Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on April 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
“I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality. It is not a choice. It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the government’s protection of their rights. And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person. It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice. Moreover, if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not…
As I said, I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay couples on religious grounds. I may disagree, but if you sincerely believe God’s revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable to oppose it. But those are not the grounds on which a political party should take or argue a position. If you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country, a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian.”
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 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
On the other hand I am liberal when it comes to legislating peoples lives, which includes gay marriage or abortion.
So no problem with polygamous marriages then? It’s my life, man.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:16 AM
Something tells me you should have quit while you were ahead.
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Yeah well the problem is libertarians aren’t really for anything. They aren’t pro military, pro United States exceptionalism, pro choice, etc. All of which I am.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:17 AM
NO!!! You have to wait another 60 years or until the D’s want your vote.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:17 AM
I agree.
Is there a country in the world that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, with a strong defense?
I can’t think of one at the moment.
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 2:18 AM
Come on Terry, let’s call a spade a spade, you seem like a fairly open minded person, why won’t you support polygamist love with me? Is it something I said?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:18 AM
They will have no choice but to accept them, by the time this happens we will be living under a full blown police state.
True_King on April 18, 2009 at 2:19 AM
This happens all the time in prison. Perfectly straight people become gay temporarily or permanently because of an enviroment. That still doesn’t account for the vast majority of gay people.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:14 AM
Wah…wait..wai…what…wait what?
How do we know the “vast majority” of gays didn’t become gay by choice?
I can’t become mentally retarded by choice, or become a carrier of another genetic disorder by choice. Either homogayosity is genetic or it isn’t.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:19 AM
Cannot be denied. History is littered with the fly infested bones of degenerate nations.
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 2:20 AM
AP will do anything to try to get into Meagan’s pants, and fortune. The man has no shame.
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 2:21 AM
NO!!! You have to wait another 60 years or until the D’s want your vote.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Get out of my life, Gman, I don’t need your ghetto scene and I don’t need your war machine.
I can suck a baby from my innards (not really but you get the point) but I can’t marry two people at once? Is that hurting you somehow?
Attica! ATTICA ATTICA!
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:22 AM
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 2:21 AM
ROFLMAO!
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 2:23 AM
The long term plans of the white gay Left is to convert Mexicans to social liberalism to fend off the growing Muslim population that will want to execute gays.
Speedwagon82 on April 18, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Haha
Maybe if he acted more like a maverick…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Nite’ all.
You’re all nuts!
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 2:24 AM
This has been, and always will be, about property transfer and insurance benefits. There are plenty of “churches” that recognize gay marriages and perform them. Let gay couples have their own marriages in their own churches if they like. But states do not need to recognize them.
However, I DO think that gay couples should be allowed to transfer property after death, visit each other in the hospital, and experience the joys of divorce, alimony and the division of the assets like the rest of us. I think it is up to insurance companies and health organizations to recognize and acknowledge civil unions for the aforementioned benefits.
There’s also a portion of this argument that takes on the “don’t tell me what I can’t do – z-snap” persona. We are the same as you, blah blah. No you are not. You are a genetic mutation just like an albino or a person with a cleft lip or two different color eyes. This isn’t about humanity, it’s about property and visitation.
Make civil unions a valid contract for benefits and this argument will all but disappear.
cannonball on April 18, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Hey, just trying to protect love, man…
g’nite
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:25 AM
How do you know it’s the vast majority?
I offered anecdotal evidence to prove the existence of elective homosexuals, but I would never assume that the numbers of elective homosexuals I know is representative of a specific percentage of the self-identified gay population. Even my “lesbian” colleague told me that of course she was gay at birth before we became close enough that she felt comfortable confiding the truth.
Terrie on April 18, 2009 at 2:25 AM
This has been, and always will be, about property transfer and insurance benefits. There are plenty of “churches” that recognize gay marriages and perform them. Let gay couples have their own marriages in their own churches if they like. But states do not need to recognize them.
However, I DO think that gay couples should be allowed to transfer property after death, visit each other in the hospital, and experience the joys of divorce, alimony and the division of the assets like the rest of us. I think it is up to insurance companies and health organizations to recognize and acknowledge civil unions for the aforementioned benefits.
There’s also a portion of this argument that takes on the “don’t tell me what I can’t do – z-snap” persona. We are the same as you, blah blah. No you are not. You are a genetic mutation just like an albino or a person with a cleft lip or two different color eyes. This isn’t about humanity, it’s about property and visitation.
Make civil unions a valid contract for benefits and this argument will all but disappear.
cannonball on April 18, 2009 at 2:26 AM
It’s genetic when that argument will win a case or votes. It’s not genetic when that argument will win a case or votes. The argument is for a change in the definition of marriage to include gays. Period. The argument is against a change in the definition of marriage to include polygamy. Period.
It’s like anthropogenic global warming, where everything is evidence of global warming, including global cooling. There is no way to dispute it.
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Hey, just trying to protect true love, man…
g’nite
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:27 AM
MB4
THX for despot … it works!
LCL4 on April 18, 2009 at 2:27 AM
So no answer to the polygamy question.
*Sorry ladies, one of you has to go. Make a decision, I’ll wake up with the winner.*
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Sorry, double post again.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:27 AM
I was somewhat surprised that AP didn’t post Iowahawk’s latest. It was pure genius!
Red Scare
by Iowahawk
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 2:28 AM
No, progressives don’t mind promiscuity… They just don’t like religions that would let a man have multiple wives and then father more than 2 children…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Ok, well I have a funny perspective about polygamist marriage and why it is retarded for society. My parents are from Ethiopia but I was born and raised in Wisconsin. Now I’ve gone to visit two different times for a month and I can tell you why polygamy is retarded. With homosexuality you take two people who aren’t interested in the other sexes and they don’t produce children. No big deal right? I mean they are such a small percentage of society right? Now polygamy can screw up society. Ethiopia is about 25-30 percent Muslim, and most of the rest of the country is Christian with a small Jewish population. What happens with polygamy is only rich men can take multiple wives. This doesn’t exactly sit well with poorer men. Another angle is that rich men tend to be older and they tend to take younger women if you catch my drift. This tends to create some social rifts. I don’t think I should go any farther. Lets just say that it doesn’ work.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Polygamy has somehow survived this long… Don’t see it going away immediately. Further, classical liberals wouldn’t hold that point of view. It may not work, but that doesn’t mean we should legislate against it – or for that matter discriminate over polygamists (vs teh gays). Single Motherhood isn’t necessarily a success story (depends on the individual); however, I don’t think anyone here would want to outlaw single mothers from this country.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:33 AM
My point is just because a person gets a raw deal in the showers doesn’t mean that they are gay. I mean do you really think that gay people in Iran are getting executed by choice.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:35 AM
I don’t think your perspective on polygamy is funny. It seems spot on. My concern is that breaching the definition of marriage to include gay marriage is inevitably going to lead to polygamy being recognized in the US. I think both are culturally degrading.
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Good Gaia…not exactly isolating the variables in that one. Religious population density, economic diversity, age, tribal society differentiations, etc.
I could just as easily point to Iran and say, “See, gays are executed there, obviously gay marriage wouldn’t work.” Sadly for both arguments, Ethopia and Iran are not the United States, so best to move on.
The question has been asked repeatedly: Why can two people of any gender get married, but not three?
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:36 AM
Especially if they love each other and are poor?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:37 AM
Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anybody. Polygamy hurts many people. Plus they are completly unrelated.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:39 AM
That, my comrade, is not very liberal, further, it is an incorrect implication. A bad marriage can hurt people involved (straight or gay).
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:40 AM
I could ask a similar question of Why can two people of the opposite gender get married, but not the same gender? And don’t quote me the bible.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:40 AM
Oh, and what about arranged marriages? My roommate was hoping for one…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:41 AM
And for that matter, mail-order brides?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:41 AM
Cmon upstater I was talking about gay marriage in general.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:41 AM
And technically, if you marry your dog, I personally don’t think your dog’s feelings are hurt.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:42 AM
Well, go between the general cases and the special cases… We aren’t in Ethiopia, are we?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:42 AM
Of course not. But Iranian gays who are executed, do choose to have homosexual sex, then either get caught or do it with someone they shouldn’t trust.
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 2:43 AM
There should be a “you” inserted after the Well,
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:43 AM
My point is just because a person gets a raw deal in the showers doesn’t mean that they are gay. I mean do you really think that gay people in Iran are getting executed by choice.
You said people became gay due to circumstance, but a man getting raped in a shower doesn’t make them gay any more than a person who suffers psychological impairment from brain trauma becomes a Down’s Syndromee.
Someone with a genetic disorder such as Down’s can’t just turn it off and become normal, yet gays do just that and become straight. Genetic or only sorta genetic?
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:43 AM
I really just wish gov’t would get out of marriage period. This is just too complicated for a person of average intelligence to take, let alone a politician.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:44 AM
I think this could solve some issues – although it’s not what the left wants. But, we’d have to let the Mormon Church marry multiple people, then.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:45 AM
If the last 8 years are any indication, so does social conservatism.
RightOFLeft on April 18, 2009 at 2:47 AM
Can I quote my 10th grade biology book?
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 2:48 AM
If you think about and the fact if we just let people get married to whatever they want, it wouldn’t cause any harm. I could see some guy coming to my store with his parrot wife. I mean really who cares. Just take it out of the sanction of gov’t.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:48 AM
do it
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:48 AM
What a simplistic and idiotic, and oft repeated, idea. The reason government is involved in it, and has always been, is for property, benefits, children with custody, power of attorney, etc.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 2:48 AM
I could ask a similar question of Why can two people of the opposite gender get married, but not the same gender? And don’t quote me the bible.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:40 AM
I never said gays couldn’t or shouldn’t get “married”, but you said that ANY marriage could only be between two people. Between the two of us, you are the one setting boundaries and I want to know on what basis?
And don’t go quoting the Koran on me.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:50 AM
Terry, I’m not disagreeing with you. You’re the one who started this in the first place by
1) mocking us for saying it would lead to polygamy
2) Wanting marriage between 2 people. Period
3) And now, you don’t mind if a man marries his parrot.
At least your being consistent now. Finally, you shouldn’t mock people who hold opposing views. They didn’t just wait up with these convictions, and you yourself have admitted that this is a difficult issue.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:51 AM
How does polygamy hurt people if all parties in it want it?
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM
Seems to work for tons of muslim countries. The women are taken care of and provided for, etc.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 2:53 AM
If you think about and the fact if we just let people get married to whatever they want, it wouldn’t cause any harm. I could see some guy coming to my store with his parrot wife. I mean really who cares. Just take it out of the sanction of gov’t.
Said guy gets in a terrible accident and put on life support in a vegetative state. The hospital needs guidance on when and if to pull the plug, do they ask the parrot?
Yah, no harm there.
Better yet the parrot-wife now needs to decide how the children will be raised; does the insurance money get paid in a lump sum or set aside for the kids when they turn 18?
No harm there.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:54 AM
The parties MB4 was referring to were those being married, not the parents of the married…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:54 AM
I’m not mocking anybody upstater. I just despise the people who compare two people getting married to bestiality. Gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, but only to a degree. Instead of just a man and a woman, its two people. Not three people or a man and a parrot. I say either make same sex legal or take it out of the hands of the gov’t
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:54 AM
Rather impracticable as often marriages end in divorce and then the courts (government) pretty much have to get involved.
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 2:54 AM
Which pretty much goes back to what I said. Nature vs nurture has not been resolved. And no legal decisions should be made until it has been.
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 2:55 AM
Polly want a cracker…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:55 AM
I’d rather just take it out of the hands of government. That’s what you said in your last post, but now you seem to be recanting…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:56 AM
Again, for the eighteen-millionth time, what @#$%ing rights!?!?
Grafted on April 18, 2009 at 2:56 AM
That debate isn’t going to be resolved any time soon.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:56 AM
It hurts because there is a shortage of women. This happens in every society with polygamy whether it be Mormon or Muslim. Rich older more powerful men marry multiple women.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM
I wasn’t referring to the parents of the married. Having lived in a muslim country, I can tell you many women would like to be provided for by a rich husband and not have to work mediocre jobs.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 2:58 AM
Are you just making this stuff up as you go?
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 2:58 AM
Actually, I think that a much better case could be made to allow legal polygamy in the U.S. than in muslim countries as in the U.S. women have lots of rights, including the right to say no to any marriage, whereas in muslim countries women, being below the level of dogs in the U.S.with regard to rights, have no say.
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 2:58 AM
I’m up for either way. Take it out of the gov’ts hands or make gay marriage legal. Either one works for me.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:59 AM
Eh, then it’s their ignorance, right?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:59 AM
What in the world are you talking about? In some countries, people are happy with a home, a bed to sleep in and food to eat.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:00 AM
Because, of course, you don’t care about the consequences. You just want instant gratification, regardless of the cost.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:00 AM
Totally agree with you there. Although, in some communities, one could argue that the girls may not have so much of a choice, but they in the end are responsible for taking charge of their life. The law of the land is firmly behind them.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 3:01 AM
Are you freaking kidding me?
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 3:01 AM
It hurts because there is a shortage of women. This happens in every society with polygamy whether it be Mormon or Muslim. Rich older more powerful men marry multiple women.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM
If the women are making the choices for themselves, isn’t that what we should be striving for; the whole “choice” thing being thrown around by the left? Hands off my body and all that?
Women aren’t property, they don’t HAVE to marry polygamously, they can choose to marry one person or not marry at all.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 3:01 AM
If they are ignorant enough to think that polygamy is the life for them, then I don’t feel much sympathy for them. What’s your point?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 3:02 AM
I’m serious, you’re just making up stuff and pulling things out of the air.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:02 AM
“Ignorant enough to think polygamy is the life for them.”
Uhhh, maybe you’re ignorant enough to think monogamy is the life for you?
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:03 AM
Again, what’s your point? Even if I’m ignorant, I don’t think you are being so articulate…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 3:04 AM
You do believe in the choice to be ignorant, right?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 3:04 AM
What’s my point of what? I don’t even understand what you’re saying. You brought up ignorance and aren’t really making sense of why you did.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:04 AM
Uhhh, maybe you’re ignorant enough to think monogamy is the life for you?
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:03 AM
That is a pretty good cultural point you just made.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 3:05 AM
Ha. Do you really think that these women have a choice? Both of my grandmothers were the much younger second wives of older men. My own mother had to run away from a prearranged marriage that her father set up for her. She only later met my father.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 3:05 AM
Really the argument should be why should gays be allowed to marry, how will it benefit society? It’s not enough to say it won’t hurt because there is no evidence changing the definition of marriage won’t hurt. If their rights can be protected through contracts and certain legal protections why must society change just because they say so
msmveritas on April 18, 2009 at 3:06 AM
So you’re forcing your own family opinions on everyone else. Hmm, sort of like saying homosexual marriage is wrong because your family has said so.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:06 AM
I think polygamy is completely wrong and immoral, but for argument’s sake you cannot promote homosexual marriage and oppose polygamy and be intellectually honest.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:07 AM
Hold on there TT, my point was that if someone is willing to essentially sell their body into a relationship in order to have a better life, then I don’t have much sympathy for them if it’s not the relationship full of love that they wanted…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 3:07 AM
The argument for homosexual marriage is not a reasonable or rational one, it’s completely emotional and laissez faire. This is why countries like China and Russia, both secular and mechanical, frown upon homosexuality. Once you take the emotional component out of it, it makes no sense in a society.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:08 AM
Have you seen Bishop doing this?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 3:08 AM
This is 2009.
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM
Sell their body? What a ridiculous statement to make. For a lot of people, what more is there to live then being provided for and being happy?
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM
I was responding to Terry.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM
Ha. Do you really think that these women have a choice? Both of my grandmothers were the much younger second wives of older men. My own mother had to run away from a prearranged marriage that her father set up for her. She only later met my father.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 3:05 AM
Anecdotal tales of terror aren’t going to cut it, sorry.
If gay marriage between two is to be codified by the government then presumably they would have certain protections under the law. The same protections could be afforded to polygamous marriages, simply enhanced for the number of people involved.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 3:10 AM
Two things to strangely group together. Might want to insert “or”
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 3:10 AM
It’s no coincidence that people who argue that marriage should not have government involvement have very little understanding of property law, child custody law, etc.
The entire judicial system would be chaotic.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:11 AM
Hey Theo what Muslim country did you live in, because I think that you are a bullshit artist.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 3:13 AM
Yeah genius, people don’t have to be married to have kids. Custody law and property law do just fine out of wedlock.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 3:14 AM
If there were no government involvement then people would be running around like teenagers, pronouncing they just married the love of their life. Two weeks later they break up because a new love of their life walked by at the mall and they got married again.
Beyond devotion to someone, which is far greater than a marriage certificate or governmental permission slip, what would be the point of being married?
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 3:15 AM
I don’t think there would be a purpose… but then again, I’m sure someone like Madonna could explain that to us fools ;)
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 3:16 AM
Goodwill and goodnight all.
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 3:17 AM
Terry, I’m not really concerned what you think because you’re not even making any sense.
Try taking a property law and family law class sometime in law school then tell me that. While you’re at it, take a class on wills and trusts. You’ll read about a zillion cases about these very issues.
You not only have no idea what you’re talking about, you’re too proud to admit it.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 3:18 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »