HRC releases audition tapes of ‘Gathering Storm’ actors.
By on Apr 9th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
HRC releases audition tapes of ‘Gathering Storm’ actors.
Yesterday, the National Organization for Marriage released a controversial scare ad warning about the “gathering storm” of same-sex marriage. People in the ad — who are posing as California doctors, Massachusetts parents, and members of a New Jersey church group — have lines like, “the clouds are dark and the winds are strong, and I’m afraid.” Watch it:
The Human Rights Campaign has released a rebuttal chronicling the ad’s distortions. The organization has also tracked down audition tapes of the actors trying to feign the “harm” that is being done to them by marriage equality. Watch them here:
Update Earlier this week, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) gave a moving speech about why he was going to block an amendment reversing marriage equality in the state.
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
Afraid you might catch teh gay and like it?
I’m so sick of these idiots.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:03 pmoh man…..SNL is going to have a field day with this one!
April 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pmPeople should gather when these commercials play and do like they do at Rocky Horror Picture Show…
April 9th, 2009 at 12:06 pmWhy are right wingers so afraid of gay people?
I mean, for people that profess to be SO anti-gay, they sure do spend a LOT of time obsessing about what other men do with their genitals.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pmPeople in the ad — who are posing California doctors, Massachusetts parents, and members of a New Jersey church group
– - Because nothing screams pink fascism like having to find actors to read over-the-top dialogue, since they can’t find any real people who are even aware of what pink fascism means.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pmI would love to see the opposition do an ad with people talking about divorce and adultery, two destructive forces in the lives of families, way more destructive than the prospect of two people of the same sex getting married.
Whenever someone tells me that they are against same sex marriages, I always ask why. And they almost always say because it is a threat to their marriage. Then I ask “isn’t adultery and divorce more of a threat to your marriage than two people of the same sex getting married. Perhaps we should form a group that pushes to make divorce impossible and adultery illegal. That would do more to protect marriage than banning gays from getting married.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pmWOW.
What a strong message.
“I’m afraid”
It’s especially telling that only ONE actual thing to be afraid of is mentioned. They’re going to teach children is school that gay marriage is okay. (What’s wrong with that. If it is the law, it IS okay.)
A California doctor? Now what was she afraid of?
Church?
What foolishness, but we also thought the Republicans couldn’t keep fooling the American public about the fear of the terrorists and Iraq.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:09 pmI hope all that cheese they delivered in that vid was worth the paycheck.
What a recession will cause some people to do…
April 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pm“A rainbow coalition of people”? Who wrote this shit, and do they even have any idea what it means?
I’m with Kermit the Frog – Someday we’ll find it, the rainbow connection, the lover, the dreamer and me.
PEACE
April 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pmThis is why Hollywood is liberal. Conservatives cannot write or act.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:14 pmFradulent and absurd. The ad claims that these alleged citizens’ right to worship or authenticity of faith will be challenged if not destroyed if they’re required to acknowledge that some alleged married gay couples require their professional services.
It’s the “pharmacist who doesn’t want to dispense morning after pills” pseudo-drama all over again. Same non-arguments with a different wrapper.
If these alleged citizens are that devoted, perhaps they should choose parochial professions, rather than secular. They are, after all, free to choose.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:14 pmThe church is such a wonderful place to bring together people of all colors and creeds and beliefs to share their ideas of how to be IGNORANT & HATEFUL.
I think the Roman’s had a great idea when the fed the Christians to the Lions. Sorry to any of you with your own beliefs but I have no love for these people and the hate they spread. I truly look for the day when Jim Jones is brought back as a Kool Aid spokesman.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:16 pmThere’s nothing I appreciate more than a good laugh at the expense of bigotry and neoconservatism.
Nevertheless, this issue is a little too important to leave it at that.
Nevertheless, again, laugh away at those written lines! That’s all they’re good for.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:16 pm…
who’s the lady in audition tape #3?
i’ve seen her somewhere before.
***
btw, the storm is coming.
:)
April 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm“…for people that profess to be SO anti-gay, they sure do spend a LOT of time obsessing about what other men do with their genitals.”
When I was younger, the pertinent phrase was ‘latent’.
Methinks thou doth protest too much, m’lady, as Shakespeare put it.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pmWhenever a right winger starts going off about ‘teh gay’ I just tell them “I dunno, I don’t spend that much time thinking about gay sex, why do you?”
April 9th, 2009 at 12:21 pmThe legendary “some” are taking the issue of same sex marriage much farther than it was ever intended.
I’ve heard of these ’some’ people. George W. Bush used to reference them non-stop.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:21 pm“the clouds are dark and the winds are strong, and I’m afraid.”
It seems one constant in these reichwingers’ lives is fear. They’re always afraid: Of gays, minorities, “uppity” women (that’s why they like their women to stay barefoot & pregnant), non-Christians, foreigners, and a long list of other things.
What a bunch of bedwetters…. sheesh…
April 9th, 2009 at 12:22 pmLet’s keep our eyes on which networks are willing to take the money to air this ad. And then let’s look at the ads running in conjunction with this ad. And let’s let them know how we feel about this hate-inspiring concern-troll piece of shit.
PEACE
April 9th, 2009 at 12:22 pmAfraid. F***ing afraid?
Of what? Two people being in love and committing/devoting their lives to each other? Two people reaping the benefits of marriage? Two people providing a safe, secure and loving environment to their children, should they decide to raise a family? WTF?
These people are beyond sick and disturbed.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:23 pmWhat’s laughable, and disturbing at the same time, is that these same arguments were probably made to stand against Blacks getting married, and people not of the same race getting married.
I dunno, seems the country is fine to me once those arguments were defeated as well.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:23 pm“I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job”
WTF?
Whadda my missing?
April 9th, 2009 at 12:24 pmI really do feel sorry for these idiots. They have no idea. Absolutely no clue. Not one. And they will be even farther out to sea as each year passes.
They’ll just grow old waiting for Jeebus to rapture them. Of no earthly use to anyone.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pmOooooh, gay marriage, I’m so scared, a shitstorm is coming, and now Republicans who are actually closeted gays will be able to get married.
Fcuk the Republicans.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm“My freedom will be taken away.”
April 9th, 2009 at 12:27 pmWhat a total crock. Are these people really that stupid? Apparently, yes.
Apparently, the law is the only thing preventing all these cowardly right wingers from marrying someone of the same sex.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:27 pmobama-biden2009 Says:
__________
Mole alert… mole alert…
April 9th, 2009 at 12:29 pmThis is just too funny and pathetic. More fearmongering from the right. The audition tapes are just hilarious – what people won’t do for money?
The most ridiculous gripe coming from these nuts is how gay marriage is going to threaten their marriage?! How? NOM’s ad is just stupid to the tenth power.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pmNo tolerance.
No ideas.
No clue.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pmApparently they couldn’t find any professional actors.
Maybe because very, very few professional actors are afraid of Teh Gay.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pmThe teacher is appalled she must tell the kids that marriage between same sex people is okay . .
Well, I’m interested, then as long as she’s on THAT subject, how does the teacher defend the 50 PERCENT DIVORCE RATE of heterosexuals?
April 9th, 2009 at 12:32 pmI’m glad that I learned German while in college, and that I love Berlin so much. I’m going there for a couple weeks in September, and it may just be time to stay for good. I can’t handle this country anymore. Too, too crazy.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:33 pm…
“i’m a california doctor
living in massachusetts.”
how did i do that?
***
there’s a storm gathering!
**
April 9th, 2009 at 12:33 pmspencers butterfly mom Says:
——————————————————————————–
Let’s keep our eyes on which networks are willing to take the money to air this ad. And then let’s look at the ads running in conjunction with this ad. And let’s let them know how we feel about this hate-inspiring concern-troll piece of shit.
PEACE
Hey I’m with you on that! Fake News Network will probably be the first!
April 9th, 2009 at 12:33 pm——————————————————————————–
Gregor Samsa Says:
——————————————————————————–
“the clouds are dark and the winds are strong, and I’m afraid.”
It seems one constant in these reichwingers’ lives is fear. They’re always afraid: Of gays, minorities, “uppity” women (that’s why they like their women to stay barefoot & pregnant), non-Christians, foreigners, and a long list of other things.
And aren’t they trying to subconsciously stir up a fear similar to the fear of non-whites by using this thinly-veiled racial screed? “[...]dark [...], strong [...], and I’m afraid.”
April 9th, 2009 at 12:34 pm“A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage”
WTF?
Translation — “we don’t hate. What ever gave you that idea?”
“And by the way, we’re takin’ back the goddamn rainbows from you people”
April 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pmbarfly Says:
And aren’t they trying to subconsciously stir up a fear similar to the fear of non-whites by using this thinly-veiled racial screed? “[…]dark […], strong […], and I’m afraid.”
_________
uh oh… the Mandingo Fantasy rears its ugly head…
April 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pmThey’re so afraid, they have to hire actors to play themselves? I couldn’t read the disclaimer. It must have said something like, “These are not real people. Please do not attempt to discuss this, or try ‘The Gay,’ at home.”
April 9th, 2009 at 12:36 pm“Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.”
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Is this that whole stupid “What’s next? Polygamy, bestiality, child molestation?”-argument we hear right-wingers crying about? Because no one on the left who seriously supports gay marriage is advocating for any of those things. I would like them to provide us with some names and quotes from the people they claim “have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.” I think they’re lying.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:36 pmWayne, I don’t think it’s supposed to mean anything more than “Be afraid. be very afraid.”
April 9th, 2009 at 12:38 pmOnce again its conservatives showing their ignorance.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:39 pmh/t me?
April 9th, 2009 at 12:41 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/08/warren-democrats-prostitutes/#comment-5588875
I think it’s time for a parody anti-anti-gay television ad, “The Blathering Storm”. It will be split screen. On one side men in a group will be talking about how they are scared of gays. On the other side, gay people will be just doing normal stuff like working, talking, playing sports, etc until the end where there is a gay marriage. In response to the gay marriage, the fearful men all hug and console each other in their fear. Zoom to close up on one of the men getting married as he looks toward the other screen, smiles, and winks. Fade to pink.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:41 pm“Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.”
Actually, the truth is that some who advocate against same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pmI’m about as gay-friendly as a former college theater major gets. But in the interest of fairness (I know, since when does the right give a flying rat fart about fairness?), there IS a disclaimer in the ad that specifies that these people are actors. This is the first time I’ve actually seen the ad, though I’ve read about it elsewhere, and it’s easy to get the impression that the group that produced the ad is intentionally misleading people into thinking THESE are the real people whose “rights” were being violated (easier to believe since the performances are so piss-poor, you’d be forgiven for thinking they’re not professional actors). It’s a stupid ad, and false in the respect that no straight person’s rights are under fire if gay marriage is made legal. But on this one point, they’re accurate, these are actors. Just not very good ones.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm.
The storm is coming…
I say, let them get wet…
… In the pants by their own pee!
.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:43 pmI live in NJ and can’t wait to see where these stoopid ads show up. The reichwingnut faction is fairly weak here and as for the rest of New Jersyans – we could care less about who is sleeping with and marrying who – as long as it doesn’t make my auto insurance or property taxes go up, whatever!
April 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm“”"”
i want to see the reel
where they take off their
masks and it’s bill o’reilly.
***
and i am afraid.
:\
April 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm“I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job”
Really. I’m a Michigan pharmacist, who has never had to choose between my faith and my job.
And, if the truth be told, I don’t spend anytime while working or at home, thinking about gays (and the subsequent ’sex’ they may be having).
But I do know this, if you were a real doctor, I’d stay as far away as possible from you, ya qwack!
April 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm.
Dear California Doctor,
What faith did Christ choose when he practiced his service?
“My freedom will be taken away…”
… Girlfriend, Traditional Marriage is about the woman submitting, thus taking HIS name. Besides, now you’re free to kiss your girlfriend.
“Those Advocates want to change the way I live…”
No honey, “WE” want to change the way YOU make “US” live.
“I will have no choice…”
Sorry kid, your choices have doubled…
… IT’S BASIC MATH!!! Now you have both sexes to marry.
I thought the LGBT community and the Peace Coalition owned that RAINBOW?
.. Or do we have the Christianists hijacking another secular symbol? You know, bunnies and eggs?
.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
Actually, the truth is that some who advocate against same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples
Exacty. They pull these uber strawmen out their rectums like;
“When will we legalize polygamy?”
“Why not legalize marriage between a man and his cat?”
And no matter how many times I say that an animal cant sign a marriage license (which is what marriage has basically become), it falls on deaf ears.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pmMax Anax junius -1 Says:
I thought the LGBT community and the Peace Coalition owned that RAINBOW?
April 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
____________
I’m pretty sure the leprechaun community would take issue with that statement.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pmRegarding the YouTube video in the “rebuttal” link to the HRC:
I’m sorry, but I have a hard time believing anything coming from Ms. Maggie, since she cannot look straight at the camera. I’ve heard scientific studies on the use of eye contact, and she seems quite unable to keep her focus straight. While I am unsure if this is a sign of lying, she’s obviously uncomfortable with her “truths”.
To be fair, they do state that “actors” are portraying these case studies. However, they are not presenting them as they have been presented in a court of law. Plenty of opportunity to stretch the truth in a one-minute ad.
The fact is that couples should focus on their own marriage instead of dictating how others should live their married life or union. Really, if you are worried your child will learn that marriage could involve the same genders, then you are either overestimating the amount of time teachers focus on marriage in the classroom or have not considered doing the right thing and teaching your kids what the issue really covers.
Do the right thing and talk to your kids about this instead of leaving things to be taught by just the schools. If creationism can be taught in some schools, then gay marriage should have the right to be covered in some as well.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pmYou’d think the religious right would be happy with gay marriage, by the way they constantly preach their end time prophecy and push their end of times fantasy of a naked, flying adventure (AKA the Rapture) and squawk about how gay marriage is a warning time of the end times.
Guess they’re not really ready to ’suit up’ just yet…or perhaps they don’t have the courage of their convictions?
Just sayin’
April 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pm.
Where are these Christians over the rise of divorce? After all, divorce IS the tool recognized to break up these “SACRED” marriages, NO?
I laugh ever time one of these extremists remarry after a divorce…
… What? The first two marriages weren’t “SACRED” enough?
This ad should have said it was made by the “MOTE-n-EYE” Studios.
.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pmamanda – um, when i first saw that headline, i thought
Hillary Rodham Clinton was involved…
i see plenty of room to credit the Human Rights Campaign…
just sayin’
April 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pmtoasterheadm,
April 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pmNaw, they joined the striking Arch builders society…
LizCoro Says:
The teacher is appalled she must tell the kids that marriage between same sex people is okay . .
I can’t imagine a teacher would be required to portray it like that. I doubt they’d have to say it was “okay”.
I honestly don’t know, but, I would think that if a teacher just said that gay marriage has now become legal in some states they could leave it at that. A teacher could probably use a question from a student to talk about how it used to be illegal, became a civil rights issue, some people don’t like it, others welcome it, you know, an objective explanation.
A good teacher could use a question from a student to ask, “Do you think girls should be allowed to own a house?” or “Do you think black people should be able to vote?”.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pmI think this is shorthand for “Gad gave gay people AIDS as a punishment, I am not going to treat them!”
April 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pm.
Daryyl, oh Daryyl…
… Where for art thou my Big “D”?
I have a kiss a waiting for thee.
.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:00 pmGod, not Gad, although , egad, I kind of like it!
April 9th, 2009 at 1:00 pmI am a performing artist, and if someone wanted to hire me to play for a Republican gathering, I wouldn’t do it.
So I wonder why these actors did this project. They are either right-wingers themselves or they were made to sign the contract before they got to see the parts… which could explain Maggie’s body language…
April 9th, 2009 at 1:02 pmGeezzz, we have had gay marraige in Canada for 4 years now. The sky is still blue, everyone still smiles (more so now then before), kids still play from morning to night, no religion has failed (damm..lol)becuase of gay marraige. Business in the wedding industry is still booming, divorces are still at the same rate, and girls are still very hot!!!!
So in retrospect …..it seems to me, we’re ALL happier.
So when someone says that dark clouds are coming….tell them not to confuse Republican GAS as clouds because THE SKY IS STILL BLUE IN CANADA!!!!!
No offence to our neighbors, but we’re damm glad all the wako’s live in the US and not in Canada.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:02 pmIt would actually be a great starting point to discuss the 1st & 14th Amendments. It could be a wonderful teaching tool to help students understand how & why the Constitution is still relevant to their lives today.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:05 pmY’know, in a way this ad is encouraging.
It is so appallingly poorly done, so badly written and directed, that it demonstrates one of the key limitations of the prototypical right-wing skill set.
One reason the Right doesn’t number many artists among their group is that conservatism grows best where empathy is underdeveloped. Empathy is critical to artistic creation.
Empathy is also critical to relating to others. When their message is simple and resonant, right-wingers are astoundingly successful at selling their ideas. But when the zeitgeist is running against their simplistic mantras, as now, they are astoundingly unsuccessful at selling their ideas, because they are not well able to adapt their message beyond what makes sense to them.
To wingnuts, the message and delivery in this ad makes perfect sense, as does the hysterical raving of Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and Ricky “Man-on-Dog” Santorum.
But those guys are finding a shrinking audience among the general population for their extremism, and they don’t appear to know any other way to respond than to crank it up a couple more notches.
I say, “go for it, guys! The crazier the better!”
April 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pmdogjudge Says:
A California doctor? Now what was she afraid of?
She doesn’t want to be forced to treat “the gays”. Damn her Hippocratic oath, she should be able to treat whomever she wants. These people are seriously sick.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:09 pmLizCoro Says: “I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job” WTF? Whadda my missing?
To these people, Freedom Of Religion means “Freedom to discriminate in secular environments according to my personal religious beliefs.”
April 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm…………………………..
I’m stunned speechless by the incredible stupidity.
What about being a doctor could possibly be changed by allowing gay marriage? I can’t even figure out how that could be spun to make such a ridiculous statement in the first place. The issue was a doctor refusing to treat a patient because she was a lesbian. That has absolutely nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with a doctor that has no right to be one, because they are incapable of doing their effin job, which, incidentally, is NOT to make judgements about who deserves care and who doesn’t. I hope that doctor was sued out of existence.
I wonder if the issue in New Jersey would have been any more or less controversial if they had denied the center’s use to black people instead of gay people. If you want to be public entity, you can’t discriminate. Sorry, New Jersey Church of Self-Righteous Bigots. Sucks for you.
And of course I understand why you wouldn’t want a school to be teaching your children to have some tolerance and not be total haters toward people who are different just because they are different….they should be giving lessons on how to beat those gays down, right?…..I mean honestly, wtf?
It’s no wonder the commercial is so bad and the actors suck so horrifically. No decent actor would ever say stupid shit like that outside of a troubled character.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pmI think most sane, rational people don’t care for acting like savage b@stards…unlike these 28 Percenters.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pmMax Anax junius -1 Says:
Where are these Christians over the rise of divorce? After all, divorce IS the tool recognized to break up these “SACRED” marriages, NO?
Divorce should not be allowed and adultery made illegal if they really want to protect the sanctity of marriage. If adultery was made illegal, the Republican’t party would lose half their representatives in Congress.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:12 pmAll I want to know how does same sex marriage affect a heterosexual mariage?………It doesn`t and the Bible thumping REICH American Taliban has absolutely no empathy towards anyone the isn`t White,Reich and wealthy.The hypocrisy coming the Reich is so sad it devalues Chritianity and the teachings of Jesus.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:14 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins
In fairness, the Democrats would loose a bunch, too, were divorce and adultery made illegal.
Which is kind of the point, I suppose. It’s such a ridiculous thing to claim that I seriously wonder how it’s still considered a valid argument. Most of the time when something this half-assed is thrown out there and then roundly countered and debunked, it disappears in favor of a new half-assed excuse for hatred. This one has really stood the test of time and I for the life of me can’t figure out how.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pmThe sanctity of marriage line of bullshit, is what I was referring to as half-assed, not the comparison to divorce and adultery. Didn’t make that clear.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pmIf they were telling the truth, the ad would look something like this. “I’m a doctor, and all I was doing was discriminating against this gay couple who wanted to be together when one of them was dying. I wanted security to take the gay spouse out in chains so they couldn’t see their loved one, but the liberals are trying to impose their fascist compassion and fairness on me. Bigotry and discrimination should be allowed as long as it is done under the guise of religion. Oh, and be afraid of something.”
April 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pmIt was Daryll who declared ‘they would take back the rainbow’.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:21 pmOdd, I just saw one out my window – didn’t work D they will always appear when you least expect!
One should never be afraid of ROY G. BIV
______
tombaker Says:
If these alleged citizens are that devoted, perhaps they should choose parochial professions, rather than secular. They are, after all, free to choose.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
April 9th, 2009 at 1:22 pm______
Yeah, push that line. That’ll show ‘em their lives are unaffected. ;)
It’s no wonder the commercial is so bad and the actors suck so horrifically. No decent actor would ever say stupid shit like that outside of a troubled character.
I agree. I half-expected Sam Waterston to ask them, “So that’s why you killed him? Because he was gay and that frightened you?” Then we hear the “da-dung” sound effect. “Law & Order – Hate Crimes Unit”, coming this fall.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:22 pmchristopher wiwi Says: “All I want to know how does same sex marriage affect a heterosexual mariage?”
Same-sex marriage obvously won’t literally break up or replace heterosexual marriages. But in their minds, it dilutes and corrupts the meaning behind the word “marriage” for them, associating their own marriages now with what they consider “deviant” and immoral behaviors.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:25 pmGregor Samsa Says:
It seems one constant in these reichwingers’ lives is fear. They’re always afraid: Of gays, minorities, “uppity” women (that’s why they like their women to stay barefoot & pregnant), non-Christians, foreigners, and a long list of other things.
Talk about right on Gregor! Kind of like those religious extremists in Afghanistan making it illegal for women to leave the house without male permission. What are they scared of? If they have a good marriage their wives will come home to them.
Are the right-wingers afraid their children will turn out to be gay unless they’re brainwashed?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:26 pmIsn’t it ironic that many do?
It would be interesting to see the actual statistics though.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:29 pmApril 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Most people who are against gay marriage probably have a relative who is gay(Dick Cheney`s daughter)I wonder how they feel about “those” people.Why are they so afraid of changing things in our country for the better.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pmWell, that was weird.
I type a reply and it shows up blank…?
Oh well. I will have to try again.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pmDid they come to the verge of saying Gay marriage is OK as long as it doesn’t force itself into their lives (the only reason they object to gay marriage is that there are those who want to force them to change their lives) ?
If so, easy solution. Easy solution. Legalize Gay Marrriage but don’t put in a law that heteros have to enter gay marriage.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pmbarfly,
Yours is an interesting take. I didn’t think of it that way, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the actual intention, and/or some reichwing nut job understood it as you say.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:35 pmmary lacewing Says: “Are the right-wingers afraid their children will turn out to be gay unless they’re brainwashed?”
Yes.
They feel homosexuality is a learned behavior, a taboo temptation lurking inside everyone, encouraged by being exposed to homosexuals and their “agenda” to make it seem fun and normal.
Which is why they don’t want to see it, don’t want it mentioned in schools, and really don’t want the goverment making it seem OK by legalizing same-sex marriage.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pmCan’t the people that are against gay marriage simply avoid getting gay married?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pmI do believe I would fall over dead from a heart attack if Republicans ever took a stance that didn’t involve fear or war.
As to the doctor whining about choosing between job and faith, pick faith. The world doesn’t need doctors like you.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pmmary lacewing Says:
Are the right-wingers afraid their children will turn out to be gay unless they’re brainwashed?
Yes. From all the stuff they spout, I gather they believe one can catch “the gay” bug. Which is why righwingers work so hard to “cure” gay folk.
Funny when you consider rightwingers also believe nothing happens without the involvement of some god. Then again, consistency is not their forte.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pmKateWords Says: They feel Republicanism is a learned behavior, a taboo temptation lurking inside everyone, encouraged by being exposed to wingnuts and their “agenda” to make it seem fun and normal.
Sort of like that?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:41 pmThat’s like asking a bear not to go after honey…
April 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pmAt the time of this posting, homosexual behavior remains immoral. Of course, numerous other behaviors are immoral including adultery, fornication, polygamy, pedophilia, lying, deceiving, and many others.
But this TP poster makes a good point, at least to bit’s way of thinking.
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Max Anax junius -1 Says:
Where are these Christians over the rise of divorce? After all, divorce IS the tool recognized to break up these “SACRED” marriages, NO?
Divorce should not be allowed and adultery made illegal if they really want to protect the sanctity of marriage. If adultery was made illegal, the Republican’t party would lose half their representatives in Congress.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Is poster suggesting that political leaders who participate, yea even flaunted, immoral behavior such as adultery are promoting the immoral behavior of homosexuality or other immoral behaviors? Yes, this is a tenuous link even for bit.
However, isn’t that what immoral behavior does? Consequently, immoral behavior encourages more immoral behavior.
Immoral behavior discourages one from commenting on what beneficial, upright behavior ought to be because of the hypocrisy or guilt one feels over their own behavior. The results, often displayed on TP, is that there can’t be agreement over simple things – like how to teach children about sexual expression.
Like poster says apparently there are many who ignore Christ’s words in Matthew 19: “…the Creator intended for a man and a woman to be one flesh…(paraphrasing)”
This union is God’s gift. It produces life. As Deuteronomy 30 says about good behavior: “…that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, ..”
(If you don’t believe the Bible, please don’t waste any pixels by telling bit you don’t believe. bit believes it, and bit believes the U.S. Constitution was not written, or amended, to support licentiousness.)
April 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pmbit has severe cognizant issues. Including referring to itself in the third person.
Nice thing about America though, we have Freedom of Religion and rely on laws. Keep your morals to yourself.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pmzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
April 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pmGregor Samsa Says:
Funny when you consider rightwingers also believe nothing happens without the involvement of some god. Then again, consistency is not their forte.
lol, the other day someone was telling me about an instance when their insurance company wouldn’t cover the loss when a tree fell on their car, calling it an “act of God” and I thought, with that logic, it’s an act of God when a deer jumps in front of your car. It’s an act of God when you hit a pothole, spill your coffee, glance down at the mess and hit the car in front of you. Everything would be an ‘act of God’!
April 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pmhey bitbelt- glad you brought up Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 5:20
‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’
Hmmm, it seems like there’s a few levels here. there’s the false witness of PAID actors, and there’s the lies of the ad themselves, which the HRC debunk.
Gosh, all the godliness really stands out in front of a green screen.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:55 pmBeastiality, pedophilia, and polygamy are common retorts to pro-gay marriage arguments. Polygamy is a tougher one to answer, because frankly what a group of adults do is their own business, but the easiest answer is that it would require a complete restructuring of the tax laws, and that’s not really feasible, but allowing people to live in polygamy as long as all parties are cool with it bothers me not one bit. Not my business to be bothered with, honestly.
But the beastiality and pedophilia arguements are stupid, and easily rebuffed. Marriage is a contract, and neither animals nor children can legally enter into a contract. Not only is marrying an adult that you are in love with regardless of their sex not even remotely similar to having a thing for children or animals, nothing regarding gay marriage legislation will ever change the fact that these people/animals can’t marry because they can’t agree to the terms.
You should see people’s faces when you slam their argument to the ground with one quick fact. You can practically see smoke coming from their ears, the wheels turn so fast.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:55 pmbit has a mental block; can’t understand that morality is not a universal constant.
Or else can’t understand that bit doesn’t decide for others what is immoral.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pmI’ll wait patiently, bit.
tell me how this commercial, even the entire campaign of lies and scare tactics can possible be in line with Deuteronomy 5:20. How do you as a fundamentalist Christian reconcile this one?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pmPete couldn’t care less what a superstitious primitive like bit thinks. More moral, upstanding, patriotic Americans share pete’s outlook every day.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pmPete thinks there are three things a god would never need.
1. Money
April 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pm2. An army
3. Actors telling lies on said god’s behalf
And that’s saying something, ’cause bit’s all about tenuous links.
In fact, it’s all bit has to go on — tenuous links. So if a link is too tenuous even for bit, that must be one crazy tenuous link.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm_____
KateWords Says:
——————————————————————————–
mary lacewing Says: “Are the right-wingers afraid their children will turn out to be gay unless they’re brainwashed?”
Yes.
They feel homosexuality is a learned behavior, a taboo temptation lurking inside everyone, encouraged by being exposed to homosexuals and their “agenda” to make it seem fun and normal.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
_____
No “they” don’t. They believe that everyone is tempted by some kind of sin and homosexuality is the sin by which some are tempted. They believe that some are tempted by it, but don’t give in to it. They don’t want those who are tempted, but would resist it if they know it’s wrong to be fooled into thinking it’s ok. They aren’t interested in what others choose to do, but they don’t want their govt legitimizing it. ;)
April 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pmpete, I would add
4. Fawning over
5. Worship
Seems there is a bit of low self esteem showing in your average deity.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pmsmidget thinks bitblt is a total idiot for several reasons, and chooses to make a list a la Pete:
1) bitblt thinks he gets to tell other people what is moral.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pm2) bitblt thinks that the Bible gets to dictate law (screw the first amendment, right bitblt?)
3) bitblt claims to follow the Bible, but can’t be bothered to open it up and actually quote it and is instead reduced to paraphrasing scripture.
4) bitblt clearly is new to the intertubes, as said scripture passage could easily have been found by using this new-fangled “google” thing they have out now.
5) bitblt refers to himself in the third person, indicating that he is either completely bonkers or a total moron, most likely a little from column A an a little from column B.
(Ofcourse, said tenuous link came not from the TP poster, but from bit himself, in a virtuosic display of straw man construction.)
April 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pm“homosexuality is the sin ”
No, wasting good Irish whiskey is a sin. As is wasting time on fools.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:08 pmHeaven forbid the government legitimize equality for ALL couples…
April 9th, 2009 at 2:08 pmTo paraphrase a very wise man…’the only sin is in hurting other people unnecessarily. The rest is made up nonsense. Hurting yourself isn’t a sin, just stupid.’
April 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pmupright left Says:
Yeah, push that line. That’ll show ‘em their lives are unaffected. ;)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You really are a pompous bufoon. People GET effected by their jobs. You make choices. As a doctor you take an oath. You TREAT the patient in front of you period. If it is Osama Ben Laden you TREAT him. It isnt your job to do any judging. You TREAT. If you cant do that you belong in a different profession. In history Dr Mudd was tried for treason for treating Johsn Wilkes Boothe but even if he KNEW that would happen he would STILL have had the obligation to TREAT THE PATIENT IN FRONT OF HIM. Unless you think oaths are just convieniences.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pmThey aren’t interested in what others choose to do, but they don’t want their govt legitimizing it.
Regressives want to impose their hypocritical “morality” onto others, but the rest of the free World already decided Fascism is a terrible idea.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pmAre you speaking for yourself? Or for other “right-wingers”?
Because frankly, what you wrote is a bit bizarre in its logical connections.
For instance, you say, “They aren’t interested in what others choose to do, but they don’t want their govt legitimizing it”. The fact that you follow it with a silly winky face emoticon does not disguise the cognitive dissonance.
If they truly weren’t interested in ‘what others choose to do”, they would just ignore it. They would not mount aggressive and well-funded campaigns to defeat legislation or override court rulings.
The fact that they “don’t want their government legitimizing it” is pretty strong evidence that they are interested in it.
This is a nation of laws, not of religious dogma.
The “sinfulness” of homosexuality is religious dogma. It has no basis in societal impact, on the rights of others or in any area of a civic nature.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pmHoodathunktick Says:
pete, I would add
4. Fawning over
5. Worship
I could think of a lot more. I just elected to stop my list at three.
However, I think that a petty and vain god does need worship and fawning as surely as any diva. When the worship and fawning end? The boozing, drugging, and other self-destruction begins in earnest.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pmThe “sinfulness” of homosexuality is religious dogma.
Well, my kharma ran over that dogma a long time ago.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pmbitblt Says:
At the time of this posting. The arrogant and ignorant bigot Bit thinks HE gets to be the arbiter for EVERYONE IN AMERICA about what is immoral and what isnt. What bit doesnt know is normal people dont WANT ignorant bigots like him making their moral decisions, certainly never gave him any such authority to do so and think he is a moron
April 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pmupright left Says:
More pompous bufoonery from YOU. You dont get to decide for all Americans what is right and what is wrong. You dont want to participate in homosexuality then dont. What your nieghbors do in their bedroom that doesnt effect you or hurt anyone else is none of your business YOU can consider it wrong you cant MAKE it wrong for them.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pmSomeone should really tell bit and his buddies that the founding fathers realized letting religion run a country was not a good idea so they wrote a Constitution.
The fundies are still whining because we took away their stocks and witch dunkings.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pmAs of this posting, Zooey has decided that bitbutt continues to be a self-righteous, condescending, homophobic, insufferable bigot.
Don’t waste pixels or bandwidth disagreeing with Zooey.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:28 pmI realize that KO and Rachel have brought this point to our attention before with regards to Republicans and that point is:
Christian Values Republicans have never heard of video tape.
Seriously! What utter morons they are. I bring this up because despite having their full-blown gonzo whopper hypocrisies revealed over and over again on the nightly news, these IDIOTS think that if they say it – IT must be true.
Regardless of what they said or did just weeks or days before. Talk about “Arrested Development.”
And now we get to see what whores these actors are in this commercial. Well, at least we can cut the whores some slack. It is after all, a tough economy right now.
But what does it say about the conservative hate mongers that hired them and paid to air this travesty?
Advice: If I were a whore actor like the ones in the commercial, I would race straight to the bank and make damn sure their check cashes.
Uhmm.. Does it sound like I have experience in these matters? Well, maybe. But, just once. Hey, I was young and needed the money ok?
April 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pmPLCMR, as well as all regular TPers, is well aware of bit’s stance on gay marriage and PLCMR recommends that bit not waste any further pixels repeating his anti-American view that laws should be based on his particular religious dogma.
PLCMR is not aware that the US Constitution specifically labels homosexual behavior or gay marriage as licentiousness.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:32 pmIt’s one of the innate advantages we on the left have — we like and trust science and the technological advancements it brings.
Videotape and digital video on the web are two of the more useful advancements. Apparently, the fundies on the right don’t believe they exist.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:36 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says
“Law & Order – Hate Crimes Unit”, coming this fall.
Dog, I’m a huge Law and Order fan, and that could work. But then we’d hear the same gibberish from the right about forcing beliefs in their home thru a tv show. Which is strange since most of them are enamored with 24. The most overrated show EVER.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pmPLCMR you are consistantly a joy to read. You handle these rightwing psuedopiety junkies with aplomb and logic. Never showing any frustration or hostility. Always blowing them out of the water with pure reason and a well centered heart. Just wanted to say I appreciate your efforts.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pmWe need to have a Colbert style green screen challenge with these!
Seriously, all video editors and motion graphics people: Get on it! Make these people look like the fools they are!
April 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pmStupid Git Says: Seriously, all video editors and motion graphics people: Get on it! Make these people look like the fools they are!
Off hand, I’d say they are already doing a pretty good job of that themselves.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pmThese school children the HOLIER THAN THOU are so concerned about, with the idea of having to teach them that same sex marriage is okay and possibly legal, that some of these children just might not be considered NORMAL too? Teaching ignorance is not acceptable, being a bigot is something the RIGHT does very well and they are so proud of it. This is not the America I am proud of. When we have elected officials and Presidents that LOUDLY state their approval for hatred for a race or sex, isn’t that countries like Iraq and the EVIL DOERS? I guess some Americans feel it is okay to discriminate and hate others but still be uplifting and proud Christians at the same time? How Priceless….
April 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pmbitblt (If you don’t believe the Bible, please don’t waste any pixels by telling bit you don’t believe. bit believes it, and bit believes the U.S. Constitution was not written, or amended, to support licentiousness.)
bit, I belive the Bible (christian), and I also know that the Constitution is a pretty Godless document, written by people who did so on purpose because they came from a place where the church ruled everything and life was a living hell. So their point was to make sure that the church and religious fundamental argument didn’t sway public argument and pure fairness.
There is no need to make this country into the 1600’s again, that’s what the founders were trying to accomplish.
Most of the people who originally came here were religious criminals (in the eyes of the crown) so they came here to escape. Now we want to trample all over what they started by going backwards and allowing religion to dictate what God and Jesus despised being in…government and politics?
We have christians here, we have muslims, catholics, jews, hindus, its a melting pot of people who make choices of all types, and the freedom to live, worship, and yes even mate as they please. That’s the America I know, and I will not sit by and watch a bunch of dogmatic fundies use my or their chosen religion to polarize the nation and have the many take away the rights of the few any longer.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pmralph the wonder locust Says: to ‘upright left’
Are you speaking for yourself? Or for other “right-wingers”?
Because frankly, what you wrote is a bit bizarre in its logical connections.
For instance, you say, “They aren’t interested in what others choose to do, but they don’t want their govt legitimizing it”. The fact that you follow it with a silly winky face emoticon does not disguise the cognitive dissonance.
If they truly weren’t interested in ‘what others choose to do”, they would just ignore it. They would not mount aggressive and well-funded campaigns to defeat legislation or override court rulings.
The fact that they “don’t want their government legitimizing it” is pretty strong evidence that they are interested in it.
This is a nation of laws, not of religious dogma.
The “sinfulness” of homosexuality is religious dogma. It has no basis in societal impact, on the rights of others or in any area of a civic nature.
I know I couldn’t have said it better! Thanks Ralph.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:56 pm‘the Constitution is a pretty Godless document‘
And yet it calls for things like equality, justice, freedom, fair treatment, providing for the general welfare and so on. I’d say it calls forth the best principles and says it is up to the people to live up to them.
And they didn’t have to mention burning in hell once.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pmIm hoping someone can help me out with this. A few years back i think somewhere in the midwest, a high school student who was gay was tied to a fence and beaten to death. So do the conservatives condone this sort of violence and stupidity?
April 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pmThis always throws the fundies: how can someone be moral if they have no faith in God?
Many of them honestly believe that people are utterly incapable of deciding what is moral and just without guidance from the Bible. They just don’t understand how such an occurrence could come about.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pmSounds like you’re talking about Matthew Shepherd.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pmRalph, that’s because they are basically control freaks. They can only see two reasons for doing anything. Money or fear. They can’t comprehend that the vast majority of people do things either because it is good or it makes them smile.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pmPathetic! Especially the only where the young male applicant reads he’s a California doctor. Yeah, right, Doogie Howser! The right wing mentality is showing its true colors of intolerance, hate and blatant ignorance. It’s fun watching them implode!
April 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pmAt the time of this posting, homosexual behavior remains immoral.
But wait ten minutes, and it’ll be okay.
I’ll be the first to agree that I’m not the best writer in the world, but this was a bad opening for a post trying to put forth an argument.
(If you don’t believe the Bible, please don’t waste any pixels by telling bit you don’t believe. bit believes it, and bit believes the U.S. Constitution was not written, or amended, to support licentiousness.)
The Bible doesn’t have anything to do with our Constitution.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:19 pmNot out loud.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
This always throws the fundies: how can someone be moral if they have no faith in God?
I have heard people say that one cannot have a moral code without a belief in God. As an atheist, I disagree strongly. I have a moral code, and it would sound very familiar to Christians. I believe in treating other people the way I would like them to treat me. And if I should ever wrong another person, I might have prison to fear, but I also have a conscience that would bother me quite a bit. I do not need to invent a deity to worship, nor an afterlife of misery to fear.
I try to do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:30 pmWell, Wayne, that’s because bit had no interest in putting forth an argument.
bit was simply telling us how the world is. It appears that we are free to accept what bit says, or to burn in hell for turning our backs on the Word of God.
(BTW, you’re a fine writer.)
April 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pmThis is an ad for Paxil.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says: “I try to do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do.”
That’s because you’ve matured into an ethical and moral adult: accepting responsibility for your behavior, your morals and their consequences.
These people are more like ethical children, still needing a (cosmic) parent to teach and scare them into behaving.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pmThankyou Ralph
April 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pmThank you, Ralph.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pmThe sad thing is, the grey gentleman with a beard is a high school drama teacher with openly gay students. The short-haired lady also happens to be his wife, who is an elementary school teacher.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pmsscncturn64 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Im hoping someone can help me out with this. A few years back i think somewhere in the midwest, a high school student who was gay was tied to a fence and beaten to death. So do the conservatives condone this sort of violence and stupidity?
Matthew was one of many killed or attacked because of who they are, and I feel at times our nations religions are just as crazy as Bin Laden’s. How many virgins do they get when they strap a bomb onto their bodies and explode it in public? Sounds like something coming soon to the good ole US of A. Fox would support those ideas.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm#
#
Wayne Ant Schneider Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
This always throws the fundies: how can someone be moral if they have no faith in God?
I have heard people say that one cannot have a moral code without a belief in God. As an atheist, I disagree strongly. I have a moral code, and it would sound very familiar to Christians. I believe in treating other people the way I would like them to treat me. And if I should ever wrong another person, I might have prison to fear, but I also have a conscience that would bother me quite a bit. I do not need to invent a deity to worship, nor an afterlife of misery to fear.
I try to do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
As nice a guy as you might be, it’s very unlikely that you imagined your own moral code, and it’s for certain that it didn’t come from the First book of Atheism or TEv.
and it would sound very familiar to Christians.
bit suspects that this would be the case, because it probably came from Christianity.
Conservative Christians are fond of saying that all moral code comes from the recognition that man(mankind) is created in the image of God. This is the human characteristic that makes people valuable.
This is why abortion is immoral.
This is why homosexuality is immoral. (Jesus said the Creator’s – the one who created man – intent was that a man and a woman would be one flesh in a marriage.)
Because of the the influence of Christianity on the founding and, until recently, on the history of the U.S., the best example of this profound respect for people has been in the U.S., so it seems to bit.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:24 pmWhat the hell are these freaks talking about? It was a bright and sunny day with clear blue skies and a light breeze in Vermont today.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pmmorality is relative…
April 9th, 2009 at 4:26 pmHumanism
April 9th, 2009 at 4:28 pmgenius
This is the human characteristic that makes people valuable.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:28 pm—-
You might wish to read DeWaal’s Good Natured. “Morality” is not unique to the hominid species…
______
ralph the wonder locust Says:
If they truly weren’t interested in ‘what others choose to do”, they would just ignore it. They would not mount aggressive and well-funded campaigns to defeat legislation or override court rulings.
The fact that they “don’t want their government legitimizing it” is pretty strong evidence that they are interested in it.
This is a nation of laws, not of religious dogma.
The “sinfulness” of homosexuality is religious dogma. It has no basis in societal impact, on the rights of others or in any area of a civic nature.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
______
I’m fairly certain that you knew what I meant since this has all been discussed previously. Most of those who oppose homosexual marriage don’t care what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms, but they don’t want the govt to legitimize behavior that they believe is morally wrong. Nor do they want homosexual marriage equated with the traditional foundation of society.
Yes, opposition to homosexuality is based largely on a religious belief. Of course some people also believe as President Obama does, “…that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.” while still allowing civil unions for gays. We’ve been all through that as well.
The First Amendment says the govt shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. Maintaining marriage between a man and a woman certainly doesn’t violate that. It only violates civil rights if one follows your definition. Of course, we’ve also covered that this will soon cease to be an issue as the moral decline of our society continues. ;)
April 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pmdbadass Says:
morality is relative…
April 9th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
dbadass Says:
This is the human characteristic that makes people valuable.
—-
You might wish to read DeWaal’s Good Natured. “Morality” is not unique to the hominid species…
April 9th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Why should bit read this book? Would it tell bit that all actions by all people are moral actions, or would it tell him that some actions by some people are moral?
bit assumes that dbasass believes that some people and some actions are immoral. Further assuming, based on the veracity of the first assumption, there are behaviors that are moral and there are behaviors that are immoral.
What more does bit need to know to live a successful life?
April 9th, 2009 at 4:35 pmIt does, however, violate the spirit of equal rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
This is a ridiculously specious statement. Morality? WHOSE morality? Yours? Bit’s? No thanks, I’ll side with LEGALITY.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:37 pmNo it would tell you that other animals make “moral” decisions…
April 9th, 2009 at 4:37 pmYeah, why bother learning or broadening your worldview. It’s much easier to retreat to the warm hearth of ignorance.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pmbit also assumes a man can be created from dirt and a woman from a bone so I sort of have to wonder about the assumptions individual’s make…
April 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pmbit has gone ’round the bend, dbadass.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:42 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
Maintaining marriage between a man and a woman certainly doesn’t violate that.
It does, however, violate the spirit of equal rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Of course, we’ve also covered that this will soon cease to be an issue as the moral decline of our society continues. ;)
This is a ridiculously specious statement. Morality? WHOSE morality? Yours? Bit’s? No thanks, I’ll side with LEGALITY.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Wonder if you might know the date when someone said the U.S. Constitution allows two same-same gender persons to enter into a relationship of so-called marriage?
April 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
Why should bit read this book?
Yeah, why bother learning or broadening your worldview. It’s much easier to retreat to the warm hearth of ignorance.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
That was an invitation for dbadass to tell us all what one might expect to get from this book.
Do you know what this book is about, or are you standing in a flooding, raging river of immorality and calling it enlightenment?
April 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pmor when it says they can’t?
April 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pmShow me where the Constitution allows marriage at all.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:53 pmWho are you to call me immoral? Sounds like projection to me.
Why do fundies hate knowledge?
April 9th, 2009 at 4:54 pmI already told you that it is about ethology and morality in phylogentic relatives of the hominid species…
April 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pmUm… if I knew what you’d meant, I wouldn’t have asked.
So your certainty is misplaced, for a start.
Your assertion that “most of those who oppose homosexual marriage don’t care what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms” may convince you, but it makes no sense.
If you ignore what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, then gay marriage is nothing but a legal contract binding together a life-partnership of individuals. It does nothing to degrade any other institution or partnership, nor does it negatively affect anyone else’s life.
The objection to gay marriage is almost entirely to do with what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. The sexual act is the basis for all of the Right’s complaints against the concept of gay marriage. The sexual act is what you folks claim is “immoral”, as if your concept of morality was a universal standard. If your objection was simply based on two men merging their lives, with no care about the sexual component, then you would probably voice a similar issue with, for example, men taking roommates to help pay the rent.
Maintaining marriage between a man and a woman does not preclude
establishing marriage between gay couples. Gay marriage does not degrade the concept of heterosexual marriage, nor does it have any impact on the behavior or choices of heterosexual couples. And courts are repeatedly deciding that restricting marriage to your definition DOES violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.
Too bad for you guys that courts seem to be following “my” definition.
Ah, the power of the winky face emoticon. “I’m serious, but silly at the same time.”
(Not really as charming as you probably believe.)
April 9th, 2009 at 4:59 pmbitblt Says:
Another bit of stupidity from bigot bit. Perhaps YOU are a sociopath or just too stupid to know right from wrong without it being TOLD you. I suspect that is true and you dont know ANYTHING until you are TOLD to believe it. Most people DO know right from wrong and have an inate moral sense. That you dont think that possible shows you are a sick twisted weasel. We arent.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pmI’m very late coming back to the party here because I’ve spent the entire day doing that very draining 4-letter word that ends with “k”. Work.
But for some reason this whole issue has been in the back of my mind since first read. And I have a question:
If gays are the dangerous ones, why do we never hear of gangs of gay men and women getting drunk and committing hate crimes against a lone, vulnerable heterosexual? Because they don’t.
All indications are that this hatred and fear is one way. Which I’m sure makes Jesus and his Dad really, really proud.
PEACE
April 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pmMaintaining marriage between a man and a woman does not preclude
establishing marriage between gay couples. Gay marriage does not degrade the concept of heterosexual marriage, nor does it have any impact on the behavior or choices of heterosexual couples. And courts are repeatedly deciding that restricting marriage to your definition DOES violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.
So-called same-same gender marriage certainly degrades the concept of natural marriage, one man and one woman as one flesh in a marriage. bit has previously posted a link that showed a defense attorney using SSGM as a defense for a polygamist. Seems to bit that only way to further degrade the concept of natural marriage is to add some polyandry to the polygamy.
Further, SSGM in some means that either there will no father or there will be no mother. Seems to bit that two men living together in a perverted sexual relationship they call a marriage really are qualified to decide any child doesn’t need a mother.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:15 pmThe government doesnt legislate morality. That would be dumb. They legislate what is good for society. Is it MORAL for a company to put their profits above public safety? Not in my book but it isnt illegal. Is it MORAL for people to LIE? Commit adultery? I dont think so but they arent ILLEGAL. Is it moral to be racist? Misogynist? I dont think so but NONE of this is illegal. The government isnt IN the business of legislating morality and if they were WHICH definition of morality would they necessarily use. Morality is to SOME extent subjective. Some things are so obvious that everyone agrees. Murder, theft. Homosexuality does not fall into that category. I dont think it is immoral and certainly millions of people dont think it is immoral. You do. The answer is simple. Refrain from homosexual activity and let others follow their own concience on the matter
April 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pmFurther, SSGM in some cases means that either there will no father or there will be no mother. Seems to bit that two men living together in a perverted sexual relationship they call a marriage really aren’t qualified to decide any child doesn’t need a mother.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pmThankfully, you do not get to decide.
Still waiting for you to enlighten us as to what part of the Consitution specifically allows marriage.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:17 pmI’m quessing bit won’t be reading the book. I sort of find it interested when closed minds pretend to be intellectual minds… Oh and drop the word “perverted” between the words “a” and “sexual” and you will look more objective.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:18 pmOh to work… Catch you later there bit. Any chance you might be more of an objective thinker by then?
bitblt Says:
I think it is perverted that a bigoted moronic piece of garbage like YOU would be able to have children and corrupt our genepool. I am not trying to make it illegal though.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pmbitblt Says:
So-called same-same gender marriage certainly degrades the concept of natural marriage
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No it doesnt. Ignorant bigots like you just hope if you repeat that bit of stupidity often enough it will magically become true. You embarass me with your stupidity and your bigotry. I am ashamed to be in the same faith as you. Bigoted morons like you make Christians look bad.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:21 pmralph the wonder locust is my new second favorite person.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pmThe only source necessary for morality is your own brain. There’s an emotion called “empathy” which allows you to consider how other people feel. If you are able to empathize with others, then you are unlikely to hurt them, because you can at least imagine what that may be like.
bitblt is only making himself appear more stupid by the minute, and it’s actually quite entertaining for smidget.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
.
.
.
Still waiting for you to enlighten us as to what part of the Consitution specifically allows marriage.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
You must not have been reading bit for very long. He’s been constant in pointing out that marriage is older than either religion or government.
The Constitution doesn’t regulate marriage because there was nothing to be allow or disallowed. The Founders knew this, and bit would say that most of them knew Matthew 19. bit will stop short of saying the Founders knew marriage was instituted by God, but that’s the choice bit would make on a multiple choice test.
It’s bit’s opinion that the word “Creator” in the Declaration comes from Matthew 19.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pmI am ashamed to be in the same faith as you. Bigoted morons like you make Christians look bad.
bit would never know this and suspects no one else would either.
bit is a Christian who believes something. What are you?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pmNo, I just wanted to admit that there is nothing in the Constitution limiting or permitting marriage.
therefore; it does not disallow same sex marriage.
So, any more red herrings?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pmsmidget Says:
The only source necessary for morality is your own brain. There’s an emotion called “empathy” which allows you to consider how other people feel. If you are able to empathize with others, then you are unlikely to hurt them, because you can at least imagine what that may be like.
…
April 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
bit doesn’t disagree with this remark, but he does have aquestion.
Why are some people not at all like you describe?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:34 pmCorrection: bit is a Christianist seeking to impose his own warped sense of morality onto the rest of the country.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:35 pmBecause some are syncophantic holier-than-thou regressive troglodytes?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:37 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
You must not have been reading bit for very long.
No, I just wanted to admit that there is nothing in the Constitution limiting or permitting marriage.
The Constitution doesn’t regulate marriage because there was nothing to be allow or disallowed.
therefore; it does not disallow same sex marriage.
So, any more red herrings?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
But the constitutions of 30 states define marriage as between a man and a woman, and thirteen other states have laws establishing the same.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:39 pmWhich is slowly changing, and should be changed, since this clearly violates the ideals and spirit of the Constitution.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:41 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
bit is a Christian who believes something. What are you?
Correction: bit is a Christianist seeking to impose his own warped sense of morality onto the rest of the country.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
bit is a Christian who believes something. What are you?
It’s a “self-described” condition. Don’t believe you can correct bit’s choice regardless of the veracity of anything you might say.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pmBecause in some people empathy never develops. When you have no empathy, you are more likely to hurt other people because you can’t put yourself in their shoes.
It happens to all kinds of people, whether they have faith or not. The Bible has absolutely nothing to do with morality, considering especially that basic human morality (such as not killing each other) was established long before the Bible was even written.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pm“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
April 9th, 2009 at 5:47 pmWow, that’s the most honest thing I’ve ever seen you post.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
But the constitutions of 30 states define marriage as between a man and a woman, and thirteen other states have laws establishing the same.
Which is slowly changing, and should be changed, since this clearly violates the ideals and spirit of the Constitution.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
If you want to “hang your hat” on the ideals and spirit of the U.S. Constitution you’ll have to draw on the intent of the Founders, which means there is no way to justify SSGM.
Are you aware the TJefferson drafted a law in VA that proscribe mutilation as punishment for homosexuality?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pmNo, it means I have to draw on what was actually INCLUDED in the US Constitution.
So? This has what to do with anything?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:52 pmOh, by the way, according to the 14th Amendment, this is unconstitutional.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pmbitblt Says:
Bit is a bigoted moron who perverts the very name of Christianity. If bit wasnt a MORON he would know Matthew 11 is about divorce and Jesus never said a WORD about homosexuality. If bit wasnt so stupid he would know that gay marriage was recognized in MANY places in the world in ancient times. I am a Christian who believes that tolerance of who others are used to be a Christian virtue before bigots like YOU made that seem like a fantasy. I am someone ashamed to be conected to an ignorant bigot like you in ANY way.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
——————————————————————————–
Max Anax junius -1 Says:
Where are these Christians over the rise of divorce? After all, divorce IS the tool recognized to break up these “SACRED” marriages, NO?
Divorce should not be allowed and adultery made illegal if they really want to protect the sanctity of marriage. If adultery was made illegal, the Republican’t party would lose half their representatives in Congress.
Meeting in bathroom stalls would take out the other half.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:00 pm______
ralph the wonder locust Says:
Um… if I knew what you’d meant, I wouldn’t have asked.
So your certainty is misplaced, for a start.
Of course, ralph, there’s no reason to think you were being disingenuous.
Your assertion that “most of those who oppose homosexual marriage don’t care what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms” may convince you, but it makes no sense.
If you ignore what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, then gay marriage is nothing but a legal contract binding together a life-partnership of individuals. It does nothing to degrade any other institution or partnership, nor does it negatively affect anyone else’s life.
Of course it makes sense. If they were concerned about what goes on in bedrooms, they wouldn’t just be reacting to the effort to change the definition of marriage and make a mockery of the meaning of marriage. They would have been pushing for reinstatement of laws against homosexual behavior.
Too bad for you guys that courts seem to be following “my” definition.
Too bad? The general decline is inevitable. It works out as it should in the end.
Ah, the power of the winky face emoticon. “I’m serious, but silly at the same time.”
(Not really as charming as you probably believe.)
Charming isn’t really the goal, there, bud. ;)
April 9th, 2009 at 6:00 pmIn the end the rightwing will lose this argument just like the lost the miscegenation argument. They take ALL of their points against gay marriage FROM their lost miscegenation arguments. The rightwing and bigots like bit want to codify bigotry and prejudice. In the long run they will be on the wrong side of this debate too.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pmupright left Says:
Charming isn’t really the goal, there, bud. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No passive aggressive, arrogant, pompous bufoonery is. Congratulations you hit your mark
April 9th, 2009 at 6:02 pmAnyway, I know I’m wasting my breath trying to use rationality against willful ignorance.
Night all.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:02 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
But the constitutions of 30 states define marriage as between a man and a woman, and thirteen other states have laws establishing the same.
Oh, by the way, according to the 14th Amendment, this is unconstitutional.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
This is your opinion, and unless you’re one of the judges sitting on a relevant court decision, it remains your opinion.
It’s bit’s opinion that the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed rights to freed slaves, has nothing to do with marriage.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pmbitblt Says:
It’s bit’s opinion that the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed rights to freed slaves, has nothing to do with marriage.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Your opinion is worhtless. The term slaves appears nowhere in the 14th amendment. It says that rights given one group of citizens cannot be denied another group. There is a strong prima fascie case it applies here. If Susan can marry Tom then why cant Steve marry Tom?
April 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pmbitblt
What is the point behind legislation that Thomas Jefferson may or may not have drafted in the late 1700s/early 1800s?
At that time women and blacks were property, so trying to use an opinion from that time period is, clearly, useless. A later series of Constitutional amendments righted that social wrong and provides the basis for equality for everyone in this country, which is exactly why gay marriage IS going to happen, whether you like it or not.
While we’re on the subject of amendments – why is it that no one ever mentions the fact that there even are amendments as a debunking of this whole “we have to do what the founding fathers wanted us to do” line? If they had all the answers, or even thought they might have all the answers, why did we have to amend the Constitution they wrote and, even more telling imo, why did they draft it so we could amend it? The answer is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain – they knew they were smart, but they weren’t perfect, and they knew that times would change, people would learn, and the contract we have with our government would have to change as well to keep up.
Ironic that people who were SO ahead of their time are being used as an excuse by people who want to stay in the past.
I would suggest to you, bitblt, that you grow up. How other people live their lives is absolutely none of your business. You don’t have the right to make it your business, and neither you nor the government has the right to impose a religious belief on others. You’re just going to have to get over it.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:14 pmOh yeah, and the 14th amendment does have to do with marriage, because it deals specifically with equal civil rights.
In 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a “basic human civil right.” Based on this ruling, and others like it, marriage is a civil right, and thus falls under the realm of the 14th Amendment.
Try to keep up, bitblt. I know it’s hard. People who have been told what to think all their lives tend to have a difficult time thinking for themselves, but I have confidence that you can manage.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:17 pmIf bit wasnt a MORON he would know Matthew 11 is about divorce and Jesus never said a WORD about homosexuality. If bit wasnt so stupid he would know that gay marriage was recognized in MANY places in the world in ancient times. I am a Christian who believes that tolerance of who others are used to be a Christian virtue before bigots like YOU made that seem like a fantasy. I am someone ashamed to be conected to an ignorant bigot like you in ANY way.
It’s Matthew 19 and no one is qualified to say that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. One may say that the Lord never addresses homosexuality in the Bible and in Matthew 19, but the last chapter in John is clear that not everything the Lord did was recorded.
Since the Lord is clear as to what the Creator’s intent was concerning marriage – a man and a woman are one flesh in a marriage, seems to bit that this should settle it for anyone calling himself a Christians. bit believes this is not an area where if it’s not specifically denied then it’s allowed.
The Lord is clear about the degree of sexual purity He expects. Early in Matthew – chapter 7 or 5 – the Lord raises the bar for sexual purity into the stratosphere when He says that a man commits adultery when he looks on a woman to lust after her. If you think the Savior who taught this degree of sexual purity is Ok with homosexuality, you’ll need a book, chapter, and a verse – that proof from the Bible – to prove it.
You’ll also need a book, chapter and verses to show that tolerating sin is a virtue anywhere in the Bible. Even if you can find a hint, you’ll need more book, chapter, and verses to show that you should tolerate sin.
As bit discussed earlier about immorality leading to more immorality, tolerating sin simply leads to more sin
It’s not Biblical but bit’s mama taught bit that it was Christian not to degrade other people by calling them names.
If it’s not clear to you, Christians tolerate people, but not sin.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:20 pm______
smidget Says:
Because in some people empathy never develops. When you have no empathy, you are more likely to hurt other people because you can’t put yourself in their shoes.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
______
That’s foolish. A very tiny percentage of people never develop empathy. Yet people still hurt others, frequently those that they love. If empathy stopped us from hurting others, our society would be vastly different, religion notwithstanding.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:23 pmbitblt, stay away from the religious arguments. They aren’t valid to issues of legality, because we are a secular country with a secular government.
I recognize that you are responding to someone else, but pleas try to stick to the topic at hand.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:24 pmupright left
I never said that only people with no empathy hurt one another. Empathy is the source of morality. That’s all I ever claimed. Then bitblt asked why some people don’t have the ability to empathize, to which I responded what you just copied and pasted without bothering to even try to understand.
People who hurt others and know it’s wrong, or feel even slightly bad about don’t fall into the category of “no empathy.”
If you would like to actually try to follow the entire conversation, then maybe you won’t look stupid next time.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:26 pmbitblt Says:
It’s Matthew 19 and no one is qualified to say that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. One may say that the Lord never addresses homosexuality in the Bible and in Matthew 19, but the last chapter in John is clear that not everything the Lord did was recorded.
Since the Lord is clear as to what the Creator’s intent was concerning marriage – a man and a woman are one flesh in a marriage, seems to bit that this should settle it for anyone calling himself a Christians. bit believes this is not an area where if it’s not specifically denied then it’s allowed.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Bit can believe what he wants when he wants to limit other peoples rights he needs more than BIT BELIEVES. We both know that was about divorce and not homosexuality. Since it isnt recorded in the bible YOU dont know he ever DID say anything about homosexuality which obviously existed if it was such a big taboo then why DIDNT he speak against it? Bit is a bigot he chooses what he wants to TWIST to fit his bigotry.
The Lord is clear about the degree of sexual purity He expects. Early in Matthew – chapter 7 or 5 – the Lord raises the bar for sexual purity into the stratosphere when He says that a man commits adultery when he looks on a woman to lust after her. If you think the Savior who taught this degree of sexual purity is Ok with homosexuality, you’ll need a book, chapter, and a verse – that proof from the Bible – to prove it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No I dont adultery has nothing to do with homsexuality NOTHING. If YOU want to PROVE Jesus had any big problems WITH homsexuality you need to cough up the chapter and verse we both know dont exist where he SAYS he does. You can TRY to say since he didnt say anything about it he was obviously against it but only an idiot would think that made sense
You’ll also need a book, chapter and verses to show that tolerating sin is a virtue anywhere in the Bible. Even if you can find a hint, you’ll need more book, chapter, and verses to show that you should tolerate sin.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Homosexuality is railed against in Leviticus. The same place eating shellfish, making cloth with two different threads and planting two crops side by side are prohibited. Do you make your wife LEAVE your house while she is menstruating like the bible says? Or do somethings change? If it was sinful THEN why dont you follow THESE strictures? Give it up. You are looking for excuses for your bigotry nothing else
As bit discussed earlier about immorality leading to more immorality, tolerating sin simply leads to more sin
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
YOU can call it immoral all you want. That wont MAKE it immoral. You are a bigot. I am not ceding the right to make such calls. Nor do I see the bible as clear on the subject since I DONT make my wife leave the house during menstruation nor take all the Levitican laws as sin. Even IF I agreed the bible considered it sinful that would be no justification for me to demand the ENTIRE population many of whom are NOT Christians comply to MY religious beliefs which, bottom line, is what YOU are trying to do.
It’s not Biblical but bit’s mama taught bit that it was Christian not to degrade other people by calling them names.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The concept is clear to me. I accept and tolerate WHO people are but not necessarily what they do. I dont tolerate your bigotry for example. When you make your wife leave your house while she is menstruating, dont eat pork or shellfish. Get back to me until then your psuedopiety and pompous arrogance is a stench in my nostrils
April 9th, 2009 at 7:30 pmupright left Says:
YOU are the one being foolish
smidget Says:
Because in some people empathy never develops. When you have no empathy, you are more likely to hurt other people because you can’t put yourself in their shoes.
______
That’s foolish. A very tiny percentage of people never develop empathy. Yet people still hurt others, frequently those that they love. If empathy stopped us from hurting others, our society would be vastly different, religion notwithstanding.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I agree religion isnt involved in this equation but he said you would be MORE LIKELY to hurt others not that ONLY those without empathy hurt others. I dont see how that can be disputed much less called foolish.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:33 pmI just got health care for the first time in 5 years (yay!) and when presented with the choices of doctors, I went for the gay one. And I’m straight.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:27 pmI just felt that I would be better served by a person who knew what it was to be an underdog and to stand up for their beliefs.
I haven’t caught teh gay yet…
Hi, all! I had a blast with these audition tapes today. This clip ran in tonight’s “Head-On With Bob Kincaid” on The H.O.R.N., America’s Liberal Voice.
http://headon.headonradionetwork.com/2009/04/09/audio-of-really-reeaallly-scary-gay-marriage-auditions/
April 9th, 2009 at 10:20 pmThe marriage covenet I took with my wife was within the Catholic Church. The civilian contract is viewed as incidental.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:48 pmThe government is not forcing any church to recognize any of the civil unions between gay couples.
I don’t understand what the problem is. If gay marriage is viable socially, then time will be the determinate. I can’t imagine in the course of human history that this is the first time this bridge has been crossed; but I think we are big enough of a society to give it a try.
______
smidget Says:
upright left
I never said that only people with no empathy hurt one another. Empathy is the source of morality. That’s all I ever claimed. Then bitblt asked why some people don’t have the ability to empathize, to which I responded what you just copied and pasted without bothering to even try to understand.
People who hurt others and know it’s wrong, or feel even slightly bad about don’t fall into the category of “no empathy.”
If you would like to actually try to follow the entire conversation, then maybe you won’t look stupid next time.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
______
Midge, you are absolutely right. You didn’t say that only people with no empathy hurt one another. You did say,
“If you are able to empathize with others, then you are unlikely to hurt them, because you can at least imagine what that may be like.”
April 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Again: That’s foolish. A very tiny percentage of people never develop empathy. Yet people still hurt others, frequently those that they love. If empathy stopped us from hurting others, our society would be vastly different, religion notwithstanding.
Fits perfectly. ;)
April 9th, 2009 at 11:44 pm.
Dear bitblt
At post #200 you said:
So, Jesus was a flaming homosexual that preferred to hang with “the boys”? His lisp was the dead ringer and his swagger was delicious?
… You mean like that kind of not recorded?
Or, maybe Christ said fornicate with your brother as he would with a woman, but since it was never recorded, you can’t dis-prove me, now can you?
Maybe because it wasn’t recorded could be a hint that homosexuality never mattered to Christ.
Because it never was recorded, you can not prove that he mentions homosexuality as much as you can not prove he didn’t.
Lame ass bit…
… Bite me!
.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:39 am.
Bit at #200 continued:
Bit, Genesis is not exclusively Christian. Please consult you blt for the facts…
April 10th, 2009 at 1:42 am… Bite me!
SKdeAnt – You picked your doctor because he was gay? Oh my… that’s a pretty horrible way to choose doctors. You are really into stereotypes eh?
Elsewhere – WHY is everyone talking about religion? Even if you do believe in a caring god, to believe in a book put together by a group of people picking and choosing which stories they liked best and then translating it multiple times over a couple thousand years is rather insane! Use it as a nice (sometimes not so nice) story that gives you a generalized base of how to live a decent life… don’t debate it with excerpts saying YOU know the true meaning or more than someone else… that’s just silly… just like Zeus et al… seriously, get a grip.
The Argument:
So what’s the argument? Is it:
-Gay parents are bad for kids
Since when was it a requirement to have kids when you get married? There are plenty of other arguments, but why even state them as it’s not a requirement of marriage
-Bad for the sanctity of marriage
That’s for your religion to keep, not the state.
-It’s unnatural (abomination)
It’s found quite often in the “wild”… look it up
-It helps keep the population in check
Sure does!! Unless they do the artificial thing of course…
-God doesn’t want it to happen
April 10th, 2009 at 2:08 amBesides my above comments, I wouldn’t worry about god… He can handle himself probably. Not to mention this country isn’t actually based on religion so piss off please…
upright left
I’m sorry that you’re seemingly incapable of understanding the context in which the sentence was placed, and as such, I feel no desire to explain it to you. It really wasn’t difficult to follow, and you should at least consider being embarassed that you weren’t able to keep up.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:17 am______
smidget Says:
upright left
I’m sorry that you’re seemingly incapable of understanding the context in which the sentence was placed, and as such, I feel no desire to explain it to you. It really wasn’t difficult to follow, and you should at least consider being embarassed that you weren’t able to keep up.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:17 am
______
Taken out of context? Midge, under what what name do you usually post? That petulant tone seems familiar. I am more than willing to admit my mistakes, such as posting one of your comments but referencing another. There’s really no way to spin,“If you are able to empathize with others, then you are unlikely to hurt them, because you can at least imagine what that may be like,” to mean anything other than what it says. Most people have empathy, yet most people still say or do things that they know will be hurtful. It’s ok for you to admit your mistake and there’s really no reason to even be embarrassed about it. ;)
April 10th, 2009 at 10:31 amIt is not bigotry to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines a bigot as a person who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral. Moreover, “prejudice” refers to “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” As such, opinions formed, even negative opinions, after careful consideration do not represent prejudice.
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34271
Could this mean that some that some TP posters rely on sociopaths for their opinions?
April 10th, 2009 at 11:40 amThese guys should have their names forwarded to every agent in the country. While not all agents are of a liberal bent, enough are that these schmucks will end up doing voice-overs for “Veggie Tales” till the end of their days.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:24 pm