Quotes of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on November 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
“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
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 »
I agree with most of you comment. I would like the federal government to limit itself, but it isn’t happening and probably wont. I do maintain that we do need some regulations on insurance companies and the like. Capitalism is great, but unfettered capitalism can be overcome by greed very quickly and leads to the abuse of the least powerful citizen who doesn’t have the wealth that gives him the power to protect himself. That concept was what the founding fathers established. They expected future generations to adjust those policies as needed, and we have. But I expect they would be turning over in their graves at how powerful the fed has become.
csdeven on November 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM
If the state does not recognize the language of husband and wife, on what basis should it recognize the words defendant and plaintiff, rape and murder, actual and virtual, intent or circumstance?
Should we just change the definition of these words as well?
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 12:22 PM
1) No you hadn’t.
2) None of your answers describes the situation in CA. You quote general, federal things and not specific stuff in CA. Try again.
How many times do you need to go over this? Until you actually ANSWER the question.
Again – how, exactly, is silently holding a cross make it “a weapon of taunting”?
You keep restating that the cross is inciting the people or taunting…
…BUT YOU NEVER GET AROUND TO EXPLAINING WHY.
Again, until you can do that one can only assume that to you and to others, the cross itself is a symbol of hatred that must be destroyed.
Again – how is silently holding a cross ‘taunting’ people?
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Sorry, KB, that was a little incoherent.
What I meant to ask in the second question is, “Should we get the state out of recognizing these terms in order to avoid confusion for the courts?
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I would much rather have the debate with you and others on which is better, “unfettered” capitalism vs. slightly regulated capitalism than the current debate of current manifestation of the state of which is better – heavily regulated capitalism vs. socialism.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM
The state should be in the business of ensuring and protecting freedom. In the case of crime, the state must step in because a violation of someone’s life, liberty, or property has occurred. If a person is raped, then their liberty and property (their body) has been infringed upon (understatement, I understand) and that is the purpose of the state in a free society – To prevent crimes against life, liberty, and property. My question all along has been – What violation of your life, liberty, or property occurs when a gay person gets married? The only beef that I think you have is where the state has intruded into this process for the purposes of benefits and has thus, become the arbiter of what constitutes marriage in the eyes of the law.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 1:01 PM
What this rally needs is 9 or 10 big Caterpillar bulldozers driven by Mormons.
Jaibones on November 15, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I just found out not 10 minutes ago that my husband’s youngest brother is HIV+.
Connie on November 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM
That isn’t an argument for gay marriage, because the rates will not change (or go up) if homosexuals get married. You just used a straw man for an argument.
Tim Burton on November 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I like your tone, but I think a moment of clarity will be helpful to us all. The West has been remarkably tolerant of homosexuality, and I believe has generally taken the correct position:
What we now have is somewhat a product of that tolerance, in that the homosexual community has grown loud enough and self-important enough to declare that the second half of our traditional view of homosexuality is no longer valid, and that the first half must not be true.
This is wrong, obviously. Homosexuality is not under attack, and is fully tolerated. Minor accomodations that are in question now might be in order, but the recognition of homosexual relationships as no different than marriage between a man and a woman is a very bad idea.
It is different, and our continued refusal to judge anything will be our undoing.
Jaibones on November 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM
This is the what we expect in a free society in regards to capital crimes.
Government, in a free society, is also expected to deliver legally binding judgments in civil cases.
Different animal.
Regardless, language, and its concise usage is paramount to the equal execution of the law.
Marriage is a defined legal term, and has been for at least a thousand years in English law alone…at least.
We cannot expect the courts to roam around in the fog with arbitrary terminology just because a group of people don’t like legal precedent.
The suggestion that government not recognize a long established legal definition of a word, a very distinct definition BTW, is like saying the government should not recognize the meaning of the word “insect”. What is the libertarian position on the government’s recognition of the word “insect”?
Either marriage is what it has always been, or the legal definition of the word is to be changed.
There is no getting around that.
The question remains not “what violation of life, liberty and property has occurred “, but what shall the new meaning of the word marriage be, who has the authority to change it, and why?
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 1:50 PM
It may undermine my previous point, but in the absence of the ability of our society to use rational judgment, and to regard thousands of years of human history and God’s Creation/Mother Nature (your pick) as our guide, then this might be the only logical choice for believers – to separate religious tradition and values from our government.
First step: have the government recognize whatever method they choose for “marriage” or sanctioned relationships, but let the church/synagogue/mosque recognize its own form of marriage, according to our values. (And no, this is not to suggest that they will be autonomous from the law, as a number of examples will show would be A Bad Idea.)
Second step: cease all Federal holiday recognition for religious holidays. Let believers figure out on their own how to observe their sacred holidays. Jews have been confronting this situation since the inception of our nation, which never recognized Jewish sacred days, except in localized areas. Christians can celebrate Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, etc. on our own time. If absence from work is required, we can easily sacrifice available vacation time and other accomodations in order to worhip our Lord and Savior.
Jaibones on November 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Authorize who to do what?
I’m not sure I follow you.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 2:01 PM
It’s an argument against the point that the state government does much to support or approve of marriages. It is more difficult to get a driver’s license than a marriage license. Religious institutions do the screening and the qualifying, ruling out couples who don’t meet the criteria. The state just processes the paperwork–most don’t even require a blood test anymore.
dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM
So, if a virtually identical arrangement between two gay people exists that exists between a man and a woman, with the same exact agreement between the parties involved, do you believe that a new legal term need be created to handle the contract dispute or dissolution? I don’t personnally care what it is called – marriage, turnips, insect, shenanigans – but I believe that people should be entitled to equal execution of the law. That they call it a legal term, “marriage” and what the legal system uses to describe this arrangement is semantics, isn’t it?
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 2:32 PM
None of the courts are confused. They know what they are doing.
Liberals,, well no,, not really liberals,,, these people are just plain Marxists,,, do not care what the wording of laws are. They will choose to ignore what is before them,, and see what is not there. They may look for some law some where in some deep hole to justify whatever wicked position they proclaim,, but in the end,, they will just rule how they want to.
The way to combat them is to defeat them. Start acting at the local levels. Get to the city council meetings in your town and city. Run for something. Support someone who runs for something.
JellyToast on November 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Well, I guess you answered your own question here.
Virtually identical is not actually identical, and in order to communicate these two separate circumstances to me you needed to distinguish the difference, correct?
That’s fine, but it takes more than one to have a social contract.
…each with separate and distinct meanings.
A homosexual has the right of every other American, equally, to marry. Noone is denying their right to enter into a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
No. The term “homosexual marriage” is oxymoronic. The term “heterosexual marriage” is redundant.
The language is precise and has distinct meaning.
To what would you change the legal definition of “marriage”, under what authority, and why?
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 3:22 PM
JellyToast on November 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Amen.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Isn’t this what we are talking about? No they don’t. Nevertheless, we can go back and forth over the technical legal term of what does and what does not constitute marriage forever.
Here is my answer to your question: I would not have a legal definition of marriage as there is no need. If and when two people want to join themselves in an arrangement called marriage, it is a purely a religious or personal decision and arrangement. There is no need to involve the state in any form in that arrangement. If the relationship ends, then the two parties can take their claims to property to the court in the same manner that anyone who has a property dispute takes it to the court. If people wanted to sign a contract prior to the “wedding” to legally lay out what occurs in the event the relationship ends, then they should do so (to be used by the courts if need be). Responsible people, who are a requirement for a free society, must take into account the possibility that the relationship may not last and live with the consequences if they do not plan or prepare for that.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 3:55 PM
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 3:55 PM
You’re a moron.
I mean that as a compliment.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM
A homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex is what changes the definition of marriage, for those who believe that sexual affection is one of the key elements of a marriage. The unfortunate straight person who marries a gay person will likely have something less than a marriage.
dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Noone has the capacity to stop you from believing what you believe.
That is a fools game.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 4:11 PM
dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Since the rate of masturbation is pretty much everyone, and the hand is gender neutral, yet does the job, it doesn’t say a whole lot on this sexual affection.
Sex is not what marriage is about. A man and a woman can be married and never have sex, and still be married.
A person who calls himself a homosexual who marries the opposite sex does not change the definition of marriage. What say you, are you committed to the marriage, or to the sex? Because if its all about the sex, why then do you need to be married?
Why can’t civil unions be enough? Because you want Churches to change their beliefs and no longer call it a sin…if their church isn’t true, who cares what they call sin? The real objective here is to destroy not only the family, but freedom of religion, all under the flag of tolerance and peace. I want my country back!
Conservative Voice on November 15, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Their is no law keeping two men from having a wedding and calling themselves husband and husband (or whatever). The it is a matter of providing incentives for responsible behavior, and a legal framework for the baring of children.
You’ve got things upside down.
Count to 10 on November 15, 2008 at 4:31 PM
–Your proposition of a sexless marriage is at least as challenging to tradition as gay marriage.
–In some traditional cultures, sex has been a condition of marriage. In the past in the U.S. a woman had a legal responsibility to have sex with her husband whenever he wanted.
–I don’t want churches to change their beliefs. They already refuse to do many marriages for couples who don’t meet the requirements. I’d like to see churches have stricter requirements. Gay people don’t have a right to be married in any given church, but the U.S. isn’t a church.
–Gay people already have families. Allowing the parents in the family to marry doesn’t weaken those families. It also doesn’t weaken the marriages of straight couples.
dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM
A simple I surrender would have sufficed, jackass.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM
It won’t stop here folks. Why not two wives or two husbands? Why stop at two?
man + woman = marriage
man + man ≠ marriage
woman + woman ≠ marriage
It’s all in the math. St. Paul’s book of Romans should be required reading.
Mojave Mark on November 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM
dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM
I wasn’t proposing a sexless marriage, just pointing out that sex is not the key that you make it out to be.
I don’t really care that in some parts people were required by law to have sex to their husbands on demand, doesn’t change the fact that sex is not the key to marriage.
You may not want to change the beliefs of religions, yet given everything in regards to civil unions, why request the final nail and require everyone to accept it as a marriage? Fact is, it opens the door that much more to require churches in the name of hate speech and sexual discrimination, to require them to perform a marriage they do not want to perform. The homosexual agenda demands that anyone who calls it a sin, is to be destroyed….all you have to do is look at all the grandmas being attacked, or decent folks who contributed and are being harassed for it, and see their true colors. I tell ya, where are the hate police now? Oh thats right, it only applies to the politically correct minority.
Conservative Voice on November 15, 2008 at 5:32 PM
To say that sex is the key, then as soon as my wife and I are done, does that mean our marriage is over? Hogwash.
Conservative Voice on November 15, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Dream on.
Anyway, it was a joke, to stress a point. I should have put in a wink.
I had to leave and I quickly made the comment.
It seems tactless in hindsight, so I apologize.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 6:25 PM
No more than when my kids aren’t around do I cease to be a parent.
Also I said a key, not the key.
dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 6:46 PM
I agree with you that demonstrating advocates are annoying and that the concept hate speech is a dangerous intrusion on free speech.
We probably differ in our perceptions of how intrusive the gay agenda might be on our lives. I feel confident that I can ignore them in the same way I ignore most special interest groups. Life is challenging enough keeping my own family and business affairs in order. Whether the gay family living down the street is married or just has a domestic partnership seems more their concern than mine.
dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Glad to hear that. I thought that we had a decent discussion going and then you hit me with the “moron.” It is nice to discuss issues with people who put forth a thoughtful argument instead of some of the folks here to simply insult and yell loudly. Take care. . .
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 7:10 PM
But, but…I said it was a compliment.
You’re playing semantics with me! ;-)
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 7:13 PM
dedalus, you may not think this issue doesn’t not concern you. But it does. A small tear in a garment is insignificant, unless it is ignored. It should be enough that they have civil unions, and I am ok with civil unions. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and for me its here. This issue is not to be taken lightly. In fact I think it is more damaging to what America is then the economic woes we will see next year, or terrorists abroad, ( or global warming for that matter…like that was ever an issue ) because it strikes at the very core of everything decent and holy. Destroy the family, and you will destroy the community. Destroy the community, and we are no longer America.
Here is some great reading
Conservative Voice on November 15, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I will agree that sex is a key, albeit a rather small key. There are a number of marriages where sex is rare, yet the couple is happy and the kids are happy. ( Dads stationed in Iraq? Spouse can’t have sex due to health reasons…) However more major keys are trust, loyalty and communication. Sex is great and all, but I would stay with my wife forever, even if it meant no more sex.
I guess the saying is wrong in your book…love doesn’t conquer all…if they both don’t have the same orientation then the marriage is doomed to fail.
Conservative Voice on November 15, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Christians have liberalized marriage to meaninglessness. If you are going to sanctify marriage then sanctify it for yourselves first. If not. Then stop whining. If it’s a legal definition then you will lose. If it’s a holy sacrament then you are hypocrites. I don’t see the middle ground. Either you burn heretics or you marry gays. All in…or…?…all out? Come on. How does it work Christians?
ronsfi on November 15, 2008 at 8:56 PM
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
Itchee Dryback on November 15, 2008 at 9:28 PM
I’m a pretty simple guy. I really think that a modified libertarian concept is more workable than what we have now. The dems need to learn from the reps and there are some things the reps can learn from the dems. Libertarian stricks a good common ground, but it some areas I think it goes too far. And I have found that most of the young folks who embrace libertarian philosophy, they like the freedom part but don’t recognize the responsibility part.
EG: They are excited about all drugs being legalized, but forget that libertarian ideals demand personal responsibility. There is no “I had a bad childhood” defense for their actions that result in the injury of others. They can run around in their house buck naked with green jello all over your genitalia while on LSD. But the minute they get in their car and cause damage to others property, they will pay the price without the benefit of any government or excuse to bail them out.
They usually get pretty quiet after I explain that to them.
But I agree with you. I’d much rather be discussing why Bush DID NOT give away $700 billion dollars of our tax dollars to morons who took risks and lost than discussing the reality of our situation now. The frappin’ feds have to be stopped.
csdeven on November 15, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Sorry to hear that Connie. Best wishes to your family and especially your brother in law.
csdeven on November 15, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Have you been paying any attention to the state referendums over the last four years?
The only way marriage loses is if rogue courts overturn over 1000 years of legal precedent, and nullify the laws as made through state referendum.
That would be tyranny.
If gays are serious about love and commitment, and that’s what it is all about, why don’t they just do it and leave everybody else alone already?
Why do they need the state to identify homosexual relationships as having no distinction at all from marriage?
Not only is this illogical, it reeks of hypocrisy.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Discussing with my wife today the lack of confidence I have in the future economic situation if our leadership keeps going down this path.
If, during these times, we are not yelling loudly about the virtues of cutting government spending and lowering peoples taxes, nor the value of owning the fruits of ones labor and the rewards of personal investments, then we are failing to protect liberty for our posterity.
One of the most chilling things I ever read was a quote by George Orwell (at least I think it’s his):
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Hi I’m been married for about 4 years and trust is has been a hard thing indeed. I noticed that in the arguments that no every said that marriage is for procreation, whether it is a union of man and man or woman and woman can not do this but with the induction of adoption they can have children with out “having” them or sperm banks or surrogate parents and I don’t want hear that I cheapened marriage because I said that it’s only for having kids which it isn’t but that is one of the trappings that go along with it
Christiangothkitty on November 15, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Point is…Marriage is just a legal contract. Serial marriage is the norm. I personally thank my lucky stars that it is so. Why pretend that marriage is so heavy? We get in. We get out. So why not same sex? If you want to claim that marriage is some sacred rite then why is it so trivial to heterosexual pairs? You can’t have it both ways. Either marry for life and make the meaningful commitment that has supported our civilization or give all couples the same easy ride. If Homosexuality is legal then you have no leg to stand on. I don’t care either way but you guys seem to want it both ways. If you allow gay relationships then you must allow gay marriage in the legal sense. imho
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 5:01 AM
What do you mean “Marriage loses”? I would think you would want more people to make a meaningful commitment. After all if Marriage is a foundational institution then the more we respect and observe it then then the better we shall be. Unless you judge homosexuality as amoral (which is suspect you do) then you must proscribe all such behavior and so the marriage issue is moot. If, however, you believe that homosexuality is legal and acceptable if not even normal, then how can you deny Gays who engage in long term commitment the same legal bennefits that some couple who get drunk in Vegas and hook up enjoy?
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 6:33 AM
Good God, how dense can you people be?
Look, a Ford is a Ford. If you put a Chevy engine in a Ford it is no longer a Ford. It’s something else and it needs a new word.
Same with marriage. Go get your own word and leave ours alone. Why do you have to be such @ssholes about it?
csdeven on November 16, 2008 at 8:54 AM
This is a state where homosexual unions are already recognized and where these unions receive basically the same benefits of marriage.
I understand people being upset that prop 8 was passed, but I don’t understand why they’re going so nuts about it. It’s as though they want to convince people that the ads showing Christians being persecuted for their religious beliefs were entirely accurate.
Esthier on November 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM
What would be the new definition of marriage?
Why?
Who has the authority to change it?
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM
This is a fallacy.
We can argue about the contractual component of marriage, but if that’s all it was, then we wouldn’t be having this debate.
Serial monogamy is a result of circumstances of a life lived, why pretend that it is intentional. What’s the point of the serial faithfulness in the first place?
Marriage is heavy, especially when children are involved. Serial marriage with children makes it even more so.
It is a sacred rite, what else would you call it?
Marriage: the holy matrimony between a man and a woman as husband and wife
Correct. You can’t have it both ways. Completely illogical.
Easy ride? Surely, you jest.
Three specific questions:
What would the new definition of marriage be?
Why?
Who has the authority to change it?
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM
If this is about making meaningful commitments, then do it. Make the meaningful commitment.
Why do you need the state to change the definition of marriage to do that?
Welcome to the conservative position.
Three questions:
To what would you change a new definition of marriage?
Why?
Under what authority?
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM
.
The definition wouldn’t change at all. Just the legalese. There are two kinds of marriage. One before your god and one before the state. It is the one before the state that we are debating. If homosexual relationships are accepted as legitimate legal arrangements then how do you justify denying them the legal sanctions enjoyed by all? Marriage has been rendered nearly meaningless by heterosexuals so why the pretense of sanctimony? It’s a legal contract nothing more and if you doubt that then go ahead and marry two or more and see what the legal ramifications are.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Also, I hate to break it to you but you are not the official arbiter of conservative ideology. Thinly veiled bigotry is not a conservative ideal.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM
I am tired of the old argument that because I have standards that makes me a bigot. At least you admit that bigotry is not a conservative ideal.
For the record, name one person here ronsfi that advocates we should have more divorces?
I can agree that we need to everything possible to strengthen the marriages we have…that said we don’t need to undermine the institution of marriage just so you don’t have to feel guilty…how selfish of you.
Conservative Voice on November 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Dodge…
Blacks Law Dictionary:
Marriage: the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife
Please, if you want to have this debate, let’s keep it in the realm of logic, and not in the arbitrary world of wishful thinking.
Again…
To what would you change the definition?
Why?
Under what authority?
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM
This brings me to the crux of the recent collapse of conservatism. This is what we spent our capital on instead of the core values of Small Government, Low taxes, Sanctity of life, private property and personal liberty. If two dudes want to play house then good for them. Keep your nose out of it. I just don’t see how the anti gay marriage position is defensible. How do you defend it without just saying “look I don’t like queers”. If that’s your position then fine. State it but let’s drop the whole “marriage is sacred” BS. If you want to reform marriage laws I am all for it. Absent that though I don’t see your reason for outlawing homosexual marriage.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Ohh, stop.
This kind of talk is so passe.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM
I don’t know if this was directed at me, but if it was, then you are deliberately ignoring one side of our conversation.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 2:13 PM
.
This is the unmistakable ensign of the uneducated who assume their own position infallible and in an appeal to authority seek to prop it up with smartyish words like “Logic” thereby proving not only the weakness of their ARGUMENT but also a complete lack of understanding of the Science of Logic.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Twisting into all kinds of contortions is not a discussion.
I’ve predicated my arguments upon the fact that marriage has a precise and distinct definition.
Reason would dictate that I never stated your claim above, because I disagree with the premise in the first place.
The term “homosexual marriage” is oxymoronic; “heterosexual marriage” is redundant. These are the facts, legal, as well as cerebral.
You’d have to operate with flagrant pretense to call anything I’ve argued here as bigotry.
I’ll continue to assume the best about you, without knowing a thing about you, but if your only way to discuss ideas is to assume the worst about me, I’d prefer to end this discussion.
Anyway…
To what would you change the definition?
Why?
Under what authority?
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Answered it already
Answered it already
Answered it already
Also, everyone has disturbingly wild fantasies. It doesn’t make you gay. Hurting others will not make them go away.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 2:38 PM
You are correct, I’m uneducated.
You are incorrect, I don not consider my position infallible. Do you consider your position infallible?
An appeal to authority?
What are you talking about?
Using the word “Logic” is smartyish?
I wasn’t claiming to have any more stores of knowledge than you. I was making a simple request.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Have not
Have not
Have not
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM
.
Have to
Have to
Have to
.
An appeal to authority?
Google it. It’s…erm…Logic.
Look I’m sure you are acting on what you believe are the best intentions. However you should, I believe, consider the wider repercussions of such dogmatically acquired ideals. Think what it must be like to those who want to be on our side but are excluded by certain biases that seem to be unsupportable unless through fear and bigotry. Why? Why do you care so much that homosexuals want to marry like Ken and Barbie on some hot Vegas night? Don’t we have some real issues that suffer from want of attention due to this ridiculous obsession? Don’t marry them in your church but legally, statutorily, I don’t see how you can differentiate. That’s all I’m sayin’.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
This is bigotry.
Have you know mirror in the house?
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM
oops…
“no” mirror.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 3:33 PM
That’s all you do, is “say”.
I’ve tried earnestly to answer almost all of your questions, even the rhetorical snips.
Yet, you make no a attempt to reciprocate.
You dodge.
You insult.
And you “say”.
This is not a conversation.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM
It’s just a flame war dude. Don’t take it personal.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM
You refuse to answer the question,
To what would you change the definition?
yet, you freely bastardize its usage.
What do you mean “marry”?
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Good luck with your war.
I’ve always said that the term gay “marriage” is more appropriately described as gay “aggression”.
And their latest behavior just confirms it.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I have asked several posters these questions and only the libertarian would answer. Do you think if gays would just wait for several years and this proposition were again on the ballot, would gay marriage be made legal? If gay marriage was legal and there were churches that would marry those couples while others would not, would the gays allow there to be “separate but equal” churches? And would gays condone semi-violent to violent protests, the harassment of financial supporters and the boycott of their businesses of by McCain voters against Obama voters?
Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM
OK. What do you mean “Marry”? Marriage is a legal contract. Like any other. Unless you mean religious marriage which is the heavenly pre-ordained joining of two souls for the purpose of joining new souls to their bodies. I think like many you confuse the two. All we are concerned with is the legal definition. How do you justify the exclusion of homosexuals from the legal institution? On basis of sex only? I just don’t see the point. Two humans make an agreement and sign on the dotted line. Like buying a house or car etc. Either you oppose it on moral grounds or you have no argument at all. If you appose it on moral grounds then say so. You have that right. Let’s not pretend that it is somehow axiomatic.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Unfortunately, It seems that they will follow the standard model of dissent and cause an annoyingly raucous ruckus. A55holz are universal it seems.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Cindy, as far as Churches are concerned that is their business. You can leave the church at any time. Start you own for that matter. Gay church, Straight church. Meh. Pick one.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM
So, now if I understand you correctly, marriage would now mean “a legal contract”.
Would it be proper to describe the agreement to purchase seven clay tiles for the price of $1.29 each a “marriage”?
Either you reference the precedented definition, or you re-define it, with reasons for the change, and a legitimate authority to make it so.
Either you’re willing to step up to the plate and take a swing at it, or you have no argument at all.
Let’s not pretend…at all.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 4:38 PM
The Left better be careful with their open borders. The immigrants for the most part don’t belief in gay marriages or abortions. Obama better think carefully, or some more so called right could be rolled back.
Kjeil on November 16, 2008 at 4:42 PM
The Church is probably a big sticking point to the whole argument. Past history would indicate that all churches would be required to marry and have open door membership or be sued or have their tax exemption revoked. As I have noted in other posts, I fail to see why I must know anyone’s sexual orientation. I believe that as long as folks have an avenue to legally insure each others financial and institution well being, which it appears the civil union law does, everyone should be happy. The rest of this is a big none of my business. Maybe the truth of everyone’s ability to compromise would be the writing of a bill that would try to cover everyone’s concerns? You have to admit that would be very interesting, with the possibility of revenue enhancement through ticket sales. Probably be the longest running show in history.
Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 4:42 PM
The very definition of irony and probably not the first or last to be faced by our future president.
Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 4:44 PM
LOL!!!
For the last 326 comments (slight exaggeration), all I’ve BEEN discussing is legal definition.
Geesh!
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Honestly I don’t see why they are exempt in the first place but if they measure their principals on their tax status then what is the reason for their existence? I don’t see how government can dictate religious ideology. So what if they pay taxes. They invest their money just like any other concern why not pay taxes on those….prophets…heh.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Only the undaunted and truthful would dare answer such a towering rhetorical question.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Once again. It is not about the ceremony it’s about the License. Remember filling that out at the court house the day before the Chapel Ceremony? Gays can already be married in a church ceremony. That is not at issue. What they can’t do is share the same privileges of a LEGAL marriage contract with the person of their own choosing as you or can. I really don’t understand why it bothers you so.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 5:11 PM
typical ronsfi comment
Dodge.
Dodge.
Change Subject.
Dodge.
Dodge Again…
Saltysam? ZZZZzzzzzzzzz.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Salty…I’m devastated I assure you.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 5:23 PM
If “bothered” is the correct term for what I am, I guess I am just a traditionalist. I hope you are against all licenses that are required by the government. Or is this the only one you believe to be issued in a discriminatory way? I guess if you blog long enough one day something you hold dear will be questioned also.
Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Okay, forget taxes I might even agree with you on that one, but how about all of the former “public” buildings that can no longer be RENTED by the Boy Scots because of their decision not to allow gays as scout masters? I know those seem like stupid things but they happen everyday.
Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Chin up, ronsfi. Maybe someday, you’ll get past watching yourself, and actually engage with others.
Tomorrow is another day.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM
.
Yeah I was a scout and I find that ridiculous also. The whole intolerance in the name of tolerance. But I think we are taking the argument beyond the marriage issue. These things can be haggled out between us. I am not even saying that we should allow homosexual marriage agreements but just that given the current social structure how can it be outlawed?
We would have to say we deem homosexuality immoral like polygamy and incest in order to sanction it so. If we are not going to do so then we cannot deny these contractual arrangements. Unless we can…I mean go ahead convince me. I just don’t see it.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Hey you’re getting into the spirit of thing. OK. Keep working on it. You see the point of the Flame War is to craft a comment so incisive, so brutally psychologically penetrating, so hurtful and devastating that the your opponent if forced to put a bullet in his brain. Good luck!
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM
My heart goes out to you.
I hope you have people around that you can love.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Meh pity has been done. Doesn’t quite cut it because it comes of as desperation and just seems pathetic. No you have to project your ego and give a sense of self satisfied superiority while at the same time reducing your opponent to a quivering snot bubble of cross eyed clenched fisted rage. Closer though. You definitely have the right attitude.
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Meh.
I like this:
I, perhaps, was too insensitive to recognize that you were having a bad day, (?) week (?) year(?).
We’re just talkin’…ya know?
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Dude! You can’t flame somebody with Mother Friggin Theresa! It’s cool just havin’ fun man. Hey! how bout that Gay marriage anyway!
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 6:53 PM
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 6:53 PM
If you prefer, and you like baseball, Logic, and a time when you could be gay without being homosexual…
..how about some humor done with class, without crass, and still, one of the all time great comedy routines?
I like to watch this when I forget just how funny, funny can be…
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 7:02 PM
That’s a re-enactment of a discussion with ronsfi.
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Third base!
ronsfi on November 16, 2008 at 7:53 PM
My beef are not with the people, I am just old enough to have seen the law of unintended consequences numerous times. Right now this boils down to a majority vote deal with everyone on the outer edges of the issue unhappy. Now if everyone will act like grown ups it may get solved.
Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Now if everyone will act like grown ups it may get solved.
Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 9:11 PM
*standing, cheering APPLAUSE*
Saltysam on November 16, 2008 at 9:19 PM
This is also a 10th Amendment issue. No persons can be legally married without the issuance of a State Marriage License. The State may refuse issuance of a marriage license with exception of one’s race. Proposition 8 is now Part of the California State Constitution and can ONLY be overturned by amending that constitution.
Gays should be thankful that they have their discriminatory Domestic Partnerships which gives them every right that state laws can allow a married couple or do they want to lose that also?
nelsonknows on November 17, 2008 at 6:15 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »