Video: San Diego mayor gets emotional in announcing reversal on gay marriage

posted at 5:30 pm on September 22, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s Republican Jerry Sanders, elected two years ago after promising to oppose same-sex marriage (but not civil unions) and presented this week with a resolution passed by the city council vowing San Diego’s support for a lawsuit that would legalize marriage for gays in California. The expected mayoral veto did not materialize; here Sanders explains why. I agree with his position and his feeling is clearly heartfelt but I hate it when politicians get emotional this way. It gives them an unearned layer of Absolute Moral Authority where to challenge their stance is to fly in the face of Love Itself. The right pulled the same thing a few years ago at Alito’s confirmation hearing when his wife got upset at some of the questioning — again, sincerely so — and it turned into a passion play about a lady’s tears. Just take a breath and make your case.

On the upside, this should give Sullivan a chance to indulge in the sort of fawning, lyrical praise we haven’t seen since he was heralding the martial and political genius of George Bush circa 2002.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 9:09 PM

I’m not trying to be combative, but if Natural Selection (the elimination of the gene through Nature) is the solution, then genetic manipulation (by scientists and doctors) would be unnecessary. It just seemed you weren’t making a rational argument.
But I think I understand what you’re trying to say.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 9:26 PM

It wouldn’t be necessary if natural selection was allowed to work. But it doesn’t because too many gays like Senator Craig do get married and have kids. But if no more gays reproduced, the genes in the current population would still be there for awhile, thus the need to weed them out on an individual basis.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 9:29 PM

Any Republican politician who changes their stance on any issue because of one of their family members over the will of the majority of their voters should be run out of the party and politics.

Buzzy on September 22, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Agreed.

Tax breaks are not granted for homosexuality because that lifestyle, while not opposed by law, has been shown as detrimental to society at large. We need look no further than the Catholic Church, which tolerated a large buildup of gay priest within it’s ministry and the havoc, scandal and violations of children that caused to understand gays should not be in a position of authority over children.

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Not sure I agree with your point, Maxx, but what would be interesting to know is the ratios of reported pedophile incidents involving homosexuals vs heterosexuals. Oddly enough, when Hollywood Leftards like Robin Williams diss the Catholic Church about priests, they almost always seem to overlook that the pedos were almost always engaging in homosexual behavior.

/Just sayin’

Wanderlust on September 22, 2007 at 9:29 PM

jihadwatcher

Are you sure they have found a “gay” gene? I could very well be wrong, but I haven’t heard that they found such a gene.

p40tiger on September 22, 2007 at 9:34 PM

Sorry for jumping into the argument here…

Nobody has discovered a “gay gene” yet, and it is unlikely that they will. Instead, the likelihood of being a homosexual is probably dependent on a number of genes that control other things. The right set of variations among this set of genes (maybe a few, maybe tens, maybe more), under the right environmental conditions, at the right stage in development, could predispose an individual towards homosexuality. This kind of process could explain why we have not found the “gay gene”, as well as provide a means by which homosexuality may be maintained in a population even of homosexuals do not procreate. That is, certain combinations of beneficial genes may form that produce results that do not seem to “make sense.”

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 9:43 PM

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 9:29 PM

Excellent, now we can get on to the argument of why homosexuals should be eliminated in the first place.

On second thought, we’ll save that for the next gay post. Thanks for the discussion. I’m off to watch “Death Proof”.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 9:49 PM

ministry for Ex-Gays, guy has an interesting book:

http://www.exodus-international.org/

jp on September 22, 2007 at 9:54 PM

Tax breaks are not granted for homosexuality because that lifestyle, while not opposed by law, has been shown as detrimental to society at large. We need look no further than the Catholic Church, which tolerated a large buildup of gay priest within it’s ministry and the havoc, scandal and violations of children that caused to understand gays should not be in a position of authority over children.

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Not sure I agree with your point, Maxx, but what would be interesting to know is the ratios of reported pedophile incidents involving homosexuals vs heterosexuals. Oddly enough, when Hollywood Leftards like Robin Williams diss the Catholic Church about priests, they almost always seem to overlook that the pedos were almost always engaging in homosexual behavior.

/Just sayin’

Wanderlust on September 22, 2007 at 9:29 PM

I’m glad you made that comment because it allows me to clarify that point.

I am NOT saying that heterosexuals cannot be pedophiles, I’m not even saying that percentage wise, that pedophilia is more prevalent in gays. What I am saying is that we need the freedom to be very selective as to who has authority over our children !!

Employing political correctness in this regard mean we must turn a blind eye toward an obviously immoral person and that’s stupid, dangerous and unacceptable. A man or woman of good moral character is required for charge of children and gays are not moral by definition.

We don’t want to put people in charge of our children that flaunt their immorality. It’s hard enough to discern who is trustworthy among those who give an outward impression of morality.

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 10:12 PM

Like I said, all they want, in essence, is the right to take care of each other financially and medically without interference.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 9:04 PM

No, what the homosexual community wants is for everyone to say that homosexuality in a normal natural form of sexuality. What they want is publicly expressed legitimacy of their chosen lifestyle. Through out all of human history homosexuality has been publicly condemned as a unacceptable perversion, and they want that changed.

doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 10:28 PM

When I lived and studied in France many years ago, 1981-1984, the operative word for gay, equivalent to our word, queer was pede. So the association, then, in the french mind was primary.

(please note, if I have spelled the word wrong, it is because I only encountered the word in speech.)

Nyog_of_the_Bog on September 22, 2007 at 11:19 PM

I demand the right to marry dozens of women. Tell me why I don’t deserve this right, if gays deserve the right to get married.

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 6:13 PM

You implicitly assume an analogy between same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage. Why?

paul006 on September 22, 2007 at 11:22 PM

You implicitly assume an analogy between same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage. Why?

paul006 on September 22, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Because the number 2 is related to the number of genders. Once gender is removed from the concept of marriage, then the number 2, likewise, becomes nothing more than an arbitrary limit.

progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 11:31 PM

You implicitly assume an analogy between same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage. Why?

paul006 on September 22, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Because they are both taboo in accordance with the Christian ethos.

(apologies RightWinged for grabbing a comment directed to you)

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Because the number 2 is related to the number of genders. Once gender is removed from the concept of marriage, then the number 2, likewise, becomes nothing more than an arbitrary limit.

progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 11:31 PM

I don’t think that can be right, Progress. In heterosexual polygamy, the two genders are present. So the lack of one gender or the other can’t be the reason we prohibit polygamy.

The one-partner rule is not arbitrary. Among other things, polygamy reduces the number of women available for marriage. This results in roving bands of spouseless young men.

Even if gay marriage was ubiquitous, we’d still have separate, independent reasons for prohibiting polygamy. Or, to put another way, we don’t prohibit polygamy only as a bulwark against gay marriage.

paul006 on September 23, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Because they are both taboo in accordance with the Christian ethos.

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Fair enough, Maxx. But in that case, what you have is a religion objection to both practices. You don’t have a logical analogy.

paul006 on September 23, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Sorry for the typo. That should read religious objection.

paul006 on September 23, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Fair enough, Maxx. But in that case, what you have is a religion objection to both practices. You don’t have a logical analogy.

paul006 on September 23, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Then maybe I’ve misunderstood this question that was actually posed to RightWinged.

I thought you were asking what the similarities were in regard to the political sphere between “gay marriage” and polygamy.

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 1:08 AM

This is a ridiculous part of American Culture. Less than 1% of America ‘claims’ to be gay. THERE IS NO GAY GENE! That is a myth put forth by the gay community so that they could claim minority status like other ethnic groups who are BORN black, or asian, etc. etc. etc.

MARRIAGE is a religious institution. If you want to separate church and state, you can NOT have the state issuing gay MARRIAGES.

The concept of gay people being ‘discriminated against’ because they can’t get married is equivalent to my being discriminated against because I can’t go as fast as I want in my car due to speed limits.

Gay people can do whatever they want. I would argue the state should NEVER sanction such activity in any way shape or form due to the obvious health hazards associated with the lifestyle (like they do smoking though the government makes money off of smoking while they vilify it). . . if we are going to socialize health care, they better put a gay tax on gays.

MARRIAGE was developed to establish the FAMILY unit. It separated us from the animals so that we could raise STABLE FAMILIES. It has less to do with the people getting married than it does with their children. The marriage is the BASE of the family which allows a stable environment to raise children as dictated by the church.

Gay people can’t have families so 1. there is no need for them to get married. And 2. marriage is an institution of the church so the state can’t require it unless the state wants to set itself up as a religion.

All in all, it is ridiculous for us to even discuss. Gay people are free to live how they want and do how they want without fear of legal repercussions. They can even have parades declaring openly they are gay. Most of them are attention-seeking narcissists who want to play the ‘victim’ so that they can have a pity party with other ‘oppressed’ misguided free American citizens.

ThackerAgency on September 23, 2007 at 1:28 AM

Maxx, the similarities between gay and poligomous marriages is that you are REDEFINING MARRIAGE. Why stop at homosexuality? If you are going to REDEFINE MARRIAGE, then all bets are off and anything goes. You can’t have age limits to marriage because that would be discrimination against people who were BORN attracted to younger women. You can’t limit the number of people you can marry because that would deprive someone of a lifestyle they were predetermined to live (they were born that way).

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT would end the discussion forever because all states would have to abide by it or leave the union.

ThackerAgency on September 23, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Because they are both taboo in accordance with the Christian ethos.

So is divorce. A more direct “defense of marriage” would be to prevent a man from divorcing one woman and marrying another.

There’s surprising consensus here that homosexuality is inherent within some people by the time they reach adulthood–whether genetic or not. If there are Americans who are that way, isn’t it fundamental to our values of freedom and liberty that they be able to live and share their lives in a committed marriage?

re: Jerry Sanders. Not crazy about that performance. Glad he isn’t representing me.

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 1:47 AM

You implicitly assume an analogy between same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage. Why?

paul006 on September 22, 2007 at 11:22 PM

I’m not implicitly assuming anything. I’m flat out saying that there is no “right” to any kind of marriage, so if you’re going to change the definition from “1 man and 1 woman” to allow for same sex couples, simply because they insist that it’s the way they are, etc. Who are you or anyone to tell polygamists that they can’t freely marry the way they choose? While we’re changing laws, why don’t we change the law regarding what a “minor” is? Some young girls claim to be attracted to older men, while plenty of them are attracted to young girls. Society decided that these sort of relationships aren’t permitted, but who is “society” to be in the bedroom, right?

(This is the part where the predictable tards avoid the issue by saying I’m comparing gays to pedophiles, and ignoring the harm child molestation can have on kids. Save it.)

Bottom line, this is only a discussion because in recent years “gay” has been mainstreamed as hip and cool, and gay people are “funny” with their nancing around, etc. And due to the fact that society no longer permits judgments. A couple generations ago, such talk of “gay rights” would have been dismissed without a second thought, because we maintained common sense… There are 2 sexes with uniquely designed (or “evolved” if that’s your thang) reproductive organs, that go together. It’s not a coincidence that these “parts” and the 2 sexes exist.

Therefore if you insist “well, some people are just born wanting to have sex with the same sex” (which defies logic), then I say “okay, well some people claim they’re are born wanting to have sex with dogs, should we allow it?!” “But Randy, gays are still having sex with other people, so it’s not the same, you bigot…”. But the act of sex is a unique activity for reproducing. Whether it should only be used for reproduction isn’t an issue, but the fact that this is it’s function, is certainly a GUIDE as to with whom one should engage in the act.

I kind of lost where I was going, because I’m so sick of having this same discussion over and over… Bottom line is this – in an age where common sense ruled, we wouldn’t even be discussing this. It’s just the mainstreaming, and the permissive society that pushes this. But you can’t change a law for this one group, and not for others. It’s pretty annoying when people say “multiple partners isn’t the issue, it’s between 2 consenting adults”. Why? What are you basing this argument on? The “2 consenting adults” is just another traditional societal norm. In fact, having multiple hetero partners is INFINITELY more natural than a single gay partner, and anyone with an ounce of honesty or common sense can see this.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 1:49 AM

If there are Americans who are that way, isn’t it fundamental to our values of freedom and liberty that they be able to live and share their lives in a committed marriage?

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 1:47 AM

Okay, well I’m an American and I want to marry a parakeet. I “am that way” (your words), so isn’t it “fundamental to our values of freedom and liberty” that I be able to live and share the lives in a committed marriage? What do you mean “no, because that’s an animal, not a human being”… Well how is sex with the same gender any more natural? Just saying “they’re human” doesn’t cut it.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 1:53 AM

An animal can’t be party to a contract, though I guess a parakeet could say “I do”.

When you died you could leave your estate to your parakeet, like Leona Helmsley, but you’d actually be leaving it to a trust that had a trustee who managed the money until the parakeet went to birdy heaven.

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 1:57 AM

in an age where common sense ruled

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 1:49 AM

There has never been “an age where common sense ruled.”

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 1:59 AM

If there are Americans who are that way, isn’t it fundamental to our values of freedom and liberty that they be able to live and share their lives in a committed marriage?

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 1:47 AM

Along with freedom and liberty comes limits and responsibility. This country’s Judeo-Christian ethic has served us very well, it is the basis of our laws. We have already allow abominable affronts to these long standing traditional values, such as abortion and the results have been damning. Continuing down the same path will be our eventual destruction, we need to do an about face.

Please see my post at Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 8:27 PM for details of why we must stop so called “gay marriage.”

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 2:08 AM

Tax breaks are not granted for homosexuality because that lifestyle, while not opposed by law, has been shown as detrimental to society at large.

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Where?

If so called “gay marriage” ever becomes widely accepted in American law, then everyone by virtue of their tax dollars will be forced to subsidize homosexuality.

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Huh?

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 2:29 AM

Along with freedom and liberty comes limits and responsibility.

It doesn’t work if the freedoms are granted to one taxpayer and the limits are placed on another.

What changed in the 4,000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching to cause our 13th Amendment to be adopted? Did Moses come back with a copy edit to his laws that caused us to add the 19th Amendment?

I’ll be happy to respond to your 8:27 post also.

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 2:30 AM

Civilization has not advanced by normalizing the abnormal.

Connie on September 23, 2007 at 2:41 AM

Government grants special privileges to the nuclear family because this arrange is beneficial to building strong families and thus beneficial to government for building a strong society. Tax breaks are granted with a marriage license because government has a compelling interest in the nuclear family; that is a family that consist of a mother, a father and their children.

Would you be opposed to a state fertility test before marriage? What about older people, both widowed and past child-bearing years? Should we allow it? The Bible speaks against divorce. Should the U.S. tighten its marriage laws, since most of its Christian citizens are part of a church that doesn’t allow divorcees to remarry?

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 2:44 AM

Civilization has not advanced by normalizing the abnormal.

Connie on September 23, 2007 at 2:41 AM

Sure it has. Here’s three completely random examples off the top of my head.

Dairy products
Christianity
Vaccination

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 2:52 AM

Civilization has not advanced by normalizing the abnormal.

The early Christians were considered quite abnormal for what the Romans saw as their superstitions. It would have been unthinkable to first century Romans that a future emperor, Constantine, would legalize Christianity.

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 2:53 AM

It doesn’t work if the freedoms are granted to one taxpayer and the limits are placed on another.

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 2:30 AM

Happens all the time in tax law. Look at smokers for example, taxed to the hilt. Many industries are subsidize while other have to pay extra. Money given to “womens studies” while no similar funding for men. In tax law, the government decides what it wants to encourage and provides subsidies and decides what it wants to discourage and makes those entities pay extra.

What changed in the 4,000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching to cause our 13th Amendment to be adopted?

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 2:30 AM

Nothing changed in Judeo-Christian teaching. It was Judeo-Christian teaching that got the practice of slavery stopped.

Did Moses come back with a copy edit to his laws that caused us to add the 19th Amendment?

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 2:30 AM

I don’t think he did. This was mainly a result of the suffrage movement, I don’t think Moses had much to do with it.

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 2:53 AM

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 2:53 AM

Heh.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 2:54 AM

Would you be opposed to a state fertility test before marriage? What about older people, both widowed and past child-bearing years? Should we allow it? The Bible speaks against divorce. Should the U.S. tighten its marriage laws, since most of its Christian citizens are part of a church that doesn’t allow divorcees to remarry?

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 2:44 AM

That’s a lot of question. The bottom line to all of them is that the Legislature would determine such things in accordance with the constituents they represent.

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 2:58 AM

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 2:52 AM

Attempting to prevent disease is not abnormal.

Connie on September 23, 2007 at 3:03 AM

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 2:53 AM

Belief in God is not abnormal. Nor is believing in the teachings of Christ. It’s pretty normal, actually.

Connie on September 23, 2007 at 3:09 AM

Abomination!

The horror!

Evil!

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:14 AM

Maxx,
Thank you for the dialog this evening, but I have to get some shut-eye. I respect your views, though obviously have my own. I love my wife and have found great reward in our marriage. We also have a lot of respect for our gay friends who have made exclusive commitments to one another, through sickness & health, richer & poorer, ’til death. If the love and dedication is there, I support it because I think it makes the community stronger.

Also, g’night Big S., I think we were hitting submit at the same time, there.

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 3:19 AM

Abomination!

The horror!

Evil!

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:14 AM

Choice.

Connie on September 23, 2007 at 3:21 AM

Connie,
Not saying belief in Christ is abnormal, but that the Romans did and then they changed their minds. G’night to you too.

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 3:21 AM

dedalus on September 23, 2007 at 3:19 AM

Thank you as well dedalus, I enjoyed the debate. And I need to get some shut-eye myself. Goodnight !

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 3:26 AM

Full circle.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:37 AM

Full circle.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:37 AM

Awesome video Big S, I’m a big Bowie fan. Don’t know what it had to do with the topic, but awesome none-the-less.

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 3:48 AM

Abomination!

The horror!

Evil!

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:14 AM

Big S operates like a liberal, with appeals to emotion and what’s “cool” rather than rational, natural, and common sense.

Those of us who don’t believe in “homosexuality” here aren’t saying “evil” and “abomination”, etc. These are your pathetic tactics to paint us as bad guys, simply because we maintain our common sense. That’s pathetic. As was your response to a comment of mine (that you took out of context, rather than respond to the actual important points in my lengthy post)

in an age where common sense ruled

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 1:49 AM

There has never been “an age where common sense ruled.”

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 1:59 AM

Now, the only reason for you to respond to that is if you are pretending that you thought I was using “ruled” in the sense of “governed”/law. I say you’d have to be pretending that you thought I was saying this, because you couldn’t honestly think that, if you paid attention to the context.

If this is the position you’re taking, trying to argue with me that “common sense never ruled”, again I think you’re just pretending, but either way it was pointless… because I was talking (as was clear to anyone) about times when traditionalism was the norm, and common sense is a part of that.

Now, if you acknowledge that by “ruled”, I wasn’t talking about actual “rule”, then your comment is clearly factually incorrect (because common sense did “rule” and is erroded further by the day… just look compare how people save money as compared to 2 or 3 generations ago), and completely pointless, especially when you chose to pull a partial sentence out of a lengthy post on the issue here.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 4:15 AM

Can anyone explain to me the LEGAL PRECEDENT to deny gay marriage? There’s none. It’s a ban based on religious preferences. Religion in all forms is far more detrimental to society than homosexual marriage could ever be.

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 4:22 AM

Can anyone explain to me the LEGAL PRECEDENT to deny gay marriage? There’s none. It’s a ban based on religious preferences. Religion in all forms is far more detrimental to society than homosexual marriage could ever be.

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 4:22 AM

Yes, because it’s the gays, not Christians who are known to DOMINATE the world of giving to charity, right?

Legal precedent? How about the fact that there are 2 genders, each with unique reproductive parts, showing (whether you think they were created or evolved) that “sex” isn’t a coincidence, and allowing for same sex attraction, etc. It simply defies common sense.

Now, if you want to say “government should not be in the business of marriage” in the first place, then you might have something to talk about. But trying to equate gay marriage with same sex marriage requires the willing suspension of disbelief (*wink* Hillary). Certainly there’s more of a case to be made that multiple married partner straight sex relationships are more natural than single partnered gay marriages. “But no Randy, because it’s about being between 2 adults”. Why? What is the “legal precedent” for that?

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 4:44 AM

At least John Wayne didn’t live to witness this…

sabbott on September 23, 2007 at 6:12 AM

Yes, because it’s the gays, not Christians who are known to DOMINATE the world of giving to charity, right?

Is “charity” what you would call the hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to victims of sexual abuse by pedophiles within the Catholic church? The Church “DOMINATES the world” of pedophile lawsuit settlements, too. As I said, religion has caused much more damage to society than gay marriage ever could, this is just one example.

“But no Randy, because it’s about being between 2 adults”. Why? What is the “legal precedent” for that?

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 4:44 AM

Because that’s what marriage entails. 2 consenting adults who love each other. Why should gender make a difference? Again, what is the legal precedent to discriminate due to gender on this basic human right?

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 6:21 AM

Right. How come so many obituaries about gay men who die of aids mention there partners of 20, 25 30 years? If you are in a monogamous relationship for the past 30 years, how did he get aids?

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Some men are fruity from the womb.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:30 PM

jesus h. christ this is just the type of backwards bigoted rhetoric I expect to find here on Hot Air whenever there is a discussion of homosexuality. You guys are not much better than the Taliban when it comes to this subject. Funny, huh? I love knowing that I have absolutely NOTHING in common with the Taliban, too bad most of you can’t say the same.

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 6:29 AM

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 6:21 AM

Why? Because words mean things. Since the beginning of time marriage was between a man and a woman. Now, here we have a selfish, spoiled group of people who only identify themselves by the type of sex they have, trying to foist their views on the rest of us. Gays simple need to get their own word. Period.

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 7:31 AM

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 6:21 AM

The fact remains, regardless of your asinine attempts to silence speech with your sickening PC attacks, gay men have mortality rates that are the same as men did in the late 1800′s.

This is the reason why the militant gays want to hijack the word “marriage”. Once they can get their sick perversion assigned the word “marriage”, they are, by federal law, entitled to access to their partners insurance benefits WITHOUT having to pay the higher premiums that a high risk group should pay. The medical cost to keep a limp wristed noodle nibbler healthy is way, way, more than hetro males. So, who will subsidize their costs?

YEP THAT’S RIGHT!!!! The rest of us. When we can get the gays to accept a word that accurately describes their situation, then THEY, and they alone will pay the premiums that are fair for those who choose to engaged in risky behavior.

That would be true equality, but as all of us who don’t have their heads up their a$$es know, gays don’t want equality, they want special rights just because they choose to perform perverted sexual acts.

Insurance rates are based on apple to apple comparisons. This is called FAIRNESS! The gay lifestyle IS NOT THE SAME as the hetro lifestyle and that is reflected in their mortality rates. So, rather than be the champions of equality, they toss out their sensitivities to equal rights and demand their high risk behavior be overlooked so they don’t have to be responsible for them.

Like the pigs in “Animal Farm” decreed…..

“All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 7:53 AM

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 4:15 AM

I was not speaking about “ruling” in a governmental sense. My dispute is with your assertion that people once led their lives according to common sense, and that they do not do so now. The term “common” refers to the general agreement of the people, which by definition changes as their “sense” of the world they live in changes–a result of the accumulation of new knowledge. “Common sense” is a feature of human society, not a set of rules that the physical (or spiritual, if you like) universe follows, so it is largely incapable of predicting what that new knowledge will be. Your construction of “common sense” makes reference to an arbitrary and unrealistic vision of the past, which you would like to restore in the present day, because you do not like what people have learned and/or accepted in the modern world.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Awesome video Big S, I’m a big Bowie fan. Don’t know what it had to do with the topic, but awesome none-the-less.

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 3:48 AM

It doesn’t really have anything to do with the topic, other than I like the songs, and I figured I’d gay it up around here a little. You know, a little mood music…

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Jerry Sanders just said “screw you” to his voters. I wonder how his position will “evolve” in the run-up to his next election. Pathetic. Did San Diego vote him into office to betray them and then cry about it? It would be great if he was recalled.
About the genetic debate, how would that explain men in prison who engage in sodomy? The homosexual act may be the primary impulse for many people, but not all. I think homosexuality in gay males often is the result of sexual compulsion. I also think a lot of lesbians who are truly oriented that way recruit women who are weaker emotionally and financially.
Either way, society is not obligated to condone this behavior. Gays should accept civil unions and then drop it. Gays have all the same civil rights that straights do. Sexual deviation or orientation does not demand special rights. If you are homosexual you are exempt from marriage or you have exempted yourself from marriage, because marriage is between a man and a woman; if it isn’t, it loses all meaning. Sorry. Be happy with civil contracts, that’s all you’ll be getting for a long, long time.

Dork B. on September 23, 2007 at 9:30 AM

The mere mention and debate of this topic gays anything up more than senator Craig in a public bathroom.

Gays are not discriminated against by the government. For them to say they are is just stereotypical theatrical narcissism and a desire to have a pity party for their fellow ‘victims’. me, me, me, I want to get married so it’s my ‘right’.

Hey I want a million dollars, but it isn’t my right to rob a bank. However just because I can’t rob a bank to become a millionaire doesn’t mean I’m discriminated against.

gays can live how they want in this society without fear of punishment by the government. THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA IS DESIGNED TO DO. Marriage, as has been stated, between gays would be a special right.

Actually I’m hoping that they do pass this law because I want lots of kids, and the only way for me to do it is to have lots of wives. In America the women now have jobs and make a living too. So bring on the redefinition of marriage so I can have a big happy government sanctioned marriage. And LEAVE WARREN JEFFS ALONE!

ThackerAgency on September 23, 2007 at 10:32 AM

The homosexual act may be the primary impulse for many people, but not all. I think homosexuality in gay males often is the result of sexual compulsion.

Dork B. on September 23, 2007 at 9:30 AM

I tend to agree. I’m far from convinced concerning the “gay gene.” Someone said it… men aren’t born gay… they just get sucked into it.

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 11:00 AM

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 1:49 AM

But you can’t change a law for this one group, and not for others.

Oh, of course we can. In fact, we do it all the time. Sometimes we have good reasons for the classifications we draw, and sometimes the classifications are arbitrary. But in any event, we make them.

When the U.S. Supreme Court took up the Lawrence case, a lot of people — including, as I recall, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum — said that legalization of homosexual conduct would result in legalization of bestiality. But that hasn’t happened, has it? And it’s not on the verge of happening, either.

I think we have good reasons for prohibiting bestiality while permitting homosexuality. Perhaps you think the distinction is arbitrary. But whether reasonable or arbitrary, it’s a distinction we make, and one we not likely to unmake.

Massachusetts has same-sex marriage; it doesn’t have polygamy, and it’s not about to get polygamy, either.

More than a decade ago, in a essay for Time, Charles Krauthammer wrote:

The problem here is not the slippery slope. It is not that if society allows gay marriage, society will then allow polygamy or incest. It won’t. The people won’t allow polygamy or incest. Even the gay-marriage advocates won’t allow it.

Krauthammer went on to argue against gay marriage. But he correctly understood that polygamy will not follow gay marriage.

Thanks for the discussion.

paul006 on September 23, 2007 at 11:42 AM

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 7:53 AM

So your reasoning for not allowing even civil unions is because of insurance costs. Got it.
By the way, this is a great post from a person who throws the word “bigot” around like pez whenever someone objects to Mormonism.

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 11:46 AM

And politicians wonder why we think they’re all handjobs.

LtE126 on September 23, 2007 at 11:47 AM

What a gay article.

spec_ops_mateo on September 23, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Either way, society is not obligated to condone this behavior. Gays should accept civil unions and then drop it. Gays have all the same civil rights that straights do. Sexual deviation or orientation does not demand special rights. If you are homosexual you are exempt from marriage or you have exempted yourself from marriage, because marriage is between a man and a woman; if it isn’t, it loses all meaning. Sorry. Be happy with civil contracts, that’s all you’ll be getting for a long, long time.

Dork B. on September 23, 2007 at 9:30 AM

I think marriage “loses all meaning” when you breeders have a 50% divorce rate. At this point, gays could SAVE marriage! And as for us accepting civil unions and when it comes to marriage we should just “drop it”- who made you the king of the world? We will continue to fight for true equality, if you have a problem with that you could move to Iran or Afghanistan or wherever other people have backwards religious views like yourself.

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Gays simple need to get their own word. Period.

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 7:31 AM

Oh I got a word for you, hon, but it’ll get me banned. I’ll just say that as a mormon you are probably most bitter that marriage is confined to only 2 people, no?

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 1:42 PM

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 11:46 AM

No. I have no problem with them having civil unions or holy consummations or any other name EXCEPT marriage. And that is just because the term marriage is a traditional term that applies to hetro marriage and the insurance issues. Consistency and fairness.

And it is the militant gays who push the issue for insurance purposes but hide behind “equal rights”.

And the tone of my post was a direct response to the PCness that “The Sinner” was trying to silence others with. Now he has words to complain about, which I’m sure he will rather than deal with the substance of my argument about mortality rates and increased insurance costs passed on to the rest of us. It’s a very quick effective way to find out the intentions of the person.

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 1:48 PM

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Why the push to co-opt the word “marriage”? I’ll tell you why. MONEY and the ability for gays to pass on the consequences of their behavior onto the rest of us. So spare me the crocodile tears, they don’t fool me.

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 1:56 PM

And who said I was a Mormon?

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Me:

Yes, because it’s the gays, not Christians who are known to DOMINATE the world of giving to charity, right?

you:

Is “charity” what you would call the hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to victims of sexual abuse by pedophiles within the Catholic church? The Church “DOMINATES the world” of pedophile lawsuit settlements, too. As I said, religion has caused much more damage to society than gay marriage ever could, this is just one example.

Um, what do I care about the Catholic Church? But I think I’m done talking to you anyway, because you’re clearly a liberal, incapable of honest discussion. (Here’s where you get pissed at me for labeling you, and possibly try to tell me that your friends consider you conservative, etc. etc.). I know you’re a liberal, because you just brush aside the PROVEN FACT that Christians are BY FAR the most generous people on the planet. This has been proven time and time again. Normally I’d do someone the courtesy of digging up the supporting links for them here, but your dishonesty has shown what a waste of time it would be.

“But no Randy, because it’s about being between 2 adults”. Why? What is the “legal precedent” for that?

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 4:44 AM

Because that’s what marriage entails. 2 consenting adults who love each other. Why should gender make a difference? Again, what is the legal precedent to discriminate due to gender on this basic human right?

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 6:21 AM

No, that’s not what marriage entails genius. Marriage entails 1 man and 1 woman. You asked:

Can anyone explain to me the LEGAL PRECEDENT to deny gay marriage? There’s none. It’s a ban based on religious preferences. Religion in all forms is far more detrimental to society than homosexual marriage could ever be.

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 4:22 AM

You have ABSOLUTELY no argument here, and you gave the predictable response of some liberal college kid who really hadn’t thought the issue through, but instead gave the emotional reactionary response.

You’re so pathetic, you couldn’t even attempt to explain why gays should be able to marry, yet polygamists shouldn’t. Come on, tell me why “2 partners, regardless of gender” should be able to marry, but why a man and 5 women shouldn’t. I’m guessing that, based on your previous comments that were beyond idiotic, and your utter dishonesty that you won’t recognize (or will pretend you don’t) that your whole “marriage is 2 people” argument doesn’t wash (especially when I can always say, “actually it’s 1 man and 1 woman”)

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Your construction of “common sense” makes reference to an arbitrary and unrealistic vision of the past, which you would like to restore in the present day, because you do not like what people have learned and/or accepted in the modern world.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 9:10 AM

You’re almost as dishonest as your friend Sinner… I’m not talking about things we’ve “learned”, however I am talking about things that are now “accepted”. Accepting “homosexuality” defies logic.

As for common sense, I’m talking about things like saving money to take care of your family, rather than driving an Escalade and taking welfare, how about “cutters” who cut themselves just to see if they still feel (give me a f-ing break), how about “transgendered people”, how about ADD, etc. etc. These are all symptoms of a loss of common sense and traditionalism, and the ushering in of a world where anything goes and judgments are off limits. With that list goes a behavior that defies all logic and nature.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:11 PM

PROVEN FACT that Christians are BY FAR the most generous people on the planet. This has been proven time and time again. Normally I’d do someone the courtesy of digging up the supporting links for them here, but your dishonesty has shown what a waste of time it would be.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 4:44 AM

Figures that you have no sources, because I know you are blowing this out of your @ss. That “proven fact” is about as real as that bearded man in the sky you get on your knees for.

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 3:16 PM

With that list goes a behavior that defies all logic and nature.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Nature is surprisingly illogical, if you bother to take a close look. So are most religions. You can invoke traditionalism all you want, but make sure you note your historical reference point; otherwise, your statements are meaningless.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:26 PM

At your age you ought to have more integrity. You do not have the luxury of campaigning from one position and legislating contrary to that. Have your change of heart, but resign before you do so. Or better yet, vote according to the position upon which you were elected. You are the latest living proof that it doesn’t matter what some politicians say they stand for, that can and will change at any time. Where are the men of their word?

leavenedbread on September 23, 2007 at 3:33 PM

Nature is surprisingly illogical, if you bother to take a close look. So are most religions. You can invoke traditionalism all you want, but make sure you note your historical reference point; otherwise, your statements are meaningless.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Thanks for offering nothing to this debate, especially as it pertains to the actual topic, and simply wanting to whine over what “common sense” means.

Figures that you have no sources, because I know you are blowing this out of your @ss. That “proven fact” is about as real as that bearded man in the sky you get on your knees for.

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 3:16 PM

I thought it was common knowledge to anyone who reads blogs and pays attention to the news, and again, it isn’t worth my time to prove to a dishonest and diverting liberal like you, what is common knowledge to everyone else.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:39 PM

By the way, does anyone else find it funny that I’ve yet to argue religion as a basis for my position against “homosexuality”, yet all these people (who can’t post without posting dishonesty, spin, and diversions) keep whining about “the Catholics Church” (who gives a f**k?), about “religion”, etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic, but also pretty predictable, because it happens every time.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Thanks for that (sorry it took so long to reply, enjoying a beautiful day). But really, your language in that post was horrific. I only got on you because it doesn’t seem like your normal tone.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Actually, it’s been one, maybe two at most. But you always have a great habit of blowing things out of proportion.

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 7:59 PM

By the way, does anyone else find it funny that I’ve yet to argue religion as a basis for my position against “homosexuality”, yet all these people (who can’t post without posting dishonesty, spin, and diversions) keep whining about “the Catholics Church” (who gives a f**k?), about “religion”, etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic, but also pretty predictable, because it happens every time.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM

That’s because your “one man and one woman” marriage stance IS religious and cultural in it’s nature, and not a legal one, as many a court has decided. And quit acting like you are some constitutional scholar and not religiously biased at all, you are so full of shit. If you were defending marriage on a purely legal basis, you would have documentation to support your argument (the bible doesn’t count)!

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 8:54 PM

By the way, does anyone else find it funny that I’ve yet to argue religion as a basis for my position against “homosexuality”, yet all these people (who can’t post without posting dishonesty, spin, and diversions) keep whining about “the Catholics Church” (who gives a f**k?), about “religion”, etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic, but also pretty predictable, because it happens every time.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Actually, it’s been one, maybe two at most. But you always have a great habit of blowing things out of proportion.

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Actually SouthernDem, I was talking about those who’ve been talking to me… and it continues:

That’s because your “one man and one woman” marriage stance IS religious and cultural in it’s nature, and not a legal one, as many a court has decided. And quit acting like you are some constitutional scholar and not religiously biased at all, you are so full of shit. If you were defending marriage on a purely legal basis, you would have documentation to support your argument (the bible doesn’t count)!

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 8:54 PM

We’re done, I haven’t talked about the Bible, I’ve asked you to explain what the legal precedent is against polygamy. You’re insisting that it’s not the same, because gay marriage would still be “2 people”… When in reality, the “2 people” thing is just as much a cultural thing as is straight marriage (though at least straight marriage has nature and logic as a basis). You’re f-ing pathetic. You’ve not attempted to argue a single point here, and you make yourself worse with each time you whine about religion.

I’m sorry you’re to f**king stupid to recognize just how illogical “homosexuality” is, that you have to resort to “don’t preach the bible at me!” tactics, when I’ve said nothing about Bible, religion, or “the Catholic Church”. You have you dishonest turd.

Don’t respond to me again unless you’re actually responding to me. Leave your anger bottled up. I don’t care about that priest that molested you and screwed you up so bad that somehow you started to believe that liking other dudes made sense. Argue in the real world, or f**k off.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 9:23 PM

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 7:59 PM

I understand that. I had a reason and perhaps I should have re-thought it, but I am soooooo tired of people tossing around the homophobic accusations as a means to silence debate.

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM

No, “all these people” was still just one person.

I don’t care about that priest that molested you and screwed you up so bad that somehow you started to believe that liking other dudes made sense. Argue in the real world, or f**k off.

Man, you sure are angry.

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 11:03 PM

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Agreed, and cool.

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Translation: “I failed my daughter, so I am trying to do something to make up for all those lost years.”

realVerse on September 24, 2007 at 1:03 AM

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 11:03 PM

Sorry, I’m not “tolerant” of liars and douche bags. And if you had half a brain, you’d recognize that my comment was deliberately an off topic personal attack to illustrate how obnoxious it is for “The Sinner” to keep harping on Christians, religion, and “The Catholic Church” (which again, I have no use for anyway). My response was about as necessary or important as his repeated attacks on religion have been. Just look at how pathetic he is… step outside of the the fact that he’s on “your team” here, and recognize just how pathetic he truly is… right down to his stupid name “The Sinner”.. He’s all about hating religion. I can’t think of another word to describe him but pathetic.

(this is the part where instead of trying to argue with any point I’ve made he gets defensive after pretending I told him he’s going to hell. Yes, I never said that, and it would be stupid of him to do so… but look at his history)

RightWinged on September 24, 2007 at 1:29 AM

If you were defending marriage on a purely legal basis, you would have documentation to support your argument (the bible doesn’t count)!
The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 8:54 PM

The far majority of us Christians here, myself included, do not want an America-turned-theocracy. A large number of us Christians are conservative-libertarian. We do believe in separation of Church and State.

But separation of Church and State does not mean at all that constitutional decisions and jurisprudence should occur in a “philosophical vacuum.” That is impossible. All jurisprudence and constitutional decisions do occur from **some** particular perspective or viewpoint.

After all, the Founding Fathers of our country quoted the Bible most often as greatly influencing their philosophical convictions leading then to the development of the Constitution.

And yet one particularly vocal special interest group wants to radically redefine the definition of a social norm (“marriage”) that has been in usage for thousands of years.

If marriage is allowed to be redefined by liberal activists to include and mean anything, then ultimately marriage means nothing.

If marriage ultimately means nothing, then why are we as a nation quick to prohibit some of the more bizarre examples that could then easily be codified into “marriage-able” material?

If marriage means anything, ultimately, marriage means nothing.

We should not allow liberal special interest groups to hijack and redefine social norms that have been used for thousands of years. That is liberalism, not conservatism.

ColtsFan on September 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2