Cheney on gay marriage: “Freedom means freedom for everyone”
posted at 4:07 pm on June 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
Yet another issue on which he and The One disagree. No surprise here, especially given Gallup’s poll on how knowing someone gay affects one’s view of gay rights: Cheney said much the same thing back in 2000 at his VP debate with Joe Lieberman, although that answer was hedged with ambivalence about whether states should grant civil unions or go the whole nine yards towards full marriage rights. He doesn’t explicitly endorse marriage this time, but there’s no hedge this time either. Just good ol’ fashioned federalism, which puts him at odds with fellow conservative gay marriage supporter Ted Olson but squarely in line with the HA readership.
Actually, there is one thing he and Obama agree on. Click the image to watch.
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 Next »
No one is stopping the freedom of gay people to marry one another, Mr. Vice President.
The question is whether the state is required or should be required to recognize that marriage for legal purposes.
Even if the state doesn’t recognize that for legal purposes, gay people can still marry one another. Hell, for most of the history of marriage the state wasn’t involved.
SteveMG on June 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM
The real agenda.
John the Libertarian on June 1, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Precisely! This is what’s wrong with using Olson’s argument for gay marriage, but somehow not include polygamy.
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:48 PM
States’ Rights
+1
maverick muse on June 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM
What I mean is that if I choose to get on a motorcycle without a helmet and go 100 mph and crash so be it. If I am a vegetable in the hospital without any money then disconnect the tubes and let me die. I made choices and I should pay for them.
dpierson on June 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM
What the f**k does freedom have to do with this? Since when is not having the government recognize and approve of your private perversions mean you don’t have freedom?
I have no problem with Dick giving his opinion on gay marriage. I do have a problem with him being a dick and implying there’s some repression of freedom.
Darth Executor on June 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
No one is seriously asking marriage to be simply a love contract. You’re missing the ‘between two consenting adults’ part. And that’s why it’s a straw man, you’re arguing against something that no one is seriously asking for.
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Is this Hot Air or HuffPo? I can’t tell.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Yep yep
Agree 100%
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
But I believe in a set of standards for everyone. Ability is subjective. Some people can’t drive sober.
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 4:45 PM
I don’t drink. But like you said, some people can’t drive sober…so write the laws on the behavior, not the symptoms and perceived causes. Its the same thing with hate crimes…or driving with a cell phone.
If the person is driving erratically…that is what should be punished…not the fact that they have a certain blood alcohol level. There are other drugs that impair driving, but the driver may not get caught for being high…but they were caught driving in a way that put other drivers in danger.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
What will prevent brothers marrying sisters, sisters marrying sisters, brothers/ brothers, cousins.
If gays obtain all rights of man-woman relationships through marriage, what will stop me from “marrying” my cousin so she or he can have health insurance or other “perks” of marriage.
We’re heading into a very very bad place. I see little hope for the future of this country.
stenwin77 on June 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM
States’ Rights
Yes.
maverick muse on June 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Polygamists aren’t asking for rights? They have somehow disappeared? Further, look at Olson’s argument… He does use the L-word for “this category.”
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM
two consenting adults’ part. And that’s why it’s a straw man, you’re arguing against something that no one is seriously asking for.
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
So you define it by quantity and age? So a mother and daughter can marry, as long as the daughter is over 18? And why are you denying the rights of people who want to marry more than one person? I thought this was all about freedom?
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Cheney’s remarks give a very clear challenge to many posters here.
Sorry, but we are NOT all alike.
If you can’t stand that, then perhaps you need to ask yourself why.
Perhaps some of you do fall into the definition of racist/sexist/etc.
And perhaps you don’t need to be in charge of the GOP.
And perhaps you truly do need to step aside.
AnninCA on June 1, 2009 at 4:53 PM
As always, the proponents of same-sex pseudo-marriage lie.
In Canada, the attack on “two” has already begun by several government entities.
corona on June 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
This place has been the HuffPo for quite some time. What’s your deal, exactly? That I’m not on my knees kissing his ass as a reward for accusing me of repressing freedom?
Darth Executor on June 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I think that rules out ObamaCare.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
And what about the numberists?
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Nambla is already writing Journals claiming Pedophilia is based on “Love”…..mark my words, give the postmodernist 20 or 30 more years
jp on June 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I have to concede to Darth Vader and chunk this one up to Federalism. And if you don’t like to live in a state like, eh, Vermont then move to Texas where gay marriage ain’t happening in the next 100 years.
youngO on June 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I’ve heard a few different arguments in favor of gay marriage.
The first is that it’s an issue of freedom and that adults should be able to marry whomever they want. If three people want to get married to each other, I don’t see how they aren’t covered by the “let me marry who I love” argument.
I’ve also heard the argument that restricting marriage based on gender is arbitrary and should not be allowed. It seems reasonable to say that, if that’s true, a valid argument could be made that the number of people allowed in a marriage is also arbitrary and should not be limited to just two.
Polygamous marriages have a much longer history and tradition than gay marriages do and there are plenty of cultures on the earth today that find it normal and acceptable. It does not seem like a leap at all to argue that legalizing one would likely lead to legalizing the other.
Now, if you are saying that it doesn’t matter and that each thing should be argued on its own merits and not on what it may or may not lead to, that’s fine…but I don’t think it’s fair to say that polygamy is a strawman.
JadeNYU on June 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM
That you’re resorting to the “dick” double entendre that the left used for the last decade. Good lord.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Obama will only pay for your health problems from the crash if you were wearing a union made helmet…
Upstater85 on June 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Darth Executor on June 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
you don’t sound too bright.
youngO on June 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Cheney is saying that the states can decide. You have a majority in favor of gay marriage or civil unions in a few states. Polygamy would poll lower and not pass legislatively.
As for the courts, polygamists can currently bring suit in court right now.
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
problem with mainstream conservatism these days is that it has absolutely no basis or source of Authority to decide what is Right and What is Wrong.
Its Secular Humanism just like the Left beleives in, only more rational on other issues like economics.
Basically it comes down to arbitrarily defining what is right and wrong and ignoring our moral foundations. A Conservative Humanism
jp on June 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
The problem with the “states rights” approach, when it comes to this topic, is that all states will be forced to recognize as legitmate any same-sex wedding that happens out of state. Liberal judges would be automatic in forcing the recognition but conservatives would have difficulty opposing the Article IV, Section 1 concerns.
Even worse, homosexuals will use the foreign spouse laws to increase their numbers, and therefore their political clout, in the US.
Most homosexuals don’t have any desire to get married but they will do so for the money they can make by entering into sham marriages with foreigners. It will be very popular in Islamic nations. They will be happy to get rid of their homosexuals and the homosexuals will be happy to leave. It might sound far-fetched to you, but it will happen just the way I’ve described. All good money making ventures “happen”.
This is why a Constitutional Amendment is needed to keep marriage between a man and a woman. You just won’t be able to fend off the tide without an amendment.
Buddahpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
There has to be some legal framework regarding marriage so the government has to be involved at some point. The most basic issues would be inheritance rights and custody of the children. If as a society we want to go further than that, then we have a democratic framework to accomplish that. We can have constitutional amendments at the state or federal level based on what a majority of people agree is acceptable. If you live in a state that passes an amendment you disagree with – move.
dpierson on June 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
not arguing that its a states rights issue, I am arguing the fact someone said it was a strawman’s argument to put polygamy on the same page as gay marriage.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Cheney should have been President instead of Bush. I doubt it if he would have become a RINO like Bush and screwed up the country. A Cheney/Hunter ticket would never had gotten us into this mess.
orlandocajun on June 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM
I’m starting to wonder if this is some GOP establishment strategy?
Frum, Olson, Cheney…????
all Washington GOP insiders, all arguing for Gay Marriage.
No better way to torpedo a Huge chunk of the GOP vote
jp on June 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM
There are different arguments for and against each. Society would be impacted differently by either.
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM
You can’t be serious. What is being requested is that all marriage law remains the same, besides the one man one woman part. So if you can’t marry your cousin now, you wouldn’t be able to marry your cousin.
If there are a significant number of polygamists wanting to develop a serious legal framework for plural marriage I’d be happy to hear their arguments. I don’t believe the numbers are there, but again I’m up for hearing their case.
The same thing that’s preventing them now–namely laws but more importantly strong social taboos that have evolved in nearly all civilizations.
As for marrying for health benefits, that’s more of a symptom of a poor health care system than anything to do with marriage law. But phony marriages do occur *now*. In this country and in most others (any country worth going to will have this type of problem). Namely for immigration, but I’m sure there are a number made for health benefits.
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Settle social issues within each locale. The constituents determine that in elections and through elected officials in legislation. This issue is not going away, and needs boundaries exactly so that churches are nor coerced to practices contrary to their own beliefs. As per government issuing marriage licenses, over a century at least. Clarify when municipalities did not issue licenses in the USA (not territories).
maverick muse on June 1, 2009 at 5:02 PM
So what, if the left uses an insult I’m not allowed to use it anymore? The left breathes oxygen! Quick, everyone hold your breath lest MadisonConservative mistake Hot Air for the Daily Kos!
Darth Executor on June 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM
I agree that its a states rights issue, I disagree with the assertion that polygamy isn’t related…15 years ago, using your argument of “poll lower and not pass legislatively” gay marriage would of never been debated in court or by the legislator.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Those 18,000 gay marriages have already caused the world to implode, so really the debate is moot at this point.
Marriage, as we know it, is destroyed – and has taken the world with it. God is crying. Jesus has married Joseph.
Woe is us!
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
So your theory is that gays are marching on the streets for the right to marry not because they want to marry their SO but so that they can get paid by unknown Islamic states who want to send banished gays to America? That is quite a theory you have going!
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Are they both hot?
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM
You can’t be serious. What is being requested is that all marriage law remains the same, besides the one man one woman part. So if you can’t marry your cousin now, you wouldn’t be able to marry your cousin.
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM
So you are using the argument its only one part of the current law that is being debated…age of the person getting married is also one part…number of persons getting married is also just one part…whether or not the people getting married are closely related are also one part…you can’t pick and choose the parts just because you don’t agree with these parts but agree with changing only the gender qualifier. You change one qualifier, then ALL become debatable.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Buddahpundit on June 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I’m sure that you’re right as to the tide and ultimate result.
When arguing for States’ Rights, it’s a matter of having them at all. A lost cause worth keeping. As is, the Feds trump everything.
My ultimate value system would be to preserve the Constitution as the means to protect conservative life, historical accuracy and intellectual integrity. You’re argument would settle that the Bill of Rights needs to cover traditional marriage in order to preserve traditional relationships and families, endangered species on the green social blacklist.
maverick muse on June 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Sure, go ahead and debate them, but no one is asking for the others to change so it’s pointless. The debate is simply to keep marriage exactly as it is right now, but to make it non gender specific (thus allowing two people of either or even undetermined genders).
You simply have a problem with gay marriage and are looking for other potential problems to buttress your point.
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM
There is no such thing.
dpierson on June 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM
1. The last I checked, no one is stopping gays from marrying. A gay man can marry any woman whom is willing to have him. A lesbian can marry any man whom is willing to have her.
2. This is a matter of definition: what is marriage? How does one define marriage? Between a man and a woman? Between any two people? Between any group of people? Between a person and anything else? Between a group of people and a group of whatever else? My point is this: definitions matter.
3. Will our courts rule it a “hate crime” if a church refuses to marry a homosexual couple?
Send_Me on June 1, 2009 at 5:15 PM
projection of your own will, to appease your own antagonisms
maverick muse on June 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Ah, on the contrary! Look up hermaphroditism.
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM
But marriage IS gender specific… that’s the entire point. To say it isn’t is to redefine it into a “government recognized social relationship”
Skywise on June 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Tee hee hee. You said “gay marriage” and “butt”.
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM
is there ANY issue on which this man and i disagree? apparently not!
VP cheney, you ROCK!
homesickamerican on June 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM
What is the IRS filing status of a gay couple that is legally married in Massachusetts?
evensteven on June 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM
It is indeed gender specific, which is why we’re having this whole debate.
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:20 PM
You simply have a problem with gay marriage and are looking for other potential problems to buttress your point.
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM
No one was debating gay marriage 15 years ago…
There is a movement to allow polygamy…
There is a movement to allow pedophiles to do their thing…
I do have a problem with gay marriage…because Marriage is more than just a contract, its more than just a symbol of love…it involves kids. In a marriage its common for the two spouses to fall in and out of love…but they stay married because they know it isn’t about feelings. Its more than a contract, because it isn’t just a contract between two people…its a covenant between 2 people ( with God if you are religious ) that is recognized by the state that you are now family, with more binding than a Father and Son, or a Mother and daughter…or brother and sister…as you are by law considered to be one. You are hereby responsible for the raising of any kids you may sire ( adoption btw means the state considers the child to be born by you, the child is legally a blood child ). Her parents become your parents, and likewise you parents become hers.
This isn’t a sex contract, this isn’t a love contract, this isn’t a financial contract…this is a family.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM
And is it homophobic to send them a pink audit notice?
lorien1973 on June 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Here’s a thought. Let’s just take government out of the marriage business. That’s an argument I’ve heard from others and I kinda like it!
the_stoics on June 1, 2009 at 5:22 PM
OMG: Did you look it up. In humans sex can be 100% determined genetically regardless of the equipment present.
dpierson on June 1, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Well put, which is exactly why gay people want to be able to marry. There are plenty of loving gay families and they want legal recognition.
Here’s a mind bender for you–would you support gay marriage if it meant the newly married couples would be in line to marry babies that are statistically at risk for being aborted? Less abortions (good!), but gay families (I assume we’ll rate that one differently).
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Well, this is what happens when you embrace an ideology that reduces all of reality down to a single idea — in this case, “freedom.” All larger truths such as family, tradition, religion, etc. then get pushed aside in the name of this single concept. As a result, society disintegrates as these larger truths are lost.
But this is what, sadly, mainstream conservatism is becoming. It’s really not even conservatism, but a sort of brand of libertarianism, which is really nothing more than extreme right-liberalism.
If you “conservatives” want to live in an American society where men are “free” to marry men, then so be it. But then don’t call yourselves conservatives, and don’t pretend as if you’re acting in the name of federalism. The Founders, believe it or not, were not libertarian-esque ideologues; in fact, they’d be horrified to see what is happening in America today as far as the culture is concerned.
2Brave2Bscared on June 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM
OMG back. So you want the government to do genetic testing for marriages? You’re alright if two people who look like men and both have male like equipment get married as long as the computer says there’s one female?
What if it looks like one male and one female but downstairs everything looks the same? Who should be on junk checking duty?
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Many states already require blood testing for marriage.
Skywise on June 1, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Why not?
What is the basis for denying them their civil rights?
Itchee Dryback on June 1, 2009 at 5:31 PM
The family, headed by a single husband and wife, is the bedrock of healthy society. This is why government needs and should be involved in protecting it. Once marriage is broken down and the family along with it, society crumbles. We’re already seeing this taking place via welfare, feminism and other liberal vices. same-sex “marriage” is merely one more step in this progress.
The fact that I even have to explain this simple, conservative concept to self-professing “conservatives” just shows how much trouble we’re truly in.
2Brave2Bscared on June 1, 2009 at 5:32 PM
process
2Brave2Bscared on June 1, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Sure, but attitudes about gays have changed greatly during the past few decades. There is no external event that has recently prompted a reconsideration of polygamy, which has been debated for millenia and is legal in many countries currently.
The groups who currently favor polygamy don’t overlap with those pushing for gay marriage.
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Dick Cheney loves his daughter,who is gay,
and theres nothing wrong what he said!
canopfor on June 1, 2009 at 5:35 PM
My brother and one of my nieces is gay.I love them to death and we get along great.We don’t push our lifestyle in their face and they don’t push their’s in our face.
However this does not change the fact that me and my family do not support gay marriage.
Civil unions,no problem.
We do not believe that centuries of tradition should be changed for the few and have a lot of concerns about where it will lead.
Polygamy,animals (yes this is a concern.A woman officially
married a dolphin in Germany(I believe) years ago).
We take marriage seriously and believe it is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
Nothing homophobic or hateful about it.
Baxter Greene on June 1, 2009 at 5:36 PM
And I’m sure if his daughter was on death row he’d be against capital punishment too…
Skywise on June 1, 2009 at 5:36 PM
How did the family exist before the government? Doesn’t it require a license or federal subsidy?
If a gay couple has children, doesn’t it make sense for the state to provide them with the same support it offers other families? Afterall, the kids all have to grow up and be productive enough to produce the social security payments for us future retirees.
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Earth to Baxter Greene: Civil unions lead to same-sex marriage.
As a traditionalist conservative, I reject both same-sex “marriage” AND civil unions.
2Brave2Bscared on June 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Homosexual behavior makes people unhappy.
That manifests as anger, mania, and depression.
They will never be happy with any political solution.
PrezHussein on June 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM
yep, Peter Schiff is telling the Libertarian Party to hijack the GOP and take it over. He thinks they’ll beat the Dems if they agree with the Dems on all the Social issues and go the Far-Left Ron Paul route on Foreign Policy. Which he claims will get elections to be all about Economics.
Tell me Libertarians, when has Know it All Schiff’s views on Economics won any elections? Since when has Scrooge(Perception of libertarian economics) won out over Santa Clause(Obamanomics)???
geez these people are stupid and dangerous
jp on June 1, 2009 at 5:42 PM
I’m pretty sure that some muslims and some mormons would like to question the “one”s in the “one man and one woman” part of marriage’s definition. If you can take out the “wo”, then what stops us from taking out the ‘ones’?
Historically, polygamy has been a prominent feature of many different cultures and religion. If gays blur the existing definition of marriage, polygamists will easily get their changes, because they have the added pressure of religious freedom on their side.
hawksruleva on June 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM
it should also be pointed out for the “Freedom” libertarians/libertines that Thomas Jefferson…..adopted Sodomy laws
jp on June 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Your premise is flawed…as there are plenty of married couples who would adopt the current crop of kids that are being considered for the chopping block.
And as much as it might offend you, fact is gay couples should not get first dibs at adoption. Kids need a mother and a father…and I don’t mean a guy playing mother. It isn’t about appeasing peoples wants and desires…kids should not be considered a commodity or a status symbol.
Btw I am against the divorce rate as much as I am against gay marriage. 50% is absolutely a crying shame ( granted that number is over inflated with people who divorce more than once, but its still too high ).
Divorce should only happen in rare cases where there is Abuse, Adultery, or Addiction…not because oops I realize we’re not in love anymore. This is why I say this isn’t a sex contract or a love contract.
As far as homosexuals not being able to raise kids…they can now! They may have to work harder than others to make it work, but its not impossible. Arranged marriages back in the day had rare rare rare divorces, and this includes those arranged marriages where one or both spouses were gay. Given that the hand can turn a person on, it isn’t too much of a stretch to think that a gay man couldn’t pull off the deed with his wife.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM
I guess if you’re no better than the average DemocraticUnderground poster, then there’s no problem.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 5:45 PM
2Brave2Bscared on June 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM
If its a matter of property division, hospital rights, insurance etc…I have no problem with civil unions. I draw the line when it comes to kids.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM
This is actually the best argument gay marriage supporters have, IMHO. This also shows how science is rapidly passing our existing legal system. 20 years ago, the thought that a gay couple could have biological children would have been science fiction. Now it’s just science.
Can’t wait to see what the debates on gene modification will be like.
hawksruleva on June 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Government did not create marriage. Marriage (one man, one woman, for life) is an institution from God. It is, however, the obligation of any moral government seeking to uphold a healthy society to protect this institution.
2Brave2Bscared on June 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Sure, but allowing gays to marry would mean many more available couples which would lead to more adoptions. There would certainly still be hetero couples adopting as well, my point is that gay marriage would mean more adoptions (and as a likely result fewer abortions).
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM
jonknee, don’t give me the excuse that it isn’t their preference either…because fact is there are plenty of guys who “prefer” to marry but end up marrying the girl next door.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Homosexual marriage
Homosexual adoption
Homosexuals in the military
Homosexual Boy Scout leaders
What could possibly go wrong?
dpierson on June 1, 2009 at 5:51 PM
jonknee on June 1, 2009 at 5:48 PM
You don’t know what you are talking about. I have 2 kids who are adopted. The demand for kids is rather high, so increasing the pool of perspective parents isn’t going to decrease abortions nor is it necessary…nor is it in the kids best interest.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM
that didn’t come out the way I thought…
there are plenty of guys who would prefer to marry someone like Megan Kelly, or some other famously hot babe, but end up marrying the girl next door.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Why are you against gay couples adopting children? Are you afraid their “gayness” will rub off on them? If homosexuality is a “life choice”, what morning did you wake up and decide you weren’t going to suck d**k? I’m speaking to the fellas, of course!
the_stoics on June 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM
“it should also be pointed out for the “Freedom” libertarians/libertines that Thomas Jefferson…..adopted Sodomy laws – jp on June 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM”
He also believed in slavery. I wonder what he had to say about heterosexual sodomy?
There sure has been a lot of denigration of Cheney for his remark on this subject.
SC.Charlie on June 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM
the_stoics on June 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Kids need a mother and a father. They learn things from a Father that they can’t learn from a mother, they learn things from their mother they can’t learn from their father. Can a kid survive without a mother or a father? Certainly. But it isn’t the best.
For example, boys learn how to treat their future wife. How can that happen if the wife happens to be another guy pretending to be a girl? A gay couple can have all the sex they want, I don’t care…but leave the kids out of it.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM
There are a few homosexual couples that really wanted to enter into some sort of state recognized union. Some of these couples felt that it would be nifty if they could call their union a “marriage” because that is what people who enter into natural relationships have done for thousands of years. That small percentage of the homosexual community has already tied the knot.
The Islamic states won’t likely be paying to send their homosexuals away ( but now that you mention it, some of the more “liberal” Islamic nations might ante up to do this rather than hang their homosexuals from street posts ), the individual homosexuals will be migrating here because there is money to made with this foreign spouse venture and there is a political benefit for the left to increase the numbers of homosexuals the same way they like to increase the numbers of other Democrat voting groups through immigration.
Consider it from a purely capitalist mindset and you’ll know it’s coming. From there, you can predict the political and moral consequences.
Buddahpundit on June 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM
If homosexuality isn’t a “life choice”, then why do they call it a lifestyle choice? Are you claiming that being gay means you no longer have a choice when it comes to sex? That as soon as you see a flaming hot guy, you must jump him at that moment and have sex?
Biology urges are strong…I have strong urges to pee…yet I can control for the most part when and where I go…I would say the desire to pee has a stronger biology pull than sex.
Given that the hand can turn a guy on, your wife can do the job.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM
To answer the question: since we lost the difference in meaning between freedom and license.
The fact is, marriage has always been a public institution, and society (if not in the form of “the state” as we know it) has always been involved in its recognition. A man and a woman take on the role of maintaining a civilization, and perpetuating the human race. In so doing, they are asking the community at large to elevate their status. Show me a society that did not do this, and I will show you a society that fell.
Okay, let’s review.
Freedom.
License.
Two words. Different meanings.
Here endeth the lesson.
manwithblackhat on June 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Don’t families exist in all cultures independent of the God or gods they worship, or whether they worship at all?
I agree that it is reasonable for the state to support marriage. We also agree that marriage precedes this or any other state and will survive regardless of what the US government does.
dedalus on June 1, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM
for the record, I was not admitting that being gay is genetic, just using the argument of even if it was, the person who is gay still has a choice.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM
It’s true that the best situation for a child is in a stable household with a loving but firm and moral mother and father. How many in the U.S today can say that’s the environment they grew up in? I would venture to say that they are the minority. Would you rather a child grow up in a stable homosexual household with loving but firm parents or in a house where the father is an absentee drunk and the mother works two jobs to keep food on the table and a roof over their head?
the_stoics on June 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Wow. The only time I’ve ever agreed with this man on anything. He’s coming around. Cheney ’12.
dcwvu on June 1, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Oh???
“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”
manwithblackhat on June 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Conservative Voice
Please tell me the date you decided that you were going to be a heterosexual? You can’t because you didn’t make that decision. You were born a certain way and that’s how you’ve always been. Sexuality is a genetic or predetermined outcome. Now, for you to say that a person still has a choice in the matter is naive. You have a choice on whether or not you’re conservative. How about tomorrow you just ignore everything in your existence that makes you conservative and just be a progressive or statist?
the_stoics on June 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM
the_stoics on June 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM
As the law stands, if the father is a drunk, to the point the kids are unsafe…they are removed. Given that even with very zealous social workers, very few kids are removed…and if removed the goal is to return them back to their parents if possible…I would say you are creating a Straw man’s argument…good job.
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Stupid example. False choice.
BuckeyeSam on June 1, 2009 at 6:16 PM
the_stoics on June 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM
It doesn’t matter when I made that decision…I made the decision to remain a virgin until I was married…and now that I am married I made the decision to remain faithful and true to my wife.
Are you making the claim that if you are guy you can’t control your natural impulse?
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM
oops, if you are gay you can’t control your natural impulse?
Conservative Voice on June 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM
I learned to be a conservative.
Sex is an act that you have to learn as well.
Whom you choose to do it with is just that.
Skywise on June 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »