Video: 10-year-old refuses to pledge allegiance until gays can marry
posted at 5:51 pm on November 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Via Greg Hengler, a palate cleanser you’ll never forget. Normally I’d suspect the parent of having put the kid up to this, but nope — not in this case. It’s actually a cute interview, but as an added incentive to watch, I’ll tell you now that the quote of the day is buried somewhere within. You’ll know it when you hear it.
I hope dad’s teaching him how to fight because this poor kid is probably in for a rough eight years until college. Exit question: You know who would be a sweet debating partner for him? Dude.
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 … 4 5 6 7 Next »
A 10 year old’s opinion on a complex issue like gay marriage is entirely worthless.
10 year olds should stfu and listen to their parents and teachers.
Problem is, this kid’s parents are idiots.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Well, that’s the argument, isn’t it? I only don’t understand why not all unions shouldn’t also be treated this way.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Another illiterate.
The bedrock was established thousands of years ago. The fact that some Christians (and those that call themselves Christians) choose to reinterpret biblical passages and points in more politically-correct, personally comfortable ways means they’ve moved; it doesn’t mean the true foundation did. They moved because they, again, built their house on a false, shifting foundation, and not on/in the permancy of the bedrock. it doesn’t do anything to change the fact that they are still just as bound as everyone else, believers and non-believers, to God’s Word & Will. In fact, their knowledge indicate willful disregard for those mandates, which is rebellion. I don’t know why such a simple concept is beyond your ability to intellectually grasp, regardless of whether you believe it, or not.
Virus-X on November 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I see many swirlies in this kid’s future…
Wyznowski on November 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Based both on the completely bizarre things people can learn to be aroused by, as well as seeing how mutable my own tastes are.
Not much — certainly not the federal level, but the State and local governments have some. But government of all levels has even less business intervening to remove incentives to “go strait”.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Don’t worry, I hear the marriage penalty is supposed to come back when the Bush tax cuts expire.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Of course, if only to prove how “fair and balanced” they are.
eforhan on November 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM
You can go on and on about how yours is the “true faith”, and how everyone at variance with you is in rebellion, but you don’t have the same values as the original Christians by a long shot, nor would I want you to. All religious moralities not only evolve (even Islam, for better or worse), but vary from person to person within a given religion.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 12:06 PM
CWforFreedom – you mean your ‘gaydar’ went off. Mine too. There is a gay adult at the root of this…it’s either the father or a male teacher. Either way – it’s ca-reeeepy.
elle capitan on November 18, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Idiot. Only a female and a male can procreate to preserve your own SPECIES. That is “Word of God”. That is true.
Non-religion is a religion too. Science is religion too.
For your 101: Religion came from the word RELEGE which means “TO SEEK”. You only seek those you haven’t found yet.
… like Perfection of Knowledge (Science) and existence of Supernatural (God).
Funny, a bald follower of Christ named Paul said that:
WHEN “GOD” REVEALS HIMSELF TO MAN SOMEDAY … HIS KNOWLEDGE WILL BE PERFECTED, MAKING IT MOOT AND ACADEMIC. IN THE END … THE ONLY THING THAT REMAINS IS LOVE.
And another follower named John said:
GOD IS LOVE.
But Christ himself said that:
The kingdom of God is not for marrying anymore. (Christ’s answer to the intriguing question by the Elitist Gurus during his time on earth: Who will be a man’s wife in the Kingdom of God if he married twice on earth?)
Funny … those “Christian”, compassionate Gays will reject “Other” non-compassionate Christians who reject Gay Marriage.
In short, THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIAN FAITH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTHLY MARRIAGE.
TheAlamos on November 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Your own mailable sexual preferences are simply your own. And you say people are learning to be aroused by bizarre things, but again, what’s that based on?
But of course these incentives are the government’s encouragement of specific behavior.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 12:15 PM
I’ve been of the opinion for several years now that religion was effectively early science, from which other branches of science broke off as they became “hard”.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Loving v. Virginia is not germane. That was a racial issue. Race and sexual orientation are not analogous.
Very few reasons why a state can deny a marriage license, but there are some reasons, and some of them are enshrined in the state’s own constitution. That two applicants are of the same gender is one of the reasons.
cheeflo on November 18, 2009 at 12:16 PM
TheAlamos on November 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
——
What if a straight person gets a heart transplant from a gay person and then a blood transfusion with blood from atheists? OMG OMG OMG WHAT IS THE BIBLE’S RULING ON THIS
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM
That’s not the only thing dedalus is talking about.
How so?
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM
We need another 10 year old to stand up and publically refuse to say the pledge of allegiance until liberals stop killing millions of unborn babies.
Thune on November 18, 2009 at 12:20 PM
If you think about it, it really is kind of silly to imagine that the visual image of a couple of objects that don’t actually look that different could be genetically coded to elicit different arousal responses between males and females. It has to be learned, really. I’m sure you can find enough example of bizarre things that some people find arousing on your own, many of which little or no base in real life, to rule out the idea that they were born with those tastes.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 12:23 PM
We need another 10 year old to stand up and publically refuse to say the pledge of allegiance until liberals stop killing millions of unborn babies.
Thune on November 18, 2009 at 12:20 PM
——-
Are you suggesting that conservatives don’t get abortions?
Because that would be enormously stupid.
But hey – keep doing what you’ve always done about fighting abortion in your country: sweet f*ck all.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 12:23 PM
What does any of that have to do with what he said? All he said there was that marriage is irrelevant.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM
They were Greeks and Romans, and, more importantly, not Americans. No “life, liberty, property”. They famously didn’t believe in self defense, and were more into communes and secret societies than hard work and honesty.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Being born with and being able to change desires at will are not the only two options here.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 12:27 PM
You’re talking about cultural differences, not religious ones.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Queers can have “unions” but a straight guy can only have one wife. Where is the justice in that?
m1aman on November 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Gee, Dave, don’t you usually try to be a relevant troll? Or at least coherent?
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Don’t get the wrong idea — I’m not talking about “at will” levels of easy here. It is a learning process, and it takes time and repetition to learn new habits. Additionally, the old habits are always hanging around, and only very, very slowly forgotten. One has to either have the will and diligence to change their habits, or simply get cut off from the ability to engage in the old ones while new options are available.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM
And yet, when this learned behavior begins as a child, and especially when it’s learned subconsciously, it takes more than a will to change. It practically takes brainwashing.
And why would any gay person want to anyway? I understand religious reasons, but as an obligation to the government? There’s all sorts of behavior that is less than helpful to citizens, but that doesn’t mean the government needs to discourage all or even most of it.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 12:45 PM
TheAlamos on November 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
——
What if a straight person gets a heart transplant from a gay person and then a blood transfusion with blood from atheists? OMG OMG OMG WHAT IS THE BIBLE’S RULING ON THIS
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Gee, Dave, don’t you usually try to be a relevant troll? Or at least coherent?
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM
—-
TheAlamos was playing the typical Christian salad bar game of cherrypicking the Bible.
I’d like to hear his/hers/its opinion on the acceptability of organ transplants and blood transfusions based on the contents Holy Bible.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Because he admits that Earthly marriage is irrelevant to Christianity?
It doesn’t address them at all, which is logical considering they weren’t possible at the time. It does however, tell Christians to treat their body like the temple of God that it is, rather than taking it for granted and letting it fall apart.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM
TheAlamos was playing the typical Christian salad bar game of cherrypicking the Bible.
Because he admits that Earthly marriage is irrelevant to Christianity?
I’d like to hear his/hers/its opinion on the acceptability of organ transplants and blood transfusions based on the contents Holy Bible.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 12:45 PM
It doesn’t address them at all, which is logical considering they weren’t possible at the time. It does however, tell Christians to treat their body like the temple of God that it is, rather than taking it for granted and letting it fall apart.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM
——
How come God never came back to give us updates then?
You know, to answer questions about transfusions between believers and non-believers? Abortion? Assisted suicide? Fertilization drugs? Surrogate mothers? etc etc
That these topics aren’t covered means you have to interpret the Bible to make a “ruling” on them, which means you’re claiming to know what God wants/believes, which is impossible.
He really has left y’all hanging for 2000 years with an incomplete and inadequate user guide, didn’t he.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Cause Christianity isn’t legalistic and no hard fast answer is needed. Christians can turn directly to God if they want that kind of guidance.
Neither of these are new. We’ve just made them slightly easier.
The Bible actually contradicts that and says Christians do know the mind of God. That’s the whole point of the Holy Spirit.
No, not at all, but I’m not surprised that people who aren’t Christians believe this. The Bible also addresses this.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM
It comes down to whether they are similarly situated. If gay people live in committed intimacy, share finances, operate a household, have kids, it appears very similar.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Are you arguing that any union that also does this should be treated equally?
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 1:21 PM
I am not a Christian, so any Liberal attacking my ‘Christianity’ will only get you This.
Holger on November 18, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Loving went much further than equal protection by also citing due process. Subsequent SCOTUS cases Zablocki v Redhail and Safley v Turner used Loving as precedent to limit the state’s power to not recognize some marriages.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 1:30 PM
It is the way the legal system works when it considers equal protection questions. The court would look at whether the state had a compelling interest in restricting a type of union, whether those unions were the result of immutable characteristics, and whether those characteristics prevented people from productively contributing to society.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Science hasn’t settled the immutable question.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Stupid argument. The only thing saying they can’t consent is the law. You know, the same thing that used to say people couldn’t commit homosexual acts? How you guys try and use the law in an argument about CHANGING the law (gay marriage) is unbelievable to me.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 1:47 PM
How come God never came back to give us updates then?
Cause Christianity isn’t legalistic and no hard fast answer is needed. Christians can turn directly to God if they want that kind of guidance.
Abortion? Assisted suicide?
Neither of these are new. We’ve just made them slightly easier.
That these topics aren’t covered means you have to interpret the Bible to make a “ruling” on them, which means you’re claiming to know what God wants/believes, which is impossible.
The Bible actually contradicts that and says Christians do know the mind of God. That’s the whole point of the Holy Spirit.
He really has left y’all hanging for 2000 years with an incomplete and inadequate user guide, didn’t he.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM
No, not at all, but I’m not surprised that people who aren’t Christians believe this. The Bible also addresses this.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM
——–
Those are amazing rationalizations.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM
I know. I am amazing.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Those are amazing rationalizations.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM
I know. I am amazing.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM
——
So God talks to you and then you make a decision based on what He says?
Or you make a decision and feel/know that He guided your decision?
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I don’t know, why would someone want to give up sucking their thumb?
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM
What you don’t understand, becomes a rationalization. Of course if you are confused, or not prepared to understand, you will have to assume it is not true. That is why most go to school and become educated so they can comprehend simple thoughts.
As usual your posts deserve Matthew 7:6…
The fact that you keep coming back to argue, shows that you want to hear the truth, you are just not ready. When you mature in your thought process, when you mature in your thinking and living, then you may be ready to understand.
Meanwhile, Matthew 7:6 applies to you.
right2bright on November 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM
I agree, daddy-o triggered the gaydar here as well. No wonder mom isn’t present for this interview. Smart kid who no doubt has been indoctrinated. Hopefully some wisdom will catch up with his brain before adulthood.
sidemeat on November 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM
It depends.
Not everyone does and many who do only go on to other things to suck/chew on.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM
What you don’t understand, becomes a rationalization. Of course if you are confused, or not prepared to understand, you will have to assume it is not true. That is why most go to school and become educated so they can comprehend simple thoughts.
As usual your posts deserve Matthew 7:6…
The fact that you keep coming back to argue, shows that you want to hear the truth, you are just not ready. When you mature in your thought process, when you mature in your thinking and living, then you may be ready to understand.
Meanwhile, Matthew 7:6 applies to you.
right2bright on November 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM
——-
ha ha ha thanks
Keep on cherrypicking the Bible
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Or Mark 4:12. Though I find 1Corinthians 2:14 the most apt when talking with atheists who enjoy mocking Christians.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 2:10 PM
To the courts’ satisfaction it has. It isn’t a matter of there being a gay gene or even whether someone might change orientations. People convert from religions all the time, but belief is consider intimate and personal enough that we leave the state out of deciding which one is the most productive for people to practice.
It seems undeniable that someone who wants to get married feels quite deeply about which gender their spouse is.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 2:10 PM
That’s really such a tired refrain, especially when the person singing it is unable to back it up.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Except when it comes to Mormons and polygamy.
They tend to feel very deeply about exactly who it is, no matter the gender.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Keep on cherrypicking the Bible
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM
That’s really such a tired refrain, especially when the person singing it is unable to back it up.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 2:11 PM
—-
Your entire religion is based on adhering to some parts and ignoring other parts.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Meanwhile, Matthew 7:6 applies to you.
right2bright on November 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Or Mark 4:12. Though I find 1Corinthians 2:14 the most apt when talking with atheists who enjoy mocking Christians.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 2:10 PM
—–
Not mocking. Challenging. Big difference.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Your every response becomes less intelligent and coher.
First, I’ll slapp down the strawman: I never compared the validity of my faith to any other religion. You did. Next time, try making a point, instead of just noise.
Second: for someone that knows nothing of “original” Christian values, you sure pretend to know a lot about them. My values come from the Bible, and they come from the very passages the politically correct (ie: YOU) want changed, or abolished. They won’t change, even if you rewrite them, because all you’re doing is hiding them, and not changing God’s word.
Virus-X on November 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM
The gender matters a lot. Nearly all people are only going to enter into sexual relationships with one gender.
As far as polygamy, the states have a stronger “compelling interest” argument and the advocates have a weaker “similarly situated” argument.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I’m OK with his not saying it…. FREE WILL!
CynicalOptimist on November 18, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Being opposed to gay marriage does not make you a bigot. It certainly does not make one homophobic, which is a meaningless term of art.
But there sure is a bevy of ugly rhetoric thrown around in these threads by those presumed non-bigots.
Pathetic.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Says you anyway. And what do you even know about Christianity? You haven’t proven yourself to have anything more than a shallow understanding of it.
It is, but you are clearly mocking. To challenge, you’d have to back up your assertions and actually know what the hell you’re talking about.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Yeah it’s so creepy that a gay friend, father or relative would influence this kid. /sarc
The only reason you find it creepy is because you presume this influential person to be gay. If this same figure was witnessing or promoting Sarah Palin, you’d be fine with it. You just don’t like gay people or what they do in bed and you’re willing to extend your disgust far enough to diminish their right to marry.
Still you offer no objectivity, facts or justification for preventing gay men and women from marrying other gays.
ChristiansEvangelical-Republicans are never so judgmental as they are when it comes to homosexuality.Save the discussions of pedophiles. Pedophile-behaviors are criminal acts committed by criminals. Marriage is a demonstration of love/companionship sought by consenting adults or individuals.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Nearly all? That might have been true years ago, but it certainly isn’t true today. Many people are open bisexuals.
I recognize that few people would just switch the gender of their spouse, but few would switch their spouses at all except to get on TV for a week.
I wasn’t arguing that they are the same but just that religious beliefs aren’t enough.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Blow it our your ear, Dude.
Christianity is not based on selective adherence. Some Christians may be guilty of that, but so what? That is not a point worth making unless you’re going to repeat over and over while applying to every discernable cross-section of American society.
Every group has its zealots and idiots. Certainly, your mirror proves this every morning.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Your entire religion is based on adhering to some parts and ignoring other parts.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Says you anyway. And what do you even know about Christianity? You haven’t proven yourself to have anything more than a shallow understanding of it.
Not mocking. Challenging. Big difference.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM
It is, but you are clearly mocking. To challenge, you’d have to back up your assertions and actually know what the hell you’re talking about.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:15 PM
—–
Simple question: is your book the word of God or is it not?
If so, then why don’t you follow its words?
And if you don’t follow all its words, why?
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Yes, but apparently we can have that law changed and therefore, gay marriage will still directly lead to NAMBLA’s wildest dreams coming true.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Save the discussions of pedophiles. Pedophile-behaviors are criminal acts committed by criminals. Marriage is a demonstration of love/companionship sought by consenting adults or individuals.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Yes, but apparently we can have that law changed and therefore, gay marriage will still directly lead to NAMBLA’s wildest dreams coming true.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:30 PM
—–
This is so f*cking stupid.
What does homosexuality have to do with pedophilia?
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Religious belief is enough to give someone a heightened level of court scrutiny when there is an equal protection claim.
Polygamous relationships would have higher hurdles to clear than gay couples because of the “similarly situated” criteria.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 3:35 PM
The problem with talking to you about this is that you really believe those are simple questions. That is exactly what I mean by having a shallow understanding of Christianity.
The simple (but not complete) answers are: Yes. And, who’s to say I don’t?
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:36 PM
I don’t think the Bible has any rulings on STUPID QUESTIONS.
tom on November 18, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Homosexuality was a criminal act as well. What’s your point? And you don’t think pedophiles feel that they have mutual love and companionship for the one’s they’re involved with? Your blatant hypocrisy on this issue is disgraceful. If the media was pushing to get the age of consent lowered, you’d be here arguing for that. And that’s what it’s all about. Homosexuality isn’t any different than all of the rest (pedophilia, beastiality, incest, whatever). It’s just that the media (and part of the culture) says it’s ok now.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Never said it wasn’t.
Not a damn thing.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:37 PM
And you don’t think pedophiles feel that they have mutual love and companionship for the one’s they’re involved with? Your blatant hypocrisy on this issue is disgraceful. If the media was pushing to get the age of consent lowered, you’d be here arguing for that. And that’s what it’s all about. Homosexuality isn’t any different than all of the rest (pedophilia, beastiality, incest, whatever). It’s just that the media (and part of the culture) says it’s ok now.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 3:37 PM
——–
Your ignorance on this issue is breathtaking. And offensive.
Why don’t you bring out the “WHERE WILL IT STOP PEOPLE WILL WANT TO MARRY HORSES” idiocy.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 3:43 PM
We’ve certainly discussed this before, but I still maintain that they wouldn’t be significantly higher.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Miscegenation was a crime too. Should we have continued to outlaw interracial marriages because they had been outlawed in the past?
Also, what may happen in the future is not enough reason for me to continue limiting rights today. Gay marriage is not pedophilia. It’s a bit twisted to directly link them with such dubious intentions.
There are pedophile dads, uncles, pastors, clergy, cops, teachers and every other category of person who could ruin a kids childhood.
If you believe that we are at risk of pedophilia being legalized I feel bad for you. That’s a scary-arse world you live in.
Again, there is no justification for federal limitations to marriage. States should be able to vote and decide upon this and all issues not defined as falling under federal purvey.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
The problem with talking to you about this is that you really believe those are simple questions. That is exactly what I mean by having a shallow understanding of Christianity.
The simple (but not complete) answers are: Yes. And, who’s to say I don’t?
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:36 PM
——–
You certainly don’t follow the book at all. You cherry pick like everybody else because following the word of God is too hard and takes effort. But you rationalize your failure to do so every day of your existence. You say gee God I’m sorry I can’t follow your awesome rules – is that okay? And you tell yourself He’s okay with that. And that is your life.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 3:46 PM
You aren’t speaking up for gay rights as much as you are haranguing and insulting Christians. You go a long way toward confirming their most irrational beliefs. You’re not helping.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Explain.
You mention the thing about the horse as if it’s far fetched. There are people in this country that have sexual relationships with animals. Just like there are people in this country that like having sex with their same gender. If you can question the legitimacy of that relationship, why can’t people question gay relationships/marriage?
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM
See, once again, mocking without backing up a single thing. And on top of that, now you’re claiming to know me. It’s comical really.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Wow. Way to miss my entire point. I wasn’t suggesting that kids born into a homosexual family are more likely to be molesting or anything like that. I’m telling you that a relationship between a pedophile and a child is no different than a homosexual relationship. You say they’re different. As proof, you used the fact that the law says that pedo’s are criminals and that children can’t consent under the law. What since does this make? The law, as you pointed out, prevented interracial marriages. The law stated that one race didn’t have the same rights as another. So how can you now get a way with using the law as your basis for denying a group their right to marry?
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I fully believe that people like him are why gay marriage didn’t pass in California.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Cause the law has to be changed first. It’s not illegal for gays to have gay sex (though at one point it was), so there’s no additional barrier to their marriages than the current laws on marriage.
Once it becomes legal for men to rape little boys, then you can worry about men marrying them.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:57 PM
My point still stands. Why aren’t gay marriage proponents advocating for that type of relationship, then (or incest, or everything)? I can make the same case for a pedo that you can make for a homo. All I hear from that side is, “If they’re in love, who are you to deny them the right to marry?” Or, “they’re consenting adults.” Yeah, but they weren’t always considered consenting adults. What argument would you have used for gay marriage when homosexuality was illegal?
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Olbermann at Msnbc new guest host.
thmcbb on November 18, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Explain.
You mention the thing about the horse as if it’s far fetched. There are people in this country that have sexual relationships with animals. Just like there are people in this country that like having sex with their same gender. If you can question the legitimacy of that relationship, why can’t people question gay relationships/marriage?
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM
——
Because sexual relationships between consenting adults are APPLES and sexual relationships between adults and children, adults and their blood relatives, and adults and animals are ORANGES.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I think motivated Californians would have voted against Prop 8 regardless of toolish input from such agitators. I really don’t have a problem with the vote.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM
” a relationship between a pedophile and a child is no different than a homosexual relationship”.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 3:54 PM
————
They couldn’t possibly be more different, because no child should be in a sexual relationship. Sorry this is so obvious to the rest of the world.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM
No, they were, they were just consenting in doing something illegal. I can consent to rob a bank. That doesn’t make my actions legal.
That’s my point actually, that there wasn’t one. No one even bothered making one. To consummate the marriage, you’d have to break the law, so changing that was paramount.
Incest has the same legal problems. People go to jail when there’s proof you’ve committed incest.
However, I don’t completely disagree with your overall point. If the argument is that people who are in love should have the right to marry, then of course that should apply to any union adults can consent to, as it would harm no one, which all fits in neatly with the argument in favor of gay marriage.
After all, legalizing incestuous relationships with marriage wouldn’t take away from my marriage. And as far as birth defects are concerned, it’s actually safer to procreate with your sibling than to have a child after 40. Plus, if gay marriage is legalized, what should prevent two brothers from getting married?
And yet, the “marry the person you love” is only a popular argument but not the legal one.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM
This is like talking to a wall. I could say having sex with the opposite gender is apples and having sex with the same gender is oranges but I’m sure you wouldn’t let me use that as an excuse to stop a gay couple from getting married. Also, “consenting” is an opinion and you don’t have to be an “adult” in every state to get married. So those are non factors.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM
See, once again, mocking without backing up a single thing. And on top of that, now you’re claiming to know me. It’s comical really.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM
—–
There was that guy who tried to live by the word of the Bible for a year. It was impossible. Not to mention ludicrous.
Again, the fact is: you simply do not live by the Bible’s word and you rationalize it with gee this verse makes no sense in today’s world or hey that verse is way too hard to adhere to, so I won’t bother but I will say gee God I’m sorry.
If you did live by the strict word of the Bible, I would know about it, because you would be all over the news.
Dave Rywall on November 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Put more succinctly, “I hate gays.”
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I don’t mean literal trolls like him but rather all the BS that happened in California before and after the vote. Every worst fear was completely confirmed there, and it certainly didn’t help the next votes in other states.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:13 PM
It’s not my fault he didn’t know what he was doing. Not my fault you don’t either.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Fine, but a child that willingly has sex with an adult is technically a “consenting” individual, too. Or are you really naive enough to think that it’s always one-sided? For the record, I’m not advocating that the laws be changed to allow this. All I’m saying is that the same case could be made for those people.
We agree on the other parts of your post.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM
True enough.
Admittedly, I am able to drum up a little more ire toward those groups with whom I have less in common. That is, it’s easier for me to get really frustrated or angry with an overbearing, obnoxious group of gays than a similarly-behaved group of Christians.
I think many people harbor equally slight biases against gays and other groups that make it difficult for them to speak out forcefully without being perceived negatively. Kinda sucks.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM
I’m surprised someone named ‘The Race Card’ would pull that one. No, I do not hate them. If you read back a few pages, I said the exact opposite of that. I don’t “hate” anybody inflicted with a sexual disorder, as long as they’re not committing violent acts against their partner.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 4:21 PM
I’m asserting, as the law does, that it’s not legally possible for a child to consent to sex, no matter how much the child might believe he/she wanted it. We don’t let children make those kinds of decisions, not legally anyway, as we don’t believe they’re capable of understanding what they’re doing. I fully agree with this. Though I understand many children might even initiate sexual conduct, I don’t believe they can understand what they’re doing enough that their decision is an informed one.
But this isn’t anything new. Most societies have or have had an age of accountability.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Succinctly stated.
Why? With a name like that, comments like that should be more likely, not less.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I thought it was supposed to be an attempt at sarcasm, like when somebody types “Racist!” in response to a comment that’s clearly not. My mistake.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Well, he’s definitely big on sarcasm.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM
You know this how!?!
I say BS. And it’s on the CommunistNewsNetwork.
By the way, AP; I ain’t asking so please don’t tell me…
klickink.wordpress.com on November 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings is so proud:
– Kevin Jennings forward for “Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling” the potential of students and teachers to disrupt heterosexist schooling practices with queer interventions talking about sexual orientation and gender diversity in education, a progression of possibilities for queering elementary education is articulated.
http://www.stopjennings.org/
FeFe on November 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM
STOP THE TAPE! I can’t take another second of this CNN anal-probe practically selling this idiot twit’s positions for him.
leftnomore on November 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Gee, now here are posts just seconds apart, and look at the mocking, then look at how you say you aren’t.
You don’t really see that do you? I mean you really don’t see the inconsistency of these two posts just moments apart…if you don’t see this obvious disconnect between your thoughts, then you will never be able to understand the simplest of concepts.
Great posts, a real study in atheistic thought.
right2bright on November 18, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Mr Drywall, I guess you are of the stripe that believes in spontaneous self-invention. If you do, then enjoy your convenient no-God position.
leftnomore on November 18, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »