Quotes of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on February 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
“In case you have forgotten, we are a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. He was not elected serve his personal interests. I personally believe that instead of sending e-mails full of threats and hateful words you should take his example to heart and congratulate him on being a legislator who cares more about what the People of his district want than what he may want personally.”
*
“I think some of the gay activists will be upset with me for this, but sometimes I think an agenda is pushed so far and so fast that people have no alternative but to push back… And I think that sometimes you have to move slowly.”
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 »
Tell me about it.
FeralCat on February 20, 2009 at 11:49 PM
so you don’t want government to ‘manage’ criminals huh? right. and this government, of, by, and for the people, have voted on this issue many times…and gay marriage LOSES every time…
right4life on February 20, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Here.
radiofreevillage on February 20, 2009 at 11:51 PM
but don’t you find it troubling that some US citizens face more difficulties (from the govt.) because of their sexuality?
VolMagic on February 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Tell me about it.
FeralCat on February 20, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Another example of too much big government. Government is never the answer to the problem, it is the problem
catlady on February 20, 2009 at 11:51 PM
For cryin’ out loud…
Legalized gay marriage would not force any church to perform gay marriage. It’s legal marriage as a secular institution.
Churches today aren’t required to perform marriages they don’t want to. As a Catholic, I know that the Church won’t marry a couple unless both are Catholic. If one is Catholic, and the other…say…Methodist, one could say the Church is discriminating based on religion.
Doesn’t work that way tho.
So the argument that churches would be forced to perform gay marriage is a moot point. Because they wouldn’t be.
JetBoy on February 20, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Shouldn’t we try the MM approach to find areas of agreement. Can’t most people agree to start with allowing domestic partnerships. Two people shouldn’t have to explain whether they sleep together or not for any partnership or marriage.
Can’t we also agree that the harrassment and bullying of anyone who disagrees with a position isn’t a good idea, but lets not enact new laws when we already have so many on the books that should cover the concerns of the hate speech folks?
I’m more of a southerner than a northerner, but I think we need a northern approach to this issue. Notherners hide their crazy relatives in the attic, Southerners put theirs on the porch to greet ya’. We need to hide our crazies on both sides. They’re making us all look bad.
Laura in Maryland on February 20, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Never post that again. Society will surely crumble if this becomes public.
lolwut on February 20, 2009 at 11:52 PM
If there is a God, Kurtz will be caught with his pants down at a Scandinavian glory hole.
SnarkVader on February 20, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I can think of two parts of the top of my head – and I rarely pay much attention to this issue:
1) Use of activist courts to mandate legislation – destroys checks/balances.
2) Attempted bullying (and scapegoating of Mormons incidentally) of voters/supporters of ballot measures – undermines democratic process.
Spirit of 1776 on February 20, 2009 at 11:52 PM
found your links…did you notice that nice big RISE in single parents in the netherlands???
and you think this refutes Kurtz, how???
right4life on February 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM
No I don’t find it troubling in the slightest. It’s not like all 50 states are anti-civil union. Even if all 50 were that would not be enough.
Homosexual activists operate on the liberal principle that it is discriminatory to deny them any right(s) they feel they should possess. I disagree.
aengus on February 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM
The comments above make it clear that Republicans will be the minority party for the foreseeable future.
You worry about what happens in bedrooms while Osama Obama destroys the nation.
I’m resolutely heterosexual, but if gays want to join the battle against Obama’s communistic ways, I welcome them.
We are so screwed. And we have brought it on by being absolutist creeps.
MrScribbler on February 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM
You forgot no more wire hangers.
lolwut on February 20, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Nice. I’ve bookmarked it.
You do realize, of course, that it wouldn’t take too much political effort to substitute “spouse or partner” in half of these? I mean, “Title 48—Territories And Insular Possessions, Chapter 8—Guano Islands, Section 1413-Completion of proof on death of discoverer” — I’m thinkin’ that’s a gimme, no matter what category you wished to include it in.
Although this example is amusing, it’s not that I intend to ridicule the process — indeed, it’s exactly what my last post noted…..we need to clear out the chaff and determine just what needs to be dealt with. A significant part of why my girlfriend and I — and probably countless others — have remained unwed has to do with the Internal Revenue Code.
I suspect that there is a great deal of support for normalizing the way that government treats committed relationships. I well know, however, that flipping a switch without knowing what it’s connected to is generally a poor choice.
cthulhu on February 20, 2009 at 11:54 PM
right4life on February 20, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Stop taking people’s answer to your own extremes. It gets old after a while. He was not even going in that direction… you use that tactic to divert attention from valid points about flaws in your logic.
Cant wait to see what attack you use on this
catlady on February 20, 2009 at 11:54 PM
really???
link
right4life on February 20, 2009 at 11:55 PM
And even if they do get forced to do it, they deserved it anyway.
spmat on February 20, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Laura in Maryland on February 20, 2009 at 11:52 PM
LOL so true, good point!
catlady on February 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Yeah, I know it loses on the ballot all the time.
No, I want the government to handle criminals because the public outsources justice to the government to make sure the rule of law is applied fairly.
I don’t want the government getting into predictive legislation, though. This may lead to crime, therefore let’s make it illegal. This may lead to heart disease, so let’s make it illegal. So yes, I don’t want the government “managing” the citizenry. It’s a horrible concept.
Spirit of 1776 on February 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Nice list. That said, gay couples living together are treated exactly the same as unmarried heterosexual couples.
So here’s a question. What proportion of gay couples are in a relationship in which they’d get married if marriage were available to them?
Part of me feels as if the numbers aren’t so large that we need to completely overhaul federal and state legislation.
Another part of me feels that some of the items on your list can be remedied by some halfway decent estate planning. Biden virtually broke down in tears in his debate with Palin over some gay guy who wasn’t able to see his partner in the hospital. (Do we know that these two would have been married if gay marriage were available?) I screamed at my TV that all they needed to do was execute reciprocal health care proxies (aka durable powers of attorney for health care), and Biden wouldn’t have to manufacture any tears.
Still another part of me is uneasy about putting gay relationships on par with heterosexual marriage. Sure, men and women have managed to screw each other over in marriage, but marriage is still a unique institution that served mankind well over the course of civilization. And gay relationships just don’t have that track record.
Finally, I’ll go ahead and confess that while I don’t want gays persecuted, I also don’t want their lifestyle celebrated. And extending every single right that you want to a small number of gay couples puts them on par with a relationship (marriage) that, as a society, we really should be promoting.
BuckeyeSam on February 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
the gays are the ones taking their agenda to extremes…as I have posted…and as their reaction to the vote in CA clearly shows…
right4life on February 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
So I think what is saddest about this whole thread is that it is Friday night and this is how we are all spending it? LOL
fumpbump on February 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
?
Spirit of 1776 on February 20, 2009 at 11:57 PM
and how do marriage laws translate into ‘managing’ the citizens…and since you’re ok with the public ‘outsourcing’ criminal laws to the government, why not marriage laws???
right4life on February 20, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Spirit of 1776 on February 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Exactly!! that was very concise, I agree! thanks
catlady on February 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM
I didn’t lose anything, as I am niether gay nor live in California. I think the Californians can do as they please. My issue is with the federal gubbmint (for the 6th time) because that effects everyone. And I recall some of the posts here concerning that, and you are absolutly right. Many in the gay community acted (and are still acting) like jackbooted thugs.
Ouch, but you’re right. I liked Fulmer, but he lost me with the double quaterbacks in the 2005 season, so I’m kinda glad he’s gone too. I hope we can get another Manning-like leader to take us to the championship!
For the rest of your post, I can only rely on what I’ve read (being a weenie civilian who doesn’t have what it takes to be a grunt). If what you say is true, and it was inevitable that any sort of domestic realingment on gay issues would adversely effect our military, I’d have real reservations about it.
But I cannot get past the fact (yeah, I’m kinda an anti-govt. crank) that the fed. govt. passed laws that adversely effect ciizens based on sexuality.
I’d hope there was some clear cut resolution to this, but I doubt it.
P.S. Burkean change just refers to Edmund Burke’s view that drastic changes in a society/culutre should happen over long periods of time. (Yeah, it’s a dumbed down version, but it’s been a while since I gave the old cogger a read and its late).
VolMagic on February 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM
… gay couples living together are treated exactly the same as unmarried heterosexual couples.
BuckeyeSam on February 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
nic on February 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Gay joke, from Mommie Dearest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ8G6umepTE
lolwut on February 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Bad.
Good.
They haven’t been scapegoated. They were the driving force, and they should be known to all as a hateful organization. As much as a church with a racist theology can be even more hateful.
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 12:00 AM
fumpbump on February 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Yeah, I should be out howling at the moon right now… sigh
catlady on February 21, 2009 at 12:01 AM
the blacks and mexicans were big supporters of prop 8 too…and we all know why the gays don’t bother them…
La Eme, Nuesta Familia, crips, bloods, etc would have a field day with em….
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 12:01 AM
C’mon now…that wasn’t a church, that was a public pavilion run by a church. Big difference.
JetBoy on February 21, 2009 at 12:01 AM
you said:
but we’re already seeing churches sued even without gay marriage being legal…what will happen once it is???
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 12:03 AM
FREAKING FINALLY. SOMEONE WHO SEES IT FOR WHAT IT IS. The gay issue SHOULD be a non issue to conservatives. I understand y’all find it gross, but lets look at 2 things. By continuing to ‘promote hate and bigotry’ by ‘not supporting gay marriage’
1. Push for civil unions for everyone, let the churches act independently and call relationships churches approve of marriage. Everyone else gets a Civil Union. GAY MARRIAGE DONE. By leveling the playing field in the eyes of the state, you shut up millions of liberal voices, you look like you care, and you sound like the voice of reason. HOORAY FOR EVERYONE.
2. you look like your using the government as democrats do but with a different agenda, by ‘blocking gay marrage’ and ‘supporting ballot measures’. To the untrained eye it almost looks like your growing the government to infringe on their lives. Thats the exact opposite of the conservative message.
The gay issue should be a non issue, follow point 1 and you fix point 2
Yngmarine on February 21, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Wrong. That is exactly what will happen.
Jetboy, I’m confident that you personally would not be looking to coerce any churches into performing gay marriage ceremonies but that is beside the point.
What matters is the political principle that has been established and in figuring out what its logical continuation of said principle would be.
The political principle in this case is non-discrimination. There is no reason to believe that Christians would be afforded religious exemption from the modern non-discriminatory paradigm.
Christianity is too specific and discerning to be tolerated by modern liberals (Jetboy’s allies whether he admits it or not) and is thus under attack.
aengus on February 21, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Because there is natural law and there is civil law.
Natural law transcends our system of government (which is why the DoI appeals to both). Our system of government is a construction of civil law (Constitution, doesn’t address natural law). Criminals are punished for breaking civil law. We should not outsource marriage to government because it is an issue of natural law.
Spirit of 1776 on February 21, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Uhm, [no]. Marriage as a union of equal partners, a man and a woman, is at best tens of years old.
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 12:04 AM
May 17 will mark the 5 year anniversary of gay marriage in MA. Still waiting for the frogs, locusts and assorted plagues.
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM
That’s fine. I want to de-federalize the whole process. I stated earlier that state and local ordinaces are a different issue. I just don’t like the feds in on this business. Specifically, the DOMA.
VolMagic on February 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM
It seems to me that if the church owns it is NOT public, even if they allow the public in. My church lets the public in, but I don’t think that they should be forced to let in a “couple” wanting to have a gay marriage ceremony in our chapel!
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Clearly, that’s the correct solution. But the social conservatives aren’t real conservatives and they certainly have an agenda that they want the government to mandate.
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 12:06 AM
+1
lolwut on February 21, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Yes, it is true. It’s extremely hypocritical not to criticize black churches for their anti-gay sentiments.
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Errr, read the whole thing
So now gangs speak for minorities. Wow. I see.
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 12:09 AM
More like an easy target. In Denmark, the Muslims beat up the Greenlanders. Same thing.
aengus on February 21, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Churches today aren’t required to perform marriages they don’t want to. As a Catholic, I know that the Church won’t marry a couple unless both are Catholic. If one is Catholic, and the other…say…Methodist, one could say the Church is discriminating based on religion.
Doesn’t work that way tho.
So the argument that churches would be forced to perform gay marriage is a moot point. Because they wouldn’t be.
JetBoy on February 20, 2009 at 11:51 PM
I was married to a Catholic in a Catholic church without being baptized much less a Catholic…three years ago…in Washington,DC…with the full blessing of the Archbishop. You are wrong about the Church but right about state forcing any church to perform a service against their belief.
DCJeff on February 21, 2009 at 12:11 AM
nice lie…its obvious you have to twist what I say because ya got nothing else…
you wouldn’t go into east LA for example, and protest them because you’d get your a** handed to you…so you go after mormons who you know won’t fight back…
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Most Gays are democrats because they feel like an oppressed minority. Most minorities hate other minorities. Try being a gay black, or a gay with HIV. Talk about a minority within a minority.
Yngmarine on February 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Then what do you call the Kennedys, Kerrys, and other libtards who have gotten more vocal and liberal lately?
;)
Laura in Maryland on February 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Oh, that friendly bunch? Be UPSET?
I can’t imagine….
Hawkins1701 on February 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Huh?
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Or a black lesbian with AIDS. A minority within a minority within a minority.
lolwut on February 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM
True, I dont know anyone that would want to go into east la to protest anything. Im scared to wear some of my ranger up shirts going there when im in LA.
Yngmarine on February 21, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Well, yes. There is that. Now that you mention it, maybe Deval Patrick is our punishment. :)
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM
This is no trial and you are no judge.
Tav on February 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Paris is the capital of France.
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 12:17 AM
I vehemently disagree because they will.
I HATE the support of faith-based organizations that Bush initiated. The organizations are fine; I just don’t think they should line up at the federal trough. They should be getting support from local donors. PERIOD.
But support for FBOs exists, yet Obama has already issued an executive order (I think) that will subject faith-based organizations to discrimination legislation if they’re going to receive federal dough. Again, I hate that faith-based organizations are prostituting themselves to the federal government merely for grant money. But they are in for a rude awakening the first time they decline to hire a gay interviewee.
So by extension, you will never be able to convince me that gays won’t try to force religious denominations to perform wedding ceremonies. Indeed, if gay marriage is enacted nationwide, gays will target every single Christian denomination and seek a wedding ceremony in each. Religious denominations will be left with the choice to perform the ceremonies and keep their tax-exempt status or decline to perform the ceremonies and lose their tax-exempt status.
If you want to question whether religious denominations should enjoy tax-exempt status in the first place, that’s fine. We can certainly revisisted that point, but they’ve enjoyed a favored status for nearly a century because, as a policy matter, Congress long ago decided that their work was sufficiently beneficial to their communities that the government won’t tax as income the donations that they receive from their benefactors.
I say again, for emphasis, you will never convince me that gays won’t line up at churches for ceremonies and, if turned away, sue.
BuckeyeSam on February 21, 2009 at 12:18 AM
I meant to mention this upthread. Using NAMBLA as a reason against gay marriage is pathetically lame. It’s like saying Eric Rudolph represents the pro-life movement.
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 12:18 AM
And hate is the capital of your soul.
Tav on February 21, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Maybe that’s not a good example, being that it’s obscure.
I’m saying that when minorities are looking to push their agenda they find it convenient to pick on some other minority rather than the majority.
In your case you’re saying that the Mormons are to blame for Prop 8 but there is no evidence of that. It’s your prime justification for harassing a religious denomination that is not very powerful and thus a convenient target.
The “Greenlanders” are citizens of Denmark who were born in Greenland (a Danish island colony) but moved to Denmark proper. The hostile Muslim immigrant population of Denmark find it convenient to harass this rival minority for the time being.
aengus on February 21, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Voter intimidation is not “good”.
And I don’t think you will have much success in arguing your point until you get to a point where you can recognize people can disagree on an issue and not be driven by hate.
Spirit of 1776 on February 21, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Sorry, we’ll have to disagree on the definition of heterosexual marriage. In all candor, I didn’t realize that gay-marriage advocates were dating heterosexual marriage back to the amendment giving women the right to vote.
Sorry. I’m not buying that definition.
BuckeyeSam on February 21, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Let’s allow atheists to redefine G-d as “a cute puppy”. Or redefine prayer as “anal penetration”. The point is, “marriage” already has been defines as “between a man and a woman” for thousands of years. The state simply allows this religious union to be recognized by law. It would be discriminatory to force religions to accept alternate definitions.
If gay “marriage” is accepted by law, my first idiotic examples may also become law.
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 12:28 AM
gay. athiest. octomom. I don’t see the difference. Just looking for attention, just looking out for yourself.
AZCON on February 21, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Why don’t you take your “I’m-poor-homosexual-victim” crap and shove it. I’m sick and tired of having to explain to my son and daughter about YOUR sexual identity and/or perversions and thus rob them of their innocence. You wanna be a homosexual, fine. Keep it in the closet. The in-your-face-gay attitude is growing tiresome and divisive. And, yeah, tearing down traditional role models for a man and a women IS going to be the downfall of society. Do you know why? Because of the CHILDREN. But you are too selfish, self-centered and ignorant to care about the future. If you want acceptance, don’t look to society to give it to you. If you are so pathetic that you need the whole world to love you, you better go see a therapist. Whatever you need, don’t think you can shove your problems in societies face and ask society to change just for you.
And yes, you do have the same exact rights to marry just as I do. You want “special rights.” That’s tough sh!t. Move to a state or country that lets you have those “special rights” or learn to live like most people do: not always getting what you want. Either way, stop whining like a little baby that wants things his way all the time. You should grow up.
Andy in Agoura Hills on February 21, 2009 at 12:32 AM
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 12:28 AM
I think you’re on to something. If we start refering to God as “Sky Kitten”, do you think we could change AP’s heart and mind?
Laura in Maryland on February 21, 2009 at 12:32 AM
I didn’t know that Mike Huckabee was an atheist.
Murphy9 on February 21, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Undoubtedly. It matters none that Jetboy himself might be critical of this particular development. It only takes one gay activist to file a lawsuit and if the highest good of society is liberal non-judgementalism (which of course it is) then all Christian churches will be compelled to perform gay marriage ceremonies. If they refuse they will sued out of existence.
aengus on February 21, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Here’s a newsflash for you, Andy: your children are not my responsibility.
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 12:36 AM
LOL… but I belong to the only group left with NO special protections… no hate laws… no hate speech protection… and my business is discriminated against on government contracts…. because of the set asides for “special” businesses…
Yep… I’m a White Male…
Romeo13 on February 21, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Why did I even reply to him? I took the bait hook, line and sinker.
If we start referring to God as “sky kitten” does that mean we’re going to have LOLGODS?
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Mrs. Lovejoy, is that you?
lolwut on February 21, 2009 at 12:37 AM
I don’t understand what the homosexual agenda is??? Promoting anal and/or oral sex between same sexes doesn’t translate into politics. Homosexuality is a choice. This is proven out by people CHOOSING to leave it, usually due to a religious conversion. Let’s not elevate sin to the level of race or gender. Homosexuality is a moral choice that people make, no less and no more. It doesn’t need its own parade and day at Disneyland.
Mojave Mark on February 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Let’s cut the crap.
Marriage isn’t just “I love you”; that would be “I love you.” Marriage is “Hey, if you want to run the risk of getting me pregnant, then darnit, you’re sticking with me.” It’s about procreation. Gays don’t procreate; thus, gay marriage is not only illogical but extraconstitutional. If it was about love, we’d be marrying co-eds every other month. There is no conceivable way to support gay marriage as a state function, especially given that the benefits afforded heterosexual couples are designed to alleviate growing families.
emailnuevo on February 21, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Just like de-segregation now means that you can’t fire a black person, even legitimately, without worrying about a lawsuit.
Tim Burton on February 21, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I think that “hate crime” should be an aggravating factor in a criminal prosecution, and an aid in putting together conspiracy charges. In other words, it should be a part of charges in an already-existing criminal case, not standalone charges that can be used against free speech.
There are worlds, nay, universes of difference between Pastor Brown saying homosexuality is evil, and his church’s vestry conspiring to burn down the local gay bar. I think that if the motive in burning down a gay bar is bias against gays, the person or persons responsible should get heavier sentences than if it were Beavis and Butthead playing with matches.
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 12:40 AM
First they came for the White Males, and I did not speak out – because I was a Black Lesbian Muslim on State Benefits.
aengus on February 21, 2009 at 12:40 AM
That’s what this is all about…tearing down religious/societal foundational constructs. They’ve already separated law from morality, now they need to remove any hint of morality (in the form of religion-based constructs) from the law. Once the process is completed, the only behavioral limitations in society will be the law, which can be changes willy-nilly.
By the way, what are you doing Saturday night?
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Here’s one for you: Your sexual orientation is not society’s problem. Back at ya.
Andy in Agoura Hills on February 21, 2009 at 12:43 AM
I got your “equality rights” right here pal. As the Governator said today as he signed that %#$&@ tax bill, “bend over”.
GarandFan on February 21, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Another example is housing. A person cannot say, “House for Rent. I am a Christian and I don’t want pagan roommates.” on a for rent ad. This because we passed a law outlawing discrimination.
Craigslist was sued for this example, but won. The thing is that technically the person who posts that ad is still liable.
Tim Burton on February 21, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Since there is no way to determine what emotions a person is feeling when they commit a crime, “hate” crime legislation is just plain dumb. Would you feel any better if someone burned down your house out of love?
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 12:45 AM
I can haz salvation?
lolwut on February 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Then you are clearly not for equal protect under the law. Neither are most Muslims and there is a certain irony there as well as a certain “squaring the circle” foreboding.
Tav on February 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM
This is why I find it funny when homosexuals tell me they cherish the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
Washington went to great lengths to point out that Religion and Morality are the most important things in America.
Right now, we are breeching each firewall and every single one of those breeches can ultimately be shown to a decline in religion and morality.
Tim Burton on February 21, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Well, because of him there’s a lot more people alive today that otherwise would not be.
Just saying.
platypus on February 21, 2009 at 12:49 AM
It’s obvious that we don’t have all or maybe any of the answers but I’d like to point out that we have for the most part good will. A lot of good information has been put on the table in this thread and there has to be a way to overcome the problems with compromise on both sides. I implore the conservative gay folks not to embrace the Democrat party simply because they say they will promote and deliver all of your dreams. You know it isn’t true (and it won’t be because mean nasty Republicans wouldn’t let them) and it’s not worth ruining the nation over. Sorry it just isn’t. We are the party of answers or at least it is what we should be striving to be. There has to be a way to hash this out in a forum that will produce results.
Cindy Munford on February 21, 2009 at 12:51 AM
It’s late enough at night, the kids are in bed, so I will explain the whys and wherefores of sodomy laws:
Remember, for much of our legal history, we did not have DNA paternity testing. If non-coital acts were legally defined as sex, a Lewinsky could have saddled a guy with the legal paternity of someone else’s kid. Therefore, the legal definition of sexual contact had to be, to put it crudely, Tab A in Slot B.
Sodomy laws were mainly written in order to bring sexual acts that are not coitus under the aegis of sex crimes like rape and prostitution, while preserving the legal definition of sex to mean acts that could reasonably result in pregnancy. The targeting of homosexuals using sodomy laws was actually a side effect of these laws, not necessarily their intent.
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 12:51 AM
You can’t get there from here.
Murphy9 on February 21, 2009 at 12:52 AM
I know this will just blow your fragile little mind but there are straight people who support gay marriage.
Oh, the horror!!
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 12:52 AM
I know this will just blow your fragile little mind but there are gay people who don’t support gay marriage.
Oh, the horror!!
Golly, this is fun and so easy. What more could anyone want?
Murphy9 on February 21, 2009 at 12:56 AM
Did you just pull that explanation out of your *sex act*? What a load of crap! There are a few reasons why sodomy laws were enacted:
1. So no woman would be forced to perform these acts on her wedding night, unless she wanted to, of course;
2. So a “masher” couldn’t perform these acts, claiming, in Clintonesque fashion, that it wasn’t sex, so no crime was committed;
3. Most important of all, to codify the illegality of acts which were banned in the old testament, which was the foundation of our legal system.
Don’t try to over-analyze, folks.
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 12:57 AM
No reason why that should be world-shattering. The Quote of the Day concerns a gay Republican Senator who does not endorse homosexual marriage. Or at least he’s not (yet) willing to vote for it.
aengus on February 21, 2009 at 12:58 AM
Uh, Cindy, I hate to be the one to break this to you but there are no “conservative gay folks.” There are deviant sex perverts (sodomites and others) who masquerade as conservatives.
A true conservative is a moral person with traditional values. Not sodomites. Not sluts. Not whores.
platypus on February 21, 2009 at 12:58 AM
Note the very limited context in which I would apply hate crimes. An overt act has to happen. Something or someone goes boom or ouch. The perps are already on the hook for the crime itself. Something has been hurt besides feelings. Bias should be an aggravating factor in a crime, just like shooting someone in the middle of committing another crime is an aggravating factor.
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 12:59 AM
I meant that it would be earth shattering to Andy, who assumed I was gay.
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 1:00 AM
Does this mean Rush isn’t a true conservative?
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Sorry Snarky, this is where the fringes of the gay community make the rest look bad. I’m willing to explain why Heather has two mommies (don’t want the schools doing it for me), but I have a hard time explaining the two men in assless chaps sporting feather boas getting a little too freaky at the St. Pat’s parade. I may be a little more pro gay community than most here (anyone need a hag?), but I expect people to behave themselves in PUBLIC, for the good of all society, not just the kids.
Rosa Parks wasn’t the first to refuse to sit in the back of the bus. Right before Mrs. Parks made her stand (so to speak), an unwed pregnant teen did the same thing, and she got obnoxious with the driver and police. The NAACP decided they did not want a mouthy unwed mom as their standard-bearer. The NAACP knew the importance of image, and instead they stood behind Mrs. Parks’ courageous actions. The general public can relate to a hard working seamstress and pillar of the community wanting to sit down after working all day.
Laura in Maryland on February 21, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Psst, I think we said more or less the same thing. Sodomy laws were written so that rapists and prostitutes could not Clinton their way out of having committed a sex crime.
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 1:01 AM
I completely agree. If the crime has any bias against Muslims then that crime should carry the additional penalty of stoning or decapitation, Allah willing.
Aleph on February 21, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »