactly the type of eternal torture that they deserve (which he won’t, because he doesn’t exist) and then proceed with the deed (which he can’t, because he doesn’t exist).
After all, it really isn’t your business to begin with.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:38 pmI think the religious right has gone off the deep end on this one. It is such a non-issue. Who really cares? How does this affect James Dobson’s life in the slightest? If you’re against same-sex married, DON’T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX. Otherwise it’s none of your goddamn business.
If, in 1954, we had taken a popular vote on whether schools should be desegregated or not, segregation would have won. That doesn’t make it right, and over time, more and more people came to their senses. The reason there is this frenzy to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution as soon as possible is because the demographic handwriting is on the wall — with each passing day, attitudes shift in favor of tolerance.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:50 pmRocket88 wrote: The reason there is this frenzy to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution as soon as possible is because the demographic handwriting is on the wall — with each passing day, attitudes shift in favor of tolerance.
This is clearly the case, and well-put at that. Attempts to get this into the Constitution are a sign of desperation, not principle.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:12 pmhttp://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=1407183102&CONTEXT=art
.
.
.
Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children
Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships.” 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36
Conclusion
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
Numbers are references included at the URL.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:44 pmbitblt: If you are going to cite someone else, at least make sure that you cite people who actually know something.
The “American College of Pediatricians” is a far-right lobbying group composed overwhelmingly of people of your theological persuasion. Of course they come up with crazy stuff, take data out of context, and say bizarre things like “the homosexual lifestyle” (a right-wing Christian talking point if there ever was one).
Why not try the “American Academy of Pediatrics,” which is the actual mainstream group, comprised of doctors who don’t feel the need to invent stuff in order to advance their theocratic agenda? Oh, but I guess that that would mean not getting to have people put a scientific spin on your bigotry.
So, up to now the only evidence that you have cited is 1. your religious text, 2. a cranky theocratic judge from Alabama who either doesn’t understand the basis of US law or chooses to ignore it, and 3. an astroturf organization of theocratic pediatricians who don’t find the mainstream organization of their profession fire-and-brimstone enough.
Surely these are good reasons to deny US citizens protection under the law? Or doesn’t it matter because they aren’t in your deity’s favor anyway?
Now, family violence is much higher in Oklahoma than in Minnesota, as is the rate of divorce. Perhaps we can just tell people in Oklahoma that they should turn their kids over to the Minnesotans, you know, just in case. Out of your obvious deep, deep concern for theologically-correct child-rearing and all.
June 21st, 2006 at 3:56 pmOh, and if you don’t realize that you have been duped by this front organization (willingly, I would imagine), you can read this:
June 21st, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Technically, the 9th amendment doesn’t allow for an amendment that bans gay marriage/establishes marriage between a man and a woman, or anything similar. If such an amendment were to be passed, it would be in immediate contradiction with the 14th and 5th amendments. Maybe those should be repealed? Quite a quagmire.
June 21st, 2006 at 4:16 pmOoops, link didn’t post. Let me try again:
Hopefully that works now. Sorry to burst your bubble, bitblt, but you do seem excessively gullible when someone says something that accords with what you would like to think is true.
June 21st, 2006 at 4:51 pmbitblt — Keep your pity to yourself, for you are the one to be pitied. As far as your scripture goes, get a toe-hold on the real world, and get your nose out of the bible. If you want to live in the dark ages, that is your freedom and your choice. However, you and your ilk will not force the rest of us to be part of your fantasy world.
No thank you.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:24 pm“I think the religious right has gone off the deep end on this one. It is such a non-issue. Who really cares? How does this affect James Dobson’s life in the slightest? If you’re against same-sex married, DON’T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX. Otherwise it’s none of your goddamn business.”
People care about marriage because it is important to society. What each of us *does* affect other people. The question is whether individual rights outweigh societal concerns.
The rights and responsibilities of marriage have evolved over time in response to family needs. Marriage not only bond two individuals together, but they also help bond parents to children. And we all care about how children are raised. Some of us may think same-sex marriage helps children…others think it harms more children than it helps. But don’t say that it isn’t a matter of public concern. And statistically, marriage matters. It keeps kids out of prison, away from drugs, and in school.
There’s no right to marriage. Marriage inherently is discriminatory. It gives rights to married people that unmarried people don’t get. The same for responsbilities. By and large, society tolerates this because we think having families and raising children is important. Furthermore, since marriage is inherently discriminatory, you need to be able to clearly say why one group of people should be allowed to marry and everybody else shouldn’t. The fact that babies come from men and women having sex together is pretty powerful stuff. On the other hand, if HR tells me that I can’t insure my sister because she isn’t my lesbian partner (true story, btw), I’m not going to be able to understand why having sex is more important than taking care of family. In fact, I still don’t get it. Sure a lesbian loves her partner. But I love my sister, too. Equal work, equal pay, right? What’s the distinction here?
So let’s review: society has a stake in making sure that kids are bonded to their parents. This is why conseratives care so much about marriage. The definition does exclude some pairs of people: lesbians, gays, mother/daughters, best friends, siblings, etc. But changing the definition to include gays & lesbians doens’t change the fact that marriage still “discriminates” (eg makes a distinction between groups of people). It just makes it harder to justify having a special distinction that bonds kids to their parents and parents to each other in order to form a family.
And whatever you do, check to make sure that I wasn’t asked if my disabled sister was my lesbian partner *before* insisting that gay marriage won’t affect my family.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:37 amittakesavillage wrote: Marriage inherently is discriminatory. It gives rights to married people that unmarried people don’t get.
Well, the first sentence doesn’t quite connect to the second. Yes, having entered into the legal arrangement of marriage does provide special rights, but by the 14th Amendment, any two consenting adults should be able to enter into this legally binding contract. In that sense, it is an institution that should be open to all, in the same way that two consenting adults can sign legal documents to buy a house together (which also is discriminatory in the sense that it provides special rights that the non-propertied don’t enjoy).
Some may say that this is a cold, legalistic view of marriage. bitblt wrote in an earlier post, citing his religious texts, that marriage makes a man and woman “one flesh.” I really don’t see how the State can judge such matters. I don’t think that it is up to any state employee to test affection or judge whether or not two particular consenting adults should really get married. When my wife and I got married, we asked for an “endorsement” from nobody except our immediate families.
People on the far right apparently have no problem with the State judging such matters. I prefer to let the actual people involved in the arrangement decide, and let the State remain impartial on such matters and simply administer the legal contract under terms that are in accord with the equal protection clause of our Constitution.
ittakesavillage also wrote: So let’s review: society has a stake in making sure that kids are bonded to their parents. This is why conseratives care so much about marriage.
I would certainly disagree on the second part of this. If you read through bitblt’s posts, his concern is with homosexuality because it goes against his particular religion. He, and many others like him, feel that their beliefs are so clearly superior to everyone else’s that they feel that they should be able to impose those beliefs on others through the power of the State. So, it is a theological matter for them, and one in which the role of children really is that of making sure that kids are raised in theologically-correct households.
bitblt did, however, post the snippets of a “study” (and I use the word very loosely here) that claims that gay couples are terrible for their children. A little history on that. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a professional organization that groups together more than 60,000 doctors, published a study showing that kids raised in same-sex households had no more problems than those raised by man-woman couples. The extreme Christianists were outraged, because this flew in the face of the way that their book insisted reality should be. Science tends to clash with their theology, and this was no exception.
So they founded the American College of Pediatricians, an organization that immediately issued the “study” that bitblt cited above. the American College of Pediatricians had one employee at the time of issuing the “study” that was the sole purpose of its organization. Compare this with the over 60,000 members of the real professional organization of pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatrics. Of course, actual pediatricians were outraged.
What does this lead me to believe? Well, that the concern is not with children at all. If it were, they would look at the actual study that the American Academy of Pediatrics produced, since they are the impartial organization with tens of thousands of members and more than 75 years of experience in these matters. The American College of Pediatricians, on the other hand, was formed with the sole purpose of showing how evil gay people are — the fake study came later as a way of trying to justify this predetermined, theologically-correct position.
This also leads me to believe that their concern is really not about the family as an institution at all, and this relates to ittakesavillage’s comments about sick family members. In Oklahoma, where I live — a state with more “Christian Conservatives” than you could shake a cross at — most heterosexual marriages end in divorce. The average length of marriage is less than seven years.
What is the number one cause of these marriages breaking up? Well, it is not because these couples have gay neighbors; it is because they are unable to handle their troubled financial situation. And what is the number one cause of financial trouble that families face in this state? It is not gayness; it is the lack of accessible and affordable healthcare.
It seems logical to me, then, that if conservatives were so concerned about creating more stable families, they would be focused like a laser on the issue of healthcare (something that would obviously benefit you and your sister, as well as my own marriage). They are not. In Oklahoma, if you bring up the question of access to healthcare, you are labeled a “communist,” or, what is worse here, “French.”
They are instead worried that two adult men might have sex in the privacy of their own home. They are instead worked up that a lesbian couple with two children might want to have legal guarantees protecting their family.
In other words, it is all about theology and the desire of some to impose their theology on others. A quick read through bitblt’s posts will confirm this. The only arguments that he uses are theologicial, and the only “evidence” that he cites is drawn from a theologically-correct, right-wing theocratic front organization founded for the sole purpose of giving a scientific-sounding spin to a theological position against gays.
If the family is such an important social institution — and I agree that it is — we should be concerned that all families enjoy legal protection. We should be concerned that the number one reason for divorce — financial problems caused by healthcare issues — is addressed.
But clearly the agenda of “conservatives” is all about theological correctness.
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:47 am[...] Religious Right Seeks Unprecedented Constitutional Convention To …Think Progress, DC - Jun 15, 2006… pundit Bob Novak, who writes the report, appears to be pushing the idea even as he calls it rather fanciful. Novak argues banning gay marriage through a … Posted in Gay Marriage | [...]
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:07 amI sense that many here on both sides of the issue are beyond exasperated at the obvious inability of those on the other side to grasp even the least complicated points. I should state right up front (as all will soon be aware) that I am among those who cringe at the prospect of having to live within the sphere of another’s belief system. Therefore, it is probably prudent to look past the purported “grave issue” of gay marriage and examine what is really going on here.
Before becoming Germany’s leader and while imprisoned for an attempted coup in 1923, Adolph Hitler wrote Mein Kamp, the book that described his political philosophy and planned conquest of Europe. Those who read it soon after publication thought and stated “He really doesn’t mean what he said in that bookâ€. As history has shown us, he really DID mean it!
In that light, from an issue of The New Republic published in the spring of 2005, I want to share with you a quote by George Grant, former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, a key organization within the Christian right. Please pay particular attention to the words chosen. He described the goals of the movement (the Christian right) as follows:
“Christians have … a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ–to have dominion in civil structures. … Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. … Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land–of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”
We have often been told that for evil to thrive, it is only necessary that good people do nothing. Whether these stated objectives are “evil†or I am one of the “good†is subject to debate. However, being descended from “Old Yankee†stock, I will not “do nothingâ€!
I believe it is absolutely necessary at every juncture to meet the representatives of hatred & bigotry head on. The reason those like BitBit & his ilk are unable to answer your questions about “where’s the harm”, how does gay marriage affect MY life, etc. is quite simple. They have little capacity for independant thought & must always retreat to the rationale that “the Bible says so, and therefore, because their God, says so, it must be true”!!
We certainly have to permit them to exist in their world as they see it – it is entirely their right within the American society.
They do not, however, have any right to dictate to those who believe in other ways (or who have no belief in an almighty entity at all) how we should live our lives nor what it is allowable for the rest of us to believe.
As an earlier poster phrased it: PUL_LEZE – remove the logs from your own eyes before grasping the tweezers to get the splinter removed from ours!!!
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:39 pmCan we get an amendment prohibiting fat women from wearing spandex? Now THAT would be a useful change.
June 24th, 2006 at 9:12 ami hope they never pass a law agaisnt sawed-off, odd-shaped, fatboys. i’d be toast in a heartbeat. oh no! i’m already turning brown!
June 26th, 2006 at 5:31 pm# 472 it does not take a village socialist hillary- it takes a family. there is no need for so called gay marriage.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:23 pmit is just a blind reaching attempt by the radical socialist left to legitimigize and normalize homosexuals and their sick behavoir.
once again I will say it – outside of a very few ulta liberal states that activist judges control THERE WILL BE NO GAY MARRIAGE !! get used to it. it’s nt going to happen.
now shut up , go back to your little closets and leave America alone with your faggot filth.
oh and don’t call me homophobic- I am not afraid of queers, i just don’t like them. I am not the one with the problem – the homos and the sickos that defend them are.
Chris/moonbat: Dude, you say “socialist” as if it were a bad thing. What’s up with that?
Um, yeah. You don’t sound freaked out about anything. Even tempered if I’ve ever seen it… well, except for the block caps, the irrational exaltation of hatred, and the obvious paranoia that you have about the queers coming to get you, that is.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:56 pmmoonbat: I am sitting at my computer crying. No joke, your post made me cry. I am disgusted to live in a country where people think that. Why do you even care if they get married or not? Would it really change your life so much if gay people are allowed to be happy. It’s not like they are imposing their beleifs on you. Grow up and learn to be tolerent.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:37 pmI have always been confused by the pick and choose mantra of people that hate homosexuality based upon what the bible says. Those people always seem to find out what’s wrong with someone else but never themselves. Earlier someone referenced homosexuals as sickos. Well according to the bible unless you have sex in only the missinary position and for procreation only, then you are a sicko as well.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:15 pmSo when the constitutional convention happens without looking so much as a tad bit hypocritical, marriage will be banned for those people who masturbate, have anal intercourse, have oral sex, used condoms becuse they have sex for pleasure only, or for those who have had sex before marriage. Otherwise all the arguments that are made for not allowing gays to get married become hypocritical, ridiculous, and groundless.
Also, why did the settlers come here in the first place. That’s right, freedom of religion. Freedom of all religion, which means that there would be no national religion then as well as it shouldn’t be now. So when people start making the assanine argument that this country was based on the religious morals of the original settlers and we should base politics, or hanging the ten commandments, or defining public policy based on these ideas, that they would be wrong then just as they would be wrong now.
By the way, when there are a majority of catholics in this country due to the influx of immigration, what are the protestants going to do when they pass laws saying that the minorities have to pray to the Madonna…….just curious.
Liberals force unwilling, poor people to leave their property so that corporations can build a new store. (Kelo)
Liberals force our unwilling children to get vaccines for harmless or near harmless illnesses (chickenpox) so that corporations can get rich off pharm. drugs, even though my child being/not being vaccinated does not effect them.
Liberals banned drug use and gave us the war on drugs (them evil corporations, selling products that make others sick!) even though corporations profiting does not affect them. (negativly, at least) If you believe corporations are earning too much, why not just buy stock?
Even today, liberals are trying to force bar owners/resturants to ban smoking, even though it doesn’t affect anyone who doesn’t go there. I keep reading all these quotes “If your against gay marriage, Don’t marry someone of the same sex”. Well, if you’re against smoking, don’t go to a place that allows it.
Liberals legislate their frequently obserd views on global warming on others.
Liberals tell others what wages they can pay others for work, (min. wage).
Liberals force us to pay high taxes for programs we don’t support.
Liberals are correct when they say the religious right is just trying to keep this in the news long enough to win the 08 elections. We have no choice. Prehaps if liberals would practice some of that tolerance for other peoples believes/choices/whatever that they are preaching, there would be no need to try and distract the voters.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:39 pmjasterisk wrote in #481.
Well according to the bible unless you have sex in only the missinary position and for procreation only, then you are a sicko as well.
You absolutely don’t know what you’re talking about.
Unless you have a book, chapter, and verse for this I suggest you stop saying it. You’re mocking the Christian faith by reporting what you believe, or imagined, it says.
If you don’t have a book, chapter, and verse (Where the Bible says what you that it said?), I’ll even take a necessary inference.
The Bible endorsed sexual relationship is one man one woman forever. This is the relationship that is in the best interest of our society. It’s also the best relationship for any man and any woman.
You might want to work with this question for a while: “Would there be a United States without the influence of Christianity and the Bible?â€
After you’ve satisfied yourself on that question, try this one: “Will there continue to be a United States without the influence of Christianity and the Bible?â€
It’s hugely interesting to me that the fundamental questions facing the nation at this point in its history have to do with whether of not God exists and with what is a “proper’ sexual relationship.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:18 ambitblt wrote:
Who cares? How does what your text say have anything at all to do with me, as a non-Crhistian? Why bother referring to it in a context which people from multiple religions and non are interracting? Why insist on it, when you know that there are obviously many people here who don’t share your theology? Could it possibly be that you simply can’t accept that there are others who have considered your theology carefully and found it wanting? Why is it so apparently hard for you to accept that other people haven’t bought into your theology? Is your purpose simply to drive home the fact that, despite your protestations elsewhere, this matter is all about your theology and your need to impose your theological proscriptions on others?
bitblt wrote:
Wrong. I showed you an example above of a lesbian couple’s 15 year relationship and the daughters that they are raising. Your only counters to that were: 1. to bizarrely claim that I thought lesbian couples were superior to others, and 2. to cite a study by a front group of your theological persuasion making claims against gay parenting that have been disavowed by people who have actually been involved in the science. In other words, your non-theological objections were completely empty, bringing you again to refer to your theology and how much it should be imposed on the rest of us.
bitblt wrote:
This one is so obviously false that it doesn’t take a genious to see how wrong it is. Go ask Dick Cheney if he thinks his daughter really should dump her partner for a man. Ask him how happy that would make his daughter. That you think this might even possibly be true really shows a lack of interraction with reality and the people who populate it to a degree that is truly impressive.
bitblt wrote:
Well, no not exactly. But there also wouldn’t be a United States as we know it without slavery, and genocide against American Indians. Are you suggesting that we bring those things back? Are you suggesting that those things are good, simply because the USA wouldn’t exist without them?
Interestingly enough, the USA also wouldn’t exist without the Enlightenment and its emphasis on reason and individual conscience, without the Constitutional prohibitions of state-endorsement of particular theologies, and without the Equal Protection clause. Yet, you seem perfectly willing to have these things vanish.
bitblt wrote:
I see no reason why the USA would suddenly cease to exist without the influence of Christianity and your book. Absolutely none. But this is a pointless question. I can tell you that I firmly believe that the privileged position given to Christians of your theological persuasion in this country should end, and that the Union would be far better for it.
Now, I understand from your comments that you prefer converting the USA from its historical origins in secular government into a theocracy (something like Iran, but Christian). But notice here — from the very topic that you are posting on — that it would take a re-writing of the Constitution to do this. In other words, the roots of our country are only partially in the theological principles of what really is a very different version of your theology.
bitblt wrote:
I can tell you that if you think that these issues are “the fundamental questions” facing our country right now, you should pay more attention to other people’s lives. Get out more and talk to people who don’t share your dogma. You might discover that people are concerned about civil liberties, health care, the growing income gap, and the war.
I alrealy know that your deity doesn’t exist. I already know that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is really none of my business.
Let’s do this: I won’t force my religion on you by trying to get legislation that bans things that my religion frowns upon unless I can make a compelling secular argument for it. (In other words, unless it is more than a theological position.) You will have to do the same for me. So far, you have only made theological arguments.
Theological arguments might be ver impressive in your church group meetings. They are pointless in a secular democracy like the one that the founders of this country so thoughtfully designed.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:23 amhogwood wrote in #484
I see no reason why the USA would suddenly cease to exist without the influence of Christianity and your book. Absolutely none. But this is a pointless question. I can tell you that I firmly believe that the privileged position given to Christians of your theological persuasion in this country should end, and that the Union would be far better for it.
The question in #483 about continued existence of the US without Christianity is not a pointless question. The question is about whether or not the United States will continue to be worth preserving. Without some unifying belief what is going to bind the US together?
Since you think the US would be better without the influence of Christianity, what belief do you think will unify the citizens of the US?
Said differently, what makes you think that “tolerance†and “diversity†are going to keep the “United†in United States?
Is there something the holds the secularist together? What is it? Are the secularists so in love with this country that they’d do anything to preserve it?
For a bit more illustration consider this fact about sexual behavior in the United States, and this is behavior on the streets of American cities not in the privacy of American bedrooms. There are numerous reports and photographs of men having sex with other men on the streets of American cities. (Google “southern decadence†or “Folsom Street Festival†for information supporting these reports.)
Exactly “what freedom†are these people expressing? In what founding document are the participants granted the right to commit perversion on the streets of the country?
Of course this is none of my business, and I certainly choose not to be involved. However, don’t ask me to accept a behavior by making me accept the most “in your face†demonstrations of this behavior.
I might be favorably inclined to consider the reports of studies suggesting a genetic cause of homosexuality, but I’m not favorably inclined to understand that this public behavior has a genetic cause. For me this behavior is more in line with the scripture in Isaiah that says – paraphrasing, “You parade your sin like Sodom.â€
Now allow me to phrase a question in a way that will draw out exactly how accepting you or I might really be of this deviant behavior.
Army drill sergeants use to wear a badge on their shirt pockets that read, “This we’ll preserve.â€
Would you serve in the armed forces of the United States to preserve this nation?
Would you serve in the armed forces of the United States and be willing to kill or to die so that two same gender people can marry, so that men can have sex with each other in the streets of American cities, and so that mothers can destroy their unborns?
Are you suggesting that you’ll be able to make me serve against my belief?
Are these behaviors and actions a necessary part of your USA?
You’d think if these behaviors and actions were so important to the founders that they would have explicitly allowed them. Or, do you think these are covered by the fourteenth amendment?
Conservative Christians know that their faith is bigger that the United States and that Christianity will go on regardless of what happens to the United States. Many Christians are already detaching themselves emotionally from any belief in the “goodness†of this county.
The privileged position enjoyed by Christianity is the same privilege position enjoyed by Christianity at the beginning of the nation. That’s what the questions about the influence of Christianity and the Bible were about in #483. The Constitution of the United States was written in the belief that the prevalent belief was and would continue to be Christianity and that a country with this belief was worth preserving.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:09 pmbitblt: It is pretty clear to me that you have a difficult time understanding anything that I am writing. I don’t think that this is a problem with my writing. Again, I think that this is due to the now pretty established pattern of your binary, all-or-nothing, extremist mindset. You seem to have an extremely difficult time understanding that on any particular issue there might be any possible position that doesn’t correspond to one of two polar opposites. I am not sure if this is inherent in your theology that you aren’t allowed to think in anything but binaries, or if this is just a personal quirk.
For example, you wrote:
What I actually wrote was the following:
See the difference? In other words, I am not asking for an end to Christianity or Christians in this country. If I wrote that, please show me where. Give me the exact quotation. I think that this is really just something that you are projecting.
What I am asking for is something that is already in the Constitution: no state endorsement of a particular theology. Now, it is clear to me that you have a difficult time with that. For some reason you seem to think that we will all shrivel up and die without you “good Christians” using state power to tell us what to do. My own suspicion is that what you are really afraid of is the possibility that your religion will start to run aground if you can’t use the state to push it on others.
Another point that you raise is that gay people have sex in public. Well, straight people have sex in public, too, and statistically speaking it is far more likely. I personally have seen that more often than I have seen gay people having sex in public.
It is illegal for both. This is perfectly consistent with the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. If it were legal for gays but not for straights, that would be something that I would object to. If it were legal for straights but not for gays, that would also be something that I object to.
I guess the point of your trying to bring up public sex in a topic about marriage is lost on me, and for good reason: it is a huge stretch. Are you really going to try to convince me that the impulse to have sex in public is something that only gay people have? Or are you trying to convince me that having sex in public is the same thing as marriage? Are you saying that people who have been arrested for having sex in public shouldn’t be allowed to get married? Or are you saying that people who might have sex in public shouldn’t be allowed to marry? How would you figure that out? Or perhaps you are saying that its perfectly fine for straight people to have sex in public, but not gay people? Are you trying to make the argument that if you are allowed to marry you can have sex in public?
Your attempt at using logic here just doesn’t stand up and is actually something that is kind of strange.
If Christianity is the only thing holding this country together, and the only thing that can motivate people to defend the country, then are you suggesting that Jews can’t be Americans? That Hindus and Muslims can’t be Americans? That atheists can’t be Americans? Are you asking that all people who don’t share your particular theological persuasion should be stripped of their citizenship? Or are you suggesting that the first amendment doesn’t apply to everybody — that it really is just a special thing for people who accept your theology? Implicit in your argument here is a “yes” to all of those questions. My answer would be this: if you don’t support something as basic as the First Amendment, then I think that you are the one who is anti-American.
Now, this sounds like a pretty utilitarian view of religion to me. Are you suggesting that Christianity is such a useful myth that our country can’t survive without your particular version of it being forced on others? Is that really why we need it? Sort of like George Washington and the cherry tree — a useful myth to get people to behave certain ways? Wow, what a pessimistic view of your own faith.
As for the military question: sure, I will defend my country as called. What I will not defend is a theocracy. What I will not defend is the possibility that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation be written into the Constitution.
I expect that as our society advances bigotry based on superstition will gradually go away. History so far supports me on this, and I believe that it will continue to do so.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:59 pmTHERE WILL BE NO FAG MARRIAGE IN AMERICA!!
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:44 pmIs Madonna really adopting a kid from China? I heard she is looking for a kid who lost it’s parents to aids. If that is true, that is pretty awesome of her!
October 9th, 2006 at 2:36 amKing Kong was awesome, especially the 15 minute crazy battle with Kong and the dinosaurs. And Jack Black really did a good job as a semi normal character.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:57 amThe Constitutional Convention was originally meant to be the main way to amend the Constitution. Giving the amendment proposing process only to the National government is very dangerous, especially when the problem is the National Government.
If you ever complained about the National Government being out of control or unaccountable, then you should be a Convention support. It is the only way to keep it accountable.
For more info on the subject click here.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:31 pmIt seems that there are lots of opinions being voiced about many issues, the one I will weigh in on is the constitutional convention, but not for the gay marriage issue. let the states take care of that issue.
The reason we need one is to take our country back from the big business barons. They’ve “bought” congress and the president with their billions and billions to finance state and federal elections for the last 50 or more years. It does not matter about the political party in power. You may have vote for the person, but you had no choice on who ran. Big money made that decision. We need “clean elections” in local, state, and federal elections. That means public funds pays for the elections, not big business, drug cartels, and foreign nations. There are several things that needs fixing in our constitution. Campaign financing, term limits, federal judges life time tenure, change the income tax to other forms, so that everone pays a fair share of the tax load., en equal rights amendment, elect president by popular vote, allow qualifying minority political parties to feild canidates for any office and have equal standing on all ballots, There are other issues to be developed. But, it is not to destroy the constitution, but to correct some of its flaws. its a great document, but it can be improved on.
3wheeler
December 9th, 2006 at 12:29 pm