Video: Forces of tolerance confront Proposition 8 supporter
posted at 6:31 pm on November 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Via Ace, bravely blogging through a case of the shivering douchechills. Reminds me of that old Onion piece, except with terrified senior citizens and styrofoam crosses being snatched and broken. Charges will, apparently, be filed.
I don’t know what these dudes are so upset about. Surely they don’t think the California Supreme Court’s going to let the public get away with this, do they? Click the image to watch.
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: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next »
Yeah, no kidding..and hey, how bout those Russian missles?? I have a feeling we’re in for a very bumpy ride..I have to say that without Faith in my life I’d be very depressed about the situation. No wonder the secular left is always so angry. I for one didn’t feel the need to seek therapy or threaten to move out of the country after the election.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Just call me a “wiley” clever girl…lol…actually, Wiley is my dog..although I would like to think of myself as clever. Sometimes. :) What was that about a white russian? lol
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Your marriage may not have been devalued but a priest in Canada is being investigated for exposing homosexuals to “extreme hatred and contempt” by quoting from the Bible. A number of other clergymen have been fined thousands of dollars for similar offences. So religious freedom in Canada has been severely impacted.
Priest investigated for quoting Bible
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Truth hurts doesn’t it? Satan hates the truth (John 8:44). He uses demons to implant corrupt data in peoples heads and basically deludes them into believing a lie. Take JetBoy for example. He doesn’t thinks the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. All I can tell you Madison is start reading the Bible. Keep studying. When you get to the top of the Mountain of Truth you’ll be Independant Baptist in the King James camp, okay. That’s how you know you’ve made it all the way to the top… lol …but, if you’re not there yet you can still be my friend and I’ll still take you out to lunch, c’mon over anytime.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I felt the need to threaten it, but I love this country too much for the threat to have been taken seriously.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Yeah, he’s really going to be taking your advise. You’re not exactly the epitome of love on this site.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Just curious. Where all have you lived?
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Heh. You worship a book.
*snicker*
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Why do some believe the government should be in the business of promoting that which is a degradation of society?
Seriously
anuts on November 12, 2008 at 5:16 PM
They are to Esthier what water is to a fish.
As vodka tonics are to me.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 5:20 PM
I know!!! What were they thinking when they let Kevin Federline marry???? Poor Britney. Maybe we’ve learned our lesson now.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Good grief, over 800 posts to this one item. Someone, please, tell me why anyone would choose to be gay? The hostility seems to be endless. Oh, by the way, I am gay … and, I vote Republican.
SC.Charlie on November 12, 2008 at 5:24 PM
With enough lime, I can enjoy one of those.
Sorry, I missed that part, Wiley. White Russians are one part vodka, one part Kahlua (or any coffee liquor) and one part cream (half and half if you have it, milk if you don’t).
It’s an incredible drink that I started craving right before the election.
Sometimes I just go with Dark Russians, which is basically the exact same, except no cream, though I like to replace the cream with Dr. Pepper.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Born in Germany..my Dad had 3 tours there so I ended up graduating from High School over there..stateside as follows..NC,NM,IL, SC, NV, VA, AL, CA, AZ…great experience growing up. I was lucky to have parents who expected us to learn about the area we were living in and the history
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Add Dr. Pepper or coke to that and you have a Colorado Bulldog…very good…
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 5:30 PM
To debate a reprobate like Esthier, is like banging your head against a wall, and I don’t want to do it. So go away, Esthier. I’m not interested. Go back to lusting and cheating on your husband with Madisonconservative. Committing adultery fits perfectly with the type of Christian you profess to be.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 5:31 PM
For what it’s worth, Dr Pepper has no period after the ‘Dr’…
Sorry; it seemed important.
anuts on November 12, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Enough apacalyps…totally uncalled for. If you are truly a Christian who follows Christ’s ways you wouldn’t resort to slander against someone you don’t even know. I believe the Devil is knocking on your door.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Anuts..I’m going to have to call you anal!! lol..just kidding
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I don’t know, but I don’t get that argument either.
Who would choose to be a pedophile?
Now please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not equating the two in any way shape or form. Pedophiles have sex with children; whereas homosexuals engage in consensual sex. For all I know people are born gay or straight.
I’m just using it as an example because I think the question applies to both groups. I don’t get why anyone would choose to be gay, but I also don’t get why anyone would choose to like children either.
And again, I don’t want anyone to think I’m equating the two. I’ve just never found an answer to that question. If someone knows, I’m genuinely interested.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 5:37 PM
If you’re not interested then don’t talk to me.
He’s had it in for me for quite some time. A punny conversation about having a couple drinks with Madison has apparently given me a scarlet letter in his eyes. He likes to bring it up as though it’s something I’m ashamed of, which is stupid. I posted on the Internet, not in my diary.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Please, Esthier, you are equating pedophilia with being gay. There are a lot of questions for which I have no answers. Everyone does. I did not choose my sexual orientation. I can’t pray the gay away. All I can do is be honest with you and myself about it.
SC.Charlie on November 12, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Esthier,
I would make an important distinction here between the original puprose of plastic surgery which was to repair the disfigurement suffered by WWI veterans and cosmetic surgery, which is vanity.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 5:51 PM
I think it might have something to do with taste and attraction. Can you ‘help’ which songs, food, colors, movies, cars, etc. you like? Are you able to control who you are attracted to? Apply.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude this. One, however, is clearly a moral degradation (of the highest order) and one is just a hinderance in species production.
anuts on November 12, 2008 at 5:53 PM
I don’t hold Leviticus to be The Word of God. As I said, it was written by the ancient Israelites to foster a unified, sustained society that was surrounded by larger, hostile, civilizations. The ancient Israelites had legitimate reasons for creating the laws they did. I don’t believe those laws were handed down to them by God, but rather constructed by the wise men amongst them who felt they were doing what was best at the time for their people. Best way to make sure that laws stick amongst ancient peoples is to say “Straight from God.”
Hope that clarifies.
We can’t fall away. God created us with free will, but we can never fall away from His presence. We can use our free will for good or ill, and we will be judged accordingly for it.
I hope that explains my points more clearly.
SuperCool on November 12, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I really am not. I’m being just as honest with you as you are with me. If you won’t accept my honesty, why should I accept yours?
I said multiple times that they’re not the same. The only similarity is the fact that I can’t imagine anyone would choose to be either. Can you?
And I realize that many questions have no answers, but you’re the one putting that question up as proof you were born that way. The onus would then be on you as to why that works for you but not for others even though the reasoning is the same.
Read through these threads. I’m not your opponent here. I just don’t buy that as a logical answer to whether or not people are born gay. I’m not saying there isn’t an answer or that people aren’t born gay. I’m just saying that argument is weak, because it is.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 6:05 PM
If you consider a couple of suggestive remarks on a comments section on a political website to be adultery, then dude, you are the model beta male. Then again, we knew that.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Naturally. Even breast implants take on a knew meaning when you talk about women with breast cancer. In my great aunt’s time, women would go under while doctors check to see if the tumor was malignant, and some would leave the hospital with their breasts amputated.
There’s certainly a difference between wanting to improve on what God gave you and wanting to return to what God gave you.
There’s actually some differing opinions on that. I think that you can’t control what you like instinctively, but you can alter what you like by repeated exposure to other things.
So I’d say yes and no. I relate it to the nature, nurture conflict.
Completely agree.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 6:12 PM
He’s not. He’s a Bible Worship Cultist. Different than an actual Christian, who worships god and Jesus Christ, and not a stack of mass produced paper.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Do you believe, then, that perhaps there should be a…how shall we put it…”New” New Testament? Perhaps an addendum by the “wise men” of our time to apply to the people of the next millennium?
It does. Thank you.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Do you think we have any? I’d be at a loss on that one.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Thanks for the info on KJV. I’ll read up.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 6:28 PM
You may very well be burdened with homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean you get a seal of approval to engage in you’re desires. Evidence is coming out that violence may have genetic causes, but do we condone the indulgence of that desire? Assuming that God gives his approval because a behavior is genetic is a mistake, since he has burdened individuals , in a variety of ways, since creation.
DFCtomm on November 12, 2008 at 6:34 PM
DFEtomm, I am not asking for your seal of approval. I am just stating a fact in my life.
Getting back to this thread is all about, I don’t approve of the gay leaders who are calling for these marches.
SC.Charlie on November 12, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Are we collectively giving our seal of approval to each straight marriage? I’m sure we all know of straight marriages that never should have happened–take most of the marriages in Hollywood. Given that the government gave a marriage license to Britney Spears, does that imply that we endorse what she does?
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Yeah, it does, or at least it endorses her intent. I doubt she intended to go bats**t crazy, but actually envision being happy when she got married.
DFCtomm on November 12, 2008 at 6:49 PM
We are collectively giving our seal of approval to straight marriages in general. We are not giving our collective approval to each straight marriage on a selective case-by-case basis. (That would be awfully time consuming.)
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 6:52 PM
It seems we are willing to toss our seal of approval at any straight marriage no matter how frivolous the individuals are, how long they’ve known each other or how many marriages or prison terms are in their past.
It rings a little odd to protect the institution of marriage from gays while having no standards for dedication or commitment for the couples currently being married.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Not sure what she intended or if she can manage to think clearly for more an entire minute, but most people took a look at Britney and K-Fed and saw the train wreck ahead.
My point is that churches are institutions capable of providing some quality control on a marriage. Some churches have courses that a couple must go through before they’ll perform the vows–at least it weeds out the couples who can’t stay together for the few months of the course. I think having a marriage endorsed by a particular church provides a valuable seal of approval, but since the state will hand a license out to most anyone they should probably just rename it to the standard form number like an IRS 1040.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Well as you know I’m not willing to toss my own personal seal of approval to serial monogamists. It is a close run thing in some Catholic countries. Modern prison systems are based on rehabilitation. A pattern of recidivism should be enough to keep egregious offenders from making parole and thus from their marriage bed.
There is a religious standard that the married couple take their vows seriously and live by them. Even though many may fail to live up to that standard that does not mean that the sanctity of Holy Matrimony can or should be bestowed upon those who are not fit receive it in the first place.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Your statement is illogical.
It is like saying there should not have laws against cocaine use because there are no standards for proper use of caffeine.Silly.
You also forget…two times California has voted that I know of and both times they voted for Straight Marriage. Let the people’s voice be honored.
Jamson64 on November 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM
I can agree with that, and I can entertain the argument that government should exit the marriage business, and leave it to churches.
DFCtomm on November 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM
im just amazed at the aggressive nature against an older woman. I mean… animals.
psv on November 12, 2008 at 7:40 PM
If it were just a case of taxes then civil unions have it covered and it would be a non-issue. What homosexuals seek by wanting to get married is that their union be blessed by God in Holy Matrimony. Lutheran churches in Sweden are forced by government fiat to perform this service.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 7:41 PM
You’re right. It is a little odd.
I agree with that as well. If you’re going to let people vote on this, then respect the outcome of that vote, otherwise stop the pretense that this is an issue where the will of the people matters.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Esthier,
dedalus is suggesting that there are “no standards for dedication or commitment for the couples currently being married” which he knows to be false. There are standards. You yourself are married, no? Did you take any vows?
He is more subtly suggesting that the existence of failed marriages, such as those in Hollywood, negate marriage as an institution and justify a radical overhaul. But it isn’t necessary to attain perfection in order to justify the continuation of a tradition, let alone a Christian institution.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 7:51 PM
This just made me sick.
This is no way to make people want to support your position by attacking elderly ladies.
This is just ridiculous
God Bless Her
Bizzy on November 12, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Ah, the classic conflict.
A straight couple who are unfaithful, violent, or abusive is perfectly fit to marry.
A gay couple who are faithful, committed, and model citizens? Unfit because they’re gay.
Folks, if that’s the standard, new standards are necessary.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Yes, I did, but those vows aren’t legally binding and are optional for any wedding. And the vows aren’t standard either. Some people go with the common, “in sickness and in health, as long as you both shall live…” but there are plenty of other common vows, and many people make up their own.
I’d hardly call that a standard.
And with no fault divorces, we really don’t have a standard. I once worked as an intern for a lawyer and worked on a case where the couple had been together for over a decade and still lived together but still had no problem getting a divorce for no reason other than that they were no longer close; close enough to live together but not close enough to remain married.
We have long ago made a mockery of marriage.
You’re right on that, but it does seem disingenuous to claim that gay marriages would wreck marriage when we’ve done that well enough without homosexuals.
If churches really care about preserving marriage, it’s more logical to start with the high rate of divorce or at least to include that in the list of problems instead of just focusing on homosexuality.
But this is only a rebuttal to the argument that homosexual marriages degrade the institution of marriage, not proof that gay marriages should be legalized. As you can see that’s a very complex conversation.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Really? What test did you have to pass to go get your marriage license? What exam did you ace before the minister said “I do?” I’ve been to several weddings in the last year, and will be having my own within a year or two. Only one couple, a Catholic couple (who, by the way, support gay marriage), had to do anything, and that was meet with their pastor to basically listen to a lecture.
Go to Vegas and tell me how all those couples getting married are following standards.
It is intellectually dishonest to assert that there are any standards in getting married. If there were, half of them wouldn’t end in divorce.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM
That isn’t what I said. I said that a straight couple are fit to marry. If, after they take their vows, they become unfaithful, violent, or abusive then they have failed in their vows qand should seek marriage counselling.
It doesn’t matter if they’re model citizens. Marriage isn’t a citizenship test – its a religious institution. If they want tax breaks and a pat on the head for being good citizens they can get a civil union.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 8:14 PM
I’m not married.
Congratulations. I wish you happiness with your future wife.
Catholics don’t have pastors, they have priests. I do think that couples should talk to their priest before getting married.
By standards what I meant was that there vows uttered in the sight of God that ought to be taken seriously and acted upon. I haven’t ever been to Las Vegas but it is sad that people take their vows frivolously.
If this cause you to conclude that marriage is essentially meaningless (I’m not saying you do but thats the impression I’m getting) then why do you support homosexuals in their quest to avail of this meaningless ritual?
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 8:21 PM
I had to do the same but for a Baptist church. We had to have three meetings where he basically lectured us and asked us questions. I think he could have decided we weren’t ready, but because of the distance we had to travel, the meetings were too close to the wedding for him to have done that without being cruel. Usually they’re planned a little earlier.
It’s a good thing to have those meetings, but I wouldn’t even call that a standard.
Oh, and my dad had to do the same thing with his first marriage, because he was Catholic. But I can’t see that it was all that effective, since I did say first marriage and she was knocked up at the time.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Judge not.
But I forgive you because I am a Christian.
carbon_footprint on November 12, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Well I don’t consider that making a mockery of marriage is in itself a tradition in itself that ought to be continued.
You’re right on that, but it does seem disingenuous to claim that gay marriages would wreck marriage when we’ve done that well enough without homosexuals.
If churches really care about preserving marriage, it’s more logical to start with the high rate of divorce or at least to include that in the list of problems instead of just focusing on homosexuality.
I’ve has this argument with dedulas about a thousand times. Yes, repeal no-fault divorce. The sooner the better. But legalising homosexual marriage will only make things worse.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 8:24 PM
I’m against that. In the U.S. Catholic churches turn down all types of straight couples for marriage. I like it when organizations have standards, especially religious organizations.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 8:29 PM
I’m surprised Allah hasn’t closed this or something yet.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 6:13 PM
http://www.walkingbarefoot.com/writings/WordBecameFlesh.htm
Now, I’m no theologian, but it seems to me its not such a good idea to believe the Bible is “just a piece of paper.”
Ryan Gandy on November 12, 2008 at 8:30 PM
I’m not arguing that it should be discontinued, but people in this country get married as easily as junior high kids have boyfriends and girlfriends and exchange partners just as quickly. To me that is making a mockery of an institution that is supposed to join one man to one woman for their entire lives.
I honestly don’t see how it can get any worse. Marriage has almost no respect in this country. It would arguably gain respect if homosexuals were allowed to marry the person of their choice.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 8:32 PM
When I got married 5 years ago, I didn’t have to do much other than show my driver’s license to the county clerk–no quiz, no blood test. I had a ceremony a few weeks later, but we wrote our own vows and the state didn’t ask for a copy.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 8:34 PM
We had to do a few counseling sessions and the most inane paper quiz ever imagined for the Lutheran church where we got married. We were supposed to do more, but by that time, Tim was out of state, so it got chopped off without us having to fufil all the reqs – besides, the Pastor had known Tim for years, and I guess figured he knew what he was getting into.
Funny thing about marriage requirements: Tim and I got hitched JoP-style in Pensacola. We walked right in on a whim and got married, as we were both out-of-state residents. In-state residents had a three-day waiting period between applying for a license and being granted one: our wait was more like 3 minutes. Riddle me that, Batman. Oh, we also had to read some literature about the responsibilities of being married.
Anna on November 12, 2008 at 8:35 PM
I’m glad to hear that. The problem to my mind is that the issue of civil unions versus marriages is often called, especially by Christians, a debate over a word. As if the issue were one of linguistic pedantry rather than a conceptual issue.
The actual problem here is that words represent concepts. Marriage, conceptually, is a sacrament – namely the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know if compelling churches to recognise same-sex marriages constitutes an establishment of religion but it seems to me like shaky ground to me.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 8:37 PM
The point Madison is making is that this guy worships the study of God, more than God, similar to the Pharisees and Sadducees of Christ’s day.
The point Jesus made when talking to those groups is that the Word of God is worthless without understanding and knowing God. The fact that the Bible is the word of God is irrelevant if someone is reading the Bible without God. You can’t understand one without the other.
Don’t knee jerkingly correct Madison for a perceived slight. He’s right here.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 8:37 PM
When I got married 5 years ago, I didn’t have to do much other than show my driver’s license to the county clerk–no quiz, no blood test. I had a ceremony a few weeks later, but we wrote our own vows and the state didn’t ask for a copy.dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Well you were, I guess, talking about standards of behaviour which I conflated with spiritual standards. I probably should not have done that.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Whoops, didn’t mean to strike your quote out.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Dennis Prager (I think) argued that straight men would not want to get married if the institution of marriage is co-opted by homosexuals. He made several other arguments – such as that Prom King and Queens would be seen as discriminatory.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 8:44 PM
I agree with those points. It is a complex conversation and if it takes a while longer for states to figure it out, that’s OK. I’d like to see gay marriage voted in by a majority in a state down the road, and think that would be a better way to handle social change than having the courts implement it. But, we’ll see.
I respect the concern that some have with gay marriages but am skeptical that much is being done to strengthen the institution of marriage. In marriage there are many challenges but the state does little to help out. Whether the gays down the street are married or just shacking up doesn’t make my marriage better or worse (that is simply a function of how well I anticipate what my wife wants done without here actually telling me).
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 8:45 PM
It reminds me of a thought I had on another thread, relating to an unintended consequence of banning gay marriage. What if gays continue to be barred from marriage and begin to build a culture around civil unions? What if civil unions become the new normal? Gay people have done something similar before by moving into rundown urban neighborhoods–-say SoHo or Chelsea in NYC–-where they fix up the buildings and open up galleries. Suddenly all the affluent straight people want to live there and property values skyrocket.
Could young straight people opt for the civil unions that their gay friends have? Possibly, if the legal arrangement is cleaner regarding the terms of the commitment, control of the financial assets, home ownership, estate planning and eventual custody of the children.
Which scenario would do more to undermine marriage–-gays marrying or straight couples opting for the customized legal arrangements of civil unions?
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Slandering someone? Show me where I said anything false.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM
A quiz? Did you have to study? What kind of questions were there? This seems really strange to me.
And as to not having to wait because you were from out of state, that also seems very strange. I would think the opposite should be true.
That seems… unlikely. I don’t understand why straight men would feel differently about marriage just because gay people can hold the same title. And really, if they do feel that way, they probably shouldn’t get married in the first place.
I think he’s (assuming you’re correct that it was him who said this) incorrect about this one specifically. There’s no reason you couldn’t have a gay king and a gay queen. The king and queen aren’t necessarily a couple. They’re just the man with the most votes and the woman with the most votes.
However, I am not entirely convinced the argument of discrimination is incorrect as a whole. Though the more convincing arguments to me are the ones where churches may be forced to marry homosexuals, photographers are force to work on gay marriages, children are forced to be taught about Johnny’s two mommies, and religious leaders are jailed for inciting hate crimes because they are preaching their beliefs.
I don’t know that I completely believe those claims either. They’re just more convincing. I believe some people might even warm to the idea of gay marriage if laws were put in place specifically to assuage their fears that they could be jailed for a belief that homosexuality is a sin.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Um, it is a piece of paper. Several of them, with ink smeared on them that are in the form of characters that we can derive language from. It is still nothing but some paper and ink, any more than any other book.
What you do with the words is something else entirely. Worship of the ideas those words talk about is one thing. Worship of a material object is lunacy.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 9:04 PM
To work from that analogy, what I’m saying is that avoiding cocaine doesn’t mean that you are in good shape. If you are overweight, your arteries clogged, and your blood pressure too high you are a still a good candidate for a heart attack.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 9:06 PM
You did mention this on a previous thread but I never got around to responding to it.
I think this scenario – that of young straight couples opting for civil unions out of fashion – would have a far less deleterious effect upon marriage as a whole. Yes it would play to the gallery crowd but they might grow out of it once they’d reached their 40s.
For one thing it would not necessitate the curbing of religious freedom in the name of non-discrimination which I and several other commenters have pointed out will happen, by providing links and comparing situations in other countries–and also in Boston.
These arguments are almost totally ignored by supporters of homosexual marriage on HA. Although to your credit dedulas you have sometimes engaged with them as above when you agreed that the coercive position of the Swedish government is not agreeable.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 9:07 PM
If that’s what people want, then I agree. I hate that they keep trying to force this on people, especially in a state where they have civil unions.
True and I think that’s a shame. I’m not sure what I’d propose the state does, but many of the arguments in favor of heterosexual marriage talk about how much the state needs heterosexual couples. It has a motivation to keep these couples together and ensure that they are able to provide for children and yet it does nothing.
Smart man. You’ve learned a lot in five years of marriage.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Therefore why not try some cocaine? /jk :)
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 9:12 PM
It’s precisely because I don’t consider marriage meaningless that I support gay marriage. Let me lay it out for you thusly.
Of all marriages, roughly 50% end in divorce. Now, taking into account that there are cases of people staying in bad marriages for any number of reasons, the fact of the matter is that less than half of all marriages are happy ones. Doesn’t matter if 49.99% are happy, it’s still less than half. Therefore, marriage is currently being taken for granted and unappreciated by more than half of those who enter into it.
That’s bad.
Now, theoretically, what is a person to do when they are in a relationship where they are being taken for granted and unappreciated? They go and find someone who will appreciate and value and cherish them.
So, you have more than half of straight couples treating marriage like crap. Now, over in this corner, you have a group of people, consenting adults, who want the chance to show that they would respect such a commitment by entering into it themselves.
That group is people of different relig-oops, heh…
I mean, that group is people of different race-oops, I mean…
That group is homosexuals. Forget those last two.
When you have an institution being defiled by most than half of the people who enter into it, why is that less important to you than a small group of people who are offering to show it respect? You have no evidence to suggest that they are any more likely to break that commitment than straight people because you’ve never given them a chance, and marriage is already filled with couples with no sense of responsibility, so what exactly is there to lose?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 9:13 PM
All of these unjust orders and prosecutions proceed from the ideological belief that non-discrimination in itself is the highest good and should be enshrined as the ruling principle of society. As does the belief in open borders. A sane society discriminates in favour of itself in interests of order and for its very survival.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Hmmm. Thanks for responding. Didn’t know whether you had seen it on the other thread since we went on a bit after it had dropped from the home page. I see your concern more clearly now. If your point is the consequences for religious and educational institutions, I’d agree with you and be in favor of having legislative bodies work on the issue, delaying until they could produce a result that provided gays their rights and religious institutions their freedom of practice.
The gallery crowd thing struck me as a bigger concern that some would have. Since I recall hearing that some European countries were experimenting with trial marriages, where couples would agree to a 5 year commitment and then renew if everything was A-OK. The idea that marriage isn’t a commitment strikes me as the bigger societal concern, and has already been a disaster in the U.S.–where Heather may have two mommies and two daddies and a bunch of half-brothers and step-sisters due to straight marriage and easy divorce.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Wow! You surprise me every time. Just when I think I’m losing you, you do something great like this. You’re welcome. Watch this excellent summary when you get a chance. It’s only a few minutes long. This is awesome!
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Look dude, I’ve said already that marriage is a religious institution. Its not a government quota program that requires good results to ensure it gets more funding from pork-loving Congressmen.
As far as the current failures among straight married couples, I oppose divorce and especially no-fault divorce. I would also be in favour of a more modest and civil tone in society – what William Wilberforce called a change in manners.
Now can you tell me why homosexuals should be allowed to form a union that is given an implicit religious blessing coerced from the adherents of a religion you don’t even believe in? Its not for tax purposes; civil unions have that covered.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 9:24 PM
I agree, and that’s actually why I’m not entirely convinced on those arguments, because the anti-discrimination laws, as you pointed out so well, are more a symptom of the larger problem.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 9:32 PM
But it’s not just religious as court house weddings will show.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Yet if homosexuals were only arguing they be allowed court house or registry weddings then the issue would not have arisen.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Not only are you full of false but you are full of yourself. You should look back on your comments here and read them as if they were written by another person. Then you would see just how false and empty you are. Or maybe you wouldn’t.
carbon_footprint on November 12, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Well, it would for some, as some people don’t even want civil unions, but you’re right specifically in this case.
I don’t really get the outright anger shown in the video here since California already allowed civil unions.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 9:44 PM
I hope that you will come to reject blind anti-discrimination as I do. This article in the Daily Telegraph reports that local government councils in the UK are banning the use of Latin phrases by their employees, because such phrases are “elitist” and “discriminatory” and make Third World immigrants feel inferior. The end point of liberalism is the destruction of all European and European-American culture and societal norms as anti-discriminatory.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 9:48 PM
I always have.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Right. So why are you against allowing some churches who want to marry gay couples do so? Why do you want to use the government to establish marriage for all religions based on your own opinion?
Wouldn’t we all. Ain’t gonna happen. Deal with reality and attainable goals, instead of fantasies about utopia. I don’t mean that to sound coarse, but come on. Utopian fantasies are reserved for socialists.
I don’t believe any church should be forced to marry a gay couple. I also don’t believe any church should be restricted from doing so. What many of the people on your side propose includes a marriage amendment, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and denying the rights of some churches to practice their own beliefs.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Where did I say that? I’ve never heard of any gay churches.
I don’t believe any church should be forced to marry a gay couple. I also don’t believe any church should be restricted from doing so. What many of the people on your side propose includes a marriage amendment, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and denying the rights of some churches to practice their own beliefs.
The forced marriage of homosexuals by Christian churches (i.e. churches who do not approve of it) is exactly what will happen. That is the leftist agenda. You’re being naive is you think it will only be applied to religions and churches that approve of homosexuality. I’ve never heard of any but I suppose I’ll take your word for it.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 10:07 PM
im just amazed at the aggressive nature against an older woman. I mean… animals.
psv on November 12, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Hey psv, Not all gays are in that category. I know many gays. They could care less about Prop. 8 They say that they get the benefits that married couples get. And that they feel that others would hate them and do violence towards them. They realize that they are more accepted, then years ago. Still, there are some who are not tolerant. They were very upset seeing what they did to that older woman. Most of these wonderful gays, are respectful, they don’t make a straight person, as me. Feel at all uncomfortable. They are honest, hard working, loving and caring. And most Republican’s. That voted against The One. I just hate people being put in one category. And, not getting on you either. Just wanted you to know. I voted yes on 8, and not ashamed of it. I am sure that they worry about the Bible, and how straights see them. And at times they like to belittle them. If they can. I have never meddled and could care less. My son is gay. So, why wouldn’t I want to learn more about any person. Straight, gay, and so on. But those men were very brutal to that lady. She had every right. She didn’t do anything that they weren’t doing.
sheebe on November 12, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I have. There are even some churches with gay preachers. They’re in the minority, but they exist.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 10:13 PM
There are a number of churches who willingly marry gay couples, primarily methodist, presbyterian, and other protestant offshoots. They’re not “gay churches”, they simply see gay marriage as legitimate and are willing to perform them. There are several in my area, and I know of several in Illinois and Minnesota, as well as ones I’ve heard about all along New England. This isn’t any great secret. They were in the news all the time in the last few years as this topic heated up.
As I said, I am as against forcing any church to do anything against their beliefs as you are. However, once again, I assert that your side is looking to force some churches NOT to marry people as is consistent with their beliefs. What is your opinion on that?
With all respect, if your answer is again “leftist agenda”, and talk of slippery slope, you needn’t answer. We can simply agree to disagree.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:13 PM
One observation is that U.S. churches currently engage in religious discrimination with weddings. Catholics, specifically, in some parrishes will refuse to perform interfaith weddings, even between a Catholic and a Protestant. There are anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. that would prevent you from employment discrimination against someone on religious grounds, but churches haven’t been forced so far to marry people who don’t meet the faith requirements. That seems right. Hopefully, it won’t change.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM
One observation is that U.S. churches currently engage in religious discrimination with weddings. Catholics, specifically, in some parrishes will refuse to perform interfaith weddings, even between a Catholic and a Protestant. There are anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. that would prevent you from employment discrimination against someone on religious grounds, but churches haven’t been forced so far to marry people who don’t meet the faith requirements. That seems right. Hopefully, it won’t change.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Not so sure on some that you said. But, not trying to argue with you. Some you are right. I was the Personal Chef for the Arch Diocese of Los Angeles. I was hired because I was not a member of the Parish. There were some very important events that I saw and heard. They couldn’t have that spread around the Church. It was the most honorable job that I had. That was the main reason that Father George hired me, and the fact that I am a Gourmet Chef.
sheebe on November 12, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Then they have ceased to be Christian churches.
My opinion is that homosexuals, by looking to be married by sham pseduo-Christian churches, are still determined in their underlying motivation to partake of the blessing of (the Christian) God on their unions – which is not possible.
If they only cared about secular recognition for legal/tax purposes this issues could be addressed by civil unions.
You seem offended on their behalf which is strange as you have no more belief in Christianity than they do.
The almost universal obsession with being considered “legitimate” by people who believe in a religious doctrine that one does not share seems to me to be subtly deranged.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Well I hope it doesn’t come to that either but the whole direction of liberal Western society is towards equalising everybody in every way and breaking down all distinctions. Its like a soft, fuzzy, feel-good version of Communism. At some point it will either destroy society or be rejected wholesale.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Yep. I see where you’re coming from, and further discussion is unnecessary.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Says the moderate fundamentalist. Its a basic point of Christian doctrine. You would be better off attacking Christianity as intolerant than trying to float the fallacy that a church can both call itself Christian and endorse homosexuality. It can’t.
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 10:38 PM
You’re inviting attack on the Christian Church? Then you’re one of the things that really makes me question why I bother to defend Christianity against atheist fundamentalists. You’re a self-made victim, pal. You goad people into attacking you because you can use it for whining points. You hurt the cause you claim to be for.
Moderate fundamentalist? What the hell does that even mean? That’s a contradiction in terms.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:41 PM
sham pseduo-Christian churches
I would rather go to the above Church then the ones that many call their churches. But, I am agnostic. Use to be different. Seen the hypocrites for to long that go to the REAL Churches. They get out and go home. Crack the booze or roll a joint. Beat their wives, The men the women run around and cheat on each other. They let their kids disrespect them. No morals or goals set. When a fact of true reality comes. Then they quote Bible scripts to you. I don’t think I have ever met a TRUE Christian.
sheebe on November 12, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next »