Quotes of the day
posted at 9:40 pm on December 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“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.”
*
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: 1 2 Next »
Yeah. Good luck with that one.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 19, 2008 at 9:44 PM
haha, did you see her grimace? She never hears this kind of stuff…she’s used to her liberal echo-chamber.
Richard Romano on December 19, 2008 at 9:45 PM
I really don’t see how the analogy of wanting to have sex with any attractive woman you see applies to gay marriage. Homosexuals want to be able to legally marry and spend their life with one person. It has nothing to do with promiscuity. To compare being sexually promiscuous with two people wanting to get married is just stupid.
Mark1971 on December 19, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Here’s the one sweet lesson of history
Every soul is a mystery
Faces change. What you knew grows strange
And we all have so many faces
The real self often erases
With all those lies dancing in our eyes!
PercyB on December 19, 2008 at 9:54 PM
LOL,…WWWWHY????
Hey liberal,..Pssst,…
“You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything”
Kudos to u Rick Warren
christene on December 19, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Mark
He was referring to its sexual component, not the specific marriage question.
Dr. Manhattan on December 19, 2008 at 9:55 PM
So he wouldn’t object to two homosexuals getting married as long as they didn’t have sex?
Mark1971 on December 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Listen at 1:04 His gay friends have asked Rick that question.
christene on December 19, 2008 at 10:01 PM
About as likely as tolerance with an old guy and a midget.
Meric1837 on December 19, 2008 at 10:02 PM
He said ahead of Nov. 05 that he wanted the cake and eat it too. Gays should have believed him in his Clintonesque double-speak. He raped their wallets and might have helped with 8 in CA.
Plus Latinos and the fact that their militant reaction to 8 has soured even those whom they had won over. 2010 won’t do them much good if they don’t calm down with the business/churches boycots, fires, threats, etc.
Obama will probably get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in a year and when the evangelicals gripe he’ll simply say “I invited Warren to my inauguration; we need to unite”, with a heavy cadence.
“Hon, this Barack is way better than we could ever be. He outfoxed us on triangulation and everything else” ~ ~ Bill Clintont, to Hillary
Entelechy on December 19, 2008 at 10:04 PM
You are misreading his analogy. He is equating the gay desire to have sex with every attractive man they see to his desire to have sex with every attractive woman he sees, with the point being that he instead doesn’t. Implicit in there is that acts of sex are not particularly important in his idea of marriage.
(through in gag about sex not happening in most marriages here)
Count to 10 on December 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Great job, Ricky baby!
Woo hoo!
eea on December 19, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Warren lost all credibility with me when he cozied up to al-Assad and praised Syria, he should be apologizing for that before he lectures anyone on morality.
lowandslow on December 19, 2008 at 10:09 PM
His point is that nature is not a justification for behavior. It’s a fair point, even if his analogy isn’t perfectly precise.
NorthernCross on December 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM
I would let Obama off on this one–but then, I don’t see much in the way of inequality as things stand, so advocating equality is advocating the status quo.
Count to 10 on December 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM
There in a very obvious agenda with the constant host-reaction shots to paint the subject of the interview as a fool, I don’t care who it is or what’s being said. You can watch it with the sound off.
Marcus on December 19, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Warren is taking the term BLOWHARD to new heights…
timwashu on December 19, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Wow. I knew that Time had gone to hell in a bucket, but that is astounding.
I am so sick of the over-the-top outrage over every perceived slight. Boo freakin hoo.
hillbillyjim on December 19, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Warren is taking the term BLOWHARD to new heights…
You gotta be kidding… he was articulate, mellow and rational.
Curry seems like the blowhard: “WHYYYYYY??”
gmoonster on December 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Actually, that was a fairly well reasoned response, wasn’t it?
Count to 10 on December 19, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Spot on.
Handel on December 19, 2008 at 10:20 PM
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
Timmy..Methinks you are just a little ‘kanky’ that the response was soooo dead on accurate, that you have really…well, really no coherent argument after hearing it.
Which is why you fall back on “OH, HES SUCH A MEANIE BLOWHARD.”
Which traslates to: “waaaaaaaaaaah wahhh whaaaaaah WHAAAH”!
Try again and this time a little thought to your response.
Handel on December 19, 2008 at 10:24 PM
@1:23 the interviewer looks like she threw up a little bit in her mouth.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Tolerance helps,but also I think the gay community has been painted as a circus of s/m types,and I really think,that
as a whole,there are a lot of great human beings out there
that want to live a normal decent life,even if they are gay!
And I also beleive,that the Republican Conservatives are a
lot more tolerant,than the Liberals,who only use the gay
community for their own political purposes,like Obama is
showing now,and like Bill Clinton did,when Bill Clinton
made campaign promises for same-sex marriage,than after
their support,threw the gay-community under da bus!
Live and let Live:)
canopfor on December 19, 2008 at 10:29 PM
And he gives the analogy after being asked about the possibility that homosexuality would be proven by science to be biological. He goes on to say that if this is so, then homosexuals should control the natural impulse to be promiscuous like he does as a heterosexual, while not addressing whether or not monogamous homosexuality is a impulse that must be controlled, as I am sure he wouldn’t say of heterosexual monogamy. His analogy is a red herring. He avoids answering the question of whether or not gay marriage should be legal if homosexuality is biological.
Mark1971 on December 19, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Sink me. America has breed a nation of princesses who can feel a pea under forty mattresses.
PercyB on December 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM
John Cloud who wrote that time article is clearly intolerant of other people’s religious views. Since Warren’s faith’s scriptures and tradition clearly discourage same gender sexual activity, why should Cloud be the judge who gets to insist that a pastor of that faith is unacceptable if he discourages gay couples unions? The people who claim practitioners of religion are intolerant should look in the mirror.
KW64 on December 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM
All preachers creep me out.
TheSitRep on December 19, 2008 at 10:37 PM
It’s the image others of their kind promote that make the impression that all gays and lesbians are promiscuous. It’s how flamboyantly you flaunt it that turns most heterosexuals like Warren off.
The truth is Promiscuity is rampant in both species. However when you take a hard look at Warrens reasoning, it’s the “I can look at the menu, but I can never order” rational.
I know there are gay and lesbian couples that partner for life, but they are not “breeders” which is what a heterosexual relationship is intended to be and why marriage is between one man and one woman.
Kini on December 19, 2008 at 10:40 PM
The thing is Ann Coulter threw him a red herring with the whole biology question. She expected him to immediately drop his religious views because science says so. How offensive is that?
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Right, but if homosexuality is proven to be biological, which is the hypothetical he is given, aren’t homosexuals in a monogamous marriage controlling their natural impulses just as heterosexuals in a monogamous marriage are? He avoids addressing this.
Mark1971 on December 19, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Very smart message, which is so hard to find these days. That self-control is a virtue and mark of character. That there is more to life than pleasure, and there is more to morality than “Do whatever you’d like, as long as you don’t hurt anyone”.
Paul-Cincy on December 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM
A logical, soft-spoken, sincere guy like Warren?
Methinks the root of your “creeped out” feeling is deep-down old-fashioned guilt.
jgapinoy on December 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Wrong. He addresses it by saying that since homosexual acts are wrong, people with homosexual desires should control themselves.
I would recommend therapy:
http://www.exodus-international.org/
jgapinoy on December 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM
LOL! I just realized I wrote Ann Coulter instead of Ann Curry :)
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM
You had an Osama-Obama moment.
jgapinoy on December 19, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Its how flamboyantly you flaunt it that turns most hetro
sexuals like warren off.
Kini on Dec 19,2008 at 10:40PM.
Kini:Thats what I was kinda try’n to say in my post,its
always the bad apples that ruin it for the rest of
them!
And thats what society see’s, the’flaming militant
gays’!
canopfor on December 19, 2008 at 10:56 PM
This is definitely the thread where we’ll figure out this whole thing.
SnarkVader on December 19, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Hot Air is all just one, continuous, never-ending, gay thread.
Paul-Cincy on December 19, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Well, you know,, I heard some woman married her horse on Jerry Springer. History channel had a special about people who were attached to their life like love dolls. The one guy who had one defended it by saying he just didn’t care for organic women.
I guess you could say that about anyone and anything,,
“Why shouldn’t Joe be allowed to marry is dog, cat, son, daughter, blah blah blah,,,”
Why not?? Why shouldn’t mothers be allowed to marry their 3 year old daughters?? Why not?? Who wrote the rule saying it shouldn’t happen?? Mom lovers little Susie and little Susie loves mom so why can’t they get married??
Oh,, you’re saying that isn’t right?? Well, what is your standard?? Is there some standard you are turning to to say it’s wrong???
He had a good argument too about being born that way. Some people are born with tendencies to be an arsonist. Some people seem to be born with a tendency to be a pedophile.
He made some good points. I am sure the mobs will be looking for him.
JellyToast on December 19, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Why not?……
JellyToast on Dec 19,2008 at 11:03PM.
JellyToast: I wish I could marry a new 2009 Camero,
with a 800HP,572ci Chevy rat stuffed in it!
Me and the Camero would have one sweet
honeymoon!haha:)
canopfor on December 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Under law there is not breeding requirement. And many couples are married every year with no intention to have children.
While in Warren’s line of work homosexual acts are considered wrong, the law no longer considers them so. Warren should be protected to define marriage however he wants in his church and not required to marry any couple who fails to meet his requirements.
dedalus on December 19, 2008 at 11:17 PM
You know, we were just 50 posts away from settling the matter once and for all until you jinxed it, jerk.
justfinethanks on December 19, 2008 at 11:22 PM
canopfor, my friend. You said it most eloquently.
It’s the squeaky wheel that gets goosed ~_^
Humans are traditional by nature. Meaning, humans are conservative in nature. Liberalism is a guilt complex that some humans try and rationalize fairness for what they have and others have not.
This guilt metastasize into a desire to be tolerant of those who are less tolerant of others. Liberals believe traditional marriage needs to be open to non-traditional forms which is not acceptable to the majority of society.
Thus the tyranny of the minority.
Nothing against gays or lesbians, but this club (traditional marriage) has its rules. There’s a reason why it’s between one man and one woman and why same sex is incompatible.
It’s called procreation.
Kini on December 19, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Ugh. Every time these gay marriage threads come up every Tom, Dick, and Harry feels obliged to give their spectacular insight on the biological/biblical/spiritual/whatever issues behind homosexuality. And they know they are right. “Why doesn’t everyone else get it like I do?”, they say to themselves. And that question is the crux of the problem. Everybody has strong feelings; everyone has an opinion. But they feel so strongly about it that they don’t realize that everyone’s opinion differs on this issue and one individual or a group of individuals doesn’t have the right to squash the equal rights of another group–especially because of their interpretation of scripture or what societal implications they think the equal rights of that minority may or may not have. Government has absolutely no business in the regulation of romantic relationships. Period. The only role it should play is the issuing of legal contracts between two parties. I happen to think Warren presents some good points about homosexual relationships (but that’s coming from a heterosexual, so I’m sure others think it’s perfectly natural to have homosexual relationships) and totally respect his right to not recognize homosexual marriages. But government doesn’t have the right to make any distinction between marriages because marriages are not in the realm of government rule. They are a religious institution and you do a disservice to the sanctity of marriage if you let government define it as opposed to your God (or whatever). Marriage Licenses are a prime example of excessive government and any position on the marriage debate that states that government should recognize any marriages fits under the oh-so-hated (hated for good reason) modern definition of liberalism.
Charles has creationism/evolution. AP has the gheys. They need a break, but want the heavy traffic that comes with these crazy long flamewar threads.
malan89 on December 19, 2008 at 11:35 PM
I didn’t really follow his logic on that either.
malan89 on December 19, 2008 at 11:37 PM
I wrote about in my blog the other day about how everything is politicize now. There’s no realm politics doesn’t touch. Even the WEATHER is politicized. THE WEATHER!!!
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Nope couldn’t be that, my friend.
I am a person of strong moral conviction and live well within the bounds of my creed.
They are just FN creepy.
in that Beta male, scrubbed soft spoken way.
Several of my relatives and are preachers. I love ‘em but they are just deluding themselves.
Hey but what ever blows there skirts up.
Many gays kinda creep me out too, but it’s those holier than thou preachers that creep me out the most.
I’d much rather drink a beer with my gay friends than a preacher.
TheSitRep on December 19, 2008 at 11:43 PM
He was saying that since homosexual acts are wrong, people with homosexual desires should control themselves like every other member of society does.
jgapinoy on December 19, 2008 at 11:43 PM
And today, California Attorney General Jerry Brown (nee Governor Moonbeam) has asked the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8. “We have a conflict between the amendment power (through voter initiatives) and the duty of the Supreme Court to protect minorities and safeguard liberty.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/MN6514RNVU.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1
warbaby on December 19, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Curry is a nitwit, incapable of functioning outside of her little liberal box. Great looking, too.
Jaibones on December 19, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Very true, but marriage is intertwined with religious overtones as well as lawful regulations.
Warren’s church can regulate how it wants its congregation to conduct themselves and likewise the members of the congregation can either choose to stay or leave.
Gay groups want to be accepted into mainstream society but their lifestyle is not mainstream. Unless we become a gender neutral society, then I don’t see acceptance of the gay lifestyle in its present form fitting into today’s society.
Not saying it’s right or wrong, it’s just the way things are.
Kini on December 19, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Yes, Why do governments recognized marriage? Is that not an institution of religion?
Hows a bout they just provide for common defense and shut the F up!
TheSitRep on December 19, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Oh hey Kini Howsit brahda?
TheSitRep on December 19, 2008 at 11:47 PM
You have one life, let it be gay
Shouldn’t one do as one’s told to?
No, let the moment enfold you
Grab up your one golden chance
Life is such romance
Give this world a sweeping glance
Let it set your soul a-dancing night and day
Vivez!
Live, here’s to life, let us be gay
PercyB on December 19, 2008 at 11:48 PM
canopfor on December 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Stay away from the exhaust pipe. ;)
Ahem.
Of course its a Christian’s job to struggle against things that are part of their biology, if they’ll lead us to eternal damnation. How this hack couldn’t, or wouldn’t, do enough research to find that out boggles the mind.
Ryan Gandy on December 19, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Well our society is largely secularized so where will the people who don’t really go church or are atheists get married?
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Well, the holier-than-thou PC preachers on the left don’t creep me out, they make me angry.
Obama should’ve just gone with Rev. Wright and avoided this messy kind of controversy.
ddrintn on December 19, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Homosexuals have equal rights. They are not barred from marriage.
There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. Never has been, never will be. You can call a cabbage a car, but it won’t carry you anywhere.
Sorry.
spmat on December 19, 2008 at 11:50 PM
I think it’s always been this way, but a renewed interest in politics and the new forms of media has magnified it. These kinds of discussions and the tone we use in them goes back to Jefferson and Hamilton. The only difference is the wider distribution of the mediums used to have the discussion. We’ve always been this way and I don’t think it’s going to change.
malan89 on December 19, 2008 at 11:51 PM
You said it most eloquently.
Kini on Dec 19,2008 at 11:33PM.
Kini:And again,well said!(from a previous post,you mentioned
you owned a 67′SS Chevelle,so excellent,no pun intend
ed for this thread,I owned a 69 SS Chevelle):)
canopfor on December 19, 2008 at 11:51 PM
malan89 on December 19, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Jefferson and Hamilton? I think it goes even further back, to when members of the British Parliament would refer to each other as dog-faced pea-brained asses.
Ryan Gandy on December 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Pwnd…
Look, men have been sexually attracted to post-pubescent females since our conception however our society has deemed that acting upon that biological urge is illegal. (and for many good reasons) What makes us human is our ability to resist the primal urges that enslave every other life-form on this planet. That’s a fact.
Personally, I don’t give a $hit what what two adults do in their personal life but don’t attempt to shove your life-style down my throat because your abnormality conflicts with 90% of the rest of the world.
Claypigeon on December 19, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Way to take something out of context and then attempt some crappy spin that just ends up proving the points I made.
——————————–
Wow. When we at Hot Air do a flamewar, we really go all-out, don’t we?
malan89 on December 19, 2008 at 11:53 PM
I can even see cave men throwing feces at each other during Cave Council meetings.
malan89 on December 19, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Being sexually attracted to anything is a normal part of being human. It’s a vice if not channeled for good.
Overeating
Smoking too much
Drinking too much
Adultery
Porn
Murder
Envy
Sloth
….sodomy
Everybody has their one or more weakness or kryptonite that they need to fight harder than other vices.
An overwhelming number of people in this country continue to try to rationalize and justify their bad behavior and force us to promote, accept, embrace it.
Sorry, sodomy was wrong in the past, wrong now, and will be wrong 5,000 years from now.
If you allow gay marriage, how can you oppose polygamy? Or oppose marrying your cat or dog? Where does it stop?
Sapwolf on December 19, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Very true. I saw the HBO movie John Adams and Jefferson and Adams also engaged in rough politics. However, it’s difficult to to imagining Adams, Jefferson, or Hamilton accusing each of causing global warming. I think our generation has taken it to different level (not necessarily worst but a whole dynamic).
terryannonline on December 20, 2008 at 12:02 AM
I think that goes with the evolution (or, rather, devolution) of manners, etiquette, and respect in society as a whole.
malan89 on December 20, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Interesting…………………
Tell me something I don’t know…….. given the fact that once given an inch, they take a mile, and shove their beliefs, life style, and sexuality literally down your throat……….
…………. once they were given “extra rights”, i.e. “hate crime” legislation, and given government funding for “civil rights” what do you people think was going to happen?
Teh Gheys…………… they would be funny, if they only stayed on TV, but now they are in political power, our schools, and our churches……………. and if you are against them, you don’t have the right to exist.
……………… sounds kinda familiar, doesn’t it?
Seven Percent Solution on December 20, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Even the WEATHER is politicized!
terryannoline on Dec 19,2008 at 11:39PM.
terryannoline: Ain’t that the truth!
But,its not Global Warming,though!
We might be in the start of an Ice Age!:)
canopfor on December 20, 2008 at 12:15 AM
I do feel that the present generation (not mine, thankfully) has taken political calumny to a new level.
To believe that humans cause Global Warming is tantamount to Justinian’s belief that sodomy is the principal cause of earthquakes (as tempting as that may be to those of us living in California.)
warbaby on December 20, 2008 at 12:18 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.
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? That they are allowed to serve…yet based on their mental thoughts…they have an inability to fight for our country, so no service for them? They cannot fight? They have an inability to translate Arabic (look it up)? Because of their thoughts?
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. Yet the State in all its might should in this case (i.e. homosexuals serving in the military) consider the thought of an individual in relation to their sexual preferences to serve in the military? Please explain that one to me. I am listening.
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, and points out his religion as a tenet of this belief, yet often says it would be improper for him to force this belief unto other citizens (i.e. imposing). That it would be breaching the separation between church and state, and that we as a nation make up many faiths. Yet when the subject of homosexual marriage comes up, he states that he is against it (alluding to his faith). Crazy huh? If only people held negative freedoms with a little more passion they could call Obama a hypocrite. Too bad, huh?
DanStark on December 20, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Eh TheSitRep – Howzit my friend. Tings are da kine brah!
Kini on December 20, 2008 at 12:31 AM
No, Homosexuals want the benefits that come with marriage without the pesky social expectation of fidelity. They don’t value monogamy, as can clearly be seen when they answer questions about length of serious relationships and number of partners. There are a scant few homosexuals who actually want to get out of the self-destructive gay lifestyle while remaining with a same-sex partner.
BKennedy on December 20, 2008 at 12:34 AM
That’s my favorite number
/blushes
Kini on December 20, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Just like I did. Through the Township Mayor.
Commonly known as JOP – Justice of the Peace.
It’s lawful and doggone it, Gays can’t get it. /snarc
Kini on December 20, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Those are some pretty drastic generalizations yer spewing there, BKennedy. Got any evidence that homosexuals are any more sexually loose/promiscuous/deviant than their heterosexual partners or is this just based off of your false stereotype that every gay person is just like those creeps you saw at the Folsom Street Fair?
malan89 on December 20, 2008 at 12:42 AM
As if this was handed down from GOD…. or at least AllahP.
I feel vindicated
Kini on December 20, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Well, Malan89 (referring to BKennedy), they are generalizations, yet they are of course, part of gay culture. There is no opposite heterosexual culture because heterosexuals are of course in a majority, and are made of of many different identities. Someone who is homosexual, at least from studies I have seen, are in a minority (and obviously one could assume an identity develops).
Yet someone shouldn’t be restricted on the basis of their culture or beliefs from being married to another consenting adult. Someone who is into S&M can still marry, as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex. Someone who is very promiscuous can marry, as long as it is someone of the opposite sex. Whether or not homosexuals ascribe to certain practices or whether they are liberal or conservative in their sexuality, should not be in consideration on whether or not they should marry.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves here. The only reason why people are against gay marriage is either their religious beliefs or some type of neo-Darwinian argument. Simple as that.
DanStark on December 20, 2008 at 12:53 AM
What an ass. Men are just penises and women are vaginas I guess.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on December 20, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Gotta go. My wife is talking to this beautiful woman that I’ve never seen before.
Travis1 on December 20, 2008 at 1:10 AM
You have the neo-Darwinian argument partially correct.
It’s not so much to be married, as if it were some kinda exclusive club. Which it is.
It’s the purpose. To procreate.
Survival of the species, don’tcha think?
That’s why marriage is such an exclusive.
It has a direction, a legacy and a future. Of course, the here and now can be compelling and there’s nothing wrong with that. But it’s doesn’t deserve special acceptance.
Kini on December 20, 2008 at 1:14 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.
I believe gays and lesbians are chemically hard-wired, I have seen no real evidence to the contrary. The growing evidence suggests that there is a difference in some brain structures.
So I ask Warren what he would have them do rather than marry each other (I think the availability of legality and the benefits of marriage would encourage more monogamy and that would be nothing but good)? Perhaps he wants them to be celibate clergymen? Perhaps he wants them to marry the opposite sex and spoil lives with lies? Perhaps he wants them to suffer miserably and hide their preferences in secrecy and fear? Maybe he wants them to suicide?
I am socially conservative about many things. But gays are here legally, gay marriage does not end life as abortion does, claiming to be gay and wanting to marry does not qualify you for entitlements and gay marriage does not interfere with the Second Amendment. So, if a clergyman doesn’t want to perform a gay marriage, nobody will force him and a religion need not sanction or even recognize the marriage ( don’t Catholics see people on their second or third marriages as living in sin?)
As for the idea that polygamy will the HAVE to be legal or that I can marry Fido, hogwash. Make marriage legal between two consenting people and call it a day, in my opinion.
An expectation of monogamy will make that community healthier physically and mentally and that will help us all.
clnurnberg on December 20, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Viscount_Bolingbroke on December 20, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Simple, to-the-point explanation. Why have a problem with it? Warren didn’t say what you’re imputing to him so I fail to see how your high and mighty attitude is justified.
malan89 on December 20, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Do you somehow think its impossible for him to know what he’s talking about? Heck, I’ve heard the same thing – from four separate people, all homosexuals. Are they smoking crack?
I doubt it.
Ryan Gandy on December 20, 2008 at 1:21 AM
On the same token Kini, what about those who are medically incapable of procreating? Should they also be, on the basis of natural infertility, be prevented from marrying (because they can’t procreate and help the species out). As far as I know they, heterosexual infertile people, are still allowed to marry.
Yet I understand the argument, and the religious one also. I tend to just disagree. I also don’t have any problem with Warren either, and that people are overreacting on this matter.
DanStark on December 20, 2008 at 1:25 AM
the anti-religious take from the gays is really a hoot. let’s imagine there’s no religion, just an atheistic evolution. Where does that leave them. What happens as science is able to find a “gay” gene? It’s not hard if you try.
r keller on December 20, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Well, what about people, like me, that chose not to procreate?
I enjoy the fruits of marriage and I see your point.
But I don’t see it as overreacting. I just see it as tradition being assaulted.
Point is: One man, one woman. That has been the tradition.
Gays should consider the alternative to what is easy to get into and harder to get out of.
It’s easy to marry, but it’s harder to divorce and the consequences can be devastating to family, friends and financially.
If gays want that all that joy and all that pain, then beware of wishing for what you want.
Kini on December 20, 2008 at 1:47 AM
I can’t believe this has to be a debate in our society.
Has veganism really decayed the minds of these people?
It has to be leftist veganism that put this stupid idea in the minds of these fools.
The people voted. Get over it. Nobody’s stopping you from ridng the Sulu warp nascelle…you just aren’t going to to have a legal, binding marriage.
Black Adam on December 20, 2008 at 2:47 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
Well in California they have another option, and it’s legal and binding. It has all the same benefits of marriage. it just has another name. Can because it goes by another name, gays claim they are somehow being short changed. Which isn’t true… They are just being Ghey about the whole thing.
Kjeil on December 20, 2008 at 3:18 AM
There are a bunch of conditions that are biological. Everybody poops (I read that in a book). Shall I start pooping in places people don’t normally put their poop? And when you complain about me and my kind pooping on our own lawns, can we say it’s our home, and you have no right to intrude? And when you start complaining about how disgusted you are by my pooping, and how much disease is spread by lewd poopers, may we say we were born that way and call you a poopophobe? Will you be happy when every hip new sitcom features a zany pooping character, and Bravo has a new show called “The ‘P’ Word?” And when we have a big poop-pride parade down the street, pooping on poopie-floats in front of children and in the K-Mart parking-lot, and the alley behind the gas station, and right outside of highway rest-areas, will you be tolerant of our lifestyle?
Doubt it.
TMK on December 20, 2008 at 3:19 AM
I said “Sulu Warp Nascelle”. LOL
Black Adam on December 20, 2008 at 3:56 AM
Are you sure of that one?
LifeTrek on December 20, 2008 at 5:41 AM
Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been so for over 6000 years. Since by definition it requires a man and woman to be a marriage some folks wish to twist words about to conform to their worldview.
The state has nothing to do with it till they inseted themselves into the process and should be told to butt out.
gdonovan on December 20, 2008 at 5:41 AM
Prop 8 will get over turned for the simple fact that people on the right will not leave their comfy sofa’s to protest the anti-8 crowd.
Lefties organize and protest en masse – which gets publicity and sways public opinion.
People on the right simply vote – and then their votes get overturned because those who squeal loudest are the ones who get pandered to.
It would be great if a high profile right wing website would organize a march or something. ::hint::
Mr Purple on December 20, 2008 at 5:48 AM
I really hate the analogies between blacks and gays, but when a reasonable person says that they have an issue with some of ‘their kind’ it makes me wonder if there would be a problem with ‘their kind’ moving into their neighborhood or just drinking from their water fountain?
Also, what ’species’ would you referring to, apes, monkeys, horny dogs, dirty jews, or just the queer homo’s?
Seriously the species is homo sapien — for both straights and gays!
LifeTrek on December 20, 2008 at 5:55 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »