Tony Perkins Claims Gay Marriage Ban Is ‘Totally Different’ Than Interracial Marriage Ban
Tony Perkins Claims Gay Marriage Ban Is ‘Totally Different’ Than Interracial Marriage Ban
Last night on CNN, Dan Savage, a gay activist and writer who has written about marriage and his adopted son, debated gay marriage with Tony Perkins, head of the right-wing Family Research Council. After Perkins blasted the California Supreme Court for declaring that gay couples had a constitutional right to marry, Savage brought up the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, which found that interracial couples had a constitutional right to marry and struck down the bans that still existed in 16 states. Perkins declared it a “red herring” and said the issue of gay marriage was “totally different” than interracial marriage:
PERKINS: If you want to change the law, instead of using the courts to redefine marriage.
SAVAGE: So Loving v. Virginia, when the courts declared interracial marriage to be a constitutional right in the teeth of popular support, which was against interracial marriage at the time–
PERKINS: Dan, you know that is a red herring. That is absolutely a red herring.
SAVAGE: It is not a red herring. [...]
PERKINS: You try to compare this to interracial marriage. It is not the same thing. There were extra provisions put that would prohibit people that were man and woman to marry. This is redefining marriage. It’s a totally different issue.
Watch it:
Gay marriage bans are strikingly similar to interracial marriage bans: Both seek to forbid someone from marrying someone else solely because of who that person is. Both are fundamentally discriminatory laws — one discriminates on the basis of race, while the other discriminates on the basis of gender and of sexual orientation. In fact, just last Sunday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) said gay marriage bans were “the same” as “when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category.”
Finally, Perkins flatly denied that young people voted against Prop. 8: “It’s not a majority,” he said. According to CNN exit polls, an overwhelming majority — 67 percent — of 18-29 year-olds voted against stripping gay couples of their right to marry.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yes, “redefining.” As if this is just a argument about semantics here.
These people have no memory whatsoever. You could have asked anybody in the 50’s and they would tell you that marriage was “defined” as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. So we “redefined” it to exclude barriers based on race. So it’s the same thing then as now.
Also, Dan Savage is the shiznit.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:14 pmHey, anyone know what time bitblt is scheduled to show up on this thread?
I don’t want to miss him if it’s while I’m at lunch.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pmIt’s a totally different issue.
Indeed, confronting racists is totally different to confronting homophobes.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:22 pmToo bad Raptor Bait burnt himself out on the Palin thread below.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:23 pmTwo points:
1) Rights of minorities should never be subjected to majority votes.
2) Tony Perkins is a lower life form. Slimy garden slugs have greater value to society.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:23 pmHow long will we keep defining and judging people by how we’re different rather than by how we much we are all alike?
November 13th, 2008 at 12:27 pmAs the Savage would later say:
Burn.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:29 pmAll members of the NRA should be outraged that the majorities in some states took rights away from minorities. If members of the NRA are NOT outraged that a majority would be allowed to take away civil rights, they are hypocrits.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pmO.T.
Petition from people for the AMerican way
In the last few days, there have been a few reports that the Obama administration may not significantly change Bush administration intelligence policies. I take these reports with a grain of salt and I’m optimistic that President-elect Obama will deliver on his promises to restore the constitutional principles that have been trampled on these last eight years. But I also acknowledge that certain people in the intelligence policy discussions do not have the same commitment to Americans’ civil liberties.
We need to speak up!
Sign our petition right now bolstering President-elect Obama’s campaign commitments to restore constitutional rights and the rule of law.
http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=Bt7fa27V3HS5BLtpD0JXfA..
November 13th, 2008 at 12:36 pmGov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) said gay marriage bans were “the same” as “when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry.
– - I’d like to see psycho Tony Perkins call Aaahnold a girlie-man to his face.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:41 pmMy “wife and I have lived together for nearly 24 years , when we were getting married we took too long and the 100 dollar certificate from the state had expired 24 hours earlier .We decided it was not worth another 100 dollars in order to have include the state in our marriage.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pmThis should be a non issue , The gay community should invest their time in making sure they have all the legal rights of married heterosexual couples and leave the word ” marriage , to the Christian right .
Marriage is more than a word !
People like Perkins will never change their mind. They will believe what they believe until they die.
Which is the way societies move forward: Either people adapt to new facts, or they will be left behind by history, preaching to an ever-dwindling audience.
Perkins is clearly the latter kind.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pmTony Perkins, et al: Just another reason why religion is not part of my life.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pmWith that I must spend the day practicing my solo guitar repetoir to play at the local art gallery which is doing an artist of the month show for a lesbian painter who does abstracts and who I have promised to do music for .
November 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pmMostly jazz and classical but with a few progressive rock pieces ( Steve howe , King Crimson , Steve hacket ect. )
No kidding . bye .
I’d like to punch that sanctimonious arsehole right in the nose.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pmIt is my understanding that the Interacial Marriage ban is still technically “on the books” here in VA… It’s just crazy.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pmI think the great Wanda Sykes put it best when she said, “If you don’t believe in same sex marriage, then don’t marry somebody of the same sex.”
’nuff said.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pmSince gays and lesbians are born that way, denying them equal protection under the law: providing them with the protections of a state sponsored contract called marriage… is no different than denying nonChristians the right to marry (or short people, or plump people yadayada).
But religious zealots can’t abide that everybody doesn’t see things their way. They confuse the church sanctification of a union with the state contract.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:59 pmTony is an idiot and a bigot why do sites like this give him exposure?
November 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pmElBruce Says:
Also, Dan Savage is the shiznit.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
________
I love the piece he did on This American Life about his very devout Catholic mother trying to convince he and his partner to marry, and the objections they encountered from their six-year-old adopted son DJ who thought marriage was a type of cooties.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pmjohnfyounger Says:
——————————————————————————–
I think the great Wanda Sykes put it best when she said, “If you don’t believe in same sex marriage, then don’t marry somebody of the same sex.”
Sure, that’s easy for you to say. What about all of those closeted gay homophobic Republicans?
November 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pmTony Perkins is a compulsive liar, so it is no surprise to me that he won’t tell the truth about the percentage of young voters who cast their ballot against the ban.
The right-wing should take notice; their days are numbered. “Conservatives” as we know them today won’t exist in another generation. Social issues don’t have the same sway with younger people than they do with older people.
I wish that Dan Savage had demanded that Perkins explain exactly how same-sex marriage bans are any different from bans on interracial marriage. In both cases, the majority is using the ballot box to try to legitimize their bias. “Majority rules” is fine if we’re talking about tax policy or foreign policy or on what to name a new post office, but not when we’re talking about basic human and civil rights.
The SCOTUS has already established that what consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of the government’s business. Why is it hard for people to take the next step and realize that same-sex marriages are none of the government’s business nor is it the business of busybodies like the FRC.
Same-sex marriage neither breaks their back or picks their pocket. Ask the good people of Massachusetts how little impact that same-sex marriage had on mixed-sex marriages.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pmPERKINS: You try to compare this to interracial marriage. It is not the same thing. There were extra provisions put that would prohibit people that were man and woman to marry.
_____________________________________________________________
Huh??? Am I missing something? What in the world does Tony mean by this comment? What “extra provisions” is he talking about? And since when have “man and woman” been prohibited from marrying?
If Tony wishes to convince me that banning gay marriage isn’t “the same” as banning interracial marriage, he’s going to have to come up with a coherent argument. Merely bleating “it’s not the same! it’s not the same! it’s not the same!” doesn’t cut it.
In the meantime, I can see plenty of parallels. And at the top of the list is the common prediction among the nay-sayers that “next we’ll have to allow people to marry animals!” — often blared during the debate about interracial marriage and now thrown by fear-mongers about gay marriage.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pmshoeless,
November 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pmwhy conflate all those categories? feel a need to react to Prop 8? Good, you should and I hope that you’ll do something other than bash conservatives in your pj’s.
There’s something about Perkins that tells me he is hiding something…..he’s either another closet case like Haggard or he has a stash of kiddy porn in his closet or on his computer. I have felt this way about him and Dobson since I first saw them.
Does anyone else have an uneasy feeling about these clowns?
November 13th, 2008 at 1:09 pmjohnfyounger Says:
why conflate all those categories? feel a need to react to Prop 8? Good, you should and I hope that you’ll do something other than bash conservatives in your pj’s.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
________
Hey shoeless – you might wanna check your closet. Apparently some of those homophobic Republicans are raiding your jammies!
November 13th, 2008 at 1:10 pm“The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:12 pm$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$540 billion: Annual U.S. Defense Budget.”
What if some group put up an initiative banning Mormons and Catholics from owning property? After all marriage is basically a property law.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pmhussein toasterhead,
November 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pmI am far from a Republican. I just find so much hate and lashing out here that it is ridiculous. I agree with you on the issue here 100%, but think that calling Tony Perkins bad names on a liberal blog dosen’t particularly effect him and is kind of kindergarten level stuff.
Dr. Hussein Matt,
November 13th, 2008 at 1:16 pmmore power to you for your contributions, but I doubt hateful namecalling was one of the blogosphere’s more powerful conributions. feels to me like the left wing compliment to Right Wing talk radio.
jb Says:
——————————————————————————–
What if some group put up an initiative banning Mormons and Catholics from owning property?
I think that is illegal in Alabama.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:17 pmJohnny,
November 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pmRead David Brock’s book Blinded By The Right. Washington is filthy with closeted gay homophobic Republicans.
johnfyounger Says:
I agree with you on the issue here 100%, but think that calling Tony Perkins bad names on a liberal blog dosen’t particularly effect him and is kind of kindergarten level stuff.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
_______
Your point being?
November 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pmjohnfyounger Says:
concerned?
November 13th, 2008 at 1:21 pmwhy the repeated use of Concern troll tag. I see a pattern, the blog calls attention to something, many of the commenter spew hate and anger, there is even more so if people call them on it, and we move on to the next post and chance to get a rise.
I am someone who agrees with you on the issue and do not accept the flurry of inappropriate and hateful comments that follow. Hate the game, not the playa.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:22 pmjohnny doesn’t think we have any business pointing out the hypocricy.
He thinks it’s childish.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:22 pmIt seems to me that marriage should be the purview of individual churches. Rights and legalities are the purview of the government. So if any church wants to offer marriage to gays then it is the governments responsibility to make sure that those citizens have all the rights and privileges that come with marriage. Any church not wanting to perform marriages for gays should have that freedom. Any church wanting to should also have that freedom.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pmjohnfyounger Says:
I agree with you on the issue here 100%, but think that calling Tony Perkins bad names on a liberal blog dosen’t particularly effect him and is kind of kindergarten level stuff.
You should hear the fart noises we make while calling him bad names.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:25 pmThat’s because we hate and despise the people who want to tell others how to live while they at the same time cannot even run their own lives.
We have been exposed to much hatred from the gop. It is their standard operating procedure. See lee attwater, kkkarl rove, sara palen, etc.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:26 pmno, I think you oversimplify and generalize. there have been plenty of prominent closeted republicans who have been exposed in recent years, but people started expanding this to Tony Perkins and all Republicans in general … craziness. If you want to see change in the near future, you are going to have to find ways to talk about it in an inclusive and not a punishing manner. what is see here is often little different than GWB’s “You’re either with us or against us” mantra.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pmHand in armpit is the kind of argument that these wing nuts understand. Ptttttttttttp.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pmI don’t know about anyone else, but I for one do not feel that I have the right to tell someone that they don’t have a particular right to do something simply because they are different from me.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:28 pmjohnfyounger Says:
why the repeated use of Concern troll tag. I see a pattern, the blog calls attention to something, many of the commenter spew hate and anger,
You cannot tell other people what to post, dude.
That is why you are earning the concern troll tag.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:28 pmIf you have a beef with someones post the address them directly or use the abuse flag. Dropping a blanket statement about all posters, attacking everyone here, unfairly at that, will just get you jumped on and get you labeled as a troll.
I thought conservatives were for the rights and responsibilities of the individual. Who would have thought they would be afraid that gays might out perform them at marriage and cause these same “conservatives” to abandon their principles?
November 13th, 2008 at 1:29 pmjohnfyounger Says:
——————————————————————————–
no, I think you oversimplify and generalize. there have been plenty of prominent closeted republicans who have been exposed in recent years, but people started expanding this to Tony Perkins and all Republicans in general … craziness.
No johnny, it’s not craziness. These sexually repressed closted gay homophobic Republicans are the crazies.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pmwayne, thanks for the explanation. and i apologize if I have overreached and offended people who are not spewing hateful comments.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pmTell ya what, johnfyounger – why don’t you go on over to Freeperville and call *them* on their hate spewing. Or maybe you could log in on RedState and let them know how you feel.
As for me, I don’t appreciate your sanctimonious finger-wagging, so you can take your wagging finger and shove it.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pmjohnfyounger Says:
no, I think you oversimplify and generalize.
Which is what you are doing by your own posts, whining about “everyone’s” posts.
Drop the crap and quit trying to derail the thread or I start flagging you myself.
Sheesh.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pmjohnfyounger Says:
If you’re not angry then you haven’t been paying attention the last 8 years and you must think that the public displays of bigotry and racism and gay bashing going on these days is just fine.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pmshoeless, I would agree that someone who is “closeted, gay, homophobic, and republican” is a crazy. do you have some broader point to make or ar eyou just stating the obvious?
November 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pmjohnfyounger Says:
——————————————————————————–
no, I think you oversimplify and generalize. there have been plenty of prominent closeted republicans who have been exposed in recent years, but people started expanding this to Tony Perkins and all Republicans in general … craziness. If you want to see change in the near future, you are going to have to find ways to talk about it in an inclusive and not a punishing manner. what is see here is often little different than GWB’s “You’re either with us or against us” mantra.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Funny how you want to claim progressives need to be more “inclusive” while ignoring those who loathe and spew lies about homosexuality , like Perkins , who claims to be speaking the word and commands of Jesus ; which were actually to not be exclusionary of anyone or any group ……That isn’t something those like Perkins have ever practiced or even preached.They are exactly like Chimpy and his “with us or against us” credo……
November 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pmdr hussein, I’ve apologized and your response is to call me :
“You f**king hypocrite scumbag. Eat sh*t….mine specifically. Just a few minutes ago you were expanding your “hateful comments” rant to all posters here … craziness. You’re a f**king reich-winger,”
impressive.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pmI hope that you’ll do something other than bash conservatives in your pj’s.
You gotta be very careful if you get conservatives in your pjs…try only to bach ‘em when they’re on you legs, beneath your knees. Much higher, and you could really hurt yourself…
November 13th, 2008 at 1:36 pmleftside annie,
November 13th, 2008 at 1:36 pmwe’re bad but there worse. If you don’t like it, why don’t you just leave you sanctimonious ass (#53)… is that a fair and accurate paraphrase of your response?
mcmetal,
November 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pmjust to clearly restate … Perkins is on the wrong side of this issue. I believe it is fair to equate him with someone who opposed interracial marriage in the past. Hope not to lose sigh of the importance of that.
No johnnhy, you just don’t get it. What we are doing is showing our indignation for dispicable acts. Why is that so hard to understand.
Should we do as you say and just be tolerant of that kind of behavior, screw that. They have to be called for their hatred or they will continue.
We are not singling out people just because we disagree with their politics, we are singling them out because of their hatful and discusting behavior…..
get them to quit being racists and gay bashers and spreading hate and vile throughout our country and maybe you can consider yourself to have done something constructive.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:42 pmPerkins deserves all the scorn he receives as do any who want to destroy our freedom. I thought this was the United States of America. Keep our laws out of the personal lives of the citizens. And that is a traditionally Conservative point of view. The GOP has become a Freak Show of hate and division. They should try standing up for the freedoms that made this country once great.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:45 pmFred,
November 13th, 2008 at 1:45 pmI’m not the one suggesting tolerance of bad behavior here …it seems to me that it is you that doesn’t understand.
johnfyounger Says:
——————————————————————————–
mcmetal,
just to clearly restate … Perkins is on the wrong side of this issue. I believe it is fair to equate him with someone who opposed interracial marriage in the past. Hope not to lose sigh of the importance of that.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Perkins is on the wrong side of every issue ; my anger and vehemence aimed at them is why they believe they have any right to keep spewing their lies and idiocy , and why the MSM continually gives them a platform to spew their litany of lies and stupid shit………..
November 13th, 2008 at 1:46 pmMcMetal,
November 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pmI also hope that voices such as Mr Perkins are much less prominent in the MSM (and currently disproportionate) in the future.
Perkins deserves to be kicked to the curb. Can’t he find something productive to do? A little time cleaning public toilets or picking up litter might give him some perspective.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pmThanks, Fred.
Johnfyounger: I said I don’t want you waving your sanctimonious finger in my face.
I thought I was being very clear on that score. Concern trolls like you always give the wingnuts a pass for their heinous behavior – and you’re always here, taking *us* to task for being angry over despicable behavior.
TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pmSo what do you suggest johnny? This aint sunday school. This is the adults talking about dealing with vermin and criminals…..we supposed to be nice to them, is that it?
Grow up, if someone hits you in the face do you say “dang fella, I wish you wouldn’t do that anymore”?
November 13th, 2008 at 1:50 pmIt’s worth mentioning that not even all Christian denominations agree on the definition of marriage. The Catholic Church, for example, defines marriage as the permanent union of a man and woman. That means that they don’t recognize second marriages. Protestants do recognize second marriages.
Should we codify by law which of these two competing definitions should stand? To implement the Catholic definition would amount to outlawing divorce. All Protestants who were married and had been previously divorced would therefore no longer gain the legal benefits and protection relating to their current “marriage.”
But by their own reasoning that doesn’t count as taking their rights away, because it’s just enforcing the most traditional definition that already exists.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:51 pmFred and Annie,
November 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pmI think anger clouds your ability to read what I am saying. I think Tony Perkins words deserve a strong response. I apologize for my overreaching, but am also dismayed at the amount of name calling and overgeneralizing towards Republicans that goes on here. While it is not universally the case, too much of the comments here is ranting gibberish about “gay republicans” and so on. substitute the issue and “commie liberals” and this could just as easily be the Rush Limbough hour or whatever.
we are the anti rush crowd…..I thought you understood that. The difference is we tell the truth about the people we attack not lies as rush et al does.
Additionally, you won’t change things here, you will just make yourself unwelcome. People have a lot of anger and this is at least a safe way for those people to vent……get over it.
Progressives get angry too, we are human. conserviatives do vile things, they are not really what I consider a modern human.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:02 pmand that (below) would be why you are part of the problem.
Fred says “Progressives get angry too, we are human. conserviatives do vile things, they are not really what I consider a modern human.”
November 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pmjohnny,
November 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pmSince you didn’t get my point, allow me to explain. Anyone who is as obsessed with the existance of homosexuals as is Tony Perkins or any other homophobe, well let’s just say, me thinks they doth protest too much.
johnfyounger Says:
[I] am also dismayed at the amount of name calling and overgeneralizing towards Republicans that goes on here.
Here, Johny. Take a quick look at this definition: Concern troll.
Seriously, if you don’t like the tonic of the conversation here, by all means, feel free to leave.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pmIt should be every Patriotic Citizen’s responsibility to call “bull$hit” every time one of these wing nuts starts spouting their lies and hate.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:07 pmGregor,
November 13th, 2008 at 2:08 pmI’m close to that … because evidently dissent is not tolerable in this echo chamber.
johnfyounger Says:
evidently dissent is not tolerable in this echo chamber.
In case it’s hasn’t been said enough times already: It’s not the dissent, it’s the trying to tell others what to do.
Are you related to Perkins, perhaps?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:10 pmI actually agree.. they ARE different. Same sex couple can’t procreate. Interracial couples are able to procreate. As simple as that.
The right to marriage? Remember, just because they love each other does not mean they have the right to marriage. I love my mother and sisters… in some states.. some wackos might want to marry their sister… and they love each other… the state does not have to marry them.. do they?
They do have almost every single right already according to my lawyers in California… except to call themselves married. And at the wedding, the minister (or whomever) cannot say “by the powers..bla bla bla by the state of California”
Soo, I agree with the “totally different” comment… legally , morally and ethically.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pmPerkins is called a Conservative, but his views are much too radical to be truly conservative.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pmDamn, I saw checked in and saw the thread count jumped, so I figgered Daryll was back with more of his RaptureReady comedy stylings.
Imagine my disappointment when I discovered that it was all due to someone getting called out as a concern troll.
(sigh)
November 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pmand BTW: I do not hate gays. I love my family very much. I have 6 cousins who are gay and an uncle.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:13 pmjb Says:
——————————————————————————–
Perkins is called a Conservative, but his views are much too radical to be truly conservative.
That’s true. Perkins should just be called a Republican.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:13 pmMuchoPR Says:
Same sex couple can’t procreate.
Many heterosexual couples can’t procreate either, hence the existence of fertility clinics.
Should the marriage of infertile people be banned, too?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:13 pmIs Tony Perkins gay?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pmjohnfyounger Says:
While it is not universally the case, too much of the comments here is ranting gibberish about “gay republicans” and so on. substitute the issue and “commie liberals” and this could just as easily be the Rush Limbough hour or whatever.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
_______
Except for one thing – when we say “gay republicans,” we don’t mean those words as an epithet, as Limbaugh does with “commie liberals.” We’re simply referring to the self-hating gays like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard who preach/legislate one thing and practice another.
And if it sounds like we’re angry, we are. It’s 2008 already, and it’s absolutely ludcrious that we still need to have a public debate in this country over whether homosexuality is icky or not. We’re sick of conservatives continually pandering to the uneducated, ignorant, lowest-common-denominator, knee-jerk bigot vote every election with the same old “Gays and Abortions” bullshit. We’re outraged at the fact that Tony Perkins and James Dobson and Gary Bauer and all of those other pseudo-Christian schmucks continue to have a place in the public sphere after all the hatred they have helped to generate.
If insulting them is juvenile or kindergartenish, that’s just fine by me.
Now you’ll have to excuse me while I put my crayons away and head off to snacktime.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:15 pm“Many heterosexual couples can’t procreate either, hence the existence of fertility clinics. ”
Different subject… MANY is one thing… NONE is another.. do you know of ANY homosexual couple that can procreate?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:15 pmSure, the government will perform fertility tests on all couples before issuing a marriage license.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pmapparently I am being silenced as my previous comment is being held for moderation. nice.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm.
This anti-marriage rhetoric is simple intolerance and bigotry.
Historically, minorities have been “allowed” equal rights, just not the same rights as the majority. Historically, this did happen with black Americans. LESS THAN but EQUAL.
This is the context that Perkins and his ilk fail to understand and why is this? Because their bigoted views are controlling the argument that same sex couples should be treated equal but not given the same legal recognition. Same but equal. Tony and friends perpetuate the meme. And we all know that these scum never see throwing mud, crap, and stones as their way of life when they do it.
Freeman,
When you get back and read this, please think about this:
Since your marriage licence is valid, is it legal? Are other states required to recognize this document if it is invalid? Does your wife have legal rights should you become incapacitated or is hospitalized or dead? What then, is her legal “PROTECTION” of your estate? Your children?
Yes, marriage is just a word, but please recognize that the word marriage is also a legal recognition that is shared with all 50 States, not just a state of mind. While you may feel married to your wife and may have had a ceremony, without a legal document, yours and her Rights are severely hampered, if not protected or, in some cases, nonexistent.
If you don’t want a marriage license yet seek the same protections that 100 license provided you and your wife and “FAMILY” you then should seek legal protections through wills and custody documents, some of which can cost more than the simple 100 dollars afforded to you and your wife. The same cheep and inexpensive protection provided ONLY for straight couples, excluding the gay population all together.
Sure, gay couples can get legal ownership and custodian documents. However, besides being prohibitive to many gay couples, the social stigma against gays, regardless of legal documentation is such that gays are offered little legal protections and considerations. Currently, many emergency rooms can demand that you “PROVE” your legal custody rights to your same sex spouse if you’re having to make life and death decisions, whereas with husband/wife, just flash an drivers license and sign here is good enough.
This is why fighting for EQUAL PROTECTIONS under the law regarding marriage is the up most important. While you, freeman, may have had a choice and still do, to not get a marriage license for a pittance, at least you are “AFFORDED” that choice… NO? Because not all state recognize “SAME-SEX” partner or “DOMESTIC PARTNER” relationships as having legal rights, it is far more difficult mountain to climb to get “DOMESTIC PARTNERS” legally recognized in all 50 States AND then get a Federal law passed requiring ALL 50 States to recognize these “DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS” as legal across borders. Currently, marriage laws already provide this “EQUALITY”.
.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:18 pmNot to mention that conflating procreation and marriage is simplistic: The goal of marriage is not exclusively procreation.
Also, equating same-sex marriage to incest is really having no notion of what this conversations is about.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pmMuchoPR Says:
Different subject… MANY is one thing… NONE is another..
You brought up procreation. It doesn’t matter how many, if the goal of marriage is procreation.
It’s the same subject.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pmNo it’s not. If you base marriage on the ability to procreate then many or any is just as valid as none…….try again.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pm“Gregor Samsa Says:
Not to mention that conflating procreation and marriage is simplistic: The goal of marriage is not exclusively procreation.
Also, equating same-sex marriage to incest is really having no notion of what this conversations is about.”
Then of course… you don’t believe, or understand, a word of what the Bible has to say about it. I do.
Getting back to work now… nice chatting with all of you!
November 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pmMuchoPR Says:
Different subject… MANY is one thing… NONE is another.. do you know of ANY homosexual couple that can procreate?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
_______
Sure, plenty.
What does “procreate” mean, exactly? Is it simply the physical act of fertilizing an egg during intercourse? Cause there are plenty of heterosexual NON-couples who do that all the time, with no intention of actually raising that child.
Or does “procreate” mean all that other stuff that happens after the child is born – diaper changes and baths and feedings and teaching the child to talk and helping him take his first steps and reading to her at bedtime and teaching him values and raising her to be a good, kind, and loving human being. I know PLENTY of homosexual couples who are more than capable of that kind of “procreation.”
November 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pmjohnfyounger Says:
now what johnny, the inevitable whining. You are just proving everyones case against you.
Why don’t you try playing with the other kids instead of coming to me whining that they won’t play the way you want them to.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pmOops,
Edit option would be my friend…
… When I wrote “Same but equal.” I meant “Less than but equal”
… When I wrote “Since your marriage licence is valid, is it legal?” I meant “Since your marriage licence is invalid, is it legal?”
… When I wrote “if not protected or…” I meant “if not unprotected or…”
.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:24 pmProcreate is one thing… raising a family is another totally different thing…. not the issue at hand.
Wow.. you guys keep me busy here.. and I need to get back to work. :)
November 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pmMuchoPR Says:
Then of course… you don’t believe, or understand, a word of what the Bible has to say about it. I do.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
______
The Bible also says I can beat my wife as much as I want as long as I don’t kill her, and I can get one of my slaves pregnant as long as she’s from an inferior tribe.
What’s your point?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pmMuchoPR Says:
Then of course… you don’t believe, or understand, a word of what the Bible has to say about it. I do.
Ah, an American Talibaner.
I have no use for the Bible since I don’t believe a word in it. Not to mention that it says many things about many different subjects -a lot of them factually incorrect.
In case you missed this tidbit during your civics class: The US is a democracy not a theocracy.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pmMuchoPR Says:
Procreate is one thing… raising a family is another totally different thing…. not the issue at hand.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
_______
Right. The important thing is that there are more babies. It doesn’t matter if they have a good life or an education or loving parents or any of that frou-frou stuff. MAKE MORE BABIES!
November 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pmMuchoPR babbles:
Procreate is one thing… raising a family is another totally different thing…. not the issue at hand.
Maybe you’ve already forgotten what you wrote. let me remind you:
“Same sex couple can’t procreate. Interracial couples are able to procreate. As simple as that.”
See? You made procreation the issue. Same-sex couples are capable plenty of raising a family.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pmDear MuchoPR,
Can I call you Darryll?
Anyhoo…
I’ve know hetero couples to NOT procreate, should their marriage be null and void?
Is the intent of procreation to be a prerequisite to marriage, then, Mr Goebbels? What’s next, genetic DNA testing for abnormalities?
I’ve known many the single mother to procreate and not get married? Should she then be forced to get married against her will just to satisfy the mandate you suggest that procreation and marriage are mutually exclusive?
I’ve known many hetero couples who chose to adopt instead of procreate, should their marriage be voided because they chose to not fulfil their quotient of procreation?
.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pmI just filled out my employee benefits elections for 2009, and as I looked through the benefits book, I noticed something I hadn’t noticed before.
My company allows an employee to get medical benefits for a same-sex partner. There are some rigid criteria to meet to be considered a “partner”, but if a couple has been together for more than a year and neither party is married to anyone else, and they declare they are a committed couple, they’re OK for benefits (if they live in a state where gay marriage or civil union is legal, I believe they have to be joined legally, just as a straight couple has to be married).
HOWEVER –
A same-sex partner must pay taxes on any benefits he/she receives from our company through his/her employed partner, but a heterosexual spouse of an employee does not.
This isn’t because my company wants to stick it to gays, it’s because of federal tax law. Even if a gay couple has been legally married or civil united in states that allow it, they aren’t recognized by the feds.
We still have a long way to go before gays enjoy the same perqs the straights do.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pmSo, MuchoPR, how about all those couples who unable, or unwilling, to procreate? Should there be a constitutional amendment banning those marriages, too?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pmWhen ya got nothin’, fall back on the “marriage is for procreation” argument.
I guess it hasn’t been noticed that procreation takes place whether or not marriage is present, and marriage takes place where procreation is not a factor — ya know, old people and infertile people, or simply those who do not want children.
Tony Perkins’ closet full of skeletons have skeletons.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pmHere’s the link:
November 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pmhttp://www.sgmlaw.com/en/about/Halpernv.CanadaAttorneyGeneral.cfm
#83 MuchoPR Says:
And yet you are satisfied that they are not allowed to get married should they choose to? Really? You love them? Really? Since when does self righteousness trump love? Would you prefer they stay miserable and suffer under your restrictions and narrow minded definition about “LOVE” and “MARRIAGE” so that you can stay righteously indignant?
… Really? Love?
.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:35 pmZooey Says:
Tony Perkins’ closet full of skeletons have skeletons.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
_______
I think those are just spare parts for the skeletons already in his closet. You never know when you’ll need a backup femur or something.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pmMuchoPR loves his relatives, but not enough to grant them the possibility of living in a committed, loving relationship…
November 13th, 2008 at 2:41 pmmisshusseinmolly @105,
Exactly. This is why it is important to NOT let people attempt to make this about “DOMESTIC” partnerships. Federal law already provides protections for all 50 states under the term marriage. Currently, there is not a Federally mandated “DOMESTIC” partnership law mandating equal protections between ANY states.
Simply put, this is about the old adage…
… LESS THAN BUT EQUAL!
It’s bullsh!t oppression of a specified minority group being mandated and controlled by a bigoted majority. And it’s gonna take more than a march at some Mormon Church to change minds.
.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
johnfyounger Says:
Good, you should and I hope that you’ll do something other than bash conservatives in your pj’s.
A bunch of bloggers in their pjs took down the reich-wing movement in 4 short years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So true and for the most part did it with style and wit.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:47 pmMuchoPR Says:
Soo, I agree with the “totally different” comment… legally , morally and ethically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agree if you want it just isnt true. Every argument I have ever heard against gay marriage is a retread of the arguments used to support miscegenation laws. Whether or not a couple can reproduce has ZERO to do with marriage or 60 year olds would not be allowed. All your arguments were specious and frankly dumb. Homsexuality is NOT inscest nor anything like it. Comparing it to inscest is pure bigotry. The moral and ethical differences you see are in your mind and dont exist in ACTUAL reality.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:52 pmMax-1 Says:
It’s bullsh!t oppression of a specified minority group being mandated and controlled by a bigoted majority. And it’s gonna take more than a march at some Mormon Church to change minds.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
_________
Ultimately, it’ll take a lot of old bigots dying and being replaced by a younger, more open-minded generation. However, it’s up to us to make sure the old bigots don’t poison the young people with indoctrinated hate before they go.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pmGregor Samsa Says:
——————————————————————————–
So, MuchoPR, how about all those couples who unable, or unwilling, to procreate? Should there be a constitutional amendment banning those marriages, too?
As usual, the homophobes head for the hills when that question arises.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:58 pmNot strictly on topic, but please help out your gay and lesbian friends and neighbors by not going to movies at Cinemark theaters. The CEO of the Dallas-based chain contributed $9,999.99 to Prop 8 in California. (Presumably an even $10,000 would have triggered some sort of tax or reporting problem for him.) His name is Alan Stock. You can even let them know what you think at 972-665-1000 or 214-696-1644.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pmThanks.
So, MuchoPR – I’m past menopause. *I* cannot procreate.
By your logic, I should not be allowed to marry.
What do you have against old ladies…? We deserve to marry!!
I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!!
November 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pmMuchoPR Says:
Then of course… you don’t believe, or understand, a word of what the Bible has to say about it. I do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No you dont. You just THINK you do. Even IF true it is irrelevant our laws are in no way based on the bible. Your brainwashed spew does not define reality
November 13th, 2008 at 3:23 pmUltimately, I have yet to see a single cogent argument that supports the notion that one couple’s gay marriage affect, in any way whatsoever, another couple’s “traditional” marriage.
FOF’s Spriggs was on Shuster last night and did not answer that question from David.
http://tips-q.com
November 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pmMuchoPR Says:
And exactly how does that operate to support a gay marriage ban? Older couples marry. Infertile people marry. People who choose not to have children marry. The argument is based on the non sequiturs that a) traditional marriage is necessary to continue to populate the planet and; b) that gays cannot procreate thus they recruit.
Since gay marriage does not limit traditional marriage (except for the shams) there is no decrease in procreation.
Gay people cannot “recruit.” Children’s sexual orientation is involuntary and formed before they can walk.
http://tips-q.com
November 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pmbitblt Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hey RTWL!
johnfyounger Says:
I think the great Wanda Sykes put it best when she said, “If you don’t believe in same sex marriage, then don’t marry somebody of the same sex.”
’nuff said.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
There’s a fine cartoon showing the inevitable out come of this argument at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80848
for those of you who are genetically opposed to linking to WND bit ‘ll describe the cartoon:
Two men with “G a y” and “Marriage” on their cumberbunds are tossing their bouquet at a wedding. Two other guys, one with p e d o p h i l e s and the other with p o l y g a m i s ts on their cumberbunds, are reaching to catch the bouquet.
Yeah. This seems absurd to bit also. How can same-same gender marriage, so-called, lead to such government licensed practices as po ly ga my and ped o phi lia?
OTOH, bit might not be much of a judge in the area of absurdity, because he thinks the idea of same-same gender marriage, so-called, is absurd.
One of the problems for bit is that the argument above, and almost all arguments to justify same-same gender marriage, so-called, will apply equally well to other practices like… po ly ga my and pe do phi lia. If marriage isn’t between one man and one woman, then marriage will be between whomever, and whatever, the courts say it is.
That marriage was between a man and a woman was established long before there was ever a U.S. court.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:01 pmNovember 13th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Utter nonsense. You can only pretend that we are unable to differentiate between the legal conduct of consenting adults and something like pedophilia.
Again, I have yet to see a single cogent argument that supports the notion that one couple’s gay marriage affects, in any way whatsoever, another couple’s “traditional” marriage.
The search for arguments is simply to justify what some people believe is a scriptural prohibition. Practice your beliefs as you see fit but we are a secular society and you have no right to impose your religious beliefs on anyone else. My grandmother kept a kosher home. Bubbe never tried to make the consumption of pork illegal. She knew better – you don’t.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:08 pmOh, bitblt, do you really think linking to a cartoon (be it a drawing or an attempt at real reporting) from worldnutdaily is the way to make your argument here?
When bit tries to equate gay marriage with paedophilia, bit displays (again) his ignorance. The former is presumably a mature relationship between consenting adults. The latter is one of predation, between an adult and a child who is not yet sexually mature.
If bit can’t see the difference, then this failure says quite a lot about bit.
(As far as polygamy goes, ralph sees great similarities with gay marriage and, as all parties involved are presumably consenting adults, ralph would have no problem should the practice be legitimized.)
November 13th, 2008 at 4:10 pmOf course having an emotional interest in a same sex relationship is not the same as race issue, except that it is a personal happening that an individual doesn’t really have a choice. It is silly to say that it is a choice, when a persons happiness hormones are in control. It might be better identified as an accident of nature. Leave the effected people alone to do what-ever doesn’t harm anyone that is not in the same bed. As far a marriage – to them it is marriage, and they should have the same rights as anyone else. Bring religion in is simply dumb. There are literally thousands of gods and religions. It isn’t your affair.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
.
.
.
… do you really think linking to a cartoon …is the way to make your argument here?
.
.
.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Believe bit posted that the inevitable outcome of the argument was illustrated by the cartoon, and from your post it appears that you agree as far as the polygamy goes.
The arguments being used by same-same gender marriage, so-called, endorsers and promoters are the same arguments that can be used to make marriage mean anything.
Since most TP posters seems to think being a homosexual is the same as being black – essentially what the CA supreme court said – anyone, or any group, that wants to do something against nature will use the same argument.
Here’ an example of what bit is saying:
pdennany Says:
Of course having an emotional interest in a same sex relationship is not the same as race issue, except that it is a personal happening that an individual doesn’t really have a choice. It is silly to say that it is a choice, when a persons happiness hormones are in control. It might be better identified as an accident of nature. Leave the effected people alone to do what-ever doesn’t harm anyone that is not in the same bed. As far a marriage – to them it is marriage, and they should have the same rights as anyone else. Bring religion in is simply dumb. There are literally thousands of gods and religions. It isn’t your affair.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
…and here’s the famous horse story…
This gets worse that even polygamy and pedophilia. The Old Testament never says there is progression from one really bad thing to another really, really bad thing to another unbelievable, awfully bad thing in some sort of hierarchy of evil, but a progression of “badness” is shown in its accounts.
Which brings bit to the guy with the horse near Springfield, MO. bit believes the link went dead so this is from memory.
This guy wants to marry his horse, which probably makes little difference since he has his way with the horse whenever he wants. (For some of you it might be worth noting that the horse never complains.) But the guy really wants to marry his horse, and he uses the same reasoning used on TP to justify same-same gender marriage, so-called.
Who is it going to hurt if this guy marries his horse? You don’t believe in cross species marriage, so-called, don’t marry into a different species.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pmbit, I only read the horse thing and it struck me as completely luicrous horseshit. Did letting woman vote led to horses voting?
November 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pmralph notices that bit completely ignored ralph’s point that, while gay marriage (whether “so-called” or not) is presumably a relationship between consenting adults, neither pedophilia nor bestiality (that other favorite destination of the fabled “slippery slope” argument) meet this criterion.
bit’s silly expansionist argument relies on obscuring critical elements such as ability to consent in order to reach his reductio ad absurdum conclusion.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pmDavidHart Says:
.
.
.
Gay people cannot “recruit.” Children’s sexual orientation is involuntary and formed before they can walk.
http://tips-q.com
November 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
There are some numbers that bring this assertion into question.
The first number bit recalls is a study that said among young men who “came out early,” 2/3 of them had had an experience with an older man.
A survey done around the country showed that CA middle schoolers were 3 times as likely to have had “homosexual fellings” as other middle schoolers around the country.
bit draws no conclusion from these numbers other than your assertion could be based on many assumptions.
Believe your assertion is made on the assumption that homosexuals are born, not made, which may be accurate, but remains to be proven as far as bit is concerned.
Since it is the case that some homosexuals are un-made, then it would seems safe to assume that some are made.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pmWell, it might explain the results in Alaska…
November 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pmWhat is it with right-wingers obsessing about having sex with animals?
bitblt, I have a suggestion. Find a black man and tell him your thoughts equating sex with blacks and sex with horses. I’m sure he will enlighten you.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pmshoeless Says:
What is it with right-wingers obsessing about having sex with animals?
bitblt, I have a suggestion. Find a black man and tell him your thoughts equating sex with blacks and sex with horses. I’m sure he will enlighten you.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
What is it with right-wingers obsessing about having sex with animals?
Why did bit mention this? It’s on the Old Testament list of
November 13th, 2008 at 4:49 pmanother unbelievable, awfully bad thing.
I still wonder how reichwingers manage to make the logical (or illogical) leap from same-sex marriage, to paedophilia, to bestiality.
The first is between two consenting adults, the others are not.
The ploy to relate same-sex marriages to practices we all find repugnant, is obvious, transparent, and an absolute non-sequitur.
You might as well state that same-sex marriage will lead to the legalisation of, oh say, slavery.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pmTo bit when it was said the banning same-same gender marriage, so-called, was like miscegenation, we made an reductio ad absurdum conclusion.
If a society says marriage is whatever a court says it is, then expect to see a great deal of absurdity.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pmbit has seemingly adopted thess statistics as load-bearing pillars of his judgment that sexual preference is not inborn.
Yet ralph does not see the causal connection that bit implies. Both findings are easily explained in the context of an inborn choice (in the first case, a boy who was attracted to the same gender could easily be attracted to an older man; in the second, the culture in California may make the recognition and hence admission of such feelings more accessible for those youngsters than for those in less open-minded burgs).
ralph understands that bit remains unconvinced of the biological nature of sexual orientation, but ralph wonders if bit remembers when he made his choice of direction in that area. Was it a difficult choice for bit, ralph wonders.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pmThe first number bit recalls is a study that said among young men who “came out early,” 2/3 of them had had an experience with an older man.—–
bit’s been pushing this one for awhile yet bit fails to examine the methodology nor define older nor experience for that matter…
November 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pmHi bitblt:
November 13th, 2008 at 4:55 pmWould the same slippery slope logic apply to the 2nd amendment? Does not allowing individuals to possesss automatic weapons open the door to others wanting rocket launchers?
bitblt Says:
If a society says marriage is whatever a court says it is, then expect to see a great deal of absurdity.
Society has already let courts decide what marriage is.
It led to the “absurdity” of interracial marriage.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pmbitblt,
would it be fair to characterize your argument as: by expanding definition of marriage, then soon we’ll have to further expand it to allow pedophilia and polygamy?
if so, why? might I ask you to state your case as to how you equate these things?
November 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pmFor bit to reduce the argument to this, one can well understand bit’s prediction of “a great deal of absurdity”. The same argument can be made of any proposed law.
“If society says that murder is whatever a court says it is…”
“If society says that grand theft is whatever a court says it is…”
“If society says that mail fraud is whatever a court says it is…”
ralph is astonished that bit doesn’t recognize that in a civilization based on laws, the courts serve as arbiters of those laws and their applications. Thus, the laws mean whatever a court says they mean. This is the nature of an independent judiciary.
Of course, one must trust that the courts are staffed with competent jurists who have a thorough understanding of the law, and of the role law must play in a thriving society.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:59 pmWith all due respect, my friend, none of the right-wingers has been willing to deny your right to possess a rocket launcher.
I say go for it.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:01 pmDue to the slipperyness of the slope, I just hope bit doesn’t own a horse.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pmAnd I would like to have a link to that purported survey that showed California middle schoolers are 3 times as likely to be gay as students in other states.
Methinks bit is making stuff up. You are all shocked, I know.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pmralph would like to know what bitblt sees as the defining characteristic (legal or otherwise) that leads him to link prohibition of gay marriage to prohibition of pedophilia.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pmOr a goat.
Or even a good-sized dog.
Slippery slope indeed.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pmActually ralph, Tracy_5 has come around. Hope only has he not denied me, he has recently endorsed it. I am working on weaponized anthrax and just a pinch of small pox. The slippery slope is a magical thing…
November 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Or even a good-sized dog.
Well, in bit’s case, I suppose a hamster will do…
November 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pmHope ought to be Not. That was weird…
November 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pmdbadass, I’m a little surprised that T_5 shows that much consistency of thought. Perhaps the thought of a rocket launcher gets him aroused?
Anyway, you do our movement proud, Comrade. Imagine all the havoc we can wreak with this new “slippery slope” philosophy of yours!
November 13th, 2008 at 5:09 pmIndeed ralph, this has even more potential than my old why does the right suck so badly at media, entertainment, education, labor, and all the rest of the shit they are always whining is left leaning. They never like that invisible hand thing then…
November 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pmbitblt Says:
I guess your ignorance was inevitable on this thread. You are a bigot and a disgusting one at that. Homesexuality is NOT connected to pedophilia. They do NOT molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals do. The huge majority of molestation is done by heterosexuals. YOU are a moron. That kind of bigoted ignorant cartoon only appeals to the ignorant and the bigoted like YOU. Bit you are just disgusting. Your hatefilled ignorance does no one any good. Take your stupidity and your bigotry and shove them up your A$$
November 13th, 2008 at 5:20 pmbit: I have seen that “research” asserted by Cameron. He has been thoroughly discredited. Even Exodus, Int has removed all references with a disclaimer to that effect.
Nonsense. Even Spitzer has now said that the potential for harm is far greater than the possibility of actually changing sexual orientation. The published and peer reviewed research is pretty conclusive that sexual orientation is involuntary and not mutable – any more than “eye color.”
The scientific method dictates that the observations lead to the conclusions. The religious right starts with a conclusion based on scripture and then seeks – by selective observation – proforma “proof” of the conclusion.
This is how we end up with people arguing that the universe is 6,000 years old rather than 4.5 billion years and that sexual orientation is a choice.
By the way and speaking of junk science – here’s some of my own. Looking at this thread, Hart’s corollary applies:
November 13th, 2008 at 5:22 pmhttp://www.tips-q.com/content/harts-corollary-godwins-law
bitblt Says:
To bit when it was said the banning same-same gender marriage, so-called, was like miscegenation, we made an reductio ad absurdum conclusion.
If a society says marriage is whatever a court says it is, then expect to see a great deal of absurdity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As soon as I see your nick I expect absurdity and hatefilled bigotry all in a wash of ignorance. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy by definition. By this really stupid logic since Congress says you cant ingest drugs they will eventually say you cant ingest food. You are an ignorant bigoted moron bit it really is that simple
November 13th, 2008 at 5:24 pmEugene Debs-
Calling people ignorant bigoted morons for expressing their views … priceless. echo … echo …echo …
November 13th, 2008 at 5:29 pmTechnically I think Eugene Debs asked…
November 13th, 2008 at 5:31 pmwhat else are you supposed to say when morons express their ignorant bigoted views?
November 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pmDavidHart Says:
This is how we end up with people arguing that the universe is 6,000 years old rather than 4.5 billion years and that sexual orientation is a choice.
Even as the evidence mounts that bisexual and homosexual behavior is fairly common in nature.
I wonder at what point penguins, chimps, flamingos, etc. choose to become gay, and what prompts the choice. /sarc off
November 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pmjohnfyounger Says:
Calling people ignorant bigoted morons for expressing their views …
But what if the views are truly ignorant, moronic, and or bigoted?
What words do you suggest should be used to describe these views?
November 13th, 2008 at 5:37 pmjohnfyounger Says:
Eugene Debs-
Calling people ignorant bigoted morons for expressing their views … priceless. echo … echo …echo …
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Actually I called him a bigoted ignorant moron for ENDLESSLY repeating bigoted, ignorant, moronic opinions. Which is of course my opinion.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:52 pmThe OP is correct. I understand the frustration. I am not excusing it but people are calling us second class citizens. Of course, I have to read this crap every day to edit our news engine but it really constitutes a barrage of religious-based hatred.
I live in NYC and I’m on life’s back nine. None of this stuff really affects me directly. What really upsets me, though, is the message that society is sending to gay kids. They have enough self-esteem issues and they are bullied terribly. BTW, the religious right vigorously opposes all anti-bullying measures. What Perkins, Wildmon and Dobson are doing to those kids is disgraceful.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:52 pmI’d like to marry the NFL and then dump them for playing on Sunday and collect a whopping alimony payment!
November 13th, 2008 at 5:55 pmI wonder if the slope is so slippery that one day Narcissus will end up being married to Narcissus.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pm#80:
The goal of marriage is procreation?
Actually, the goal of any marriage is defined by its participants. I and my wife could, but do not intend to, procreate. We legally married for different purposes entirely. That’s my right.
It doesn’t matter if homosexuals can’t procreate, as it doesn’t matter that many heterosexual couples can’t procreate. The test shouldn’t be “do you belong to a category of couples that in many cases can produce healthy viable offspring, whether or not you specifically can? If not, you can’t get married.” That’s completely irrational.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:15 pmWell said, ElBruce.
Good luck getting bit or any of his cronies to recognize the validity you what you say, however.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:14 pm#154 johnfyounger,
If I call a rat a dirty filthy rat, does that make me one?
… Hardly.
Alls I know is that you’re defending a bigot’s ability to open his/her mouth and show off their ignorance. Interesting, NO?
November 13th, 2008 at 10:25 pmInterracial marriage and homo marriage bans ARE different things. There’s no justification for calling both equal, thereby insulting the contra homosexual marriage folks as racist-like.
I am quite neutral on the issue whether homos should be able to marry or not – my focus is on important issues instead.
I would choose a different form of legal partnership than marriage for homosexuals if I had to make a quick choice.
I have little to no respect for both ends of the spectrum; neither for those who are fiercely pro nor for those who are fiercely contra homosexual marriage.
I can see that homo and interracial marriages are completely different things, though.
Interracial marriage is completely included in the old and traditional understanding of marriage – it took racist segregation/Apartheid policies to keep interracial marriages off-limits.
Homosexual marriage does not fit to the old definition of marriage and I see no strong argument other than a minority’s “we want it” to allow it.
The government/legislative needs to set rules for a smooth and successful living in the society. I don’t see why homosexual marriages should be necessary when there’s the alternative of non-marriage legal partnerships.
See; there are some who want it and some who don’t. There’s no other really factual reason to call that legal partnership “marriage”, so why should it be added into law?
At the same time, why the effort to ban homo marriage in states where it was already legal?
There’s simply no good reason for investing so much attention and time into this issue.
So let’s go on and make the society and its economy and state sustainable instead of wasting our energy on irrelevant issues.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:40 amBtw – you want legal homosexual marriages?
OK, but then there’s absolutely no reason to prohibit polygamy any more.
Polygamy is actually higher on the list of questionably prohibited marriage forms than homosexual marriages in my opinion.
Remember; polygamy was tolerated even in the bible.
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/
November 14th, 2008 at 9:43 amThese people are obsessed with sex. I believe when it comes to gay relationships, they think it’s only about sex for the couple, and just cannot fathom the reality of two people of the same sex deeply loving and caring for each other. They just don’t think of it as love.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:40 amYou know what demographic voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8? Stupid people.
Meet a few of them here.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:58 pmOh, and shut up, Tony Perkins.