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 »
Here’s a question for the anti-gay marriage crowd, can’t a church decide, currently, if they are going to allow a heterosexual to marry in the church. For example, if I’m not a member of a church can’t they tell me I can’t use their space? Churches are private entities, they can’t be forced to perform a marriage service. There’s nothing “legal” about a marriage ceremony in a church, you have to go to the state to get an official marriage license. How you choose to commemorate it (me and my partner are going to have a reception only wedding, big party, no pomp). So all this angst over churches being forced is ridiculous. The current way marriage works churches can’t be forced, why would they be forced if the state recognizes gay marriages?
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 1:04 AM
As for hate crimes, there is no way to determine a person’s thoughts at the time a crime is committed. And it doesn’t matter anyway. Our laws are based on deeds, not on thought, just as in the old testament. There’s a lot of wisdom in there. (As an aside, the only emotion that’s specifically condemned in the Talmud is envy, as in the 10th commandment. This was seen as unnatural and poisonous, with no upside. All the other emotions could be transient and controlled by free will)
I don’t know why anyone would feel it is worse to commit a crime based on hatred than on some other emotion. The end result is what’s important. The bigger question is whether this opens the door to thought control.
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 1:06 AM
There are all kinds of legal differences when it comes to motive, evidence of premeditation, and even furtherance of a conspiracy when it comes to the motives of any act.
There should be a legal difference between someone who tried to burn down Sarah Palin’s church because he thinks it’s a transmission tower for the aliens, someone who tries to burn Sarah Palin’s church down because he’s a pyromaniac, and someone who tries to burn Sarah Palin’s church down because he hates Sarah Palin and the religion she follows.
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 1:08 AM
Wow… I’ve heard a lot of different definitions of Conservative… but this is a new one.
I consider myself a Conservative… in the vein of the founding Fathers… where the Government just plain stayed out of everyones business…. ie.. I’m a Fiscal Conservative borderline Libertarian…
I don’t want Gays to be telling society what to do… but I also don’t want a Christian Preacher doing it either…
Romeo13 on February 21, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Funny you should bring that up. We are working on that and are currently in double-blind phase II studies.
DasObamaReich on February 21, 2009 at 1:09 AM
You live in a community where you represent the more progressive view on homosexuality and you have gay men in assless chaps in your st. pattys day parade? Somethin ain’t right. Normally gay men go out in assless chaps in public in cities with large gay populations and with a pretty gay friendly attitude. And my suggestion, if you live in said city and you don’t like gay people, well just move. Trust me, the reason lots of gay people don’t live in glenbarry buttfuck wherever is that they make a conscious decision to move and NOT to be Ted Haggards. To not mpregnate some poor unsuspecting suburban wife only to cheat on her in sleazy bathrooms/hotel suites because their self hate and shame won’t allow them to pursue a relationship with a man in an open and honest fashion.
The right wing has one thing right. The “gay lifestyle” is a choice. Not a choice in terms of what turns your crank, that is what it is. But the choice is will you live a life of lies, deceit, self hatred and self destruction by pretending to be straight until you are caught or reality catches up with your fantasy. Or will you choose to join the rest of the adult world and BE who you are and own who you are and not apologize to anyone. Because why should you apologize for not being bald faced liar. That’s the other thing I don’t get about the social conservatives they literally are telling gay people “lie. everyday of your life you need to lie and pretend you aren’t what you are, because who you are makes us uncomfortable.” It’s so anti-Christian and creepy and wierd.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 1:10 AM
I honestly don’t know the first part for certain. I would assume that the church would have to give a good reason for not allowing you the space, but I can’t imagine churches have a “members only” policy. There are some lovely cathderals/churches that I can’t imagine everyone who’s been married there has attended.
Anyway, if I have a private business I have to make it wheelchair accessible, if I’m not mistaken. So there’s ways to read the law to force an agenda.
Again, the problem is the stated function of marriage. It isn’t just love. It’s cementing a man and a woman together for both of their own good, to procreate. State recognition of a marriage is based on the impossibly high likelihood of progeny, not on love. Otherwise starlets would never be married.
emailnuevo on February 21, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Not a much wiggle room for those of us who are not perfect. For years I have been sad at the people who discount our Founding Fathers and all that they did to build this great nation because they either owned slaves or appeared to condone slavery because it wasn’t written into the Constitution. I just can’t bring myself to judge people so harshly. I know you strong convictions bring you comfort.
Cindy Munford on February 21, 2009 at 1:11 AM
I couldn’t agree with you more. There’s no reason to act that way in front of kids who are way too young to understand it. But Andy thinks that homosexuals as a whole are a threat to children, which is ridiculous. Like you said, it’s the fringe that makes things difficult for everyone else. But at the same time, most people can understand that the fringe is exactly that. They don’t represent gays as a whole, just as Eric Rudolph and John Salvi do not represent pro-lifers as a whole.
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM
DON’T SCARE ME!
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Courts hear evidence on the state of mind of criminal defendants all the time. How much of a mitigating factor is it often found to be, when a spouse walks in on his or her other spouse en flagrante with someone else? What if they were not actually doing the deed, but the spouse was vigorously trying to perform CPR or something, and it looked really bad?
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Then why aren’t their fertitlity tests that go along with marriage? Some people are barren, should they be barred from marriage for that reason?
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 1:14 AM
So you think it’s okay to act that way in front of kids who are old enough to understand it? Wow!
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 1:15 AM
The length of your reply can not disguise the disingenuous of it as your point was clearly “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“. The “Beavis and Butthead playing with matches” part was obviously just “comedic fluff.
Tav on February 21, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Snark and I hashed out this point a few weeks ago. Yes, there are couples who are infertile. But they are an anomaly. There is no way a homosexual couple will ever procreate. There is a difference between a particular case and a categorical rule.
emailnuevo on February 21, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Everyone who goes to a gay pride parade these days know what they are going to see. If you don’t want your kids to see what happens at a gay pride parade…then don’t take them to one. At most, gay pride parades these days get 90 seconds on the local news for the one evening of the year the parade happens. The chance to psychologically scar your children is too small to even attempt to quantify. But this is another one of those scare tactics people use.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 1:18 AM
I know that isn’t what he meant, but I thought the same thing. Chuckled, actually.
emailnuevo on February 21, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Big difference! You are describing a situation, where a jury can determine if the criminal act was mitigated by the circumstance. You are not judging what someone was thinking!
The term “hate crime” means that the jury must decide what the defendant was thinking. Not only is this impossible, it is ripe for abuse, as we have seen in Europe.
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Ha. Ha. You got me. Next?
Andy in Agoura Hills on February 21, 2009 at 1:19 AM
You could say the same thing about a cross-burning. Bad behavior is bad even if it isn’t observed.
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Would your point be the same about burning down a church as burning down a gay bar? Motives and state of mind come into play in the legal system all the time. I think someone who burns a church because they hate Christians should get a stiffer sentence than if it were Beavis and Butthead playing with matches. Or if you prefer, either a person incautious with fire or an out-and-out pyromaniac.
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Actualy what you will find is that most of us do NOT care about what happens in the bedroom… the problem is the lifestyle they have in PUBLIC. Its the in your face we’re gonna be sexual creatures in PUBLIC that sticks in my craw.
I have gay freinds… but they don’t ACT like flamers… just like I have Black freinds… who don’t act like Gang Bangers… just like I have Hispanic freinds, who speak English… just like my Moslem freind who does NOT make his daughter wear a Hijab….
Its the culture… not the belief… or the activity… and the Prop 8 in your face tactis are NOT winning them freinds.
Romeo13 on February 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM
This is why the law provides us with really clear brightlines. To use drug laws as a quick example. In many states weed posession of an ounce or more is a felony. Any amount less than that, ANY amount less is a misdemeanor and it doesn’t matter how close you are to a felony. The law is there to create brightlines.
And if fertility were the true baseline for marriage statutes then there would be ways of excluding all non-fertile couples from state marriage. But it’s not the baseline and therefore not a reason to exclude homosexuals from marriage.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Motives are considered for a crime, yes. But the crime isn’t defined by the motive, except for “hate” crimes.
stonemeister on February 21, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Nobody’s perfect so the first sentence is a non sequiter. It’s about standards, not performance.
It is beneath your intelligence to use slavery as a comparative to approving sodomy. Slavery was an economic system which was incorporated into the constitution because they didn’t want two Americas (which was not defensible in a military sense).
Sodomites provide no benefit to society. Thus, society should grant them no benefits.
platypus on February 21, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Of course, there is plenty of evidence of that. As or their not being powerful, my peeps (secularists) don’t have a state to run.
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 1:25 AM
If we’re going to start denying benefits to people who provide no benefit to society, that’s going to be one hell of a list. Can we start with Paris Hilton?
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 1:25 AM
Yup, I walked right into that one. :)
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 1:26 AM
Tell that to the Boy Scouts. The homosexual agenda is, has been, and always will be a threat to society. Especially, the very young and impressionable. You don’t comprehend that because your self-centered life is not concerned with societal concerns. Just your desires.
Andy in Agoura Hills on February 21, 2009 at 1:28 AM
So you’re a person who likes his friends to be pretty conformist and as “like you” as possible. That’s cool, most people are like that. Most white people who I know who have a lot of black friends act more stereotypically “black” than they do.
I happen to find a lot of personality traits “stick in my craw” but that just means I find that individual person annoying. Over the top flamboyance, be it in the form of a lispy, swishy gay man or an overcompensating to the point of stupid masculine uber jock tends to be annoying, primarily because they tend to be people who need a lot of attention and the spotlight (have you noticed how often the uber jocks seek out man hugs, man buttslaps while playing sports, man high fives and chest bumps? I’m just saying). But whatever irritation I may have toward that individuals personality trait it has zero impact on how I feel about the civil rights of the larger group that individual may be a part of.
Ultimately when someone says “I like gay people…just when they don’t ever actually remind me that they are gay in anyway ever by talking about their relationship or even hinting at a sex life” it means one of two things. They don’t have those kinds of friendships with anyone (which is wierd…if consistent). Or they actually don’t really want gay friends, they want gay acquaintances. Which is fine but like…own that sh*t. If you have a double standard be honest.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Ms. Hilton provides gainful employment to countless photographers, auto body shop mechanics, and rehab center operators, and who knows how many lesser professions.
And she takes no government benefits. So, no, we won’t be banning Paris.
platypus on February 21, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Whoa. I didn’t say fertility was what determined your suitability for marriage; I said that marriage was designed for procreation. In other words, the state gives you breaks as a married person because your cost of living necessarily increases as your family grows. Gay couples cannot possibly have children and cause their family to grow. (And if you really want to pres the point, that would mean that only gays who wanted to adopt could legally get married).
The state recognition of marriage is absolutely based on the high possibility of procreation. Just because certain couples have kids and others don’t, doesn’t mean that all heterosexual couples could not possibly. Gay couples cannot – ever – have kids on their own. Therefore their cost of living, if they just live together and have sex, is not likely going to rise. Saying infertile women shouldn’t be a allowed to have children is a laughably poor rebuttal.
emailnuevo on February 21, 2009 at 1:29 AM
I am talking about bias as an aggravating factor for a crime against person or property that has taken place. And bias would be determined by the circumstances as well: The nature of any vandalism that went along with the crime, in arson what got set on fire first, whether the building was occupied, whether or not efforts were made to cut off escape for the occupants of the building, whether there is any underlying mental illness, well-witnessed utterances of the defendant…
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Look you’re so steeped in anti-gay hatred one wonders why I try. But homosexual men are not pedophiles. Pedophiles is a sexual desire for children that afflicts a pretty small minority in this world. Gay men, like most men, tend to like adults. Will a gay man notice a 16yo guy and think he’s hot..probably. Will a straight man notice a well developed 16yo girl and have a dirty thought…exactly. There really isn’t any different between your avg straight guy and your avg gay guy. We’re all horny bastards, but not into kids.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Ellen provides gainful employment to hundreds of people who work on her show.
SnarkVader on February 21, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Yes.
Tav on February 21, 2009 at 1:36 AM
And your basing that conclusion on…what exactly? The history of marriage law in this country is pretty clear. Marriage law was created, initially, as a means of ensuring male control of property. National marriage law came about primarily to prevent bigamy as men would marry women in different states and inheritance claims would get really ugly. In all the histories of state run marriage I’ve seen I’ve never seen people say “we need this marriage law to encourage procreation.”
You are correct there are a set of tax incentives that came along even later to help families with children, but again it’s not part of a couple’s ACCESS to marriage. You can file jointly and accrue benefits if you do not have kids. And yes gay couples who adopt should get any child care credits that straight couples that adopt or procreate do.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 1:37 AM
My conclusion is based on, oh, two thousand years of civilization. All of which, save maybe twenty years, is on my side.
You’re still missing my point, or at least dancing around it. You’re taking a possible particular instance – an infertile/no-kids couple – and stretching it and saying “That’s it! Shut the door on heterosexual marriages!” No, it’s categorically impossible for gay couples to produce children. And hence there are no diaper costs,no tuition costs, no nothing. (Let me guess: What about kids who don’t go to college?!) Thus it makes no sense. There is no obligation to be faithful and monogamous sans children, beyond what would be true of any relationship; there is no reason to legally enshrine a relationship except for children. (Interestingly, your point about marriage law being about inheritance backs me up somewhat; gays technically don’t have children on their own.)
In sum, I’m not saying gays can’t do whatever they’d like together. [Don't get me wrong; I'm on the Christian side of the issue, but individual rights are individual rights.] I’m saying there’s no possible reason gay marriage should take place. Basing marriage solely on love is like saying I love my best friend; hey, let’s get married! It is at best emotionally appealing but logically terrifying.
That said, thanks for the civil debate, and good night. I’m out.
emailnuevo on February 21, 2009 at 1:51 AM
I realize that in reality, those who would write hate crime laws would indeed have peoples’ rights to free speech in their crosshairs, and would not take the precautions I would see them take. I am simply bringing up my belief that in and of itself, crimes motivated by bias should be punished more stringently.
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 1:58 AM
You claimed your argument was based in the law, not cultural trends. Marriage as governed by the Western state is a lot newer than 2,000 years.
LOL So there would never be an inheritance dispute between a gay partner and the family of a deceased gay person? Come on man.
Yes you are, you are saying they can not seek state recognition of their relationship. And you’re attempting to present an “objective” rationale for why the law should exclude gay couples. But your standards don’t meet the basic legal criteria of consistency. You’re correct, the vast minority of heterosexual couples are infertile. But YOU are the one attempting to argue that procreation is the “reason” for marriage law. And then you turn around and say “but procreation for heterosexuals isn’t a requirement for marriage.” If its not a requirement for heterosexuals why is it a requirement for homosexuals. Let me be clear, I’m NOT arguing that infertile straight couples should be excluded. But under YOUR logic, there’s no reason to exclude gay couples either.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 1:59 AM
BS—the guy understands the workings of incrementalism very well. Conservatives usually do not understand this and need to learn.
Rick9911 on February 21, 2009 at 2:00 AM
As for marriage, gays, and the like—the main reason the state is involved in marriage at all is because it is the state we come to should divorce happen or someone die and probate needs to be figured out. The state merely serves to register the fact of the marriage.
In the pioneer days, when a visit to any state office meant a long ride and an overnight stay (at least) in a strange city, marriage was often recorded in family Bibles and left at that. If all gays want is the right to have the same probate and divorce privileges, which is realistically all the state can really give them, I don’t see the harm. That’s all the state gives straights if you think about it.
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 2:16 AM
must…sleep…zzzzzzz
Sekhmet on February 21, 2009 at 2:35 AM
My fantasy of living on my own private island, surrounded by barbed wire and a mine-field is looking more desirable with every passing day.
The world has gone nuts.
OldEnglish on February 21, 2009 at 3:35 AM
Then you are punishing thought, and probably perceived thought at that, and that is a large undertaking even for a god.
MB4 on February 21, 2009 at 3:49 AM
Cheer up, the worst is yet to come.
MB4 on February 21, 2009 at 3:50 AM
Sorry, stamp your tiny little feet all you want and demand your “rights”. I for one shall never accept the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate! Call me whatever you want to call me. I don’t care! Your names and insults mean nothing to me!
sabbott on February 21, 2009 at 6:06 AM
This is more proof you can’t educate a liberal (social or otherwise). They believe the world blinked into existence last week and have zero concept of history.
Doomed to repeat it, heavy emphasis on the doomed.
TMK on February 21, 2009 at 6:36 AM
Sorry, DTMH. I disagree and so here in page three of the thread. Two others offered up similar arguments.
In short, religious denominations currently enjoy tax-exempt status–a governmental benefit of sorts. As soon as gay marriage is recognized, denominations that don’t perform gay ceremonies will be sued for discrimination. If they don’t comply, they’ll have their tax-exempt status revoked. Obama’s already issued an EO subjecting faith-based organizations to discrimination tests if they want federal money. Fine. I don’t think faith-based organizations should be lining up at the federal trough for money. But don’t tell me that nothing will be changed with national recognition of gay marriage. Sure, it presumably won’t end religious denominations, but churches will be taxed like any large corporations, and its donors will not be entitled to deduct their contributions.
That will be a substantial change from long-standing policy. But, hey, anything to accomodate gays.
BuckeyeSam on February 21, 2009 at 6:36 AM
Very good answer, I laughed and Ms. Hilton will be relieved. As to your 1:22 post it wasn’t my intention to compare homosexuality to slave ownership in a moral sense but that people will ignore the value of someone’s life based on that history. My fault is that I want everyone to be happy. I am doomed to disappointment.
Cindy Munford on February 21, 2009 at 7:20 AM
I’m no shrinkologist, but I think that the “marriage” thing is just a means to a psychological end, i.e. validation by straights of the homosexual lifestyle.
It’s ground that I cannot morally give.
pugwriter on February 21, 2009 at 7:24 AM
The gay marriage issue is not about “love” or “fairness”. The militant gays, who use the typical gays as useful idiots, are only interested in getting a legal definition applied so they can force insurance companies to insure them at the same rates. Gays have segregated themselves from the community when they feel like it (health issues, mortality rates, etc) and then get “in your face” when it suits them. It’s pretty clear that their health and mortality are much lower than hetro couples. Insurance companies give favorable rates to marrieds because history shows they are less risky. If gays can get the word “marriage” applied to their unions, then insurance companies cannot discriminate and must provide the same rates as they do for hetro’s. The insurance companies will certainly increase rates for ALL who fall under the definition of married to cover the increased expenses associated with the gay life style.
This is why I cannot stand certain gays. They, like all Godless liberal’s, are only interested in themselves. If they were decent people they would come up with their own word for their “sacred unions” and take responsibility for ALL their choices including paying for their increased insurance rates that will be based on their risky life style.
THAT, and issues like that, is the ONLY rational reason why they refuse to create a word that defines their situation specifically.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Which is why “universal” health care is so near to their hearts.
pugwriter on February 21, 2009 at 7:30 AM
There’s a very easy way to test this. How many cases have been brought against churches in Vermont, Massachusets and Connecticut, three states with gay marriage law? Please don’t hold your breath looking for them, there aren’t any. The whole idea is ludicrous, why would anyone want to get married in a place that didn’t want them there. Your side just refuses to accept that there’s really very little between gay people and straight people. The place where a couple gets married means something to both and, normally, it’s not a place that you had to sue for discrimination. That doesn’t exactly spell romance and love. Bu continue to fear monger why don’t you.
Do you have a single shred of evidence published after the year 2000 that shows gay couples have higher mortality rates than straight couples? You’re relying on outdated propaganda from the HIV-AIDS epidemic.
But more to the point. African American and latino couples have higher mortality rates than white couples, should they be barred from marriage and denied good insurance rates as racial groups? Of course not, insurance companies evaluate each person individually. Should people who have a history of cancer, and thus are more likely to die young be barred from marriage? Your argument does not make sense and, as usual with your side, doesn’t meet basic logical requirements.
LOL come up with their own “word.” This is what you’re wrangling about. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t matter what you “call it” the legal recognition of the relationship is all that matters. Lots of straight couples don’t call their legal relationships “marriages” because they perceive that comes with some heavy emotional baggage or something. Who knows, I don’t care and neither should you. The law, however, should be applied equally, that’s all anyone is arguing.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 8:19 AM
really?
– NAMBLA booklet, “A Way Forward: Selections from the NAMBLA Bulletin & NAMBLA Journal,” 1983-1987, pp. 7-8. Published in 1997.
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 8:52 AM
I’ve already posted examples of suits brought by gays against those who would dare disagree with their lifestyle. there is no doubt that gays will use gay ‘marriage’ to harass, sue, silence, and penalize, christians. they’re doing it already.
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 8:58 AM
and there are a lot of people who vote democratic…what does this prove?? there are lots of stupid people.
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Where those folks engaged in discrimination that violated their equal protection rights under the rubric of the interstate commerce clause? If so then the lawsuits were acceptable. The CRM established that individuals have a right to consume.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 9:02 AM
i am a gay man, or gay american, or whatever retarded thing the “gays” are calling themselves nowadays. csdeven is right on. these gays that scream and act ridiculous in public are beyond selfish. and God forbid you should be a gay man with even the hint of a republican view point on any given topic and they will tear you to pieces in a nano-second. I AM HERE TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT I DIDN’T SUFFER UNDER THE 8 YEARS OF BUSH. I DON’T SUFFER FROM THE HATRED OF SOCIETY. AND DO YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE MY ENTIRE LIFE IS NOT WRAPPED UP IN WHAT I DO IN THE BEDROOM!!!!! THESE PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK!
Ghoul aid on February 21, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Well, marriage as such was pretty much born out of necessity. Keep in mind human females carry their unborn children quite long. Nine months. And after that we take an awful lot of time to raise these children and to teach them necessary things. Compare that with other animals.
So that male-female union eventually appeared simply out of the need to protect the offspring and thus to make sure that the offspring survives. On a larger scale that’s pretty much how the first groups and later societies appeared.
It had a reason.
Compared to that gay marriage has what reason exactly? None really. Keep “love” and that outside for now and focus on the most basic thing that nature gives a damn about: life. Gay marriage does not create life. It’s not really possible since nature designed it like this and evolution gave it a decent kick into that direction. Blame the fish that crawled out of the sea a few million years ago. A human male and another human male can’t produce any offspring. Fact. They never will. Certain African frogs can change their gender if there’s, for example, too many females. And snails and other animals of that kind don’t even have a gender. But humans are mammals and mammals have genders. Tough luck! Want a different way? Kill yourself and hope you’re reborn as snail.
Still. I’ll be honest. I used to be in favor of gay marriage. And I’m not talking about any church ceremonies or whatever. I’m talking about the law. In front of the law all people are equal (I know that here in Europe that’s not true anymore, some people -usually muslims- are more equal than others and thus get better treatment by our judges and courts), or should be equal. Case closed. There’s no way around that in my book.
However. Prop 8 was a democratic vote. The people were asked and they voted and they said no to gay marriage. And in that case I also say: case closed. It’s called democracy. Starting with riots and behaving like pink Nazis after an election won’t win anyone any sympathies. That’s why I say by now: screw them, if the gays in Cali don’t like democracy then they shall piss off to Iran or North Korea.
I say it again: it was a democratic vote by the people and the majority was against gay marriage. Cope. It’s called the democracy. If you don’t like it or believe that you should get special treatment despite the democratic vote being against your idea… move to Iran or North Korea. You won’t have to deal with nasty democracy there. Or come to Europe. You can stand in line with the muslims and whine for special privileges (only to get beaten up by said muslims afterwards, because, well, you’re gay).
And… don’t call any fascists (may they be pink or red) “liberals”. They are not liberals. At least not in a classic sense (and it’s those wannabe liberals, who are really nothing else but fascists, who call classic liberals “libertarians”, which is a load of BS anyway). They don’t believe in freedom and liberty. Well, they do, but only for themselves. They never understood that freedom and liberty brings massive responsibility. They never understood that their own freedom must not infringe on the freedom of others. These people are not liberals. They are leftist libtards.
Penguin on February 21, 2009 at 9:05 AM
of course they are!! just like its OK to arrest christians for praying at a gay rights parade!! and next set up ‘re-education’ camps so those christians can learn to think correctly…
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 9:05 AM
And that has happened when?
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Though, I forgot that part:
I don’t care whether someone is gay or not. What you do in your bedroom is your business. As long as you don’t force anyone to it, as long as you don’t violate another person’s freedom, I don’t care.
I’m not gay, and I have gay friends. And no, I’m not even Christian, nor do I label myself “conservative”.
Though, the thing that annoys me by now is: what’s with all those gay parades? Who cares? I mean, who really does? So my neighbor is gay? Why would I care? Good for him. Have fun.
BTW, where’s my hetero parade?
Penguin on February 21, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Single?
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 9:08 AM
I posted this earlier…
link
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 9:10 AM
If you don’t care…then why does a gay parade “annoy” you. Clearly you DO care on some level. And the question is why. Did someone force you to go to a gay parade or something? I’m pretty sure the rest of us have this thing called “free will” and can decide to go to a gay parade or not. I found the massive pro-life protests kind of annoying, but who am I to say that they shouldn’t occur. It’s a free country.
It’s called everyday life.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Yes, the attitude towards peaceful social protest got very toxic under the Bush Administration with “protest zones” and other such nonsense meant to quell public speech. No doubt you only decided to care about this unfortunate reality when your side was impacted. You probably didn’t realize that those anti-protest policies would ever effect people in the majority. Sorry, welcome to our fascist America.
Can I ask an honest questoin of the folks here. Would you want an “ex-gay” guy to marry your daughter. Be honest.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 9:14 AM
what? you’re delusional.
the gay rights crowd are the brown-shirted fascists as the reaction to the CA vote proves.
yeah those x-gays really disturb you don’t they?? because your ‘lifestyle’ is nothing more than a choice…desserving of no special rights. deal with it.
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 9:16 AM
What does “after the year 2000″ have to do with it? Did the gay life style all of a sudden become less risky? Gays hide the critical data from outside eyes to keep that data purposely vague. I guarantee this…..IF the gay lifestyle was NOT more risky, the militants would be providing the data to prove it.
So you see, the shit you spew out of your mouth might fool some, but I do not trust nor am I fooled by people who are so devoid of class, that they parade their sexual practices in public in order to make political statements.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 9:19 AM
I’ve written elsewhere in this thread but was too politically correct to go here. I made a mistake. I’m not interested in persecuting gays. Indeed, I daresay that if the life, liberty, or property of one were wrongly in peril within my arm’s reach, a gay would rather have me around than a fairweather liberal. Nevertheless, extolling the virtues of the gay lifestyle is a bridge too far. I don’t want it elevated to the status that heterosexual marriage enjoys. Civil unions, fine. Domestic partnerships, fine. Otherwise, I don’t want it encouraged and celebrated in governmental policies as we do heterosexual marriage.
BuckeyeSam on February 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM
You didn’t answer my question though. Would you, or anyone you know, want an “ex-gay” to marry your daughter.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM
sure, why not? I believe in repentance and people changing their lives…whereas you gay nazis don’t.
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 9:23 AM
I would of course want an AIDS check done…and a full physical…we both know how unhealthy homosexuality is…
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 9:24 AM
1.)They’ll vote again every couple of years. It will probably pass at some point.
2.)Was it OK for courts to override the democratic votes of states on interracial marriage laws, fornication laws or sodomy laws during the past few decades?
dedalus on February 21, 2009 at 9:36 AM
There’s no difference between a law that would allow for civil unions and a law that would allow for “gay marriage” other than semantics. On paper a “civil union” would confer all the benefits that state sanctioned heterosexual marriage does. Good to know we’re on the same side.
LOL and you *wouldn’t* want those things done if your daughter were marrying a straight guy? Because we know that the only people who get STDs are gay men and the only people who might have longterm health problems are gay men. LOL you’re stupidity is showing. You probably wouldn’t demand an “AIDS test” from a guy who you thought to be straight who were marrying your daughter even though that person could very likely have HIV-AIDS. IDIOTIC and demonstrates how dangerous bigotry actually is.
And for those who talk about the “gay lifestyle.” There’s no such thing. Straight people either use drugs…or don’t. Straight people either eat fatty foods…or don’t. Straight people either floss…or don’t. And the same applies for gay people. Gay people either engage in unsafe activities…or they don’t. But there’s no “gay lifestyle” with specific rules. People make choices as to how they will conduct their everyday lives. If this is what you mean by being “gay” is a choice, well then there’s no fight.
But if you’re claiming that your sexual desires are chosen, well then you are on the wrong side of science and like…basic logic. I went through puberty and I definitely didn’t have a period where both genders turned me on and I just said, “I’ll go with *this* one. No, puberty hit, I liked what I liked and that was that. It’s the same for all men. Women are a little more complex sexually and a little more fluid so that’s a whole other matter.
As for the “ex-gays” why would you want your daughter to marry a liar who will eventually cheat on her with a man. All ex-gays are liars and all ex-gays eventually cheat on their wives with men. Because you can’t change sexual desire. What turns your crank, turns your crank and that’s that. Moreover why on EARTH would you want your daughter in a marriage with a man who could not appreciate her physically and provide the sexual intimacy that makes a relationship work. It’s one of the cruelest things you can do to a person is marry them when you don’t really love them. But apparently, christians who believe in “ex-gays” want this for their daughters.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 9:41 AM
NO! I would cut her off for ignoring her upbringing. And I don’t care what anyone may think of that.
OldEnglish on February 21, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I think your point is reasonable. However, I don’t think marriage is celebrated by the government. I recall getting my marriage license from a fairly droid-like municipal clerk. The celebration is usually a function of family, church and community support, and as the marriage is tested over the years it is the family, church and community who encourage the couple to stay together. Want a divorce? The state will give you the paperwork no questions asked. No celebration by the state at the beginning or end of the marriage.
dedalus on February 21, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Only a self centered shitbag would make such an asinine statement. By your idiotic logic, we must have parades for NAMBLA, sheep f**kers, child molesters, ax murderers, and every other behavior that isn’t “normal”.
Get over it you jagoff! Your chosen lifestyle isn’t mainstream. And since you have chosen to try to force the rest of the world to accept it and publicize what happens privately in your bedroom, you will have to accept the fact that you are viewed as classless.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Which is all the evidence anyone needs to realize that it isn’t about “love” or “equality”. It’s about being SUPER equal. You parade your private life around like classless animals and expect the rest of the world to take up the slack for your risky behavior. You should pay your own premiums based on your lifestyle and risks.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM
It will be interesting to see which denominations fold up, pay up, or bend over when the Marxists finally push homosexual wedlock through.
TMK on February 21, 2009 at 9:55 AM
All this is about is that some of the 5% of the population of this country that is Homosexual want to commandeer the use of the word “marriage”. This is nothing more than an effort to frame their lifestyle as a normal and accepted behavior. Alternative terms for their relationships have already been coined, but evidently those are not acceptable, because in their minds, those terms do not bestow normalization upon their sexual orientation. So, basically, 3 – 4 % of America’s population want to exert their will over the other 96 %. Considering that their efforts have been defeated by popular vote in about 90 % of
the United States, I really do not see this happening.
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Your liberal idiocy is showing. Look, face it will ya….your chosen militant lifestyle is not the same as the hetro lifestyle. If it were, you would cease parading your private sexual behavior in public like animals and you wouldn’t demand you be known first and foremost as “gay”.
Believe it or not, but a majority of gays simply want to live their lives quietly without fear of being beaten up or discriminated against simply because they are gay. They aren’t interested in putting their sexual behavior in the worlds face and force acceptance and expect super equality. It is you militant types that ruin it for the rest. Just like gay bashers, black gangsters, illegal aliens, and others ruin it for the silent majority. We aren’t interested in having to defend our traditional values until you militant types start assaulting those values with your expectations of super equality. But, you militants brought on the fight and now you are getting push back. And your response to that is accusations of homophobia, bigotry, racism, and threats of emotional, financial, and public abuse.
Again, this is more evidence of the classless nature of the militant gay.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM
You seem to have your “chicken and egg” confused here. No city MUST have a gay pride parade. Gay pride parades are organized in cities with enough gay people (with enough money) to finance a big parade. There aren’t enough sheepf*ckers or NAMBLA members to finance a sheepf*cker or NAMBLA pride parade. The existence of gay pride parades speaks to the size and economic power of the gay community. It’s America, deal with it.
This sentence literally makes no sense. It’s not about “equality” it’s about “super equal.” WHA?!? That’s insanity. It’s about, very simply, equality before the law. If that’s being “super equal” then…OK. I don’t even know how you can be SUPER equal as equal is a pretty neutral standard.
As for it not being about love. Gay couples don’t need the law to fall/be in love (hint…neither do straight couples). Gay couples merely want the law to recognize their union for the same reason heterosexuals want the law to recognize their union, economic convenience, clear cut standards for property and inheritace, filing joint taxes. I mean…damn, it’s actually NOT that big of a deal.
I honestly don’t know what you’re referring to when you reference the “gay lifestyle.” So I have no clue if you are right that it is not “mainstream.”
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM
talk about pathetic stupidity, you demonstrate it with every post…so where is that hetero aids epidemic everyone was so scared of a couple of decades ago??? hasn’t happened….everyone knows AIDS is a result of either gay sex or intravenous drug abuse.
talk about idiotic…implying that everyone has an equal chance of having aids is beyond stupid.
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM
it won’t be if you gay nazis get your way.
what BS..this is all about using the law to silence christianity…
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Has the Catholic Church been successfully sued for discriminating against women when ordaining priests or bishops? Churches have a lot of case law on their side protecting them from the state and supporting the right to free exercise.
dedalus on February 21, 2009 at 10:03 AM
unfortunately it will given the jack-booted thugs in black robes on the courts…especially after a few years of duh 1′s appointments…
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I’m coming to this discussion late, but here there are two things I’d like to comment on. As an Orthodox Christian, I know you cannot marry in the Orthodox church unless you are Orthodox. No exceptions.
Also, I remember reading an Orthodox publication several years ago where a priest discussed homosexuality (unlike Catholicism, Orthodox priests are allowed to be married as long as they marry before becoming priests – I thought I’d put this in there for the commenters who will think of posting something about “gay priests” suppressing their feelings). In this article, the priest says we do not know if homosexuality is a choice or if they are indeed born with that leaning. Supposing it is the latter, then that may be the particular sin that person is saddled with and must fight against in their life. We are all sinners, hopefully, we choose not to wallow in it, but pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and try and do better next time. Like an alcoholic who should fight the urge to drink, so should the homosexual fight his desires.
That does not mean the homosexual or the alcoholic is going to h*ll if they fail, but that should at least try and fight the sin as we all should fight against our own personal sinfulness. God loves us all and we should all love one another with compassion and understanding as none of us are without sin.
tnmama on February 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM
How is gay marriage law “parading your private sexual behavior in public like animals.” Did I miss it where gay marriages became public sex in a bathroom. Newsflash man, the guys who are getting caught boinking each other in public are CLOSETED MARRIED guys whose pathetic attempts to fake being straight have led them to seak out sleazy gay sex in public. This is what “ex gay” ministries leads to. This is what insane anti-gay hatred leads to, the very thing you hate. Gay couples who want to get married are not people who want to have sex in your front lawn, they want to do it in their jointly owned home on their honeymoon, like anyone else.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM
1. There are other STDS besides HIV-AIDS. And PLEASE, for their sake, tell your daughters to get their partners tested as you have no clue what they have done with their bodies before you, god I really fear for your daghters. Your going to tell them there are no risks in heterosexual sex, these are the women that wake up one day and have genital herpies and are confused.
2.Not a single licensed medial professional will tell you the only way to contract AIDS is through gay sex or IV drug use. Call me cray, but I think they may know more about it tan you.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 10:08 AM
How would gay marriage law “silence” Christianity. Your paranoia and wierd rationales grow by the minute. Heterosexual marriage law clearly hasn’t “silenced” those who:
1. Don’t want to get married.
2. Are atheist
3. Gay people
So why would christianity be “silenced” by gay marriage/civil union law.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Could the Americans with Disabilities Act be opposed on the same grounds where a minority of the population force private enterprise to redirect limited investment capital into building modifications for customers or employees they may not have?
It is clear how the ADA impacts the majority of the population from a financial standpoint in order to help a minority of the population. Gays marrying doesn’t create a similar direct financial obligation on straight couples.
dedalus on February 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM
And this is why I just find so much of this religion to be utterly ridiculous. You’re telling me that God gave people gay desires, made sexual desire a MAJOR part of what drives humans forward but wants this part of the population to just suffer in celibacy. It’s not JUST about sex you know, it’s also about that merger of emotional and physical intimacy called LOVE. God wants gay people to both never get laid AND never be in love? I’ll never believe it.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 10:12 AM
here’s a little secret….gay pride parades are nothing more than men in speedos and drag queens and other sexual fetish people on big floats with popular dance music blaring from speakers. yes, they hand out candy, or stickers, or sometimes you will have someone from a political party sit on a float to show you how much he or she loves the gays and has your back, etc. and then maybe you have a popular retail chain or a bank with a float in the parade as well. that’s all it is. and here’s a question for somebody like, deathtomediahacks, how come when it was found out that it was “african americans” who helped pass prop 8, why didn’t the militant gays go screaming and crying against them? was it so safer to attack mormons and white people?????????? i think it was!
Ghoul aid on February 21, 2009 at 10:13 AM
The level that your stupidity/lies have reached is astounding! You make arguments and then change the context when your argument is proven baseless.
The term “gay marriage” makes it clear that this is a marriage between people who engage in same sex activities.
DUH! You ignorant moron! A person isn’t a homosexual until they are engaged in same sex activities. You define yourselves by the type of sex you have and then complain that we criticize you for parading your sexuality around like common beasts of the field do.
See, when your naziesque tactics are stripped away, you are exposed as simply classless people who cannot deal with their own lifestyle choices.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Single?
When is the last time you went to a gay pride parade in a big city? I was at NY pride a few years ago and it was awesome. Sure you had all the things you described, but you also had floats for every national/ethnic group with great decorations. You had dozens of different gay demoninations. I saw quite a few different genres of musicians and I just felt good to be around other gay people.
But here’s the thing. If you don’t like gay parades DON’T GO TO THEM. There’s nothing worse than a sad, bitter, single gay guy who’s miserable because other people aren’t miserable. No one forced you to be angry at the world and mad and bitter, let the rest of us enjoy our lives while you sit alone fuming will you? Sheesh.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 10:18 AM
either you’re just plain and simple ignorant, and too stupid to consider the issue, or you’re lying…which is it??
from an earlier post…
right4life on February 21, 2009 at 10:21 AM
dedalus on February 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Okay. But the clear majority of the American people have voted against it. This is not a Civil Rights Argument. They are not being denied a “right”. They haven’t had hoses turned on them, been denied service in restaurants, or had poolice dogs let loose on them. This is all about the use of a word, which for a very long time (centuries) has pertained to the union of a man and a woman. Again, it is all about 4 % of a population wanting to define normal and acceptable behavior for the other 96 %.
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM
1. You said you didn’t care about what happens in people’s bedrooms you just don’t want sex acts pushed into your face. I agree, I don’t want to see people having sex in public either, it’s rude and gross.
2. NOW you’re saying you oppose gay marriage because you know that they WILL privately engage in same-sex activity once married.
Well for chrissakes which is it. If you don’t care what people are doing in their bedroom and you conceede that gay marriage ceremonies are not public sex orgies then you really don’t have a leg to stand on in this argument.
What you’ve done is reveal that you DO care what people do in private and you DO think marriage allows you to monitor what happens in someone’s bedroom. You’re a sick sick voyeuristic creepy person. No one is forcing you to watch gay married couples have sex, if you’re obsessed with “same-sex activities” then you need to examine your OWN head and figure out why seeing two men dressed in a tux makes you imagine anything sexual. That’s on YOU.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM
poolice=police
stuttering this morning while I type. Oops.
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »