California ABC affiliate refuses to air ad promoting same-sex marriage.
By on Jan 21st, 2009 at 6:04 pm
California ABC affiliate refuses to air ad promoting same-sex marriage.
During the inauguration yesterday, Los Angeles ABC affiliate K-ABC refused to air an ad from GetToKnowUsFirst.org expressing the message, “Marriage promotes families. Support marriage equality.” The station claimed that the ad’s content was “too controversial [because] many families will be watching.” The rejected ad features two black men raising five children. Watch it:
The ad did play on CNN, ABC’s Good Morning America, NBC’s Today Show, and even Fox News.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
National Security
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The girl next door, college sweethearts, love at first sight, children and families.
Terrifying!!
Get over it, people.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:09 pmYour “liberal media” at work.
Farking eejits.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:13 pmGod forbid children should see two dads!!
But all those sleazy ads for erectile dysfunction are just peachy, eh?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pmHi bit
January 21st, 2009 at 6:15 pmCalifornia ABC affiliate refuses to air ad promoting same-sex marriage.»
– - I love it when people like Huckabee talk about Prop 8 being voted in, even in “liberal” California. I’m here to tell ya, I live in LA and that liberal majority is smaller than most people think.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:16 pmSo, what was KABC afraid of? That kids might see for themselves that their parents who oppose gay equality are wrong?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:18 pmOOOHHHH, that sure scared the bejeebus out of me! a loving family PRAYING before a meal at which the whole family is present. maybe that’s what the affiliate is worried about: many families will be watching and reminded what shitty families they have.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:18 pmThe only controversy was in ABC refusing to show an ad depicting the promotion of marriage and families. What a bunch of tools.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:19 pmYes, we want the world to continue to believe that gay people are evil sex fiends who live solely to prey on your children, destroy marriage and families, and spread “teh gay” like the plague. We certainly can’t support anything that might present a realistic picture and puncture the myth.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:25 pmWhat a surprise, a station manager thinking God has a Nielsen box!
Does this station carry Jerry Springer, Maury or Judge Judy in the afternoons? I want to know how far up the ladder this hypocrisy goes!
January 21st, 2009 at 6:25 pmBadmoodman Says
January 21st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
- – I love it when people like Huckabee talk about Prop 8 being voted in, even in “liberal” California. I’m here to tell ya, I live in LA and that liberal majority is smaller than most people think.
____________________________________________________________
I lived in California from 1979 to 1991. I voted in three presidential elections when I lived there. All three times the state went red.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:26 pmPerhaps its time for KABC to lose its right to use the PUBLIC’s air waves.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:28 pmDon’t show ‘teh gay’ but commerical after commerical promoting Viagra is just fine.
I know a cure, make is a spot about a gay couple raising kids and taking Viagra…
…nothing wrong with that now, is there?
Where’s Daryll, we have a thread with ‘teh gay’…his ‘gaydar’ must be broken.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:28 pmLeftside Annie Says
January 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
But all those sleazy ads for erectile dysfunction are just peachy, eh?
__________________________________________________________
Not to mention the beer ads (and ads for many other products) that let young men know that even if they look like Bill Gates, they can get laid if they use the product advertised, and that let young women know that there is nothing more important in the world for them than looking “hot” and sexually desirable.
Yeah — that’s really healthy for kids.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:30 pmDamn liberal media …
January 21st, 2009 at 6:31 pmSimply put, KABC and the idiots that run it do not want you and I to understand or know anything about GetToKnowUsFirst.org. They are not thinking clearly. Here’s why.
They have a public broadcast license. They are required to inform and support the local community for that license. That license comes up for renewal from time to time and we, the people of the US, can petition the FCC to revoke the license and hand it back to ALL of the people in this country.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:31 pmWhere’s Daryll, we have a thread with ‘teh gay’…his ‘gaydar’ must be broken.
Yesterday was the end of the world, as he knew it.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:35 pmFarewell, Rapture Boy.
Yes. God forbid families should see an ad featuring families.
.
Buckie Boy Says:
Where’s Daryll, we have a thread with ‘teh gay’…his ‘gaydar’ must be broken.
Last week he completely missed out on a thread that had the words “lesbian” and “train” in its original post. He’s not particularly consistent.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:40 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Leftside Annie Says
January 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
But all those sleazy ads for erectile dysfunction are just peachy, eh?
__________________________________________________________
Not to mention the beer ads (and ads for many other products) that let young men know that even if they look like Bill Gates, they can get laid if they use the product advertised, and that let young women know that there is nothing more important in the world for them than looking “hot” and sexually desirable.
Yeah — that’s really healthy for kids.
You’re telling me when a 28-34 year old male host, whom happened to look a lot like described above, on an MTV program quips that all of my sex is waiting for Miley Cyrus to turn 18…that we’re all pigs?! I think you two might have something!
January 21st, 2009 at 6:40 pmMay I take a moment to tell you all just how much I enjoy your sly humor, ready wit and truly intelligent comments…?
You guys rock!!
~ A
p.s. Nevar at 17, your comment made me laugh out loud.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:44 pmElBruce Says:
Yes. God forbid families should see an ad featuring families.
.
Buckie Boy Says:
Where’s Daryll, we have a thread with ‘teh gay’…his ‘gaydar’ must be broken.
Last week he completely missed out on a thread that had the words “lesbian” and “train” in its original post. He’s not particularly consistent.
Daryll must have gone to Alaska, to prepare himself…like his fellow prayer warrior brothers and sisters…for the end of days.
Either that or he’s really depressed Bush and Cheney are gone and he’s romancing that devil in a bottle.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:45 pmVery sweet, nice adverts.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:47 pmActually, just saw Darryl in the next thread down, beating off to the thought of indefinite detention. He is going to burn in hell for being such an unrepentant sinner.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:49 pmWhat is the matter with these fools. This is reality.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:49 pmBut “Girls Gone Wild” commercials are ok.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:50 pmWhat we need is a list of their major sponsors, and then we get a little boycott campaign going.
Only money talks.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:53 pmDaryll, I don’t give a shit what your bible says. I use bibles as kindling.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:56 pmonce again it makes no difference what the bible has to say. Since when has MA, VT, and Ct been moved westerly? What is the reference point? The prome meridian?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:56 pmAmazing! Fear trumps logic and rationale once again.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:57 pmOh, there he is…RupturedRectum….geeze sleeze, we thought you would be in your closet crying for months after Tuesday.
Guess your God meant Phuckabee is gonna be president elect in 2012 or something…fool.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:57 pmRapture-Aren’t you busy tending to your final days? Stupid boy, you can’t catch gay. Although the way you labor the point makes me think that you’re just too closeted with your “proclivities”
January 21st, 2009 at 6:59 pmAwwww, damn, Darryl, here you are – we thought your head had exploded.
Shoot.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:59 pmSometimes you liberals agitate me because you push your “do anything you want” agenda onto the American people.
That shyte is fun nee!!!
Do you know how stupid that reasoning is? Please take me through your “thinking” process.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:00 pmRaptureReady Says: Keep your rhetoric in the west.
Oooooh, now we’re going geographical… I guess the vertical take off thing isn’t going to well, now it’s lateral saints and sinners…
January 21st, 2009 at 7:00 pmLOL
RaptureReady Says:
Of course RupturedRetard would come by to spew his bigotry and ignorance. The BIBLE is not in any way the source of our law. YOUR bigotry and stupidity will also not be the basis for any laws. You hate and you are stupid. THAT is the basis for every post you make.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:02 pmawwwww c’mon rectal rapture, all that “trash” in your yard is empty lube bottles from when the racoons tipped over your trash after your last sausage-fest love party. you ain’t foolin’ no one, we followed the sanil trail to your front door.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:02 pmOnce again, same sex union is not biblically considered marriage.
No marrying in monkey suits while bungee jumping is biblically accepted.
come on now rap, you have to think before you type.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:03 pmGame of Life Says:
But “Girls Gone Wild” commercials are ok.
Drunk girls being recorded in a private party bus bedroom is as wholesome as suburban partner swap parties and teachers having romantic affairs with their students. But it’s okay…the student(s) in question would have been 18 in eight months!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:04 pmActually, Rapture, they are proving it is genetic, and since God is infallible, then He makes no mistakes. Ergo, to be gay is a natural part of God’s plan in nature. It is more likely, a test of the truth in your belief in forgiveness and compassion, a test you are miserably failing.
By the way, that King James version that you apparently thump like there is no tomorrow, was authorized by King James of England, a KNOWN HOMOSEXUAL.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:05 pmnow, we all know the only thing that ever needs to be said to rectal reapture regarding this issue is, “lucky, the united states is a secular nation therefore, what is said in the bible is not the law”
however, like the rest of you, i get a weird chill by egging on this assclown and watching him chase his tail.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:06 pmDarryl
ABC is a station that promotes family values?
Have you seen Desperate Housewives or Grey’s Anatomy?!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:06 pmYeah right.
Gated community = jail
January 21st, 2009 at 7:06 pmRaptureReady Says:
Your statement is correct. I cannot contract homosexuality, it is a personal choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Got any evidence this is true? Why no you couldnt possibly. Then again why am I asking for evidence. You dont care about evidence. Facts, reality, they mean nothing to you. Spewing your hate and stupidity is your only reason for posting. You are a sad and pathetic moron and your self loathing is pitiful
January 21st, 2009 at 7:07 pmRupturedRectum Says: I will assess the damage.
It’s a suggestion from your neighbors to get the fck out…they hate you.
Guess ole’ RR is reaping what he sows.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:07 pmironically enough, ole rectal rapture was acting as lispy graham’s main cheerleader on the other thread as his warm up lap a minute ago.
what gives?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:08 pmOnce again, same sex union is not biblically considered marriage. ABC is a station that represents family values. They did the right thing because most American families practice Christian beliefs.em>
ABC is Disney – which has a gay day at it’s amusement parks.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:08 pmRapture says: “Leave us alone”
We will when you go away.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:09 pmRaptureReady Says: My neighborhood (McLean area) is very secure.
McLean? as in Texas? That would explain everything…
Can you see the Groom, Texas cross from your porch?
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/1912
January 21st, 2009 at 7:09 pmI find the best parts of the bible are where the devil appears and tempts Jesus. It’s too bad Jesus was such a prude!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:10 pmI cannot contract homosexuality, it is a personal choice.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:10 pm–
Than why worry about it? Go keep yourself not being gay? I miss the Rio whores…
RaptureReady Says:
It is the truth. Many of you want to pressure us to join you in lobbying our legislators to legalize dope, gay marriage, allow gays in the military, eliminate Jesus from schools, ect. Leave us alone.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are a liar and a fool. Your posts are lies hate and stupidity. Why dont YOU mind your own bussiness and leave the rest of the world alone. I cant believe how stupid you are throwing a fit about what OTHERS do that doesnt effect you at all like getting married or joinging the military. You apparantly are putting YOUR nose in THEIR bussiness and then tell everyone to leave YOU alone. I suppose you mean leave you alone to push YOUR agenda of hate, stupidity, and bigotry. BITE ME.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:11 pmRaptureReady Says:
You will answer to God for your blasphemous behavior…blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
January 21st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
There is no god.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:12 pmOne more time, marriage is made for man and woman.
Biblically speaking, that’s man and women.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:12 pmRaptureReady Says:
One more time, marriage is made for man and woman. I will support same sex marriages, when two men/women are able to create a child. Until then, leave Americans alone about this issue.
Have you ever heard of medical science? Many straight couples have to conceive through the same means, bigot!
BTW…I’ve seen dogs, cats, etc. marry. They seem happy. God doesn’t spite them.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:12 pmRaptureReady Says:
One more time, marriage is made for man and woman. I will support same sex marriages, when two men/women are able to create a child. Until then, leave Americans alone about this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are an ignorant PUNK. It isnt YOUR CALL how to define marriage. YOU are not the decider. Just an ignorant hateful moron. By that logic a man couldnt marry a woman who couldnt procreate or visa versa. Your stupidity is monumental. You are a walking colostomy bag
January 21st, 2009 at 7:12 pmSOOOooooooo, Rectal rapture, according to your method of assessing marriage, infertile couples aren’t married?
“I will support same sex marriages, when two men/women are able to create a child. Until then, leave Americans alone about this issue.”
January 21st, 2009 at 7:14 pmBy saying that you are naturally gay, you are stating that God has failed to properly create you.
Ever heard of hermaphrodites? Did God think it a practical joke?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:14 pmRaptureReady Says:
By saying that you are naturally gay, you are stating that God has failed to properly create you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are also arrogant beyond belief. So you know the mind of GOD now? Why no you dont. You are an ignorant putz. YOU ARE NOT GOD. It isnt UP to you to decide whether God made a mistake. You are mistaking YOUR stupidity for evidence. In fact there is no such evidence. You are spewing your hate, stupidity and bigotry and pretending they make sense.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:16 pmIf a straight, infertile couple is lesser than a fertile couple in Darryl’s eyes than that is all we need to know about the church.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:16 pmRaptureReady Says: #31
Why do you promote the GOP? Is it because for years they have conned you into believing that they, and only they, can usher in the return of Jesus? Maybe that they are the only ones that know God’s intentions for humanity? Or could it be that they know how to manipulate tools such as yourself? You and many like you continue to support those sanctimonious fear mongers in the hope that they’ll deliver your Jesus and your rapture on a silver platter. It’s called pandering. They don’t give a shit about you, your beliefs, your wants, your needs, your life or your family. They only care about being in power long enough to manipulate you and your ilk for their own benefit. It’s your choice to be a fool and in this country you are free and clear to do so. Just keep your foolish actions to yourself. Once they interfere with my life you’ll swiftly encounter a dose of reality.
If you are a Christian as I’m sure you claim to be then you need to educate yourself as to what that term actually means. The term ‘Christian’ infers Christ-like, as in living one’s life in a Christ-like fashion according to the teachings and examples of Jesus. So far, to this day, you’ve exhibited none of those qualities. Which makes you a hypocrite. Look that one up.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:17 pmyou are stating that God has failed to properly create you.
—
Must have been the left over dirt? I suppose the gay woman came from the floating ribs? What a bunch of crap!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:17 pmEugeneDebs
Darryl knows all about God…or so he claims after the hallucinations inspired by that incense that he calls crack cocaine.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:18 pmsectionop92 Says:
If a straight, infertile couple is lesser than a fertile couple in Darryl’s eyes than that is all we need to know about the church.
So, D-man; can infertile couples engage in sex, without incurring God’s wrath? Or must they refrain, until they die?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:19 pmWhile there is some legitimate debate about why homosexual people are homosexual, it’s a 100% certainty that following a religion is a CHOICE of lifestyle. So, Daryll, why should that CHOICE deserve legal protection?
If homosexuality is not protected under the law? Then, using the freak’s own “logic”, religion should not be protected. I won’t rest until the aberrant lifestyle CHOICE of Christianity is removed from the public airwaves, courts, schools and other public venues.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:19 pmActually, the “Forbidden Texts” of the Bible hint that Jesus was not a prude. Also to be a Rabbi, he would have taken a wife. Even the most radical of Jewish sects believed that tenet.
And marriage was to attain more wealth and influence, rarely was there love matches. History will be your undoing, silly boy
January 21st, 2009 at 7:20 pmIt is the truth. Many of you want to pressure us to join you in lobbying our legislators to legalize dope, gay marriage, allow gays in the military, eliminate Jesus from schools, ect. Leave us alone.
Prescription drugs are the most widely abused drug. Your government is the biggest pusher. *hint* isn’t it your time to take yours?
What’s it to ya if people want to get married? How is that affecting you? Don’t force me to live your way? yuck! I don’t live in your hypocritical world.
Gays are in the military so you just sounding ignorant.
Your Jesus doesn’t want to go to your haggerty/dobson schools of the lies and whiteness.
Get off of this site. I haven’t seen one person mistakenly post a thought as yours. Try to think about that, phony.
Have you ever heard of CHOICE?
attention whore = repug logic
January 21st, 2009 at 7:20 pmRectal rapture knows so much about jeebus and god but, apparently missed the part of “judge not lest yea be judged”
January 21st, 2009 at 7:21 pmbarfly Says:
So, D-man; can infertile couples engage in sex, without incurring God’s wrath? Or must they refrain, until they die?
Two words: Ear sex.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:22 pmNo Zooey #68-there is a God, and SHE hates Rapture and his ilk because they blaspheme by stating that they are the only ones that can divine Her will
January 21st, 2009 at 7:22 pmAnd if procreation is the only reason to get married, then you are going to BAN old people from marrying? What about barren people?
Sex is for procreation. Period. If you cannot reproduce, you cannot have sex.
Right, D-bag?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:23 pmAnd every married man must periodically have his sperm count checked. If his count is too low, say hello to Mr. Hand.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:26 pmI find the tale of Noah’s Ark to be great…because all of the Daryll’s got wiped out in the flood!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:26 pmRaptureReady Says:
Sometimes you liberals agitate me because you push your “do anything you want” agenda onto the American people.
As opposed to telling them what they can and can’t do. How very… American of us.
.
RaptureReady Says:
You will answer to God for your blasphemous behavior.
Technically, blasphemy refers to placing one’s self as above God, for example judging others in His stead.
.
RaptureReady Says:
Your statement is correct. I cannot contract homosexuality, it is a personal choice.
So you chose to be straight? Could you imagine choosing otherwise?
.
RaptureReady Says:
It is the truth. Many of you want to pressure us to join you in lobbying our legislators to legalize dope, gay marriage, allow gays in the military, eliminate Jesus from schools, ect. Leave us alone.
By definition, you’re not leaving anyone else alone by trying to criminalize their behavior. Telling you to stop interfering with others’ choices does not consitute “pressuring you.” You don’t have a right under the 1st Amendment to restrict other peoples’ choices, just because you think God tells you to. And nobody’s picking on you by telling you to knock it off.
.
RaptureReady Says:
One more time, marriage is made for man and woman. I will support same sex marriages, when two men/women are able to create a child. Until then, leave Americans alone about this issue.
One more time, you’re the one not leaving them alone.
And why is the ability to procreate a prerequisite for marriage? Should people who can’t conceive be restricted from marrying as well? Should married couples be forced to bear children? How long would you give a marriage before annulling it if they don’t?
.
RaptureReady Says:
By saying that you are naturally gay, you are stating that God has failed to properly create you.
By judging God’s creation as “improperly created,” you are committing blasphemy.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:27 pmHas his head popped yet? ‘Smatter Rapture, no comment on the authorization of the King James Bible or are you still googling it?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:28 pmI guess it was time for D-bag’s daily scourging.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:29 pmI’ve asked TP to just ban RR. “Leave us alone.” he pleads. I know there are idiots out there, I don’t need to see it every time someone shows fear of gay people.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:30 pmthe Lone Voice of Reason
leave rectal rapture alone. getting his ass handed to him by us is sex to him. kinky, masochistic, depraved pleasure, yes. but by post 100, he has usually “shaken the devil free” all over his keyboard.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:30 pmthe Lone Voice of Reason Says:
Actually, Rapture, they are proving it is genetic, and since God is infallible, then He makes no mistakes. Ergo, to be gay is a natural part of God’s plan in nature. It is more likely, a test of the truth in your belief in forgiveness and compassion, a test you are miserably failing.
By the way, that King James version that you apparently thump like there is no tomorrow, was authorized by King James of England, a KNOWN HOMOSEXUAL.
It’s like when the repugs were calling coal clean. Then the damn broke and sludge was everywhere.
Another example of liberal media reporting.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:31 pmRaptureReady Says:
A woman using another individual’s sperm is not morally right.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Right. Women should always use our own sperm.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:32 pm“Also, the Bible does not recognize marriage between species.
”
Ironically enough, ruptured rectum, the same argument was used against “your people” by the southern baptists to legitimize slavery.
the same argument was also used to ensure “your people” could not marry outside their race.
Damn Bro, doncha know your own history?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:32 pmMr. Evil Says:
If you are a Christian as I’m sure you claim to be then you need to educate yourself as to what that term actually means. The term ‘Christian’ infers Christ-like, as in living one’s life in a Christ-like fashion according to the teachings and examples of Jesus.
raptureready is only concerned with homosexuality and other sex-related matters. He very rarely if ever offers opinions on anything else at all, particularly moral issues such as poverty, the environment, or war. He’s too busy ridding the world of buttsecks. Exclusively.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:33 pmOMG zooey, “Right. Women should always use our own sperm.”
that’s as funny as when you told d-bag you were “going to bind your breasts. I Love you Jesus” a few weeks ago.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:34 pmA woman using another individual’s sperm is not morally right.
The Pope has a different interpretation. Are you calling him unbiblical?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:34 pmBozo The Neoclown Says: #89
Bozo, I think you hit the proverbial nail right on the head. Or at least on the hands and feet.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:36 pmRaptureReady Says:
Incorrect. Man can marry woman, regardless of whether or not the couple can procreate.
But you said that the ability to procreate is the defining characteristic, so much so that you would support same-sex marriages if they could procreate.
So you said the opposite of what you’re saying.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pmBozo The Neoclown Says:
OMG zooey, “Right. Women should always use our own sperm.”
that’s as funny as when you told d-bag you were “going to bind your breasts. I Love you Jesus” a few weeks ago.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Thanks, Bozo. I aim to please. :D
January 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pmWe do not need men to procreate, they have found a way to alter the female ova to make it a sperm. You could quickly become obsolete if we wish to make it an issue. Breed up out of the shallow end of the gene pool, Rapture, or do a Darwin and die off.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pmZooey, you’re killing me! How the hell can I type when I’m laughing hysterically?!!!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:39 pmDaryll
I thought you and your kind were all for the “creation” of life? Why do you care where the sperm comes from if it’s frozen? It’s not like the procedure is sexual. If a infertile couple needs a surrogate mother, their baby is growing in another woman! Ever think these things through, so you’re not looking like you’re hating on anybody and everybody?!
God doesn’t hate, God loves. Isn’t that a Christian principle? Why does your church preach hate?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:40 pmI’m showing my daughter this stuff and we are just cracking up! This guy is just killing me and my kid thinks he must be joking.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:41 pmhey d-bag, here’s something that will REALLY blow yer little pea brain:
In the bible, polygamy is smiled upon however, in this country, it isn’t. what can you conclude, clown?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:41 pmRaptureReady Says:
One more time, marriage is made for man and woman. I will support same sex marriages, when two men/women are able to create a child. Until then, leave Americans alone about this issue.
I hope to hell they don’t clone yer ass.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:42 pmRaptureReady Says: Also, the Bible does not recognize marriage between species.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean marriage between separate species… otherwise we’re in trouble here…
January 21st, 2009 at 7:42 pmAnd don’t be jacking off, Rapture, there is a specific text about Tamar in the Bible that says that’s naughty and God will smite ya for it.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:42 pmMy bad, Mr Evil. I’ll aim in the other direction. ;)
January 21st, 2009 at 7:43 pmRaptureReady Says:
Incorrect. Man can marry woman, regardless of whether or not the couple can procreate.
But they cannot have sex, without fearing damnation.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:43 pmRaptureReady Says: “IF YOU CANNOT HAVE A CHILD WITH YOUR HUSBAND, ADOPT!!!! NO EXCUSES.”
so d-bag, if me and my lover go adopt a kid, you’ll recognise the marriage? afterall, he is my husband and we’re both dudes.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:44 pmAnd the repugs call President Obama too optimistic.
What makes you think everyone is born perfect–teehee– like you? Some people are born with brains ya know.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:44 pmSpeaking of “using someone else’s sperm…” I believe there’s a part in the bible where Abraham uses his wife’s handmaid’s vagina because his wife can’t conceive, and he wants him some chillen’. God didn’t seem to have a problem with that.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:45 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Evangelicals don’t believe in a loving god – they believe in a spiteful, vengeful and hateful God of the old testament. The early Judaic version of Yahweh that not even Jews ascribe to anymore except in the most Hasidic and zealot f**ed up groups!
Sounds like they just call God a shoehorn and stick is up their a$$es, to me at least.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:46 pmRaptureReady Says:
IF YOU CANNOT HAVE A CHILD WITH YOUR HUSBAND, ADOPT!!!! NO EXCUSES.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Dude, adoption is expensive — especially for those really good blond, blue-eyed babies.
My husband wasn’t up to the job, so the mail man and pizza delivery had to get the job done.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:46 pmThere’s all kinds of that “handmaiden” stuff in the Bible, especially about the 12 tribes of Israel. You guys have just got me laughing so hard I can’t put it on the site quick enough.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:47 pmI hope the Raptard hasn’t buggered off yet. I wanted to take another opportunity to tell the magic-believing freak:
I curse you.
I curse you in the name of every person unjustly slain.
I curse you in the name of every maimed child.
I curse you in the name of every mother who has watched her children die.
I curse you in the name of every orphaned child yet unborn.
I curse you in the name of every god and demon who has ever plagued mankind.
I curse you to be unforgiven by your savior, who preached forgiveness above all else.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:48 pmI curse you to the pain you wish upon those better than your miserable self.
I curse you to suffer the knowledge of your own, utter, wretchedness.
I curse you to feel the hate you project on others.
I curse you to die in agony: alone, unloved, forgotten.
I curse you to be buried in the filth of a thousand stables.
I curse you to the worst Hell you can conceive.
RaptureReady Says:
Your statement is correct. I cannot contract homosexuality, it is a personal choice.
HAHAHAHA
I never had to choose. Do you make a conscience choice?
*whistling*
January 21st, 2009 at 7:48 pmMy husband wasn’t up to the job, so the mail man and pizza delivery had to get the job done.
Zooey’s a damn good tipper…
January 21st, 2009 at 7:48 pmNot all sperm is looking for an egg? Some is looking for other sperm. That part of biology really intrigues me.
Hey Zooey, You do prefer pepperoni on your pizza, correct?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:49 pmmy god, y’all. we’re starting to sound like preachers at a tent revival up in here.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:49 pmBarfly–Zooey likes extra cheese? OMG I can’t take it, you’re killing me!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:50 pmthe Lone Voice of Reason Says:
And don’t be jacking off, Rapture, there is a specific text about Tamar in the Bible that says that’s naughty and God will smite ya for it.
I think it was Onan, actually.
.
Zooey Says:
Dude, adoption is expensive — especially for those really good blond, blue-eyed babies.
My husband wasn’t up to the job, so the mail man and pizza delivery had to get the job done.
I think I used to deliver pizza in your neighborhood. Good tipper.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:51 pmDaryll
How much adultery goes on at the spaghetti dinners or coffee and donuts at your church? I know your kind has to give into some urges in the dark corners of the bingo hall or rec rooms.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:51 pmGOD DOES NOT FAIL!
—
January 21st, 2009 at 7:52 pmThose Hindu ones with the extra limbs seem to have an unfair advantage…
GOD DOES NOT FAIL!
Since he’s an inscrutable enigma, define “fail.”
January 21st, 2009 at 7:52 pmdbadass Says:
Hey Zooey, You do prefer pepperoni on your pizza, correct?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Pepperoni and extra cheese — be here in half an hour. ;)
January 21st, 2009 at 7:53 pmdbadass Says:
Not all sperm is looking for an egg? Some is looking for other sperm. That part of biology really intrigues me.
Hey Zooey, You do prefer pepperoni on your pizza, correct?
Load that thing up with sausage and onions!!! LMAO
January 21st, 2009 at 7:53 pmsectionop92 Says:
How much adultery goes on at the spaghetti dinners or coffee and donuts at your church? I know your kind has to give into some urges in the dark corners of the bingo hall or rec rooms.
The thing is when those people “transgress,” they have so much pent up sexual energy, and they think anything they might do is equally vile, so they end up doing some pretty freaky and often horrible stuff.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:54 pmElBruce Says:
I think I used to deliver pizza in your neighborhood. Good tipper.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Thanks for the baby. He was a keeper!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:54 pmIt reflects only one union between only one man and one woman?–better try again, Rapture, because no it doesn’t, you are just inferring it that way.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pmBozo The Neoclown Says:
my god, y’all. we’re starting to sound like preachers at a tent revival up in here.
That’s because many of us, unlike the typical Raptard, have read and comprehended the Buy-bull. As soon as one starts screeching about the inerrant “Word of God” one may assume that the screecher hasn’t a clue what’s in that particular moldy book.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pmThe New Testatment reflects marriage between a man and woman, not women.
But that’s not technically “the good book.”
Oh, you’re referring to the sequel. They’re always mess-up the story line in sequels.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:56 pmRaptureReady Says:
The New Testatment reflects marriage between a man and woman, not women.
Right, the part written by some Roman guys. So you get to pick which parts are in effect, and the other ones aren’t? Again, you’re putting yourself in the place of God here… blasphemer.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:56 pm“The New Testatment reflects marriage between a man and woman, not women”
along the same lines, rectal rapture, it’s the old testament, specifically leviticus that “condemns” homosexuality. that is, if you really want to play that game with me
January 21st, 2009 at 7:56 pmI pray that someone will get damned to hell. Come on Daryll, that was some of your best work.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:56 pmpete?
you curse then call something magical?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:56 pmElBruce Says:
The thing is when those people “transgress,” they have so much pent up sexual energy, and they think anything they might do is equally vile, so they end up doing some pretty freaky and often horrible stuff.
Yeah, there’s a reason why the wood in those bingo halls looks dirty but is slick and glossy.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:57 pmRaptureReady Says:
You cannot have a true family without a man and woman.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
F uck you, Daryll. I raised my men on my own and we are a FAMILY.
You burn in the hell of your own making every single day — and I laugh.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:57 pmRaptureReady Says:
You cannot have a true family without a man and woman.
Yes, you can. There, I win.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:57 pmI rebuke your “emps” Rapture. Remember?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:58 pmWait a minute Zooey. I thought you just get knocked up so you can abort those things….
January 21st, 2009 at 7:58 pmNo, marriage is for man and woman. You cannot have a true family without a man and woman.
Still awaiting a RaptureRuling, regarding couples who cannot physically reproduce. Is their sexual coupling sinful?
Or not?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:58 pmGod is laughing his ass off at this thread!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:59 pmWait, does God have an ass?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:59 pmI’m off, folks — and I’m leaving, too. ;)
Have fun beating up punk-assed Daryll.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:59 pmWhy are you slow to post, Daryll?
Are you finally being anointed into the realm of hedonistic delights?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:01 pmGame of Life Says:
pete?
you curse then call something magical?
Just putting my thoughts into a form the moron might be able to understand. The ol’ Raptard doesn’t seem to care that thinking humans think he’s a vile, malformed, creature devoid of redeeming qualities.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:02 pmmy god, y’all. we’re starting to sound like preachers at a tent revival up in here.
“A preachment, dear friends, you are about to receive
on John Barleycorn, nicotine, and the temptations of Eve”
(Bronx cheer)
No parkin’ by the sewer sign
Hot dog, my razor’s broke
Water drippin’ up the spout
But I don’t care, let it all hang out
Hangin’ from a pine tree by my knees
Sun is shinin’ through the shade
Nobody knows what it’s all about,
It’s too much, man, let it all hang out
Saw a man walkin’ upside down
My T.V.’s on the blink
Made Galileo look like a Boy Scout
Sorry ’bout that, let it all hang out
Sleep all day, drive all night
Brain my numb, can’t stop now
For sure ain’t no doubt
Keep an open mind, let it all hang out
It’s rainin’ inside a big brown moon
How does that mess you baby up, leg
Eatin’ a Reuben sandwich with sauerkraut
Don’t stop now, baby, let it all hang out
Let it all hang out….
(The Hombres, Let It All Hang Out
January 21st, 2009 at 8:02 pmcirca 1970 or so…)
Council Of Nicea put that one man one woman idea on the table four hundred years after Jesus when they decided what was and what was not to be allowed in the Bible, based on the teachings of “Saint” Augustine, because he couldn’t make all the stories jive up together. And mostly it was because the first born male was the one who got all the goodies from dear old dad and they were afraid that there wouldn’t be enough women left for everyone else.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:02 pmRapture says: Biblically, natural procreation is recommended for each married man and woman (If feasible). If not, there is adoption.
No more handmaidens?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:04 pmSince marriage comes from Roman law that defines a woman as a man’s property, I think we can dispense with the institution altogether.
Universal health care would probably make most of the issues that make gay marriage an issue go away. People could make their own contracts to cover other issues. Anyone who wants to have a ceremony in a church can find one that will accommodate them.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:04 pmRaptureReady Says: “If not, there is adoption.”
Does that have to be between similar species too?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:04 pmBiblically, natural procreation is recommended for each married man and woman (If feasible). If not, there is adoption.
Still ducking me, d-bag.
Is it sinful for infertile married couples to have intercourse?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:04 pmRaptureReady Says:
Once again THIS ISNT UP TO YOU. YOU ARE NOT GOD. It was YOU that used the argument of procreation against same sex marriage. Then again it wasnt really a reason it was an excuse. Your REASONS are hate, bigotry and stupidity. Just like every post you have ever made
January 21st, 2009 at 8:05 pmThere. Is. No. God.
For thousands of years, Man has tried, and tried, and tried, to prove that there is a God. And yet, all it EVER boils down to is: This book says so. OR: This HUMAN I yield authority to says so. OR: Because.
No evidence. Not one piece. In all of human history, and all of the enormous amount of evidence…verfiable, repeatable, cross-checked, layered manyfold from many disparate fields of study…not one has come CLOSE to proving that ANY deity, be it Yahweh, or Baphomet, or Zeus, or Shiva, or Vishnu, or any other deity ever conceived by the minds of Man, exists outside of the realms of philosopy, fiction, and human imagination. Many, millions if not billions of individuals, have looked for precisely this sort of evidence for millennia. Not one piece. There is countless evidence for a natural system in a natural universe, and much, much more, and far fewer have actively gone looking for such. Yet, the evidence can be repeated, right now, and proven to be accurate. Over and over and over and over again.
Every time we’ve looked deeper, or further, we’ve seen more layers of reality. Not once has it stopped. When we looked upwards, we found that our land was upon continents, upon a planet, in a solar system, within a galaxy, within a galactic cluster, within a universe. When we’ve looked inward, we’ve found that we are made of systems of organs, made up of cells, made up of molecules, made up of atoms, made up of subatomic particles. Each time we’ve found they key piece of information allowing us to look more, we’ve found that there is yet another layer, inward and outward. Yet, at every single step, we are to believe that beyond that it simply MUST be some sort of intelligence? Some sort of divine will? When thwarted, and more is discovered, the goalpost is pushed back, and once more everything beyond MUST be the divine. Utter hogwash and nonsense.
Why does the curve of dates found in carbon testing, the varves in lakes, the rings in trees, and the laters of rock, all studied independently across the world, all match up perfectly? Why has no fossil, EVER, been able to disprove evolution, but instead fits perfectly within nested hierarchies?
Prove your God exists outside of the realm of mind, and outside of the realm of a pure construct of cultural cognitive bias. Prove it, with data, not arm-waving, not “Because”, not “You are damned and a blasphemer”.
God does not fail, because God does not exist outside of the minds of Men.
Explain, once more, the conundrum of hermaphrodites and their place. Explain why the Bible says polygamy is a-OK, but the modern Church of Roman descent says one man, one woman. Explain the countless inconsistencies within the Bible, and the countless inconsistencies between the words of Yeshua and the actions and views of modern fanatical Christiants who’ve obviously never sat down and actually READ and STUDIED the words spoken.
Explain, or be proven, once more, to be the vastly ignorant individual we all, and you yourself likely know yourself to be.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:08 pmGive him a minute. His connection to the Big Guy is on hold.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:09 pmRuptured Rectum, face reality. There is no such thing as a “rapture.” Human beings cannot levitate much less float. Human beings do not live after they are dead. THEY’RE DEAD!!!
Human beings can make up anything they want. Your specialty. Human beings are flawed. If they are made in God’s image then God is flawed. Human beings imagined Heaven from the whispy clouds on a partly sunny day and Hell from the erupting volcanos totally ruining everyone’s lives that happened to live near one.
You seem to perpetuate the fallacy that you can legitimately justify your reality based on fantasy. This is why our world is so fu(ked up. Because of the milliions of shitheads like you.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:09 pmHey Daryll… guess what I saw yesterday?
Yup, you guessed it… a woman wearing open toed shoes……
oohhhhhhhhhh, shake that devil loose ……………….
January 21st, 2009 at 8:12 pmScrew Darryl. Where’s bit?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:14 pmRaptureReady Says:
Biblically…
Please stop saying “biblically” whenever you post your own opinion off the top of your head. Every time you do it, you’re committing blasphemy.
.
the Lone Voice of Reason Says:
…based on the teachings of “Saint” Augustine.
Augustine’s background was Manichaeism. He managed to sneak a lot of those ideas into Christianity, but became a total prude once he’d gotten his formerly hedonistic lifestyle out of his system, and introduced the whole “sex is filthy” concept into Christianity as well.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:14 pmDoesn’t D-bag resemble a back-alley flasher?
Wanders around from thread to thread, keeping in the shadows – until he flips open his coat, and reveals his shrunken psyche.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:18 pmYou guys are right about the advertising of viagra. They should also advertise astroglide. Then parents can try and explain what thats for also. Only fair. I know..we probably all use those products. Huh.
Just wondering if the koran is acceptable text to quote from?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:28 pmHow can Jesus be in the Old Testament?
RidicuLouS
January 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pmbuilder54 Says:
You guys are right about the advertising of viagra. They should also advertise astroglide. Then parents can try and explain what thats for also.
I find that if you just tell your kid “that’s for sex,” they’ll immediately shut up and lose all interest whatsoever.
.
builder54 Says:
Just wondering if the koran is acceptable text to quote from?
Sure, go for it.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:33 pmWhats wrong with you people. Don’t you see how many marriages fail. Why would you want any part of it.
I mean seriously. Is your relationship going to fail if your not married.
Once your married you do realize the only difference in your relationship is that if you want to go your separate ways you will now need a lawyer and have to tell some judge all your business.
Your really spending a lot of energy to bring the state in your life. If you want insurance benefits I get it. But on the other hand.
Are you Serious.
Do you really want Fox to put on Gay Divorce Court.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:34 pmYou know they will do it.
builder54:
January 21st, 2009 at 8:37 pmI am sorry to hear of your erectile disfunction. I have only read some of the Koran, there were parts I might quote if I had any reason to quote scripture. I prefer the made up quotes that people attribute to that baseball guy that no one can ever prove he actually said but it makes them feel good to think he may have. You know that Yogi not the basket stealling whatever the hell his name is….
Let’s have the FCC breathe fire upon ABC-Disney!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 21st, 2009 at 8:43 pmIt’s time for right-wing, evangelical, anti-gay homophobic persons & groups to at least admit that’s what they are. I’m so sick of homophobic, hate-filled groups calling themselves “Christians”. They are anything but Christian. They promote & encourage hatred & violence towards gays, and God knows that is NOT Christian.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:45 pmSharksBreath Says:
Whats wrong with you people. Don’t you see how many marriages fail. Why would you want any part of it.
Parental custody rights, insurance beneficiary rights, hospital visitation rights, rights to shared property, joint tax filing, etc. This stuff is not insignificant. If you’re a parent, or if you get sick, or if you’ve paid into a mortgage in your partner’s name, these things can become extremely important. And when some people get these rights and you don’t, it just might occur to you that you’re legally a second-class citizen under the law. For you to treat that as insignificant is frankly disgusting in its callous banality.
.
SharksBreath Says:
Do you really want Fox to put on Gay Divorce Court.
You know they will do it.
Actually, that’d be kind of awesome.
.
Doc Rock Says:
Let’s have the FCC breathe fire upon ABC-Disney!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, it’s not like they showed a boob or anything.
Or are you trying to bait the cons with the big fairness doctrine conspiracy?
PS: Nice exclamation points there. We’re all really impressed.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:51 pmabc = only hot lezzies will do.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:52 pmdasm Says:
I’m so sick of homophobic, hate-filled groups calling themselves “Christians”. They are anything but Christian. They promote & encourage hatred & violence towards gays, and God knows that is NOT Christian.
They’re pretty much just a sex cult at this point. All they care about is who doesn’t get to have sex, and what kinds of sex you don’t get to have. Also, anything that means more babies (while massively restricting sexual contact) is supported. They have no interest in anything whatsoever that Christ ever discussed during his lifetime.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:54 pmThe take home message is that it is a much harder fight than we allowed ourselves to envision pre-Prop 8/post-gay marriage. There are many people whose livelihood depends on demonizing and marginalizing gay people. Some of the them (shock!) control or have influence on major media outlets. This is not surprising.
Though, have hope.
The defeat of Prop-8 has forced a re-evaluation of what marriage really means. Taking it out of the context of a political battle allows us to present the human side, the stories, the relationships that are so needed and were so missing from the campaign against H8.
I am encouraged that there is a new message out there. And it is in perfect line with one of Obama’s guiding themes.
Get to know us.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:03 pmRaptureReady Says:
One more time, marriage is made for man and woman. I will support same sex marriages, when two men/women are able to create a child. Until then, leave Americans alone about this issue.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
RR,
Jane and I have been married for more than twenty years. We never had children, and we never intended to have children. We don’t like children, and we both felt it would have extremely irresponsibile to have children that neither of us wanted to have to take care of. We never even wanted to adopt! We’ll leave raising children to the people more qualified to do it.
Would you be suggesting that Jane and I have no legal or moral right to be married?
January 21st, 2009 at 9:14 pmRaptureReady Says:
Zooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
Daryll, I don’t give a shit what your bible says. I use bibles as kindling.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:56 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
You will answer to God for your blasphemous behavior.
Would she have to answer to God if she used Torahs and Korans as kindling, instead of the Bible, or would that have been okay?
And if you say it would have been okay, then why would burning the holy book of one follower of the God of Abraham be any worse than burning the book of another follower of the same God?
And if it would not have been okay, then why do we have to choose to follow Christianity, and not Judaism or Islam?
January 21st, 2009 at 9:22 pmRaptureReady Says:
You are an ignorant punk. YOU dont get to make decisions for the country. YOUR biases. Stupidity, hatred and basic lack of common decency does NOT qualify you to be the moral arbiter of what is and what isnt moral. GOD did NOT put you on a pedestal to be a judge of others nor what they do. Your arrogance also does not give you that position. You are stupid. You are hateful. You are a bigot. That is ALL you are. Attend to your OWN life. You OWN sins and failing which are LEGION. You will never BE GOD. Stop trying to convince us you are. You are too stupid to pull it off
January 21st, 2009 at 10:13 pmIs anyone else struck by the absurdity of someone actively logging onto a website leaving several dozen comments and then demanding to be “left alone”?
I won’t even go into the weird phenomenon of said poster only appearing when the topic is something gay-related.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:17 pmbuilder54 Says:
You guys are right about the advertising of viagra. They should also advertise astroglide.
_________
Never even heard of ‘astroglide” before.
You, on the other hand, or perhaps, “IN” the other hand, seem to know all about it.
Why would that be?
January 21st, 2009 at 10:18 pmSharksbreath, would you like to take more time reading over your next comment before you post it?
I think it might help make a little more sense.
just a thought.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:19 pmDisgusting. As a long time KABC viewer, I am no longer.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:34 pmWayne, hope you don’t mind if I add on to this:
And if it would not have been okay, then why do we have to choose to follow Christianity, and not Judaism or Islam, or any at all?
January 21st, 2009 at 10:49 pmSharksBreath Says:
January 21st, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Obviously you are not married and, therefore, do not understand the legal benefits of being married that single people living together do not have. It is those very legal benefits that gay people are denied, because they cannot get legally married in most of the country, that they are fighting to get. Although there is a lot more to it than just that, if you do not understand even that much, then you do not understand the issue at all.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:25 pmCalifornia ABC affiliate refuses to air ad promoting same-sex marriage.»
While watching the inaugural parade on cnn.com/live, I was really enjoying the creativity, colors and music of the Lesbian and Gay Band association, the best one I feel… until cnn decided to cut there to give an update to the where abouts of Bush.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:44 pmWhat’s so new about same sex marriage? After 20 years all I get is the SAME SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 amIn reality, the gays should have equal rights to suffer equally like the rest of us.
Who’s the one most likely group to demand same-sex marriage? Lawyers. They need more money from divorces.
But it shouldn’t be called ‘marriage’ because that’s between a man and woman.
For weiner-weiner and taco-taco hitchin’s all we need to do is invent some new appropriate words: Garriage, garried, gavorce, gavorced, gadoption, gaperation, gingle, you get the idea. The same only different. Everyone can be gay… I mean happy.
elbruce, you are one of the gays, what do you think on this situation?
Well, hey Wayne! Maybe heterosexual people who have formed a partnership would like these benefits without having to participate in (what is in my opinion) an anachronistic institution based on women being chattel, and feigning a vow to a lifelong commitment.
I’m for civil unions, across the board—with universal health care. People can give each other power of attorney, and make whatever civil contracts they want. Why should people have to live their lives together according to any state definition of “marriage”? Why should people who are not married be “not married” by comparison as if this really had something to do with the quality of their relationship?
Why is marriage considered to be “legitimate” and living together not? The gays want to be recognized as legitimate couples and to have the benefits given to married people. Understandable. But what is so special about marriage? Really?
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:06 amAs far as I can see, the only way to give fairness to the gay marriage question is to switch marriage to civil union… all can/will have a civil union for legal reasons and then if a religious ceremony is desired… marriage.. ALL should be able to do this also in the church and religion of their choice.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 amActually, wiley, I have said before that the term “marriage” is something that we need to lose. Civil unions with all the legal benefits and responsibilities (such as child support and such) would have the same legal ramifications that “marriages” do now, including those of federal benefits.
If people wish to preserve the religious aspect of marriage, they can have their ceremony in a religious house of worship, and the clergy in that ceremony would still retain all the legal powers to declare them in a legal civil union, as well as a “marriage” recognized by their own church or house of worship. If that Religion refuses to recognize the dissolution of the couple’s legal civil union, that’s their problem.
Everybody wins (or loses, if you’re cynical).
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:16 amhad enough Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 am
Exactly, and more succinctly. Thank you.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:17 amrushisright Says:
What’s so new about same sex marriage?
After 20 years all I get is the SAME SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________
Plus a hairy palm, an exhausted, cramped hand, and a forearm that would make Popeye the Sailor envious.
NEXT!!!!
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:17 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
I disagree, that capitulates to the bigots and ignores that we had marriage long before and outside of any religion!
__________
I agree. I see nothing to be gained from ceding control of the language, or the social institution, to that crowd.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 amI see your point, rhf and TRoS. In that case, we need to help educate people about the origins of the ceremony commonly called a “marriage”. If it pre-dated religion, then they have no religious claim to its exclusive use.
I am not arguing with you, I am agreeing that there is a larger point to consider. I just need to know what to tell them. It may still be futile, as they don’t cotton to the “larger issues at stake” once their emotions are riled.
At the heart of it, that’s where the fight is going to be. The right-wing likes to stoke people’s emotions, and once people are motivated by emotion, it’s hard to get them to think ratitonally. That’s why mobs are dangerous, and that’s why Republicans win elections. If people took the time to think about the rationale behind Republican campaigning, they would see it for the silliness it is. Likewise with the issue of “marriage”. if it turns out that it really isn’t the “sacred religious ceremony” they claim it to be, then they lose their argument.
So, help me find out the truth, and I will fight for the right to use “marriage” to mean what it should mean, whatever that turns out to be. What would be even better would be if it could proved that same-sex couples had “legally” (or socially) recognized “marriages” even before religion came along.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 amRaptureReady,
I am still politely waiting for an answer to my questions above.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 am.
Why does K-ABC hate families so that they refused to air a commercial about families during a time when a majority of viewers were families?
Weren’t “FAMILIES” they target viewership, and so they used that viewership as their basis to not air ads about that target viewership?
This makes no business sense other than a case of the …
… PHOBIAS!!!
But that’s not Daryyl’s problem people.
Hate is never about fear.
Hate is personal…
… Daryyl, NO?
You can send your reply via toe tappin’ morris code is anonimaty is paramount.
.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:17 amWayne A. Schneider Says:
What would be even better would be if it could proved that same-sex couples had “legally” (or socially) recognized “marriages” even before religion came along.
__________
I don’t think we have to prove that same-sex couples had “legally” (or socially) recognized “marriages” even before religion came along.
I personally don’t feel like giving fundies control of the language or the institution. Why should their narrow definitions be more valid than someone else’s? It’s not unlike the whole abortion issue and what constitutes a “baby”, or as they tried in CA, “the child unborn”. If they get away w/ calling a fetus “an unborn child” what happens next? Fetuses have rights? And at what point? Can some religious whack job sue to be appointed “the child unborn’s” legal guardian and take over control of the mother-to-be’s body for the term of the pregnancy?
Words do having meaning. If we just let them continue to set the definitions, we’ll end up living w/ more and more of their nutty restrictions. As far as I’m concerned, “saving marriage’ is just code for “institutionalized hatred”.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 amI see your point, TRoS. I just thought that if we had something on our side to prove they aren’t right, it would make the fight easier to win. Now we have to resort to reason alone, and that never works with these people.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 amRaptureReady says: GOD DOES NOT FAIL!
Heartily concur. That’s why I believe that if you, RaptureReady, DO seek Him sincerely, you will find Him. . .and if you DO read your Bible IN as well as OUT OF context–reading it as a whole, not as a menu–you will reach a realization of how much your hate-spewing disgraces the God Whom you claim to love. You are showering those whom you consider to be unsaved with such a virulent dose of condemnation that, with YOU as an example of “Christian love,” they conclude that if God is like YOU, they don’t need God! Fortunately, God is NOT like you. And, from what I’ve been reading over the past few weeks, neither are you like God. The God you present bears almost no resemblance to the one that Christ came to proclaim. You’re giving evangelicals in particular and Christians in general a BAD name. As a Christian myself, I resent having ANYONE think that you speak for me. Ever. On any topic which I’ve seen you address. Try re-reading Corinthians 13, the “love” chapter. As your posts present NO compassion, NO encouragement, NO sincere concern for the pains of others, NO comfort, NO generosity, but only accusation and condemnation, you sound like “a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal”: no music, but lots of noise.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:16 amtelestai2 Says:
I like your response to RR. Just so you know, I am atheist, myself. What bothers me, and I think this is true for a lot of other regulars here, are people claiming to be Christian and but who act in a very un-Christian way. The hypocrisy bothers most of us.
Look, my own personal code begins with “Treat other people the way I would like them to treat me.” I have a conscience and it bothers me a great deal when I do not live by that rule. The rule is, for me, “golden”. I do not need to fear a life in eternal damnation in Hell, or the promise of a reward in Heaven, to motivate me to do what I know is right.
And while I can respect someone’s belief that we are here because of a higher power who wants us to be nice to one another, I will not stand by and be told by anyone that I am “immoral” because I do not worship the same God as he, or follow the teachings of his particular religion. And we get that a lot from RR. And we’re sick of it.
Though I am atheist, I am not completely ignorant of some of the lessons from (what is commonly, generically, referred to as) The Bible, and of the stories of Jesus. RR, and people like him, do not understand The Word of which they preach. They are grabbing at snippets, and using them as arrows against those who do not agree. In all their interpretations, they seem to forget The Golden Rule. The one that is identical to my own, a non-believer.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 amtelestai2, very nice post. Very CHRISTIAN post. You might want to save that and post it often to remedy the rantings of the throw-em-to-the-lions “Christians”.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:07 amWhy don’t we just do the right thing and get government out of marriage altogether. By what logic should the government offer it if it can’t be offered to anyone?
If the definition of marriage is to be limited by religious interpretation, its application should be limited to religious institutions.
As far as I’m concerned, government should offer civil unions to any people who want the benefits and capability of looking after each other. The only limitation I can see is that perhaps it should be limited to people actually cohabiting.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 am#242 – puppax Says:
———————————————————
“As far as I’m concerned, government should offer civil unions to any people who want the benefits and capability of looking after each other. The only limitation I can see is that perhaps it should be limited to people actually cohabiting.”
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 am
This rule would have to be altered for military personnel who are serving in foreign countries where their spouses are not permitted to follow.
Very soon, it might include same-sex marriage among military members!
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 am#243 Democrat Soldier Says:
“Very soon, it might include same-sex marriage among military members!”
Well, I would imagine cohabiting would include primary residences. I would also include age as a requirement, as civil-unions/marriages are rather complicated legal arrangements.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 amFor those TPers who scoffed at the idea that so-called same-same gender marriage could lead to polygamy or to other variation of marriage including the number or ages of the participants.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776588/
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
Puppax, we ought to do the opposite: get religion out of the marriage business.
Bottom line, “marriage” is nothing more than a contract to deal with the disposition of property.
When you look at marriage that way, religion becomes even more irrelevant than it already is.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:55 am#245 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————–
“For those TPers who scoffed at the idea that so-called same-same gender marriage could lead to polygamy or to other variation of marriage including the number or ages of the participants.”
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
Sounds like more “chicken-little” hysteria to me. . . .
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 am______
telestai2 Says:
You are showering those whom you consider to be unsaved with such a virulent dose of condemnation that, with YOU as an example of “Christian love,” they conclude that if God is like YOU, they don’t need God! Fortunately, God is NOT like you.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:16 am
______
I agree with your statement about RR’s methods. Still, it bears noting that every bit as much hatred and vile ranting have been directed at Rick Warren. As far as I’m aware, he has never acted in an un-Christian manner while maintaining that homosexuality is wrong. He didn’t make that judgment himself; he takes it from Scripture. Of course, one can argue whether Scripture really says that, take things out of context, or even claim God doesn’t exist. None of those arguments change the fact that Warren has never been unkind to anyone, yet he is routinely accused of promoting hate. Of course, I understand the desire to make everyone who is opposed to gay marriage seem hateful in order to wear people down and get gay marriage approved more quickly. However, the hypocrisy should be acknowledged.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:36 am#246 Leftside Annie Says:
“Puppax, we ought to do the opposite: get religion out of the marriage business.
Bottom line, “marriage” is nothing more than a contract to deal with the disposition of property.
When you look at marriage that way, religion becomes even more irrelevant than it already is.”
Well, marriage started as a religious institution. Also, I don’t feel any need to make religion irrelevant, only its application as public policy.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:56 amYou go ABC. Mainstream Americans do not want to see poligamy, incest, gay or any other kind of “marriage” promoted. Mainstream Americans understand the vital importance of marriage and other boundaries in the protection of a free society. It’s only the most educated among us that truly believe anarchy is wisdom. I didn’t attend university long enough to become that stupid.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:58 amleftside annie, you really are a dolt. Marriage has proven to be the very best way to promulgate culturally important growth within ANY society. The rearing of children is exponentially superior when a mother AND father raise children together. It is not for disposition of property, it is for the greatest protection of children and women. The domestication of the male of our species is vital for the continued advances we have enjoyed. We removed men’s responsibility to marriage and it has wrought a whirlwind of destroyed women and youths across our land. Desolate women with out of control and criminal children litter the landscape. You promote government where only a husband is needed. Encourage marriage and the legion of vandals, rapists and killers disappear in one genearation. BTW, the exact amount of time it took to create this miasma of human debris. Now, rather than encourage healthy man-woman marriage, which you obviously despise, you wish us to embrace the sanctity of gays marrying? Get it straight(pun intended). Fight for marriage, then we’ll talk about gays.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:08 pmpuppax Says:
.
.
.
Well, marriage started as a religious institution. Also, I don’t feel any need to make religion irrelevant, only its application as public policy.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:56 am
bit doesn’t think that Christ would agree with you. According to Jesus Christ, when He was asked a question about reasons for divorce, the Creator’s intent was that man and woman would be one flesh. Christ’s answer is recorded in the NT book of Matthew chapter 19. In His answer to the question, He references an event that took place before either religion or government had been founded.
To many conservative Christians this means that marriage, while being created by God – as Jesus says, came before either religion or government.
You’ll recognize that people throughout the ages have recognized as being married without either religious or governmental approval. Doubtlessly, you’ll also recognize that this “one flesh” relationship does not exist between two same-same gender people.
To this same group of Believers this means that marriage bears the mark, a divine mark, of the Creator.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pmdrew3rd Says:
Encourage marriage and the legion of vandals, rapists and killers disappear in one genearation.
Kudos!|| Very well said!
bit would add: dare we guess how much money could be saved and how much disease and tears could be avoided?
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:42 pm#252 bitblt Says:
puppax Says:
.
.
.
Well, marriage started as a religious institution. Also, I don’t feel any need to make religion irrelevant, only its application as public policy.
“bit doesn’t think that Christ would agree with you. According to Jesus Christ, when He was asked a question about reasons for divorce, the Creator’s intent was that man and woman would be one flesh. Christ’s answer is recorded in the NT book of Matthew chapter 19. In His answer to the question, He references an event that took place before either religion or government had been founded.
To many conservative Christians this means that marriage, while being created by God – as Jesus says, came before either religion or government.
You’ll recognize that people throughout the ages have recognized as being married without either religious or governmental approval. Doubtlessly, you’ll also recognize that this “one flesh” relationship does not exist between two same-same gender people.
To this same group of Believers this means that marriage bears the mark, a divine mark, of the Creator”
There’s a big difference between a union of man and woman and the institution of marriage. I’m not suggesting banning marriage, I’m purely suggesting putting in the hands of churches and other religious or non-religious institutions.
I have no problem if Christians want to keep marriage between man and woman. That can be what Christian marriage is. Nobody’s insisting that priests be forced to marry same-sex couples; they’re simply asking for the ability to get married in a civil ceremony (or in a church that permits same-sex marriage).
Other than bigotry, why would Christians possibly care by what guidelines secular marriages are issued?
I’m a religious Jew. I had a religious ceremony during which we were married under both Jewish and secular law. I have a marriage license from my state and one from the rabbi who married us.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 pmpuppax Says:
.
.
.
There’s a big difference between a union of man and woman and the institution of marriage. I’m not suggesting banning marriage, I’m purely suggesting putting in the hands of churches and other religious or non-religious institutions.
I have no problem if Christians want to keep marriage between man and woman. That can be what Christian marriage is. Nobody’s insisting that priests be forced to marry same-sex couples; they’re simply asking for the ability to get married in a civil ceremony (or in a church that permits same-sex marriage).
Other than bigotry, why would Christians possibly care by what guidelines secular marriages are issued?
I’m a religious Jew. I had a religious ceremony during which we were married under both Jewish and secular law. I have a marriage license from my state and one from the rabbi who married us.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Other than bigotry, why would Christians possibly care by what guidelines secular marriages are issued?
Believe bit was saying that a man and a woman are married when it is recognized that they are married, regardless of what authority – religious or governmental – makes the record and signs the license. A man and a woman are recognized as being married when they want it known that they are married – one flesh.
They declare that they are married.
I’m a religious Jew. I had a religious ceremony during which we were married under both Jewish and secular law. I have a marriage license from my state and one from the rabbi who married us.
The story to which bit referred above was set in a Jewish context. Jesus was a Jew, and He was being questioned by Jewish religious leaders, Pharisees. The “one flesh” account to which Jesus alluded is from the Torah in the book of Genesis, chapter 2.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 pmFunny, that news channels allow, viagra commercials, but not condom commercials, they all people like Rush, Hagee and others but not an ad about same sex marriage.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pmThe neo-cons really need to double check which country they are in.
You guys bite on any bullshit thats put up here. Have a goodtime with yourselves. You do seem to humor yourselves I have to admit.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 pmWhen it leads to it, come back and talk to us. Polygamists have been using every excuse in the world to push for the legalization of their lifestyle. Attacking gays and lesbians as an excuse to deny them their polygamy is just that – an excuse and you know it! A LAME one at that!
Every arguement used to justify so-called same-same gender marriage can also be used to justify other varieties of “marriage,” such a polygamy.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 amThat’s b**sh*t, the rest of us don’t live in fairy tale zealot land! Marriages have ALWAYS been a matter of STATE, not RELIGION – it’s just that RELIGION used to RUN THE STATE so you TARDS are still CONFUSED by SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
Marriages have ALWAYS been a matter of STATE, of course, with the further clarification that there’s been marriage when and where there was “no state.”
Bible says that Abraham and Sarah were married and they were nomads, and one doesn’t have to look in the Bible to find people who live as nomads and are married.
A man and a woman are married when the claim they are married, and as long as this claim doesn’t conflict with real, legal responsibilities no one will question it. This means that if there’s not a dispute over property or over child responsibilities, no one will really care whether or not the record of the marriage is recorded at the courthouse or at the parish church.
(Aside: A contract to buy property takes two signatures. The IRS likes having a second person responsible for the taxes. Hospitals don’t care if the father of the child is married to the mother as long as he is willing to pay for the delivery. No one has asked to see bit’s license, which is good, because bit’s not sure where it is and the record is two hundred miles away in a courthouse in a different county.
Bit has never found a need to carry a copy of his marriage license in his wallet. Believe one can get a little wallet size laminated copy.)
)
Oh yeah, the Torah, the book that expressed Polygamy as the norm and required men become polygamists by marrying their brother’s widows?
Believe the Torah is five books. bit doesn’t believe that the Torah expresses that polygamy is the norm. It does express that polygamy was common among the some of the BigNames, but not among all of them.
The “required men become polygamists” mention is for a specific, single cause. The OT does instruct a man to marry his sister-in-law if she is widowed and has no male heirs.
The brother is to raise up children with the widowed wife in the name of his deceased brother. The purpose of this type of marriage appears to be to continue the deceased brother’s name while a secondary purpose appears to be as a social net. The son of the widowed woman will be required to care for her.
Otherwise, the Bible records that men were polygamist, but it does not instruct them to marry more than one woman. Further, the Bible often comments on the negative affects of these marriages.
There are also other things worth noting in the Bible about polygamy. The Bible notes that the first polygamist was also a murderer. (Some believe the reference to the first polygamist is also the first reference to war.)
The Bible also notes that not every man was a polygamist.
The Bible recording that men were polygamists is somewhat like recording that King David was an adulterer and a murderer. It’s a record of King David’s behavior. It’s not instructions to emulate his behavior.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 amMarried people don’t kill and rape? ROTFL, you are a COMPLETE MORON!
Not every young man or young woman, raised without the influence of a father becomes an irresponsible, criminally prone adult. But without a positive influence from a father figure, many children do become irresponsible, criminally prone adults.
It seems clear that intact families, a mother and a father, are required for best results in child rearing. Didn’t people use to call this sort of statement “common sense?”
This intact family arrangement does not guarantee best results, but bit thinks most people believe it dramatically improves the odds.
An intact family is a various on “one man one woman forever” maxim.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 am#262 – bitblt Says:
————————————————————
“Every arguement used to justify so-called same-same gender marriage can also be used to justify other varieties of “marriage,” such a polygamy.”
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 am
Yet another straw man argument.
I’ll keep you in my prayers, as it is obvious that your hate for gay people is what truly drives your agenda. If that weren’t true, then you’d be just as adamant about fighting against divorced people re-marrying. Since you have not done this at all, it’s apparant that your pick and choose approach to the verses of the Bible that you support is driven by something other than love of God or logic.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 amem>Democrat Soldier Says:
——————————————————————————–
#262 – bitblt Says:
————————————————————
“Every arguement used to justify so-called same-same gender marriage can also be used to justify other varieties of “marriage,” such a polygamy.”
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 am
Yet another straw man argument.
I’ll keep you in my prayers, as it is obvious that your hate for gay people is what truly drives your agenda. If that weren’t true, then you’d be just as adamant about fighting against divorced people re-marrying. Since you have not done this at all, it’s apparant that your pick and choose approach to the verses of the Bible that you support is driven by something other than love of God or logic.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 am
bit’s remark is about reasoning. There’s no hate in it, and you’ve not demonstrated that there is hate in it. Nor have you addressed the reasoning.
DS has demonstrated the usual liberal tactic: attack the person not what they have to say. You accuse bit of expressing hate. Is this accusation only way you have to deal what bit says in his posts?
Accusing bit of “picking and choosing” is simply DS’s tactic to avoid what the scripture actually says. Disagreement is not hate. Pointing out behavior that is contrary or condemned by scripture is not hate. If one doesn’t agree one can choose to simply ignore.
Beside, because bit is not addressing divorce and remarriage, doesn’t make what he says about homosexuality hateful or invalid.
bit recognizes that divorce and remarriage are against God’s intent, according to Matthew 19. In fact, the OT says that God hates divorce. You may not have noticed but TP almost never has posts about divorce, likely because divorce is usually kept private. Bit has posted this on TP more than one.
However, bit is of the opinion that if the heterosexuals were acting with propriety, nothing about homosexuality would have reached the level of nation debate. This would make the behavior of heterosexuals, “fire proofing” marriage (reducing or eliminating divorce) an important topic of discussion. bit is game for this at any time.
Without a common point of reference – a common faith – a national debate on marriage would probably go nowhere. Not everyone believes marriage was instituted by God, so what would the non-believers have to contribute? Would they say that marriage is whatever the courts say it is? Isn’t that the point bit is trying to make?
I’ll keep you in my prayers,
Since it’s not clear to bit what DS’s belief actually is, bit would prefer that this not be done. However, bit takes the offer as a positive.
Finally, DS demonstrates “straw men” in his response to bit’s post, which reminded TPers of the logic they have used to justify so-called same-same gender marriage. This same logic is being used by other to justify polygamy.
What bit says about the reasoning for polygamy is intact. In fact the msnbc link has the attorney using this very reasoning in his case.
If marriage is not between one man and one woman as Jesus says, then marriage will be between whomever the courts allow.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:51 am#266 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————
“This same logic is being used by other to justify polygamy.”
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:51 am
And since the Netherlands was the very first country to extend equal rights to gays regarding marriage, why haven’t they had a slew of court cases calling for polygamy?
There goes your specious argument out the window, Bitbit. Democrat Soldier thinks Bitbit shoud stop stretching Bitbit’s imagination in an effort to support Bitbit’s obvious hate for equal rights.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pmBitbit wrote: “Accusing bit of “picking and choosing” is simply DS’s tactic to avoid what the scripture actually says.”
Bitbit is ignoring sections of the Bible that call for divorced people to not remarry and only engaging in calling other sections of the Bible as “God’s word” on marriage.
Can Bitbit explain why Bitbit ignores one verse and only supports the other verse? Can Bitbit explain Bitbit’s reasoning for Bitbit supporting the one verse while ignoring the other verse?
Until Bitbit can explain why Bitbit supports one verse whle ignoring another verse, one can only assume the reasons behind Bitbit’s “pick and choose” approach to the Bible.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pmDemocrat Soldier Says:
#266 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————
“This same logic is being used by other to justify polygamy.”
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:51 am
And since the Netherlands was the very first country to extend equal rights to gays regarding marriage, why haven’t they had a slew of court cases calling for polygamy?
There goes your specious argument out the window, Bitbit. Democrat Soldier thinks Bitbit shoud stop stretching Bitbit’s imagination in an effort to support Bitbit’s obvious hate for equal rights.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
bit believes this articles suggests and answer to DS’s question:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2117974/posts
Utah Democrat AG Candidate Says Polygamy Must be Allowed Based on Repeal of Sodomy Law
LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/28/08 | Thaddeus M. Baklinski
Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:02:56 PM by wagglebee
bit would guess that the Dutch government has tacitly recognize polygamy among Muslims.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am