The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in 2003 striking down the state’s gay-marriage ban arguably helped re-elect President Bush. Fired-up social conservatives, spurred on by GOP political operatives, put gay-marriage amendments on the ballots in 11 states in November 2004, helping drive voter turnout in those states and elsewhere. In such battleground states as Ohio, it likely was the difference between Bush winning and losing.
So how will Thursday’s California Supreme Court ruling play out? It certainly won’t have as big an impact, as only three states are expected to have the issue on the ballot — California, Arizona and Florida. And though John McCain supports such state amendments, he doesn’t support a federal gay-marriage ban, which rankles many social conservatives. Also, pocketbook issues and Iraq are more important to most voters this election than social issues. Still, McCain and the GOP likely will exploit the ruling as another example of “activist judges.”
395 Comments
Wonder if Phillip has been reading us today?
Activist judges were Republican judges, by the way.
I sure wish Phillip would choose an ID and participate in the forum. We could give him the ID, WonderboyRed?
LOL.
None of us would ever have to know what nic he’d post under :D.
Uh, Phillip?
“The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in 2003 striking down the state’s gay-marriage ban arguably helped re-elect President Bush.”
No.
It was kkkarl rove’s USE of the issue as a wedge that helped re-elect the preznit.
They were not just “spurred on” by the GOP. They were turned into a hateful mob.
And really, is there any serious question that the GOP will work that strategy again?
Of course they will. The only question is, will the snake handlers and the ignorant fall for it.
Again.
Look, over there, a bright and shiny object!
And btw, has hagee apoligized to the gay community for saying they were responsible for Katrina?
He sounds more like phred phelps and terry fox and joe wright every day.
No WONDER the repukes sport wood every time he opens his mouth for more gay bashing.
(crickets chirping)
So.. hagee has NOT apoligized for saying gays are responsible for Katrina?
Color me shocked. I guess I thought since he apologized to the catholic church for being the great whore, he might have had a little remorse about what he’s said about gays.
I’m such a silly rabbit….
Being a republican preacher means never having to say you are sorry to the gay community.
Funny though, obama wont be able to use that. I mean, since his postion on gay marriage is EXACTLY the same has mcsame’s.
If only the government did not license marriage in the first place. Then this would not be an issue.
Adults do not need permission to enter into a relationship. The entire concept of marriage licensing is against freedom of association in my opinion.
Get with the program Pmom. They are only act-ee-vist judges when they rule against republicans.
Otherwise? They are paragons of virtue.
IOKIYAAR
The GOP is so filled with hate these days it may be difficult to get them focused on who just to hate. The GOP voted against Mother’s Day because they hate moms, they clearly hate marriage and gays, and they certainly hate immigrants provided they have brown skin, and they really hate veterans.
ksfarmgrrl,
Indeed. What’s been funny is Hagee’s retraction of the anti-Catholic remarks–remarks that folks like outlander and Econ101 didn’t have any problem with when first he uttered them. Dear Wingnuts: if the remarks weren’t anti-Catholic, why did Hagee feel the need to say that he now no longer believes them and wants to take them back?
As usual, reactionaries, you went on the attack before using your brains. Funny thing, that.
As to the topic at hand, as is often the case, the Rudepundit gives an excellent reading of the Justices’ decision.
rudepundit.blogspot.com
Coming from a center-right court, this is a very big deal. The fact that the Fundos are going for a ballot initiative come Fall isn’t going to going to have the magnifying effect that the Massachusets decision did in 2004; all the the true believers Fundo mouth-breathers hate Repukes even more than they hate gay folks.
And let me say, personally, how happy this ruling makes me. Coming out of California, it is appropriately seismic that common sense and common decency is bubbling up from the states. The nutzoid Fundo power grab has seriously overreached, and people are sick to death of it.
Proudman, the problem isnt association or marriage. The problem is with all the 1000 benefits associated WITH marriage. And the fact that such benefits are denied to “civil unions”. They ONLY go to “marriage”
And if you read the decision, the BIGGEST blow to obama and mcsame is that it singled out “civil unions” as being… wait for it… separate but UNequal. That point is flying under the radar now. It was the last refuge of bigots, and now? It’s gone.
So.. the cop out of “civil unions” isnt going to work. It’s marriage or nothing.
Of course, as you note, the smart thing would be for all the benefits of marriage to go to civil unions.
But then, that’s not REALLY what the snake handlers want. They want SPECIAL rights and treatment for their realtionships.
Ours? Not so much. This is ALL about straight marriage being legally superior to gay marriage. And a lot of cons cant stand the thought that our love and relationships are JUST as valid and valuable as theirs.
Crabs and buckets and all.
I have to wonder why there is so much fear of ‘gay marriage’; having been married for 37 years I have never worried about some gay couple breaking that up. Of course, all those Republicans with their multiple marriages/divorces seem perfectly happy to cast stones.
And the fact that such benefits are denied to “civil unions”. They ONLY go to “marriage”
Ksfg – which is why I would do away with marriage altogether and replace it with “union” that would carry with it ALL of the legal/civil aspects of “marriage”
“all the the true believers Fundo mouth-breathers hate Repukes even more than they hate gay folks.”
um, sorry CF, I disagree with that. Gays are STILL the preferred target for their hate.
And.. with all due respect, it nullifies obama’s postion on gay marriage just like mcsame’s.
Brings to mind the scene in Blazing Saddles where he says “OK we’ll take the WOPs and the N*** but we DONT want the IRISH!”
Gee, I wonder what mcclurkin has to say about this? Or kirbyjon caldwell?
Or terry, joe and fred.
terry be kinda quiet on this, no?
Thank you for your support, CF.
“Ksfg – which is why I would do away with marriage altogether and replace it with “union” that would carry with it ALL of the legal/civil aspects of “marriage””
Ben, I have no problem with that, but the devil will be ice skating before the straight folks agree to marriage equality, no matter WHAT you call it.
Which is why I posted this:
“This is ALL about straight marriage being legally superior to gay marriage. And a lot of cons cant stand the thought that our love and relationships are JUST as valid and valuable as theirs.”
They can be all for “civil unions” as long as it is NOT equal to theirs.
And that is the obama position AND the mcsame position.
No doubt that the timing of the ruling makes it inevitable this will be turned into an election issue.
This court’s ruling illustrates the importance of the power to appoint judges.
“The nutzoid Fundo power grab has seriously overreached, and people are sick to death of it.”
That may be true, CF, and I hope it goes from your lips to god’s ears.
But.. the one thing they ALL agree on is that they hate the eeeeeviiiiil gays.
Hagee said that kfg?
Dang, maybe I owe cosmos an apology. It wasn’t the Sierra Club responsible for the flooding of New Orleans, the fault belongs to the Gays!
(dodges pitchfork and ax thrown by kfg)
“No doubt that the timing of the ruling makes it inevitable this will be turned into an election issue.”
Uh, no outie. It’s not the timing.
It’s the REPUBLICANS that will make it an issue. Just like in 2004.
Be clear on the cause and effect. The ruling HAS no effect on the election.
But how folks USE the ruling will.
And if I were a goper, I’d be SHOUTING that obama has the same position on gay marriage as mcsame.
Except, you probably wont drown out the obama folks saying the same thing. “I’m no worse than mcsame”.
Now there’s a slogan to be proud of. Hope and change indeed. No hope and no change for gay folks from obama, now that his separate but equal “civil unions” dodge has been taken from him.
Yes reg, he did say it.
And so did jerry falwell.
Pat Robertson said we were responsible for 9/11 too.
I only WISH we had that much power….
Marga Gomez said one time that people say they wont come out to their Dads because it would give them a heart attack and kill them.
She mused that “wouldnt it be great if we had that much power? I mean, if a mugger came up behind us, we could just say “I’m gay” and they would fall over dead with a heart attack”.
hehehhheheehehheh.
And did I mention that this ruling invalidates BOTH mcsame and obama’s positions on gay marriage?
heheheheheheheheheheheheh.
Has obama issued a response to this ruling?
Has mcsame?
cue crickets…
Ben, I finally got an answer about Hagee.
You see my family members in Mississippi, although heterosexual and living in another state entirely, were hit by Katrina because he used Shrimp as bait to catch Flounder. You know the old hootnanny about Leviticus 11:9. Godhatesshrimp.com, blah blah blah.
Apparantly, Hagee rebuked Uncle Frank on that and Frank didn’t repent.
Ok, I will be nice now. I will ration myself to one example of “gratuitously demagoguing religion” per day.
“but the devil will be ice skating before the straight folks agree to marriage equality,”
Not ALL straight folks. Like I said, my wife and I do not feel threatened. Of course, what do we know. We’ve only been married ONCE – unlike so many in the ‘family values’ crowd!
NPR will replay the Hagee interview this evening in which he said ksfg flooded New Orleans. Bad girl ksfg!
““but the devil will be ice skating before the straight folks agree to marriage equality,”
I know Ben, not all.
Just more than seventy percent of them in Kansas.
But thank you for your support and your wife’s support.
Hee hee hee!
The last time I was in N.O, I did a LOT of things I dont remember, but I dont think flooding was among them. Maybe so, but I think I was too busy destroying the marriages of straight people.
I’m not much good at multitasking.
KFG. Were you ever in Hattiesburg MS? If so, you owe us $20,000 in Katrina damage by gum.
Good point VET. And while we are at it – ksfg, ever been out in Los Angeles. You owe me for some earthquake damage!
KFG,
This may not be the right thread, but wanted to thank you for the kind words you have said about me lately. I am sure I don’t desersve them, but thank you any way.
I wish also to apologize for the rude things I have said to Phillip Brownlee in email exchanges we’ve recently had.
I believe that the religious dogma that one sees here on a regular basis should definitely continue, because I know those efforts do so much for converting people to that enlighened viewpoint.
Please, Chas, even Christ – the human part of him any way, would want to tell some of the jokers here to STFU. And He would not mean standing in the corner.
Just to clarify: I chose to leave here – no one made me. A question I kept asking myself was “would I hang around these folks in real life?” I am pretty sure for the growing majority, I would not.
As far as Regular having his life threatened – that raises the existential question brought up in the WOW South Park episode “How can you kill someone who doesn’t have a life.” Meeting James was a liberating experience for me and an important part of making the decision about posting here.
May read sometimes, but won’t be posting. Good luck to you all.
Have errands to run and bills to pay. I am grateful for my ability to meet those obligations, as well as my ability to pay taxes.
Seems the old knee-jerk reaction of the Redneck Conservative ’50’s South have survived nearly intact but in a different location. You can spot it instantly by mentioning equal rights for gay citizens and watching bigots wrists immediatly jerk upwards as they propose a “separate but equal” marriage!
They’ve even recycled the old rhetoric, substituting the word “Fags” for “Nigras.” The rest is identical to their Daddy’s rants, right down to the “Let’s get our sheets on and go hang a few of those uppity fags, boys, we have to protect our womenfolk from these lusting animals!”
Same old bigots, with a politically safer target!
Y’know, “ksfarmgrrl” –
My personal view of gay marriage is probably not helpful to your cause because I just don’t get how anyone could object to it.
It’s sort of like antisemitism. I guess I know it exists but I can’t for the life of me understand why.
I can argue a lot of issues when I realize there’s something rational about the other guy’s point-of-view. But when all they offer is sheer idiocy, I’m at a loss.
I can sort of understand where a racist is coming from. “They look different.” It’s irrational, but I can sort of see where they’re coming from. “They fuc# different” seems like a so “it’s not anyone else’s business” issue I’m just incapable of understanding how anyone could object to it.
There’s probably some religious cult that’s convinced that anyone left-handed is “possessed by the devil” or somesuch. I can’t argue with those people, either, because whatever their fervent bigotry is based on, it’s beyond my scope of comprehension.
It’s like entering into an argument with someone who believes in a Flat Earth. They’re so wrong on the basics, it’s futile to even try to engage them in a rational, scientific discussion.
South Park…
Yeah Steven Davis…
South Park must be the key for internal reflection and guidance on moral issues.
South Park 1?
Ten Commandments 0?
Steven, you more than deserve kind words.
I would certainly hang out with you in real life.
I’d cook for ya too! :)
Hee hee heee….
I drank an ocean of beer with the city manager and the economic development director in Hattiesburg one time. But that unfortunate incident predated Katrina.
Same with my misspent time in LA. It predated Katrina as well.
I was lucky to travel the country on AT&T’s and CWA’s dime!
Hee hee hee…. But the boys in Hattiesburg did pick up the tab, like good southern gentlemen.
And so did the Parish President in Breaux Bridge, LA.
Sometimes, it’s good to be a woman :)
PS. When conservatives talk about Civil Unions for gay people, be careful to note their position on Unionism hasn’t changed a bit!
Dang KFG. I thought I was going to be able to settle for Brett Favre’s autograph and we could call it even.
LLTVET, HA!
The University of Southern Mississippi used to be the ONLY university to offer a masters in economic development.
And my ex got her M.Ed from there.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted May 16, 2008 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
Hee hee heee….
I drank an ocean of beer with the city manager and the economic development director in Hattiesburg one time. But that unfortunate incident predated Katrina.
Same with my misspent time in LA. It predated Katrina as well.
I was lucky to travel the country on AT&T’s and CWA’s dime!
—————————
Hmmm, why did that scene in the first Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark) pop into my mind where Rene Belloq (the French Archaelogists) and Marion Ravenwood are having a drinking contest on Belloq’s family label?
(envisions the Hattiesburg city manager and kfg draped over a table with several bottles on the floor.
Oh, and if this ruling is allowed to stand?
It puts an end to ALL discrimination against gay folks. Not just marriage. So a bassackwards state like kansas wont HAVE to pass a bill that makes it illegal to fire someone for being gay.
“Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
Take THAT wakeeney city council and trego county commissioners! It’s too late to help me, but they wont be able to treat anyone else that way.
And, in a surprising bit of voter fluffing, I should note that every swinging elected official who voted against my board of directors, with the exception of two, are out of office.
One did not see re-election, one died, and two are up for election for the first time this year.
And they have good opposition.
“(envisions the Hattiesburg city manager and kfg draped over a table with several bottles on the floor.”
hee hee hee reg!
Except I was still standing. HE was heaving his guts out in the bathroom before being carried home by his buddies….
Whatever will lance kinzer, tim huelskamp and jan pauls run on next?
Its exactly this kind of nonsense that makes me not a conservative/republican. they say they support freedom/less government until someone wants to exercise that freedom then their all for the government squashing it.
Hard to say, just today I watched an interview with a I believe he is a Senator Pierce in the past when I saw him he was a strict Neo-Con. He as much said that the GOP needed to throw the Religious right under the bus and stay away from them for the good of the party.
that A-I thing keeps biting me in the butt! sorry
It’s similar to the “States Rights” argument a few years back. That’s all fine and well until California passes medical marijuana or Oregan passes assisted suicide.
And once again, Steven leaves insulting someone…
I suppose I am the only one to see the irony of the celebrated “make the blog a better place” poster leave like this?
“ksfarmgrrl
Posted May 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
Oh, and if this ruling is allowed to stand?
It puts an end to ALL discrimination against gay folks. Not just marriage. So a bassackwards state like kansas wont HAVE to pass a bill that makes it illegal to fire someone for being gay.”
Umm. A bit early, don;t you think? This was a California Supreme Court ruling , which only affects California. Whether or not it ever has a national effect, by ruling, is yet to be seen. I see a long, arduous trail before that happens. First to a ruling in the federal courts, then to the 10th circuit, then to SCOTUS. ANd that only if they agree.
But hey, for now…….Californians that wish to can rejoice in their newly acknowledged right.
KsFrmGrrl–
“And.. with all due respect, it nullifies obama’s postion on gay marriage just like mcsame’s.”
So, you’re saying by leaving Hillary out, that she’s on record in favor of gay-marriage?
I hadn’t heard that . . .
LJ, was there some part of “if this ruling stands” that was unclear?
Captain, Hillary is not going to be the nominee. Why would anyone care what her stand on gay marriage is?
Besides, I posted her stance last night.
I found this on another blog. I hope some of you will help out.
“I challenge you to match my donation to the Human Rights Campaign California Marriage PAC.
I donated $50 yesterday so they can keep up the fight to make this decision stick, who can join me?
The California Supreme Court just handed down a favorable ruling on same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, our right-wing opponents are building a $10 million war chest for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in California. HRC is a partner of Equality for All, the coalition working to defeat the marriage ban.
HRC has set up a special fund – the HRC California Marriage PAC – to direct 100% of your contribution today to the fight against the anti-marriage ballot initiative in California. HRC is a member of Equality for All, the coalition working to defeat the marriage ban, and these funds will support the coalition’s efforts.
Please donate generously today.”
https://secure.ga3.org/03/ca_marriage_pac
do it just to piss off terry, joe and phred!
Appeasement doesn’t work, not with terrorists, not with dictators, not with culture wars. Concede to domestic partnerships or civil unions, and they will be used to drive the legalization of the sodomite mockery of marriage. Our only chance to salvage the structure of traditional American society is to recriminalize sodomy.
The slippery slope is mighty steep farther down, and there is no safety rail around the abyss at the bottom.
How about an EXTRA donation just to piss off parkay?
Since he thinks BJs should be illegal, I guess that means he’s never had one?
it shows…
Regular
Posted May 16, 2008 at 1:44 pm | Permalink
South Park…
Yeah Steven Davis…
South Park must be the key for internal reflection and guidance on moral issues.
South Park 1?
Ten Commandments 0?
**********
James,
When I start the church of St. Eric Cartman, can I count on you to be a founding member? I am sure KFG will be in the “amen corner”, how about you?
On the STFU, when my wife wants to politely invite me to be quiet, she now tells me “Stand The Floor Up”. Still laughing about that one. :)
Two consenting adults. What is so hard to understand?
Farm Gal,
How ’bout I make a donation in the name of Troy “Parkay” Newman? How many of you would join me? C’mon you good people, let’s see how much money his name’s worth for equal rights!
Steven Davis,
I think kfg is a Pastafarian, I’m unsure if her Cartman theology would be necessary or even complete.
I’m sure though she would volunteer to paint “YKK” (you killed kenny) on the appropriate altar fixture.
Parkay the problem with re-criminalizing sodomy is the Heterosexuals also commit sodomy. Legally married men and women commit sodomy as a standard of foreplay.
Are you talking about them too? You would have to otherwise such a criminalizing would not be constitutional.
I heard Hagees interview of two years ago on NPR today, what a nutcase. Scary that he has such a following..what in the hell is this country coming to? Seems like we’ve regressed back in time to when they believed that someone with seizures was poccessed by the devil.
I’ll donate !! It’s about time some common sense prevailed regarding the gay marriage issue. NOW can we focus on the real problems in our country? Like the economy, the war, the healthcare crisis, our disasterous foreign policy, etc, etc, etc…
No doubt the GOP will continue gay bashing. It is sure fire way to get the religious nuts to the polls on election day.
ksfarmgrrl Posted;
“HRC has set up a special fund – the HRC California Marriage PAC – to direct 100% of your contribution today to the fight against the anti-marriage ballot initiative in California. HRC is a member of Equality for All, the coalition working to defeat the marriage ban,…
Please donate generously today.””
Listen carefully…..Is that the sound of a penny hitting the bottom of an empty cup…..naw, just crickets I think.
Why are Republics so afraid of gays?
It seems pretty unnatural to be so afraid of less than four percent of the population that they have to devote so much time, energy and money to make it (them) go away.
There has to be more to the story – just why are the damned Republicans SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO afraid of gays?
“The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.”
H. L. Mencken
WS, you ask, “There has to be more to the story – just why are the damned Republicans SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO afraid of gays?”
This should get you and ksfarmgrrl fired up,
from Genesis;
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Jude 1:7 clearly implies homosexuality. “Going after strange flesh” means going after flesh “different” than what is rightfully ours to claim (our spouse’s body -1st Corinthians 7:4) The “strange” flesh simply refers to that which is forbidden by God for us to have, it is flesh outside the bounds of God’s laws; hence, the term “sexual deviance” (to deviate from what is acceptable to God).
We also read in 2nd Peter 2:6,7…
“And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked.”
WS, does that answer your question? It should, and make you “SOOOOOO…afraid also, or at least question your own ideas.
“It should, and make you “SOOOOOO…afraid also, or at least question your own ideas.”
And the Bible also says that you should not plant more than one crop in a field, gives directions as to your treatment of your slaves and tells women that they should be silent in church.
And so on.
Do you follow ALL the rules as prescribed in the Bible or do you pick and choose?
If you do not follow all the rules, as written, how can you justify demanding that society follow the “rule” regarding gays?
Okay. Flash-card post (sorry, saving time!) :)
Arizona.
Amendment.
Senate (stalled).
Thankfully , my state senator :):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Aboud
Who cares? This is a non-issue. Our nation has bigger fish to fry than concentrating on a very small portion of the population.
Much bigger fish.
Regular,
You’re not very smart, but very funny. LOL :)
“commit sodomy as a standard of foreplay.”
Really? You have experience with this?
Don’t even take that disgusting thing after it’s been up the poop scoop and try aiming anywhere else.
That would be a very unsafe and unsanitary procedure (to put it lightly for posting).
Sodomy, by any engaged couple is a sexual act unto itself.
This is a perfect example of why sex education is an important aspect of child development.
It’s just as important to stress – as putting a condom on a banana.
For the health and safety of all, sexual partners should NEVER move from the anal penetration to any other penetration.
Ah, Blog Monitor McCreepy, ORAL sex is also considered sodomy by the sex police.
Dear WS,
Then all the more reason for sex education.
Much talk today on the subject of sodomy.
What the hell is it?
From a health perspective as if we were the medical authority what parts should move from A, B, or C, on the blackboard?
I’ve preassigned C = anal.
A & B?
“I’ve preassigned C = anal.”
Your choice.
Well “A” would be mouth.
and “B” would be what we called a home run
when compared to baseball. The strategic parts for “B” would involve the front side of either a male or female gender.
I think I have left something or somethings out.
But I really don’t remember.
“But I really don’t remember.”
Better go back to that Jr. High School sex ed class, McCluer – since you have never experienced the real thing.
Oh the Clarkbar is still up? Well if YOU can post offensive and brainless posts, then do not complain if other posters respond in kind.
Having monitored your posts as well as others for many moons on this bog, I am well aware of your drug addiction.
I would be most surprised if you remembered when
you last had your dip stick in the oil.
What you really really need at this late hour is
a joint.
We all know you Clarkie.
“I would be most surprised if you remembered when
you last had your dip stick in the oil.”
That would have been last night – but tonight holds promise also.
The night is young.
The night is young.
Yeah, but you aren’t.
And all of us at or beyond that age know full well
how full of shit you are. Your wife, no matter how stupid, is not that stupid at your age.
She is lying in wait at 50something for your thing-a-ling a-ling to come to bed.
In retrospect, your delusion could have been the result of years of drug abuse.
But your manly statements at 50+ are not fooling any of your fellow babyboomers.
But hey man! That’s cool bro! Like whatever makes you feel good man!
“Your wife, no matter how stupid, is not that stupid at your age.”
I’m not married, but I do date women of a younger age.
“But your manly statements at 50+ are not fooling any of your fellow babyboomers.”
I don’t need little blue pills to get me up for the occasion.
“Yeah, but you aren’t.”
I am fifty six, not ninety six.
And my lady is not a 3D blow-up doll, unlike yours.
Like Wow Clark. You are the MAN! Way cool dude.
You are hard dude. So hard I could rollerskate on you.
Here man, take the roach clip Man! You are far out!
Remember when you used to say:
I’m so high I’m looking up at my tennis shoes,
and it says PF FLYERS,
like the billboard
on the back of a giants jock.
Are the road moving man?
Having you been sitting at the stop sign for
five minutes now, and you are hitting the breaks
with all your strength?
Watching the road being swallowed up by the manhole in the middle of the intersection?
Afraid to move forward?
“Having you been sitting at the stop sign for
five minutes now, and you are hitting the breaks
with all your strength?”
Most of us refer to them as “brakes” dufus.
Hey man Clarkie,
have you ever looked closely at the album covers
of YES?
Aren’t those far out man! Little space ships flying above the small pieces of earth like planets suspended in the universe man.
That’s deep man. Real deep. Those guys are way coool. Dig it man! Ya dig?
“I’ve seen all good people turn their heads each day so satisfied I’m on my way.”
“and they stand there
one mile over we’ll be there and we’ll see you
ten true summers we’ll be there and laughing too
twenty four before my love you’ll see I’ll be there with you”
They got it man. They’ve BEEN THERE and back.
They know all the people trapped on the overpopulated planet will start falling off that little piece of planet, is the tragic end.
Those little old fashion zepplins in the art work cover, in the middle of the future realization of the WORLD man! Advanced technolgy but still the zepplins man!
And they tie up with the LED man! That MEANS SOMETHING! They are remembering and honoring the first heavy LED man. The Led Zepplin!
See how it all comes around and ties together man?
(You druggies are all alike. So Cheech and Chong)
Clark posts,
“Hey man, you mean BRAKES man!” laughing hysterically. “You got that confused man. You used a word than spells the same but means differenlty, man.” “Wait man, I mean you mean.” “No” “I mean you typed a word man that sounds the same man, but is spelled differently, man!”
“Hey man, you done with that bong?” You mind if I take a hit off it?” “Oh wow man, you wet lipped the roach man. It’s all wet man!” “You know what we call that man, huh man?” “Can you dig it man?”
(Clark probably still has his drug Paraphernalia.)
(concert tickets to the grateful dead too)
Oops, I missed the generation. Clark is this is our generation. It’s the real thing! Coke is.
Or maybe even the pepsi generation.
Number nine. Number Nine.
Turn me on dead man.
Parkay bloviates:
“Appeasement doesn’t work, not with terrorists, not with dictators, not with culture wars”
Actually when Israel did “appease” Palestinians by giving them the Golan Heights it did improve relations and brought about the end of the terrorist faction of the PLO. And I suppose when the allies appeased Germany by giving them back self-rule and avoided the punishment that led to the 2nd world war it did prevent further conflicts. Or I suppose when the Bush regime “appeased” North Korea and gave them foreign aid in exchange for NK giving up it’s nuclear program it worked.
What didn’t work is rejecting diplomacy with Iraq and instead bombing them and occupying the nation for five years. But since you are a cowardly chicken hawk you don’t mind playing armchair general as long as others do your dying for you.
Thank you all for your promised donations. And jed, it would be a scream if they were made “in honor of” Troy and/or parkay.
The fundies are really in an uproar about this. You can bet, they will fight this with all their money.
So… we need some financial help to fight fire with fire.
And yes Rage, there is hope after Arizona did the right thing.
And boxlick, why would I care if you post verses from the greatest fairy tale ever told?
I could quote the Karma Sutra too, but it would be lost on you…
Oh and when you are feeling generous, dont forget the Kansas Equality Coalition. They do fabulous work against impossible odds in Kansas. Google ‘em.
It is a really sad that homosexual relationships are being compared to marriage. The masculine and feminine traits that God created come together in marriage becuase of love. And it has the power to create life naturally and also sustain it because they are complimentary. This cannot happen in a homosexual relationship. Many people have recieved the benefits of marriage from their parents because of male and female traits complimenting each other. In a homosexual relationship only one of them will exist.
With the prevalent relativisitic and self-centered world view in which right and wrong depend on the feeling of the individual person, it is easy to see why homosexuals feel that way. The truth though is plain to see but the mind and feelings are powerful things and they can distort reality.
“‘HRC has set up a special fund – the HRC California Marriage PAC – to direct 100% of your contribution today to the fight against the anti-marriage ballot initiative in California. HRC is a member of Equality for All, the coalition working to defeat the marriage ban, and these funds will support the coalition’s efforts.
Please donate generously today.’”
https://secure.ga3.org/03/ca_marriage_pac
Got the e-mail. Done.
Re: Boxlock
DNFTSRWT
Ok, this is getting too funny.
John Stone, yer still insane. But say hey to aaron for me.
Mabye we need to send some donations in the name of “john stone” since he ONLY shows up on the gay marriage threads.
Unless he posts under some other name here too….
And ALL of you suppporting gay marriage need to read this thread and bookmark it for future use.
Wingnuts need not bother.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×3298013
John, why are you ashamed to post under your real name anymore? Afraid someone will know in RL what a BIGOT you are?
hint: I bet they already know and your church buddies agree with you.
Say hey to terry, joe and fred, will ha?
Thank you ksagnostic. Every time someone donates, john and boxlick shed a few tears.
You can contribute here in support of the California Marriage Amendment:
https://www.completecampaigns.com/FR/contribute.asp?campaignid=ProtectMarriage
KFG,
Compared to what you and your liberal ilk post against religion in general and christians in particular, what I posted is rather mild. Look in the mirror and try and remove that log in your eye.
So John Stone, just how many nics do you use here?
And tell the truth, ’cause jesus doesnt like liars.
And why do you only use this nic when posting about gay marriage?
Or is gay marriage the ONLY issue you care about?
Wait, lemme guess. You are anti-choice too.
In any event, you just PROVED how insane you are by using a fairy tale verse to chastise me.
How funny. And how typically insane…
Is aaron your son? or just another nic you use?
Stoned,
Have you ever once had a conversation (not a confrontation) with an out gay person? If so, did you discuss their orientation? Your diatribes sound so utterly theoretical that I can’t imagine you have.
Gay people are human too, and they love just exactly as much as straight people, probably even more, considering all the sh*t you people pile on them for loving at all!
You, on the other hand, haven’t once revealed a capacity for real love for anybody in your posts. Maybe you need to have a discussion with Jesus about that- He seemed to know a fair amount about the subject.
Please don’t confuse marriage with reproduction. Reproduction works just fine in the absence of love, and there are plenty of examples to prove it; marriage doesn’t. Further, there are many married couples who have no desire for children but love each other passionately, yet you are denying their obvious love for each other by using that argument
I recently attended the 60th anniversary of a gay couple I’ve known for some few years. From reading your posts I honestly can’t see you keeping a love going for that long, or really be in love at all, for that matter. You might actually learn a few things from them!
You know kfg and Jed, there could be the reason why there is no dialog between you and John_S?
Condemning a person when you don’t know them or have met them is the same thing you are accusing John_S of doing.
KFG,
calm down, don’t get so worked up. This is the only nicname I use when posting. I am telling the truth here, even though some fairy tale charachter doesn’t like liars! btw you are insane too because the fairy tale charachter who doesn’t like lies is in the same book that I quoted my fairy tale verse. Just kidding.
I usually post my opinions in threads that are extremely liberal in their world view. These are the threads where liberals try to demonize conservatives and christians as the cause of all problems. It has been sometime since I have posted here though and I don’t post very often. I wonder if all liberals were on a remote island, who would you blame for all your self-inflicted problems?
Lastly, I don’t know why you associate aaron with me.
Maybe the court’s decision in California will help the Gay community recruit more members? It doesn’t take a Darwinist to know that in order to sustain the gay population, some kind of recruitment strategy is required.
A court’s overruling of a voter approved law defining marriage, should go far in laying the foundation for justifying a lifestyle that is physically destructive and non-procreative.
I regret that some people that I know are convinced that they were some how born to be gay. It’s not fun having AIDS from what I can tell, but of course they can not help it. For some reason, even with the widespread availablity of the condom for decades, AIDS is a pernicious problem with the gay community as well as anybody involved in promiscuous sex.
Watch for more gay friendly teaching material to be included in a kindergarten near you as this aggressive recruitment trend to continues down to where it is most effective.
Protect your children if you love them.
Reggie,
No, I only know Stone from the opinions he’s posted here over the years, but those opinions have told me a lot about the man and his hatreds. I don’t need to see his face to read the viciousness expressed in his writing.
Also, I was not just speaking to him, but to all the people who voice such cruelty toward people I know and who have been my true friends at times in my life when I really needed friends. Those people may be blissfully ignorant of the damage they do to gay people, but I’ve seen way too much of it to let them off the hook for crimes they are just as guilty of as the ones they incite.
“It doesn’t take a Darwinist to know that in order to sustain the gay population, some kind of recruitment strategy is required.”
That’s kinda like saying males need to recruit more men into their population because men don’t have ovaries and can’t reproduce.
Ted Haggard managed to have a few children despite being gay. I suppose that kinda puts a dent into your pseudoscience.
Stoned,
Maybe that’s the problem! You’re obsessing on just one book of fairy tales when there are so many other fairy tales in the world that make pretty good reading too! You need to put that one away for a while and broaden your world to include some of the other fairy tales.
Jed
Posted May 17, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Permalink
Reggie,
No, I only know Stone from the opinions he’s posted here over the years, but those opinions have told me a lot about the man and his hatreds. I don’t need to see his face to read the viciousness expressed in his writing.
Also, I was not just speaking to him, but to all the people who voice such cruelty toward people I know and who have been my true friends at times in my life when I really needed friends. Those people may be blissfully ignorant of the damage they do to gay people, but I’ve seen way too much of it to let them off the hook for crimes they are just as guilty of as the ones they incite.
———————–
So each one of you will continue to call each other haters and intolerant.
Well then Jed, thanks for the lesson on how Liberal thought works.
“Ted Haggard managed to have a few children despite being gay. I suppose that kinda puts a dent into your pseudoscience.”
A person who engages in gay sex can only have children when they practice NON-gay sexual activity. Which by definition makes him/her a bisexual (not gay). So only bisexuals or straight people can reproduce.
So again I write:
It doesn’t take a Darwinist to know that in order to sustain the gay population, some kind of recruitment strategy is required.
“Condemning a person when you don’t know them or have met them is the same thing you are accusing John_S of doing.”
Well that is mighty hypocritical of you, McCluer. You in your many incarnations condemn me everyday, yet you neither know me or have met me.
Raffle,
“It doesn’t take a Darwinist to know that in order to sustain the gay population, some kind of recruitment strategy is required.”
Do you really think recruitment is even possible? Could Mr. Right come along and change your sexual orientation? If he could, don’t you think you might have some serious thinking to do?
I’ve know a lot of gay people over the decades, and I never once heard one tell me he was recruited! Most of them knew they were gay long before they knew what gay sex (or any other kind of sex) was. I went all through school with the same class of kids, three of whom were gay. I remember them well, and they were gay from 1st grade on!
Furthermore, there was a long-term study of over 3,000 children finished about 10yrs ago that showed that psychological tests given to children at the age of 4yrs were highly accurate at predicting their adult sexual orientation. If you are stll insisting that recruitment is the cause, it had to have happened before that age in every case. Don’t you think that’s more than a bit of a stretch? Or would that get in the way of what your preacher told you?
Reggie,
“Well then Jed, thanks for the lesson on how Liberal thought works.”
Liberal thought? No, that’s the way THOUGHT works! Try it sometime, you might like it!
“It doesn’t take a Darwinist to know that in order to sustain the gay population, some kind of recruitment strategy is required.”
So what does mentioning Darwin have to do with anything? People give birth to gay children, those children are capable of reproducing, so where is the recruitment aspect?
I suppose your right, it doesn’t take a “Darwinist” (I’m assuming you mean a scientist) to realize this because no credible scientist would buy into your pseudoscientific nonsense that’s clearly debunked by common sense.
“RFL” offers comic relief with –
“…in order to sustain the gay population, some kind of recruitment strategy is required.”
Thanks for revealing that, “RFL!”
Now the only thing left is for GAY, Incorporated to come up with the right advertising campaign and they’ll lure you into a life of choreography, interior decoration, and eyebrow waxing!
It’s all in the RECRUITMENT!!
Thanks for clearing that up!
(Will you be willing to enroll in cosmetology college? You seem like a finger-curl natural.)
Here is a little fairy tale story for between a liberal and a rational person:
Rational : How much is 2 + 2?
Liberal : 5.
Rational : No its 4.
Liberal : Its 5.
/liberal gets flustered\
Rational : Look I have two fingers up on my right hand and now two fingers up on my left hand. If you count all the fingers that I have up, you will see 2 + 2 makes 4.
/liberal gets pissed\
Liberal : You think its 4 because you are a hater and a 5ophobe. You should be put in jail for saying such things. Its that stupid bible that gives you these ideas….
/Rational throws his hands in the air\
Rational : Its simple math. Its not too complicated.
/liberal goes on whining\
Raffle,
“A person who engages in gay sex can only have children when they practice NON-gay sexual activity. Which by definition makes him/her a bisexual (not gay). So only bisexuals or straight people can reproduce.”
Actually, nearly all of the gay people I’ve known have tried straight sex, someimes for years, finding it just as disgusting as you seem to find gay sex, before saying to themselves “Why should I have to fantasize about him in order to have sex with her? Why not sleep with the guy I love?
At least half of the gay people I know have children. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bi, it means they’ve tried hetero and it doesn’t work for them. I’ve known a lot of those children too. Of those, only one was gay (which shoots holes in your recruitment theory), but all of them accepted their gay parents and friends without a hint of your bigotry. I think that’s what you’re most afraid of!
That story was for you Jed
Why do gay people frighten you, John S?
Its because people who think that marriage is between a man and a woman frighten you.
Stoned,
Then there was the one about the consevative who was asked to come up with just one original thought. He tried and tried and tried, for years he tried, but everything he thought had already been on Limbaugh of O’Reilly!
Finally he shouted “I’ve got it! There is no such thing as an original thought.”
Unfortunately, that wasn’t original either.
A lot of people say the sky is blue. That is not an original thought either. They just say it as they see it.
“People give birth to gay children”
-Maggotpunk
I can only laugh. c’mon maggopunk gay children? You have to be joking.
People give birth to children who grow up and choose to be doctors and lawyers. Does that prove that being a doctor and a lawyer is genetic?
Darwinian evolution and homosexuality as an inherited trait are incompatible. Therefore, without active indoctrination focused on recruitment, “Gay Inc” will go extinct.
Stoned,
I think marrige is between two people over the are of 18 and who love each other. What’s so hard about that? And why are their genders of any concern to you? You can still marry anyone over 18 who will have you (although I’m sure that last phrase could make it problematic).
“I can only laugh. c’mon maggopunk gay children? You have to be joking.”
That’s funny, so you are essentially saying you can be recruited to have sex with other guys. Were you that guy leering at me in the locker room?
Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom. I suppose in your pseudoscientific dreamworld chimps, geese and aquatic life all have recruitment centers too. Funny how ignorance makes a person look so utterly foolish.
Raffle,
While I’m sure gay recruitment has been tried on occasion, I’ve never once heard of of it working on someone who was previously straight. And somehow I missed seeing the poster that said “Aunt Sam Wants YOU!” I take it you were never successfully recruited.
When you try and make the case for gay marriage why do you always compare the worst cases of heterosexual behavior to the best of homosexual ones? A majority of marriages are strong and millions of couples stay together till they die. The only thing is they are not in the media spotlight all the time. But the dysfuntional hollywood-like couples are always in the spotlight. If you look at those relationships as standard then you can make the case that a lot of other relationships deserve to be marriage.
Also if you think gender is not important in marriage, then why is the number? Why can’t three people over 18 have a relationship and call it marriage?
You fundies and cons better EMBRACE letting anyone who wants to get married.
That particular quaint tradition aint particularly trendy these last many years.
I think in not too long a time, marriage will be seen as “cute”.
As in “Oh isn’t that cute! They want to get married!”
Stoned,
“A lot of people say the sky is blue. That is not an original thought either. They just say it as they see it.”
Believe me, I’ve seen (and photographed) the sky in just about any color you could name, and a few you couldn’t. Blue is only one of them. I’m sorry it’s the only color you can see.
“Its because people who think that marriage is between a man and a woman frighten you.”
Well, that certainly was a stupid reply – says a lot about the thought that you have put into the issue.
“Therefore, without active indoctrination focused on recruitment, “Gay Inc” will go extinct.”
Yes, I have personally walked past the Gay, Inc. recruiting station at the Mall. They were doing a brisk business turning boys into queens.
Yep, right there in the Mall in Wichita, USA.
BJ,
“I think in not too long a time, marriage will be seen as “cute”.
As in “Oh isn’t that cute! They want to get married!””
I hope that’s never the case; a good marriage is about the most beautiful thing a person could wish for!
As far as the gender being important in marriage, the feminine and masculine sides come together because of love in marriage. This love has the unique ability to create life. It has the unique ability to sustain any created life. It is beneficial for the children and the man and the woman who are married. It is a beautiful institution of selfless love between two people. The difference in gender brings two complementary sides together and completes the relationship. Hope this helps.
WSClark,
I put as much thought into it as you did when you asked “Why do gay people frighten you, John S?”
“I put as much thought into it as you did when you asked “Why do gay people frighten you, John S?””
Really? You are obviously afraid of something to want to go to such great lengths to deny the same rights as you have to such a small portion of the society.
Gays are less than 4% of the population – is there another small, law abiding group of people that you would choose to deny rights?
Are you guys still responding to the insane John_Stone?
As far as the gender being important in marriage, the feminine and masculine sides come together because of love in marriage. This love has the unique ability to create life. It has the unique ability to sustain any created life. It is beneficial for the children and the man and the woman who are married. It is a beautiful institution of selfless love between two people.”
Oh yeah… and it has all the sanctity of being committed to drunk in front of an Elvis impersonator.
isnt THAT special.
So much for it’s “sanctity”….
And all that beautiful lovemaking?
Can be done without the benefit of marriage.
And it can be done by two women and two men.
But please, keep living in the eighteenth century.
Somehow, it seems to fit you and your “belief”. Which is really bigotry carrying a cross and wrapped in the flag.
WSClark
Posted May 16, 2008 at 10:06 pm | Permalink
Why are Republics so afraid of gays?
It seems pretty unnatural to be so afraid of less than four percent of the population that they have to devote so much time, energy and money to make it (them) go away.
There has to be more to the story – just why are the damned Republicans SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO afraid of gays?
**********
Am I the only one who’s noticed that the Wichita metro area’s new gay park is down the street from big, fundie Central Community Church – Chisholm Creek Park??? This began about four years ago – the same time Joe Wright was bringing in Jerry Falwell to push the inequality amendment against taxpaying citizens of the state. The blinders people wear about who’s screwing whom just amaze me. Wichita’s Finest’s certainly tried to don blinders – for about four years – as their policy was to threaten the guys in the park with “Telling their WIVES.” The police dept. even released a statement to that effect to the local news stations who dutifully announced it on the air – “The police will tell your wives.”
I don’t remember the gays cruising Herman Hill Park ever receiving this light-handed a touch from the police. Even now the charges against the guys being caught at Chisholm are hush-hush compared to the Herman Hill raids when the cops released the charges with all the gory details about crotches being grabbed to the news agencies.
Nope, if you’re a “good ‘Christian’ husband” who’s meeting strange men from out-of-town to bend over for in the park, and you’re part of the “conservative” enclave of east Wichita’s fundie community, you get four years of warnings regardless of your downlow lifestyle in which you’re betraying your wife, children, church and God before the authorities actually do anything about it. If you’re honestly openly gay well, you’re bad person and the charges against you will be released to the public.
Why are Republicans so afraid of gays? Because they’re the ones doing all the terrible things they say “gays” do: destroying the sanctity of marriage – and not with gay sex, but with the lies they tell to their wives, children, friends, pastors, congregations, political party, etc. cover up the truth. Republicans aren’t afraid of gays; they’re afraid of the truth.
Jed,
Get out of your basement and look at the sky, its blue today with some white clouds. Just kidding.
My point was some people say it as they see it or as another saying goes ‘they call a spade a spade’
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAH!
“Why can’t three people over 18 have a relationship and call it marriage?”
Um, I dont know. You tell me.
My guess is that bigoted christians like you wouldnt allow it?
Stoned,
“When you try and make the case for gay marriage why do you always compare the worst cases of heterosexual behavior to the best of homosexual ones?”
Actually, I don’t have to. Out of all the couples I’ve known over the years, nearly all of the gay couples are still with the same partner as when I met them. I wish I could say the same of the straight couples, but just less than half of them are.
Obama just said in a speech in Oregon that he wants full Federal benefits for domestic partnerships, civil unions, etc.
Survivor benefits for Social Security, etc.
CNN right now.
WSClark,
What are you scared of?
Someone saying marriage is really between a man and a woman does not infringe on anyone’s rights.
RFL, are you really as big a stupid jerk as you post here, or do you just play one on tv.
NO ONE on this thread said being gay is inherited. Straight parents have gay kids and gay parents ahve straight kids, and vice versa.
Damn that much ignorance makes my eyes hurt to read it.
“It doesn’t take a Darwinist to know that in order to sustain the gay population, some kind of recruitment strategy is required.”
So… as long as straight people, like MY parents, continue to give birth to gay children, uh, no we dont need no stinkin’ recruitment.
You cant MAKE someone gay, anymore than you can MAKE someone straight.
Jesus WEPT! What ignorance!
But.. I do remember one incidence of recruitment.
I think it was her wife. And she was “initiated” too.
But we did use protection, because, uh, we didnt know where all YOU have been dippin’ yer dipstick…
And another comment against recruitment?
The fastest growing group of AIDS sufferers are “straight” women.
now, where do you supppose THEY get it from?
WSClark,
You just spin it in that way so that you can shove your beliefs down peoples throats.
DAMMIT!
“I think it was her wife. And she was “initiated” too.”
should have been YOUR wife.
And maybe your daughter too…
OMG yeah, because, um, Clark SO went to the polls and voted to institutionalize HIS beliefs in the kansas konstitution….
And btw, no one recruited me.
I volunteered….
Stoned,
And the point that I was making was that too many people only see what they’re told.
“As far as the gender being important in marriage, the feminine and masculine sides come together because of love in marriage. This love has the unique ability to create life.”
Just because gender and kids are important to you doesn’t give you the right to demand that everybody else see it your way or else!
By the way, it won’t be long now until the fertility specialists have perfected techniques allowing gay couples to have children. What will your argument be then?
McCain Hypocracy and Flight 93 hero Mark Bingham. Bingham was a gay man and one of the heroes who helped bring down terrorist hijacked Flight 93 before it reached Washington, DC. He was also a major contributor of John McCain’s. Below are the comments McCain made regarding Bingham’s sacrific. Sadly, as with Republicans McCain would now gladly deny Bingham his civil rights had this hero survived:
********
Sen. McCain pays tribute to Mark Bingham
http://www.markbingham.org/
John McCain recently delivered a eulogy to honor the openly gay Bingham, who was one of his supporters in the 2000 presidential campaign. In it he said: I never knew Mark Bingham. But I wish I had. I know he was a good son and friend, a good rugby player, a good American, and an extraordinary human being. He supported me, and his support now ranks among the greatest honors of my life. I wish I had known before September 11 just how great an honor his trust in me was. I wish I could have thanked him for it more profusely than time and circumstances allowed. But I know it now. And I thank him with the only means I possess, by being as good an American as he was.
“Someone saying marriage is really between a man and a woman does not infringe on anyone’s rights.”
No, it doesnt. Saying it is your right.
Putting it in the constitution, however, does infringe on my right to marry the consenting adult of my choice.
Are you really this stupid or just yankin’ our chains?
KFG,
Why can’t three people over 18 have a relationship and call it marriage? I am sure “bigotted” christians will be against it because it is not marriage. But “enlightened” liberals will fight for it or just find it amusing. Because if marriage is not between a man and a woman, then it can be anything you want it to be!
Obvious Joke
#1 My Mother made me a Lesbian.
#2 If I give her the yarn, will she make me one?
(cue the rim shot)
I’ll be here all week. Try the waitresses and tip the veal.
KFG,
Why is it your “right” to marry the consenting adult of your choice?
Like I said, john stone is still insane. But say hey to aaron too…
You dont know the poster aaron_s who’s email was conveniently “aaron_stone”?
riiiiiiiight.
Sounds like you know as little about blogs as you do about the constitution.
“Because if marriage is not between a man and a woman, then it can be anything you want it to be!”
I want what you are stoned on.
Uh, no, it is CONSENTING ADULTS.
Jesus WEPT. Is there some part of the phrase “consenting adults” that you dont understand?
Monkey, can she make me one too?
Tall, dark, muscular, with a womanly smile?
Carpentry, plumbing, and mechanical skills a plus!
hehehehhehe
My favorite personals ad? “Me: camo by day, diamonds by night. You: breathing”.
KFG,
Why do you associate me with Aaron? Is it like associating marriage with gay relationships. We are not remotely the same.
“Why is it your “right” to marry the consenting adult of your choice?”
Because it is your right to marry the consenting adult of the opposite sex of your choice.
Why should gays be denied that right?
And don’t start with the marriage is a privilege routine – no one can deny unrelated, consenting adults of the opposite sex the right to marriage.
It is a right, not a privilege.
And don’t quote the tired old cliche that they have the “right to marry….. opposite sex.”
They don’t want to – they want to marry the person they love.
“john_s” whines –
“Why can’t three people over 18 have a relationship and call it marriage?”
Why do you ask? Would that somehow threaten your marriage? Just how would that work out?
There’s certainly a viable religious philosophy (several, actually) that accepts plural marriage. As long as I’m not one of those involved in the marriage, I’m not sure how you nor I nor anyone else is imposed upon.
Oh, but then you go on to say –
“…if marriage is not between a man and a woman, then it can be anything you want it to be!”
Really? The personal contract between two consenting adults to share their lives (without addressing gender) would really do that? Explain to the class exactly how that would work out.
Farm Gal,
“And btw, no one recruited me.
I volunteered….”
What this coutry truly needs, a spirit of volunteerism! Go, Gal!
“consenting adults”! Is that what it is now. So is three “consenting adults” okay to form a marriage, KFG? If so, tell me why are you so bigoted to deny three consenting adults the right to marry? What about incest between adults? Is that okay too?
WS Clark,
The question was “WHY?”
Why is it a right for her to marry someone of the same sex?
Because you say so?
Oh, and I know someone gay who goes to Central Community Church. I don’t know that the congregation knows though. Maybe some of you guys meet up to workout at Genesis. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
“If so, tell me why are yo
u so bigoted to deny three consenting adults the right to marry?”
uh, why would I deny them the right to marry. I’m not denying them that right. I’d vote yes. WTF. Who cares?
And as for incest? Uh, there is nothing to stop that now.
And ya know, EVERY time you bring incest and “man on dog” sex or whatever to this topic…
The shark calls.
He HATES it when you jump him!
Remember when the Cons were pissing and moaning about the “Marriage Penalty” in tax codes?
They don’t talk about that all that much when gender-neutral marriage is the issue.
The whole thing must give them dog-eating-ice-cream syndrome; they keep batting their heads with their paws trying to figure out what’s happened.
Heeeeee hee heeeeee Jed!
Always glad to do my part!
And I can assure you, it has TOTALLY been my pleasure.
hee hee hee heeeeeeeeeeee
Farm Gal,
“Monkey,can she make me one too?”
Shame on you! You’ve already got one, and there aren’t enough to go around!
WSClark,
You say “And don’t start with the marriage is a privilege routine – no one can deny unrelated, consenting adults of the opposite sex the right to marriage.” Wow…hold on there. They have to be unrelated now. The last memo I got on that one just said “consenting adults” in CAPS too.
“The whole thing must give them dog-eating-ice-cream syndrome; they keep batting their heads with their paws trying to figure out what’s happened.”
Now THAT’s funny! I’ve never heard that.
Although, whenever I’ve tried to talk with an idiot like stoned, they do tend to tilt their head from side to side like dogs do when puzzled by a strange sound…
too many ‘victim’s on this thread for me…
(poof)
Here’s the California Supreme Court’s statement on marriage:
“In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.”
No one seems to be able to tell me why it is a right for consenting adults to be able to get married.
“Why is it a right for her to marry someone of the same sex?”
Because it is your right to marry any consenting adult of YOUR choice (assuming that you are heterosexual.)
Why do you get the choice but gays do not?
Sorry Monkey
“Shame on you! You’ve already got one, and there aren’t enough to go around!”
I didnt know the “one per customer” restriction was in place.
And stoned, Clark is quoting the current law, not stating how things SHOULD be?
Damn, you need a course in logic 101.
And maybe some remedial reading?
KFG,
you wrote, “u so bigoted to deny three consenting adults the right to marry? uh, why would I deny them the right to marry. I’m not denying them that right. I’d vote yes. WTF. Who cares?”
As I said before, if marriage is not between a man and a woman, it can be anything you want it to be.
“john_s” desperately asks –
“What about incest between adults? Is that okay too?”
Gee, “john_s,” I didn’t realize the issue had such personal impact on your life.
Please share with us how “incest between adults” is an issue that affects you. I’m sure this forum can come up with a solution to your plight.
WS Clark,
I don’t have any right to marry any consenting adult of my choice.
I have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex of my choice, just like everyone else.
“No one seems to be able to tell me why it is a right for consenting adults to be able to get married.”
Because NO ONE can deny to consenting, unrelated adults of the opposite sex from marrying.
Therefore, it is a right and not a privilege.
Clark, just put the boygod on ignore.
It’s pointless to talk with him.
Face it, most of the people here who are against gay marriage accept serial polygamy for themselves, their friends, and children.
“I don’t have any right to marry any consenting adult of my choice.”
You willfully missed the “assuming that you are heterosexual” part, Price.
CelticKin,
what part of ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’ you don’t understand?
Stoned,
“So is three “consenting adults” okay to form a marriage,”
Three would be way too unstable for me, but some people, like fighter planes, thrive on instability and could probably make it work as a parnership of equals. But I certainly don’t think the mormon solution is either moral or practical!
““If so, tell me why are you so bigoted to deny three consenting adults the right to marry?”
You stupid bassturd!
YOU wrote that, not me. WTF?
And,no, it cant be “anything you want it to be”?
Did you miss the part that said “consenting adults”?
KFG,
you retard!
your ‘consenting adults’ clause makes relationships between three or more consenting adults and consenting adults who are closely related equivalent to marriage. This is by your definition.
Nathan,
” have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex of my choice, just like everyone else.”
Not exactly. They have to consent too. I can see how that might be a sticking point for you, so you just might have to broaden your selection of genders. What? That didn’t help either?
Jed,
you being morally judgemental on mormons there! I am sure there are a lot of mormon families who have stayed together for more than 60 years. I suggest you go make friends with them and broaden your horizons!
“your ‘consenting adults’ clause”
For the sake of not beating keyboards to death, let’s assume that by gay marriage we are referring to the exact same thing as straight marriage without the “opposite sex” qualifier.
No related folks, no multiple person marriages, no dead people, no animals, etc.
Now can this issue be disgusted with the interjection of stupid distract from the topic?
WS Clark,
I think that marriage has become so mixed with law and regulations that it has become something it should never have been.
It is not any right of mine to be recognized by the government as married. That is simply what society has evolved into over time.
As a member of that society, I don’t want to see marriage evolve into allowing homosexuals government recognition.
They have no more of a “right” than what we allow them to have.
Unless, you get a liberal court to rule otherwise.
Which is why we tried to push for Amendments to state Constitutions and/or to The Constitution.
If your victory is going to come from the courts and not the realm of Representatives, than we must go above them and alter the Constitution.
john_s what part of how quickly you’e becoming irrelevant don’t you understand? I don’t care about your opinion of marriage. You are welcome to hold it long after marriage rights in this country have changed to include gay marriage; they are going to. You won’t stop it. You’ll just be another guy with an opinion that has long since proved to be inaccurate, but you’ll still be welcome to have it.
Before the “right’s” assault on gays here in Kansas there were no effective statewide gay rights organizations. Now there is a coalition with NINE chapters. The Wichita public schools just included protections for sexual orientation in their bullying policy. Lawrence has a domestic partner registry. Major corporations in Kansas offer partner benefits. MA has marriage equality and God didn’t swallow the state up; it’s still there.
You’re a guy with an opinion. They’re like noses – everybody has one.
You’re elome to your
Not one presidental candidate favors a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. Looks like you’ll have to stay home this year.
“As a member of that society, I don’t want to see marriage evolve into allowing homosexuals government recognition.
They have no more of a “right” than what we allow them to have.”
Wow, Let that last sentence sink in.
I guess his god complex has kicked in for the day.
disgusted = discussed.
Maybe I was right the first time?!?!?!
Stoned,
There is nothing inherently evil about marriage of closely related adults. It is if it’s forced, and I’ve seen a couple of those! And if the couple wishes to have children, they should consider genetic testing first, and make their decisions based on the results.
Thank you CelticKin. You are entitled to your opinion too however retarded it may be. When you use the courts to codify your feelings, it doesn’t mean your feelings and opinions are right. They are still wrong.
“I don’t want to see marriage evolve into allowing homosexuals government recognition.”
Why? How does two people in love getting married affect you?
“They have no more of a “right” than what we allow them to have.”
When was the power of God bestowed on you?
“Which is why we tried to push for Amendments to state Constitutions and/or to The Constitution.”
After you’re done banning rights to a relatively small portion of the population are you then going after atheists and Jews?
Maybe you can also ban interracial marriage.
Stoned, no shit. I want what YOU are smokin’!
“And,no, it cant be “anything you want it to be”?
It cant be between an adult and a child because the child is not an adult. Consenting ADULT.
No one can be forced to marry against their will. As noted above, nathan cant grab a woman by the hair and drag her back to the cave to get married.
(Which really explains a lot). CONSENTING adult.
It cant be between man and dog because the dog cant CONSENT and is not an “adult”. CONSENTING ADULT.
So you dumbass, no, marriage cant be “anything you want” by the consenting adult standard.
And the last I checked, marriage between closely related individuals or multiple marriages are still illegal.> I dont hear anyone advocating those be legalized. If they want to push it, they should.
Man, do you even know what “jump the shark” means?
“When you use the courts to codify your feelings, it doesn’t mean your feelings and opinions are right. They are still wrong.”
Yeah, and the next time you get your ass kicked at the ballot box, you will say “just because the majority believes it doesnt make it right”.
Whiner.
I think you need to take your own advise about the courts and YOUR feelings.
john_s – “retarded?” I believe your opinion of equality is and will continue to be proved inaccurate, and I’ve given factual examples to that end. I don’t recall calling you names. In fact, I’m certain I did not. I think that under USD 259’s policies you come kind of close to being a bully. Are you older than 12?
Interesting what that says about you and me, isn’t it?
“They have no more of a “right” than what we allow them to have.”
Ya’ know, that statement takes a HUGE amount of arrogance…………….
What we allow them to have.
Like “allowing” women the right to vote.
Like “allowing” African Americans equal rights.
Damn, that has to be one of the most arrogant statements of all time.
Damn.
“And if the couple wishes to have children, they should consider genetic testing first, and make their decisions based on the results.”
hee hee hee
And they could have those kids WITHOUT marriage, if that is what they wanted to do.
You cant stop them NOW!
WS,
“Maybe you can also ban interracial marriage.”
Shhhh!
Well, I see mr. constitutional law professor obama has finally seen the light about gay “civil unions” even though the CA court struck them down as being separate but unequal.
WTF was he doing with all that constitutional law knowledge before?
Pandering?
It’s a little late for him to suck up now before the election. IF he gets elected in November, he can show us how sincere he is about this.
But I bet he wont.
Sigh. Well, since monkey wont have his momma knit me my Princess Charming, I guess I better go back out and “git” to farming.
KFG,
Did you graduate from high school? It doesn’t seem so.
Okay you and Jed said that you are okay with two consenting adults who are closely related to marry. And even with that you don’t see marriage as “being anything you want it to be”. Are you okay with three consenting adults saying that their relationship is marriage? I did not ask about the other scenarios that you put forward.
I have a shed that has gotten out of control, so it’s time to haul my butt outside and git to work.
Ya’ll gay haters argue amongst yourselves for a while – come up with a good reason why gay marriage affects YOUR marriage – and I’ll be back later to check your reports – remember to show your work.
Out of here…………………
CeltKin,
If you are younger than 12 I apologize. If you read other posts I think you can find even worse name calling. As I said before I think your view of marriage is incorrect. Gay marriage has only a masculine or a feminine side in the relationship. It is not complimentary. You can ask the courts to pass whatever law you like recognising gay marriage, it will still not be marriage.
WSClark,
If city hall gives a marriage certificate to a man and his dog, it will not affect anybody’s marriage. The fact remains it is not marriage. Saying marriage is between a man and a woman does not mean that we hate gay people. You are just trying to spin it away from the real topic so that you can get your way.
“ksfarmgrrl” –
Sorry Mom can’t knit you a Lesbian, even if you’d provide the yarn.
Her vision is failing so she doesn’t crochet anymore. We had a fine little cottage industry for a while with her making camouflage booties for babies born to soldiers’ kids who were off to Iraq to kill and die.
It was started as a subtle protest to Shrub’s voluntary war but it got a feature in the local newspaper and was considered a patriotic act.
And they say irony is dead.
Some Cons wouldn’t recognize subtlety if you hit them over the head with it.
john_s, loss of relevence is hard. I don’t blame you a bit for being bitter. An opinion backed up with the “authority of God” as an avenue to bullying those of your choice must give you a really heady sense of power. Can you imagine if you and others like you had been successful in denying basic rights to happiness to 12,000,000 Americans by denying them equality rights. What power. Was sense of relevence. What validation. To be “right” without regard of the cost to others except to feel justified that they got what they deserved.
But on the other hand, that’s not what’s happening. Equality is catching on. And not only despite the abuse of power by the “conservative right” but because of that abuse of power. It’s a movement that’s proven not to be the worst enemy of those not deserving of rights – but to those you all consider to be the most deserving of rights – yourselves. And more than that this country. Toting your bigotry and arrogance into the political arena you all were easy marks for those who used your very worst qualities for their gain. And what this nation has to show for it with regard to the loss of opportunity for ordinary, hardworking Americans is squarely on your collective shoulders.
I cannot begin to imagine the depth of disappointment that involves. That you were so certain your were right and you would “win” only to face the train wreck of your ways everytime you go to the gas pump and grocery store. To say that your relevence is in question is an understatement.
Celtickin,
Thanks for your pscho-analysis. My view is backed by common sense really. All you have is the authority of the bully courts and a bunch of whiny liberals. Let us remember Roe vs. Wade and how that really put an end to the debate. But I admit unlike abortion, homosexual marriage is not murder, but it is not marriage. As I said before a marriage brings masculine and feminine traits together and gay relationships don’t. And there are also anatomical objections too. So no, even with your courts people are still not going to believe gay relationships are marriages.
But there is a way you can prevent this and it has happened in scandanavian countries: make marriage less and less stable. You can stay with someone for a few years have children and then just move out with some one else. If everyone is blind then the person with one eye is king. That is your best shot, CelticKin. If the proportion of people who are in stable marriages increases every year then you views are going to be in big trouble, with or without the courts.
Your remarks are too incoherent to call them an argument, john_s. Which I would say supports my sense that you are rapidly, or in the case of this one of your posts, vapidly running out of relevence. But, as I’ve said previously, you are welcome to your opinion. They’re like noses, everyone has one.
CelticKin,
You are entitled to your feelings about my posts. Maybe you should ask the courts to rule against me, just to make you feel better.
By asking the courts to rule against me I meant asking the courts to rule that my posts are rapidly running out of relevance. You know at least you can have a false sense of security that your feelings right.
That post is garbage, john_s. More than that, if you COULD make it make sense you WOULD make it make sense. I’m sure stranger things have been found in the garbage.
McCain angered some conservatives in 2004 by opposing a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, which he called a states’-rights issue. Then, in 2006, he backed an unsuccessful effort in Arizona to pass a state constitutional ban.
On Thursday, he seemed eager to court the right, releasing a statement that criticized the California court’s ruling and appeared to endorse a proposed state ballot initiative to amend the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.
“John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona,” the statement read. “John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.”
Obama’s campaign released a carefully worded statement that said he “respects” the decision of the court – but the statement doesn’t praise the ruling. “Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president,” the statement read. “He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”
Clinton issued a similar statement, saying she supports civil unions and more legal rights for gay couples, but stopped short of backing same-sex marriage. “Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationship should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans,” her campaign said. “She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.”
David Masci, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said all three candidates are walking a tightrope on the issue. The candidates might want to appeal to their conservative and liberal bases, but independents are more narrowly divided – 49 percent oppose same-sex marriage, and 41 percent support it, according to the Pew poll.
“What they may end up doing is to look to their base but also try not to appear strident in any way – which could offend voters who might otherwise be inclined to support them,” Masci said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/MNL210N75D.DTL&type=politics
People like John_s and Nathan are scared.
Theirs is a dying breed.
And they know it.
I do not know how old john_s is. But Nathan will live to see gay people have the right to marry.
“I’m sure stranger things have been found in the garbage.”
Right CelticKin, your gay marriage arguments were from there.
So, what you’re saying, john_s, is that you’re incapable of making your point.
*********
BlueJay
Posted May 17, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Permalink
People like John_s and Nathan are scared.
Theirs is a dying breed.
And they know it.
I do not know how old john_s is. But Nathan will live to see gay people have the right to marry.
———–
Yeah, I’ve, often, seen the opinions of middle aged men who lost their nerve as young men become irrelevent. That’s my take on john_s. He just seems like a guy who’s lost his nerve. He may actually have a point to make, but he doesn’t have the guts. He turns out garbage, then because he’s afraid acts all the victim when he’s given the opportunity to actually make a point. It’s sad. Assuming Nathan is younger, maybe he’ll see the pappy example being set for him by john_s and chose to lose neither his nerve nor his relevence.
BlueJay,
Marriage as an institution of love between a man and a woman is good for the whole society. The complinetary traits of the sexes is an essential part of marriage. This complimentary gender traits is absent in gay relationships. This is the plain and simple truth. It is not hateful to call a spade a spade. You can live in your small world believing gay relationships are marriages but there is a larger one out there where marriages are what they are meant to be.
“The complinetary traits of the sexes is an essential part of marriage.” ????????
Not in Massachusetts, and soon enough California.
Well CelticKin,
You are unable to see the elephant in the room. You keep trying to pycho-analyze me trying to find some charachter flaw so that you can hightlight that instead of trying to go after my arguments. Maybe you can stop trying to analyze me and try and stick to the topic. Are you scared of sticking to the topic?
“Not in Massachusetts, and soon enough California”. But in the rest of the US it is an essential part of marriage.
As far as MA and CA are concerned, it was the judgement of the courts. I don’t think guys have the guts to put it on the ballot! Because for normal people marriage is between two people of the opposite sex.
“You are just trying to spin it away from the real topic so that you can get your way.”
Huh?
What does that have to do with the price of manure in Nebraska?
What is the REAL topic?
Gay couples are in love and want to marry, just like their heterosexual brethren. What could possibly be wrong with that?
If you find gay sex to be offensive, don’t have gay sex.
Easy, right?
“john_s” desperately counters with –
“…The complinetary [sic] traits of the sexes is an essential part of marriage.”
Oh really?
Says who?
I guess the state should set up a special Marriage Court to determine if the female is “woman enough” and the male is “man enough” to get married, then, what with the whole structure of civilization dependent upon your idea of “complinetary [sic] traits of the sexes.”
Sometimes I wish people such as you would simply get honest with us and yourselves and tell the truth: the thought of same-gender sexual activity makes you feel (to use the technical term) “oookie.”
But guess what? It’s got nothing to do with you unless you want it to. You don’t have to do it, you don’t have to see it, you don’t have to think about it. Two people down the block buy a house together, share a bed, and “plight their troth” to each other… and your dog in this fight is…? What, exactly?
For all I know or care, my next-door neighbors have a trapeze and mirrors over the bed and play games like “Escaped Convict and the Warden’s Wife.” What’s it to me?
What’s it to you, “john_s?”
What’s it to anybody?
I simply don’t care what two consenting adults do in bed unless I’m one of the people involved. It’s difficult to understand why you’re so obsessed with others’ naughty parts.
Sounds pretty kinky to me.
I wish that just one of the conservative gay haters on the blog would give us an honest answer as to why they oppose gay marriage.
It isn’t about what is “best” or “good” for society – we are talking about a very small fraction of the populous.
It isn’t about “allowing” rights – Americans throughout history have sought to “grant” rights, not to deny them.
And it isn’t about Leviticus or Corinthians or whatever – we are a secular society and we are not governed by one religious faith or another.
So just what the Hell is it?
Any honest conservatives out there?
“Sounds pretty kinky to me.”
AS I have posted before, no one asked you to watch and no one wants to watch you.
Especially the last part, John S.
I wish that just one of the conservative gay haters on the blog would give us an honest answer as to why they oppose gay marriage.
——————
I’m against gay marriage, but I’m not a “gay hater” so I guess I won’t answer.
Anyway, it is not an issue that I feel compelled to examine my position on. I don’t care whether WS or Monkey, or whoever supports gay marriage, although that would tend to give me confidence in my viewpoint.
“I’m against gay marriage, but I’m not a “gay hater” so I guess I won’t answer.”
So specifically, Mr. Outlander, why do you oppose granting the right of marriage to gay couples?
“WSClark” asks –
“Any honest conservatives out there?”
You’d think so. But that’s not the way to bet.
The Cons have been in control of national policy since the 1994 Gingrich “revolution.” Just what have they achieved?
A decimated military, a faltering economy, two endless goal-less wars, food and fuel costs through the roof, scapegoating Hispanics, a systematic shredding of the Bill of Rights….
If this vaunted CONservative political philosophy is so damned good, why the hell are they reduced to fretting about how two consenting adults entertain themselves between the sheets? And why are we subjected to their automatic fantasies of dog-on-man sex?
‘Cause they’ve got nothing else.
“I’m voting for John Sidney McCain the Third because I’m reasonably sure he’s never fuc#ed a dog.” (And if he has, you can be sure it was a FEMALE dog by God, because McBush isn’t gay or anything….)
“Marriage as an institution of love between a man and a woman is good for the whole society. ”
Demographics of the last many years show that society would tend to disagree.
“You can live in your small world believing gay relationships are marriages ”
Never tried marriage myself. Not legal marriage anyway. But the kind of marriages YOU dream of can be found only in old TV shows.
So why not stay home, watch “Donna Reed” and live and let live huh?
But you won’t.
” an honest answer as to why they oppose gay marriage.”
Well I’m not a conservative gay hater. But I’ll field that one.
Monkeyhawk got part of it. It’s “icky”. And then there’s the larger crowd of folks who see themselves as duly deputized agents of a judgemental “god” something who apparently finds gay love needs more attention than natural disasters, starvation, and suffering.
“outlander” admits –
“…it is not an issue that I feel compelled to examine my position on.”
Hmm. That tells us a lot. But, given your previous contributions to this forum, I wonder if there’s ever been a issue you’ve felt “compelled to examine [your] position….”
No evidence thereof so far.
I wonder if there’s ever been a issue you’ve felt “compelled to examine [your] position….”- Monkey
————-
Well, once I thought you weren’t a smug insulting blind partisan. But I was compelled by the evidence to change my mind.
“outlander” offers –
“…once I thought you weren’t a smug insulting blind partisan.”
Really?
When was that?
I mean, I’ve never thought of you as anything other than a (how’d you say it?) “smug insulting blind partisan.”
Guess I’m just more perceptive than you are.
Now. Do you have anything but insults with which to address my points? Didn’t think so.
So you go the “Regular” route and spew name-calling such as “smug insulting blind partisan.”
Lemme see if I can lower my level of argument to your level. Hmmm. “You’re an impotent, unwashed, post-from-Mama’s-basement altar boy stalker.” Yeah. That’s a comparable insult.
I’m down to your level, “outlander.”
Why is my comment awaiting moderation?
I wouldn’t classify MonkeyHock’s spew as smug.
I would classify it as sick, perverted and attention-whore.
I mean anyone who discusses this kind of topic:
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 17, 2008 at 7:28 pm | Permalink
“…… automatic fantasies of dog-on-man sex?
CelticKin
Posted May 17, 2008 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
Why is my comment awaiting moderation?
==================
It’s a software bug, happens to everyone.
Thx for the info, Regular.
Well, well, well, let me ask this hypothetical question………….
And let me preface it by saying that I do not consider gays to be fat, stupid or ugly in any way shape or form.
Now let’s examine a purely HYPOTHETICAL situation…
There is this guy, let’s call him Nate, to preserve his anonymity, and he has a girlfriend, let’s use her nickname, Rover.
Now Nate is so ugly that his family pays him to stay away from the Family Reunion, and he is so dumb that he thinks that “You’re So Vain” is about him.
And Nate’s girlfriend, Rover weighs 400# and causes people to retch on the street when they see her.
Between the two of them, they can’t muster up enough brain power to make a half-wit.
Unfortunately, Nate and Rover are seriously in love, and worse yet, Rover has a little Nate cooking in the oven.
Now society knows that dumb, fat, ugly couples have dumb, fat, ugly children and they tend to be a drain on society. Often, they end up on welfare, have difficulty in school, have health problem and generally end up in relationships with other dumb, fat, ugly people.
Now, would it be in the best interest of society that we deny Nate and Rover the “right” to marry?
Gay people have far less detrimental effect on society than do fat, dumb and stupid heterosexual couples.
I would go as far to say that gay couples have NO detrimental effect on society.
In fact, I would bet that they ENHANCE society in general, given their contribution.
So, should we BAN fat, dumb and ugly people from getting married?
If not, why?
As usual, “Regular” is reduced to name-calling with –
“I wouldn’t classify MonkeyHock’s spew as….”
Real Lincoln/Douglas debate tactics on your part, “Regular.”
***Gay people have far less detrimental effect on society than do fat, dumb and stupid heterosexual couples.
I would go as far to say that gay couples have NO detrimental effect on society.
In fact, I would bet that they ENHANCE society in general, given their contribution.***
—————-
America’s gays contribute half a trillion dollars to the nation’s economy, annually. As a group they are better educated, better employed and earn more money than the average American. Theirs are some of th most sought after dollars on Wall Street. Neighborhoods gays move in to tend to experience increased property values. Within the past few years 42 Fortune 500 CEOs and CFOs have been openly gay. 60,000 gays serve their nation in silence in America’s armed forces.
That’s a start.
“That’s a start.”
Damned right – gays do nothing but enhance society and contribute to the country in many ways.
To denigrate them is just flat out wrong.
The hypothetical Nate, on the other hand, only contributes to society by buying fifty pounds of flour each month.
Wheat farmers are thrilled with him.
God, I just don’t care about this issue. Deep in my heart, I feel it’s a test, that we should let up on this issue, and let them get married. It’s just not the government’s place to say who or what is a marriage.
As I said your dopey ‘consenting adults’ theory to define marriage leaves it open to define a union of three or more consenting adults as married as well as a relationship of close adult relatives as married. As I said before marriage is between a man and a woman or else it is anything liberals want it to be. And somehow they think that they get to make that decision for society.
“or else it is anything liberals want it to be”
You obviously do not have the guts to answer the questions put to you, John S. (S is for scared of gays.)
You have not courage to answer a direct question with a direct answer.
Loser.
Homophobic loser.
SEMPERFIGUY
Posted May 17, 2008 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
God, I just don’t care about this issue. Deep in my heart, I feel it’s a test, that we should let up on this issue, and let them get married. It’s just not the government’s place to say who or what is a marriage.
————–
Ditto.
It’s interesting to me that most “conservatives” who are so strongly opinionated about certain historic events do not have the ability or interest to think about current events historically. They justify war in against Islam, enemies of Israel because Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews. They call “liberals” communists when it’s handy, and let’s not forget evil Stalin exterminated 30 million of his countrymen. But they never place themselves on the wrong side of history regarding America’s gays.
What really is “The Final Solution to the Gay Question in America?” Threats? Intimidation? Draconian laws? Mass extermination? Humanity has seen that done and will not tolerate it happening again as long as we remember, not even to “gays”. “Conservatives” will NOT get the win on this issue. They are on the wrong side of history. Being twice as bad as Hitler, but only a third as bad as Stalin is NOT an option. If they’d just think it through they’d figure it out.
What happened to all the cons who were defending the plural marriages in Texas even when it meant incest and underage girls?
Hypocrites!
“or else it is anything liberals want it to be”
—————
This is historically and socially incorrect. We tend to find taboos against things like incest, rape, murder across cultures and regardless of ethnicity, religion, or political ideology. SCOTUS made the ruling against polygamy in a Morman case in the 1800s because it’s important to know whose kids are whose, inheritance, responsibility for care, etc. The ruling has stood for some time, though not without its challenges. Americans, both liberal and conservative, enjoy serial polygamy through no-fault divorce and remarriage.
Hey Celtickin. Why can’t you win on the road?
Hey Celtickin. Why can’t you win on the road?
———-
LOL
KansasNative
Posted May 17, 2008 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
What happened to all the cons who were defending the plural marriages in Texas even when it meant incest and underage girls?
Hypocrites!
—————————
Name one.
Do your own research Reguliar!
Stoned,
“As I said before marriage is between a man and a woman or else it is anything liberals want it to be. And somehow they think that they get to make that decision for society.”
Hey a**hole, I beg your pardon, but I’m not making the decision for society, it’s trying to make it for me and everyone else!
Regular
Posted May 17, 2008 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
KansasNative
Posted May 17, 2008 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
What happened to all the cons who were defending the plural marriages in Texas even when it meant incest and underage girls?
Hypocrites!
—————————
Name one.
*****************
I actually agree with Regular on this one, but for different reasons, I’m sure.
I DID talk to Kansans who supported the FLDS over Texas in the raid on that compound. But, their reasoning was that the government was making an illegal raid that was compared to the raid on David Koresh’s compound in Waco. For years, without proof that Koresh was sexually abusing underage girls these are people who stanchly supported him, or staunchly were against the US governent. Confronted with the possibility of sexual abuse against the girls at the FLDS compound, they tended to back off their support for Jeffs and his group. I don’t think they ever supported polygamy or incest or sexual abuse.
“Name one.”
Republikhan.
And JM.
KansasNative
Posted May 17, 2008 at 9:42 pm | Permalink
Do your own research Reguliar!
————————-
Can’t research a lie that uses distorted facts that never existed.
So,
Name One.
or retract your statement because it was a lie.
CelticKin,
All those claims you spout on behalf of gays in society contributing so much….B.S.
Claims without any backing or references.
Worthless!
And for whatever number you could come up with and provide some backing to substantiate there are twice as many showing the determent to society and the harm to individuals with a homosexual lifestyle.
“showing the determent to society and the harm to individuals with a homosexual lifestyle.”
So, show us the determent to society caused by gays.
Easy, right?
“or retract your statement because it was a lie.”
You mean like “I am not nor ever have been JM?”
A lie like that?
Is that what you mean?
Or how about “I am a veteran of Viet Nam – no, wait! I was too young to serve in Viet Nam.”
Lies like those, maybe?
“It is not any right of mine to be recognized by the government as married. That is simply what society has evolved into over time.”
I assume then that you think the Supreme Court was wrong on the Loving decision. You think that government has the authority to refuse to recognize any marriage that it deems inappropriate, therefore that would apply to interracial marriages, May-December marriages, interreligious marriages, etc. Interesting view of “rights” you have there. I assume that any right not specifically outlined in the constitution, under your point of view, does not exist, which means that governments can regulate all sorts of behavior.
Fortunately, most federal and state justices, even those who people like you laughingly call “strict constitutionalists”, don’t agree with your interpretation of “rights”.
“As a member of that society, I don’t want to see marriage evolve into allowing homosexuals government recognition.”
I don’t give a rat’s ass. Some people also didn’t want to see interracial marriages to receive government recognition. One “right” you don’t have is the “right” not to be offended by things that make other people happy.
“They have no more of a ‘right’ than what we allow them to have.”
What a breathtakingly chilling and ignorant statement. Better hope that “we” (i.e., the majority) don’t decide that Marines should be celibate. An absurd, wholly unlikely occurance? Sure, but your claim of the complete authority of government or majority (mob) rule to decide who can marry who leaves open any arbitrary restriction on marriage.
By the way, unless something is specifically outlawed, rights do tend to be assumed. And if the action outlawed is considered arbitrary and capricious, then the law is often considered illegal (e.g., the striking down of sodomy laws). Therefore, your rhetorical question, which you apparently are dense enough to think is a stumper, is nothing more than pathetic question begging. The assumption in this representative republic is that consenting adults have the right to conduct their personal affairs as they see fit unless their is a compelling legal reason to deny them otherwise. The right of heterosexual marriage is assumed in this country, as the Loving case made clear. Thus, YOU and your fellow fanatics carry the burden of demonstrating that there is a compelling state interest in preventing same gender couples from getting married, not the other way around. Not having your religious sensibilities offended is not a compelling interest. Eventually, people in this country are going to come around to that fact, as they have about interracial marriages.
“And for whatever number you could come up with and provide some backing to substantiate there are twice as many showing the determent to society and the harm to individuals with a homosexual lifestyle.”
I call bullsh*t.
“or retract your statement because it was a lie.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Did you retract your lie about being JM, McCluer?
Or do you just ignore it and hope it goes away?
How about your lie about Viet Nam?
Did you retract that one?
How about your lie about your wife?
Did you retract that one?
How about your lie about your kid?
Did you retract that one?
How about your lie about Mississippi?
Did you retract that one?
How dare you demand that others retract so-called “lies” when you have never retracted your proven lies?
All WSClark has is personal attacks, he can’t engage in discussion with me, because he gets his ass kicked every time and goes into a melt down, screaming from the blog.
Nobody care one wit what you think ksagnostic.
You are simply wasting calories typing.
Boxlock
Posted May 17, 2008 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
provide some backing to substantiate __________________
Boxlocks I appreciate that you don’t like gays. Given your response that’s difficult to miss. But, you’re failing to do what you accused me of by not referencing all the “detrimental” things you pretend exist. You’re ignorant, Boxlock.
So, McCluer, being the proven liar that you are, when you talk to your “son” do you tell him that you deny he exists?
“has is personal attacks”
Do you mean like using your own words to prove that you are a liar that has never retracted his lies?
Like those personal attacks?
Why can’t you ‘fess up and tell the truth, McCluer?
Is reality too much for you to handle?
I am just using your own words to “condemn” you, McCluer – don’t you have the cajones to defend yourself from your own words?
Loser.
“because he gets his ass kicked every time”
Do you mean like the time that you “kicked my ass” when I asked about how many tours of duty you served in Viet Nam?
Like that?
I see you got your “full drunk” on tonight Clark.
How’s that liver? You know if your belly gets any more swollen, it’s a sure sign of advanced liver disease. You’ll have about two years to live after that.
Dissenting opinion of one of the California Justices:
Justice Baxter said it well. He wrote in his dissent:
“Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.
California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.
“The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling. The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute. But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves..
“Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.
“In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. Under article II, section 10, subdivision (c), that body cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative statute . . . Yet the majority suggests that, by enacting other statutes which do provide substantial rights to gays and lesbians — including domestic partnership rights which, under [Family Code] section 308.5, the Legislature could not call ‘marriage’ — the Legislature has given ‘explicit official recognition’ (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 68, 69) to a California right of equal treatment which, because it includes the right to marry, thereby invalidates section 308.5
“I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference.”
So, McCluer, why don’t you have the guts to back up your lies?
I have just asked easy questions for “normal” people. I realize that you fall well outside the range of “normal” but you should still be able to remeber…………
Did you serve in Viet Nam?
Have you ever been married?
Do you have any children?
Have you been to Mississippi?
Think hard now, McCluer….. you should remember these things.
Are you a liar or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Cut the crap and TRY to be honest for a change, McCluer.
Are you a liar and why do you demand that others “tell the truth?”
Or should we all just assume that everything you say is a lie?
“Regular,” the guy who “argues” with such pithy bon mots as “MonkeyHock,” and “CrapOnAmerica” is reduced to posting –
“All WSClark has is personal attacks….”
And they say irony is dead.
Every vote in favor of the minority can claim the same argument, Regular, that a protection or right was effectively established by a court ruling. Plessy v Ferguson and treating a living human being as property wasn’t right or wrong based on the will of the majority. It was wrong because a person is not property. When it was overturned as a protection of a minority the will of the majority was irrelevant. The question of the protecting minority rights figures strongly in the ratification of the Constitution and was argued in The Federalist Papers. The Founders were aware that the majority in a democracy could effectively abuse their power and never intended for minority interests not to be protected regardless of the popular will.
I’ve never heard a good argument explaining how banning gays from being married is any different than banning two people of a different race from getting married.
I try not to get worked up over this though, because history is on our side. As much as the dinosaurs would love to see gay marriage banned forever, they’re going to die out and the more rational generation of mine will move us out of the dark ages.
We have never changed our Constitution to suppress rights, only to extend them, and you can be sure we’re not going to start now.
In other words, hahahaha—gays are going to gain the right to marry within the next 10 years and there’s nothing you can do about it!
Whew, I’m never this nasty, but some of the posts here are infuriating.
CelticKin Posted May 17, 2008 at 10:52 pm
“But, you’re failing to do what you accused me of by not referencing all the “detrimental” things you pretend exist. You’re ignorant, Boxlock.”
No CelticKin you are the one being ignorant. I have supported my points of view extensively in past blogs, only of a few days ago, please keep up if what want to play on this field.
There are innumerable respected studies showing the harm to individuals and society.
Here are but two. Unless you wish to remain ignorant, or are simply lazy, do your own research.
from Medical Issues
Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
(Author of “My Genes Made Me Do It”)
Link: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
“Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.”
The Psychology of Homosexuality
By Paul Cameron, Ph. D.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html
“The “gay life” is short, lonely, and filled with cheating, insecurity, disease, and danger. Although held captive by sexual addiction rather than brick and bars, homosexuals exhibit many of the same psychological traits as those imprisoned in death camps. The pathologies of homosexuals fit the traditional social-psychiatric view: Happiness and well-being are earned through social and sexual productivity, not “sexual freedom.”"
Wow, that last post I made was incoherent. Posted too late at night.
It should say something more like: Anytime a court rules in favor of a minority it could be construed as establishing a right not consistent with the popular will, or will of the majority. That’s the point. The question of the protecting minority rights figures strongly in the ratification of the Constitution and was argued in The Federalist Papers. The Founders were aware that the majority in a democracy could effectively abuse their power, and never intended for minority interests not to be protected regardless of the popular will.
The courts’ extension of rights to a minority aren’t new. Judicial review, the courts’ power to determine whether government itself acts unconstitutionally, has been part of the English legal system since the 1600s. That the two come together in the interest of minorities isn’t new in the American experience. Dred Scott was declared property by the US Supreme Court – the popular will? Plessy v Ferguson established separate but equal. And, Brown v Topeka BOE overturned Plessy. That the courts rule, rightly, in support of minority righs is steeped in American history, and frankly reflects the will of the Founding Fathers.
A different set rules – religious or otherwise – aren’t going to suddenly apply because the hardworking, tax paying minority of Americans whose rights are being denied are “gay.” America is not a theocracy, and it never will be. We are a nation founded on the rule of law NOT the ideological whim that has dragged this nation into the gutter over the past eight years. Believe me, compared to the US Constitution the desires of “conservative Christians” who cherry pick their way through the Bible to make it say what they want, who shop in a vast “spiritual” marketplace of moneychangers who’ll sell whatever version of God keeps the money rolling in, and who have lost any ability to truly find Christ in their neighbors – or any interest in ever trying – are whim.
You’re still ignorant, Boxlock. And you have the esteemed postion of being the single person on this forum whom I will ever deem worthy of the title. You, above all others here, are the expression of ignorance. And that is no small thing for those of us on either side of the issues presented here.
By the way CelticKin, you are wrong on one other thing when you say, “Boxlocks I appreciate that you don’t like gays. Given your response that’s difficult to miss.”
That’s not true, I do not dislike gays, I dislike people that attempt to force the idea that the gay lifestyle is a ‘normal’ variation or choice on all of society, and try to denigrate the concept of ‘marriage’ with gay unions being called marriage.
One of my friends, I consider a close friend, is gay and I wish him the very best and most fulfilled life possible. But I also see some of the many problems he has had and has, and the stress and disappointment he suffers as a result.
Being ‘gay’ isn’t gay.
“We have never changed our Constitution to suppress rights, only to extend them,”
I’m sorry Tara, but you are wrong.
There was once a change to the Constitution to attempt to control social behavior.
It was called Prohibition. Alcohol was outlawed.
THAT attempt at restricting freedom was disastrous and short lived.
But on balance, the rest of your post is spot on.
You last post,Posted May 18, 2008 at 8:50 am, CelticKin basically says NOTHING.
You offer nothing except a childish desperate attach, a personal assertion which I place no value in and in fact affirms my opinion of you.
Tara, I’m afraid that you and the founding fathers are at odds as to the source of our human rights.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Government can only restrict our rights. But government cannot add.
“Nobody care one wit what you think ksagnostic.
You are simply wasting calories typing.”
And this has been a pattern with Boxlock. He claims that those he opposes make their claims without evidence, and when he is challanged to provide his own, he goes straight to the ad hominem. Truly one of the shallowest posters on this board, and pretty much a troll in the mold of Regular (except that Regular has a sense of humor and irony that, I suspect, Boxlock lacks).
I suspect Boxlock will neither put up nor shut up. Assuming that does turn out to be the case, further responses of the sort quoted above will get the appropriate response.
Re: Boxlock
DNFTT
Actually, the Declaration says that rights come from the Creator and government comes from the people. The people are obligated NOT to give up their Creator-given rights to government, because government is not the source of those rights. And, further the people are to change – including overthrowing – government that denies rights and create better government. The Declaration of Independence is the English colonists’ declaration of independence from the English crown which was denying them their right to representation. That’s how America got its start – refusing restrictions on rights the government had not right to make. Eighth grade history was harder for some than for others, apparently.
“You last post,Posted May 18, 2008 at 8:50 am, CelticKin basically says NOTHING.
You offer nothing except a childish desperate attach, a personal assertion which I place no value in and in fact affirms my opinion of you.”
Yep.
Re: Boxlock
DNFTT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15956875?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1446541?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12024402?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
Unlike the “sources” provided by Boxlock (one of which was the oxymoronically named Family Research Council), these are peer reviewed studies and summaries of studies regarding children of gay/lesbian couples, not political/religious anti-gay advocacy sites. Boxlock’s claim to be able to provide twice as much evidence “showing the determent to society and the harm to individuals with a homosexual lifestyle” remains bullsh*t.
“Government can only restrict our rights. But government cannot add.”
Empirically false claim.
ksagnostic
Posted May 18, 2008 at 9:38 am | Permalink
“Government can only restrict our rights. But government cannot add.”
Empirically false claim.
—————
Not only empirically false, but really -extremely- unAmerican. And these people have been setting the course for America since – Reagan in the 80’s, Gingrich in the 90’s and Bush in the new century. This nation has some serious work to do to fix the thirty years these people have spent dishonoring this nation.
Oooops, my mistake. The Family Research Institute, associated with that jerk Dobson. But my objection still stands.
Here is the opening sentence of their mission statement:
” The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse.”
OK, empirical research does not start out defined by predetermined conclusions. The writer here is saying, flat out, that empirical research that contradicts the predetermined conclusions of the Family Research Institute will not be recognized by the Institute, because such conclusions contradict their stated mission. Real science doesn’t do that. Real science is designed to follow the evidence, and if it contradicts previous assumptions, there will be some arguing and complaining, but evidence is evidence, and that will determine the conclusion. Not a mission statement.
The name of the Family Research Institute, like that of the FRC, is an oxymoron.
To paste from Boxlick’s own link :
“The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) which again showed a higher level of mental-health problems among homosexuals, but remarkably, subjects with HIV infection was not any more likely than those without HIV infection to suffer from mental health problems. People who are HIV-positive should at least be expected to be anxious or depressed!
The paper thus concluded that HIV infection is not a cause of mental health problems–but that stigmatization from society was likely the cause–even in the Netherlands, where alternative lifestyles are more widely accepted than in most other countries.”
but that stigmatization from society was likely the cause…[of emotional difficulties for gays in America.]
—————
Similar conclusions regarding gays are made across time and culture. This is basically the stand the American Psychological Assoc. took when it stopped recognizing being gay as a mental illness. Gays experience struggles because of the way they’re treated by others in society, not because they’re gay.
Paul Cameron, the Director of the Family Research Institute.
This Paul Cameron…
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute
And actually, my association between Dobson and the FRI was false. The FRI has gone after Dobson for being too soft, and for daring to suggest that homosexuality might not be a choice.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_02_07.html
Real winner you found there Boxlock.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Cameron
I hereby apologize to James Dobson ([FE]who I am sure is reading this blog [/FE]). While I still think Dobson, the right wing Christian activist who runs Focus on the Family, is a jerk, he is no Paul Cameron, who seems to be a rotton toadstool’s breath away from Fred Phelps.
Wow, “ksagnostic” –
It’s a sad state of affairs when James Dobson becomes the comparative voice of “reason.”
I mean, Dobson is the guy who said the way to prevent your sons from being gay they should shower with grown-up men!
But Cameron’s pseudo-science is beyond the pale. Torture the numbers long enough and they’ll confess to anything.
(BTW, do toadstools actually “breathe?”)
Boxlick is nuttier than a Payday candy bar!
Sucks to be him.
ksagnostic posts;
“Oooops, my mistake.” and
“And actually, my association between Dobson and the FRI was false.”
ksagnostic, petty much all of what you post is a “mistake” or “false” from what I and others can plainly see.
I simply get the biggest kick our of jerking you around because you are the biggest jerk on the blog, although the Monkey and KansasNaive give you a run sometimes.
And agnostic remember these facts, it’s important and ultimately comforting for decent folks as you spew you venom.
Kansas passed the Marriage Amendment to the State’s Constitution. The amendment was accepted by 70 PERCENT of the electorate.
Kansas was the first state to vote on the issue following last November’s election when 11 states amended their constitutions to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying.
Currently the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage, under the Defense of Marriage Act.
States that protect traditional marriage:
In Both Constitution and Statute….27
In Statute Only…………………17
In Constitution Only……………. 3
Total………………………….44
California’s court ruling reduces the statue states but it remains to be seen if a Constitutional Amendment will prevail.
Kansas law already defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman but supporters of the amendment argued it could be overturned in court and that law is still on the books.
The amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It also declares that only such unions are entitled to the “rights and incidents” of marriage. That clause in the amendment effectively prevents the state from allowing civil unions or offering benefits to same-se couples.
It would require a 2/3rds majority of the Kansas legislators, and a majority vote to overturn.
I think I can rest easy knowing that won’t happen in your or my lifetime if ever.
I win, no…we win, as this is best for society.
“I win, no…we win, as this is best for society.”
I guess I have to disagree with you there. Legally, yes,the “against gay marriage” side won. Okay, I can accept that It is the law of the land. SO the COnstitution of the state of Kansas says. And so logically, I could support it, just as those who support the Constituion of the State of California which is now understood to say that gay/lesbian marriages are constitutional and legal. That sword cuts both ways. To say it doesn;t is a fallacy.
However, is there a win here for society? I think not. What real difference does it make to allow gay/lesbian marriages? None. It doesn;t hurt anyone. Now, to say that you disagree with the whole premise of homosexuality is fine. To even say it is wrong, is also fine, and within your rights to do so. This is a representative government, and you have a right to your opinion, have a right to ask for redress and a call for action by the government on those issues that you percieve as wrong. ANd majority rules. All those things are part and parcel of our government.
BUT,
WHY? THe govenment has the ability and the responsibility to act in a way that at least calls for a redress of harm, or a protection from harm, of it’s citizens. That even gets stretched to far, but it is their role in society. There is no harm to itself or to it’s citizenry, as can be found, that stems from allowing homosexual marriages. WHat you opinion is of those arraingments is up to you. ANd while I may or may not share in that same opinion, I see no reason for laws banning the same, or constitutional amendment banning the same.
You are simply tilting at windmills
Like I posted above several days ago, and evident from their posting Conservatives dont support freedom despite the fact that they claim too. You even have calls for the reintroduction of sodomy laws, now if the government legislating and enforcing laws mandating what position one has sex in isn’t Big Brother/ big government gone wild I dont know what is
Okay CelticKin, there is a big difference between what Hitler and Stalin did compared to saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. So don’t try to sanctify your beliefs by making outrageous comparisons. Your type of thinking is scary because you can do extreme things against people who disagree with you because you justify yourself using such erroneous comparisons.
Marriage being between a man and a woman is the definition across a vast majority of cultures, ethinicities and religions. The notable exception being Islam, but many countries do not recognize such marriages and rightly so. I don’t think a majority of people in the US and the world will see marriage as between two people of the same sex inspite of all your efforts. Also with the ex-gay movement where people have come away from the homosexual lifestyle, I don’t think this issue will be settled any time soon. Homosexuals must live happy lives free from discrimination but marriage is what it is.
littlejohn,
For what is worth I really, and I mean really, appreciate responsible, controlled posts like yours above. In fact I wish I could do likewise more often without going off the deep end in reaction to some of the posts I read.
I think the format of a blog, and the ease with which posters denigrate the ideas of others causes my less than courteous responses, when I do sometimes.
I don’t dislike gays…period, or want to see them harmed in anyway, but as happy as they can be. But ‘getting one’s way’ is not always best in the long run. And, I do dislike homosexuality and gay unions being forced into societal acceptance as equal to what I hold in high regard, that being traditional marriage.
I honestly do think the forced acceptance of gay marriage harms society, and the practice harms the individuals themselves in general, and therefore we have an obligation to resist it. And obviously so does the majority of society.
We can disagree and still converse on the subject as you have clearly shown.
Thanks,
And TomPain, don’t paint with such a broad brush, I as a conservative am in no way calling for what you say, the reintroduction of big government sticking it’s nose in peoples private lives.
But as john_s says….marriage is what it is and it’s not homosexual unions.
Right on john_s by the way!!
I as a conservative am in no way calling for what you say, the reintroduction of big government sticking it’s nose in peoples private lives.
Uh, right. Rather than allow consenting adults to marry (why is that your business?), you pass laws to discriminate against them solely on the basis on sex. When judges allow their intellects to overrule their prejudices, and acknowledge the self-evident violations of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws, you then proceed to amend to the Constitution to institutionalize the discrimination.
And you can claim, with a presumably straight face, that interfering with the sacred bond that occur between two people is somehow not big, intrusive, government?
Let’s assume that you somehow have a compelling reason for doing so (I haven’t yet seen a sane reason produced, but for the sake of argument. . . ). Even then, how can claim the denying these people who, in any sense that matters secular are married couples, the 1000+ rights, from hospital visitation to legal inheritance, that are routinely granted to straight, married couples?
How is it anything other than a vengeful attack on people who dare not to live by the strictures of someone else’s religious mandates?
And, as littlejohn noted, what possible purpose does it actually serve–other than to punish these people for being gay?
It is plainly, indisputably, and obnoxiously big government at its worst.
“Actually, the Declaration says that rights come from the Creator and government comes from the people. The people are obligated NOT to give up their Creator-given rights to government, because government is not the source of those rights” – CelticKin
——
“Government can only restrict our rights. But government cannot add.”- outlander
Not only empirically false, but really -extremely- unAmerican. – CelticKin
************************
I’d respond to you CelticKin, but you seem to be doing a good job of arguing with yourself.
Boxic,
“One of my friends, I consider a close friend, is gay and I wish him the very best and most fulfilled life possible. But I also see some of the many problems he has had and has, and the stress and disappointment he suffers as a result.
Being ‘gay’ isn’t gay.”
And I’m sure that it’s never once occurred to you that the reasons he suffers stress and disappointment and his life isn’t “gay” might be rooted in the ignorant attitudes and unfair treatment he gets from you and your bigot buddies! Judging from what you post, I would have to say that any gay person who considers you a friend would also be a masochist.
Me:”And this has been a pattern with Boxlock. He claims that those he opposes make their claims without evidence, and when he is challanged to provide his own, he goes straight to the ad hominem.”
Boxlock (in response to my sourced posts): “ksagnostic, petty much all of what you post is a ‘mistake’ or ‘false’ from what I and others can plainly see.
“I simply get the biggest kick our of jerking you around because you are the biggest jerk on the blog, although the Monkey and KansasNaive give you a run sometimes.”
Although I am contradicting my own advice by feeding you briefly, let me just say this.
Thanks for vindicating exactly what I said about you Boxlock. And being called a “jerk” by someone like you is most definitely a compliment.
Wanker.
Two more things:
Boxlock quotes me: “‘Oooops, my mistake.’ and
‘And actually, my association between Dobson and the FRI was false.’”
Why do I suspect that 1) Boxlock would not have caught these errors that I caught in my own posts and owned up to and 2) Boclock did not follow up on any of the posted information I provided from independent peer reviewed research that contradicts his claims and that also identified just how extreme Paul Cameron is (more extreme than I realized)? One of us is actually concerned about the accuracy of what he posts, the other is simply starts with his pre-determined beliefs and does not budge, and pats his own back when he thinks he has successfully been “jerking you around”.
Oh, and I PROVE my point.
The children can’t resist….they are so easy.
My sources are no more biased than yours, you pick your’s, and I pick mine.
As I said approx. 70+ percent agree with me, so where does that leave you. Let my answer…just back of the hind teat.
Popular agreement is generally not the basis for determining the truth or falsehood of a claim, nor the merits of a policy. By that standard, the Loving Decision of the Supreme Court should not have stood. And there are different qualities of evidence. One one “side”, there are studies (like the ones I presented) that actually look at the children of gay couples and find no significant difference between their development and the development of straight children. It doesn’t even predict whether the child themselves will be gay or straight. Then on the other side are “studies” selectively quoted and with flawed methodology arising from someone who announces what his conclusion of any research he engages in. The source is thrown out of the recognized association that writes the standards for his profession because he would not share the methodology of his studies.
Regarding this:
“My sources are no more biased that yours, you pick yours and I pick mine.”
This is classic projection. You assume your methodology (pre-selecting what agrees with you) is mine. It’s not. Your problem, Boxlock, is that on this issue reality has a “liberal” bias.
“By that standard, the Loving Decision of the Supreme Court should not have stood.”
And it may well NOT! I can only hope.
Oh, and tell me you didn’t pick your study to support your established opinion.
As I said, we will both pick our sources, and consider them good.
“‘By that standard, the Loving Decision of the Supreme Court should not have stood.’
“And it may well NOT! I can only hope.”
So you are hoping that the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on interracial marriage is overturned. That’s the Loving Decision.
And no, I did not go to pro-gay advocacy sites for links to my peer reviewed research. I went to PubMed. It’s a research site, not an advocacy site.
So no, I did not look for research that supported my established position, though I must confess, I was already aware that peer reviewed research that was written and reviewed to try to screen out bias better supports my position, because that is the nature of reality.
Yes, but what does ksagnostic have to say about the inequalities directed towards “jawless fish.”
“Yes, but what does ksagnostic have to say about the inequalities directed towards ‘jawless fish.’”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
Capn.
My biggest problem on this blog and topic is that I skim over your posts with simply a glance as they simply don’t hold much interest or value for me. As well as doing other, more interesting navigation of the net simultaneously. I suppose that’s a mistake, but it’s all I’m going to give it.
I hope the California Supreme Court decision of last week on gay marriage does not stand against a Constitutional Amendment, which will surely come. Not the racial marriage decision.
Gee. Boxic is really painting himself into a corner as an all-around bigot! Mexicans, African Americans, Gays, Liberals, he don’t like nobody! Makes me wonder if he’s added himslf to his list; after all, I would imagine that a majority of the world’s people already have him on theirs.
Jed, I can’t even follow what point you are trying to make.
I’ve never said anything against, and hold nothing against, “Mexicans, African Americans, Gays”. Liberals, that’s a different story, but even with them the only ones I find offensive and ‘Dem’, I really mean ‘mentally dim’, are the ones I meet on this blog.
I don’t dislike gays at all, I simply am not in agreement with having the traditional definition and meaning of marriage denigrated by same sex unions. And I find ‘gay pride’ activities and parades to be extremely offensive…in fact repulsive in their lack of moral character.
Are you in that group?
“I hope the California Supreme Court decision of last week on gay marriage does not stand against a Constitutional Amendment, which will surely come. Not the racial marriage decision.”
That’s what I thought. However, the very sloppy way you look at the posts of opponents, and the reactive way you post against those who argue against you, speaks volumes. How can you even think you refute someone when you aren’t even paying attention to what they are saying (or who said it)?
“I’ve never said anything against, and hold nothing against, ‘Mexicans, African Americans, Gays’. Liberals, that’s a different story, but even with them the only ones I find offensive and ‘Dem’, I really mean ‘mentally dim’, are the ones I meet on this blog.”
You really think you comport yourself well here? You really think you come across as the intelligent, thoughtful poster here?
“Capn.
“My biggest problem on this blog and topic is that I skim over your posts with simply a glance as they simply don’t hold much interest or value for me. As well as doing other, more interesting navigation of the net simultaneously. I suppose that’s a mistake, but it’s all I’m going to give it.”
Uh huh.
“I don’t dislike gays at all, I simply am not in agreement with having the traditional definition and meaning of marriage denigrated by same sex unions. And I find ‘gay pride’ activities and parades to be extremely offensive…in fact repulsive in their lack of moral character.
Are you in that group?”
And spoken without any sort of hint of irony.
Cerebral inertia. Remarkable.
The defect is in yourself, Boxlock. The moral repulsiveness comes from your knee jerk distaste for people who think differently from yourself. The above material drips with it. That’s why you latch on to someone like a Paul Cameron without even bothering to check the source. That is why you go immediately to insulting your opponent without bothering to read what they said.
ksagnostic,
I have read far more than I’ve posted, and quite frankly as hard as this may be for you to comprehend I don’t hold what you have to say in particularly high regard. And that is a tremendous complement.
Liberals are quite simply dangerous to this country. The very people you rail against are the hard working folks making this country go and holding it together socially and morally.
The moral repulsiveness I find is in the activities and ideologies I observe, not that they are simply different.
How does it feel to be a dying breed “Boxlock” and “John s”?
Junior,
I hold what you say in even less regard, which doesn’t really register statistically on any scale.
I have to hold a dim flicker of respect for someone for them to even slightly cause thought or emotion over something they have to say and you lost that a longtime ago.
That’s unfortunate as I hate to write off anybody but you’ve earned it.
Boxic,
“I don’t dislike gays at all, I simply am not in agreement with having the traditional definition and meaning of marriage denigrated by same sex unions. And I find ‘gay pride’ activities and parades to be extremely offensive…in fact repulsive in their lack of moral character.
Are you in that group?”
Let’s see now, you don’t dislike gay people, but you find it denigrating for them to ask for their relationships to be recognized with the same force of law that yours is. And you are repulsed when they walk down the street with pride in their own identity! Quite right! you don’t dislike gay people, you hate them! You hate people you’ve never even met, and accuse them of lack of moral character simply because they love differently than you do. And while doing all this, you are claiming NOT to be a bigot?
And yes, I’ve attended a few pride parades in my day.
Those I have viewed in gay pride parades don’t love, they are simply vile, degenerate, lust filled homosexuals, who have given themselves up to depravity. They comment unnatural sex acts in public not caring who is exposed to it including children. They dress, or not, showing that depravity and do so to offend, not further help anyone.
Their relationships don’t have the same recognitions as traditional marriage and never will, God has declared that, period.
And again Jed…you lose, the vast majority recognize what I’ve said to be the TRUTH, and folks like you will simply have to live with that.
Think about it, you may not like it but I am confident in my position and the error of yours. I have God’s word to support my position as well and in fact my position is based on His word. Jed, take a stand against God’s word and you will lose big time, not just in a discussion with me
Genesis:
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Jude:
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange (Greek: different, other) flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
Think about it Jed, or be justified in being called a spiritual fool.
Bye!
Oh, and Jed,
I do want to thank you though for one thing.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell you exactly what I think and how I feel without reservation. If you brand what I’ve said being a bigot….Hallelujah, I’m proud to carry the label.
It feels like a breath of fresh air.
God Bless, and I mean it sincerely, you will need it.
You’re already extinct “Boxlock”.
You just don’t know it yet.
Let me stick you in the eye on a few other things.
Gay marriage IS going to be legal. Probably within the next 10 years.
You are probably opposed to a woman’s right to choose too. Sorry. Abortion is here to stay.
And your silly, quaint, old time religion? Gone forever from the schools. And dropping quickly from mainstream practice. If not belief.
America is growing up. In time, folks like you will only be something to point at and laugh.
Like I’ve said BlueJay,
Your comments mean absolutely nothing to me anymore.
I have no respect for you. You are THE example of a failure in life, a person with no desire to improve yourself or gain anything. All you look for is to be given something or to steal it from those that have earned it. That’s why you are where you are, and so bitter about everything.
Quite frankly slug of a person.
God Bless you too though, as you are the most bitter, miserable person I have ever encountered.
I pity you.
That’s quite some “God” ya got yourself there Boxy.
All the pain. All the suffering and starvation in the world.
And the king of kings and lord of lords is all uptight about who is kissing who.
I find your “God” little more than the outward projection of the worst of his believers. With all the attributs and none of the endearing qualities of a petulant 3 year old child.
Clap your hands real hard Boxy! Maybe he will come back to life!
“Clap your hands real hard Boxy! Maybe he will come back to life!”
He IS ALIVE BlueJay!!!
That’s the tragedy for you, for whatever reason that fact is apparently lost or hidden from you, and since God calls all the problem must lie with your own attitude and placing your will above all.
You have the choice.
“All the pain. All the suffering and starvation in the world.”
BlueJay that’s not God’s will, that’s man’s fault, and a result of his self-centered sin.
I feel to good this morning to argue with you about it, but again…I sincerely wish you could resolve your bitterness toward life and your Maker.
Boxic,
“Those I have viewed in gay pride parades don’t love, they are simply vile, degenerate, lust filled homosexuals, who have given themselves up to depravity. They comment unnatural sex acts in public not caring who is exposed to it including children. They dress, or not, showing that depravity and do so to offend, not further help anyone.”
Some of those people you just blasted at are friends of mine, and they’ve certainly demonstrated to my satisfaction that they know a whole lot more about loving than you ever will! As far as the charge of “committing unnatural sex acts in public not caring who is exposed to it including children,” I must’ve missed that one. In fact, my friends are very careful about where they show the smallest affection because they know that there are christians with bats and guns ready and waiting for the excuse to do them serious harm over something as simple as a hug or handholding.
Yeah, I once read about Sodom and Gomorrah; wasn’t that about some guy who tried to pimp out his own daughters, and failing that, got sh*tfaced and boffed them himself, and in so doing founded a nation out of incest and won god’s favor? Some god!
“God Bless, and I mean it sincerely, you will need it.”
Believe me, the last thing I want or need is your perverted blessing, which has absolutely nothing to do with god!
Last link had an error though copied. Try again;
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikisaurus:homosexual
If that doesn’t connect try the same link into Google.
Jed,
I’m sorry, I know I offend you, or worse. But, I will not compromise my values to accommodate those that I think are wrong about this.
I don’t care if you or your friends or anyone is gay, but don’t expect me to accept it as simply a equal value lifestyle choice, and then let the meaning of marriage be changed from what it’s been throughout history.
Enough!
Wanted or not, I still wish you well.
I think you will have a huge problem trying to convince people that a gay relationship is marriage. Deep down in peoples hearts, marriage will always be between a man and a woman. Good luck trying to indoctrinate people with your beliefs but even with all the luck in the world you will not succeed. History has showed us lies do not win; from slavery to communism, all have lost.
“Deep down in peoples hearts, marriage will always be between a man and a woman”
No, it won’t. The younger generation is far more enlightened regarding race and sexual orientation.
You can pass all the amendments that you want – they will be overturned by more enlightened people in due time.
And I love the way you compare gay marriage to communism.
Damn.
Let me clarify the previous post, gay marriage is an error and it is having a period of ascendency right now. In the absolute (not relative) scale of evil, it is no where near slavery and communism. But like any error in history, it will have a time to ascend, then stay and then it will go away. I apologize for any mis-understanding of the previous post.
“then stay and then it will go away”
As long as there are gay people (which has been and will be forever) the issue will NEVER go away.
And more enlightened people – unlike the current generation – will see the bias and hypocrisy of gay marriage bans and overturn them.
Remember, until very recently (’70’s) folks thought that interracial marriage was a sin.
Ha!
If a Lesbian starts her own Mormon cult and creates a compound, can she have multiple female wives?
Will she need her own tax attorney just to do deductions?
How will the IRS look at a tax form with 50 dependents, all of them about the same age?
Will synchronized PMS activate the calling out for automatic weapons and huge guard dogs to ward off local law enforcement?
And just what do they do on Mother’s and Father’s day?
Remember gay ‘marriage’ and interracial marriage are different. It was an error banning interracial marriage and it went away. In the same way gay relationships are not marriages, it is a novelty and an falsity. Remember that countries where gay ‘marriages’ have become legal, the marriage numbers have decreased. This is the only scenario where gay ‘marriage’ can survive for a time. If marriage rates start increasing, it is impossible for gay relationships to be seen as marriage even in countries that permit gay ‘marriages’.
“it is a novelty and an falsity”
Yeah, for the participants in a gay marriage, I am sure that they feel that it is just a “novelty.”
Horseshit.
“Remember that countries where gay ‘marriages’ have become legal, the marriage numbers have decreased.”
Link please? Or are you just talking out yer ass again. And remember, correlation is not causation. Please prove causation, if you even know what the word means.
“I think you will have a huge problem trying to convince people that a gay relationship is marriage.”
I dont give a rat’s ass about convincing anyone but the government so that I can have the same 1000+ benefits of legal marriage. The rest of you can KMA.
I see now why Jed, one of my favorite posters, calls you “boxic”. You are toxic as hell.
Isnt there a book called “The Toxic Christian”?
Were you the subject?
…and if it’s just a “novelty” WHY TF do you care if I access my partner’s health insurance? If we have legal rights without spending a fortune on lawyers?
Because you are just mean and scared of anything and anyone who’s different than you?
I’m betting that’s it. Heavy on the mean and scared.
BOO!
I always wonder WHY the MEANEST people I know are christians? Is that new doctrine? Or just who’s left behind?
Here is a link to an article,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/29/EDG8F5918A1.DTL
It is common knowledge that marriage is in decline in scandanavian countries. The decline in marriage is what leads to the error of regarding gay relationships as marriage. After gay ‘marriages’, marriages declined even further in these countries. You will not find any research stating otherwise. There was even a political party in Sweden, I think, which wanted to ban marriage. A party with a bunch of dopey feminist, the effort failed.
One of the negative consequences of decline in marriage is the decline in children. The population in these countries is decreasing. There is no country in the world where marriages increased after gay ‘marriages’. If there were it would have been trumpeted by gay lobby groups here. If there were then you may have a chance of convincing people gay ‘marriage’ is not a lie.
And please try and stop thinking that people who disagree with you on the meaning of marriage are hateful. It doesn’t help your cause.
“And please try and stop thinking that people who disagree with you on the meaning of marriage are hateful”
So why not just let live and allow gay people the same rights that you have?
What are you afraid of?
You cannot use the live and let live principle on something that is wrong. Homosexuals are comparing their relationships to marriage. And that is not right.
Not many of you use the ‘live and let live’ principle on say, for example, something like ‘creationism in the classroom’. You don’t ‘live and let live’ with something you see as wrong. Nobody does. Did you guys ‘live and let live’ in the debate about the war? Also read the link please, it’s not very long.
“And that is not right.”
According to you – and you are full of shit.
Like “Boxlock”
You “John s” are already extinct.
A consequence for the scandanavians with the decline in marriage and acceptance of gay ‘marriage’ is that they are becoming extinct or to put it mildly, their population is decreasing. So BlueJay, from the fate of people whose footsteps you follow, it is more likely that you will follow them to extinction.
P.S Hail Satan! /sarcasm
2 comments awaiting moderation for no discernible reason? Try again–even more pared down:
Let’s hear it for this legal, traditional marriage!:
The High Priest/ess opens the rite with ringing the bell and drawing a pentagram in the air with his/her athame and recites the following:
etc. . ..
“I always wonder WHY the MEANEST people I know are christians?”
They aren’t…they simply have the moral courage and fortitude to stand up to your trying to push through something they know is wrong. And, not natural or healthy. And you don’t like that resistance to your agenda. But it isn’t going away.
Besides most gay are motivated by, as you say, “1000+ benefits of legal marriage”, or pushing through a personal agenda, but they are not doing something moral or beneficial for society and they know it. No, they are doing something selfish for themselves.
Those type things don’t usually succeed thank goodness.
PS: BlueJay, I’m not extinct….right here I am, fighting progressive/liberals and slackers, and the homosexual marriage agenda wherever I find it.
Nobel cause all!
‘Noble’ causes all, not ‘nobel’. Then again maybe I will win the Nobel Prize for my efforts.
I got’a go to bed.
4 kids never married there “John_s”
Not legally anyway.
How many you got?
Farmgrrl I don’t know many Christians.
I find they usually are not pleasant company.
I’ve worked for and with a few. Not nice folks.
But from the blog?
I find the STAUNCHEST Christians to be…
arrogant
greedy
cruel
dishonest
and generally nasty.
” Farmgrrl I don’t know many Christians.
I find they usually are not pleasant company.
I’ve worked for and with a few. Not nice folks.”
BlueJay, I’m quite sure it’s just because they don’t like you, they aren’t that way with others, but quite pleasant.
You can just bring out the worst in anybody.
Way to go obnoxious.
Stoned,
“Remember gay ‘marriage’ and interracial marriage are different. It was an error banning interracial marriage and it went away.”
Try to remember that I was around for the civil rights movement. I was standing facing you evangelical wingnuts as you quoted “scripture” that “proved” that African Americans were an “inferior race” intended by god to serve white people, but who were intent on polluting god’s chosen race (yourselves).
You admit now that you were wrong then, but of course you couldn’t possibly be wrong now. It took well over a century for you to admit your “error” that cost so many lives, and maybe you could have learned something from that “error.” How many years and how many lives will it take before you once again are forced to admit that this vicious hatred was an “error” too?
Weren’t you going to bed James?
“You can just bring out the worst in anybody.”
Huh. Are you saying my naturally assertive personality is stronger and more compelling than some Christians faith?
Yeah I knew that.
Hey, c’mon, guys! Botox is just defending the obvious moral superiority of heterosexual marriages!
Hail Satan!
/sarcasm
The example of scandanavian countries shows how vital strong marriages are for society. The instituion is neccessary for the future of society.
Jed, race is a totally different issue. A majority of African Americans will disagree with your comparison. Recently, a lady wrote an opinion in her newspaper stating why they are different and that she was offended by the comparison. But gay activists got angry and had her fired from her job.
“Here is a link to an article,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/29/EDG8F5918A1.DTL ”
First of all, John, it’s an editorial, not an article. Secondly, it is clear that the author confuses correlation with causation. The author himself admits that the reduction in marriage trend was already going on when same sex partnerships were allowed. Thus, the same sex partnerships (taking the author at his word, and I do not, he is a shill for the Hoover Institute) were enacted within an already existing trends for heterosexual partnerships. There is no reason, none, to expect the same thing to happen in a situation where the trned is different.
The fact of the matter is, as I have already provided evidence for, the factors that have an effect on child development and growth and welfare have to do with stability. Certainly, I have known some same sex marriages (yes, they are marriages even if they aren’t legally recognized) that have provided very stable and loving households (I have also known some that have not and hey, that’s the same thing you find in heterosexual marriages).
And then there is Boxlock:
Quoting JR/Bluejay: ‘I always wonder WHY the MEANEST people I know are christians?’
First of all, I am no fan of JR, who makes broad pronouncements without any seeming concern about reality. And “Christians” is such a broad term. Some of the meanest people I have known have loudly proclaimed their Christianity. Some of the very best people I have known have made their Christian beliefs clear as well. And “Christianity” itself encompasses such a wide variety of beliefs and attitudes (despite the arrogant and often theologically illiterate attempts of SOME in American evangelical traditions to establish hedgemony on the term).
“They aren’t…they simply have the moral courage and fortitude to stand up to your trying to push through something they know is wrong. And, not natural or healthy. And you don’t like that resistance to your agenda. But it isn’t going away.”
Translation: “…they simply have the presumptive moral arrogance to stand up…” This distinction is important. I spent some time exposing Paul Cameron because he is the manifestation of the kind of arrogance Boxlock not only exemplifies in his posts, but also in his approach. Cameron violated the code of ethics of his own field, and was expelled for his misconduct. Misconduct that arose from his justification of using intentionally flawed methodologies and deliberately misrepresenting and distorting the conclusions of other researchers. The kind of scientific misconduct that continues when he announces the “results” of any research he will do before he even starts it, because the desired results are the announced purpose of the research. In other words, arising from the kind of “moral courage” Boxlock refers to above, we see lying and subterfuge. We also see absolutely no hesitation to talk about subjects one knows nothing about, and a lack of interest in learning anything that runs counter to one’s prejudices. To wit:
“Besides most gay are motivated by, as you say, ‘1000+ benefits of legal marriage’, or pushing through a personal agenda, but they are not doing something moral or beneficial for society and they know it. No, they are doing something selfish for themselves.”
This broad, dismissive statement where Boxlock presumes to know the motivations of “most gays” is textbook bigotry. It’s every bit as offensive as someone saying that “blacks are lazy and want the welfare system to take care of them” or “women are hysterical and can not managed their emotions”. Earlier, Boxlock said to Jed:
“I’ve never said anything against, and hold nothing against, ‘Mexicans, African Americans, Gays’.”
You just did, wanker.
As I have pointed out on this blog before, I am a widower. I was married to a wonderful woman for 17 years, and we most certainly went through the “for better or for worse” thing. After she died, I had a hard time. SOME of the people who helped me the most were widows and widowers who had lost their own spouses, often after long illnesses. They didn’t leave, they didn’t go off and sleep with someone else, they stayed with their spouses. And they did so without the “1001+ (legal) benefits of marriage” because their partner had the same gender. To claim that these are people who simply want legal benefits for a liason that “they know” “is not moral or beneficial for society” is outrageously ignorant. I am not remarried to a wonderful woman. I am a strong believer in marriage. Marriage is a partnership and the most profound and serious promise one person can make to another. Not all who make that promise are making it to someone of the opposite gender. I hate the term “sexual orientation” because it is much more than that, it is a romantic orientation as well.
“Those type things don’t usually succeed thank goodness.”
People said exactly the same thing about interracial marriage. I think, long term, you are very much whistling in the dark. And the irony is, you don’t even seem to realize how much harm, in your obvious shallow moralism, you do to the very cause you claim to promote. There is a reason why Christian Right Republicans did so poorly in the 2006 elections. It was because they made themselves clear. You are a shallow bigot who does not let facts get in the way of his beliefs. But I am sure you will continue to claim you don’t care about what I say.
“PS: BlueJay, I’m not extinct….right here I am, fighting progressive/liberals and slackers, and the homosexual marriage agenda wherever I find it.
Noble cause all!”
I agree that you are not extinct. JR appears to like to say what he wants to be true. You aren’t extinct, but you sure as hell aren’t noble either. You represent the most vapid kind of evil, the evil that born of a willful ignorance that is so certain of itself it neither cares or knows about the depths of its depravity.
Jeez.
“I am not remarried to a wonderful woman.”
Should be
I AM remarried to a WONDERFUL woman.”
I’m no great fan of yours either ksag.
I don’t like when people take blind, baseless shots at me.
“I always wonder WHY the MEANEST people I know are christians?”
I did agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly.
But I’m not the one who posted it.
I’m reminded of one of many bumper stickers with liberal slogans I saw holding an old crappy car together.
“Mean People Suck”
Chuckle…
Wow Ksagnostic. That was a really, REALLY wonderful post.
And, I know you know this, but I didnt say ALL christians are mean.
But I did imply, and do believe, that the MEANEST people are always self professed christians.
Just look at nathan, boxlick, john stone, etc.
Oh, and stoned?
“But gay activists got angry and had her fired from her job.”
Link please? Even just some FACTS please?
And mean christians put me out of a job too. But I guess that’s ok with you?
BIG effin’ eye roll.
I love that bumper sticker outie!
I bet it also had one that said
Kansas… as bigoted as you think!
ksagnostic,
You are absolutely correct on one thing only….I couldn’t seriously care less what you think.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, yer sounding really at peace there lickbox.
Stoned,
“Jed, race is a totally different issue.”
As long as you keep thinking that, you will never get it. Discrimination is discrimination, Period!
ksagnostic,
Thanks! That’s truly one beautiful Post!
All of this prosthelitizing, self-righteous indignation has a familiar ring to it.
I do believe the Phelps uses the same tactics as the opponents are using to deliver their discourse.
Stoned,
“Recently, a lady wrote an opinion in her newspaper stating why they are different and that she was offended by the comparison. But gay activists got angry and had her fired from her job.”
Do you have any idea how many people, black and white, lost jobs, houses and lives advocating for civil rights between 1957 and 1967? Do you have any idea how many gay people have lost their jobs, houses and lives by simply stepping out of the closet in the last thirty years?
I have no idea what said lady wrote, and I have no idea whether her job demanded a lack of prejudice, but losing her job in support of bigotry pales to the point of insignificance against all those who lost so much more by fighting prejudice! Bigotry is still bigotry, in whatever form it takes, no matter who the intended target. If your possibly imaginary lady couldn’t understand that, even after being a target of bigotry herself, maybe she deserved to lose her job.
“Yeah, yer sounding really at peace there lickbox.”
Farm Grrl, I don’t think that it is appropriate to call Boxlock “Lickbox.”
I seriously doubt that he has ever licked box.
No kidding Clark!
Jed, I think john stone just makes shit up. He has no idea what he’s talking about, cant provide details, and has never posted a link in his life.
He probably heard it on Fox, just like billo and his lesbian roving high school gangs.
Big eye roll. Dont try to confuse him with facts.
Or ask him for any….
Farm Gal,
When Stoned hands me an opening like that, I don’t really care if he made it up or not. Of course if he didn’t invent our mythical lady (and I don’t credit him with that much imagination) one of the imitation authority figure he listens to on the radio did.
Farm Gal,
Lesbian roving high school gangs? And they go after bigoted jocks? S’pose they’d let me join up?
Take notes,
This is how duh Libs treat their advesaries, when they run out ideas, they go for personal insults.
Classic Leftist Lib behavior -
Of course, sometimes they just for go any argument at all and just start up with the insults.
What’s sad, is that they actually believe by insulting they win the argument.
Not defending anyone, just an observation on the bullying by the Libs.
“What’s sad, is that they actually believe by insulting they win the argument.”
Only in a McCluer world is it an insult to ask a poster to clarify a previous post that is contradictory to their current statements.
WS; “I seriously doubt that he has ever licked box”
ksfarmgrrl; “No kidding Clark!”
WS,
And just how experienced are you? Oh, that wasn’t even fair now was it…..as no one will let you even close to them.
That’s okay though, just ask ksfarmgrrl how!
Darn, I thought I’d go catch a late lunch but with that thought, that ruins that.
BlueJay/JR
“I’m no great fan of yours either ksag.
“I don’t like when people take blind, baseless shots at me.
“‘I always wonder WHY the MEANEST people I know are christians?’
“I did agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly.
“But I’m not the one who posted it.”
I am sorry for the confusion. Actually, I find that don’t have a quarrel with the quoted statement from ksfarmgrrl either. But, when I reread your comments when you responded to ksfarmgrrl, I find you actually qualified your remarks to people you had known and met, and for what it’s worth, with those qualifiers, I find myself OK with what you said and in fact for the most part (there are exceptions) in agreement with:
“But from the blog?
“I find the STAUNCHEST Christians to be…
“arrogant
“greedy
“cruel
“dishonest
“and generally nasty.”
I want to emphasize I personally know many very “staunch” Christians who are not at all like the above description, but some of those most likely to strongly proclaim their “Christianity” on this blog definitely resemble your remarks. I have my issues with some things you’ve said here, but my remarks here, on this thread, were absolutely unfair.
Thus, I sincerely apologize to you both for the misattribution and the comments they elicited.
Here is the article:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NEWS21/805130363
If it was the other way round, gay groups would have not stopped shouting.
KFG, Are you okay with this lady losing her job?
Jed, all you do is shout bigotry when people don’t agree with your beliefs. I guess for you any heavy handed means is okay against people who don’t share your beliefs. I am sure a majority of African Americans, like the poor lady who lost her job, do not share your comparison between the civil rights movement and the gay ‘marriage’ push.
ksagnostic,
gay relationships can be erroneously viewed as marriage only in a climate where marriage is in decline. But a decline in marriage has resulted in a population decrease in many european countries. It only goes to show how important marriage is for the future of society. No other type of relationship has as many benefits as marriage.
“And just how experienced are you? ”
Jeez, do you really want to go there? Really?
Let’s just say that I am quite experienced with women and I am well familiar with the “box lick” technique. With a woman, I sure as Hell know what I am doing and they appreciate it immensely.
Any other questions?
“Any other questions?”
Nope…you’ve answered it more than satisfactorily.
Now I know you are a geyser of B.S., and I can now believe what others have claimed…that you can’t be believed even for a minute.
But dream on, you are a legend in your own mind, just no one else’s.
WS you’re a hoot.
PS: I still think you should ask the farmer for advice, she’s the expert.
“Now I know you are a geyser of B.S.”
Ya’ wanna compare numbers, Licker? You don’t know me from Adam, yet you think you can make that statement? Loser. Let’s compare numbers, chump.
I got you beat………………..
Stoned,
Traditional marrige probably is in decline, but to lay that at the feet of gay people is ludicrous to say the least. If you take a look at the statistical breadowns, evangelical christians are among the most divorced group in the country, and it ain’t ’cause you’re gay!
Radical changes in the business world as we transition from an industrial to an information economy have had a profound effect on marrige. Where one income used to support a family, it now often takes two, and if the present trends continue, it may soon require three. Polygamy?
Women who used to depend on their husbands for economic support are finding that they can do almost as well without putting up with your beer swilling and watching football on TV, unshaven and in your underwear. They demand more out of marriage, and when you don’t supply it, they move on. And when you insist, as some of you religious folk do, that god assigned her the role of washing out your dirty shorts, fixing your dinner and shoveling out a kid every nine months, you’re lucky if you escape with only a divorce!
But while that old time relation is declining, a new marriage paradigm is developing that recognizes the rights of both partners. It also recognizes that we get our choice of lifemates, and a particular gender arrangement is not a requirement. If you don’t get the picture, ask your children and grandchildren. Most of them do.
Oh, and Stoned, I’m not really worried about a decline in population. We seemed to have been fruitful and miltiplied all that’s necessary and more for the time being. 6.2 Billion and counting….!
WS,
Anybody with any class at all never compares those numbers.
And those with LOTS of class keeps the number at ONE, one special woman for a lifetime, or death.
Try to pick up some class will ya?
Well, John_S, you have the primary human resources officer make quite frankly discriminatory remarks. If a person in her position had made similar comments about people of a particular religious belief (yes, even evangelical Christians) the result probably would have been very similar if not the same. If you are a Human Resources professional for an institution with a non-discrimination policy, making comments critical of a particular group of people is going to get you into trouble. The consequence, in this case, quite frankly, was logical.
As for the rest of your comments:
“ksagnostic,
gay relationships can be erroneously viewed as marriage only in a climate where marriage is in decline.”
Statement of opinion masquerading as a statement of unsupported fact. It’s also highly offensive bullsh*t. Like I said before, I know same sex couples who have lived marriage. They have stayed together, raised children, and supported one another though very difficult circumstances. Do you know what the end of a successful marriage is in almost all cases? A relationship that continues, where two people lovingly support each other through good times and bad, until one is left to grieve for the other. That is “happily ever after”. That…is…what…(successful) marriage…is. I know same sex couples who have done that, in spite of the fact that they don’t get the “benefits”. To claim that that kind of committment between same sex couples only happens in an environment where marriage is in decline is complete and total bullsh*t. As the article you yourself referenced indicated, marriage was already in decline in Scandanavia. There is no evidence, and none was presented, that correlation between decline in “traditional” heterosexual marriage and greater acceptance in same gender marriages indicates any sort of causation. And certainly, I have seen plenty of heterosexual marriages that have done just fine between partners who have no trouble with the idea of same sex marriages. It certainly hasn’t interfered with me and my wife making a lifelong committment to each other, even though we both already experienced the loss of a spouse. We clearly believe in marriage.
“But a decline in marriage has resulted in a population decrease in many european countries. It only goes to show how important marriage is for the future of society. No other type of relationship has as many benefits as marriage.”
No, a decline in the birth rate is responsible for the population decrease (and with immigration, there isn’t really a decline). Certainly, in a number of countries where birthrates are high, “traditional” marriage rates are not.
And in this country, areas with higher acceptance of the idea of gay marriage are not areas where marriage is “weakest”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html
“Well, John_S, you have the primary human resources officer make quite frankly discriminatory remarks.”
Should have been
“Well, John_S, you have the primary human resources officer for a public university making quite frankly discriminatory remarks.”
I think my sentence lost something on the second or third edit.
“And those with LOTS of class keeps the number at ONE, one special woman for a lifetime, or death.”
Doesn’t always work that way, Lick. Some of us just have a way with women and we don’t end up with just one. Some of us are way beyond one when we marry for the first time and the numbers keep growing throughout life.
There is no reason to condemn me because I have had more than one woman in my life.
Class has nothing to do with it.
Life happens.
I don’t condemn you….you do that yourself!
“I don’t condemn you….you do that yourself!”
And how so? Because I haven’t given up sex at the age of 56? Because I am unmarried and have dated multiple women over the past twenty years?
Sorry, dude, but adults in relationships have sex.
Get over it.
WS,
“Sorry, dude, but adults in relationships have sex.
Get over it.”
I’m 63, and I certainly haven’t gotten over it yet, and hope I never do!
The true test though isn’t how many partners, but how many times with the same partner. Most guys (well, maybe not Boxic) can usually find someone they can bullshit once, but the repeat business is what pays off!
Thanks ksagnostic for the qualifier.
I have a few of my own to add. My subcription to kfg’s comment based on bloggers here is ALSO qualified by…
How many times a poster claims to be Christian.
How often they revert to posting bible verse.
And how they judge others who call themselves Christians.
Hooray your advocacy here WS!
I wish Obama had it. When he did the McClurkin thing for votes?
That hurt a friend of mine. And I don’t bail on friends to work with enemies like Obama wants us to.
Stoned,
Okay, she exists, but she obviously was unqualified to do the job she was hired to do. Would you hire a rabid satanist to hire and fire your church personnel or an active KKK member to oversee civil rights compliance? Well, no doubt you would, but that doesn’t make it right. She was in a position in which her personal prejudices hindered her job performance and should be fired The school will probably be sued if she made decisions for the school based on her bias. She set her employer up for legal action, and in all fairness, she or her church should pay the legal expenses of the school in any lawsuits arising from her discriminatory actions and statements.
It has been four and a half years since same-sex marriages were legalized in Massachusetts, and for some reason the Bay State has not descended into a perverted bacchanal, families have not been torn asunder by the destructive power of these new unions, and the bonds holding society together have not been torn to shreds. Incredibly, the prophecies of doom were wrong.
“The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend.” —James Wilson
“Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage. Men and women are not interchangeable, and same-sex unions—no matter how devoted and enduring—cannot take the place of a married husband and wife. The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life, and therefore the only kind of union in which society has a survival stake.” —Jeff Jacoby
“Over the centuries in Western civilization, public policy has recognized the vital role of the family that the heterosexual family needed to be protected and defended in the law, because it provided crucial benefits for the well-being of society and family. That is different than a question of civil rights.” —Chuck Colson
Boxic,
Quoting religious right wingnuts like Jacoby and Colson to support your bias doesn’t do anything except put all the nuts in one pile, and I’m not sure either of them would want to find themselves in a pile with you. Quoting Wilson was just plain irrelevant. Either find yourself a rational argument or quit bellyaching about something that is really of no consequence to you.
Monk,
According to the Union of Radical Religious Reactionaries (hereafter referred to as URRR!), the New England states have always been full of them deckedent libril pannywaists, so maybe nobody can see the difference.
7 Trackbacks
[...] The Augusta Free Press wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAnd though John McCain supports such state amendments, he doesn’t support a federal gay-marriage ban, which rankles many social conservatives…. [...]
Anal Sex Anal Sex Pictures Anal Sex Pregnant…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…
Skin Care Beyond The Basics…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting….
Online Dating First Date Can You Feel The Love Tonight…
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…
legitimate home business opportunity…
I just came upon this website via the blogging baby website. Interesting post. This could have easily been written by me (with just a change or two). Funny to read another\’s story that is so similar to my own….
Cash Loans…
Best service for cash advance loans nationwide….
[...] earthkeepers wrote an intriguing post today onHere’s a little tasterOnline Dating First Date Can You Feel The Love Tonight… I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me… [...]