Quotes of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on November 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“The tall, frail Christoffersen stood in the center of the group. She appeared to be shaking during her prepared remarks which lasted about 3 minutes. Two young female family members flanked her to prevent her from fainting, according to a restaurant employee. At several points during her speech, Christoffersen simply became too emotional to continue.”
*
Watch CBS Videos Online
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 2 3 4 5 Next »
It’s early so I’m not sure, I know we agree somewhat. Can you expand on your “however” point?
csdeven on November 15, 2008 at 8:25 AM
First it was about getting the same rights as married couples, hospital visits, retirement benefits, property rights, and it had NOTHING to do with the word MARRIAGE.
WELL they lied! they have got ALL the rights as married couples “in civil unions” and that is still not enough!
THEY WHANT TO DESTROY THE WORD MARRIAGE “that has been defined as between a man and a woman for thousands of years”
And they are out to destroy the very fabric that traditional marriage has standed for and that has been around for 1,000 of years.
We need to stand up to these RADICALS shout them down or use force when necessary “which will not be hard” and the media needs to be held accountable for fueling this HATE! and RAGE! it is there fault this keeps going on and on!
THE MEDIA IS OUT OF CONTROL! they are run by these ingrades! and long hair dope smoking !@#$%^^&*&*(
I am PISSED AND TIRED OF BEING ATTACKED for standing for what is RIGHT!
time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 15, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I wasn’t gays who brought the institute of marriage to a 50% divorce rate and the introduction of pre-nups…
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 8:29 AM
It
a money grab, but I wouldn;t call it plain and simple.
It is also an attempt to raise the middle finger and fly it one inch from the face of a cultural more that they detest.
They only see themselves in this picture, and they have no common respect for the dignity of others not like them.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Oops. One more time. Apologies to csdeven.
It is a money grab, but I wouldn;t call it plain and simple.
It is also an attempt to raise the middle finger and fly it one inch from the face of a cultural more that they detest.
They only see themselves in this picture, and they have no common respect for the dignity of others not like them.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 8:32 AM
That’s not true.
They’ve had their hand in this, too.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Well, that source only compared AIDS deaths to obits, and then to the “general public”. Obviously, a gay man with full-blown AIDS will die sooner than a man plucked from the “general public” without AIDS…Remember, being gay, or having gay sex, didn’t produce the AIDS virus. It just so happened that “patient zero” as he’s been called…that airline steward, was supposedly the first to get it, and being gay, it spread within the gay community first. Straight people are hardly immune to AIDS.
As for us “decent folk” (well, thanks for including me in the “decent” group) doing something about the militant wing, I speak out against them constantly. I can’t force them to stay home and shut up…all I can do is reiterate that they don’t speak for me.
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 8:39 AM
How, Sam….how?
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 8:40 AM
This whole thing is not about allowing sodomites legal access to the term marriage. It’s ultimately about denying marriage to normal men and women. That is, reducing the very concept to such meaninglessness, by letting sodomites have it, that the vital institution is soon seen as even more pointless than many already see it. Thus family units are further negated, proper upbringings of children disrupted, and their future roles in society confused. Result: the further disintegration of society, leading to the inevitable replacement by something else.
And because it cannot be said often enough:
History proves that sodomites = decay, death and destruction, every time.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 8:42 AM
If you are making the case against yourself…that is the way to do it…You only perpetuate what people think a marriage would be like when times get tough.
tomas on November 15, 2008 at 8:43 AM
We hate you because if you voted against us you must hate us no matter what you say or do because you voted against us and the only way we won’t hate you anymore is if you give us what we want and shut up.
That’s all I get out of the actions of the No on prop 8 people.
gitarfan on November 15, 2008 at 8:44 AM
By engaging in homosexual behavior and breaking their vows to their spouse.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 8:45 AM
csdeven,
This is from an earlier post in this thread that should explain more the “however” portion of my last post to you. I believe that as a free person (although I know the argument is that I am not a truly free person in this country right now), I can do whatever I wish to do as long as my actions do not infringe upon anyone else’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Unfotunately, as the Leviathan has grown to ungodly size and scope and has its tentacles involved in almost everything, true liberty cannot be achieved until the state is rolled back significantly to its intended size to allow it to secure our rights and expand freedom, not restrict it for the purposes of gaining an electorate.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 8:46 AM
What??
So wait…the high divorce rate amongst married men/women is due mainly to gay men, who married women, and fooled around with guys on the side….?
Honestly, where do you get this info from, thin air?
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Sojetboy
we should just destroy the word marriage because we have a high rate of seperation!
Thats starting a very dangerous standard!
time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 15, 2008 at 8:50 AM
they have civil unions THAT IS IT! NO MORE!
I am tired of this crap being thrown in my face and my childs face!
what u do in your bedroom is your buisness! keep it there!
time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 15, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Where did I ever say that? All I’m saying is that you seem to think “marriage” will be destroyed if gays are allowed to marry. “Marriage” is supposedly some grand institution 2000 years old. But it wasn’t gays who brought such a high divorce rate…So how are gays gonna destroy marriage?
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Older.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Why aren’t these people targeting blacks and hispanics? Those two voter blocks that shot down prop 8.
marklmail on November 15, 2008 at 8:58 AM
You must be a liberal, JetBoy, because you do what all liberals do, and that is to go off point and throw everything in but the kitchen sink when it comes to making an argument.
time2taketheglovesoffGOP is absolutely right. Whatever the divorce rate is between couples, as you so astutely point out, “marriage” belongs to a man and a woman. It was recognized way before Christianity came into play that this union should be state sanctioned and protected as a necessary building block to a stable society. “Marriage” by definition, is between a man and a women.
The gay population wants us to say “never mind” to 4000 years of history, never mind a mainstay in America’s cultural tradition, in the name of “equal” or “civil” rights. Which of course makes a mockery out of the historic struggle for true civil and equal rights.
Let them get their panties in a knot over something else, like the inhumane treatment of homosexuals in Islamic culture.
Or the fact that I wrote “panties in a knot” which clearly was the case with that one male protestor who took on an elderly women with a cross. I mean, I know it’s not PC to say so, but is it only me who doesn’t feel all that threatened by a bunch of gay guys having a hissy fit?
CarolynM on November 15, 2008 at 8:59 AM
GO READ A DICTIONARY AND WHAT THE DEFINATION IS!
THATS HOW!you will destroy it!
what the HELL let’s throw away the hole f$%^^ book!
and start a new one!
and for what ever reason it sounds like you HATE the word marriage! why is that!
time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 15, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Th state did not impose itself on the definition of marriage, it recognizes the definition as it has always existed.
There is a difference.
Now, we have a group of people that want to impose an oxymoronic legal definition upon the population by demanding that the state impose a new definition (whatever that new definition is, we’ve yet to hear).
In response, the people have spoken.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Because it’s not about Prop 8 getting shot down this time. It’s not even about those two groups being minorities, thus off-limits…either of those objections would be logically consistent, at least. It’s about the institution itself – THAT is the enemy.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Time magazine is reporting that blacks are being targeted as well.
You know, this nation’s economy is in a ditch. our country is involved in the war on terror everywhere. we have bigger problems than gay marriage to worry about.
kelley in virginia on November 15, 2008 at 9:02 AM
So you’re pissed off because…the dictionary definition might be changed? C’mon now…
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Uh, no….I’m no liberal.
And hey, slavery had thousands of years of “tradition”…let’s bring it back!
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Wars and economic problems, we will come out of in time.
The destruction of the core institution that holds all societies together? There is no bigger issue to worry about.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 9:03 AM
You can stop trying to reason with JB. He’s quite immune to it.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Yes that’s 1 reason!
The second is that this group of people is 2 cowardly to even express what there true intent is!
THEY LIE!
Because they know if they expressed what there true intent is they would be CRUSHED!
So like little HITLERS they lie, they use propaganda, black list, threaten the general public to conform to there ideals!
SCREW THEM!
time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 15, 2008 at 9:08 AM
The majority of Californian’s want the definition to stand as between “One Man and One Woman.” I think the majority of the LGBT community don’t have children. They have no concept of raising a child. My children have learning disabilities. But they understand the fact that kids need a Mother and a Father. They were very scared of Prop. 8 not passing. They were afraid of kids not having the stability of a traditional family. The radical left wants to break down the traditions of the family. And children are to suffer. Let kids have the right to grow up in a stable family life, just as we have done for the past 5,000 years!
NavyWife on November 15, 2008 at 9:09 AM
You want to play little games and make up things that I said out of thin air?
I said that homosexuals have had their hands in this divorce rate too, in direct response to your claim that gays have no culpability.
More make believe?
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Oh, yeah, there’s that kitchen sink again. Slavery is morally wrong by every measure (in the Western world anyway) and is a scourge on our history.
I mean if we are going to morally equivocate, then you tell me how our history of slavery is somehow as reprehensible as not letting Johnny and Jimmy be pronounced husband and husband.
CarolynM on November 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Impose. Recognize. It misses my point. Why does the state need to recognize marriages of any type? What does the state have to do with marriage? Nothing. It only has become involved in the definition, recognition, imposition of marriage because it has gotten into the business of retirement, healthcare, and regulation (All pursuits of a government unrestrained by the Constitution and more focused on restricting freedom than securing it). So my point is that that government should not care nor have anything to do with marriage. It needs to get out of the retirement benefit business, the healthcare business, and the over-regulation business.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 9:12 AM
re: Jetboy
I mean you no offense, but why do you even try to have a discussion with people who choose celebrate the misuse and abuse of basic anatomical systems, the functions of which even six year old children can grasp? Do you beat your head against brick walls, too? Cuz you’re going to have just about the same effect on both your targets.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Its already here-its called welfare. Ever heard of Uncle Sam’s Plantation?
Bicyea on November 15, 2008 at 9:15 AM
They are trying to demonize the Evangelical Christians in general. That is why they frame their argument with the word “hate”. They cannot do this to black and hispanics for fear of losing that voting block on other issues. They need to demonize the the last remaining resistence to all of their idiologies. The Proposition 8 vote showed them that had their candidate for president been a white guy with an onion skin resume he would not have been elected.
thomasaur on November 15, 2008 at 9:15 AM
The following is the wording for the California family law code 297-297.5.
(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Given that this is still the law of the land in California will someone please explain to me how:
1)anyone’s rights are being taken away.
2) Anyone is being “told who they can love.”
3) The government isn’t “staying out of my bedroom.”
Bobbertsan on November 15, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Where are the hate crime laws when you need them?
Isn’t it just sweet,, the mobs can carry signs that read
“Stop the hate” while they surround some little old lady, steal her cross and stomp it to the ground, spit on her, publish black lists and threaten business,,, but hey,, they’ve got those signs so their not really hatin!
Oppressors always accuse their victims of oppression!
JellyToast on November 15, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Normal couples (of which most marriages are still comprised, believe it or not) have around 18 years to expose children to heterosexuality. By the time they leave the nest, the son or daughter’s psychosexual “self” is, in 99% of cases, pretty much permanently cast. That is, those that grow up straight tend to stay that way.
That is reason enough for sodomites to want to destroy marriage, not enjoy it for themselves as they currently claim. It’s the same reason they’re so big on having pro-sodomite training in the earliest public school grades. They reproduce by recruitment, not by reproduction. That’s why they’re so insufferably loud and “in your face” on ALL these issues: they’re forever desperate and frightened for a supply of new sodomites.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 9:25 AM
It might seem trivial, but the legal definition of a word can change a society for the worse. Once “marriage” is open to interpretation, you can bet that the folks wanting to change “consenting” and “adult” will be ready to go to court also.
I think this is a line worth drawing.
TugboatPhil on November 15, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Cue JetBoy calling me a bigot in three…two…
splink on November 15, 2008 at 9:27 AM
You act as if history only started 15 years ago.
The state has recognized marriage LONG before the New Deal. In fact, all thirteen colonies recognized marriage, and marriage carried through into common law as the Constitution itself was being formed.
The government’s current involvement is a direct result of a group of people that want to impose an oxymoronic legal definition upon the population by demanding that the state impose a new definition (whatever that new definition is, we’ve yet to hear).
Otherwise, the state wouldn’t even THINK to involve itself in changing the legal definition of marriage, regardless of New Deal politics. It would just be providing courts for civil disputes as it always has, recognizing marriage as one of the most basic social contracts since before courts existed.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 9:37 AM
This isn’t enough for the gay population because their agenda has nothing to do with having equal rights or “stopping the hate”. What they really want is to force the state to recognize gay marriage by law and to give gay marriage the same status as the old fashioned kind-you know, between a man and a human, where there is a propagation of the species and a future for a society.
The gay lifestyle is an alternate lifestyle by this measure. Single parent households, like the one my kids live in, do not represent traditional family households.
We can all celebrate that there are alternatives to traditional marriage and the traditional family, but we should not have a state sanctioned redefining of either.
CarolynM on November 15, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Senseless boycotting is so gay.
Black Adam on November 15, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Why?
splink on November 15, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Why?
CarolynM on November 15, 2008 at 9:48 AM
The gay lobby is like the rest of the liberals and the obamabots; threats, intimidation, browbeating. A good way to find out what you are made of; granite or jello?
Congratulations California, on doing one thing right.
SKYFOX on November 15, 2008 at 9:48 AM
I have a couple of questions I asked another poster and I need serious answers. Do you think that in a couple of years, this question will come up again and your side will win? If your side had won this proposition and you had churches that embraced marrying you, would gays allow there to be “separate but equal” churches? And would you endorse the semi-violent to violent demonstrations, boycotts, and the publishing of donors personal information by a radical minority of those who did not vote for Mr. Obama?
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 9:48 AM
One of the legitimate functions of government is to enforce legal contracts and settle disputes. Marriage should simply be a contract in the eyes of the state, nothing more. That it was a recognized contract as the colonies struggled to become independent is immaterial to the philosophical argument of the legitimate function of government in a free society. I argue that government on its very best day is but a necessary evil. I am not a fan of gay marriage or of the gay movement. As a matter of fact, I find it repugnant and a sin in the eyes of God. However, because I want to be a free person with as little government interference as possible in my life (which seems more and more impossible these days), I will support less government and less regulation whenever I can.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Have been boycotting TV, is there a big police presence? and where ARE the hate crime laws? I heard on Laura Ingraham’s show that they were calling blacks the N word.
They can’t possibly think this behavior is going to endure them to the masses- maybe we’ll have those election riots yet, maybe Erica Jong will get her, “blood in the streets”.
anniekc on November 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM
All the counter protest signs should read, “Disagreement is not hate.”
Tom Blogical on November 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Well, then,
…we’re in total agreement.
The people have spoken:
The state shall not be allowed to change the legal definition of marriage.
Now, will you be as passionate if we are forced to deal with the tyranny of the courts?
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Another sign should read, “Hate = Violent Protests”
Tom Blogical on November 15, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Cindy, thanks for your clarification.
Don’t get your hopes up for a rational discussion with JetBoy.
Some time ago he was defending sodomy as normal, in the sense that hetero-sex is normal. I then asked him (pardon my graphic language), if sodomy is normal, when was the last case he knew of where one man inseminated and impregnated another man’s anus. At that point he dodged my question entirely and instead accused me (as someone else was accused in this very thread) of being deeply hung up on the mechanics of sodomy, which can only mean I myself am a sodomite in denial. I’m sure he believed he won that engagement.
Don’t expect much from him, is all I’m saying.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 9:59 AM
I will assume you do not believe in marriage licenses and divorce laws.
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:00 AM
“The deafing solence of our elected officials”.
Exactly.
BallisticBob on November 15, 2008 at 10:03 AM
splink on November 15, 2008 at 9:25 AM
I will say that we heterosexuals are doing enought destroying ourselves.
I support the vote of the people. I do not think gay marriage is right or good for society. However, I think we spend far too much time on it.
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Nothing so far but remember it is pretty early in California. Although hackers apparently breached IMF computers, very comforting.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM
You know the rules – it’s only a hate crime to call blacks the N word when it’s a straight white Christian doing it.
CarolynM on November 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM
….through no fault of our own.
It is the responsibility of the people to limit the government, and the government has all the time in the world.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 10:07 AM
The gay mobs are actually cutting their own throats, they are beating their own heads with the signs they carry,, only they will not realize it until it is too late.
They attack the one people that truly believe in freedom and liberty. They think if they assist in creating a government, through mob rule, that will have the power to force their lifestyle on the nation, they will be free.
A government that is powerful enough to force the gay lifestyle is a government powerful enough to, at it’s own whim, force any lifestyle it chooses at moments notice.
No one is free in a police state,, not even gays.
Whatever sexual freedom they think they will gain, by stomping on some little old lady carrying a cross, , they will more than lose in every other way. They will be at the mercy, as all the people will be, of the whims and moods of the dictator in charge.
It is the Christian people and the Christian religion that has been responsible for true freedom in the world.
JellyToast on November 15, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Ditto what Sam says, but remember Jamson, the mother/father/child unit is the core of society. Without it, societies die. How much attention you choose to give it is your choice. Just please don’t presume to speak for all by saying “we” spend too much time on it. If anything, “we” are not spending ENOUGH time on it.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Splink don’t be an ass
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I lifted this from the comments at Digg, but I think this is the best description on why Prop 8 passed.
BohicaTwentyTwo on November 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM
A government that is powerful enough to force the gay lifestyle is a government powerful enough to, at it’s own whim, force any lifestyle it chooses at moments notice.
No one is free in a police state,, not even gays.
Good post, JellyToast
anniekc on November 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Splink … the point is the divorce rate is far too high among straight people….and yes WE do spend more time on the gay issue than the divorce issue. That cannot be argued in reality.
Care to join reality?
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:16 AM
You know what is odd about this? I have three adult children, none married at this point. Only one seems to be interested in marrying and starting a family. I know that that will most likely change when they find someone but I must make an observation about their generation. They don’t seem to care about marriage, to them it is just a word. Their peers live together, buy homes together and have children together with out benefit of marriage. Those that do get married seem to either be throwing a bone to the old folks or have decided they need some new stuff for the house. Same “kids” think that there is more likelihood of aliens from other planets then God. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that this is a phase that will pass with maturity but you have to admit it is bizarre that so passionate a defense on both sides for a subject consider so passe’.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Cindy if your kids are male…don’t be surprised if they never marry. This is becoming more and more common. Just more evidence that all this worry about gays is overblown when it comes to comparing it to straight marriage and divorce.
For many it is easier to be fixated on gay marriage then to really have to look at ourselves.
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Cindy …I would wager your one child who is interested in marriage is a female….just guessing.
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Without wishing for any physical harm to come about, this might be a good thing for all to witness: Maybe there will be a dawning recognition of how ludicrous CA has become with their stupid, “tolerance” policies. Not just regarding Gays, but in all respects. We left the Bay area during their push to teach ebonics, (sp?) in the public schools. The funny thing was, the same people who were adament about allowing the ebonics were going broke keeping their kids in private schools.
It might be nice for CA to be made slapped in the face with their own stupidity.
anniekc on November 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Stop using solid logic CM, you may lose contact.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Actually, the logical phrase would be:
…as reprehensible as not letting Johnny and Jimmy be pronounced husband and wife.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 10:25 AM
but you have to admit it is bizarre that so passionate a defense on both sides for a subject consider so passe’.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 10:17 AM
I think all they really want is the legal aspects of spousal health care, benefits, etc. You know- more free stuff.
anniekc on November 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Jamson,
I have called you no names, yet you insult me with “ass” right off the bat. It’s clear you are either an adolescent or you have some deep personal investment in this issue. I will choose to believe the second option, and tread lightly.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM
.
From a good post on men , relationships, and marriage>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/773847/posts
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM
messed up quote code, sorry
splink on November 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Splink so sensitive. Kind of funny the little poke you attempt to make at me considering your little “we” comment previously. Pretty childish reaction there buddy.
In reality -again join me if you please–
The folks who are more interested in the gay marriage issue than improving society and marriage among the 98% percent of us who are straight could do well to prioritize our time and efforts.
I think the left may have something there when it comes to
homosexual feelings amongst people like you. Those that cry the loudest…well you know.
I am asking for better heterosexual marriages and I believe that we would be better spending our times there as with that effort the family and society wins.
I guess you can try some adolescent insuating based on my overall comments. Bet you won’t.
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I’m doing my part.
I take it you are married and doing your part too?
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Worry more about this
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Sam right on brother.
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Jamson64 on November 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM
That’s a “yes”, I take it?
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Oddly enough, no, it is my oldest son. The daughter doesn’t suffer fools gladly, if she ever gets married she will have found a man desperately in love or someone in the family will have won the lottery. Gosh, that’s hateful.
I may be wrong but I believe they get all those things under the Civil Union law.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 10:44 AM
, didn’t produce the AIDS virus. It just so happened that “patient zero” as he’s been called…that airline steward, was supposedly the first to get it, and being gay, it spread within the gay community first. Straight people are hardly immune to AIDS.
Ya, know Jet Boy.. we are still waiting for aids to break out in the huge numbers they said it would in that population that only has hetrosexual sex with partners that don’t share needles. Why isn’t it happening? Why can’t you face the truth of your own unhealthy practices and the disease it spreads?
Don’t cite Africa.. they also sort of have trouble with that dirty needle issue.
Noelie on November 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM
WANT TO WEAKEN AND KILL A SOCIETY? DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE.
*Reduce marriage to nothing more a way to get benefits (the sodomite’s surface argument) or to flex political muscle. If they win, the institution of marriage is weakened and, eventually, society is weakened even further.
*Depict marriage as a burden to be avoided (the mindset of many young males and not a few females, most of whom invariably are products of bad marriages, no marriages or broken homes). The idea of possibly producing offspring, however, is NEVER negated by a rejection of marriage. Being unequipped to handle parenthood, both parent and children become some kind of burden on society (welfare, delinquency, crime, drugs, etc). Then the illegitimate kids grow up, have their own illegitimate kids, and the cycle repeats. Society weakens further.
*Get divorce away from being an absolute last resort in only the most extreme cases. Eventually people will demand divorce (assuming they even married in the first place) for being looked at cross-eyed.
*Completely and openly untie sex from the safety of marriage. Imply or state that kids need not be burdened with the possible consequence of a live baby. Their alternatives: abort it, or let the state (i.e., taxpayers) foot the bills and shoulder the responsibility for both child and parent.
Even in the BEST of non-traditional marriages, ask the parent if the situation is ideal for the kids (mom is missing, dad is missing, one or the other is part-time, whatever). If they’re intelligent and honest, they’ll say no, it is not ideal. Children suffer from lacking the guidance of both parents. And as the twig is bent…so grows society.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Gee, Jamson64, that was a weird place to end a conversation.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Hosea 4:6, “For my people parish for lack of knowledge..”
For too long, the American church, by and large, has lacked preaching the true Gospel. It has been replaced by a feel good, get rich watered down gospel.
Marriage is attacked and mocked in the media.
The only men who never seem to want to have sex on TV or in the movies, unless it is with someone other than their wives, are married men.
Matt. 18:20 “Where two or three are gathered in My name, I am in their midst.”
Deut 32:30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
Ecc. 4:9 “A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.”(the third strand here being Jesus)
A husband and a wife united are very powerful. That is why marriage is under assault.
But, to encourage, you,, there are some great things happening in the youth in America. In our church, for example, our youth service numbers around 100 or more. We have youth that are getting married virgins and are having great marriages.
A lot if this is just the lack of understanding,, the lack of good marriage teaching. God invented sex,, as our Pastor says,, we are free within the boundaries of God’s laws.
Sex is for marriage,, but when you are married,, bust the bedboards!
The world is always trying to define the church, say what the church is not.
The world says Christians have sex hangups and all this other dribble,, but it’s the world that is aborting babies, dying from sexual diseases, crushing and breaking hearts,,,
destroying families and abandoning children.
But,, all of this, unfortunately,, comes back to a false gospel being preached in too many churches. There is a great deal of sin in America,, and that’s just in the churches.
But,, marriage too, is a very powerful relationship. it is a very Holy thing, in the eyes of God,,, so much so that he even considers his relationship with the church as a marriage. We are His bride. And He will be coming back for His bride,, one without spot or wrinkle.
JellyToast on November 15, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Gays like to boast about how ‘creative’ they are. Well, “create” a new word for what they’d like to call marriage.
Certainly are a ‘tolerant’ lot, aren’t they.
What’s next, firebombing homes and businesses of those who supported Prop 8?
GarandFan on November 15, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Mom?
Is that you?
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM
This is not about gays. It is about same sex marriage. Big difference.
I am against two straight men getting married as well. And by the way, gays can get married. A gay man may marry a gay woman. A gay man may marry a straight woman. This happens all the time. There is no discrimination based purely on sexual preference.
Now if I am bi-sexual do I get to marry two people. Ya know it is my right. NOT
Geochelone on November 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Gay marriage = Rocky Mountain Oysters
Not really oysters
Not really marriage
BohicaTwentyTwo on November 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Makes about as much sense as free-market communism.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I recently read Bernie Goldberg’s book “Bias”…in it was a chapter on this. He says the MSM hyped this fact and lied to the American people so as to scare them and to get ratings.
I have to tell you this book fired me up because all of the news reports he cited as being hyped and biased are all that I believed at one time..back when I was a stupid Democrat. I recommend this book to everyone.
becki51758 on November 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Jamson,
I don’t believe you’re merely adolescent, though you act as one.
And you can mewl about divorce rates all you like; I’m not buying it. You’re sly, but so am I.
The ONLY people who I’ve ever seen shoot a comment like this at others:
are themselves sodomites. At the very least you’re a sympathizer, which makes you a pro-sodomy troll, though not as subtle of one as you think. You’re just as dangerous to society with your “nothing to see here, move along” attitude is even more dangerous; the foolish might actually believe you’re sincere and be lulled into inaction. But I see through you: your insults, emotional investment and inability to hide your feelings betrays you.
I, on the other hand, am one of the normal people who see the danger coming (from many fronts, not just from your kind), and rightly fear for the future of their children’s society…that includes the future of my 6 month old, Ellie.
And yet I know that, in the end, your side will win. Or appear to win, for a time. Then you’ll lose, forever.
splink on November 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Hell yes. Tyranny of the courts is still tyranny. Life, Liberty, and Property regardless of who tries to restrict it, it is tyranny.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I do not. Why do I need a license from the state that says I can get married? As if without their sanction, my marriage is not valid. Same goes with divorce. If marriage is a contract between two people, then the state’s role is simply to enforce and settle disputes between the parties in the contract.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 11:11 AM
That great news. Trust me, I don’t judge all young people by my children’s peers. I have been married 34 years so obviously I don’t think it is a bad deal.
Probably, so I love you! LOL!!!
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Aids, Y2K, Bird Flu, heart attacks from eggs, sugar substitutes, deaths and crimes from Katrina, all way overblown stories they have not been required to explain. And because of that I am having a hard time buying into the current financial “crisis”, because it isn’t logical. The media is no longer trustworthy.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Great.
We can stop perpetuating the lie and stop pretending that the state is restricting the freedom of homosexuals.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM
The sad part of the story is the media and the education system over the past ten years has made this issue damn near 50 50. The good thing is hopefully when people see nuts like this ball loving pole smoker and the acts of his comrads in booty banging on tv they can cost them this issue for years. Sadly though Arnold in his typical fruity backstabbing way has damn near guarenteed these mayonase mouthed fruit cakes that the courts will give them the right to marriage again.
Irvin88 on November 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Not quite what I was talking about. The state does discriminate in that it recognizes one type of marriage, but not others. My point is and has been, the state shouldn’t recognize or be in the business of recognizing ANY marriage.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »