King: Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘A Purely Socialist Concept’
King: Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘A Purely Socialist Concept’
In April, when the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down a state law defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) called it an “unconstitutional” decision and predicted that it could lead to Iowa becoming “the gay marriage Mecca.” On WorldNetDaily’s radio show today, King was asked what the “impact” of the decision has been on Iowa. He replied by saying that his prediction is becoming true:
KING: Well, we’ve had a significant percentage of people that have come to Iowa as same-sex couples to get married. And that, that percentage is up there some place over a fourth, if I remember correctly on the data that I have seen, and I don’t know that anything is complete at this point. I said that if this is allowed to stand, Iowa will become the Mecca for same-sex marriage and that is becoming the case. I know that there have been buses that have been, have gone to Iowa with loads of people in them in order to get married under the judge-made law.
Earlier this week, the Des Moines Register released a poll showing that “Iowans are almost evenly divided about whether they would vote for or against a constitutional amendment to end marriage for same-sex couples.” It also found that “the overwhelming majority of Iowans – 92 percent – say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.” Asked about the poll, King complained that many Iowans do not have “a very good understanding of what same-sex marriage does to the overall institution of marriage.” After claiming that “Rick Santorum was right” when he said that expanding gay rights would lead to a “right to incest,” King asserted that same-sex marriage is “a purely socialist concept”:
KING: But if, there also would be no rational argument against group marriage. And I just take this along the rationale even further and would say if relationships between individuals cannot be prohibited by the state legislature then there is no ban that can actually be constitutional that would ban group marriage. And it wouldn’t have to be for reasons of, let me say, love or lust. It could be reasons of profitability or avoiding taxes or accessing benefits.
So in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone. That is, this is one of the goals they have to go to is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.
Listen here:
Transcript:
HOST: As many of our listeners are aware, of course, your state by judicial fiat earlier this year legalized gay marriage and did not even put a restriction on requiring that those gay couples getting married be from Iowa. What has been the impact on your state as a result of that decision?KING: Well, we’ve had a significant percentage of people that’ve come to Iowa as same-sex couples to get married. And that, that percentage is up there some place over a fourth, if I remember correctly on the data that I have seen, and I don’t know that anything is complete at this point. I said that if this is allowed to stand, Iowa will become the Mecca for same-sex marriage and that is becoming the case. I know that there have been buses that have been, have gone to Iowa with loads of people in them in order to get married under the judge-made law. And I believe that the judge-made law in Iowa is an extraconstitutional decision. It’s completely not based Constitution, our constitutional rights. They draw an assumption that a same-sex couple is similarly situated to opposite sex couples and therefore they’re covered by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. And we know that they are not similarly situated. That once you assume that, the rest of the logic follows. And I said at the time that if this can stand in Iowa, they will use this rationale in other states and it looks like they’re using it in the federal courts in the district that is dealing with a case in Massachusetts right now.
[...]
HOST: Congressman, you’ve explained how difficult it is to amend your state’s Constitution, needing the legislature to go through the process before it ever gets to the people. Are you still confident, I know back when we talked at the time of the court’s decision you were confident that if it ever got to the people it would overwhelmingly choose traditional marriage only. There’s a new poll out showing its pretty much split in the state. Do you think there’s a shift or do you think if it still got on the ballot in a couple years from now that the folks would choose traditional marriage?
KING: I think that there’s been a little bit of a shift and part of it is because people have not noticed a change around them. And they are teaching the young people that there is an equal protection right to same-sex marriage and then they all argue that it doesn’t effect your marriage, you can still marry a person of the opposite sex in the same fashion that you always could. We haven’t come to grips with this thing very well yet in that there’s not a very good understanding of what same-sex marriage does to the overall institution of marriage itself. And we need to carry that argument out and let’s do that over the next couple of years and get this on the ballot so that Iowa isn’t the only state outside of the northeast that has same-sex marriage within it. And I, and I just would extend that rationale and argue this, that if marriage is something other than union between one man and one woman. If it can be, if the argument is that there’s an equal protection law, if there’s a right to same-sex marriage, if that right exists then that means Rick Santorum was right. The right also exists for any other relationship that one might argue. Then there would exist no ban, no rational foundation to prohibit incest, for example, between father and a son or a daughter or a mother and a son or daughter, for example or brothers and sisters. Every civilization has had a prohibition towards incest and every civilization has at least promoted relationships between a man and a woman, even though some have tolerated same-sex relationships more or less than others.
But if, there also would be no rational argument against group marriage. And I just take this along the rationale even further and would say if relationships between individuals cannot be prohibited by the state legislature then there is no ban that can actually be constitutaional that would ban group marriage. And it wouldn’t have to be for reasons of, let me say, love or lust. It could be reasons of profitability or avoiding taxes or accessing benefits. So in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone. That is, this is one of the goals they have to go to is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Republicans sure are obsessed with gay sex.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pmSo in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone.
Why does Rep. King hate Isreal so much?
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:03 pmAnother Republican, following the proud trail of Michele Bachmann, edges closer to the precipice demarking the edge of the known world. Hand that man the Wily E. Coyote memorial parachute pack; that first step is a long one, congresscritter King.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pmIs this the GOP’s stock retort on every subject?
http://www.political-buzz.com/
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pmThe right also exists for any other relationship that one might argue. Then there would exist no ban, no rational foundation to prohibit incest, for example, between father and a son or a daughter or a mother and a son or daughter, for example or brothers and sisters.
Except the birth defects, you putz. Someone should explain genetics to this poor fellow.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 pmas is the concept of equality under the law.
which is enshrined in our constitution.
which was inspired by the socialist revolutionaries of France.
so mr king – do you have a point, or do you simply rely on knee-jerk haters to stay in office.
if it’s the latter, you probably don’t have to bother making embarrassing abd bigoted statements like that – just use your dog whistle and some key code words and you’ll be all set.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:06 pmI agree, Mr. Evil @#1.
Sometimes it seems that gay sex is all the right wing ever thinks about.
Weird, huh?
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 pmJust like desegregation and interracial marriages, right congressman?
Let me get this straight, he doesn’t want his state to become a gay marriage Mecca and boost the tourism, hospitality and small-business communities? King and Grassley evolved from corn, I swear.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pmEverytime I think I’ve heard just about avery stupid statement that could be uttered – surprise – these bozos come up with something else.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pmThat is, this is one of the goals they have to go to is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources.
Which as citizens, they are entitled to. It’s sad that a congressman has so little understanding of the Constitution. And I used to live in his district. [shakes head]
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
King: Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘A Purely Socialist Concept’
– - Uh huh, and ALL pornography is homosexual pornography. Geeze, can these guys overplay a hand, or what?
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:09 pmRepukes speak – Don’t take away our freedoms…
– Unless we want to take them from you.
‘A Purely Socialist Concept’???
Yeah right, got it, these people are sure sharp at connecting the dots.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm“So in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone. That is, this is one of the goals they have to go to is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.”
Say what? That’s just braintrash, rotting word salad. Here’s the core of his argument;
“…And I believe that the judge-made law in Iowa is an extraconstitutional decision. It’s completely not based Constitution, our constitutional rights. They draw an assumption that a same-sex couple is similarly situated to opposite sex couples and therefore they’re covered by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. And we know that they are not similarly situated. …”
That is clearly bullshit. It’s straight-up anti-gay rhetoric. Referencing Rick Santorum as his authority is pretty good too. The man is just sick. His constituents should see to it that he has some time off. Like a few decades out of office until he croaks.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm“King: Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘A Purely Socialist Concept’”
King is a germ that keeps multiplying and hard to keep away even if you wash your hands with Purell constantly. Seriously, some of the junk that comes out the GOP lawmakers’ mouths lately boggles the mind.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pmEgads. Iowa must have more idiots per capita than the other states.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pmRemember when Colbert asked a senator (or rep) who was in favor of the 10 commandments being posted in all courtrooms, if he could quote all 10 of the commandments? And the man could not.
I doubt if King or any of his pal has the slightest idea of what Socialism IS. To them it’s just a scary word, like communist or fascist or taxes or accountability.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pmwhy so hard to understand – all the advocacy you espouse here is for the benefit of a similar # of people.
also – keep in mind – it was MR KING who brought up the subject.
do you have any hypothesis as to why righty politicians just can’t seem to stop talking and thinking about what gay people do or don’t do???
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pmI’m sorry, I can’t even understand him, much less attempt to agree with him. Even granted that it’s a transcript of a spoken interview, the surfeit of seemingly free-floating prepositions makes it unintelligible.
The republican gay couples I know, and even the moderate democratic gay couples, would be sorely aggrieved to hear that in addition to everything else their relationships are ostensibly advocating (incest, bestiality, pederasty), they also now are existentially advocating for nationalization of the means of production. Guess they’ll have to sell the his-and-his BMWs.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pmFunny how none of the fear-baiting, race-hating, retarded-elf-Republicans remember the consequences of George Allen’s “macaca moment”.
Oh well…
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:19 pmAfter re-reading the whole thing, all I can say is that the Congresscritter is in serious need of a new logic module; i.e., a brain transplant. The one he has now is faulty. It’s making fallacious arguments and non-sequitors all over the place.
Oh, sorry. You have to have a brain to start with in order to have a transplant. All the Congresscritter has is a vacuum.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pmWow, Iowans. Your congressman thinks you’re too stupid to understand ‘harm’.
Do you really want this elitist snob representing you? Especially as he’s in with the hypocritical neocons who pin that label on democrats every chance they get!
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm“King: Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘A Purely Socialist Concept’”
King is like a germ that keep multiplying and is hard to get rid off even if you wash your hands constantly with Purell. Seriously, the GOP party is the party of nowhere and no ideas.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:21 pmAre people like Steve King (R) really as stupid, inept, & ignorant as they seem?? It’s hard to believe he can be that much an idiot. Who the hell are people electing? Don’t we want to demand some sort of intelligence?
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:21 pmJust another example of a stupid Republican stringing together words with no conception of their meaning. This guy hasn’t a clue what “socialism” even means but he knows it scares the crap out of sheeple.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pmExcuse me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that a state law that was struck down? If so, someone should remind the Senator that the 10 Amendment to the Constitution deletates powers to the States and the people. If it ain’t in the Constitution, it’s States Rights. Enjoy the 10th Senator.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pmRep. King is a fine example of how any idiot with enough money in his/her campaign coffers can get elected in this country.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pmWho the hell are people electing? Don’t we want to demand some sort of intelligence?
Sioux City definitely ain’t Boston…
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm@ 8. WillWrite4Food says: Just like desegregation and interracial marriages, right congressman? Let me get this straight, he doesn’t want his state to become a gay marriage Mecca and boost the tourism, hospitality and small-business communities? King and Grassley evolved from corn, I swear. September 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Don’t go for tech writing without this refresher moment; in Grassley’s and King’s case, it’s devolve, not evolve. (heh microsnark)
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pmOpposition to same-sex marriage is a purely religious concept, and the first amendment is supposed to protect everyone from religious oppression.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pmConservative minds
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pmIntensely delusional
Drink Santorum’s wine
Who will benefit most from same sex marriage? Divorce lawyers.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm—
How so?
Oh who cares? So what have you been up to since being outed as either a hijacker of a business name or if in fact owner of that FL business a poor decision maker?
These people sure do miss the 1950s, when you could yell “Commie!” at every piece of legislation you oppose. “Socialist” just doesn’t have the same ring.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:26 pmif there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone
That’s not socialism, you moron, it’s communism. They are different.
Additionally, a society that undermines individual rights is a society in which people like YOU tell ME who I can or can’t marry.
Does this guy seriously not see what a fcuking idiot he is?
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pmThe same old canard spouted by the same old politicians for the same old crowd
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 pmExactly right, pete.
Republicans of late are tending more and more toward constructing sentences based not on the meanings of the words the choose, but on the emotions they generate.
hence their over-reliance on terms like “socialism”, which for some reason scares the livin’ bejeezus outta the righties.
If it’s bad, in their mind? Must have something to do with socialism.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 pmOne more thing. Could someone Please explain to me what gay marriage has to do with the State controling the means of production?
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pmShorter King: Big Brother wants in your bedroom for my political empowerment.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pmBeen saying for a long time now that repugs are so sexually repressed, so puritanical in though processes, that they are obsessed with sex — who, to whom, where, how, when, why – and if pictures are available, all the better.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pmSex in all forms — they are obsessed.
Gotta wonder what they’re thinking when they are talking to you. Perverts.
Boycott the GAY BUSES! I’m not getting on any bus going to Iowa! In fact I will avoid ANY bus with a tastefully decorated interior!
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:34 pmNope, I heard that gay marriage is a purely capitalist phenomenon. Where? Uh…people, man, people.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pmOf course, another example of the Right’s preference for emotion-laden words rather than words that, y’know… make sense is their struggle to equate socialism and fascism.
Never mind that fascist regimes persecuted the socialists… they’re both eeeevil, and hence must be equivalent.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pmAnd what, pray tell, would this obvious inciter be saying if there were no gays to point fingers at?
He would be looking into his constituents bedroom windows for more ways to make himself holier than thou.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:37 pmI heard (via drudge) that in Norway and Sweden everyone is required to be gay-married in order to qualify for their weekly cod ration, which is all socialists are allowed to eat.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:37 pmIf you ever get bored I have learned a fun trick from bit. Have your gender preference reassigned whenever you wanna mix it up a bit….
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 pmfor ralph @ 42.
some spiders have venom that could kill you.
and, some octopi have venom that could kill you.
therefore, spiders and octopi are snakes, or drunk drivers – take your pick.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:40 pmAnd then when no people were allowed to have un-monitored sex King would likely be railing against women showing their cleavage in public and caning them for it.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:41 pmKing has no qualms about expressing his bigotry towards blacks, the jewish or gays.
And now this representative of the “anti-big government” GOP
wants to legislate his version of morality.
It’s no surprise that he’s a hypocrite, as well.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:42 pmI’m concerned about the 42% who say the enactment gay marriage hasn’t affected their lives but would still vote for a constitutional amendment to ban it.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm…when the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down a state law defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) called it an “unconstitutional” decision…
The state supreme court is authorized by the constitution to interpret the constitution. To disagree with their legitimate authority would be unconstitutional from the start.
.
KING: But if, there also would be no rational argument against group marriage.
News flash: Steve King supports group marriage.
.
So in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined…
Isn’t not taking away a right the opposite of taking away rights?
.
…and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources…
So now King is complaining that he’s going to be forced by law to get married against his will?
News flash: Steve King opposes all marriage.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:43 pmTo the GOP, anything not in perfect lockstep with the church/corporate theocracy is deemed Socialist. In which case, call me Socialist.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:43 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
ralph,
These people have an outright contempt for intellectualism. And, not being intellectuals themselves, they don’t even realize how ridiculous they sound.
The whole “scary word” phenomena is really astounding. It’s difficult for articulate people like ourselves to even respond to those who can actually profess that “liberalism” is the source of “fascism”. Or that gay marriage is part of a “socialist” plot.
And I’m growing to believe that the best response is to just let them screech. The American electorate just might be smarter than we think when one sees that the GOP, despite the constant promotion by FAUX, is still losing support faster than the Dems we are growing impatient with.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 pmwell, lets just continue to deny that it is 2009 and live by rules established when the world was flat. Progress is highly over rated. Just because people live longer because they don’t get leeched, have a basic understanding of human physiology, have managed to beat many of the diseases that ended life around 40, that is no reason to think that mythology is outdated.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 pmWillowOrchid says:
I doubt if King or any of his pal has the slightest idea of what Socialism IS. To them it’s just a scary word, like communist or fascist or taxes or accountability.
Correct. “Gay Marriage is Communist” makes sense to them, because in wingnut logic “(bad thing) is (bad thing)” constitutes a valid syllogism.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 pmPoliticallyStupid
Your post was a non sequitur. You are ridiculous
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:47 pmSo, liberty and freedom mean not allowing same sex marriage. How can people be so completely mendacious, self-contradicting and stupid?
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:48 pmPolitical Anterior,
are you just waiting for teh gay to breach the levee that allows you to flee your loveless marriage and seek out the cowboy of your dreams?
’cause that’s the subtext of your unnecessary post.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:48 pmThis will further crumble our society.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm—
What the hell do you know? You haven’t been alive long enough to have a sataset relative to erosion. Are you just parroting shit that a grown up told you?
KING: But if, there also would be no rational argument against group marriage.
Shorter King: The Mormons are coming the Mormons are coming!
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pmYes indeed. With divorce on the rise and gay marriage sneaking its way into mainstream, its only a matter of time before we do away with marriages completely.
Holier than thou marriage corrupted by divorce at a rate of 1 to 1. You mean people aren’t believing their own deities word about the whole split asunder bit? I am shocked.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pmSo the socialist party of Russia was pro-gay ?
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pmWhen will the boy learn to spell? It is Political Posterior. You know, Pee Pee.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:51 pmAnd senators wearing diapers while having sex with a prostitute will make it all better.
I have a feeling whats crumbling is the center of decay. DC.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:51 pmDeCay
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 pmHmmm… not sure I follow your train of logic there, PS.
As near as I can tell, the rate of divorce in the US peaked around 1980 and has either held steady or slightly declined since. So your claim that “with divorce on the rise” seems slightly hysterical, and not particularly accurate.
And perhaps you could explain how allowing gays to marry will cause the destruction of marriage?
I mean, I know it seems inevitable to you, frightened little righty that you are, but I’m not really seeing the chain of events that would lead from one point to the other. Can you run it down for us?
Thanks ever so.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 pmEasy ralph at best Politically Superior as one in 1980. You can expect the child to have that sort of historical context
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:54 pmOh noes! Society is crumbling! Domination by one group is failing in massive quantities! Be afraid everyone because there might be a change where everybody gets a voice and the masters get laughed at. Run and had in abject terror.
Meh.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:54 pmcan = can’t
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:55 pmrun and hide that is
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:55 pmweren’t those states with the highest rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, and porn consumption all what we’d consider “pretty straight” states? like – bible belt type states?
i wonder how PP or PS or whoever he wants to pretend to be would account for that,
but i know we’ll never find out.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:56 pmThere are Major Financial and TAX Benefits that apply to Married People. Social Security Survivor Benefits is one example.
To Deny these advantages to commited Gay couples is Taxation without Representation.
You would Think the Teabaggers would appreciate this.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:57 pmThis will further crumble our society.
If your concerned about the crumbling of our society, you might want to encourage the people you consider your leaders to get at least some sense of compassion for there fellow man. The lack of shame shown by Republican leaders is bordering on psychotic.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:57 pmIf he doesn’t like socialism, I suggest that he introduce a bill eliminating all farm subsidies. See how well that goes over in the cornfields of Iowa.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 pmGroup marriage scares Republicans because it would mean people could have more than one partner without having to run and hide in the alley. If only Ensign and Sanford had embraced the idea.
Oh wait, they would have had to talk to their wives first. Never mind.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 pm***
#52,
“gay marriage sneaking its way into mainstream…”
**
give us an example of how it’s doing that.
*
how did it ever get by you without you noticing?
:)
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:02 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
77 –
How, exactly?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:04 pmPolitically Superior:
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:05 pmI know several families with same gender parents and children. Do you know any? Do you have any gay relatives? Ask your mom and dad, they will know.
So anyway Politically Superior you never got back to me the other day. What party do you feel is politically superior and why? I realize you are but a child but I am curious as to the thought process you have employed. Thanks-
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pman institution that creates a family where there was none,
is “anti-family”.
sure pal – just like planting trees is “anti-forest”.
you’re insane. don’t expect to show up here again without being abused until you run away.
what a sorry-assed excuse for a human.
your parents should be sued for gross negligence.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 pmGay marriage is simply anti-family.
You really need to get out of that cardboard box. Family has nothing to do with sex.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm#77
Discrimination of Gay People IS Anti-family.
Politically Superior…you NEED a GAY Family Member to further your spiritual evolution.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pmPoliticallyStupid
Why do morons like you think things become true because you spew them out? Is it because you are so intellectually inferior that you let rightwing screechmonkeys do your thining for you and consider things to be true because THEY say them and are so astonishingly stupid you believe those of us NOT as stupid as you will just extend to you the same mindlessness? In actuallity things do NOT become true either because you say them or because you are stupid enough to believe them. Adding SIMPLY in front of your baseless assertion makes it no less of an ignorant baseless assertion. Bottom line. YOU are a moron. YOU want to spew what you have been told to believe. Fine, go ahead just dont expect normal humans to take your stupidity seriously
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pmCan anyone explain how the desire to combine lives with the one you love to form a family unit is “anti-family”?
I know our “Politically Superior” friend won’t explain.
(By the way, whenever someone proclaims himself “Superior” I instinctively start looking for the reasons he feels it necessary to hide his sense of inferiority.)
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pmFamily spans generations, gender, everything. Family is the people who care for you and the people you care for.
If you think sex is involved, get counseling.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pmPolitically Superior
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:12 pmDid you know that modern neuroscientists feel the adult brain is still not in place in the 20’s? Weird huh?
Badger says:
He needs a few functioning braincells to further his spiritual evolution
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 pmIn the immortal words of Stitch…Ohana. Ohana means family. Ohana means no one gets left behind or forgotten.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm“They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.”
Hand King the Republican clown award this week. Seriously, the GOP nimrod lawmakers like King that have been barking on teevee to the media bobbleheads about how Obama is a socialist or how Obama is running this country into socialism are simply clueless to the definition of socialism.
King says that same-sex couples want access to public funds and resources.
Well, gosh darn it, King, don’t ya know that hetrosexual couples currently have access to public funds and resources too fer goodness sakes? Wouldn’t that make heterosexual marriages ‘a purely socialist concept’? Like I said the GOP party is a bridge to nowhere, a pre-existing condition party, and party of mental illness.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:14 pmDon’t tell me that bit is comfortable leaving this critical thread in the clumsy hands of Politically Posterior…
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:15 pmHoodathunk:
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:15 pmIf it weren’t for the importance of the message and the fact that I never vote anything down, I would vote that down just because that Lilo and Stitch shit was just so bad…
o ralph
why would you summon the 3rd person tongue typist??
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:16 pmdbadass is a harsh judge when the comment warrants it…
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:17 pmDo I have that power, tombaker? I’d better be more careful then.
My bad.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:17 pmYou, dbadass, are something of a cynic. Ohana is not a Lilo and Stitch thing, it is a Polynesian thing. It is regrettable that Disney had to be the reason it came to America but ohana is a good thing.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:18 pmI really hope bit does appear. I so want to thank him for exposing me to gender preference reassignment. It has so doubled my dating flexibility….
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 pmHoodathunk.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:20 pmIt was a gag but then again I have been eating goatfish brain…
Just keep talking Mr. King.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:21 pmJust
keep
ta
l
k
i
n
g
.
King=evil repuglican. Deceiver, hand maiden to lucifer, supporter of the hidden AntiChrist. Vile! Damed to Hell.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 pmgoatfish? Sometimes I think you get out too much.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 pmi don’t suppose you do ralph, but the mere mention of that faulty scripture-bot is enough to panic me…that noise is krytponite to me.
and dbad – Lilo was really the same movie as AI and I,robot, both of which cost a lot more to make, and had an equal or greater propensity to produce slumber.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pmAre you familiar with how Hawaiian mystics employed the brain of the goatfish and why?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pmAccording to the article, Rep. King said this: I know that there have been buses that have been, have gone to Iowa with loads of people in them in order to get married under the judge-made law.
I sure wonder who saw all those buses going there.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pmJudge-made law? I thought the VOTERS made the law in this instance, by their voting FOR it???
i am not, but i do enjoy goat, and fish, and brains so
do tell.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pmno, but I am willing to learn.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:25 pmCivil rights are indeed a slippery slope. In the beginning of our nation’s history we did not give women the right to vote and, incredibly, recognized the institution of slavery. Our march forward has seen the emancipation proclamation, the success of the suffragette movement, the end of miscegenation laws and racist covenants. Now that we are on the threshold of fully recognizing the rights of another minority the same arguments which have been used time and again are being used again.
If we allow the different races to marry, what’s to prevent different species from marrying? How can we allow them to marry our sons or daughters? What *will* we say in the Christmas card this year? How can we allow our grandchildren to be raised in an amoral interracial household? Same tired rhetoric from a new generation of bigots.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 pmichthyoallyeinotoxic fishes–such as mullet, goatfish, tangs, damsels, and rabbitfish–could produce LSD-like hallucinations
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 pmThe gay marriage issue is used as an emotional point to raise funds for politicians, religious right and divert attention from other issues. The reactions to this issue is grossly disproportionate to the perceived problem. I wish some liberal politicians would confront the anti-gay marriage people with statistics about adultery. These anti’s should be forced to acknowledge that adultery is a massive issue compared to gay marriage. Then they can skulk away.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 pmis there a preparation method that reliably enhances those odds?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pmIf we allow the different races to marry, what’s to prevent different species from marrying?
Thank you. This is comedy gold. We have advanced so far that people are now worried about inter species crap.
Is this because your last sheep said no?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 pmGreatGranny2B says:
Judge made law is just wingnutese for “Law I dont like”
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 pmWhere did Political Posterior go?
I was hoping to get a clarification on those dire predictions he threw out there.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 pmSo, dbadass, you are saying that eating goatfish could possibly cause hallucinations.
Does finding livestock sexually attractive fall in the category of hallucination or is fletcher just weird?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 pmThe Reichwingers are always saying that gay marriage will destroy marriage. My question to them is simply this, how does two men or two women getting married affect their marriages, and how, specifically, does that destroy marriage?
I’m not talking in vague terms, I want specific reasons why marriage will be destroyed that cannot happen in straight marriage. In other words, a woman leaving her husband for another woman doesn’t count because she could also leave her husband for another man.
Anybody want to give me specific reasons?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 pmYou would know a lot about LSD-like hallucinations, wouldn’t you dbadass?
Oh and before I leave, growing up with 2 fathers or 2 mothers is anti-family. It’s also not fair for the adopted child. Why do gays want to get married so bad anyways? It’s just a piece of paper. You can still live with eachother, show affection in public ( puke ), and do what ever sick and perverse things you want inside your home. Me thinks it’s not about marriage at all, they just want those tax breaks.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 pmOh and before I leave, growing up with 2 fathers or 2 mothers is anti-family.
Nice talking point. Now get specific. HOW IS IT ANTI-FAMILY?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pma purely “socialist concept”? oddly enough, according to king, marriage is a religious issue based on the bible. if i recall, socialism in eastern europe and russia tried their best to dismantle religion.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 pmWell, thanks for the attempt, PS, but your “explanation” of how two loving adults seeking to combine their lives in a family unit is “anti-family” really didn’t answer the question.
All it did was assert further that your opinion was right. It didn’t give any further clarification of who it was “anti-family” nor what “anti-family” even means.
Not at all satisfactory.
But it was predictable.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 pmYou would know a lot about LSD-like hallucinations, wouldn’t you dbadass?
–
Actually assomeone trained in biochemistry and earned in indigenous cultures, yes, yes I would. So was Moses high on that Sinaia shrub? You might wanna look into that. It is sort of intriguing. See dumb ass with age comes knowledge.
Oh and you have failed to make any case in support of your thesis.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 pmPoS,
tell you what. you give gays an lesbians the same benefits under the law as “straight” couples, including joint filing of federal income tax and you can call “gay marriage” whatever you want.
ps, the most “sick and perverse” thing i can think of going on in any “home” (although i suspect speciafically, yours) is teaching your kids how to hate.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 pmi know a lot of people who’ve taken a lot of psychedelics,
and none of them are unapologetically dumb, like PS is.
wonder what’s wrong with him?
huffing?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 pmtombaker says:
“wonder what’s wrong with him?
huffing?”
yeah, on glendy becky’s mormon meat to get the daily talking points.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:50 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
PS, I appreciate your desire to engage dbadass in conversation — he’s a very able conversant — I would appreciate a little clarification on your rather broad statement that gay marriage is “anti-family”.
You still haven’t explained HOW gay marriage, which, after all, is the combining of two lives into a single family unit, is anti the very institution it seeks to create.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm“Im not religious.”
so sayeth the “values voter”
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:06 pmyou can admit you are, PoS. you’re amongst friends.
i’m pretty sure PS runs that argument along the lines of my post @46 ralph.
it’s one of the “advanced” techniques he picked up at a breakout working group during the VVS this past weekend.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:09 pm“Iowa will become the Mecca for same-sex marriage and that is becoming the case”
yes, i can see how iowa would be the dream destinations for gays and lesbians to get married. afterall, what homosexual wouldn’t die for wedding picture taken in a cornfield as oppossed to on cape cod or in vermont in the fall?
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 pmWhy do evangelical Christians want to get married, the bible belt states have the highest divorce rate in the country?
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 pmPoliticallyStupid. Just STFU. Go away and DONT come back. You are just too stupid to be worthwhile. Try to understand that you SAYING something doesnt make it so. Especially since you are incredibly STUPID. You THINK you know things but really they are just your bigoted delusions. Nothing more and you just SPEWING them and repeating them wont make them true. You are stupid. You are always going to BE stupid. You dont have to parade your stupidity in public and be so proud of it.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:17 pmWas your training in biochemistry done in high school, dbadass? And why bring moses into this? Im not religious.
—
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:20 pmNo. Well the reason for Moses is because there is a not so absurd hypothesis that that story my be the retelling of a drug induced mystics vision. Again I realize you are young and inexperienced but you might gain from considering furthering your education. If I can be of help to you with that just ask….
cheers my young friend…
Now that I have explained that can we get some sort of supporting evidences as too this anti-family nonsense? Thanks again junior…
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:21 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Bozo The Neoclown says:
“Iowa will become the Mecca for same-sex marriage and that is becoming the case”
yes, i can see how iowa would be the dream destinations for gays….
Only a person who has never been in Iowa could make that statement. If gay people rushed to Iowa to get married, I would question their sanity and not their morality.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 pmPolitically Superior says:
Waaaay ahead of you dbadass. Moses as well as a lot of people who wrote the bible were on psychedelics. Just like how the native americans would eat shrooms to see the spirits. Blah blah blah, I’ve known this for a long time. This debate is about same sex marriage not religion
How about you provide a rationalization of why gay marriage is harmful to “the family” that doesn’t involve religion.
Hint: “It’s icky” is not a response.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:37 pmPS
why won’t you even get near explaining how something that creates families actually destroys families?
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:38 pmole PoS talked himself into a corner. he knows full well the only reason he can think of to deny gays the rights to marriage is based on religious but, he’s already come out singing the “i’m not religious” tune.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:44 pmExactly. The subject you refuse to expound on, beyond your chalk-outline statements on how the desire of two loving people to merge their lives into a single family unit is “anti-family”.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 pmI’d bet dollars to doughnuts that our friend PS is frantically texting and paging bitblt, desperately seeking some back-up, and bit must have turned off his Blackberry.
I hear he always does that when he’s in the airport.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:50 pmGay marriage is simply pro-family.
.
pete says:
The whole “scary word” phenomena is really astounding. It’s difficult for articulate people like ourselves to even respond to those who can actually profess that “liberalism” is the source of “fascism”. Or that gay marriage is part of a “socialist” plot.
The bizarre thing to me is that they actually believe they’re imparting information when they do this. Look at the picture at top – King actually believes he’s explaining something, instead of just tying emotive terms together. In reality, their statements are no more informative then wordlessly cheering or shouting (two things they are also quite good at).
.
Cal Malenky says:
If he doesn’t like socialism, I suggest that he introduce a bill eliminating all farm subsidies.
That would presuppose that he understands that the word “socialism” actually means something by definition, and that subsidies fit that definition.
.
Politically Superior says:
This debate is about same sex marriage not religion.
There’s no non-religious argument to be made against same sex marriage. All of the arguments made against them are religiously motivated. Therefore, the in/validity of religious motivations to oppose same sex marriage are relevant to the discussion.
.
tombaker says:
why won’t you even get near explaining how something that creates families actually destroys families?
Up is down, black is white, FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! Now go vote!
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:52 pmGod, yes.
People this obsessed about gays must be kept out of government, for public-health reasons.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pmI think I got it. Gay is liberal. Liberal is socialist. Socialist is fascist. Hitler was gay.
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:19 pmralph the wonder llama says:
I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that our friend PS is frantically texting and paging bitblt, desperately seeking some back-up, and bit must have turned off his Blackberry.
As usual, the troll has moved to another thread rather than produce a reasoned argument.
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:34 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Waaaay ahead of you dbadass. Moses as well as a lot of people who wrote the bible were on psychedelics
–Then why did you ask? Still I notice no support of your anti-family thesis. Young though you may be you must be bright enough to see that you are getting your clock cleaned by the thinking folk…
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 pmThe people should choose whether they want homosexual marriage
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm– I assume you mean the people who are deciding who they wish to marry….
I’ve known this for a long time
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm—
Time scales are relative things eh Mr 20Something…Face it kid you are outleagued…
blclem says:
The people should choose whether they want homosexual marriage, not the courts.
Yes, each person should be free to choose whether they want to get gay-married. No court should prevent them from doing so.
However if you’re suggesting that people should be able to vote on whether to take rights away from other people, then you’re at direct odds with the intent of the founding fathers and pretty much everything that America actually stands for. Traitor.
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 pmRE: dbadass @ 103:
No, I’m not familiar with the use of goatfish brains in Hawai’ian mysticism. Is the stuff psychoactive or something?
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 pmblclem says:
They said the same thing about miscegenation laws. If we had left it up to a vote miscegenation would STILL be illegal in Mississippi and Alabama. We dont VOTE on rights. The rights of minorities even unpopular minorities are protected. Get over it
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 pm“They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources.”
Mr. King, they want what most folk want. Someone who loves them enough to publicly claim them as a soul-mate, a home and family that feels secure. Basic human desires of the best sort. So, what is so lacking in you that you wish to deny that to others?
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:19 pmblclem says:
The people should choose whether they want homosexual marriage, not the courts.
Why? Should the people also decide if conservatives get the right to vote, or walk free?
The majority doesn’t have a right to constitutionally persecute a minority, only religious extremists such as yourself have prevented the supreme court and congress from honoring the law and the constitution. Despite their (your) duty to uphold the law and your duty as citizens.
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 pmIf blclem had his way, the gubmint would be coming to take away our guns.
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 pmGay people are having sex all the time – married or not. It hasn’t seemed to hurt my marriage at all. I don’t plan on marrying a gay person in any state so how could it possibly affect me. If gay marriage were totally banned, would that mean gay people would have to marry straight people. I’m pretty sure they don’t want to. And what is wrong with group marriage anyway? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me – increase family income and divide up all the housework, child rearing and whatnot (whatnot means sex). Marriage is a legal contract – the religious part is personal preference. That’s why you have to go to the registrar’s office to get a license. The clerk never asks which religious ceremony you want because they don’t care – just pay the fee and go for it.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 pmkwsventures says:
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Amazing how an issue that affects about 2/10 of 1% of the population gets so many people in a uproar. …. Who will benefit most from same sex marriage? Divorce lawyers.
So just because you claim that it affects 0.02% of the population, it should be a non-issue? Obviously you don’t know who it affects because you obviously think that it only affects those wanting to get married. Get a clue…
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 pmI will never understand why anyone would be against two people who are in love wanting to get married.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 pmIts none of their business. How in the world is it going to affect these bible thumping peoples lives? Religous fanatics are more dangerous than two people of the same sex being married. STFU and mind your damn business.
These same people who make the loudest yelps for freedom when it comes to taxes and money are the very same ones who would oppress their fellow human beings for having the wrong sexual orientation…Ironic indeed…that Samuel Johnson quote resonates just as loudly today as it did during the Revolution.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 pmPolitically Superior says:
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The most important part of society is the family. I don’t care what walk of life you come from, how much money you have, or what race you are…….family usually is the most important part of your life. I know it is for me.
Gay marriage is simply anti-family.
Name me one family that has been broken up since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts…
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 pmkwsventures says:
Amazing how an issue that affects about 2/10 of 1% of the population gets so many people in a uproar.
Yeah! The right wing should stop getting in an uproar and just let everybody have their rights.
.
sscncturn64 says:
I will never understand why anyone would be against two people who are in love wanting to get married.
Because Republicans hate love. Being in its presence causes their flesh to burn.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 pmIt’s also a state issue, gay people who feel strongly about this can move to gay friendly states and boycott products or travel to states that have policies they don’t like.
I don’t see what the big deal is because they are going to be gay and act gay anyway even if they can’t marry. Let them have all the headaches of the marriage tax penalty and divorce lawyers, soon enough they will be begging for things to be the old way.
It’s not as if anyone is trying to force clergy to marry them and violate the laws of God. Let them have civil ceremonies or pagan ceremonies and get married.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:04 amThe US Constitution is founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. Christians whether they are Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or Republicans are likely to protest not because they dislike Gays, but because they are scared of this nation doing one more thing to offend God.
Our recent track record indicates that we are an extremely immoral nation. To think the protest is because they dislike or hate gay people, will set negotiations back because this is not the issue. If this nation weren’t so messed up in everything else we do, the Christians would probably let gay marriage slide.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:12 amTedKennedysGhost says:
It’s also a state issue, gay people who feel strongly about this can move to gay friendly states and boycott products or travel to states that have policies they don’t like.
Yeah, it’s easy for a couple to just pick up and move to Iowa. No big deal, right? I’m sure they’ll both find the same jobs they had before, same income, same friends, extended family, public resources, public education for their kids (God forbid!) in, say, Dubuque that they had in, say, Portland, Oregon. Piece of cake.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:01 amTedKennedysGhost says:
I don’t see what the big deal is because they are going to be gay and act gay anyway
Please elaborate.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:02 amTedKennedysGhost says:
The US Constitution is founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. Christians whether they are Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or Republicans are likely to protest not because they dislike Gays, but because they are scared of this nation doing one more thing to offend God.
Like go to war in Iraq on false pretenses?
Hey, maybe they’re just scared of gays. Are you scared of gays, Teddy?
September 24th, 2009 at 1:04 amTedKennedysGhost says:
Our recent track record indicates that we are an extremely immoral nation.
Again, please elaborate.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:05 amTedKennedysGhost says:
To think the protest is because they dislike or hate gay people, will set negotiations back because this is not the issue. If this nation weren’t so messed up in everything else we do, the Christians would probably let gay marriage slide.
Oh, is that why it keeps coming up on state ballots every election year? Because it’s not a major issue? Or is it because Republicans know that the most brainless and backwoods of their base will turn out to vote because they’re afraid of (and dislike) gays?
Seriously, Teddy, what are yoooou afraid of?
Sincerely,
September 24th, 2009 at 1:15 amBHL
.
Hello McCarthyism…
… A-La 2000 and 9!
Anything (R)epublicans fear = Socialist/Commie/Pinko Black Man Voodoo.
.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:27 amTedKennedysGhost says:
The US Constitution is founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. Christians whether they are Democrats, Independents, Libertarians or Republicans are likely to protest not because they dislike Gays, but because they are scared of this nation doing one more thing to offend God.
God has nothing to do with Constitution. The framers may have believed in God but they made a point of putting the government in secular hands. If they wanted a theocracy they would have designed one, but they didn’t.
September 24th, 2009 at 2:04 amWhat?
September 24th, 2009 at 9:28 amWhat’s an Iowan doing, quoting from an Oklahoman H.S. text book?
pags2 this nation was completely and totally founded on Judeo-Christian principles as applied to government. You are wrong pags2. The inability for the government to institute a state religion, is the exact freedom of choice that rings throughout the Torah and New Testament.
God has everything to do with the Constitution.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:42 pmBob Hussein Lablah
I think you miss TKG’s point. If we didn’t have the issues of war mongering and killing innocents, government corruption, the Federal Reserve rape of the middle class, violations of Constitution by the big government globalists in Washington and general moral decay in our society (materialism, violence, rudeness) the devout Jews and Christians would be more likely to turn a blind eye to gay marriage. Think about it, it is no way beneficial to them, not even with health insurance as most health insurance companies allow “domestic” parnters who are same sex to be enrolled on family plans.
The point of TKG is that this is symbolic to both parties. To the gays it is symbolic of having their lifestlye accepted and justified, and to the devout Christians and Jews it is symbolic or trying to turn the tide on this nation’s offense to God.
If this nation were blameless in all other areas of ethics, I don’t think this would be such a political football. It is also a pawn of the globalists within the Democratic and Republican parties to make us think there is a difference. It give them a meaningless issue to be on opposite sides of.
While their domestic economic and foreign military policies are identical. It’s a slight of hand trick to dupe the voters into believing they have a choice.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:50 pmbob hussein lablah says:
TedKennedysGhost says:
I don’t see what the big deal is because they are going to be gay and act gay anyway
Please elaborate.
Do the Christians really think that by defining marriage as the union of man and wife only and not man and man or woman and woman, that suddenly behavior will change? They don’t think this at all.
Homosexuals will continue to have sexual relations. So what’s the big deal, as long as the government does not interfere with the Church, forcing them to violate God’s law?
I say let them get married by a Justice of the Peace or married in some Pagan ceremony by a religion that accepts homosexuality. Who cares about the ceremony, they are going to be gay anyway? Not being allowed to marry is not going to change their sexual behavior.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:00 pmTake your head out and breathe, you are not getting enough oxygen to allow your brain to think.
September 24th, 2009 at 2:23 pm#172 – TedKennedysGhost says:
———————————————————–
“”Who cares about the ceremony, they are going to be gay anyway? Not being allowed to marry is not going to change their sexual behavior.”
September 24th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Well, that’s not necessarily true. Getting married for heterosexuals has encouraged them to shove their lifestyle in everyones faces, whether they want to hear about it or not:
– holding hands
– constantly talking about their wife/husband and putting pictures up in the worksplace
– having children and then parading them around public
– wearing a ring to proclaim their lifestyle to everyone
Why can’t heterosexuals just get married, and keep that fact to themsleves? Why can’t they change their heterosexual behavior after getting married? Why do they have to force their lifestyle in everones face?
The only thing that does change is they end up having sex much less after marriage. If you want to reduce gay sex, allow gay people the right to get married! ;-)
September 24th, 2009 at 7:00 pmTKG and LL (and whatever other handles you use, seeing as you’re one and the same):
You miss my point that until you stop condemning gay behavior as “violating God’s law” you’re never going to move “negotiations” forward. Or do you really know the mind of God?
And if it’s really such a non-issue compared to other issues you bring up, why is there so much hatred toward gays from the extreme Christian right? I don’t see such vitriol coming from those folks over the War in Iraq—quite the opposite, actually.
If Christians are so concerned about “war mongering and killing innocents, government corruption, the Federal Reserve rape of the middle class, violations of Constitution by the big government globalists in Washington and general moral decay in our society (materialism, violence, rudeness)” why don’t they pour their energy into those issues and leave the gays alone? If indeed it is in no way beneficial to them, why don’t they just set it aside and focus on the bigger issues you mention?
Why? Because gay marriage brings out the hatred in them, even more than unjustified war.
And I think you know that.
Sincerely,
September 24th, 2009 at 9:05 pmBHL
TedKennedysGhost says:
The US Constitution is founded on Judeo-Christian ethics.
This is a blatant lie. It is founded on enlightenment philosophy. If it were founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, we would have a king who ruled by divine right.
.
LiberalLinebacker says:
I think you miss TKG’s point.
Notice how TKG and LL only appear in the same threads as one another? And explicitly reference agreement to each other, even going so far as to provide explanations and clarification for one another’s posts? Yeah, I noticed that too.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:14 pm@ 170. LiberalLinebacker says: pags2 this nation was completely and totally founded on Judeo-Christian principles as applied to government. You are wrong pags2. The inability for the government to institute a state religion, is the exact freedom of choice that rings throughout the Torah and New Testament. God has everything to do with the Constitution. September 24th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
All right, who let the fracking church ladies’ parrot out of its cage? We’ll have to listen to this trash, masquerading as an interpretation of history until somebody finds a net and captures the idiot. Oh. Sorry, It’s you, LibLinebarker, with your “Misunderstanding History for Dummies” guidebook, again, isn’t it?
In no particular order, let’s look at national origins. Sure, the gents at Jamestown were good Church of England types, and everything in their day was nominally a Christian enterprise, but Jamestown was a commercial venture, not a churchly one. The Jamestown boys were perhaps freedom loving, but they were mostly in one of the get-rich-quick schemes of the time.
The Dissenting Brethren who landed at Plymouth Massachusetts somewhat later were a Christian enterprise, for sure, but they did NOT extend religious freedom to anyone who did not share their particular sectarian views; they sought freedom for their own expression of religion, not for any other sect, Christian or otherwise. If you’d been paying attention, you’d even remember that the “Puritans” ran Roger Williams out of the Plymouth Bay Plantation because he was a different kind of Protestant than they were. Those were founders, and not exactly a freedom loving lot, except for themselves. Were they expressing Judeo-Christian principles of government? Yes, if you mean the dictatorial ones.
Regarding Torah, my recollection is that somewhere in the ten commandments, like in the number one place, is something to the effect that, “Thou shalt not have any other gods before me”, and at other points there are comments such as “Thy God is a jealous god” and so on. Then, it seems to me that there are some prescriptions in Leviticus for what is to be done with non-believers, heretics, and blasphemers, along with people who defile the Temple and on and on. That brand of Judaism, High Temple Judaism, was not tolerant of other religious views and did not rule that way. But that’s cool; most of the idolaters didn’t rule with freedom of religion in mind either. Freedom of religion? You do have a sense of humor, LibLine.
Now, if by founders you mean the signers of the Declaration of Indepencence and the Constitution, yes, some, perhaps even most were or had been Christian, but for most, their political views had been informed by the Enlightenment, more so than by the church. They were certainly not inclined to the intolerance of their forebearers; I’ve no idea what they’d think of the current churchly intolerance among “conservatives”, but they’d probably not easily countenance being preached at by the ignorant.
September 25th, 2009 at 1:35 amActually, polygamy resembles socialism more than gay marriage.
Interestingly, religion resembles socialism more than polygamy or gay marriage.
The church ‘goverment’ hires and provides the salary of the orator of scripture. The congregation not only pays the salary of the hired orator, they also combine their tithes (taxes) to build the building in which he works and use their tithes (taxes) to maintain the church and provide a residence for their hired orator and his family to live. All of the tithes (taxes) are used to the benefit of the church and to maintain its establishment. The ‘goverment’ ‘owns’ the means of production of scripture oratory and all of the resources used to produce it.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:57 am#178 – Rodeskawler says:
————————————————————-”Interestingly, religion resembles socialism more than polygamy or gay marriage.”
September 25th, 2009 at 8:57 am
And let’s not forget that Jesus was an un-ashamed socialist: “Whatever you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me”
Seems that the American “c”hristian turns a blind eye to the fact that their faith is based on socialist principles.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:20 amI don’t understand why some Christians have hissy-fits over 2 men or 2 women getting married, but then ignore things like world poverty, hunger, etc. Honestly, if they put in as much effort to ending world poverty or hunger as they do fighting gay marraige, these problems would have probably been solved by now. It’s people like these who make me and other christians look bad.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pmMethinks that they are just using gay marriage as a “smoke screen” to distract their followers from the real problems here like unequal access to healthcare, poverty, climate change, etc…
September 25th, 2009 at 4:24 pmActually, The nation was founded on individual liberty. Liberty in speech, religion, assembly, property, etc. Therein lies the basis for this nation’s morality. Live free, and respect the right of others to live free as well.
And let’s not forget about this tid-bit.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:18 amAnnals of Congress, 5th Congress
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Thank you for your sharing.!
September 29th, 2009 at 6:31 amI really wonder about the blinders the Log Cabin Republicans are wearing, not to be offended (or at least slightly more vocal about the inappropriateness) of such a statement. karin germe
September 30th, 2009 at 11:59 am