Quotes of the day

posted at 9:40 pm on December 19, 2008 by Allahpundit

“Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn’t be surprised. Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot.”

*


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

LifeTrek on December 20, 2008 at 5:41 AM

Ah, but wait…

Noted Earthing and confirmed nose-breather TMK has discovered ancient, anti-homosexual religious documents that predate the Vatican Library. This writ hatefully declares the first human marriage was defined as being between a male human and a female human:

“And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

TMK on December 20, 2008 at 6:00 AM

At the end of the clip, was that Ann Curry’s head exploding that I heard?

Mallard T. Drake on December 20, 2008 at 3:04 AM

Ann’s head has little explosions all the time.

Jaibones on December 20, 2008 at 6:16 AM

I know gay couples who have been together for decades and they are married in every way but legally. In fact they seem more devoted and involved than many heterosexual couples I know

.

This is where arguments lose me every time. Sooner or later someone always asserts that homosexuality is not only good, why in fact it’s even better than what you think is the norm. You of the norm should be ashamed of the way you are. How dare you even define the norm and offer it as virtue. Because darn it, you’re so bad at the norm yourselves.

Do what you want with your special purpose. Please just don’t make it an indictment of heterosexuality. When you insult folks that are sitting on the fence, they just jump down on the other side.

hawkdriver on December 20, 2008 at 6:23 AM

Marriage between homosexuals (and those who are transgender, etc.) would be between two consenting adults. I will say that again, two consenting…adults. To even compare or argue this slippery slope non-sense is absurd.

Would you be ok with consenting adult brother and sister? How’s that for a slippery slope?

Onto the subject of equal rights. Some state that gays are actually allowed to marry…just someone of the opposite sex. I see that and raise you, “why are they not allowed in the military?” What is your legitimate argument on this?

It would be a major disruption to the rest of one’s platoon, company, and even battalion level if someone was openly gay. It is unnecessary to add controversy and added stress of this nature to combat situations. It is similar to the reasoning behind women not being allowed on submarines for an extended period of time (may have changed recently-don’t know though).

That is a discriminatory practice of the State, an overbearing one at that. Some say “Hate Crimes” should not be in place because it considers the “thought” of the criminal.

Or because the notion of adding the word “hate” to legislation and thus sentencing is patently absurd. Of all and only the kinds of crimes said word is applied, it’s beyond superfluous. It takes only a small order of reasoning to realize that the crime was done not out of love, strong liking towards, or even ambiguity.

You know, it is actually kind of interesting no one points out the hypocritical nature of Obama on this subject (i.e. marriage). He states he is against abortion personally…

I thought he said he wouldn’t want his daughters ‘punished‘ with a baby under certain circumstances.

DanStark on December 20, 2008 at 12:31 AM

anuts on December 20, 2008 at 6:53 AM

TMK on December 20, 2008 at 6:00 AM

Your arguing that God’s creation of Adam and Eve as only heterosexuals shows that this is what he intended all persons to be; based on that, anything else is outside His will and therefore sinful.

Jeffrey S. Siker has pointed out in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, to argue that the creation story privileges a heterosexual view of the relations between humankind is to make one of the weakest arguments possible, the argument from silence….It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem. The creation story is not, after all, a paradigm about marriage, but rather about the establishment of human society.

One can read anything one wants to into the creation story but cannot read anything about homosexuality out of it.

LifeTrek on December 20, 2008 at 7:02 AM

It would be a major disruption to the rest of one’s platoon, company, and even battalion level if someone was openly gay. It is unnecessary to add controversy and added stress of this nature to combat situations. It is similar to the reasoning behind women not being allowed on submarines for an extended period of time (may have changed recently-don’t know though).

Women still do not deploy on subs. My son has been in the USMC for a long time and recently had to spend time deployed on a Navy ship after ground deployments in male only combat zones. He was upset about the lack of dicipline aboard the ship because of the inapropriate interaction between males and females on board. It was more like a floating high school, unprepared for battle. It’s not really the sailor’s fault, male or female. The PC crowd has decided that “social equity” comes before national defense.

JonRoss on December 20, 2008 at 7:05 AM

On the broader point of rights however, what gives a tiny group the right to change the definition of an established institution?

anuts on December 20, 2008 at 7:06 AM

On the broader point of rights however, what gives a tiny group the right to change the definition of an established institution?

anuts on December 20, 2008 at 7:06 AM

Bigamy anyone ? Why not ? Got a “thing” for the neighbors French Poodle ? Go for it. Maybe Jerry Brown will do battle for you. The cesspool is warm everbody, jump right in.

JonRoss on December 20, 2008 at 7:15 AM

Well said Rick Warren!

Even if a homosexual gene were isolated, which is not likely, it would represent a genetic anomaly. I certainly hope that while researchers seek the the homosexual gene they keep their eyes open for the bisexual gene, too.

Even the homosexual-friendly American Psychological Association (APA) has thrown in the towel. Over 40 years of in-depth international studies have not identified the mysterious homosexual gene.

The APA has recently revised its own brochure, as follows:

…Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with “editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns”), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.

Consider the following statement from the first document:

“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”…This information can be found on the NARTH homepage.

sinsing on December 20, 2008 at 7:17 AM

On the broader point of rights however, what gives a tiny group the right to change the definition of an established institution?

anuts on December 20, 2008 at 7:06 AM

Because everyone who opposes them are all evil fascist bigots. It’s FREEDOM FIGHTING baby!!!!!

/sarcasm for me, justification of fascism for them

Hawkins1701 on December 20, 2008 at 7:43 AM

Obama’s not a bigot. That’s would imply a level of emotion that he doesn’t possess.

You don’t have to look any further than the racial breakdown of the vote on Proposition 8 to figure out why he avoids the gay issues. Cold calculation, baby.

Nichevo on December 20, 2008 at 7:54 AM

i wonder is there is a “pedophile gene” or “rapist gene”

fun fact… all men who molest little boys are indeed homosexual

I find homosexuality a perversion,and with todays “rebel child” or its cool to piss daddy off mentality, people are going gay. Its not born, you cant say somebody is born gay and not born a rapist. or born a child molester. or born a murderer. Hell, that would be like sombody was born racist and based only on the color of his skin can get away with fraud and other criminal acts and have shady friends and steal his way into the POTUS

Donut on December 20, 2008 at 8:09 AM

I haven’t picked up TIME magazine for a long time. Are they all editorials now?

DrMagnolias on December 20, 2008 at 8:34 AM

fun fact… all men who molest little boys are indeed homosexual

That’s because the straight men are busy molesting little girls.

Bobbertsan on December 20, 2008 at 8:59 AM

I find homosexuality a perversion,and with todays “rebel child” or its cool to piss daddy off mentality, people are going gay. Its not born, you cant say somebody is born gay and not born a rapist. or born a child molester. or born a murderer. Hell, that would be like sombody was born racist and based only on the color of his skin can get away with fraud and other criminal acts and have shady friends and steal his way into the POTUS

Donut on December 20, 2008 at 8:09 AM

Early nature/nurture would make one person more likely a rapist than another. Rape is a criminal act that violates the rights of another person and should be punished severely regardless of what motivated the person.

Homosexuality isn’t a criminal offense. In the case of gay marriage, the two people involved pay the same level of taxes as straight Americans and have decided to commit to each other. They deserve the same tax treatment from the federal government as a straight couple.

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 9:05 AM

all men who molest little boys are indeed homosexual

That’s because the straight men are busy molesting little girls.

Bobbertsan on December 20, 2008 at 8:59 AM

Homosexuals are five times more likely to be child molesters than straights.

jgapinoy on December 20, 2008 at 9:06 AM

Seriously. Shouldn’t gay activists be more concerned about homosexuals be killed in Iran and other places in this world than Rick Warren?

terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 10:21 PM

You’d think, right? But, it isn’t about discrimination with them. It is a cultural/spiritual agenda to overturn traditional social/spiritual constructs to remake society in their image. The gay agenda might have some people convinced enough to follow them in their pursuit, but, it is all smoke and mirrors. It is merely another wing of the liberal takeover which seems to be aiming at worldwide domination. That’s the reality…(Will Farrell)

Mommypundit on December 20, 2008 at 9:07 AM

I know gay couples who have been together for decades and they are married in every way but legally. In fact they seem more devoted and involved than many heterosexual couples I know

Still doesn’t make it right though. Gay “marriage” can be compared to a white-washed tomb. Bright, clean, pretty, sparkly on the outside, and on the inside, full of darkness, death and corruption.
Dont judge a book by its cover.

abcurtis on December 20, 2008 at 9:07 AM

“why are they not allowed in the military?”

That’s the military’s problem – you’ll have to take it up with them.

abcurtis on December 20, 2008 at 9:10 AM

You know, it is actually kind of interesting no one points out the hypocritical nature of Obama on this subject (i.e. marriage). He states he is against abortion personally…

I’m against bank robbery personally, too but I wouldnt interfere with the right of the bank robber to rob a bank. Stupid rhetoric I know, but that’s logic according to Obama and most liberals.

abcurtis on December 20, 2008 at 9:12 AM

Homosexuals are five times more likely to be child molesters than straights.

jgapinoy on December 20, 2008 at 9:06 AM

And men are more likely to molest children than women. Are men, then, as a group immoral?

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Still doesn’t make it right though. Gay “marriage” can be compared to a white-washed tomb. Bright, clean, pretty, sparkly on the outside, and on the inside, full of darkness, death and corruption.
Dont judge a book by its cover.

abcurtis on December 20, 2008 at 9:07 AM

Sounds descriptive of many marriages, or careers for that matter. The government can’t spend its time evaluating each decision citizens make in order to prevent them from having empty dark lives. It’s difficult enough for them to prevent Al Qaeda or bank CEO’s from destroying the country.

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Donut on December 20, 2008 at 8:09 AM

Yes, you just CHOOSE to go gay.

That makes so much sense.

Just like the dude on here yesterday who said gays should ignore their gayness and marry women. Yes, marriage based on zero attraction.

You know what, today I’ve decided I want it in the A!

Some of you people are so ridiculous. You can be against gay marriage like myself and still be a rational human being.

blatantblue on December 20, 2008 at 9:22 AM

If everyone could simply agree that the existence of any god or one particular God cannot be proven, and also the non-existence of gods or a particular God cannot be proven, that would be progress. Why is it so difficult ot accept the obvious?

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Homosexuality isn’t a criminal offense. In the case of gay marriage, the two people involved pay the same level of taxes as straight Americans and have decided to commit to each other. They deserve the same tax treatment from the federal government as a straight couple.

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 9:05 AM

So how does that make gay marriage and homosexuality moral, exactly? Pedophiles and child molesters pay taxes too, does that make their lifestyle legitimate?
Homosexuality isnt a criminal offense unless you want to practice it publicly. In fact, if you are caught performing them in public today, you can still get jail time (unless you are part of a San Francisco street fair). Course the same is true for heterosexual acts in public too.

abcurtis on December 20, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Homosexuality isnt a criminal offense unless you want to practice it publicly. In fact, if you are caught performing them in public today, you can still get jail time (unless you are part of a San Francisco street fair). Course the same is true for heterosexual acts in public too.

abcurtis on December 20, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Homosexuality is immoral to many, but its immorality doesn’t amount to legal restrictions. As you point out public sex is punishable regardless of who the partner is or if it is done alone.

Churches shouldn’t and won’t have to recognize gay relationships anymore than the Catholic church has had to ordain women into the priesthood. Parents can still teach their children that homosexuality is wrong just as some teach that liquor, meat, gambling, premarital sex, or inter-faith dating is wrong.

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 9:37 AM

The homosexual marriage proponent’s best argument seems to be, “How does two men or two women getting married hurt your marriage?” The heavily implied conclusion is that is doesn’t.

Here is why it does hurt my marriage and all future marriages. It is the epitome of the dishonest scale. Stating that two men getting married is equal to a man and a woman getting married is false. Deciding it is true does not make it so.

For example; Deciding to give credit to uncreditworthy people doesn’t make the uncreditworthy people equal. Declaring the uncreditworthy people equal with the creditworthy does not make it so. It is a dishonest scale declaring a lie to be the truth. All the creditworthy homebuyers have been damaged EACH time this fraud is perpetuated. Just because the damage wasn’t IMMEDIATELY recognizable, didn’t mean damage wasn’t immediate.

Anytime a lie is declared to be the truth it hurts everyone.

jack_in_the_box on December 20, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Anytime a lie is declared to be the truth it hurts everyone.

jack_in_the_box on December 20, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Other straight marriages would hurt your marriage then. Bad straight marriages end in divorce every day. I can’t identify the day-to-day material impact on my marriage–which seems to depend more on the quality and quantity of my effort toward my wife and kids.

Credit is much different since the risk of default is priced into your loan. If you are borrowing money against a riskier asset your rate will be higher. In that sense the quality of the other borrowers (or marriages) definitely affects your wealth.

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM

Rick Warren, I think it is part of “Maturity” I think it is part of “Character”. These are not high on Liberal’s list of values. I know it is a punch line “Liberalism is a Disease” but how often are the folks who are emotionally stunted- can’t mature emotionally, drawn to Liberalism because it lets them indulge themselves in self destructive behavior? I am not speaking of homosexuality but other behavior. I do think homosexuality is biological- with some ambiguous folks joining in, i.e. having difficulty with their sexual identity. And who wouldn’t be confused, with all the conflicting messages being sent by society and the media? For Example, What has Madonna alone done to kids, who otherwise would just being identifying heterosexually, because they are inclined but she made being Bi Sexual, a Sexual Fad? The up side, I guess is trying to remove the stigma, from people “Biologically Engineered” to trend to same sex?

The MSM always ready to be the accomplice for Vice of any kind. It came out of the 60s “If it feels good do It” When the Bill comes due, There will be Hell to pay.

Dr Evil on December 20, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Anytime a lie is declared to be the truth it hurts everyone.

We have seen in the past few months the toll on the economy declaring uncreditworthy people to be creditworthy has taken.

This pain was not immediately felt, but the damage was immediate.

Whenever a marriage fails, the failure of that marriage hurts the people closest in relationship to that marriage.

jack_in_the_box on December 20, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Here’s the deal, marraige is a contract between two adults. The reason that government gets into the act is that it creates laws in an effort to create order out of chaos. Marraige and estate laws make it easier to sort out inheritance if a spouce dies without a will. It also encodes property sharing in a marriage when the marraige is dissolved. It gives legitimacy to children in cases where a parent dies without a will. My daughter was married (to a very nice guy) in a civil ceremony in the county courthouse. Was it a marraige or a civil union?

Same sex couples want the same recognition by the state as heterosexual couples.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Obama isn’t a bigot.

He’s a power-hungry megalomaniac.

Bigotry is just one of the tools he uses to achieve he goals.

notagool on December 20, 2008 at 10:03 AM

Pelayo,
I want my skill set to be as valuable as LeBron James’. I believe my civil rights are violated by society placing a greater value on LeBron’s skill set than mine. I want society to declare my skill set as being of equal value. Declaring it true is only a lie.

Declaring the union of two men or the union of two women to be as valuable as the union of a man and a woman in marriage is a lie.

I can say others hate or fear me is the reason my skill set is not as valued as LeBron’s, but I will just be telling myself another lie.

jack_in_the_box on December 20, 2008 at 10:06 AM

On the broader point of rights however, what gives a tiny group the right to change the definition of an established institution?

Well Jim Crow laws in the South affected a very tiny group. What gave blacks the right to challenge the established institution of segregation?

Before anybody starts claiming that I am comaparing the Civil Rights movement with gay rights, the comaparison I made is the best example of a minority challenging an established institution that I can find at the moment.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Whenever a marriage fails, the failure of that marriage hurts the people closest in relationship to that marriage.

jack_in_the_box on December 20, 2008 at 9:52 AM

I agree and you make a good case for creating some sort of qualification for marriage, with the hopes of reducing divorce. In the case of gay people you are making a case that they should all be in failed marriages from the start.

In the case of credit, the government leaves most of that to the markets which did a bad job of judging credit risk and an even worse job of evaluating their own leverage risks or the merit of a Moody’s rating.

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 10:15 AM

jack_in_the_box, I was not advocating gay marraige, I am merely stating the reason that government got in the business of sanctioning marraige. I’m neither for nor against same sex marraige, civil unions, or whatefer it is called. What does a skill have to do with same sex marriage?

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:20 AM

Declaring the union of two men or the union of two women to be as valuable as the union of a man and a woman in marriage is a lie.

Value has nothing to do with marriage or marraige or however the hell it’s spelled.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM

I want my skill set to be as valuable as LeBron James’. I believe my civil rights are violated by society placing a greater value on LeBron’s skill set than mine. I want society to declare my skill set as being of equal value. Declaring it true is only a lie.

jack_in_the_box on December 20, 2008 at 10:06 AM

There are 30 other NBA teams who want that too. Maybe there is only one guy at that level, though, and he plays for the Cavs. However, if you can find a basketball team that thinks you are that good–maybe, well probably, they aren’t an NBA team. That team can pay you whatever they want and try to draw paying fans and sell TV rights. I’ve played with some pretty good guys recently in rec leagues but we weren’t able to charge the 6 people watching admission.

However modest the basketball talent or unwise the business decision the government would recognize the contract between the non-LeBron and the non-Cavs.

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Wait…he argued against gay marriage by attacking gay promiscuity…those arent the same things. There are sweet old ladies who wanna marry some other gay old lady out there…what does that have to do with promiscuity?

ernesto on December 20, 2008 at 10:32 AM

One man and one woman. It’s what works best.

And of course there’s a slippery slope. If you allow just any old relationship to be considered marriage then it has no definition and becomes meaningless.

roux on December 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Dedalus, that explains why there we have Arena Football, semi-pro basketball, and single A baseball farm teams.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:35 AM

And of course there’s a slippery slope. If you allow just any old relationship to be considered marriage then it has no definition and becomes meaningless.

roux on December 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM

One can apply that rationale to any restriction along the slope–remarriage, fertility, class, criminal record, race.

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Dedalus, that explains why there we have Arena Football, semi-pro basketball, and single A baseball farm teams.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:35 AM

Yeah, those guys are all exceptional athletes, but make less than 1% of what LeBron makes. Still, they all have contracts.

dedalus on December 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM

When religion is introduced into the state laws that regulate marraige, when will those laws have to be amended to accept a Muslim’s multiple wives? It must be asserted that current marraige laws are civil (secular) in nature and have nothing to do with religion, and recognize a human concept that has existed since before written history, especially several thousand years before Judaism and Christianity. Christians did not invent marraige.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Well Jim Crow laws in the South affected a very tiny group. What gave blacks the right to challenge the established institution of segregation?

How does one even know, when one has met a homosexual? What defines one as a homosexual? It would appear that, what makes a homosexual different from anyone else is his or her behavior. Why should we award special rights to someone based on their behavior?

Why aren’t cigarette smokers afforded this same special protection under the law? Government in many places does just the opposite, it unfairly punishes them with undue and burdensome taxes just because some people look down their behavior. Is this fair?

How about polygamist? Why does government look down on their behavior? Shouldn’t they be afforded all the rights the Homosexual community now enjoys? By what right does state single them out for special harssment with the same draconian laws the Homosexual community wants set aside.

If there is to be equal protection under the law there should be equal protection under the law for all behavior types! If that is to be the standard. Why should the government be allowed to close the door behind Homosexuals? Are Homosexual and Heterosexual behavior types the only ones that are valid? If so why? If not why not?

Kjeil on December 20, 2008 at 10:46 AM

One can read anything one wants to into the creation story but cannot read anything about homosexuality out of it.

LifeTrek on December 20, 2008 at 7:02 AM

It wasn’t about defining “all human relationships,” it was about establishing God’s definition of marriage, which Genesis 2 clearly provides. Jesus confirms marriage is a man and woman joined by God in Matthew 19, and lookit dat, He quotes Genesis 2. But as for homosexuality in general:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Is that “loud” enough for you? Or are you still going to pitifully try to justify abominations with more unscriptural creeds?

TMK on December 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM

How about polygamist? Why does government look down on their behavior? Shouldn’t they be afforded all the rights the Homosexual community now enjoys?

I am only commenting about the right to challenge an institution or a law. There is no right for that challenge to be successful. I am not advocating any changes to any state law governing marraige.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM

TMK, I am going to copy and paste this because I think you missed it.

When religion is introduced into the state laws that regulate marraige, when will those laws have to be amended to accept a Muslim’s multiple wives? It must be asserted that current marraige laws are civil (secular) in nature and have nothing to do with religion, and recognize a human concept that has existed since before written history, especially several thousand years before Judaism and Christianity. Christians did not invent marraige.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Indeed! Where does government stop when acknowledging behavior groups, and by what justification does it sets limits?

Kjeil on December 20, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Oh, my bad. I thought the Law of Moses came after the Garden of Eden.

Thanks for clearing that up.

TMK on December 20, 2008 at 11:14 AM

My 11:00 comment was about inserting specific religious concepts in laws. In the United States, government must walk a tightrope when trying the base laws on the tenets of a particular religion. Laws against divorce was a Christian concept, and they have been seriously modified over the years.

Indeed! Where does government stop when acknowledging behavior groups, and by what justification does it sets limits?

Since we have a representative republic, that would be for us to figure out.

A place to start would be to repeal the First Amendment, then setting limits would be easy.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Oh, my bad. I thought the Law of Moses came after the Garden of Eden.
Thanks for clearing that up.

TMK, where did the concept of marraige in Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Persian, Incan, Aztek, Cherokee, Iroquois, Creek, Apache, Inuit, and other societies come form?

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Let’s see, where did all humans ever get the idea of marriage… um, from their forefathers, who were the sons of Adam, uh, who learned it from God at the Garden of Eden.

TMK on December 20, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Let’s see, where did all humans ever get the idea of marriage… um, from their forefathers, who were the sons of Adam, uh, who learned it from God at the Garden of Eden.

OK, I get it.

Adios, Farewell, Auf wiedersehen.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Seriously the species is homo sapien — for both straights and gays!

LifeTrek on December 20, 2008 at 5:55 AM

The sentiment’s right, but it’s homo sapiens (in the singular, plural homines sapientes).

Tzetzes on December 20, 2008 at 12:23 PM

TMK, you are correct. But we are really descendants of Noah and his family. That explains why marrying first cousins in some societies is encouraged. I didn’t know that.

Adios, Farewell, Auf wiedersehen.
For real, this time.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM

anuts on December 20, 2008 at 6:53 AM

Would you be ok with consenting adult brother and sister? How’s that for a slippery slope?

Can they marry now? I don’t see how legalizing gay marriage changes anything.

It would be a major disruption to the rest of one’s platoon, company, and even battalion level if someone was openly gay. It is unnecessary to add controversy and added stress of this nature to combat situations. It is similar to the reasoning behind women not being allowed on submarines for an extended period of time (may have changed recently-don’t know though).

Well I don’t know how to respond to this one since I also believe women should be allowed to serve equally to men (including combat situations).

Yet let’s look at allowing homosexuals (transgender, etc.) into the military. Israel does it, does it not? The Israeli military I’m sure has one of the most stressful jobs in the world. I don’t see people stating they are weak because they allow homosexuals to serve.

I thought he said he wouldn’t want his daughters ‘punished‘ with a baby under certain circumstances.

Ha, he said both. He said he is personally against it (alluding to religious reasons) and that he doesn’t want his daughter punished. Obama says many things.

DanStark on December 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM

LifeTrek on December 20, 2008 at 7:02 AM

Let me know just how Adam and Eve procreated if they were both batting for the other team.

You and Siker are taking Scripture so far out of context its not funny.

Ryan Gandy on December 20, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Well Jim Crow laws in the South affected a very tiny group.

What gave blacks the right to challenge the established institution of segregation?

Before anybody starts claiming that I am comaparing the Civil Rights movement with gay rights, the comaparison I made is the best example of a minority challenging an established institution that I can find at the moment.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:13 AM

False analogy.

My question was about changing a definition of an institution (marriage) that is nothing similar to Jim Crow. Another level this comparison is absurd on is your analogy seems to forget that there is currently no right one group (whether heterosexual or homosexual) has that the other doesn’t.

I have the same number of single women to choose from to marry as much as a single gay male. It is the same amount.

anuts on December 20, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Can they marry now? I don’t see how legalizing gay marriage changes anything.

This example was in reply to your use of the word consenting. As if that should be the deciding factor only. I was trying to illustrate how that also doesn’t matter. Incest, as sick as that may be, can be consenting.

Well I don’t know how to respond to this one since I also believe women should be allowed to serve equally to men (including combat situations).

Only if you advocate the military being fair ground for the use of social experimentation. I disagree. I would rather combat readiness and discipline trump the other. Some things work to the detriment of this.

I thought he said he wouldn’t want his daughters ‘punished‘ with a baby under certain circumstances.

Obama says many things.

Good point.

DanStark on December 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM

anuts on December 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM

anuts, My comment was not about Jim Crow or marraige it was supposed to be about challenging laws.

Please read this again:

“Before anybody starts claiming that I am comaparing the Civil Rights movement with gay rights, the comaparison I made is the best example of a minority challenging an established institution that I can find at the moment”

Pelayo on December 21, 2008 at 5:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2