Breaking: Vermont legislature overrides veto, becomes first state to pass marriage equality through legislation.
By on Apr 7th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Breaking: Vermont legislature overrides veto, becomes first state to pass marriage equality through legislation.
Yesterday, Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R) vetoed a bill legalizing gay marriage that passed the state legislature last week. Now the legislature has voted to override Douglas’ veto: The Senate voted 23-5 in favor of the override, and the House voted 100-49. Vermont joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa as the only states where gay marriage is legal, and Vermont is the first state to approve gay marriage through the legislature.
Update The Human Rights Campaign's blog rounds up some statements from elected officials in Vermont.
Update CAPAF Senior Vice President Winnie Stachelberg congratulated Vermont Freedom to Marry and said that Vermont's action "highlights the growing consensus in American public opinion in support of relationship recognition for same-sex couples."
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
Fabulous!
April 7th, 2009 at 11:23 amAnother one bites the dust!
April 7th, 2009 at 11:24 amDear Gov. Douglas: NEE-NER, NEE-NER!!!
April 7th, 2009 at 11:25 amThis is wonderful news. We have had gay marriage approved through the courts, and now we have gay marriage approved through a state’s legislature.
It will be a great day when gay marriage gets approved by voters. It will happen. Eventually. But voters are often the last to get on board with change. Look at the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:27 amThis is fantastic news! I hope this leads to marriage equality in all 50 states.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:27 amWelcome Vermont to the 21st century!!!!
Thank you!!!
Lies will not distort,devide or concure us!!
April 7th, 2009 at 11:30 amOh crap..the world is ending..AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!
April 7th, 2009 at 11:31 amMighty Mo! Momentum like this will crush the haters…
April 7th, 2009 at 11:32 amI hope this becomes more of an issue during the 2010 elections. This is great news.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:40 amI wrote to the Governor last week and told him that he had a choice, either to stand with the modern civil rights movement for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all his state’s citizens regardless of sexual orientation, or that he could stand with the bigots trying to hold back the civil rights of a minority. He chose to stand with bigots. Luckily for the cause of equality, the legislators of Vermont saw past their Governor in overwhelming numbers and did what is right.
Washington has passed some very good civil union laws recently, which make me happy. Unfortunately, our bigoted supreme court did not agree with the Iowa supreme court that marriage was a matter of equal protection.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:41 amDaryll in 4…3…2…1…
April 7th, 2009 at 11:41 am“Freedom and Unity” is Vermont’s state motto – how appropriate.
Great job, Vermont.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:42 amWonderful day! The tide is turning. Secular sanity is making a comeback!
I worry though. When coupled with Iowa, this is all really going to feed the growing conservative calls for insurgency and their paranoia about “losing the country” to the left-wing conspiracy. They just keep getting kicked in the teeth with one thing after another, and I fear their desperation is nearing a breaking point…
April 7th, 2009 at 11:45 amEqual rights for everyone??
What is this?? America in the 21st Century???
April 7th, 2009 at 11:45 amJust like the civil rights struggle, one day, people will look back and be aghast that gay Americans were denied their rights. Our descendants will take a very dim view of the Republican Party and their role in this travesty. Since northeastern moderate and liberal Republicans were crucial in passage of civil rights laws, the GOP can claim some credit. However, there are no more moderate or liberal Republicans remaining, so they will forever bear a huge amount of blame for their fierce crusade against their fellow Americans.
This issue will become one more nail in the coffin of the GOP.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:47 amKateWords Says: When coupled with Iowa, this is all really going to feed the growing conservative calls for insurgency and their paranoia about “losing the country” to the left-wing conspiracy.
True enough. On the other hand, there are independent swing voters who will welcome the move to get laws out of Americans’ private lives. The question is, which faction is larger and has more clout.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:48 amI just got off the phone with my wife, and apparently we’re still married. In fact, it seems that our marriage’s sanctity is still fully intact.
Could it be that James Dobson was wrong????
April 7th, 2009 at 11:51 amYay!!!
April 7th, 2009 at 11:56 amNot me, I’m sticking to the Bible-approved version of marriage: One man, and as many wives, concubines, and sex slaves (of either sex and any age) as I can afford…
Who do these Vermont heretics think they are?
April 7th, 2009 at 11:56 amLet me try to get in front of the FOX spin machine on this:
Vermont did NOT change their state slogan to “Live Gay or Die”! :-)
Every once in a while, a little sanity rears it’s ugly head. Viva la Vermont.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:57 amAbout damn time,awesome!!!!!
April 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pmPatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says: True enough. On the other hand, there are independent swing voters who will welcome the move to get laws out of Americans’ private lives. The question is, which faction is larger and has more clout.
I have little doubt that the tide has turned, and as long as states stick to constitutional law rather than popular vote (aka: “let’s legislate everyone’s bigotries into law!”), more and more states will HAVE to allow same-sex marriage… as there’s just no valid, secular reason to NOT allow it.
But the extreme conservatives don’t acknowledge the concept of coexistence, secular democracy or pluralism. For them, we ALL have to live under their belief system – or else. And as their political cards are being removed one by one now, all they’ll have left is violence, rebellion and insurgency.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pmWay to go, Vermont! Although I don’t live there anymore, today I’m going to enjoy a Magic Hat #9 in celebration!
April 7th, 2009 at 12:07 pmEqual rights for everyone…
…not just the ones Repukes think should have them.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pmOkay.
I’m scared.
Being from Michigan, I feel the sanctity of my marriage is being threatened.
First, from above, Canada.
Then, to the west, Iowa.
Now, to the east, Vermont.
Any of the lower states follow the same course, and we’ll be boxed in.
Then there will be no escaping teh gay agenda!
Lawdy be, help us all!
(Okay, all kidding aside. This is wonderful news. Let’s keep the momentum going!)
April 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pmWhen will we hear the cry that the legislators are improperly trying to legislate?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:16 pmThe person who made this happen is James Neilley ( http://governor.vermont.gov/contact.html ). I was on the phone with VT Dems yesterday and several mentioned James.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:22 pmAWESOME!
Although, now that I think about it… I fear for my marriage. I’m told it will be under attack now. I’d better tell my wife we should prepare for an all-out assault.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pmWRONG LINK ON NEILLEY:
http://www.tips-q.com/content/video-gay-teens-emotional-testimony-vermont-over-same-sex-marriage32109
April 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pmNow, I think they will say that this is an issue for the courts, and the legislature is infringing upon the rightful territory of the judicial branch.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pmAnd if it was the other way around, if the courts had desiced, they would be taking it to the legislature to overturn. Bigots have no shame.
Yay Vermont!
April 7th, 2009 at 12:30 pmAnd the drips will become a tidal wave. I hope that in 10 years Americans look back at this shameful discrimination and say “What were we thinking??”
April 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm#25 – oh, you are so RIGHT! (And the Right is never Rong!) Here, look what happens cause the gays get married!!
April 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
Jim Says:
Way to go, Vermont! Although I don’t live there anymore, today I’m going to enjoy a Magic Hat #9 in celebration!
Magic Hat #9? going to the google….. no hits! Just kidding. What a fun little web site. Jim, enjoy your beer and keep another small business going.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pmFirst, well done Vermonters.
@ ctoaterhead 11:51; I know, I just checked with my wife and apparently we’re still as solid as ever. Western civilization is still standing.
This is what happens when you get ‘activist’ legislators, ;)
Finally, what a chickenshit move by Gov. Douglas. He likely knew veto would be over-ridden, but did it to affirm his Repub bona fides. Nice job of working with your constituants, you jackass.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pmhanshiro the antlion Says:
Not me, I’m sticking to the Bible-approved version of marriage: One man, and as many wives, concubines, and sex slaves (of either sex and any age) as I can afford…
Who do these Vermont heretics think they are?
April 7th, 2009 at 11:56 am
What you describe is not the Bible-approved version of marriage.
No person in the Bible was commanded to marry in the way you describe, and neither are you.
Jesus said in Matthew 19 that the Creator intended that an man and a woman would be “one flesh” in marriage. This one flesh condition can only be between a man and a woman.
In addition, because the Vermont legislature decided on something they describe as “marriage equality” doesn’t make it right; i.e., moral. Nor, did the legislature legislate in the interest morality.
Homosexuality, as well as adultery and polygamy, is immoral.
The best interesst of the nation are served when the government legislates in the interest of morality.
As Rev. Jonathon Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration, noted:
April 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
I just got off the phone with my wife, and apparently we’re still married. In fact, it seems that our marriage’s sanctity is still fully intact.
Can I retroactively blame all my divorces on Vermont? :)~
April 7th, 2009 at 12:46 pmbit, don’t make me invoke the great Satan to this blog thread, it’s too good news to ruin it with a black mass.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pmIncorrect. As usual.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pmThat was the excuse Schwarzenegger gave for vetoing the bill that passed the California legislature. he said it was a matter for the courts to decide.
Now, of course, when the court will decide the fate of Prop Hate, if they strike it down, they’ll be “legislating from the bench”.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:49 pmyou know, I wonder if there’s a precedent for judges of one state being influenced by the actions of other states. I’m wondering how this will affect CA judicial decisions on prop. 8, if at all?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:51 pmPLCMR would like to remind bit of his own words:
bit further believes Christ’s remarks clearly define marriage for all those who believe in Christ;i.e., Christians. March 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Further, PLCMR reminds bit that not everyone is Christian or believes as he or other fundamentalist Christians do. The dear Reverend Witherspoon, as well as bit himself, had a right to his opinion and to call upon his fellow believers to follow the tenenants of their faith. However, that does not give one the right to determine for all what is “immoral” in a secular fashion, which is what our laws are.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pmbitblt Says: “The best interesst of the nation are served when the government legislates in the interest of morality.”
And that right there will always be the line that separates us.
We don’t live in a theocracy. I believe that the best interests of a secular, pluralistic democracy are best served when the government legislates in the interests of fairness and equality, allowing for the peaceful coexistence of differing opinions and moral beliefs.
Your rights end where mine begin.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pmAdultery can be seen as immoral because it reaches a contract and an exchange of vows.
Can bit explain his argument that will establish for those of us who exercise our freedom of religion and do not necessarily hold the words of the Bible in the same reverence as bit why he sees homosexuality as immoral?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:53 pmralph would like to once again acknowledge the great contribution that PLC makes to this debate with every comment he posts.
ralph appreciates PLC’s wisdom and eloquence.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pmbitblt Says:
The best interesst of the nation are served when the government legislates in the interest of morality.
Which is why we have countries with Sharia law. Or countries with a Church-approved death penalty. Or countries where it’s OK to get rid of white farmers (by gun if necessary) in order to replace them with black farmers. Or countries where some people get to vote depending on their religion, while other aren’t allowed.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Do not confuse what is considered “moral” with what is Right.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pmbitbutt, no one is going to command anyone to marry anybody. You will be allowed to stay in the closet, where it is nice and dark.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:59 pmPLC would like to thank ralph for his kind words and to reciprocate the appreciation as PLC often finds ralph’s posts an inspirational starting point.
OK, enough of the creepy third person stuff!
April 7th, 2009 at 1:03 pmThanks, ralph, and back at ya!
And, if the legislation is upheld by the courts, they will say that it is up to executive branch.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pmbit, I would like you to seriously answer one question. Why do you only focus on promoting a secular law to “protect” marriage and none of the other traditional Christian sacraments such as baptism or Eucharist?
April 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pmIf the anti-gay marriage people complain about the activist courts, activist legilature, and the activist executive where should the decision be made? All that would be left would be “the people” and you know we cannot have people decide for themselves who they marry!
April 7th, 2009 at 1:08 pmbitbutt is not confused on this issue. What you described is precisely his vision for our country.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:09 pmThose issues don’t get the base all apoplectic and frothy…
April 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pmSince you right-wing fundamentalists keep changing the rules, we are trying to figure out who should be responsible for making this decision. Was Jesus a member of the executive, the legislative, or the judicial branch?
April 7th, 2009 at 1:14 pm36. bitblt Says: No person in the Bible was commanded to marry in the way you describe, and neither are you.
Er…try again, bucko…
So God was pimping for David..if that doesn’t say, “Go for it,” I don’t know what does. Oh, and here’s an inconvenient question there
DaryllI mean bitblt, since marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman for life, where did all the propagation happen? Between Adam and Eve’s kids: i.e. brothers and sisters?Ewwwwww! Seems God was kinda kinky and weird. So we’re all descended from a buncha incestuous unions, eh?
Eh?
April 7th, 2009 at 1:14 pmYes.
duh
April 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pmbitblt Says:
The best interesst of the nation are served when the government legislates in the interest of morality.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
____________
Exactly. And there most certainly is somthing immoral about discrimination against a group of people because of their inborn characteristics. It is just as immoral to forbid gays to marry as it is to forbid blacks and whites to marry, or handicapped people to marry, or left-handed people to marry.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pmPatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says:
PLCMR would like to remind bit of his own words:
bit further believes Christ’s remarks clearly define marriage for all those who believe in Christ;i.e., Christians. March 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
However, that does not give one the right to determine for all what is “immoral” in a secular fashion, which is what our laws are.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pmApril 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
No. Our laws are based on ethics, not morality.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pmbitblt Says:
PatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says:
PLCMR would like to remind bit of his own words:
bit further believes Christ’s remarks clearly define marriage for all those who believe in Christ;i.e., Christians. March 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
However, that does not give one the right to determine for all what is “immoral” in a secular fashion, which is what our laws are.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
bit didn’t make that determination. Jesus made that determination. That was what the “…Christ’s remarks,” quoted from Matthew 19.
Laws don’t determine morality. Remember abortion is legal, but the court didn’t make abortion a moral act.
By declaring that same-same gender marriage so called, is legal, the courts don’t make it moral. The courts don’t have the power to make homosexuality moral.
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34271
April 7th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
bitblt Says:
bit further believes Christ’s remarks clearly define marriage for all those who believe in Christ;i.e., Christians. March 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
However, that does not give one the right to determine for all what is “immoral” in a secular fashion, which is what our laws are.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
____________
Thank you for finally agreeing with us – that Christians do NOT have the right to use secular law to enfore their version of “morality” on all of us.
I knew you’d come around someday, btbt!
April 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pmThere, I fixed that for you.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:24 pm60. The view that homosexual conduct is moral is an unproven, ethical belief -not a fact.
The view that God or Jesus exists or determines morality is an unproven, self-described ethical belief-not a fact.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:25 pmNor does any branch of government.
You CANNOT legislate morality, as much as you wish it were so.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:25 pmbit, do you really think those two quotes prove your point? The US Constitution is permissive to individuals and prohibitive to the government. Our secular laws put limits on individuals only as much as those limits are required to insure the civil rights of all. Similarly, an equal protection interpretation of marriage would insure that all American have the right to choose for themselves whom to marry. Your right to determine for yourself what a “moral” marriage would be for you would not be infringed by a secular recognition by law that a gay person has the right to have the same choice, even if that choice is different from yours.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:26 pmListen…can you hear that???
That’s the sound of progress trampling everything in its path andcoming to stomp every obstructionist jerk on the fringe to bits!
No one is trying to redefine a…word. Heck, Keith put it best, if he hadn’t redefined the…word, I (a black man) wouldn’t be able to marry a woman of my own color, let alone one of the opposite. There have been plenty of gay marriages since I’ve been alive, and none of them have affected my life it seems. I think we will be okay.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pmbitblt Says:
By declaring that same-same gender marriage so called, is legal, the courts don’t make it moral. The courts don’t have the power to make homosexuality moral.
The view that homosexual conduct is moral is an unproven, ethical belief -not a fact.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
____________
Right. Individuals determine for themselves what is or isn’t moral – the courts can’t possibly make that determination. It’s not a matter of fact, because morality is by definition a matter of ethical belief. It can never be “proven” that homosexuality is moral or immoral.
You’re welcome to hang on to your immoral, discriminatory beliefs as long as you want. No court or legislative act can take that from you. And I will continue to abhor your beliefs, and will continue to explicitly tell you how abhorrent they are. No court or legislative act can take that from me.
All that matters for the purposes of governance is the law, and today reason defeated bigotry in the eyes of the law.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pmFrom bit’s ’source’
Apparently, their recollection of history conveniently does not include Greek or Roman culture.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:29 pmNo, they went out and took wives of the daughters of men. Since Adam, Eve, and their kids were the only humans at the time, I can only conclude that they were having sex with other species of hominids. So, I guess God was OK with bestiality.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
No. Our laws are based on ethics, not morality.
I agree. However, I purposefully choose to use “social morality” as an equivalent substitute for ethics. I refuse to surrender the concept of “morality” to the right wingers and I want to draw the distinction with “secular morality”.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm.
Damn, this is really making my State of Washington look bad…
.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pmbitblt Says:
———–
Fundamentalists have always bothered me, because they take a book that men from 2,000 or 3,000 years ago wrote and try to use it as the literal word of the Almighty, to beat you over the head with it like a club. Well, here’s a newsflash for you, Fundies: God did not literally write the Bible, or the Quran, or any other holy book. Men did, men with good intentions who tried to interpret what they saw as God’s word, men who were working with the best tools and morals they had available to them at the time. But it was still Man who wrote these books nonetheless.
So when you throw the content of these books about as the literal word of God, you’re missing the point. You’re really on board with men who had values in a society that existed millennia ago. Has man made no progress in the last few thousand years? You’re selling everyone short.
What you should be focusing on is how God will be interpreting your actions toward your fellow human beings. Did you spend all your time using “the word of God” as a weapon, to take away the basic rights and happiness that should be the base of any human’s existence? Did you use it to pass judgment on all others who do not share your personal beliefs and values? If so, you’re going to be quite surprised at the end of the road… ’cause it’s God’s job to pass judgment, not yours.
(Sorry for the semi-OT rant. Fundamentalists just get me to my max annoyance levels in no time flat.) :o(
April 7th, 2009 at 1:32 pmbitblt Says: ” The courts don’t have the power to make homosexuality moral.”
And thus nor do they have the power to make it immoral, which seems to be the only basis offered for denying the legality of same-sex marriage.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:32 pmbitblt Says
April 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Jesus said in Matthew 19 that the Creator intended that an man and a woman would be “one flesh” in marriage. This one flesh condition can only be between a man and a woman.
In addition, because the Vermont legislature decided on something they describe as “marriage equality” doesn’t make it right; i.e., moral. Nor, did the legislature legislate in the interest morality.
Homosexuality, as well as adultery and polygamy, is immoral.
The best interesst of the nation are served when the government legislates in the interest of morality.
_________________________________________________________
Wow — so much conjecture, it’s hard to know where to begin.
First, that’s a very interesting interpretation of Matthew 19. The bigger point Jesus was making when he was quoting Genesis 2 was that divorce was wrong, not homosexual marriage. He never said that the “one flesh” could only be between one man and one woman — He just said that WHEN a man leaves his mother and father and cleaves to his wife, they become one flesh. Your statement of “This one flesh condition can only be between a man and a woman.” is just assumption on your part.
Second, legislatures don’t make laws based on morality. Laws are made to preserve freedoms and civil rights, they are made to keep people and property safe, and they are made in the interest of economic health for the country (or state). Morality is a concept that is wildly subjective. I have a Mormon aunt who doesn’t drink coffee — to her it’s immoral. Yet she’s not calling for laws banning coffee. I have a friend who won’t play any games involving dice (not even Yahtzee!) because she believes dice are immoral. However, she’s not demanding a law be passed banning dice. Each of us has our own code of what’s moral and what’s not, and most of us realize that morality cannot be legislated.
Third, you assert that homosexuality, adultery, and polygamy are immoral. In your moral code, they probably are, so I suggest you don’t practice any of them. But ask yourself — isn’t it interesting that Abraham, Jacob, and David were all polygamists (OK — Abraham may not have been technically married to Hagar, but if he wasn’t, that would make him an adulterer, wouldn’t it?), yet God chose them for great things. So who are you to judge?
Yes, you can claim there are laws against polygamy (I trust that would be your next argument). True — but that has less to do with morality as it has to do with practicality. Our system is set up for only one spouse per person (tax laws, insurance, social security, etc. etc.). Multiple legal spouses would be a logistical nightmare. However, there’s nothing that says you can’t shack up with as many people as you want to, as long as they are all consenting adults — look at Hugh Hefner.
And finally, you claim that legislating morality serves the best interests of the nation. Obviously, this would be the case if the morality legislated happened to be YOUR morality. But would have the same enthusiasm for legislating morality if it was somebody else’s?
April 7th, 2009 at 1:32 pmbit, I refer you to my question to you in post 50.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pmThis ralph can agree with. Laws don’t determine morality, and neither does morality so called determine laws.
The courts don’t have the power to make homosexuality moral for those who believe it is immoral, but they DO have the power to make it legal, if they determine that laws that forbid it are unconstitutional.
bit does not appear to have brought bit’s “A-Game” today.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:34 pmAh, thanks for the clarification.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:34 pm69. shoeless Chilopoda Says: Since Adam, Eve, and their kids were the only humans at the time, I can only conclude that they were having sex with other species of hominids. So, I guess God was OK with bestiality.
Not to be redundant…but “Ewwwwww!”
April 7th, 2009 at 1:35 pmYet bit seems to want us to accept that “the view that homosexual conduct is IMMORAL” is a fact. bit certainly states it as such repeatedly. Then he posts a comment that asserts that a judgment of morality is an unproven, ethical belief.
bit has got nothing today.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:37 pm79. ralph the wonder locust Says: bit has got nothing today.
And like any snake-oil salesman, all the more reason for the hard sell…
April 7th, 2009 at 1:40 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
bitblt Says:
By declaring that same-same gender marriage so called, is legal, the courts don’t make it moral. The courts don’t have the power to make homosexuality moral.
The view that homosexual conduct is moral is an unproven, ethical belief -not a fact.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
____________
Right. Individuals determine for themselves what is or isn’t moral – the courts can’t possibly make that determination.
.
.
.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
And these…
adultery
homosexuality
polygamy
incest
pedophilia
bestiality
sex slavery
stealing
murder
Who determines that these are immoral or moral – the individuals who are participating, and benefiting, from these behaviors?
April 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pmbitblt, post #55 still awaits your explanation…and your annotated Bible ain’t gonna help you.
Same God in both the Old and New Testaments. And if you conclude that he simply changes the definition out of pragmatism or any other reason; you lose.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pmSee, here’s the problem. The Catholic Church DOES forbid handicapped people to marry…that is if they are handicapped in a way that doesn’t allow them to consummate their union.
http://www.disaboom.com/Blogs/karaswims/archive/2009/04/06/disability-as-an-impediment-to-marriage.aspx
Check it out.
Seriously. The Church will not allow two people to marry if one of them is impotent before they get married. I’m F__KING serious.
It is far past time for this Imaginary Sky-Faerie-Daddy-Worship Cult to be stripped of all the unwarranted, undeserved power it has accumulated.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pmbitblt is our self-appointed bible authority. Let’s ask him. Were Cain and Able screwing australopithecus africanus?
April 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pmAnother choice exerpt from bit’s source, showing just how rhetotically contorted they are:
Clearly, the distiction is that these bigots use morality to justify their bigotry.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pmbit, tell me and everyone else here, how you write morality into legislature, when morality is personal…not universal.
Your morals are reflectant upon your upbringing, and yours is not the same as mine, or vice versa. Laws are written based on common sense and the nature of the moment of political climate.
Not phobias…
April 7th, 2009 at 1:46 pm81. bitblt Says: Who determines that these are immoral or moral – the individuals who are participating, and benefiting, from these behaviors?
Certainly not Jesus, who was a rip-off of Mithras and a ‘johnny-come-lately’ to the worship party. These were determined hundreds of years before a second-rate poseur religion came along.
Check out Joseph Campbell…
April 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pmBit –
How are you being harmed by homosexuality, or gay marriage?
Simply question, simple answer that has nothing to do with the bible.
Thank you.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pmbit continues to try to conflate morality and legality.
As has been asserted by both progressives and by bit, morality is an individual judgment based on personal values and beliefs.
Thus each of the elements of human nature bit lists will be judged moral or immoral by each individual.
Whether they are legal or not will be determined by the law-making bodies and judicial bodies of the society. These judgments will be made not on the basis of what bit feels is immoral, but on the impact of each behavior on the health and welfare of the society.
bit would do well to try to keep these separate concepts straight in his mind.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pmralph @ 89 says: bit would do well to try to keep these separate concepts straight in his mind.
Sorry, but that made me laugh. Please tell me that was intentional…
April 7th, 2009 at 1:53 pmbarracks9, I’m glad you picked up on that. I was hoping that if I used the word “straight” bit would feel more comfortable addressing the comment…
April 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm81.bitblt Says:
And these…
adultery
homosexuality
polygamy
incest
pedophilia
bestiality
sex slavery
stealing
murder
You left off wearing blended fabrics, eating shellfish, unleavened bread, trimming your beard, charging or paying interest, tarot readings, cross dressing [ruh roh, lotsa republicans are goin' ta hell...]
April 7th, 2009 at 1:58 pmWags,
I’m not a BIGOT! I just have strongly held moral beliefs that YOU are not a person!
Freaking ridiculous.
By the way BitButtBuddy, what toasterhead was trying to say about individuals deciding for themselves what is moral (which is different from what is RIGHT) is that, for example, YOU have decided for yourself
(and I’m being generous here since you sound like a typical brainwashed fundie so you really don’t decide anything for yourself, you are TOLD what to think)
you have decided for yourself that homosexuality is immoral. That doesn’t mean that YOUR view of the morality or immorality of homosexuality has ANY bearing on the rest of us. That is your personal view, and it is shared by many sadly enough. Apparently though, the elected officials in VT don’t agree and neither do the majority of their constituents. The legislators in VT would not have passed this over the heads of a majority of voters in their state.
Guess what pal, I find the whole idea of prostitution to be immoral, some people don’t, but I would still support legalization like they have in Amsterdam because it is the RIGHT way to do things. You know how I still can practice my view of prostitution being immoral? BY NOT F__KING PROSTITUTES. Doesn’t mean I should tell other men/women how to spend their money/use their bodies.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pmbitblt Says
April 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
And these…
adultery
homosexuality
polygamy
incest
pedophilia
bestiality
sex slavery
stealing
murder
Who determines that these are immoral or moral – the individuals who are participating, and benefiting, from these behaviors?
________________________________________________________
As I said before, laws are made to ensure the rights of the individual (anti-discrimination laws, etc.), protect people and property (laws against murder, rape, vandalism, theft, etc.), protect the economy (anti-trust laws, etc.), or similar reasons. Laws are not made for the purpose of morality and no other reason. As to who determines whether these acts are moral or immoral — that rests with each individual.
Now, about the legality of these? Let’s go through the list:
Adultery — technically legal, but since it violates the terms of a marriage contract (in most cases), it can sometimes make you the target of a lawsuit, depending on what state you live in.
Homosexuality — no reason to be illegal.
Polygamy — some practical reasons why polygamy isn’t legally recognized, but group relationships without legal benefits don’t land anyone in jail. Unless — the polygamist enters into a marriage with somebody unaware of other spouses. Then you’ve got a victim, and a legal matter.
Incest — marriage between closely related people is illegal not because of morality issues, but because of the higher possibility of birth defect from their offspring.
Pedophilia — illegal because we’re talking about sexual situations with other than consenting adults. There are victims here, and there should be laws to protect them.
Bestiality — again, we’re talking about consenting adults. I probably should have said consenting HUMAN adults. This probably falls into the “cruelty to animals” category, as animals really aren’t capable of giving informed consent.
Sex slavery — illegal; what part of “consenting adults” are we having problems with?
Stealing — illegal; crime with a victim.
Murder — illegal; crime with a victim.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:02 pmbitblt Says:
And these…
adultery
homosexuality
polygamy
incest
pedophilia
bestiality
sex slavery
stealing
murder
Who determines that these are immoral or moral – the individuals who are participating, and benefiting, from these behaviors?
April 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The individuals who are participating and benefiting from these behaviors. It is entirely up to you and me to determine whether pedophilia or bestiality or murder is moral behavior.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:04 pmIt’s kind of sad to see bitblt get beaten like a rented mule.
But funny at the same time.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:05 pm#
barracks9 Says:
Bit -
How are you being harmed by homosexuality, or gay marriage?
.
.
.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Personally, very little.
Homosexuality makes the nation less worth preserving, and because of my posterity, that makes it of interest to bit.
Apparently most of the posters on TP don’t recognize the influence that Christianity has had on Western Civilization. In fact some say that Judeao-Christianity is single-handedly responsible for Western Civilization.
If ones reads the writings and speeches of the founders, many of whom were active in Bible societies, it is apparent that there was wide spread believe that a constitutional government would only survive if supported by a religious and moral people.
bit wonders if TP posters will be able to recognize the demise of the nation due to immorality.
For instance – and this is addresses to bit’s harshest critic, you decide who you are – if those of us who pursue morality just gave up, and lived they way you do, do you think the U.S. would be a desirable place?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:06 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says something insightful nearly everytime you post:
If there isn’t a missmolly fan club, there ought to be one – you always manage to say very diplomatically what we all want to convey to these rubes.
Thank you for being a class act!
April 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pmMrBrown Says:
bit, tell me and everyone else here, how you write morality into legislature, when morality is personal…not universal.
Your morals are reflectant upon your upbringing, and yours is not the same as mine, or vice versa. Laws are written based on common sense and the nature of the moment of political climate.
Well, I don’t know if idjit will answer this request, but as for me?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:09 pmI believe that anyone who blogs using his or herself continuously in the third person, should be flogged. Repeatedly.
But, that just me (and my morals).
If by this you mean that sanctimonious frauds like yourself stopped foisting your own morality onto others then the US would be a more desirable place?
Yes. A thousand times, yes.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:10 pmbitblt Says:
For instance – and this is addresses to bit’s harshest critic, you decide who you are – if those of us who pursue morality just gave up, and lived they way you do, do you think the U.S. would be a desirable place?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
____________
If by “giving up” and “living the way we do” you mean shutting the hell up and letting the rest of the world decide for themselves what is moral, then yes. Abso-f***ing-lutely.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:10 pm81.bitblt Says:
Ever have a steak, bitblt?
Better hope for your ‘everlasting soul’ the answer is ‘no.’
How ’bout that shrimp cocktail, bitblt?
Gonna outlaw them too?
Betcha bitblt is gonna be getting a one-way ticket for a Styx rafting adventure with the rest of us….[and not the band, either...]
April 7th, 2009 at 2:12 pmidjit Says:
For instance – and this is addresses to jit’s harshest critic, you decide who you are – if those of us who pursue morality just gave up, and lived they way you do, do you think the U.S. would be a desirable place?
HELL YES!!!
April 7th, 2009 at 2:12 pmbitblt Says:
And these…
adultery
homosexuality
polygamy
incest
pedophilia
bestiality
sex slavery
stealing
murder
Who determines that these are immoral or moral – the individuals who are participating, and benefiting, from these behaviors?
Society has a right to determine that those behaviors that you list that exploit or otherwise harm another human being are “socially immoral”, which just happens to be consistent with the Biblical determination that they are also immoral from a sacred perspective. These are wrongs against another human being or a creature incapable of consent. Therefore, they should be legally prohibited. Homosexuality and gay marriage have no such direct harm and, therefore, are NOT socially immoral nor subject to legal prohibition. There is no wrong against any person. You can argue that it is a wrong against God, but that is precisely what puts it into a matter of faith not legal prohibition.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:14 pmidjit Says:
Homosexuality makes the nation less worth preserving, and because of my posterior, that makes it of interest to jit.
Funny!
April 7th, 2009 at 2:15 pmGod must not have commanded that bitbutt take a dump everyday, because bitbutt is full of shit.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:15 pmbit has made this claim dozens of times here but has yet to elaborate on how homosexuality makes this nation “less worth preserving”.
It’s a curious claim, presented by bit, as most of his claims are, as if it were incontrovertible fact, when it is in actuality nothing more than bit’s opinion. And a particularly anti-American opinion at that.
Is bit suggesting that homosexuality was not present in this country in the late 18th century when this nation was founded?
Is bit suggesting that homosexuality did not exist in this nation during the War Between the States, when President Lincoln fought so hard to preserve the nation?
It is a curious argument from bit, to be sure.
ralph thinks that bit has gotten to the point where all of his rhetorical tricks and arguments have already been exposed and so are easily shot down as soon as they are advanced, leaving bit virtually naked on the battlefield of debate, bereft of ammunition, reduced to shouting “BANG! You’re DEAD!” and hoping the other side will buy his act.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:17 pmbit says: If ones reads the writings and speeches of the founders, many of whom were active in Bible societies, it is apparent that there was wide spread believe that a constitutional government would only survive if supported by a religious and moral people.
THEN WHY DON’T YOU SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT???
Support is not equivalent to merging secular and sacred laws. Give to Caesar and to God. Further, why label people as “religious” and “moral” if these two terms mean exactly the same thing?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:20 pmWhat are the goppers ever to do when they can no longer exploit gay issues, using gay marriage as a wedge issue for political distraction and gain?
Times are changing and the masses are getting used to equality.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pmBit flogs the old party line…Apparently most of the posters on TP don’t recognize the influence that Christianity has had on Western Civilization. In fact some say that Judeao-Christianity is single-handedly responsible for Western Civilization.
If ones reads the writings and speeches of the founders, many of whom were active in Bible societies, it is apparent that there was wide spread believe that a constitutional government would only survive if supported by a religious and moral people.
But, good golly gosh, isn’t that the same tired old specious argument that gets toted out every generation by those who warn of dire consequences or end of days if we don’t all just roll over and be good boys like we’re told.
What is so threatening to you (and others) about the RIGHTS of two people who love each other and wish to marry? How does this diminish Marriage? If anything, it seems to me that it only strengthens the institution of marriage, encourages others to love more and to love more openly at that, and thereby creates a greater community, more capable of sustaining “civilization”.
IMHO, the Crusades did a lot more toward destroying Western Civilization than any 100,000 gay marriages ever could.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pmPLC, missmolly, hanshiro, et al.
I have a feeling your well educated, intelligent, rebuttal posts are falling on deaf ears.
idjit sees it’s world the way it wants, and nothing, no matter how practical and thought provoking, will deter it.
It’s kind of like a child who doesn’t want to hear scorn or discern, so the child puts it’s hands to his ears and sings “LA LA LA!”, in hopes of erasing the offensive situation.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pmMy instinct is to simply say “yes”, but then I thought a little more about it and decided this: although the folks who live by a solid internal sense of morality based on the Golden Rule and concern for others — which I believe is most of Americans — would be fine, I fear that the people for whom bit speaks — those who need an abstract, external justification for their behavior — will not be similarly constrained and so might cause problems if they simply “gave up pursuing morality”.
So bit has a small point here.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pmAnd once again, bit, I wonder why you fail to respond to my question in post 50. Do you just have a prurient interest in the topic of homosexuality? Or don’t you believe that baptism, the Eucharist, the Sabbath, ordination of clergy, tithing, and other religious doctrine deserve the protection of secular laws?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pmralph @ 107 thinks that bit (is) reduced to shouting “BANG! You’re DEAD!” and hoping the other side will buy his act.
Come on, ralph – at least give him the gag piston that shoots out the little red flag that says “Bang!”
Although in his case, maybe the flag should be white?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pmIf this nation only consisted of people like bitbutt, I’d douse it with gasoline and set a match to it.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:26 pmDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
I’m sure that you are right about bit not being affected by our debate. However, there may be others who lurk here that are not quite so strident and, perhaps, more pursuadable.
I’m reminded of John Wesley’s Quadrilateral for decision making: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason. bit stops at the first but the rest of us can fill in the blanks.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:30 pmYou know that when bit trots out the trusted Faux-News strategy of “some say”, he’s reaching the end of his bag of tricks.
Those who say that Judeao-Christianity is single-handedly responsible for Western Civilization certainly don’t appear to give much credit to the achievements of ancient Greece, with its focus on natural and theoretical philosophy, its architecture, its advancements in civic organization.
Or of, say the contributions of the Islamic world to science — in mathematics, in the development of the scientific method…
Yeah, I gotta say, those “some who say” that about Judeo-Christianity being single-handedly responsible for Western Civilization…? y’all ought to stop listening to them, bit.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pmbitblt Says: “if those of us who pursue morality just gave up, and lived they way you do, do you think the U.S. would be a desirable place?”
I’d never ask you to give up on your moral values.
But why do you demand that we give up ours?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:43 pmidjit sure spends an awful lot of time and rhetoric worrying about homosexuality and it’s “sinfulness”.
It’s actually kind of creepy.
I have some questions, which I’m sure will go completely ignored, but what the hayo:
Is the sin of gayness worse than the sin of divorce?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:45 pmIs the sin of same sex love (not sex) worse than the sin of adultery?
Finally, if you had a choice, would you prefer a child to be brought up by a loving, tolerant, giving same sex couple, or an abusive, molesting, overbearing hetero couple?
#
PatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says:
And once again, bit, I wonder why you fail to respond to my question in post 50. Do you just have a prurient interest in the topic of homosexuality? Or don’t you believe that baptism, the Eucharist, the Sabbath, ordination of clergy, tithing, and other religious doctrine deserve the protection of secular laws?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
In the tradition in which bit participates ( where I go to church ) the items you list in your second question are settled issues. It is likely that if these items were topics on TP, bit would comment.
bit discusses homosexuality because he believes it is part of the downward spiral of the nation. Further, bit has made it clear that he believes that all the arguments promoting homosexuality and so-call same-same gender marriage, will be used to promote polygamy. As you know polygamy is favored by one of the world’s three great religions, and it’s not Christianity.
The Kansas judge wrote that denying same-sex couples the right to marry, “does not substantially further any important government objective.” This phrase, “does not substantially further any important government objective,” has already been applied in the legal defense of a polygamist. This phrase should really travel well.
Those of you promoting so-called same-same gender marriage should remember this is what you wanted when you see Islam dominating the North America continent.
Of course bit could be wrong. Let’s all hope he is, but it might be worth noting that Germany, Italy, and one other European nation, are predicted to lose their “European character” by 2050. Islam dominated Europe once before.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pmPoor bitblt..
This is an uglier beating than O’Reilly abusing himself while on the phone to Andrea Mackris…
April 7th, 2009 at 3:05 pm120. bitblt Says: Of course bit could be wrong.
Next time save yourself all that typing and start with this instead..
April 7th, 2009 at 3:08 pmbit,
I treat others like I want to be treated. And if thats screams immorality to you, then you dont know what morality really is.
If we all lived like that, the world would be just fine.
THE END…
April 7th, 2009 at 3:10 pmHAHAHAHAHAHA
OH NOES
TEH ISLAM
April 7th, 2009 at 3:13 pmSo bit acknowledges that his sense of morality is entirely dependent on the teachings of his church, and since he writes that the view that homosexual conduct is moral is an unproven, ethical belief -not a fact one would think that he also recognizes the truth of that statement’s mirror opposite — that the view that homosexual conduct is IMMORAL is ALSO an unproven, ethical belief -not a fact.
Yet he still wants to impose his own morality on the rest of us who may or may not share his beliefs, and have the right to not share them.
bit is a mass of contradictions. But then, he is a Christianist.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:14 pmbitblt Says:
Those of you promoting so-called same-same gender marriage should remember this is what you wanted when you see Islam dominating the North America continent.
Of course bit could be wrong. Let’s all hope he is, but it might be worth noting that Germany, Italy, and one other European nation, are predicted to lose their “European character” by 2050. Islam dominated Europe once before.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
__________
And the truth finally comes out. We can’t have The Gays marrying because The Muslims will take over. We superior white folk will be too busy getting gay with each other to notice the evil brown people copulating like rabbits and then BAM – America will be OVERRUN by scary MUSLIMS!
April 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pmDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
idjit sure spends an awful lot of time and rhetoric worrying about homosexuality and it’s “sinfulness”.
It’s actually kind of creepy.
I have some questions, which I’m sure will go completely ignored, but what the hayo:
Is the sin of gayness worse than the sin of divorce?
Is the sin of same sex love (not sex) worse than the sin of adultery?
Finally, if you had a choice, would you prefer a child to be brought up by a loving, tolerant, giving same sex couple, or an abusive, molesting, overbearing hetero couple?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
These really aren’t very good question, DRxJ…
The Bible makes it clear that all sin is worthy of death and that only faith in Jesus Christ will save a person.
The last question is indeed the lamest of the three, and I’m not going to answer it.
This qualification “..by a loving, tolerant, giving same sex couple…” does nothing to make an unnatural marriage – a so-called same-same gender marriage – any more natural. It doesn’t make the homosexual participants less sinful. In addition, this phrase describes very few homosexuals. One could call a man and a woman committing adultery “loving,” but it would still be an immoral relationship.
The CA and MA experiences show that only 1% of the population – %3 of the homosexual population – is even interested in so-called same-same gender marriage. Since bit is the only TP poster who every remarks on this, bit will bring up the negative about homosexual behavior. Many practitioners are drug users and may experience emotional and mental problems, as might well be expected. This life choice is not really gay.
Many are diseased because of their behavior. Some are even “bug chasers” – deliberately trying to become HIV+.
So DRxJ, why don’t you tell us how many homosexual couples qualify as you’ve described them? Aren’t you are real Dr? So what are the numbers?
April 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pmIn the tradition in which bit participates ( where I go to church ) the items you list in your second question are settled issues.
Apparently, then, the issue of homosexuality is not settled in your own church.
Is it all about you and your church? There are issues involving baptism, the Eucharist, the Sabbath, etc that are not “settled” among those of the Christian faith. So, why are you not advocating for secular laws to intervene in these?
April 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pmDon’t you think all the people who work, play golf, go to bars, and go to movies sometime from Friday sundown until Saturday sundown are bringing about decay in our American culture? Don’t you think we should have a Preserve the Sabbath law to stop the decline?
idjit Spews:
jit discusses homosexuality because he believes it is part of the downward spiral of the nation.
funny. I think that falsely leading our country into war is part of the downward spiral.
I think that corporations making millions for their CEO’s, stealing from the little man (it’s workers) is part of the downward spiral.
I believe that allowing torture is part of the downward spiral.
But mostly, I believe it’s holier than thou attitudes, like yours, and it’s intolerant base, which has lead our country on it’s current downward spiral.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pmbitblt Says:
Since bit is the only TP poster who every remarks on this, bit will bring up the negative about homosexual behavior. Many practitioners are drug users and may experience emotional and mental problems, as might well be expected. This life choice is not really gay.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
______________
Believe it or not, there are also heterosexuals who experience emotional and mental problems – including drug use.
Perhaps we should ban inter-sex marriage too, just to be safe.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pmWhat the hell are you talking about? This is pure fabrication.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:23 pmhanshiro the antlion Says:
120. bitblt Says: Of course bit could be wrong.
Next time save yourself all that typing and start with this instead..
April 7th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Probably felt really good to write that!
and deny you the opportunity for a sharp, caustic, witty come back…that would be unconscionable …
You could be a Republican about it though. Treat bit as a channel that you don’t wish to read, and then don’t read the ones marked “bitblt.” End of your problem.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:25 pmidjit Spews Nonsense:
Many are diseased because of their behavior. Some are even “bug chasers” – deliberately trying to become HIV+.
WTF???
So DRxJ, why don’t you tell us how many homosexual couples qualify as you’ve described them? Aren’t you are real Dr? So what are the numbers?
Again, WTF??? When have I ever claimed to be a real Dr? Or just a Dr?
April 7th, 2009 at 3:26 pmSince bit is the only TP poster who every remarks on this, bit will bring up the negative about homosexual behavior. Many practitioners are drug users and may experience emotional and mental problems, as might well be expected.
Of course that’s to be expected! Gays are HUMAN, with all the fraility that entails. However, you imply that gays are exclusive to the drug use and emotional problems world. Further, you fail to show the compassionate understanding that much of the drug use and emotional problems in the gay community can be directly traced to the systemic oppression, bigotry, hatred, and denial of basic human rights that gays experience. Again, I hold you and other Christian Pharisees accountable for keeping a gay client that I had from feeling acceptable to even go to church to nurture his spirituality and for the self-loathing he felt for something that he was but did not choose.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pmSince idjit is the only TP poster who every remarks on this, jit will bring up the negative about homosexual behavior. Many practitioners are drug users and may experience emotional and mental problems, as might well be expected.
Funny, the “emotional and mental” patient you describe is my chosen profession.
And I’ll let you in on little itty bitty secret.
Come closer.
Closer.
Closer.
Most of them are heterosexuals!
Boo!
(did ya pi$$ your pants?)
April 7th, 2009 at 3:30 pmDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
idjit Spews:
jit discusses homosexuality because he believes it is part of the downward spiral of the nation.
funny. I think that falsely leading our country into war is part of the downward spiral.
I think that corporations making millions for their CEO’s, stealing from the little man (it’s workers) is part of the downward spiral.
I believe that allowing torture is part of the downward spiral.
But mostly, I believe it’s holier than thou attitudes, like yours, and it’s intolerant base, which has lead our country on it’s current downward spiral.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I think that falsely leading our country into war is part of the downward spiral.
bit doesn’t wish to express an opinion about the sentiment of this remark. However, he does wish to use it to make a point.
Believe you, DRxJ…, and bit have to right to expect the best in the nation’s leaders. To bit expecting the best is what John Adams was saying when he said our form of government would only work for a “religious and moral” people.
( You want to see the quote search TP for “bitblt Adams.” That should find it.)
To that same end – expect the best in our leaders – many early states had oaths of office that required the oath taker to affirm he was a Christian. This is what was understood to be the best example – a Christian.
Do we expect the best in our leaders today? Of course not.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pmDo we expect our leaders to be Christian today? Of course not.
Is the a causal relationship- our leaders aren’t Christian and we expect less and less from them, and we get leadership that is less and less inspiring? This is what happens when morality goes out the window…starting at the top. Morality out the window continued by KS and VT.
Boo! from this mental health professional as well.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:36 pmNO.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:37 pmIs the a causal relationship- our leaders aren’t Christian and we expect less and less from them, and we get leadership that is less and less inspiring?
April 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
____________
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, John Ashcroft – all were Christians. All provided leadership that was undeniably uninspiring.
Is the a causal relationship?
April 7th, 2009 at 3:40 pmI guess so. Your logic proved
I do believe idjit has lost it.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:41 pmPerhaps because of two threads regarding the legality of gay marriages, and one on men kissing?
I flagged bit for this.
bit is clearly becoming frustrated at watching his arguments get torn to ribbons as quickly as he posts them, and he’s letting his frustrations boil out in the form of his hate-filled prejudices.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:46 pmbit says: many early states had oaths of office that required the oath taker to affirm he was a Christian
So? The states grew out of the colonies which were started by people fleeing Europe in order to have freedom to practice their religion independent of the state religion of their home country. Then, in bigoted fashion, they set up their own state religions. Further, in bigoted fashion, there were limits on the office holders gender, race, and land ownership status as well. Using a bigoted tradition to justify your own bigotry is pretty weak.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:47 pmIt’s pretty much all he’s got, as proven by this thread.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:51 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
bitblt Says:
Many are diseased because of their behavior. Some are even “bug chasers” – deliberately trying to become HIV+.
I flagged bit for this.
bit is clearly becoming frustrated at watching his arguments get torn to ribbons as quickly as he posts them, and he’s letting his frustrations boil out in the form of his hate-filled prejudices.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
So, why did flag bit – For making it up, or posting something you don’t want to know about?
bit didn’t make it up.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers
This rollingstone.com isn’t some sort of fundamentalist group is it?
April 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pmAttributing the behavior of a extraordinarily small group of a much larger group is prejudice. Saying that they’re ‘bug chasers’ because they are homosexuals is bigotry.
That’s why you’re flagged.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pmbit didn’t make it up.
But you did dig it up to paint a negative picture of the whole gay community on the basis of a very tiny percentage of people. Serial killers are almost exclusively white men, so by using your “logic” there should be a law that restricts the freedom of white men.
As I have said (and you can quote me): Man is the only rationalizing animal.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:00 pmInteresting that idjit use an article from 2003, which has been thoroughly debunked
April 7th, 2009 at 4:02 pmDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
Since idjit is the only TP poster who every remarks on this, jit will bring up the negative about homosexual behavior. Many practitioners are drug users and may experience emotional and mental problems, as might well be expected.
Funny, the “emotional and mental” patient you describe is my chosen profession.
And I’ll let you in on little itty bitty secret.
Come closer.
Closer.
Closer.
Most of them are heterosexuals!
Boo!
(did ya pi$$ your pants?)
April 7th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Not really. If your practice is representative of the general population then you have one homosexual patient for about every thirty-two heterosexual patients. (97/3)
April 7th, 2009 at 4:03 pmAnd even if it were accurate, it still wouldn’t support his point.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pmThanks, wags. You nailed it.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:07 pmAnd you got this number from…
The Heritage Foundation?
April 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pmFocus on the Family?
Illinois Family Institute?
PatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says:
bit didn’t make it up.
But you did dig it up to paint a negative picture of the whole gay community on the basis of a very tiny percentage of people. Serial killers are almost exclusively white men, so by using your “logic” there should be a law that restricts the freedom of white men.
As I have said (and you can quote me): Man is the only rationalizing animal.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Didn’t DRxJ… try to paint a picture of the entire homosexual community by describing a “…up by a loving, tolerant, giving same sex couple..?”
bit’s under the impression that two cute little grooms on a wedding cake represent very few homosexual practitioners. bit has previously posted numbers on what percentage of these practitioners want to be married – 1% of the population and %3 of the homosexual population. If anyone has better numbers please correct bit.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pmidjit Spews:
If your practice is representative of the general population then you have one homosexual patient for about every thirty-two heterosexual patients. (97/3)
…and you point?
April 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pmIs there a point?
idjit Spews:
Didn’t DRxJ… try to paint a picture of the entire homosexual community by describing a “…up by a loving, tolerant, giving same sex couple..?”
Nope. Not at all.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pmBut I did observe you defending the abusive heterosexual couple by remaining silent while still attacking teh gays.
No matter what your belief, a child’s safety comes first.
And that, my third party referencing friend, is YOUR true SIN!!!
Burden of proof is on you, chief. Your numbers, you’d better back them up.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pmP.S. It doesn’t matter how many there are anyway. If even a single homosexual couple exists that wishes to be married, the law is required to see that they have equal rights.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:19 pmbitbutt sez:
so-called same-same gender marriage
What the hell is this childishness?
April 7th, 2009 at 4:21 pmThank God that Vermont is trending towards providing equal rights for all Americans!
April 7th, 2009 at 4:27 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
If your practice is representative of the general population then you have one homosexual patient for about every thirty-two heterosexual patients. (97/3)
And you got this number from…
The Heritage Foundation?
Focus on the Family?
Illinois Family Institute?
April 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels (1994), The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
2000 US Census
Total population: 285,230,516.
Total households: 106,741,426
Total unmarried same-same households: 601,209
Homosexual represent 0.42% or less that 0.5%
Estimate of the number of homosexuals wanting to be married:
Estimator: bitblt
Source news posting:
At the time CA allow same-same gender marriage (SSGM), MA reported 3,000 SSGM couples had been issued licenses. MA had a residency requirement until CA starting issuing licenses.
At the time CA stopped issuing SSGM licenses, it was reported CA had issued 18,000 licenses. CA did not have a residency requirements.
It’s a rough but the above numbers are the sources of the estimates of %1 of the general population and %3 of the homosexual population are interested in SSGM.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
P.S. It doesn’t matter how many there are anyway. If even a single homosexual couple exists that wishes to be married, the law is required to see that they have equal rights.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
We don’t see it that way in this state.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:35 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
bit has previously posted numbers on what percentage of these practitioners want to be married – 1% of the population and %3 of the homosexual population. If anyone has better numbers please correct bit.
Burden of proof is on you, chief. Your numbers, you’d better back them up.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
If you have better numbers, bit would appreciate seeing them.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:36 pmbit will perhaps forgive us for not treating bit’s estimates as anything approaching valid or useful.
Especially since bit’s estimates have nothing to do with the validity of his argument against equal treatment.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:38 pmbitbutt,
I don’t care if only .01% of Americans are gay — they should have all the same rights the rest of us have.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pmIt is childishness, Zoo, but I think a better descriptor would be “churlishness”.
bit is a little cantankerous today. Perhaps that will happen when one advances all sorts of arguments and each gets dismantled in turn, more quickly than a school of piranha can strip a cow.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pmWhich is why you’re wrong.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pmbit assumes for the sake of his estimate that any gay Californian who did not apply for a marriage license within the brief window of availability is de facto not interested in getting married.
The depth of bit’s ignorance on this matter is astounding.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:45 pm#
#
ralph the wonder locust Says:
bit assumes for the sake of his estimate that any gay Californian who did not apply for a marriage license within the brief window of availability is de facto not interested in getting married.
The depth of bit’s ignorance on this matter is astounding.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
This was the only number reported for CA. The number for MA, 3,000 SSGM licenses was from 2003, bit believes, to 2005.
OTH, CA didn’t have a residency requirement so not everyone getting a SSGM license in CA was a CA residence which is why bit mentioned the requirement.
You have better numbers now would be a good time to share?
BTW bit might have made a mistake on the % of general population in MA.
Isn’t ((3,000*2)/6,000,000 ) – MA – and
April 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm((18,000*2)/36,000,000 ) – CA
more like 0.1% of the general population?
Either way it’s a very small number?
But is it significant enough to put the Union at risk?
Is it safe to assume “SSGG” is the acronym for the “same-same” foolishness…?
It’s SAME SEX MARRIAGE, dingleberry. You won’t catch teh gay if you write it or think it.
Grow up.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pmbitblt Says:
But is it significant enough to put the Union at risk?
April 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
The “Union” is NOT AT RISK.
It’s all in your tiny mind.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:04 pmWhat a colossally stupid question.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:04 pmGreat minds, wags. ;)
April 7th, 2009 at 5:05 pmZooey Lepidoptera Says:
Is it safe to assume “SSGG” is the acronym for the “same-same” foolishness…?
It’s SAME SEX MARRIAGE, dingleberry. You won’t catch teh gay if you write it or think it.
Grow up.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
bit has posted numerous times that the essence of being married is having people recognize the relationship between a man and a woman as a marriage. This is recognition is the “one flesh” relationship about which Jesus commented, bit believes, and it came long before courts had anything to do with defining marriage.
You think there’s a court anywhere powerful enough to make someone recognize the relationship between two same-same gender people as a marriage?
You know that adage, “A man persuaded against his will is of the same mind still?”
In this state, and 28 others, two same-same gender people are not married.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pmWhen it comes to legality, yes. Which is what we’re talking about. You’re the only one arguing ‘morality’.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:15 pmbitblt Says:
Isn’t ((3,000*2)/6,000,000 ) – MA – and
((18,000*2)/36,000,000 ) – CA
more like 0.1% of the general population?
Either way it’s a very small number?
But is it significant enough to put the Union at risk?
April 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
So you’re basing your argument on the fact that a few thousand people in a few counties actually applied for marriage licenses during the brief period in which they were legal, and extrapolating this to say that onle .1% of the population wants to be married?
Well, it may alarm you that only 108,963 couples applied for marriage licenses in Las Vegas. Since anybody in the country can get married in Las Vegas, it logically follows that only .00072642% of the straight population of the country wants to get married.
Why should .00072642% of the population get to dictate how the gay 2% of the population live?
April 7th, 2009 at 5:22 pmThe best post! You kick @ss missmolly!
April 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pmWHO CARES,WHO MARRY’S WHO.THAT’S THE LEAST OF THIS COUNTRY’S PROBLEMS.HELL IM’ GOING FOR MARRAGE WITH MY PET,WHAT NEXT….
April 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pmbit has indeed posted this numerous times, and each time in apparent ignorance of the nature of this claim as an opinion or belief, rather than as the compelling fact-based argument he imagines it to be.
Not if their prejudices are dead-set against it. Likewise, does bit think that their is any religious doctrine powerful enough to make someone recognize the relationship between two “same-same gender” people as sinful, if their values and experience tell them it is not?
However, there must be a substantial portion of the population that takes its cues from the cultural and civic standards around them, and if a court were to say recognize a relationship between two “same-same gender” people to be a lawful marriage, these people would likely by-and-large accept it.
This is the threat that bit fears most.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:24 pmIf you expect to be able to communicate with your fellow citizens via the written word, perhaps your first order of business ought to be a crash course in English composition.
Just a thought.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:27 pmbitblt Says:
In this state, and 28 others, two same-same gender people are not married.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
That is not the point, idiot. My comment was not about whether or not YOU or the state recognize anything. The point is your childish language.
Grow up.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:27 pmbitblt Says:
You know that adage, “A man persuaded against his will is of the same mind still?”
April 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
_____________
No, but it indeed describes the conservative mindset perfectly. It means that no amount of factual evidence nor reasoned logic will enlighten someone who is determined to be wrong.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:27 pmBitbit continues to ignore the words of Jesus:
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” (Matt. 19:9)
Still have yet to hear from Bitbit why Bitbit picks and chooses only certain words of Jesus to supportm, and not support all the words of Jesus.
Bitbit seems to be letting Bitbit’s prejudice guide Bitbit’s “pick and choose” attitude towards the Bible and the words of Jesus that Bitbit supports.
Until Bitbit condones the millions of opposite-opposite gender & same-opposite gender divorces annually at the same time Bitbit condones the paltry few thousand same-same gender marriages annually, one can only conclude that prejudice is Bitbit’s driving factor.
Let us all pray for Bitbit. Bitbit apparantly needs the help.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:34 pm#
#
ralph the wonder locust Says:
.
.
.
This is the threat that bit fears most.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
That’s not what bit fears the most.
As to the rest of your post try this question: How many non-Christians, including atheists,
give respect to and participate in marriage, understand the value of marriage, and just plain enjoy their marriage?
As you may have noted bit has often said that, according to the Bible, marriage was instituted by God and is older than either religion or government.
BTW, just so we’re both clear, one doesn’t believe in facts.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:37 pmbit tries but fails to make a coherent argument yet again.
bit confuses “belief” with ‘facts” yet again.
bit seems to suggest that inclusion in the Bible makes a claim “factual”, rather than a matter of faith. For instance, bit claims that “marriage was instituted by God and is older than religion or government” as if it were a fact in the conventional sense — i. e., provable by objective means. In truth, the existence of God, let alone the form that God takes, is not a matter of factual inquiry but one of faith.
The fact that bit believes in his own form of God so fervently may make it seem to bit that this God is real and the only God, but it is still just a belief, not an objective fact.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:44 pmWant to ask any more leading and unaswerable questions?
Simply saying so does not make it true. Marriage predates written history, so we have no real record of when it began.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:44 pmralph notes that bit chooses a single, concluding line of ralph’s post and ignores the rest — in fact, bit reprises the fallacious arguments that ralph refutes in the post to which bit refers.
Earlier bit alluded to the inability to truly change one’s mind through argument if that mind is dead-set on maintaining its belief.
bit provides ample evidence of this phenomenon.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:46 pmbit, you keep coming back to the Bible as your only source and therein lies the problem. The Bible is for believers and if you or anyone else wants to use the Bible as your source of decision making, that is perfectly fine. Doing so will not put you in conflict with secular law because there is much overlap. However, if you expect the Bible to be the basis for all secular law, then it will then be the basis for decision making by both believers and non-believers. That is neither Biblical nor Constitutional.
The Bible also clearly states that Jews should not yoke themselves to non-believers, through marriage or business relationships. Should this be put into secular law?
April 7th, 2009 at 5:46 pmDemocrat Soldier Says:
Bitbit continues to ignore the words of Jesus:
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” (Matt. 19:9)
Still have yet to hear from Bitbit why Bitbit picks and chooses only certain words of Jesus to supportm, and not support all the words of Jesus.
Bitbit seems to be letting Bitbit’s prejudice guide Bitbit’s “pick and choose” attitude towards the Bible and the words of Jesus that Bitbit supports.
Until Bitbit condones the millions of opposite-opposite gender & same-opposite gender divorces annually at the same time Bitbit condones the paltry few thousand same-same gender marriages annually, one can only conclude that prejudice is Bitbit’s driving factor.
Let us all pray for Bitbit. Bitbit apparantly needs the help.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Do you mean condone or condemn? If you meant condemn, then bit vehemently condemns divorce. bit has even heard the answer to philosophical question about why divorce is wrong – from a Biblical viewpoint?
So, why is divorce wrong? Because you’re telling God that what He gave you isn’t good enough.
This is not something bit wants to tell the Creator.
You really ought to quote the part of Matthew 19 to which bit usually refers:
Matthew 19:
bit understands that the Lord’s audience didn’t need to be told this is right, this is wrong, and this is wrong,..
April 7th, 2009 at 5:49 pmChrist could teach them what the Creator’s intent was, and His audience would understand that the Creator had no other intent. Any sexual expression that varies from the Creator’s intent will have negative, indeed deadly, consequences.
bit continues to grip his biblical teachings (selected ones, of course) and pretend that they should be the basis for secular law.
In essence, bit insists that all of us should hold the same religious beliefs that bit does.
That, of course, in un-American, which may be why bit feels this nation is not worth preserving.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:57 pmAny sexual expression that varies from the Creator’s intent will have negative, indeed deadly, consequences.
According to your belief system.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:58 pmThen why do we need a secular law prohibited gay marriage? If God is against it and will punish it, then why do we as mere mortals do anything? Let those who hear his words, obey, and those who do not, suffer. Before you bring up your other nonsense about murder, theft, etc let me preempt that argument by repeating that these are crimes against man. Homosexuality, according to your belief system, is a crime against God. For the first set of crimes, we need secular laws and controls. For homosexuality, why can’t we just leave it to God?
ralph the wonder locust Says: “In essence, bit insists that all of us should hold the same religious beliefs that bit does.”
To be fair though, he is staying true to his faith. His faith would value God’s rules above secular law. Democracy for them has no value other than as a tool to be exploited to impose a theocracy of their own design. These people don’t value secular democracy principles any farther than their utility in enforcing religious principles upon the rest of the population.
Which is why they scare the &@*!! out of me.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:55 pm#187 – “You really ought to quote the part of Matthew 19 to which bit usually refers:
Matthew 19:”
Yes, I meant to write “comdemn”, not condone. My mistake.
Interesting that you gloss over the millions of opposite-opposite and same-opposite gender divorces annually to rally against the paltry few thousand same-same gender marriages. (To use Bitbits nomenclature.)
Kind of makes one wonder why you ignore the large number to complain about the smaller number?
April 7th, 2009 at 11:41 pmDem Soldier,
Because it makes bitbutt feel all icky and squirmy…?
April 8th, 2009 at 12:30 ambitblt Says:
You have tried this idiocy before. Jesus was talking about divorce and never ONCE mentioned homosexuality. Face it you are ignorant and you are a bigot. It really is that simple
April 8th, 2009 at 4:30 ambumpfister Says:
So then you are ignorant and you are sick. Seek help NOW.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:34 ambitblt Says:
Zooey Lepidoptera Says:
Is it safe to assume “SSGG” is the acronym for the “same-same” foolishness…?
It’s SAME SEX MARRIAGE, dingleberry. You won’t catch teh gay if you write it or think it.
Grow up.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
bit has posted numerous times that the essence of being married is having people recognize the relationship between a man and a woman as a marriage. This is recognition is the “one flesh” relationship about which Jesus commented, bit believes, and it came long before courts had anything to do with defining marriage.
You think there’s a court anywhere powerful enough to make someone recognize the relationship between two same-same gender people as a marriage?
You know that adage, “A man persuaded against his will is of the same mind still?”
In this state, and 28 others, two same-same gender people are not married.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000009769.cfm
April 8th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Gotta love the weak attempts the far right uses when they state that the courts are RE DEFINING MARRIAGE when the fascist republicans ran to their various state capitols and enshrined the constitutions quickly DEFINING marriage as ONLY between one man and one woman, themselves. THEY “re defined” only 4 years ago. Equal marriage is not anything BUT an inclusion not a re definition. Hate is loosing ground as Americans stand up more and more against the antiquated history and bigotry.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:26 pmbitblt Says:
Bit has posted his ignorance and bigotry many times. None of it is any truer now than the first time he posted such foolishness. Bit THINKS he gets to define for ALL Americans what marriage is and has all kinds of other delusions based on his ignorance and his bigotry. Eugene couldnt care less about bits fantasies nor his stupidity
April 9th, 2009 at 5:17 am