"So let me correct myself. I don't blame God. I certainly don't blame the kind of fluid, open-throated spiritual awareness that promotes, rather than denigrates, all forms of consensual love, that understands the human soul is ever in flux and must, like the society that forms around it, be allowed to grow and evolve lest it stumble and atrophy and vote Republican.

I do not blame God. I blame a very gloomy, revisionist version of the divine, a sour and demeaning mindset that believes in restriction, constriction, dread."

Good thing he added that caveat. He'll never know how close he came to spending eternity, and I do mean eternity, as Bob Barr's man toy.

Man, why dont the gays just accept what the voter's wanted? I bet there wouldnt be this gnashing of teeth if they had won. The voter spoke, deal with it.

If someone buys into the basic concept that god is omnisicient, omnipresent and onipotent, then what thing can be done that he doesn't do or cause or know about?

So whatever the hell happened can be argued to have been caused by god. Even creating Satan and Hitler!

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, we're simply reminded that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can anybody settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident a Christian can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

"Man, why dont the gays just accept what the voter's wanted?"

Same reason negroes wouldn't accept what the voters wanted 50, 60, 70+ yrs ago.

Man, why dont the gays just accept what the voter's wanted?

#2 | Posted by boaz

Because gays should not have to accept a condition where their rights are not equal to the rights to a union granted by a license of marriage, that are extended to other adults, simply because they choose to practice that union within the same gender.

Man, why dont the gays just accept what the voter's wanted?

So you'll be outraged every time a Righty complains about President Obama or Pelosi or Reid? Or when the talibaptists complain about abortion?

That I could get behind.

Man Boaz the same thing could be said about slavery and interracial Marriages Womens rights etc etc etc. Wh couldn't they accept the status quo and deal with it and move on. I mean the voters had spoken so why should they bellyache. I mean the United States really doesn't believe in equality. If She did She would have made Blacks whole people women with a voice and mixed couples would never get a place at the Equality Table. You claim that Iraq is Free(It's bunk but we will go with Your belief in this instance) Why don't You want Your fellow Americans to be Free?? I mean don't they deserve Freedom too??

Larry

I agree with Larry.

WTF?

Sorry guys, I dont see it that way. They took it to a vote and they lost. Hell Obama won and I am having to deal with it, why shouldnt they?

Man Boaz the same thing could be said about slavery and interracial Marriages Womens rights etc etc etc. Wh couldn't they accept the status quo and deal with it and move on.

Too soon, but it will come.

What if they took returning blacks to slavery to a vote and the majority said Yes how would YOU Feel Boaz?? I am sure that You wouldn't lie down and take it You would fight the Prejudices and Bigotry so why don't You want to fight for the right of ALL of Your fellow Countrymen. Don't Gay and Lesbians have a right to be free and happy?? I mean if You refuse to allow a certain segment of the population their civil rights aren't You enslaving BOTH sides??

Larry

Boaz, do you believe there might be a reason behind the "gnashing of teeth". If it wasn't a big deal, if it wasn't so obvious to everyone BUT closed minded people, it would have never had to go to a vote. Let me ask you how you would like millions of people, whom you have never met nor will, take a vote on your rights?

They took it to a vote and they lost.

#10 | Posted by boaz

If your state had voted by a majority that black were still not allowed to vote, as blacks were still not allow to vote in some states until 1965, would you just "accept what the voters wanted"? Or would you continue to try for change of these laws?

The two situations have moral equivalence.

Let's put it this way. Those who deny Gay Marriages enslave themselves and those who are Gay and lesbian in perpetual inequality. They bring themselves down as well as the Country.

Larry

a big chunk of blame for 8's passage has to go to the No on 8 campaign's initial arrogance

----

And then this guy goes on a very arrogant rant. Pot meet kettle.

Boaz, if I remember right, you are African American?

You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.

Why don't You want Your fellow Americans to be Free?? I mean don't they deserve Freedom too??

----

If you really want your fellow Americans to be free, then you should support marriage to anybody regardless of sexually orientation, marital status, and age as well.

And what about the Mormon Church and every other church that raised funds and publicy supported Prop 8?

Everyone of them should lose their tax exempt status, AND be required to pay back taxes for at least 132 yrs of American oppression.

If God were really opposed to homosexuality, it wouldn't exist.

If you really want your fellow Americans to be free, then you should support marriage to anybody regardless of sexually orientation, marital status, and age as well.

#18 | Posted by Pirate at 2008-11-09 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag: Hoplessly Stupid

Currently bigamy and pedophelia are illegal in America.
Projecting your fantasies into the public discourse does little to support your credibility.

Hey, God is a trinity, all male, does that possibly mean that God is gay? Wow, Jesus and the 12 disciples, all male and hanging together. All gay?

if God is gay then why hate gays?

Currently bigamy and pedophelia are illegal in America.
Projecting your fantasies into the public discourse does little to support your credibility.

----

I have no fantasies about said items.

Either you're free in this country to marry who you want or you're not. Either there are restrictions on marriage or there are not.

Pirate, all bullshit aside, can you really not see a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, incest, or pedophilia? If not, I'll explain it to you.

Briwo,

Why the cursing at me? I didnt curse at you. Yes, I am black.

if it wasn't so obvious to everyone BUT closed minded people,

Yes, everyone but a majority of California..

Pirate, all bullshit aside, can you really not see a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, incest, or pedophilia?

----

No, I see no difference. Not when using the argument freedom to marry who one wants.

Like I said, if you want restrictions on marriage, as I think there should be, that's fine. But allowing one group to marry while prevent others to not marry is not freedom to marry whomever you want.

It was defeated for now. It will revisit us.

Why the cursing at me? I didnt curse at you. Yes, I am black.

#25 | Posted by boaz at 2008-11-09 09:05 PM |

Because I hate hypocritical bigots and tend to abuse them when I am unfortunately exposed to them.

Yes, everyone but a majority of California..

#26 | Posted by boaz

Your initial question was answered. Are you going to continue to avoid the more difficult questions?

Pirate, all bullshit aside, can you really not see a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, incest, or pedophilia?

No, I see no difference. Not when using the argument freedom to marry who one wants.

Like I said, if you want restrictions on marriage, as I think there should be, that's fine. But allowing one group to marry while prevent others to not marry is not freedom to marry whomever you want.

#27 | Posted by Pirate at 2008-11-09 09:10 PM

Give it up. There is no way to debate a brickhead like this fool.

Marriage comes from a familial, communal or tribal commitment. So if your friends and family support it then you should be able to marry who you like.

There are ministers who will orchestrate the vows so the only issue is the spousal benefits. As a society we'd save a lot of money by eliminating these special benefits.

I've read that gay gals are more interested in marriage than gay guys. But would they have the same interest in state recognition without the benefits? I doubt it. Women are all about money and security.

Frankly I'm sick of the argument. Cut the benefits married people now enjoy to the detriment of those who are single, and let anyone who wants a ceremony to find a place to have it.

Well, then I guess God also defeated the republicans in their presidential hopes too.

Are you going to continue to avoid the more difficult questions?

I didnt know you were in the conversation..

But allowing one group to marry while prevent others to not marry is not freedom to marry whomever you want.

#27 | Posted by Pirate at 2008-11-09 09:10 PM

Since Christian heterosexuals have between a 40 and 50% divorce rate, maybe we should ban hetero marriage.
Imagine how all those kids are devestated when they're good, god fearing, parents are exposed as adulteres, closeted gays, pedophiles and bathroom tapping Republican lawmakers.

their good...how did I not catch that?

Having sex with minors is criminal and immoral. Because by definition it involves sex with someone too young to maturely understand what they are doing. Legal bans on marriage with minors obviously flows from the same policy considerations.

As for polygamy, again there are several clear reasons why it harms society. Firstly, as has been reflected recently in high profile scandals, the women involved in polygamous marriages are almost universally supported by welfare. One man alone is financially unable to support multiple wives and loads of children. So the burden time and again falls on the taxpayer. Secondly, the percentage of involuntary forced marriages associated with polygamy, especially involving underage women, and either implicitly or explicitly being pushed by churches or cults, gives any reasonable society a strong incentive to prohibit the practice.

On the other hand, there is no criminal nor financial burden imposed by allowing consenting homosexuals to marry.

Because I hate hypocritical bigots and tend to abuse them when I am unfortunately exposed to them.

I am not a hypocritical bigot, I just dont share your point of view. I havent called you a yellow, tree hugging, whining liberal, who do you think you are to be able to name call?

It's good thing the Mormons sponsored this.

As we all know, Marriage is defined as One Man and is many childhood brides.

I am not a hypocritical bigot, I just dont share your point of view. I havent called you a yellow, tree hugging, whining liberal, who do you think you are to be able to name call?

#38 | Posted by boaz at 2008-11-09 09:22 PM

Really? You are an African American or, to use your words, a black man, who is currently pubilcly advocating the suppression of the civil rights of fellow Americans.
Dr. King would be proud.

And I believe you also profess to be a Xian?

Pirate, all bullshit aside, can you really not see a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, incest, or pedophilia?

Of course there is a difference in the object of one's desire for marriage, but what argument can you use against these that are not essentially the same argument that are being used against gay marriage?

Arguments against these depend upon tradition not some immutable, physical law. Even laws preventing underage marriage which overlaps in the minds of many with pedophilia are based upon the very mutable notion of what constitutes adulthood and maturity.

I am for civil unions for homosexual couples, but I think it is a good think for our culture to recognize and maintain the foundational nature of marriage as the union between a man and woman.

PAX

Boaz, still waiting on your answer. In case you forgot, would you like millions of people to take a vote on your rights?

joost,

As I said before, I didnt know we were talking. My rights have already been voted on many years ago, and I have them. At the local level, this country is a democracy. At the national level, we are a representative republic. All you gay folk, deal with it.

I didnt know you were in the conversation..

#34 | Posted by boaz

Then your not reading.

"I am not a hypocritical bigot..."

Yer not fooling anyone but yerself.

Why is it people that were once persecuted when they obtain their equality always and I do mean always forget about their struggle for that equality. It never fails.

Larry

After reading Mark Morford's piece, I came away with 3 dominating thoughts.

First, Mark Morford must be gay and if not, perhaps his lover is. His piece sounds entirely too personal to me.

Second, his attempt at descent will most likely harden the convictions of those readers who appose gay marriage.

Third, it's still fairly entertaining just the same.

My mom used to tell me, "It's not what you say but, how you say it." I'm confident he wasn't trying to sway anyone's opinion. It was more like a child throwing himself on the floor and screaming in the toy isle at Walmart when his mom said no. I suspect that in a few weeks when he regains his composure, he'll reread that column and groan with a certain level of embarrassment.

Yer not fooling anyone but yerself.

Who said I was trying to fool anyone? You people are liberals, I am not trying to impress you..

Boaz, please address #40

I am for civil unions for homosexual couples, but I think it is a good think for our culture to recognize and maintain the foundational nature of marriage as the union between a man and woman.

PAX

#41 | Posted by Grendel at 2008-11-09 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Same argument was stated back 200+ Years ago. good think for our culture to recognize and maintain the foundational nature of marriage as the union between a WHITE man and WHITE woman.

Larry

All you gay folk, deal with it.

#43 | Posted by boaz

The gay folk' are dealing with it, but why should they simply "accept what the voter's wanted"? That's not what women and blacks did when they couldn't vote.

Why is it people that were once persecuted when they obtain their equality always and I do mean always forget about their struggle for that equality. It never fails.

Why does everyone try to equate their "struggle" with the black-american (notice I didnt say african-american) struggle? Everyone wants to say "I have been through something". One reason I am not liberal, it always seems far left loons are looking for pity..

Having sex with minors is criminal and immoral.

----

It's only criminal because society has said so. Society determines what age is considered a minor. That age has changed over time and will continue to change. As for the immoral part, quit forcing your morality on others.

Basically, it's criminal because society says so which can change. You should not be imposing your morality on others.

...

As for polygamy, again there are several clear reasons why it harms society.

----

According to you. You are denying two consenting adults who want to marry each other. If they can afford to and want, then nothing should stop them.

but why should they simply "accept what the voter's wanted"?

Then why bring it to a vote?

Boaz, I'm still waiting. Please respond:

I am not a hypocritical bigot, I just dont share your point of view. I havent called you a yellow, tree hugging, whining liberal, who do you think you are to be able to name call?

#38 | Posted by boaz at 2008-11-09 09:22 PM

Really? You are an African American or, to use your words, a black man, who is currently pubilcly advocating the suppression of the civil rights of fellow Americans.
Dr. King would be proud.

And I believe you also profess to be a Xian?

#40 | Posted by briwo at 2008-11-09 09:25 PM

You are an African American or, to use your words, a black man, who is currently pubilcly advocating the suppression of the civil rights of fellow Americans.

I am advocating a belief of mine, your point of view is baseless and your description meaningless, as far as I am concerned. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. And most americans agree with me. Whether there is suppression of civil rights or not is the same as suppressing the "right" of someone to do drugs, it still doesnt make it right.

"Who said I was trying to fool anyone?"

You did, bonehead.

You claimed that you were not a hypocritical bigot, when in fact, that's exactly what you are.

yellow, tree hugging, whining liberal,

Yellow: 6 year Us Army, Infantry, Airborne

Tree Hugging: Work for Weyerhaueser

Whining: haven't whined yet...

Liberal: nope, sorry.

0/4

Don't you ever tire of being right....?

You claimed that you were not a hypocritical bigot, when in fact, that's exactly what you are.

And you sir, are a fool.

I am advocating a belief of mine, your point of view is baseless and your description meaningless, as far as I am concerned. Marriage is between a white man and a white woman. Period. And most americans agree with me. Whether there is suppression of civil rights or not is the same as suppressing the "right" of someone to do drugs, it still doesnt make it right.

#56 | Posted by boass at 2008-11-09 09:43 PM

You are a disgrace but I as I stated above, not surprising given your religous preference.

And you sir, are a fool.

#59 | Posted by boaz at 2008-11-09 09:45 PM

Another Self-Retorting Retort!

You are a disgrace but I as I stated above, not surprising given your religous preference.

That is the problem with people like you. You dont respect other's beliefs. I am NOT a disgrace by any standard, and people like you cannot define me.

Dave,

You can call names all day, I know what I am. My convictions define me, your lack of standards define you..

"And you sir, are a fool."

I'm not the one advocating "jim crow" laws for gays.

Marriage is between a white man and a white woman.

I see this is a non gaining conversation when you start putting words in my text. I did not say this and you know it. Briwo, you used to be worth debating, and I hate you have degenerated into this.

"My convictions define me..." as a hypocritical bigot.

Indeed they do.

Blogging with you two is reducing my I.Q. I must leave..

I am NOT a disgrace by any standard, and people like you cannot define me.

Dave,

You can call names all day, I know what I am. My convictions define me, your lack of standards define you..

#62 | Posted by boaz at 2008-11-09 09:48 PM

So although you are an alleged "christian" you see nothing wrong with a woman driving 1500 miles so you two can committ adultery while you secretly videotape her?

What did your wife think about that?

What? Hven't told her about that?

"Blogging with you two is reducing my I.Q."

That's a physical impossibility. If yer I.Q. got any lower, you'd be a potted plant.

Why is it always the person who has been revealed to be an intolerant ignoramus who is the first one to exclaim that the arguments of others are lowering his IQ?

Or maybe "johnson".

Same reason he just ran like a bitch.

You need to mind your business, Briwo. That was between me and someone else and not you. Then again, comments like that show you for what you really are. Glad I know now. I am done with you.

Then why bring it to a vote?

#54 | Posted by boaz

Then WHY NOT bring it to a vote without the tremendous influence of Mormon money, which seems in many ways to be a violation of the idea of separation of the church and state, but I digress. I would ask the same question of you. WHY bring it to a vote?

Let's put it this way. Those who deny Gay Marriages enslave themselves and those who are Gay and lesbian in perpetual inequality. They bring themselves down as well as the Country.

Larry

Let's put it this way. Those who deny sibling marriages...pedophile marriages...beastiality marriages, enslave themselves and those who wish to participate in such marriages in perpetual inequality. They bring themselves down as well as the Carnival...er, I mean Country!

"I am done with you."

The only things yer done with are intelligence and integrity.

"Let's put it this way."

No, let's put it this way:

Yer an idiot who has no concept of the phrase "consenting adults".

"That was between me and someone else and not you."

WTF happened to "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide"?

What do you have to hide, boaz?

Hans

Regardless, it's none of anyone's business here.

Find someone else to slander.

"Consenting Adults" is simply a modern convention used to bless whatever vile behavior is in vogue. I have no doubt that other "conventions" will come to be in vogue as more debased behavior becomes acceptable. Your buddies at NAMBLA are paving the way on that one!

By the way if two consenting adults happen to be siblings, shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

#78 | Posted by boaz

Are you leaving or not?

Then WHY NOT bring it to a vote without the tremendous influence of Mormon money, which seems in many ways to be a violation of the idea of separation of the church and state, but I digress. I would ask the same question of you. WHY bring it to a vote?

To be honest whatsleft, this argument has some merit. I did notice the mormon's on this one. Question is, did any churches give money straight to this cause or was it just individuals pushing an agenda?

"By the way if two consenting adults happen to be siblings, shouldn't they be allowed to marry?"

#79 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-09 10:13 PM

Concerned about your "legitimacy"?

Hans

Good comeback Hans! But typical when there is no good response.

Give Deon a kiss for me!

You need to mind your business, Briwo. That was between me and someone else and not you. Then again, comments like that show you for what you really are. Glad I know now. I am done with you.

#72 | Posted by boaz at 2008-11-09 10:02 PM

That has to be one of the most pathetic defenses of hypocrisy, adultery, and perverse voyeurism I have ever read.

Good job.

Same argument was stated back 200+ Years ago. good think for our culture to recognize and maintain the foundational nature of marriage as the union between a WHITE man and WHITE woman.

Your rebuttal is a good one, but marriage as something that occurs between a man and a woman transcends race and culture.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the cultural codification of the natural design and ends of men and women. In other words it is the social construct that rests on physical and psychological design of men and women.

In short it is not the same argument.

Polygamous or monogamous heterosexual marriage and the families that result exist and has existed as the norm in every culture because it has been the backbone of the social foundations of all cultures. For that alone we should be careful to tinker with it.

If there is a prejudice or bias then it is one found in nature by the very design of human beings that predisposes the union of men and women.

I know there are loving, homosexual couples who are committed to each other for life and deserve the social benefits that heterosexual couples share. That is why I am for civil unions.

At the same time, I see no reason why the term "marriage" cannot be reserved for heterosexual unions. Homosexuals have no difficulty with labels that designate their sexuality and types of relationship as different, hence the use of the very terms "gay," lesbian" "straight," "bisexual" "transsexual" etc. to differentiate their practices and orientations. These terms they proudly use to distinguishes the nature of their relationships from heterosexual ones.

Why then is the term "marriage" one that is absolutely necessary for them to describe their civil unions? It is like requiring the world to adopt by force of legislation the term "heterosexual" to mean both gay and straight sex.

I have little doubt that this will win you or anyone over, but I felt it needed to be said.

If you wish you can have the last word. I need to be signing off.

PAX

"You need to mind your business, Briwo. That was between me and someone else and not you."

If you have nothing to hide...

Or do you have something to hide?

Hans

"Good job."

ROTFLMAO!!!

Hans

"Good comeback Hans!"

Of course it was.

Hans

The above contains some sentence errors, but it has been a long day and I hit enter without rereading.

Muddle through the post if you can and are so inclined. My apologies for the errors.

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz

I love how this complete pos thinks he has the moral authority to define a loving relationship for other people, or to tell me what I "need to do"

You need to man up you douchebag. Godamn hypocrites.
use your superstitious beliefs to justify your hatred.

As a matter of fact, just shut the fuck up. I have exposed you for what you truly are. Any "opinions" you may have are rendered irrelevant by your ignorance and bigotry.

"That has to be one of the most pathetic defenses of hypocrisy, adultery, and perverse voyeurism I have ever read."

Newsworthy.

Hans

What is it about Regressives and sexual hypocrisy?

Grendel-
How 'bout if "marriage" was defined by the free practice of religion, and the law offered equal civil rights.

Separate but Equal is not Equal at all. Sorry some of You just do not grasp this very truth. If Heterosexual Marriages are protected then You must find that Homosexual Marriages deserve the same protections or neither one is of any value. Sorry that some people just do not get it yet.

Larry

Grendel-
How 'bout if "marriage" was defined by the free practice of religion, and the law offered equal civil rights

Yes, I actually agree.

I think the government should get out of the marriage business. Let all unions be civil. Let the term "marriage" be conferred by the social, cultural, and/or religious institutions of the couple.

It is a reasonable solution.

PAX

Then why bring it to a vote?

#54 | Posted by boaz

I really think YOU should answer that question. It was after all those like you who DID bring it to a vote. Most like me would not have bothered to put this on a ballot, where gay marriage was already legal.

I actually don't believe marriage should be a sanctioned legal term, at all. I believe the best solution would be legal civil unions between interested consenting adults, regardless of gender. Marriage should be relegated back to ceremony and tradition of religion. Such tradition may be defined any way that the religion wishes but no one is obligated to belong to said religion. I also believe the citizenry has more pressing issues, where gay marriage is already legal.

OK. So people should stop with all of this state level DOMA crap that restricts civil rights and be reasonable?

Whatsleft, intereseting idea.

By the way if two consenting adults happen to be siblings, shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

#79 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-09 10:13 PM

Yes. What business is it of yours?

Thanks Briwo, but I think BetelG beat me to it with a shorter version.

Yes. What business is it of yours?

#99 | Posted by briwo

Generally I agree, but does your answer include consideration for the possibility of birth defects?

Generally I agree, but does your answer include consideration for the possibility of birth defects?

Not a problem. Do an amniocitesis and if the child has in-breeding related birth defects, simply abort it. No problem

#102 | Posted by goatman

Your sarcasm adds clarity to the known fact that very few issues have easy, absolute answers.

You know I don't know what the big deal is anyways. It's just a Funeral really where two guys or two gals are standing up instead of laying in a box. Why should someone else care if they have a same gendered funeral.

Larry

Your sarcasm adds clarity to the known fact that very few issues have easy, absolute answers.

You are right that I intended clarity in my sarcasm, but the point I was attempting to illucidate was the absurdity of allowing siblings to marry. To me that is a no-brainer and is indeed an easy, absolute answer.

Generally I agree, but does your answer include consideration for the possibility of birth defects?

#101 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2008-11-09 11:00 PM |

Yes, it would, of course, be irresponsible for them to procreate.

So in The World According to Goatman,the only purposeful and legitimate marriage results in child birth?

So in The World According to Goatman,the only purposeful and legitimate marriage results in child birth?

???

How absurd. Did I ever say that? What is it with people who have to put words in my mouth? You are no better than null-brain who revels in such activities.

Also, Briwo, it is whatsleft who brought up the possiblity of offspring from a sibling union -- not I. Why did you address me and not him on the subject?

To me that is a no-brainer and is indeed an easy, absolute answer.

#105 | Posted by goatman

I don't think the answer is absolute. Even in your sarcasm you mentioned one solution. While I may agree with you in rejecting that solution, in such a union there may be other ways to absolutely prevent procreation that could be considered. Although, the simplest solution would seem to be for siblings not to unite.

in such a union there may be other ways to absolutely prevent procreation that could be considered.

There are no other ways to prevent issue other than forced sterilization or enforcable birth control. That is an arena that will never be entered again by our government, IMO.

Although, the simplest solution would seem to be for siblings not to unite.

Agreed

"My rights have already been voted on many years ago, and I have them."

Boaz:

Your rights were voted upon by responsible, mature, enlightened Congressmen in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act of that year was enacted. Your rights were not repeat not repeat not put up to a popular vote among the people of that era, because trust me, you still would not have your rights if they had been. I grew up in the segregated South of the 1950s and 1960s, and it was nastier than you could possibly believe; there were white segregationists quite ready to kill, maim, terrorize and subjugate from then on. Mnay of them were members of State legislatures, mayors of cities, county commissioners, and in a few cases, even Congressmen. But thanks to Lyndon Baines Johnson, your rights were put before Congress and argued for successfully, to be part of Federal law for as long as this nation shall live. Nobody put your rights up to a popular vote.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself not knowing the difference between the honest, above-board legislation that gave you your rights, and the travesty of process that took place in California. You should be doubly ashamed of your "I got mine, fuck you" attitude towards the civil rights of others.

"Polygamous or monogamous heterosexual marriage and the families that result exist and has existed as the norm in every culture because it has been the backbone of the social foundations of all cultures. For that alone we should be careful to tinker with it."

So men and women that are known to be infertile should not be allowed to marry then either, right?

From a genetic standpoint, male and female siblings have a 50-50 chance of sharing the same maternal X-chromosome. If they have a boy he would be genetically identical to his father, but a girl in all probability would be facing some serious vulnerabilities.

If they have different maternal X-chromosomes then they would be no different than two unrelated adults.

Personally I think everyone should be tested, especially the freaks on this site.

...especially the freaks on this site.

LOL. I'm OK, though. I had myself snipped 20 years ago.

There are no other ways to prevent issue other than forced sterilization or enforcable birth control.

To allow such a union there could be proof of absolute voluntary sterilization. Regardless, there is little currently that prevents siblings from breeding, I doubt if civil unions between consenting adults would do much to change the statistics.

I had myself snipped 20 years ago.

#115 | Posted by goatman

Me too. I'm done having kids, but I'm still NOT having sex with my sister.

I know I won't make many friends with this post but it's not being said to be anti-gay or anything. I believe in gays being able to adopt children and have civil unions -- just not be able to redefine the word "marriage"."

Did you know in California gays can have what is called a "domestic partnership" which gives them ALL of the state's same benefits as are given to a heterosexual married couple. All the benefits. But no, the gays weren't satisfied with that. Instead they have to insist on redefining the term "marriage" to no longer be "only between a man and a woman" even though they know the word "marriage" has strong religious meaning for many people.

Gays decided that even though California gave them every single civil right and benefit the state gives to married couples they still wanted to take it further and redefine marriage to "their" terms. The hell with the fact that society and cultural and religious beliefs for centuries would have to be changed for the majority of people, they don't care.

Honestly, people are beginning to feel that gays are being selfish and just want to change the meaning of "marriage" to shove it in our faces. Gays get EQUAL benefits with a "domestic partnership" filing in our state but still want more. "Marriage" is considered a sacrament in some religions and for many people it has strong religous meaning besides just the civil benefits.

California Blacks voted 70% against pro gay marriage and more than 1/2 of Latinos and Whites did too. California voted "No" on gay marriage when it was Proposition 22 a few years back. Then the California Supreme Court activist judges decided to overturn the people's vote. Last Tuesday Californians shoved it back in those judges' faces by AGAIN saying we do not want "marriage" to be redefined to mean anything other than "between a man and a woman." Arizona said the same thing on their ballot this year but everyone seems to be picking on California. How many times do we Calfiornians have to tell them "NO"?

Now there were about 2500 gays running amok in Silverlake and in Hollywood a couple nights ago in protest because they didn't like the way the vote came out. Sorry, folks, but you can't take thousands of years of culture, heritage, and religious identity defining marriage between a man and a woman and then in the last 15 years or so expect everyone to come around to changing it.

I wouldn't keep on pushing it if I were the gay community. Gays get ALL the state's same benefits accorded California's married couples when they join together under a "domestic partnership" -- pension plan sharing, health directives, insurance benefits -- everything. Soon many other states might allow the same rights under a "domestic partnership" if gays would only quit pushing to redefine the meaning of "marriage."

Gays are now pushing to have people change their religious beliefs and people are not going to do it. I'm afraid the gay community will cause so much resentment because they want to redefine the meaning of marriage they are going to receive the brunt of a lot of resentment. And if I were the gay community I would think twice about taking on the Morman Church! Good luck!

If gays can redefine marriage well then so can an uncle and his niece, or one man who wants six wives, or a guy who loves his horse. "Marriage" was put together for the good of society as it defined and gave recognition (legal and otherwise) to a male/female relationship and provided for the legal and social recognition of all children born of that union.

People are beginning to think gays just like to fight about the issue and the get the last word on redefining "marriage" and maybe it's not really so much about their equal rights like they say it is, but more liking to just get in your face.

No offense meant to anyone on here who is gay. I just tried to explain the issue how most voters saw it.

I don't want to debate what I wrote with anyone. I'm not going to change my opinion. I just wanted to clarify why people voted they way they did in California when they voted against redefining "marriage."

Adios.

LOL. I'm OK, though. I had myself snipped 20 years ago.

#115 | Posted by goatman at 2008-11-09 11:41 PM

Me too! I've been going bareback with the old lady for 20 yrs!

"Gays decided that even though California gave them every single civil right and benefit the state gives to married couples..."

But it doesn't and shouldn't stop there.

Where, for example, does California allow the survivor Social Security benefits of their partner?

Where, for example, does California allow the survivor Social Security benefits of their partner?

#121 | Posted by Danforth

You mean it may not be part of the "domestic partnership" agreement? Hmmmm....

"And if I were the gay community I would think twice about taking on the Mormon Church! Good luck!"

Chris, the Mormon church's involvement in Prop. 8 is to come under IRS scrutiny, I believe. There is a line between church activity and political activism, and there are quite a few people, some of them in a position to do something about it, who think the Mormons romped all over that line.

None of this is trying to change your opinion. Jus' sayin'.

"You mean it may not be part of the "domestic partnership" agreement? "

Gee...go figure...not quite as equal as some would pretend.

"I don't want to debate what I wrote with anyone. I'm not going to change my opinion."

Chrissie's mind is made up, so please don't confuse her with any more facts.

It matters not to me whether 51 or 70 or 95 percent voted in any one way. NObody can define MY marriage but my spouse and I. The Mormons and the Catholics can opt not to do gay rites in their own houses of worship, but they may not try to influence what happens in MY church.I am so tickled that mc ACLU is joining in three lawsuits to overturn this atrocity. herm

Domestic Partnerships boy if that doesn't sound like the Colored Drinking Fountains The Colored Bathrooms the back of the bus for blacks. I mean hell they were "Equal" the Water came from the same municiple water supply. The Drains emptied into the same sewage systems. The back seats wear the exact same seats that the white people used in the front of the bus of course they MIGHT have been narrowed a bit. I mean hell they were on the same bus so why should Rosa Parks have any problem moving to the back of the bus like She was supposed to because of the LAWS at the time supported the majority of the populations opinions on what was proper for these minorities. Hell What was the big deal about colored only lunch counters. Domestic Partnerships why thats the same thing. I am sure when the straights get Married the person officiating states Now I pronounce the couple as entered into a domestic partnership. Why should the gays have a bitch I mean Separate but equal huh?? I say rubbish.

Larry

but I'm still NOT having sex with my sister.

LOL

Reminds of a tete-a-tete I had with my somewhat rebellious 15 YO niece last year. She became a vegetarian -- just to piss her parents off, I think. I was over there eating dinner with my sister and her family and my niece mockingly says to me, "Would you eat a person?" I said, "Of course not". She said, "Well, they're flesh just like that dead cow you are eating right now". I said, "Well, your mom (my sister) has a vagina, but I'd never have sex with her".

It shut her up and kind of flabbergasted the rest of the table.

Danforth and What'sLeft --

Where, for example, does California allow the survivor Social Security benefits of their partner?

California's "domestic partnership" law only applies to California's STATE benefits so federal benefits like Social Security could not be given out by the State as it does not have the authority to do so. If Congress wanted to give federal benefits (like federal income tax filing status or Social Security) to recognize gays who have a "domestic partnership" arrangement (not "marriage") then I would have no problem with it.

It shut her up and kind of flabbergasted the rest of the table.

I'll bet.

I wonder if you'll ever get another dinner invitation. lol

It shut her up and kind of flabbergasted the rest of the table.

#127 | Posted by goatman

lol

I don't think I'd have said that at dinner!

Actually this is a mandate from God, he makes fools of the wise and learned and hands them over for the degrading of their bodies. Romans 1

SO BITE DOWN HARD ON THAT PILLOW AND TAKE IT UP THE YING YANG CALIFORNIA.

SO BITE DOWN HARD ON THAT PILLOW AND TAKE IT UP THE YING YANG CALIFORNIA.

Err, Rick1234567890, seems you weren't paying attention.

California voted against gay marriage.

We don't need to bite down hard on any pillow.

"If Congress wanted to give federal benefits..."

Good. I'm glad you conceded California's law doesn't cover all the bases and is NOT fully equal.

Even beyond the separation of church and state, the "religion," (actually, retards who fell for a huckster and lascivious men who wanted more than one wife for property back in the day and their heir-apparents) of Mormonism is certainly one to talk about marriage rights. It makes one wonder if they're just being bitter and vindictive since they can't marry a whole menagerie of adolescent women themselves, apparently eveyone else can only have the same choices they themselves get. And civil rights and civil discourse can go screw themselves, of course.

The distinction between homosexual marriage and pedophilia, incestuous marriage, polygamy, and bestiality, is quite clear, and trying to make it the same is a clear and pathetic strawman argument. Marriage is society's recognition of 2 people's (at least attempted) life-long commitment to eachother, that is deemed special for it's both it's love and the responsibility of commitment. As such, they are given special rights to function as one unit economically and socially in some ways, such as having insurance and inheritance rights. Pedophilia and incestuous marriages are almost a given as rape, and by no means "loving." Polygamy is a bit much to ask out of our current insurance policy for one, but mostly is a stone-age step back to a time when women were property. It doesn't belong in this day and age, anymore than stoning a woman for adultery. It says enough about it to see women who've been in these relationships talking about how indoctinated they were and how much akin to domestic slavery it is. Bestiality? Who says the animal approves? Even, somehow should it, are we to give it property rights and insurance/inheritance like a human being? I think not, society doesn't owe animals a human-like set of benefits.

Anyway, strawman argument shot down. It comes down to a civil rights issue here. Gays are adults, they aren't asking to take advantage of anyone, they are asking to share the same 2 person commitment and rights that hetero couples get, and society owes it to them. Separate but equal has been proven time and time again to not be equal. Why not take marriage out of the picture for eveyone is my question? Marriage can become the name for the religious ceremony that means nothing whatsoever to the state. Then, all couple can apply for the same civil union, which has the exact same rights. That can be the secular solution that applies to eveyone equally. Problem solved, and one minoritie's freedom from religious persection gaurunteed.

Here is a thought for the bigots and or homophobes out there. You don't like Gay Marriage Fine no problem DO NOT HAVE ONE. But at least give the Homosexuals their due. I mean what is the harm in letting two men or two women tohat love each other and respect each other to have what everyone else and that's a united Marriage in love and respect. What is the harm in doing that. It ain't like they are asking to move in with You. You can lead Your life how You choose and so can they. We claim to be about being a becon of freedom and hope for other nations. What better way to express it by bringing equality unto our own people. Time is ripe for it.

Larry

Why not take marriage out of the picture for eveyone is my question? Marriage can become the name for the religious ceremony that means nothing whatsoever to the state. Then, all couple can apply for the same civil union, which has the exact same rights.

Because gays refuse to take "marriage out of the picture."

Gays are the ones who insist on redefining the centuries old religious, cultural, and societal meaning of marriage to mean "between a man and a woman."

You don't see many people protesting against civil unions.

Sorry, but on the local nightly news in California when for a short time (after the court decision) they allowed gays to marry, the news cameras would zero in on two big burly guys clutching each other in a hairy liplock with their wedding license in their hand and the "yuck factor" just blew sky high as far as the general public was concerned.

I say if the gays want to have a civil union then fine but just keep it personal and quiet, don't call it a "marriage" and don't flaunt it for the tv cameras for little kids to see two guys making out. I know my opinion is the same as the majority of people in my state.

Sorry, but on the local nightly news in California when for a short time (after the court decision) they allowed gays to marry, the news cameras would zero in on two big burly guys clutching each other in a hairy liplock with their wedding license in their hand and the "yuck factor" just blew sky high as far as the general public was concerned.

#136 | Posted by CalifChris at 2008-11-10 02:05 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

So You have a problem with 2 burly guys kissing Christine?? How about if say a 2000 pound Man weds His 1,500 pound Lady friend in the next bed over and they broadcast Them in a Lip Lock embrace would You be OK With that?? Especially if they have to use 2 ton hoists to raise their mattresses up on an angle so their fatty flesh and bones could roll sideways so they could kiss for the cameras. Would You be OK with that since after all they are a Man and Wife. I mean would You be going oooooo and ahhhhhhing at the love shared between 2 the couple?? Not every couple is attractive to You and I but Love knows no bounds and love shared is something sweet and heart warming. Just curious.

Larry

Or hell Christine what if I being 37 Years of age decided to marry a 90 Year old Woman. Would You be fine with Me "Robbing from a nursing home" My bride to be?? After all We are Man and Woman. Would You be OK with THAT union??

Larry

Not to mention, the gays keep bringing it up because it's still NOT EQUAL. The moment they stop being california residents, *Poof* up go those rights. Marriage is supposedly respected throughout these United States. So, calling what they have marriage is a way of forcing the language one step closer to equality.

I for one, am just for making it all equal by marginalizing the relgious bigotry behind it.

Larry --

I was just getting ready to call it a night and go to bed. But now all the "visuals" you've just described in your two posts are going to give me nightmares. You better not cause me to lose any beauty sleep. lol!

I guess She has no answer to that. Oh well I did try. shucky darns I did.

But now all the "visuals" you've just described in your two posts are going to give me nightmares

LOL It was all I could do to keep my just eaten lunch down when I read about it. Gotta admit, though, the usage of chain hoists in a sex act excited me a little.

Hmmm...shouldn't that read God and 70% of black Clifornia voters?

"According to various polls, African-American voters supported the ban by 70-30 per cent, ..."I'm not sure what to do with this," Dan Savage, a well-known gay advice columnist, ..."I'm thrilled that we've just elected our first African-American president ... but I can't help feeling hurt that the love and support aren't mutual."

A Liberal Judge will over turn this vote.

"A Liberal Judge will over turn this vote."

Works for me though I doubt it will happen. It would sure piss off all the haters though.

Man, why dont the gays just accept what the voter's wanted? I bet there wouldnt be this gnashing of teeth if they had won. The voter spoke, deal with it.

#2 | Posted by boaz

the voters don't get to vote on basic rights of others. this law will not withstand court scrutiny.

Apparently many Blacks feel that they are now far enough beyond their own struggle for rights that they have forgotten others who are not.

They don't hear the voices of the civil rights movement like Cong. Lewis, and Coretta Scott King who have always said that the movement for equal rights for gays was equivalent to the civil rights movement for Blacks.

God? No.

Self-styled psychopathic paranoid delusional asswipes who think they can hear Him talk?

Yeppers.

I think many voters just did not know that no meant yes, and yes meant no.
The black and Latino votes could not really have been so much based on the God factor because these very populations are getting the greatest % of abortions....very anti-God in anyone's bible.

So God is all about hate according to this fool.

I'm curious just how many here are queens doing the bone-dance with Mr. Sphincter?

Were you booted off Craigslist and now have to troll here?

The abortion rates in 2004 were...."
#150 | Posted by kerrin57

I'll bet that if you focus on income, its the poorest of people that are getting the highest percentage of abortions. When you can't afford to do much entertainment-wise, there's one thing that's always free, you know.

"The abortion rates in 2004 were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women and 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, compared with 11 out of every 1,000 white women."

Bull shit, the number is not correct. Common sense would tell you that by our percentage of population their is a huge error.

2% of the population is having abortions? Well if there is 3000 abortions a day performed and our population is 360 million the percentage is .003 so the number used is messed up.

Extremely high black voter turnout is what really helped this proposition. A coalition of Mormons and blacks passed this hate bill. One of the weirder examples of the saying "Politics makes Strange Bedfellows".

About 25 years ago, The Mormon Church taught that negro skin color was the mark of satan even though their alledged prophet Joseph Smith had appointed one black bishop. It took a college basketball boycott by black athletes from Notre Dame to wake up God in an overnight vision to their alleged prophet which immediately changed its policy regarding blacks and their "priesthood". Apparently God is particularly fond of basketball.

The Mormon Church is very active politically, which should but won't nullify their tax status. They are told who to vote for in their services. They spent big bucks to kill the Equal Rights Amendment in Florida and pass this Proposition in California. There are more Mormons in California than Utah.

Apparently God is particularly fond of basketball.

Mebbe so.

Back in the 50's one "reasonable" argument put forth in the South against interracial marriage was that the children produced from such unions would be social outcasts.

So much for that argument.

Arguments to projected outcome are thus only as valid as their premises prove out to be a posteriori (excuse the legalese but it sounded so appropriate here). Thus the "sanctity of marriage" argument is rendered absurd by the 50% divorce rate.

That the term "marriage" is religiously loaded should not concern the government.

This is a clear cut civil rights issue. Sexual orientation should not be a basis for legal prejudice any more than skin color or other genetic predisposition.

"All you gay folk, deal with it."

#43 | Posted by boaz

I guess minorities (more specifically, blacks) just had to deal with it pre-civil rights.

I guess women just had to deal with it pre-sufferage.

You got yours through decades of fighting for equal treatment under the law.

A bigot of another color you are.

Eventually, gays and lesbians will attain precisely what your and yours have obtained: the right to a legally recognized civil union granting equal privilege and access to the law.

And when that happens, you'll just have to deal with it.

Bull shit, the number is not correct. Common sense would tell you that by our percentage of population their is a huge error.

Read the article again Money. It doesn't reference the entire popoulation....but rather women between certain ages.

Gays are the ones who insist on redefining the centuries old religious, cultural, and societal meaning of marriage to mean "between a man and a woman."

You don't see many people protesting against civil unions.

I say if the gays want to have a civil union then fine but just keep it personal and quiet, don't call it a "marriage"

#136 | Posted by CalifChris

Please enlighten us as to what the difference is between a civil ceremony performed by a judge with an appropriate license issued by the State of California for a hetero couple as opposed to a gay couple?

Once upon a time in America:

"Gays are the ones who insist on redefining the centuries old religious, cultural, and societal meaning of marriage to mean "between a white man and a white woman."

Eventually, gays and lesbians will attain precisely what your and yours have obtained: the right to a legally recognized civil union granting equal privilege and access to the law.

And when that happens, you'll just have to deal with it.

Yep, and then we can start to seek the same for the incestuous relationships, and pedophile relationships. Like the homosexual, these poor sexual types also have to suffer discrimination, and no equal privilige and access to the law.

But I have hope that some day all will be equal. Oh happy day that will be, when Hedonims reigns supreme and all are equal under the law!

Of course, the term "law" will be empty and meaningless at that point, but hey, at least I can have my orgasm!

well I have to admit that the words didnt fit the headline now did it

and last night I was at a freinds house and while taking a lap with the remote came across real time with bill mahr...who first of all needs to be shot.
not with a gun to kill him but shot with some kind of gun to make him mute or a brain transplant or SOMETHING because he is the most vile and mean and nasty and downright viscious voice of the left and if I were one of his attackees..I might see if my buddy 'geiudo' would have a 'visit' with him...

he said that it was all the fault of religion that caused this and of course he then moved into hysteria.
this man has a real problem and the first one is that he says he is a comedian and isnt in the least bit funny.........OKAY maybe a little funny...

BL2

You didn't think you could worship an alien being and not have some people making fun of you did you?

You didn't think you could worship an alien being and not have some people making fun of you did you?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

He speaks from vast experience BL2.

"he said that it was all the fault of religion that caused this"

and as usual he was exactly right.
I will remember how the Mormons have worked on this issue and I will never again consider them to be a religion based on anything except hate. They disgust me. Mitt Romney may find out that the majority of Americans don't agree with his church and want no part of a Mormon President ever. I think America was trying to open up and let Mormons be main stream, not any more. Cultists.

proponents of equality need to take a harder stance; if you're against gay marriage, you're a BIGOT. plain and simple.

if you're a politician backing gay marriage bans, you will forever be known as modern-day Strom Thurmonds.

discrimination is based on bigotry. we must fight to remove these disgusting bans.

Theonebs - I already covered the whole strawman argument about pedophiles and other sexual deviants. They are quite simply not the same. No matter how you spin it, they all require some victimization not present in a committed monogamous relationship between consenting adults, hetero or homosexual.

"I will remember how the Mormons have worked on this issue and I will never again consider them to be a religion based on anything except hate. They disgust me."

Lemme see...Mormons worked on some issue and it disgusts you...OK. On the other hand, Wright and HIS religion worked on a hate issue...did that one disgust you too? Seems to me Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam religion has come up with a lotta "hate." Any disgust there, Danni? Or are you just very selective with your disgust? Don't answer...I already KNOW the answer.

ZERO, no you haven't. In your own mind you have, but in truth you have not made the case.

Sexual deviancy is defined by the society, and the simple fact is, today's deviancy is tomorrow's new lifestyle. Remember, it was just over a generation ago that homosexuality was called deviancy. But now we know better, right?

If you think you can label one deviancy as vile, while blessing your own pet deviancy as good, you might want to check with your buddies at NAMBLA. They are now paving the way for the a more wholesome sexuality by asking the question, "Is all pedophilia necessarily bad?"

It may seem ludicrous to ask that question, but remember, such questions were once asked about homosexuality when the society once considered that behavior vile. Now look where we are, blessing sodomy and calling it good!

Nope ZERO, I don't spin. You spin. Now get yourself back to Lonnie's place for some more butt love!

Who's rights did Rev. Wright actively campaign against???

"Now look where we are, blessing bigotry and calling it good!"

Who's rights did Rev. Wright actively campaign against???

Your post was about how "their hate disgusts me".

Still strawman comparison. Sex with a minor is rape. They cannot legally consent, they haven't even developed the abiltiy to make rational decisions. Research adolescent brain development if you don't understand that.

Then, take some time and check out some first-person accounts of what rape and incest survivors go through. Compare it to a gay couple you meet on the street, and tell me how they're the same thing.

You choose to completely disregard the aspect of victimization in any of these. There are by definition no real victims in an adult consensual relationship.

Call facts spin all you want. Oh, and no butt love for me, my girlfriend won't do anal. You win some, you lose some.

So many on this site are defending Sodomy, and the legitimization of it via gay marriage.

I'm curious just how many here are queens doing the bone-dance with Mr. Sphincter?

#148 | Posted by TheOneBS

How many hets do the bone dance with Mr. Sphincter?

How many lesbians do the bone dance with Mr. Sphincter?

How many TheOneBSes do the foot dance with Mr. Mouth?

BL2

You didn't think you could worship an alien being and not have some people making fun of you did you?

#163 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at

and all I can say to you bob is that I will include a little prayer for you tonight.

and as usual he was exactly right.

#165 | Posted by danni at 2008-11-10 10:36 AM | Reply | F

so I guess that would include his ranting about palin and the africa thing

even after now WE KNOW THaT TO BE a lIE put out by people in the mccain camp who are now just trying to save thier ass?

so he is right USUALLY or just when you agree with him?????

and here is a PERFECT place to INSERT THIS

( yes it is SUPPOSSED TO BE A PUN).........i gotta milllion ofem....)

article in houston chronicle yesterday said that LIBERAL faith based groups are all a ga ga about obame being in the white house and that means that THEY will now get more money for faith based initiatives previously denied because of liberal views.

so how does this square with those of you here who are so anti religion

OR will this be the beginning of yet another

LIBERAL HPYOCRISY HISTORICAL MOMENT

I think i recall reading that apprx 10% of population is gay - so this is a sizeable demographic and warrants rights. This is in stark contrast the the outlier demographic that would want to marry their kids, or their dogs, as fear spinsters would have us believe is the inevitable result of legalizing gay marriage. so they can't be compared. its BULLSHIT.

IF marriage is SO holy and so important to tradition, why can people get married a second time? or third? why not restrict their 2nd marriage to civil union, to the bare legal basics that same sex partners have? reason is that it is also bullshit, the line moved to accomodate our new lifestyle... but here's the real problem... a valid minority concern is facing a very broad and virtually universal opposition. Internationally, being gay makes you a pariah, criminal in some cases, and in many many cases, a shameful blight on a family. This is a huge hurdle....Same sex unions is legit - approval for marriage is challenging because it is a status symbol that straddles both church and state.... it partly comes from an ideology that has serious issues with homosexuality. In some ways, It's like demanding to be baptized by a Rabbi as your right.

The only solution is to make the legal designation apply to gays, but allow churches to refuse to marry same sex couples.

Sexual deviancy is defined by the society, and the simple fact is, today's deviancy is tomorrow's new lifestyle. Remember, it was just over a generation ago that homosexuality was called deviancy. But now we know better, right?

#169 | Posted by TheOneBS

Do you screw your wife (or girlfriend) in any position other than the missionary position? Because in some parts, anything other than that position is considered sexual deviancy.

Do you by lingerie for your wife (or girlfriend) so you can look all slinky and sexy? Because in some parts, anything other than under the sheets where you cannot gaze upon each other's nekkidness is considered sexual deviancy.

Do you screw your wife (or girlfriend) for the sheer pleasure of screwing? Because in some parts, anything other than screwing for making babies is considered sexual deviancy.

Are you a deviant, TheOneBS?

Boaz = regular old everyday right wing extremists.

For some reason, you guys have a hard time accepting that a black man can be oriented in such a way.

I have a good friend that is gay and has been living with his S.O. for 15 years. They are republicans all the way, voted straight ticket for the prople that wants to limit thier freedoms, but they want what they think is best. Don't ask me to explain it, because i don't understand it.

But just as you want one group to have freedom, then Boaz has the freedom to be a talibaptist neo-con if he wants to, regardless of his skin color.

This is the new way of things, get used to it.

"The only solution is to make the legal designation apply to gays, but allow churches to refuse to marry same sex couples."

#177 | Posted by JimmiG

Churches can and will do what they want on this issue.

There are a couple of Christian based churches in my town that do perform marriage rites for gay couples. But these religions unions still have no legal recognition.

This conflict should not have anything to do with religion. This is a secular and legal issue having to do with two gay people having equal access and treatment under the law as a het couple.

This has nothing to do with porking minors or dogs or multiple partners as some constantly and predictably interject here as a sad shield to their own bigotries and hatreds, or even their fears. Granting gay couples the same legal recognition under the law will not change their lives one iota.

so how does this square with those of you here who are so anti religion
OR will this be the beginning of yet another
LIBERAL HPYOCRISY HISTORICAL MOMENT

#176 | Posted by bushlovertwo

I think it's a really bad idea for a number of reasons. Being anti-religion has nothing to do with it.

You choose to completely disregard the aspect of victimization in any of these. There are by definition no real victims in an adult consensual relationship.

Can you tell us how you arrived at the universal standard "consenting adult" as the one by which all acts can be judged as either right or wrong? Has this standard been determined by science, or is it perhaps an arbitrary standard imposed on us by religion, or the state?

Could you tell us at what age one becomes a consenting adult, and how you arrived at that age? Isn't this age determined by a society...the same society that can change its standards, and has changed its standards with such things as homosexuality?

Can you think of an act that may in fact be wrong, even though two consenting adults agree to it?

Can you think of an act a child may be influenced to make, even forced, that may not in fact be victimization of that child? I can.

Can you tell us why pedophilia then is necessarily victimizing a child, when sex such a beautiful thing in your "progressive" book?

I'm anti-religion, and I don't approve this message.

Can you think of an act a child may be influenced to make, even forced, that may not in fact be victimization of that child? I can.
#182 | Posted by TheOneBS

Spoken like a true....

One of my best friends weddings this past August:

Chris, the Mormon church's involvement in Prop. 8 is to come under IRS scrutiny, I believe. There is a line between church activity and political activism...
#123 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Read the IRS laws again Mary. The law prohibits active campaigning for a political candidate - NOT campaigning for or against social issues. In fact, churches have the right the campaign for ANY social issue; therefore, no action will be taken

Lol, my last post was for Bushlovertwo.

Beyond that, of course I can think of some things consenting adults can do that are wrong. All of them require someone being hurt outside of the 2 of them, or one or both of them being unbalanced in some way - say depression, resulting in mutual suicide. These things still require victims, in case the victims being themselves, but such things do happen.

Being gay is not wrong, so it does not fall under that category. Unless, of course, you also believe eating shellfish is wrong, disobedient children and adulterous women should be stoned, we can buy slaves from other countries, and all the other idiosyncrasies promoted by scriptures.

Finally, I can't believe you would even ask that question. You want me to explain how pedophilia is damaging to a child? It's not only a strawman arugment, as I've stated 3 times now, it's a sick argument that uses people who often need years of counseling and even psychiatric treatment to further your bigotry against innocent adult couples who just want to get off and have the same rights you and your lovers (if you have any) have.

The question that always must be answered when asking if something is ok, is, "will it hurt anyone?"

How is giving gay people equal rights going to hurt the non-gay community? Your gross out-factor? Personally, I find fat people more disgusting than gays, when can we start legislating against them? By your logic and strawman arguments, it's ok.

"This conflict should not have anything to do with religion. This is a secular and legal issue having to do with two gay people having equal access and treatment under the law as a het couple."

~Zot

should could woulda - the issue clearly goes beyond secular and legal issues - marriages are performed in vast majority of cases by religious authorities. State recognition historically has followed the designation of status conferred by the religious ceremony.

i appreciate your sentiment, and share the view of its unfairness, but realistically you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Marriage is typically seen as exchanging vows before God. For some reason, people seem to feel that if gays marry it cheapens their own vows - pity for them, sympathy for gays who love each other.

beadsandvincent.blogspot.com

#186 | Posted by briwo

Looks like it was a beautiful day, Briwo.

If a gay couple getting married cheapens a straight couple's vows, those vows must not have been worth much anyway. Then again, with our nation's divorce rate, they seem pretty cheap as is.

Just another reason to completely remove marriage from the table in the first place.

"Hey ZOT, then let's hang all standards. They're arbitrary anyway and have nothing to do with the health of a society.

Let's screw our pets, cuz the orgasm reigns supreme.

I'd bet top dollar you're a closet deviant, masquerading as someone who tries to come across as learned. But learned people are a dime a dozen, and often as corrupt as three dollar bills. I'd bet the farm you're one of those! Now get back to your man-toy."

#184 | Posted by TheOneBS

Actually, I am fairly normally wired het male who likes to scrump with his woman in a variety of ways in a variety of places. At times, we have gone shopping for lingerie. In fact, she wore this hot little black cocktail dress to an evening fundraiser we attended for one of the local orphanages last Saturday. Yikes! And Yikes again! I guess by the strict definition of some, I'm a deviant.

You on the other had, you avoid the issue completely as to your level of "deviancy," and resort to slander and innuendo and irrational ravings and rantings about peds and dogs and multiple partners. What is it that so engenders such hatred and fear? What possible difference could the granting of a "marriage" license to a gay couple (male or female) make to you?

FTR:

The male on male thing simply gives me the willes: that is my hard wiring.

Female on female is, like, really hawt: that is definitely a hard wire job (wink wink).

I don't let my personal visceral reactions to this dictate my vote on equal rights.

BTW, you owe me a farm.

What is it that so engenders such hatred and fear?
#192 | Posted by ZOT

Sometimes you have to tell yourself that something is abominable to keep yourself from engaging in it.

Reminds me of something Quentin Crisp said:
"I don't like peas, and I'm glad I don't like them, because if I liked them, I would eat them, and I hate them."

"Man, why dont the gays just accept what the voter's wanted?"

Same reason negroes wouldn't accept what the voters wanted 50, 60, 70+ yrs ago.

#5 | Posted by Dave

Here we go with trying to compare the gay plight to that of the black community. The two are nowhere near the same. And God didn't defeat it, democrats did.

Here we go with trying to compare the gay plight to that of the black community. The two are nowhere near the same.

#194 | Posted by everlong

That's odd, because Civil Rights leaders like Mrs. King and Rep. Lewis say they are.

Looks like it was a beautiful day, Briwo.

#190 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-11-10 11:54 AM

It was, unfortunately I was locked in a recording studio in Sausalito for 3 days at the time. My wife flew down the day after I did and she went.

The pic of Donnie talking on the cell phone is of him talking to me in Sausalito just after I got out for the day. I would have driven into The City but by that time it was breaking up and everyone was heading home.

"Marriage is typically seen as exchanging vows before God. For some reason, people seem to feel that if gays marry it cheapens their own vows - pity for them, sympathy for gays who love each other."

#189 | Posted by JimmiG

How about all them folk who get married in the Elvis Chapel in Vegas? Are those marriages any less legally legitimate in the eyes of the State because they were not performed by a priest/rabbi/reverend/ pastor/pick your religious rep? I'll answer for you: no.

"marriages are performed in vast majority of cases by religious authorities."

Yes, but those are not legally binding unless the state license has been arranged for and it is signed immediately after completing the ceremony.

"For some reason, people seem to feel that if gays marry it cheapens their own vows"

I'll again refer to the Vegas wedding: does a couple being married in the Elvis Chapel cheapen the vows of the couple who had the $100,000 wedding in the cathedral? Will they somehow not remain married because thousands every day are "married" by a mere judge and not subjected to a religious rite?

"I don't like peas, and I'm glad I don't like them, because if I liked them, I would eat them, and I hate them."

#193 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

I've known and liked a few gays in my time. But I certainly don't plan on eating them.

How are they not the same? Minorities who are given less than equal rights by the majority for something they can't help or change, that doesn't affect their merit in this society in the least possible way.

The only way in which the black situation was worse was the fact that they were segregated out on more things and couldn't hide their skin. But the core problem - a majority legislating against a minority that can't defend themselves against legislation BECAUSE THEY ARE A MINORITY - remains the same as that that was behind discrimination against blacks.

Just because the level of discrimination isn't the same does not make it any more right. The principal remains.

I've known and liked a few gays in my time. But I certainly don't plan on eating them.

#198 | Posted by ZOT

LOL... whatever you say.

just jokes.

The two are nowhere near the same.

#194 | Posted by everlong at 2008-11-10 12:16 PM | Reply

Bigotry is bigotry. It is exactly the same type of hate that hates a person for their race as the hate that hates someone because of their sexual orientation.

Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice, is a bisexual. Only bisexuals think the sex of their partner is a choice. Heterosexuals know it is not a choice. Homosexuals know it is not a choice. Only bisexuals have the concept of choice when it comes to sexual orientation.

BRIWO

What were you recording?

Marriage is a legal contract.

Religion is not necessary.

The power to make a marriage legal comes from the government---not any church.

Will all you freaks and digusting pigs stop using Blacks to make you points. Black people are not sub-human freaks of nature. Read in the bible what God did to Moses brother and sister who didn't like the fact that he was with a Black woman, then find something simular to God sticking up for a homo.

#204 | Posted by carrie159

Cue the pigs blood.

The power to make a marriage legal comes from the government---not any church.
#203 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

And since the government is made up "by the people, for the people", how do you reconcile the fact that you believe Prop 8 is illegal vs. the fact that people have stated that gay marriage is not legal? After all, don't all rights come from the government (people)?

"exchanging vows before God"

Wow, Judge Jan Breland is god?
Who knew?

THREAD SUMMARY:

-God hates gay people
-Gay people are just like black people were
-Gay people are not just like black people were
-The voters have spoken
-The voters are wrong
-The word "GAY" is synonymous with "NAMBLA"

Hey, carrie159 - remember the "beloved apostle" was a man. Mabye Jesus was "sticking up" for a gay. ;)

AU: Some voice over spots and working with the Zatarans guy and some other people.

Will all you freaks and digusting pigs stop using Blacks to make you points. Black people are not sub-human freaks of nature. Read in the bible what God did to Moses brother and sister who didn't like the fact that he was with a Black woman, then find something simular to God sticking up for a homo.

#204 | Posted by carrie159 at 2008-11-10 12:35 PM | Reply

oh look! Here's some of that good christian love I keep hearing about!

Joe, you forgot:
If you believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman, you should get out of America.

oh look! Here's some of that good christian love I keep hearing about!
#211 | Posted by briwo

Are you under the impression that Carrie is over the age of 15? Definitely not a spokesperson for me, and probably a majority of Christians.

and probably a majority of Christians.

#213 | Posted by bartimus at 2008-11-10 12:54 PM

I would bet you are wrong about that statement.

I have to agree with those who advocate making any legal bonding of any two people (homo or hetero) a civil union, and leave the marriage process in the realm of various faiths. Gay people could still get married if they went to a church that recognized gay marriage.

I'm a devout Christian, but the government's job is to protect its citizens and society, not mandate morality. (The odds are they wouldn't pick your exact form of morality anyway.) A true believer obeys because he freely chooses to, not because of fear of criminal prosecution. The goal is to win over someone's heart and you can't really do that hitting them with a hammer. Unless someone can produce a study showing how homosexual unions hurt society, it's not really the government's business.

Sin is sin. Why do some Christians want to outlaw gay marriage, but not divorce, or fornication? It might be time to deal with the plank in your own eye.

The pastor of the 4,000-member All Saints Church in Pasadena spoke out against Proposition 8, calling the religious community's support of it "embarrassing." Watch iReport on protests in Los Angeles

The church announced that while it could no longer legally marry same-sex couples, it would continue blessing gay civil unions.

"It's very unfortunate and embarrassing that the (Christian religion) is in large part responsible for this act of bigotry," the Rev. Ed Bacon said after his sermon.

Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed disappointment at Proposition 8's passage.

"It is unfortunate," Schwarzenegger said. "But it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts. ... It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."

Good call Frosty.

If marriage as an institution is suffering, it is because married people can't seem to stay married. If the mormons and bible-thumpers REALLY wanted to help the institution of marriage, they should spend more time and effort keeping their congregants together and happy and a whole lot less time trying to regulate the front door. With the divorce rate over 50%, they really sound ridiculous. Sin is sin. And those who live in glass houses...

Remember, it was just over a generation ago that homosexuality was called deviancy. But now we know better, right?

Yup. It's called enlightenment. A generation ago homosexuality was just as normal as it is today. Two hundred years ago slavery was just as wrong as it is today. The fact that these views were not shared by the majority in past times doesn't mean the people who opposed them were supporting deviance.

I'll bet that number is probably lower for LDS.

With their marrying/reproducing at a young age and the idea that their marriages are not "until death do you part" but for "time and all eternity", they do really well at putting the fear of everlasting torment in hell in their followers, plus the concept that if you, as a father fail in your marriage, you are not only condemning yourself to hell, but your whole progeny as well.

I'll bet that number is probably lower for LDS.
#218 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

All the Google Links state about 25% for Mormons. It's higher when the couple is mixed-religion (40%) and lower when both people are LDS (I think about 15%).

Not so many years ago BJ's and 'doggie style' were considered deviant among hetrosexuals

"With the divorce rate over 50%"

That's for first marriages. The failure rate climbs higher to 60% or more of second marriages ending in divorce, 70% plus for third marriages.

"The church announced that while it could no longer legally marry same-sex couples..."

That in itself is an erroneous statement. The church cannot legally marry anyone, het or gay.

Remember, it was just over a generation ago that homosexuality was called deviancy. But now we know better, right?

Yup. It's called enlightenment. A generation ago homosexuality was just as normal as it is today. Two hundred years ago slavery was just as wrong as it is today. The fact that these views were not shared by the majority in past times doesn't mean the people who opposed them were supporting deviance.

#217 | Posted by rcade at 2008-11-10 01:30 PM | Reply

It still is called deviancy, and the word has a definition that makes it fit.

It goes against cultural norms. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the word still fits, even in California.

Chairpotty right on cue with more bigotry.

Tell us again how James Earl Ray was a hero for assissinating MLK?

Briwo,
OldWeaknStupid tried that tact and it didn't work out so well for him.
Do yourself a favor stupid, look up "deviancy" and tell me how homosexuality doesn't apply.

You're sort of funny, but you aren't very smart. I look forward to using you as a speedbag.

101ST is the textbook definition of an egomaniac with an inferiority complex.

I look forward to using you as a speedbag.

#225 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-11-10 02:10 PM

isn't that what your last cellmate said about your nutsack?

BTW cupcake, you definition of deviancy would have fit interacial marriage until the mid-60's.

what's your point?

"You're sort of funny, but you aren't very smart. I look forward to using you as a speedbag."

Come on 101, we all know you want him to be a Teabag, and keep dipping it in your face!!

One question, if god created everything, didn't he create homosexuality too, just like starvation, murder, child abuse, rape, torturing, lying, stealing, bribing and so many more atrocities!!

And before someone says only man created those things, most are observed in nature, except the one's that involve speech. Every other action mentioned is observed by animals other than human.

LM

"Two hundred years ago slavery was just as wrong as it is today. The fact that these views were not shared by the majority in past times doesn't mean the people who opposed them were supporting deviance."

But since religion actually taught you the circumstances to enslave someone then yes, religion is supporting deviance!!

P.S., I don't consider slavery deviance, I consider it a crime against humanity, but again since you were probably taught some forms of slavery are ok you don't see it as bad as it really is. I do give kudos for saying it is wrong though......

LM

BTW cupcake, you definition of deviancy would have fit interacial marriage until the mid-60's.

what's your point?

#228 | Posted by briwo at 2008-11-10 02:24 PM | Reply

It's right there in my 1:59pm post that you took issue with you dumb little shit. The word has a defintion, that definition fits homosexuality. It no longer fits interacial marriage.

Did you seriously think you had a point? Now dust yourself off and man up and tell me what I already know...You were wrong.

"People not affiliated with any particular religion stand out for their relative youth compared with other religious traditions. Among the unaffiliated, 31% are under age 30 and 71% are under age 50. Comparable numbers for the overall adult population are 20% and 59%, respectively.

By contrast, members of mainline Protestant churches and Jews are older, on average, than members of other groups. Roughly half of Jews and members of mainline churches are age 50 and older, compared with approximately four-in-ten American adults overall.

Members of Baptist churches account for one-third of all Protestants and close to one-fifth of the total U.S. adult population. Baptists also account for nearly two-thirds of members of historically black Protestant churches."

It's not my fault you're too stupid to see the analogy.

Now go heat up your mouth, I don't want you to chill my "teabag"

Good boy. Run along now.

It's not my fault you're too stupid to see the analogy.

#233 | Posted by briwo at 2008-11-10 03:08 PM | Reply

I hate to break it to you dummy, but you didn't make an analogy in your initial useless post that you are now trying to distance yourself from.

Deviancy has a definition. That definition currently fits homosexuality. In your haste to seem enlightened, you ran head first into a cement wall otherwise known as facts. As I said, dust yourself off. Running from the fact that I was right, and you were wrong will not make the exchange go away. You may as well man up and admit what we already know, which is you were wrong.

Why do you thin skinned sissies refuse to admit your mistakes?

Show me where I ran into a wall. Is that what you call it when someone points out your idiocy?

Admit it, you're a bigot, got called and used on it, and now are trying to cover your ass.

Just like Obama, I own your ass bitch.

Briwo,
I'm starting to think you're a full blown tard.
I'll start slowly...Look at my 159pm post. Do you have a problem with it? If so, what is it?

(Now, we both know you have a problem with it, and that problem is the word "deviancy". Look the word up you dumb little shit and then I dare you to come here and tell me why the word doesn't currently fit homosexuality.)

As I said, you were in such a hurry to impress the limpwrists here that you rushed right in to a cement wall. You can't change the defintion of a word because you don't like it. Now quit dancing around. We both know you were wrong.

Trying to defelect away from it by bringing in interacial marriage doesn't change the fact you were wrong. It just shows me you have no idea what deviancy means. Something could have been deviant 20 years ago and not be so today. The fact you don't know that is about par for your course stupid.

"Read the IRS laws again Mary. The law prohibits active campaigning for a political candidate - NOT campaigning for or against social issues. In fact, churches have the right the campaign for ANY social issue; therefore, no action will be taken."

I just re-read them, Bartimus, and it was, shall we say, edifying? Here are the pertinent passages from the IRS's Publication No. 1828, page 5:

"Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

And this:

"Substantial Lobbying Activity: In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status."

And here's a link to the IRS webpage itself:

I'm still waiting for the answer to my James Earl Ray question precious.

Interraccial marriage still fits the word deviancy....deviancy would be an action that strays from the norm, the standard or a topic. Since interacial marriage is not the standard or the norm then it still fits.

Don't throw around terms and call out people for not knowing definition when you don't have a fucking clue yourself.....

LM

Mary, the key word (IMO) is "substantial" - when you compare the amount of money the Mormon and Catholic Churches have versus what they spent on Prop 8 campaign, it is HIGHLY unlikely that the IRS will deem their activities in regard to Prop 8 "substantial". Additionally, the amount of volunteers they used for Prop 8 versus the number of parishioners these churches have is so small that it cannot be construed to be substantial. Add that to precedent set by both these churches over the past 50 years, and there is almost a 0% chance of the IRS revoking their 501(c)3 status.

That's not to say that the battle is over in the courts - you're right about the 2/3 rule to substantially change the CA constitution. I doubt the CA legislature could get a 2/3 ruling that allows CA citizens to "revote" on Prop 8. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the courts. However, IF the lawsuits fail, then the only way for a change to be made is with the USSC - who have stated they will not see these types of cases.

That's odd, because Civil Rights leaders like Mrs. King and Rep. Lewis say they are.

#193 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at

And that's not odd considering they are looking to advance an agenda. I assure you that most blacks would laugh at the proposal that gays have had a tougher time than they have.

Sorry Mary, I forgot to post the part of the IRS law I cited:

Substantial part test. Whether a church's or religious organization's attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial. Churches must use the substantial part test since they are not eligible to use the expenditure test described in the next section.

So, it appears that there is at least some basis for the IRS to check into the activities of the Mormon and Catholic churches as regards Prop. 8.

That isn't how I read it. Specifically, how does the IRS code prevent a church from advising it's members to consider life issues and vote?

I assure you that most blacks would laugh at the proposal that gays have had a tougher time than they have.

#241 | Posted by everlong

I assure YOU that nobody said that.

Here's the salient point:

"We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

Eb, read the Substantial Part Test for your answer. Since neither the Mormons or Catholics supported Prop 8 as a substantial part of their overall activities, they won't lose their tax exempt status. They key is pushing legislation as a substantial part of your overall activities.

Sorry - forgot to post the previous quote attribution to Mrs. King.

She also said:

"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

One question, if god created everything, didn't he create homosexuality too, just like starvation, murder, child abuse, rape, torturing, lying, stealing, bribing and so many more atrocities!!

And before someone says only man created those things, most are observed in nature, except the one's that involve speech. Every other action mentioned is observed by animals other than human.

LM

#229 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel

There are plenty of people who would say that those are creations of Satan.

Sure someone said it. Why else do you think I'm talking about it? Bigotry is one thing and no one would say that gays aren't discriminated against, but to compare the gay plight to that of blacks is ludicrous.

If you want to say that they are the same simply because of the current state of affairs with the legislation that's fine, but I still say that there is no comparison between the two when you put them side by side.

Going on your assertion, then women also struggled as much as blacks in this country. No doubt they have struggled but to compare them to what blacks have had to deal with just doesn't add up.

So, when people say that gays are the new blacks, so to speak, it is a stretch to say the least.

I'm still waiting for the answer to my James Earl Ray question precious.

#238 | Posted by briwo at 2008-11-10 03:34 PM | Reply

I'm sure you are. Anything to avoid admitting you were wrong.

As we both know James Earl Ray has nothing to do with the thread or the fact you got bitch slapped. Own your defeat simpleton.

"If you want to say that they are the same simply because of the current state of affairs with the legislation that's fine,"

Wrong. What I am saying, and what Mrs. King said is that discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. One group may have suffered more than another in some form over the course of history, but codifying discrimination and depriving any group of Americans of their rights should be, and is, equally abhorrent no matter to whom it is directed.

It no longer fits interacial marriage.

Did you seriously think you had a point? Now dust yourself off and man up and tell me what I already know...You were wrong.

#231 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-11-10 02:31 PM

It no longer fits? which means it once did... which means that the definition of deviate changes over time as people grow up.

Sure wish you would...grow up that is.

I think YOU are the one who is never man enough to admit you are wrong.

Me thinks that Chairpuddles has too many visions of grandeur...

doonerboy has no idea why he responded to my post, but he couldn't help himself. In fact, he agreed with my post. I'll bet he wasn't even aware of it until I just pointed it out.

Yes duncerboy, the word used to fit for interracial marriage, and it currently fits for gays. Any other questions, stupid?

You fruits have a hard time reading what is written. You just see my name and want to be first in line to get abused. It's really odd, but who am I to deny you guys the humiliation you seek?

"There are plenty of people who would say that those are creations of Satan."

Really, so satan made gay bees, chimpanzees that steal and bribe, crocodiles that eat their young and so on....

I thought there was only one creator??

LM

"There are plenty of people who would say that those are creations of Satan."

Satan is a myth for idiots.
There are plenty of idiots.

"So, when people say that gays are the new blacks, so to speak, it is a stretch to say the least"

What about a gay black man, he isn't persucated more than most? All ethnicities consider the term faggot derogatory, so if being called a fag is worse than kike, nigger, spic or kracker then there would certainly appear to fit the notion of gays are the new blacks.

LM

"Sorry Mary, I forgot to post the part of the IRS law I cited:"

Bartimus:

I do understand your point, and I don't seriously think for an instant that the Mormons or the Catholics would see their tax-exempt statuses revoked. But because of the scope of the organization that was brought to bear on Prop. 8 (much of it originated in Utah, with considerable interstate travel and organization involved, to say nothing of fund-raising), it might be enough for the IRS to tell both churches that they should be far more circumspect in future, or face investigation. That should back off both religions somewhat; they may not fear anything else, but IRS investigations and audits would give the Pope pause.

And again, I don't think Prop. 8 should have been on the ballot in the first place, due to it amounting to a constitutional revision.

"As we both know James Earl Ray has nothing to do with the thread or the fact you got bitch slapped. Own your defeat simpleton."

Really, just like I gave you my pimp hand on the definition you riled others to know and didn't know how to apply yourself.....you are the bitch who was slapped!

LM

Really, just like I gave you my pimp hand on the definition you riled others to know and didn't know how to apply yourself.....you are the bitch who was slapped!

LM

#257 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2008-11-10 04:36 PM | Reply

You've been tugging on my pant leg all day little man. What is it I can do for you? If I had a piece of hard candy I'd give it to you just so you'd go away.

Explain yourself so I can dribble you around just like I've been doing to that stooge Briwo.

...Gotta admit, though, the usage of chain hoists in a sex act excited me a little.

#142 | Posted by goatman at 2008-11-10 03:07 AM

Hmm, might be fun to try something new, at least once. lol

So, when people say that gays are the new blacks, so to speak, it is a stretch to say the least.

#248 | Posted by everlong

I'm sure that Matthew Sheppard and others like him would strongly disagree, if they could. However, it doesn't matter. This isn't an issue of degree. The prejudice is of a moral equivalence, which is to say that they're both wrong. You have only made it a matter of degree to justify your own prejudice.

Chair,

You like to throw around the term lil a lot.....sounds like you have a complex there or been staring in the mirror at yourself naked again. Can you fess up an admit you were wrong saying interrracial marraige doesn't fit the definition of deviancy......no cuz you full o'shit windbag. You tried to rip someone for not knowing the definition and how to use it when you yourself had no fucking clue......

What can you do for me?? Admit you were wrong.....or are ya scared to admit your mistake?

You probably do want to dribble my around, around your lips and down down your throat, just like you do on those saturday nights with your boy toy.

LM

Black is obvious. Unless you're Monroe gay, or taht freak from Entertainment Tonight Gay, nobody will know when you walk down the street.

Sure gays are discriminated against, but to even allude to it being anywhere near blacks is absurd.

"Matthew Sheppard! Matthew Sheppard!"...Repat that name all you want. The fact you know one name isn't impressive in the least. In fact, it should clue you in to the fact that the reason that name stands out is because it was so out of the ordinary and shocking that the nation took notice.

You like to throw around the term lil a lot.....sounds like you have a complex there or been staring in the mirror at yourself naked again. Can you fess up an admit you were wrong saying interrracial marraige doesn't fit the definition of deviancy......no cuz you full o'shit windbag. You tried to rip someone for not knowing the definition and how to use it when you yourself had no fucking clue......

#261 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2008-11-10 04:54 PM

Correcting dumbasses like you is getting old. Interracial marriage USED to be considered a deviancy (out of societal norms). Society no longer has such a taboo do they? A few here, a few there, but not to the point of it being a societal norm.

So, in your haste to get humiliated you made the same mistake as Briwo. You fruitcakes refuse to see what is written, just who wrote it. Then you beg and beg for a an exchange that always ends the same way, with me dribbling you.

I don't expect you to admit you misread what I wrote.

Last night I watched part of the Masterpiece Theater's "God on Trial." Chapters 12 and 13 really gave me pause:

"Matthew Sheppard! Matthew Sheppard!"...Repat that name all you want. The fact you know one name isn't impressive in the least.

#262 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Well, then how about:

Lawrence King
Steven Domer
Michael Sandy
Satender Singh
Richie Phillips
Jason Gage
Scott Weaver

To name just a few more.

Calling somebody a deviant is a value judgment -- it's saying they're not normal and you are.

If we're just going to define "deviancy" as anything that deviates from the norm, then people who get married once and stay married are deviants. More than 50 percent of first marriages for men and women under 45 end in divorce.

Always knew I was a freak.

Well, then how about:

To name just a few more.

#265 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-10 05:02 PM | Reply

You'll need to go back to your vistim site and find 1,000's upon 1,000's more for you to get anyone to buy in to gays being comparable to blacks.

Knock yourself out, but the argument is a losing one.
I could spot a black guy 2 blocks away. How close does somebody need to be to you to know you're gay? Do you really think you've got it anywhere near that of a black guy even today, let alone 50 years ago?

On a lighter note, sort of, there is Bill Maher's new film, "Religulous." I haven't seen it yet, but I did see a clip in which Maher is interviewing a guy who says, "No one is born gay." To which Maher responds, "Have you ever met Little Richard?"

Calling somebody a deviant is a value judgment -- it's saying they're not normal and you are.

If we're just going to define "deviancy" as anything that deviates from the norm, then people who get married once and stay married are deviants. More than 50 percent of first marriages for men and women under 45 end in divorce.

Always knew I was a freak.

#266 | Posted by rcade at 2008-11-10 05:09 PM | Reply

In NY, a hot day in December isn't deviant, it's out of the norm.

The fact I can claim something that is a proven fact and still get the puppets riled is hilarious. Words have definitions. That's not my doing. If the shoe fits and all that.

"Religulous." I haven't seen it yet

-Gal Tuesday

It's great.

Personally, I am glad that homosexuality is becoming accepted as "normal".

I have some gay friends and relatives who are anything but 'abnormal' or 'deviant'.

Granted, the thought of getting it on with a guy nauseates me, but so does the thought of getting it on with a woman who is a total heffer.

To each their own.

I do think the one crucial mistake, tactically, that the gay crew is making toward their cause of being able to marry is one of language.

Be pragmatic. For now, focus on the legal end of things and strive for "civil unions". Don't call gay-marriage "marriage". If the gay crew would strive for civil unions, which legally are structured the same as heterosexual marriages, they would achieve their goals more quickly.

Do it incrementally and it will work out. Stive for quick, radical change and acceptance and it will take longer.

"Correcting dumbasses like you is getting old. Interracial marriage USED to be considered a deviancy (out of societal norms). Society no longer has such a taboo do they? A few here, a few there, but not to the point of it being a societal norm."

Chair what is the definition of deviancy, not your definition, but webster's.

If you meant interrracial marriage is no longer taboo you should have said it, just because a practice is accepted deosn't make it a standard or a norm. The fact that you like to snowball your boyfriend is a deviant behavior, just because pther people accept it and do it, that doesn't make it the norm or the standard. So until interracial marriage becomes more prevalent the same racial marriages it will be deviant behavior. That is a fact, so are you ready to say interracial marriage is deviant behavior or are you trying to imply it's ther norm?

LM

"In NY, a hot day in December isn't deviant, it's out of the norm"

Holy shit you proved my point, dumb fuck it's not called deviant but it is called to deviate, same root word and same definition but due to english language different grammar spelling. How does it feel to have your ass handed to you on a consistent basis. Does looking so fucking dumb make you feel good, you righties are strange.

You are right on fact is fact unfortunately you don't know any.

LM

Liberal Mongrel,

I oughta kick yer teeth in!!!

I do think the one crucial mistake, tactically, that the gay crew is making toward their cause of being able to marry is one of language.

Be pragmatic. For now, focus on the legal end of things and strive for "civil unions". Don't call gay-marriage "marriage". If the gay crew would strive for civil unions, which legally are structured the same as heterosexual marriages, they would achieve their goals more quickly.

Do it incrementally and it will work out. Stive for quick, radical change and acceptance and it will take longer.

Hey Jeff,

I agree with you on this. I realize that civil unions rather than marriage seems like "separate but unequal" to most gay couples, but, like all advances in civil rights, these things take time. We can make laws that help insure equality, but we can't legislate the heart. For good or ill, it takes time for people to have a change of heart, a change of consciousness and conscience.

Sure gays are discriminated against, but to even allude to it being anywhere near blacks is absurd.

#262 | Posted by 101Chairborne

For you to agree that it's okay to prevent gays from having the same rights in a relationship with another consenting adult is prejudice. My point remains that this prejudice is wrong no matter what the degree. I don't give a shit which one you or anyone else thinks may be worse. Stop trying to dilute the debate with an argument over volume of prejudice.

Be pragmatic. For now, focus on the legal end of things and strive for "civil unions". Don't call gay-marriage "marriage". If the gay crew would strive for civil unions, which legally are structured the same as heterosexual marriages, they would achieve their goals more quickly.

Do it incrementally and it will work out. Stive for quick, radical change and acceptance and it will take longer.

#271 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-11-10 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yeah like fuck the White Race had to go through stages to gain their equal rights Oops sorry that was wrong they didn't. Fuck that JeffJ Why can't the Bigots just fucking mind their own businesses and stay out of Gay and Lesbian Marriages. I mean what business is it of theirs if two guys or two gals get Marriegd. It ain't like they will be living under the same roof. Equal Rights for ALL God damned it.

Larry

"Liberal Mongrel,

I oughta kick yer teeth in!!!"

Iz from arkansas so iz only gots but one......please don't kick in my toof.....

LM

Sorry arKANSAS people it was a bad joke....

I agree with you on this. I realize that civil unions rather than marriage seems like "separate but unequal" to most gay couples, but, like all advances in civil rights, these things take time. We can make laws that help insure equality, but we can't legislate the heart. For good or ill, it takes time for people to have a change of heart, a change of consciousness and conscience.

#275 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2008-11-10 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The Longer You wait the longer it will take the molre rights To vwill have denied aGay and Lesbian Couples. I mean what do You say to the Guy who is dying in the Hospital their Spouse can't make legal claims to do the necessary things like pull the plug if necessary that sort of thing. While AMerica waits to make these folks equal the longer it will take. It needs to go to the Supreme Court and they will have to make them Legal. Some people will call that Judicial Activism I say BULLSHIT. When the Majority denies the minority their equal rights the Courts must do it for them. Never fails.

Larry

Larry,

I think having a civil union allows gay couples to have a voice in a dying partner's hospital treatment. I hope so anyway. You are right that the courts will have to intervene. Separate but equal isn't equal.

Gail and Jeff,
I agree with you two 100%.

Marriage as contract law is neither exclusive nor inclusive anyone can be married under today's marriage laws.

The issue with gay marriage is it is an amendment to existing marriage codes and statues that people do not want to grant. It is what it is.

Now civil unions are new contract codes and guidelines that need to be developed in order to suite the needs of those that would enter such a contract.

Eventually the two shall meet somewhere in the middle at some point in time. Just not now. But with patience and forethought it will come.

Civil rights are not given overnight, it takes time to adjust people to new ways of thinking.

Larry #279
With Advanced Directives the partner of anyone can and will have full access and control of a loved one's care in the hospital. You should have one drawn up and waiting in case of an accident.

Prolix the Gay or Lesbian couple shouldn't have to have that fucking thing. Straight Couples don't.

Larry

Straight unmarried couples do. I had to get one before when I had knee Surgery and wanted to ensure my future wife was fully involved with every aspect of my surgery. It is a hassle but it can be done.

I'm sure you are. Anything to avoid admitting you were wrong.

As we both know James Earl Ray has nothing to do with the thread or the fact you got bitch slapped. Own your defeat simpleton.

#249 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-11-10 04:12 PM |

You keep saying it, but I'm not seeing any proof. If anything I owned you like I always do.

Good Boy. Here's a biscuit. Go lay down.

So Larry, tell me, is all you want to do is complain because you did not get what you think you deserve or are you truly looking for answers to help you and your partner get along in this lifetime?

You see there are millions of straight couples who are in the same boat you are in (I was one of them). They are just taking what rights they do posses and using them to their advantage. You should do the same.

What happens if in your life their never is gay marriage. Will you die bitter and angry?

I say be happy and live well because that is the best revenge.

This was not a "ban" on same sex marriage. This was a measure to define marriage in the CA Constitution as valid between one man and one woman.

This is not stopping gays and lesbians from having their unions blessed or valid between themselves.

It is not within the definition of marriage.

They still get to be together, no one is stopping that.

----------

Why aren't the protestors out in front of black churches? Afterall, 70% of blacks voted Yes on Prop 8.

Why are they protesting at all?

And what is up with Arnie? He voted down the measure sent to his desk twice by the legislature--Twice!

Now he says they should keep on fighting??

The people have voted--move on. This is not civil rights--ridiculous...

And to single out the Mormons or the Catholics is bigotry pure and simple.

This was not a hard issue to dismantle and decide on which way to vote. Although Jerry Brown tried his hardest to word it as an opposite.

CA joins FL and AZ and 36 other states that the people have voted to change their constitutions to define a valid marriage as a one man and one woman.

It is not a ban on same sex marriage. They still have civil unions and blessed unions within churches that decide to do so.

It is simply not a valid marriage.

Dictionary definition of civil rights:

Right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality

I would say civil unions provide for legal and economic equality but not social equality. Just my 2 cents.

"The issue with gay marriage is it is an amendment to existing marriage codes and statues that people do not want to grant."

The issue actually is that the civil rights of others is something that other people have no right to grant or withhold. When Barack Obama's parents married in 1960, their interracial marriage was illegal in about half the states in America, because that was what "The People" wanted. "The People" were largely in favor of segregation, of discrimination, of all-white restaurants, of "Colored" water fountains and seating areas in movie theatres and on buses and, oh, damn near everywhere.

Well, the fact was, it wasn't really up to "The People" to decide what a black person's civil rights were; those rights were guaranteed in the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to put states and localities on notice that people's civil rights weren't up to them, nor were those rights up to voters - they were inalienable rights.

You can argue through your veils of prejudice and thump your Bibles all you want to. You can suggest "separate but equal" arrangements. The fact remains that the Constitution of this nation either means something, or it does not. Its provisions of equality mean exactly that, or they don't. Its guarantees that inalienable rights will be protected means just that, or they don't. It protections of minorities from the majority mean something, or they don't.

Like Michael Douglas said in The American President: "America is advanced citizenship - you gotta want it bad." For too long, the impressionable and the selfish in this nation have clamored, long and loud and ugly, that they gotta right to this and that. Well, it's time for a new beginning along with this new President we've elected, and the best place it could start is for Americans to begin to grapple with the fact that the other guy has a right, no matter how much it pains or inconveniences or enrages any one of us to see that other guy exercise it.

You don't like the idea of two men being married? Then don't go to their wedding. Don't like to see people in their birthday suits on a nude beach? Your neck swivels for a reason. Don't like what you read in the paper or in a book, or what you hear on TV or radio? Put it down, close it up, turn it off. That is how you exercise your so-called "right" not to be offended, a right that is nowhere guaranteed anyway.

This is a slippery slope, folks. The day that we have it graven in our Constitution that some people are not equal is the day we're on our way to deciding who else has rights and who does not. The day that religions begin to decide what our laws are is the day that we are vulnerable to religious wars - do you think that other religions will just want to stand by and twiddle their thumbs and let Christian religions decide everything?

We are a secular, Constitutionally-based country for a reason. Our Founding Fathers had seen plenty of religious conflicts and ukases in their time, and while they still believed in God and wanted religion to flourish, they did their damndest to protect future generations from what they'd been put through. High time America listened to them.

And to single out the Mormons or the Catholics is bigotry pure and simple.

Some people voted against gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. Should constitutional amendments be determined by the religious beliefs of some members of society?

#291 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-11-10 07:43 PM |

Yep, pretty much answers the question I just asked.

Some people voted against gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. Should constitutional amendments be determined by the religious beliefs of some members of society?

some people voted for gay marriage because of their anti-religious beliefs. Should constitutional amendments be determined by the anti-religious beliefs of some members of society?

It's really odd, but who am I to deny you guys the humiliation you seek?

#252 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-11-10 04:21 PM

Chairpuddles is a very odd creature...and he says so much shit it is hard not to take exception with most of it.

To CalChris-

I read your very thoughtful post # 118 and subsequent adds. I must admit I thought it was Johnson at first and skipped it as it was so weldy. But, after I read it I realized you are just promoting the old separate but equal mentality in a new and excitingly religious way. In addition, you went on to accuse the gays of redefining marraige aka: If gays can redefine marriage well then so can ....

People are beginning to think gays just like to fight about the issue and the get the last word on redefining "marriage" and maybe it's not really so much about their equal rights like they say it is, but more liking to just get in your face.

did you realize that the gays did not put this proposition on the ballot? This was put there by The Mormon Church. Catholic groups. Evangelicals. Militant fundamentalists. Reclusive, sickly, notoriously right-wing billionaires like Howard Ahmanson, a guy who also funded a radical Christian theologian madman who himself endorses stoning gay people to death. The mother of Eric Prince, CEO of the notorious Blackwater thugs-for-hire company.

I believe it is more likely that "No on 8 was a bad campaign. Bad bad bad. Inept, amateurish, incompetent and, above all, guilty of committing the first and worst sin of politics: taking the voters for granted." is true!

The voters were actually fooled once again by the old Rovian tactic of bait and switch! Do you realize how much Mormon money was spent to influence this election. Are you not upset by this at all?

As a Californian I am offended by these outsiders trying to change the intent of my Constitution. This is not what California is about and I believe once the good people of California realize what has been done to them they will denounce this last ditch effort by the Religious Zealots to undermine the intentions of our Constitution and support the rejection of this amendment.

That is if this Proposition is ever actually enacted. I think there may be Constitutional grounds to throw it out. Then what a REAL waste of time and money this will have been.

You'll need to go back to your vistim site and find 1,000's upon 1,000's more for you to get anyone to buy in to gays being comparable to blacks.

#267 | Posted by 101Chairborne

You can be just a flippant as you like about human lives. Some of us don't need a "victim site". We know their names.

I certainly never said gay people have suffered or died to the magnitude that equals the evil of slavery. What I did say is that injustice and discrimination is equally evil, no matter to whom it is directed.

If we're just going to define "deviancy" as anything that deviates from the norm, then people who get married once and stay married are deviants. More than 50 percent of first marriages for men and women under 45 end in divorce.

Always knew I was a freak.

#266 | Posted by rcade at 2008-11-10 05:09 PM | Reply

Well, when my divorce finally goes thru at least then I won't be a deviate and freak like you! I will be just like the more than 50 percent of first marriages that failed. Only took me 20 years to become normal again.

yea me!

ALL HOMOS SHALL BURN IN HELL............

#4 | Posted by LeeAtwater at 2008-11-09 08:05 PM

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

What price range are you considering?

" ... like all advances in civil rights, these things take time."

Only a half century ago, Gal T, black folks heard the same mantra. Now we have O'Bama. When do you think that folks who prefer the company of their own gender will be ready for a bite at the apple?

It seems Mr. Vato is channeling the late Rev. Phelps, who (no doubt) is now very aware of how hot his new climes are.

"(no doubt)"

bullshit

He's dead.
Buy a brain, there are obviously a lot of un-used ones about.

#17 | Posted by briwo at 2008-11-09 08:51 PM

Boaz, if I remember right, you are African American?

You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.

Now Briwo assumes the moral authority" to relegate blacks to a limited set of permitted views because "they" are black. Blacks may not express a range of views that others are permitted without being chastised by supedrior white folks, who believe the range of black views must necessarily be limited to conform to the views of lefties. You are compelled to march in lockstep by virtue of your color, or be subjected to obloquy, ridicule, and contempt for having the temerity for having views as a human being and American citizen. Being black limits your freedom to have the same range of views as others. Got it.

You surely are one imperious guy there, Briwo. Dang these darkies who don't know their place, and who step off of the plantation without permission from the slavemasters, er thoughtmasters. You are a gracious master, Briwo, who only has "their" wellbeing in mind. Being freethinkers can harm "these people."

Cabo,

"ALL HOMOS SHALL BURN IN HELL"

Might I assume you are a religious man? Your reference to homo's burning in hell is based on something Biblical?

One of the highly quoted verses condemning homosexuals from the Bible is contained in 1st Corinthians.

"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

I have always been intrigued where Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew,

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

What does Jesus mean?

I think He was saying exactly what it sounds like He is saying.

Straight sinners are exactly the same as homosexual sinners in the eyes of God. Period.

Of course, I do believe we are all sinners and must ask God to be forgiven and accept Jesus into our heart lest we be condemned for our sins, but my point is straight people are absolutely no better than any homosexuals.

Your blanket condemnation of gays can also be directed at anyone who has, "looked at a woman lustfully".

Or put another way, "Judge not lest ye be judged".

#22 | Posted by onna at 2008-11-09 08:58 PM

Hey, God is a trinity, all male, does that possibly mean that God is gay? Wow, Jesus and the 12 disciples, all male and hanging together. All gay?

if God is gay then why hate gays?

When I was in the service, we courtmaritaled a "person," for homosexual conduct. He was not happy about what he felt was being singled out. He told me that "he knew" what other men did when they were alone. He projected his own urges and behavior on others as he considered that the norm.

Now you conisder that when 13 men hang out together, they are bound to engage in homosexual activity, onna? Okay. Got it.

Only a half century ago, Gal T, black folks heard the same mantra. Now we have O'Bama. When do you think that folks who prefer the company of their own gender will be ready for a bite at the apple?

They are ready now, and if I ever have the chance to vote on an amendment to outlaw gay marriage in NY state, I will vote against it. My point is only that many people in this country don't agree with me. I hope it doesn't take half a century for gays to get the kind of acceptance they are entitled to and deserve. My guess is that these amendments will be found unconstitutional, sooner rather than later. How long it will take to change the hearts of anti-gay marriage voters I can't say.

"You surely are one imperious guy there, Briwo. Dang these darkies who don't know their place, and who step off of the plantation without permission from the slavemasters, er thoughtmasters. You are a gracious master, Briwo, who only has "their" wellbeing in mind. Being freethinkers can harm 'these people.'"

Um, actually, Johnson, it sounds to me like Briwo considers Boaz a full and equal participant in the discussion, who is responsible for his views. Boaz is entitled to believe what he pleases, and to say what he likes. The rest of us are entitled to tell him we think he's full of shit if we think he's full of shit. To avoid doing that because we know Boaz is African-American would be real patronization.

And since the government is made up "by the people, for the people", how do you reconcile the fact that you believe Prop 8 is illegal vs. the fact that people have stated that gay marriage is not legal? After all, don't all rights come from the government (people)?

#204 | Posted by bartimus at 2008-11-10 12:38 PM | Reply

If you think this government is "by the people, for the people, you probably think all people who go to church are good people.

Gays ARE "the people". Blacks ARE "the people". liberals ARE "the people". Asians ARE "the people".
Transexuals ARE the "people". Lesbians ARE the people". Tree huggers ARE "the people".

Did you only think assholes like yourself were the only "the people"?

"The people" you talk about are not Americans---they are American citizens only---mostly conservatives or republicans who have no love or understanding of what America is all about.

America is about FREEDOM---for ALL "the people" that are her citizens, if those freedoms hurt no one else.

Gay marriage will have no effect on your life. You are simply anti-freedom for some of "the people" who make up this great country. A country whose citizenship you don't deserve since you are anti-America, and anti-freedom.

Simple isn't it.

;-)

"To avoid doing that because we know Boaz is African-American would be real patronization." MTW

If he stated his views, and they were attacked that would be reasonable, regardless of race. But to call one to have shame, because of thier race and the way they voted as a block, would be racist.

Well, MaryTyler, Boaz is being chastized because blacks are not permitted to hold certain views in Briwo's world. It's not the disagreement with Boaz' view, or chastising Boaz for his view, but that there is "racism" (which Briwo indicates he opposes) implicit in limiting blacks because they are black from views they may properly hold.

Lambaste Boaz, or anyone else all you want. Tell him that his views are untenable or that he's a jerk, or whatever. But it certainly is overbearing to tell him that a black person may not hold certain views because he is a black person.

By what warrant does Briwo get off being such a supercilious jerk dictating what it is proper or improper for a black person to believe "because of" his race.

"My point is only that many people in this country don't agree with me. I hope it doesn't take half a century for gays to get the kind of acceptance they are entitled to and deserve. My guess is that these amendments will be found unconstitutional..."

Can't argue with that, Gal T. My point is only that many people in this country don't agree with - er - us, but it's none of their goddam business. None! herm

Blind Man...you evidently missed the joke. I'm no more of fan of that Jeebus cult than you are.

I never miss.

I shot a perfect group at a Boy Scout competition at Ft Hood when I was 12.

POS gunny said I only shot the target once.

So I did it again while everybody watched.

A 'retired' Marine almost 20 years my senior just kicked ass at Camp Perry with a P E R F E C T score; His first ever and he's in his mid-70's.

Send us old farts to the border.

Send us old farts to the border.

#313 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-11-10 09:45 PM | Reply

What--you don't have a car?

"If he stated his views, and they were attacked that would be reasonable, regardless of race. But to call one to have shame, because of thier race and the way they voted as a block, would be racist."

I find it incredble that you are defending someone whose rights were fought for - to the death, in some instances - in his prejudice and his efforts to abrogate the rights of others.

I personally sat in a Presbyterian church in 1961 and heard the pastor tell his congregants that segregation was fully justified in the Bible because of Joshua 9:19-23, which says in part, "Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God." This supposed man of God interpreted his Bible as supporting the racism he embraced so whole-heartedly - so far as he was concerned, it was God's will that some of us should be inferior to the rest of us. I remember the reaction to his words, too: Well-coffed, nicely hatted heads went up and down, nodding in agreement - it was what these "nice" Southerners had heard all their lives, and it was something they believed in fiercely.

That was almost fifty years ago, and any clergyman preaching such a thing in a mainstream church today would cause an uproar. We have matured, we have grown, we have repented and changed, and some of us might even dimly realize that we're not very good interpreters of the word of God.

Boaz evidently does not know much about the Freedom Riders who gave their lives for his rights, or the politicians of the early '60s who put their careers on the line to do the right thing (Atlanta's Mayor of the time, Ivan Allen, used to tell people, "Don't leave it [desegregation] for the children to do," an argument that swayed more than one person). I wonder if he knows about the half-truths and unsubstantiated rumors in the FBI dossiers that still exist for Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. I wonder how much he knows about Watts burning, or the riots in Newark and Chicago and Buffalo and Louisville.

These things changed and stopped, at least in part, because people stopped interpreting the Bible to support their position of prejudice. Boaz is free to do as he pleases. But it would be great if extending the freedoms he enjoys to others pleased him more than it seems to at present.

Why should the power to be a party to a marriage agreement with certain constructive and implied rights in interpretation, developed over millennia in regard to a male-female coupling, be extended as appropriate for a particular paraphilia just because those suffering from a particular affliction want to pretend they are other than what they are as a result of their neurosis.

Now I'm generally a sympathetic and empathetic person, who doesn't want to cause others unnecessary and undue aggravation or distress, or even discomfort. But there comes a place where you need to draw the line.

I make an annual small contribution, for example, to a homeless shelter. But I have a family, and I would not invite derelicts into my home to alleviate their situation. I wouln't invite them to share my home even if I didn't have a family. There are limits to concessions and accommodations people make to accommodate others. There are too many consequences attendant to indulging the fiction that "marriage" with all of the legal ramifications, should apply to individuals suffering from this paraphilia, sexual arousal not congruent with their phenotypical identity.

It is not an obligation to society to indulge mental disorders and their attendant fantasies no matter how severe the neurosis is. Society is not a shelterd workshop or a mental hospital ward that accommodates dysfunction to such an extent. In terms of assembly and functioning of elements in a diverse society, it is incumbent upon the individuals with their individual differences to adapt to the society without imposing a burden on their fellows to adapt to their particular idiosyncracies.

A plea might be made for accommodation to the situations of those suffering from the paraphilia of homosexuality, who are subject to the delusion of the normalcy of their aberration, under the ADA. But the ego-dystonic nature of the condition makes that an untenable undertaking. It should, however, not be indulged under any circumstances as it places an undue burden on the remainder of the society in meeting the demands that would flow from the pretense that parties to a homosexual union are functionally entitled to the same considerations as those not suffering from the malady. Pretending the parties to such a union would be in a relationship to third parties that would be "the same" as that of parties to a heterosexual marriage, and using the compulsion of state power to enforce these demands would compromise the lives of others. Neuroses and madness of a group of individuals, whose nexus is their sickness, does not merit such consideration and convolution of societal norms to indulte them.

The establishment of "rights" in some, establishes reciprocal "liabilities" in others. Indulging dysfunction resulting in aberrant thought processes and actions as if they were normal, would result in placing undue burdens on other members of society.

"We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

So if one had a sexual orientation toward children, it would be wrong to discriminate against such a person?

He's dead.

#302 | Posted by Zatoichi

Fred's dead? Shit! When did that happen? I wanted to protest at his funeral!

Theonebs

You really are that stupid to ask such a question aren't you.

Really.

You really think children can make the same judgement adults can make. You really think a child in a relationship is equal to an adult in a relationship.

I can understand why you are a republican, you sick fuck.

315 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-11-10 10:19 PM

"If he stated his views, and they were attacked that would be reasonable, regardless of race. But to call one to have shame, because of thier race and the way they voted as a block, would be racist."

I find it incredble that you are defending someone whose rights were fought for - to the death, in some instances - in his prejudice and his efforts to abrogate the rights of others.

So, blacks bear the burden of gratitude? I may have an unorthodox view, but I think that whatever actions we take are essentially and ultimately to satisfy our own needs. Possibly you should be thankful to blacks for providing you with a cause that enabled you to satisfy some of your needs at the time.

You do assert that Boaz bears an additional obligation as a fully participating black liberated from the bonds of prejudice against blacks. You view him as not "free," but under a special and continuing obligation to assert a particular point of view, don't you MaryTyler?

You do realize that when Homosexual Marriages are denied by Heterosexuals BOTH Sexual Orientations are subjugated. One by Bigotry and Homophobia and the other by their bigotry and homophobia. So when Straights bring Gays and Lesbians down they bring themselves down too. Just a thought.

Larry

#319 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-11-10 10:34 P

You really think children can make the same judgement adults can make. You really think a child in a relationship is equal to an adult in a relationship.

Johnson:

If that's how you want to see it, so be it. The history of mankind is rife with instances of populations who escaped oppression, only to behave as badly as their oppressors ever did, or worse, the instant they had the means to do so. I guess Boaz is in good company.

Fred's dead?

Fred's dead, baby. Fred's dead.

Someone on this thread mentioned that Fred Phelps had died.

Keiths views on Gay Marriage.

What homosexuals seem to be seeking is third party recognition of their delusions.

"Fred's dead, baby. Fred's dead."

I think you're thinking of Jerry Falwell. Fred Phelps is still alive, if you call existing in a state of elemental rage living.

#323 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-11-10 10:58 PM

If that's how you want to see it, so be it.

I think that a gift or an act should be enjoyed for the feeling it bestows on the giver (or doer) and not because of some expectation of return as then, it is not "a gift." And if you enjoy "the act of giving" you will not be disappointed, as you may be if you expect reciprocity, and consider the transaction incomplete until there is reciprocity.

The history of mankind is rife with instances of populations who escaped oppression, only to behave as badly as their oppressors ever did, or worse, the instant they had the means to do so.

I guess Boaz is in good company.

"Indulging dysfunction resulting in aberrant thought processes and actions as if they were normal, would result in placing undue burdens on other members of society."

"I may have an unorthodox view, but I think that whatever actions we take are essentially and ultimately to satisfy our own needs."

"What homosexuals seem to be seeking is third party recognition of their delusions."

Just think - one person's (Johnson's) mind can conceive of all the above, all in one evening. And feel good about themselves, all at the same time!

#321 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-10 10:43 PM

You do realize that when Homosexual Marriages are denied by Heterosexuals BOTH Sexual Orientations are subjugated. One by Bigotry and Homophobia and the other by their bigotry and homophobia. So when Straights bring Gays and Lesbians down they bring themselves down too. Just a thought.

Larry, two same sex people who are aroused by and seek an intimate relationship with each other are suffering from an unnatural arousal, a paraphilia. They suffer from psychological problems. You are suggesting that society accommodate the delusions they suffer because they are afflicted by a neurosis. You suggest pretending that this malady of homosexual arousal, somehow is equivalent to and serves the same basis as a natural union based on physical compatibility. You want to pretend that a psychological aberration affecting two people should be indulged. The idea that "feelings" detached from a physical basis for a union, and based on a neurotic misperception of reality, is not sufficient cause for a society to alter its basic structure?

The idea is that "feelings" detached from a physical basis for a union, and based on a neurotic misperception of reality, is not sufficient cause for a society to alter its basic structure?

Johnson:

Hold it right there. When you refer to homosexual arousal as a "paraphilia", you are saying something in direct opposition to the position of the American Psychiatric Association, which removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders back in 1973. Unless you are head of that association, or at the very least, one of its members, you have no business naming something as a paraphilia when professionals say very explicitly that it is not.

No wonder you were for Palin. You've got truthiness leaking out your ears.

Johnson cares little for the truth. He has his right wing lies to fall back on.

Tron? now there is a blast from the past.

Will San fran win tonight?

Nope.

#333 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-11-10 11:52 PM

Hold it right there. When you refer to homosexual arousal as a "paraphilia", you are saying something in direct opposition to the position of the American Psychiatric Association, which removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders back in 1973. Unless you are head of that association, or at the very least, one of its members, you have no business naming something as a paraphilia when professionals say very explicitly that it is not.

#334 | Posted by tron at 2008-11-11 12:01 AM

Johnson cares little for the truth. He has his right wing lies to fall back on.

And the idea that two same sex persons don't possess complementary equipment is "a right wing lie."

Got it, tron. You may want to rethink what reality is and is not. But then again if you remain in thrall to an ideology, you'll believe whatever is necessary to sustain that ideology. I suppose that based on your ideology, there is "truth," and "left wing truth," and when they clash, you embrace "left wing truth." Congratulations on your mental agility.

Johnson the purpose of marriage is no longer just for reproduction. Marriage is now more psychological. Marriage also serves to legally protect a couples rights. One thing none of you right wingers can ever do is prove to me or anyone else is what harm it will cause to society.

Johnson,

You've made your point. How many times do you have to keep saying the same thing?

I think we have figured it out. You are pathologically homophobic.

Personally, I'm tired of seeing your posts. You have freedom of speech, generally speaking. But, you're stepped over the line on this website and have made a nuisance of yourself.

I don't believe anyone is asking you to have sex with a man.

The whole point of this mental exercise is not to point out our differences, but to point out our similarities. And those similarities include the right to enjoy the same freedoms and fulfillments as the straight community.

You might not understand why 2 gay men prefer having sex with each other, but you don't have to. And no one cares if you do.

Obviously, you are deliberately trying to be annoying, now.

I have flagged your post as abusive. You have stepped over a line.

You've no longer stating an opinion. You're trying to be a pest.

Bill Johnson said,

Johnson,

You've made your point. How many times do you have to keep saying the same thing?

I think we have figured it out. You are pathologically homophobic.

Personally, I'm tired of seeing your posts. You have freedom of speech, generally speaking. But, you're stepped over the line on this website and have made a nuisance of yourself.

I don't believe anyone is asking you to have sex with a man.

The whole point of this mental exercise is not to point out our differences, but to point out our similarities. And those similarities include the right to enjoy the same freedoms and fulfillments as the straight community.

You might not understand why 2 gay men prefer having sex with each other, but you don't have to. And no one cares if you do.

Obviously, you are deliberately trying to be annoying, now.

I have flagged your post as abusive. You have stepped over a line.

You've no longer stating an opinion. You're trying to be a pest.

Reply:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts (letting them flag as abusive those posts that went contrary to their self delusion), and their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion....Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them....while attempting to ban from their perverse web-site those who bear witness to the truth.

Hey Theo,
Ever wear a poly-cotton shirt, sport a fresh haircut, or nibble on shrimp cocktail?

Theo - ever enjoyed a breakfast of ham & eggs, or assisted in stoning to death a disobedient child

post #317
"We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

So if one had a sexual orientation toward children, it would be wrong to discriminate
against such a person?

post #318

Theonebs
You really are that stupid to ask such a question aren't you. Really.

You really think children can make the same judgement adults can make. You really think a child in a relationship is equal to an adult in a relationship.

So Bob, you seem to be saying that it is quite possible for a person to engage in immoral behavior, even if that someone is acting in accord with his/her sexual orientation?

I would agree!

Holy shit you proved my point, dumb fuck it's not called deviant but it is called to deviate, same root word and same definition but due to english language different grammar spelling. How does it feel to have your ass handed to you on a consistent basis. Does looking so fucking dumb make you feel good, you righties are strange.

You are right on fact is fact unfortunately you don't know any.

LM

#273 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2008-11-10 05:30 PM | Reply

You just don't know when to stfu do you? The word has a definition. Look it up you dumb bastard. Here's a hint...I've looked it up, I've also mentioned "societal norms" at least 5 times. Do you think there is a reason I keep mentioneing "societal norms"? The key words being "societal" and "norms"?

Maybe somebody could let you in on a secret...You are losing this argument badly.

You keep saying it, but I'm not seeing any proof. If anything I owned you like I always do.

Good Boy. Here's a biscuit. Go lay down.

#286 | Posted by briwo at 2008-11-10 07:20 PM | Reply

Too dumb to look up the definition of deviancy as well I see.

You're dumber than a bag of rocks.

Oh, ye gods.

Johnson, sorry I debated you; you obviously love to twist a grain of fact into something supporting your Westboro Baptist Church position. You sound intelligent up to a point, but then that extreme-right stealth thing kicks in and reasonableness takes a hike.

Has it ever occurred to you that every man who likes other guys leaves that many more women free for you to enjoy?

Or isn't that helping?

Since the right(Johnson and/or Theo) is into "societal norms" and "definitions" today, here's a couple of words for them to Google and explore. Hysteria and miscegenation. They'll find the language different but the arguments the same.

Has it ever occurred to you that every man who likes other guys leaves that many more women free for you to enjoy?

#347 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

If by "enjoy" you mean crouching in the shrubs outside windows where the shades aren't completely drawn, then yes.

- Johnsonless

Holy shiznit! What arrogance of that author. Does the "will of the people" mean NOTHING?

Why don't those of you who think homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue work to change the hearts and minds of our nation?

...That works! That's what the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King did: he changed the collective heart of our nation, THEN the laws changed.

Instead, people like the author linked here simply "preaches" on how ignorant and backward vast majorities of our states are.

I never would've voted for Obama but I don't say the same thing about the electorate who voted him POTUS.

Ahhh yes! The typical tactics of the left when they realize the failure of their arguments, and they can no longer debate. Attack the messenger!

Let's try again,

IF there should not be discrimination against homosexuals for acting homosexually, for they are simply abiding by their orientation, can we say the same for the one whose sexual orientation is toward children, or animals?

Does "orientation" free one to behave in a way consonant with his/her orientation, and still remain "equal" in a society?

Does the concept of consenting adults, legally entitled in all other capacities to enter into a contract, mean anything to you?

That would preclude animals and children.

can we say the same for the one whose sexual orientation is toward children, or animals?

Last I checked animals can't consent and I could make a good rational argument that children couldn't either.

So go ahead a throw that idiotic garbage out there, it just makes you look stupid.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

--slavery DOES still exist. You can do like a pastor I know and buy/take a slave, then set them free. You DO KNOW Christians led the Abolitionist movement here and in the UK, right?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can anybody settle this?

--Israel was a constitutional republic, not a democracy, not a theocracy (similar to the US).
The DIETARY laws were changed, and no food is disallowed.

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

--no wiggle room, sorry.
However Jesus was the last sacrifice so you'll have to talk to Him. Maybe he'll heal you from wearing glasses like He did my friend and my friend's wife.

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident a Christian can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.#4 | Posted by LeeAtwater at 2008-11-09 08:05 PM Reply

God's nature and the nature of His Word is eternal and unchanging. That doesn't mean that someone or something 3500 years earlier (Genesis) is in the same governmental system or heart condition as someone under Nero's rule (who lit the streets of Rome with Christians burning and hanging on posts on the way to the Coliseum).

(I answer as if there is still a feeling heart inside of you not covered over with anger and sarcasm)

"You DO KNOW Christians led the Abolitionist movement here and in the UK, right?"

Yes I did know that.

Did YOU know that the Christian denomination that lead the abolitionist movement, and defended the Amistad slaves was the Congregationalists, the forerunner of today's United Church of Christ?

The denomination that ordained the first black, the first woman and the first openly gay ministers... The denomination that now supports same-sex marriage and other civil rights for gays.

Does the concept of consenting adults, legally entitled in all other capacities to enter into a contract, mean anything to you?

That would preclude animals and children.

#352 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

can we say the same for the one whose sexual orientation is toward children, or animals?

Last I checked animals can't consent and I could make a good rational argument that children couldn't either.

So go ahead a throw that idiotic garbage out there, it just makes you look stupid.

#353 | Posted by moneywar

So let me understand. The concept "consenting adult" is what determines one's rights in a society? As long as two adults "consent" to something, they should be free under the law, and not be targets for discrimination for consenting?

And yet one of the posters here also stated that one's "sexual orientation" should not be a disqualifying factor...should not be a reason for a society to discriminate against any of its citizens.

Do you agree or not, There are some sexual expressions that are wrong, regardless of the person's orientation! Therefore "sexual orientation" should not be a distnguished category for the civil rights of a nation's citizens, and a nation may indeed discriminate against certain behaviors springing from certain orientations.

" .... a nation may indeed discriminate against certain behaviors springing from certain orientations."...#356 | Posted by TheO

Even separate but equal doesn't do it for Theo. He wants separate and unequal. We've been down that road before:

Egg on my face. I thought Phelps was deceased. Wishful thinking on my part, I'm afraid.

"A man and a woman have compatible physical organs that fit to assemble into a complete unit." - Johnson

I would suggest that by Johnson's definition, those who have the "receptacle" as opposed to "the plug" should keep your distance from him.

It's revealing that he never seems to give "emotion" a role in his analysis of what is acceptable or "normal".

Even separate but equal doesn't do it for Theo. He wants separate and unequal. We've been down that road before:

www.towleroad.com

BlueInBush, I noticed the picture from your link didn't have a picture of a separate water fountain for pedophiles? Theirs is a sexual orientation too, and are members of our society.

I certainly hope you're progressive enough to have moved beyond pedophopia? Pedophiles, like Blacks and homosexuals before them, are a marginalized group who are unfairly discriminated against. They did not choose their orientation. It is part of who they are as human beings, and who are we to judge?

It's time that our nation shows equality toward all. Any form of discrimination is WRONG!!! Pedophobic bigotry is just as atrocious as racism and homphobism. I'm sure you'd agree?

"Maybe somebody could let you in on a secret...You are losing this argument badly."

Hahahahah, you are tho dumbass that used the definition of deviant to define a weather deviation and then tried to claim it's not a deviation. YOu claim it's just outside the norm, if you understood the definition, here I will post it for you:

One question wheelchair, is the norm in america for whites to marry whites, blacks with blacks and asians with asians and on down the line, or do you see more interracial marriages. One is the norm and one deviates from the norm, I'll let your lil brain try to comprehend this!!

LM

I love how the right tries to trot out homosexuality as non-natural. Again someone please refute the fact that homsexuality occurs in nature(among other animals than human). If it does then it must be natural....doesn't mean it's a norm, because it deviates from the normal, but it's still natural.

Additionally how does pedophilia compare to homosexuality or beastiality? Neither of these allows one of the participants the choice of free will, and it is certainly true that a child lacks the understanding and comprehension skills to discern adult relationships.

LM

"Maybe he'll heal you from wearing glasses like He did my friend and my friend's wife."

Holy shit, jebsus does lasik surgery now........

LMAO

LM

There are cases in nature where a rise in homosexual behavior in animals tends to happen when there are over population problems; kind of nature's way of slowing the problem down. With almost 7 billion people currently on the planet, could the rise in homosexual behavior in humans be related to the samething?

Another question is, while the numbers of people who are homosexual are increasing, is the total percent of the population rising as well or remaining constant? With a rise in the number of humans, there will be a rise in the number of homosexual humans, but 5% may still be 5% or whatever teh number is.

"There are cases in nature where a rise in homosexual behavior in animals tends to happen when there are over population problems; kind of nature's way of slowing the problem down."

I am curious to see examples of this, I dont doubt it, it makes sense, especially when one considers when there is a decrease in a population polygamy occurs in nature(just a side note so does cannabilism). Examples of both of these are witnessed in snake populations, chimps, gorillas, whales, starfish, jellyfish, sharks and so on....

LM

LM,
I cannot remember the exact case (I know standard for BS online, but this is real), but I want to say it was with Penguins. I will look it up and see if I can find teh case.

Theonebs: You've got to be fucking kidding. Your argument is fucking fantastic... except for the OBVIOUS fact that children are vulnerable and easily taken advantage of. There's a reason they can't vote or be tried in court as an adult until their 18: they aren't adults, who are considered generally capable of making thoughtful decisions with the means to protect themselves vis-a-vis said decisions. Please, don't haul out that tired old canard, trying to dress it up as a valid argument. Its pathetic and I truly hope I missed some sort of valid sarcasm on your part.

Thanks Rei,

Evolutions rainbow, sounds like an informative read, I will have to investigate.

LM

Liberal Mongrel,

I noticed you failed to address the question and the argument, but again resorted to your effete hysterics. Did you break a fingernail today?

Again, can you demonstrate why one "sexual orientation" is to be preferred over another?

When one of us says that one type of sexual behavior is to be preferred over homosexual, he/she is quickly labelled a homophobe. Indeed, many a homosexual will engage in histrionic type behavior of name calling, railing against the one who says this. The homosexual wants all to believe that his is just an orientation which merrits equality, if not some favor, by society.

But what of the pedophile who says the same? His is also an orientation. But the homosexual, not wanting his argument to be sullied by the vile pedophile comparison, will again engage in histrionics, putting on an air of moral superiority over such a comparison. Yet the same effete man cannot demonstrate his case, but only engage in more effete histrionics. Might it not be accurately labelled "pedophobic histrionics"?

Or maybe you're just having a bad hair day LM? Or perhaps your mascara is running?

Theonebs: You've got to be fucking kidding. Your argument is fucking fantastic... except for the OBVIOUS fact that children are vulnerable and easily taken advantage of. There's a reason they can't vote or be tried in court as an adult until their 18: they aren't adults, who are considered generally capable of making thoughtful decisions with the means to protect themselves vis-a-vis said decisions. Please, don't haul out that tired old canard, trying to dress it up as a valid argument. Its pathetic and I truly hope I missed some sort of valid sarcasm on your part.

#368 | Posted by apparatchik

And you OBVIOUSLY can't attend to the subject. The question is, "Does orientation make the behavior right?" And "Is sexual orientation a legitimate category for civil rights?"

Homosexuals want to make the case that homosexual behavior is legitimate because the homosexual was born with this "orientation." But can't a pedophile say the same? And thus, can't the pedophile legitimize his behavior by the same rationale? Obviously the answer for you is "NO!" So then the homosexual must find another way, else all manner of sexual expression may be legitimized.

If you could, please contain your effete side for a moment, and answer the questions.

There are cases in nature where a rise in homosexual behavior in animals tends to happen when there are over population problems; kind of nature's way of slowing the problem down. With almost 7 billion people currently on the planet, could the rise in homosexual behavior in humans be related to the samething?

Another question is, while the numbers of people who are homosexual are increasing, is the total percent of the population rising as well or remaining constant? With a rise in the number of humans, there will be a rise in the number of homosexual humans, but 5% may still be 5% or whatever teh number is.

#365 | Posted by kanrei

Kanrei, in nature it also happens that certain animals will engage in canibalism. Tigers will eat their young.

Should such a model from nature inform human behavior too?

FulloBS,

I didn't fail to address anything, but again you fail to comprehend. You righties posted homosexuality as unnatural, I simply pointed out that it occurs in natur all over and therefore is obviously natural. I never said one "sexual orientation" is to be preferred, I just dispute the logic of interjecting animals and children into an argument about "consenting adults". You try to make an analogous reference that somehow a one side relationship between ONE "consenting" and a dog or child is the same as two adults who are able to comprehend and understand their actions. It's the same for necrophilia, only one person's consent is in play. Nature seems to have it's own way of punishing people for unnatural actions(cross breeding of species), so when beastiality occurs the rsulting nature's response is usually a disgusting disease.......syphillis, hiv to point out two. You are trying to make a case that orientation overides consenting adult and it doesn't. This is why we don't let kids drink, vote, drive etc. until they have reached certian levels of maturity and have the ability to understand their actions. You are right I am having a bad hair day.....have for a couple in a row....as far as the mascara, was that supposed to rile me up. It was lame, like your argument.

LM

Hahahahah, you are tho dumbass that used the definition of deviant to define a weather deviation and then tried to claim it's not a deviation. YOu claim it's just outside the norm, if you understood the definition, here I will post it for you:

#361 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2008-11-11 12:53 PM | Reply

Deviancy...Google it stupid. "Societal Norms". Weather isn't societal is it?
Seriously, you've got to be retarded to keep fighting this losing battle.

P.S. I don't remember calling anyone a homophobe, are you? Your rhetoric makes it sound that way.....

LM

One question wheelchair, is the norm in america for whites to marry whites, blacks with blacks and asians with asians and on down the line, or do you see more interracial marriages. One is the norm and one deviates from the norm, I'll let your lil brain try to comprehend this!!

LM

#362 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2008-11-11 12:56 PM | Reply

Society has deemd it normal to marry outside of your race. Did you really need to be told that, stupid?

Kanrei, in nature it also happens that certain animals will engage in canibalism. Tigers will eat their young.

Should such a model from nature inform human behavior too?

#373 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-11 01:44 PM | Reply

Inform? Yes, unless you believe that humans are not animals. If you do believe that, then there is no point in debating because we are coming from two extreme points of view that will never meet. If you do believe that humans are animals, then logically I would think that studying the behaviors common to most animals, or even a decnt minority of animals, could possibly help to explain simular behavior in humans.

Society has deemd it normal to marry outside of your race.

#377 | Posted by 101Chairborne

I would say that is still more than a little bit debatable. But even if it is true, the legal system had to intervene and force the issue long before it every became a societal "norm".

"Deviancy...Google it stupid. "Societal Norms". Weather isn't societal is it?
Seriously, you've got to be retarded to keep fighting this losing battle"

Are you trying to say that websters definition isn't correct. How come you won't answer my question sally, is it whites with whites, blacks with blacks and so on as majority or is interracial marriage the majority?
Your the moron that used the weather analogy and said the weather wasn't deviant I agreed and said it deviates.....

One is the norm and one deviates.......just as weather deviates just as deviancy=DEVIATE.

here is the dictionary link, try to swallow it, NO WHERE does it say SOCIETAL in it's definition.
Deviate Definition
What Is Deviate? Find Out w/the Dictionary Toolbar
Dictionary.alottoolbars.com

"Society has deemd it normal to marry outside of your race. Did you really need to be told that, stupid?"

Keep tap dancing away from question, one is norm and one is not, which one is it. Why do you refuse to admit when your ass wrong? Society has deemed it acceptable, but it not the norm, learn the english language please.

LM