Oh my: Gay marriage voted down in … New York; Update: 51% of NYers support gay marriage
posted at 4:41 pm on December 2, 2009 by Allahpundit
Not the way I would have voted, but that’s democracy for you. Good enough for Barack Obama, good enough for New York!
The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator voted for the measure…
In a debate that in many instances was cast in unusually personal tones, many senators delivered emotional speeches on the floor of the chamber, equating the struggle for gay rights to the civil rights movement or the battle women have waged for equality…
But State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx made an impassioned argument against same-sex marriage, describing his continued opposition as reflecting the broad consensus that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and woman. “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,” he said…
Unlike in Maine, however, New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.
That boldfaced part is key. In California, legislators voted yes knowing that constituents who disagreed with them could register their displeasure in a referendum. [Update: Wrong. See below.] In New York, the only outlet for displeasure is to throw the bums out, which made the pressure on the senate more intense. As for why the final tally wasn’t close, I assume the same thing happened here as happened when the amnesty bill went down in flames two years ago: Once the voting started and it became clear that the numbers weren’t there, fencesitters started peeling off. It’s fascinating to think that even in NYS, there’d be eight Democratic state senators who think a no vote is safer for them than a yes. Good luck with fundraising next year, kids.
New York doesn’t even have civil unions, so expect that to be the next step to try to make amends. (Either that or a movement to, um, ban divorce.) The real significance of this, I think, is that with each new blue or bluish state that defeats a marriage initiative, it becomes marginally harder for the Supreme Court to do what I think it’ll probably do and agree with Ted Olson that straights-only marriage laws are a violation of equal protection. Kennedy is the swing vote, of course, and Kennedy has been sympathetic to federalist concerns in the past — albeit not when it comes to gays. But if even New York and California are unwilling to join the liberal consensus, maybe he’ll think twice. Or maybe it’ll have the opposite effect and encourage him to strike out in a “brave new consensus-forging direction” or whatever himself. You never know with Tony K!
Update: Like I said, good luck with fundraising next year:
According to a Marist College survey released Wednesday, 51 percent of people questioned said they favor legalizing gay marriage, with 42 percent opposed.
The poll’s release came just hours before the state Senate rejected the legislation, which had already passed the state Assembly. New York Gov. David Paterson said he would have immediately signed the bill if it had made it to his office…
The Marist survey indicates a partisan divide on the issue, with two-thirds of Democrats supporting gay marriage and a nearly equal amount of Republicans opposed. According to the poll there’s a geographic split as well, with 6 in 10 New York City voters supporting legalized same sex marriages, while voters in the suburbs and upstate are divided.
Even in NYC, it’s only 60/40? Manhattan broke 80/20 for Kerry in 2004, as I recall. Ah well. To comfort disappointed gay-marriage supporters, here’s the closet-emergence o’ the day from this morning’s Today show. What would Alex P. Keaton think?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Update: Ah, a silly error on my part up top. California’s legislature never voted to legalize gay marriage; it was the state supreme court that did it. The basic point about relative pressure on the two states’ legislatures stands, but sorry for the mistake.
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 »
epic *facepalm*
JetBoy on December 3, 2009 at 6:32 AM
oh ree ree?
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 7:10 AM
I still don’t get the people who think being gay is just some CHOICE.
“Hey man.”
“What’s up? How was your night?”
“Good. Didn’t sleep too well, but I decided I was gay this morning.”
“Awesome!”
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 7:12 AM
I repeat: None of these legal or financial benefits–which I must point out most homosexual partnerships already enjoy–are a compelling reason or rationale to change longstanding laws preserving traditional marriage.
They don’t.
Only homosexual activists are behind forcing everyone to accept it and institutionalize it.
Jenfidel on December 3, 2009 at 7:14 AM
Yes, really.
Jenfidel on December 3, 2009 at 7:16 AM
For all we know, the choice may be just that capricious and poorly thought out.
That choice is faciliated, of course, if one wakes up with/to a homosexual of one’s own sex.
Jenfidel on December 3, 2009 at 7:18 AM
This is where you really need to do some research, Jen. Because those legal/financial benefits most certainly do NOT come with partnerships…or civil unions.
There are a few legalities that can be settled with a lawyer, but it could cost upwards of ten grand…legalities that a straight couple would already get with marriage.
Needless to say, that’s only a FEW of the differences. There are literally hundreds between marriage and civil unions/partnerships.
JetBoy on December 3, 2009 at 7:19 AM
One doesn’t choose an innate sexual attraction
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Be gay, “love” who or what you want, be a member of NAMBLA, but keep it private please – civil unions are cool but no thanks to “marrying” multi-wives/husbands, sheep, little boys, etc. The creepy scenarious boggle the mind if this can of worms gets opened and don’t think other groups won’t complain about their “rights” also. Although, the gay activists are being very slick and underhanded in how they’re marketing this argument, I’m glad to see common sense and reason prevail and trying to force this on majorities that don’t want it isn’t working.
mozalf on December 3, 2009 at 7:46 AM
Jenfidel (and other Christians),
Not sure if you remember me. Formerly mommypundit. I’m a bible-believing, Reformed christian. A calvinist, if you will. We might disagree on doctrine, but, one thing is certain, we trust the scripture and the all-sufficiency of its counsel and the supremacy of Christ. Those are my christian credentials.
I just read Romans 1 again this morning. I know what the bible teaches about our sexuality because of the word and because of the natural world, though mostly because my nature bucks up against the Spirit every day in myriad ways. Simply put, to be a Christian is to know one’s own sin and precipitous fall into it BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD. Though, any, ANY Christian can slide into it for a season…therefore, how dare we boast, right? LET ALONE MALIGN THOSE WE THINK DO NOT HAVE THE TRUTH. We ourselves only have it because of something we do not deserve. Ever. And, to remind you, boasting, pridefulness, etc. is despicable in the sight of God. Praise be to GOD who came in the form of fragile flesh to shed His own blood for those who would believe.
But, this is all Christian theology 101, Jen. If we believe what we believe is REALY REAL, then it is going to change our outlook on others…but most importantly, it’s going to change our pious view of our selves. This isn’t to say that we do not TELL THE TRUTH. We do. But, we must do it with proper understanding.
I’m sure you and I agree on some points as “christians.” What we do not agree with is how you are arguing. I find it offensive in the highest degree as one who studies apologetics and philosophy and damaging to the faith.
If you believe you are right, if you believe you hold the truth, argue that in full view of your own sin, seasoned with grace and love. You also must know a little something of the world in which your non believing friend is living in. Newsflash: AMERICA ISN’T CHRISTIAN. think of it as a foreign country. You would not go to an uncivilized island and start talking in English about the iPod Touch. Seriously. Argue like CSLewis recommended. Common ground, common law, natural order...WITH GRACE. WITH HUMILITY. If they are no convinced, DROP IT and move on and away.
IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO CONVERT nor can we change society via legislation. Law is shaped by moral consensus, of any degree and kind. NOT BY FIAT.
I’ve shouted a lot. I will tell you why I’m so heated in another post. Just one second…
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 7:48 AM
A bunch of Libtard homos and religous zealots argued this silly concern of about, oh, say, four or five percent of the population all night long?
…keeping the fanatic and the frilly fringes busy?
Priceless.
Doorgunner on December 3, 2009 at 7:53 AM
Uh oh
Someone just whacked a hornet’s nest
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 8:02 AM
Jenfidel,
Homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. That Christians are not required to impose the prescribed sanctions against homosexual behavior, in no way justifies the sin or removes a Christian’s obligation to call it sin when they see it.
Of course Christians are permitted to judge behavior:
Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
The passage is not teaching “NOT to judge” just “HOW to judge”.
Matthew 19
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Newsflash, America is certainly a Christian nation. Ninety percent of Americans believe in God and 82% are Christian.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103459/Questions-Answers-About-Americans-Religion.aspx
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/320
sinsing on December 3, 2009 at 8:05 AM
The best part about religious people is that they constantly cast aspersions and speak of sin, yet continually engage in it themselves.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 8:09 AM
#2 Jenfidel, etc.,
I wanted to separate these so there would be no confusion about my position and theological stance and my personal issue with you.
MadisonConservative is a real-life, personal friend of mine and my husband. I love him dearly. To assault him personally is an assault on and an insult to me.
First:
No, it actually doesn’t. would you appreciate it if someone took one line of something you’ve said on a hotair thread and deduced an entire philosophical worldview from ONE POST? Actually, let’s try that. I’m deducing from this one comment about MadCon that you are unable to see people as multi dimensional beings and would be more comfortable living in a simpler dimension like Flatland. Or something. See, STUPID. Do not assume what you do not know. You, too, have flaws…wretched, vile, disturbing flaws and your nature is bent toward the depraved, just like the rest of us, except for Grace…which you DIDN’T DESERVE.
But, if you want to get technical about it, ever heard of correlation vs. causality? Spend a day outside Flatland and study up.
You know them? Do you know their relationship? Do you know her? What they’ve gone through? How greatly they love each other? How much he respects her? What he says about her? Didn’t think so. Guess what? I do. Jenfidel, if I may be so presumptuous, you have a sickness, too. Thankfully Jesus hung out with the sick, being the Great Physician and all. Talk to Him about your ailment.
Living proof, dear one. Living effing proof. I am so steamed right now I can barely see straight.
THIS IS NOT DEBATE. This is slander. This is character assassination. It OFFENDS Christ, and it OFFENDS ME. You want to win an argument? Stick with with facts…do not leave them. You start circling the drain like this you are no worse than the most banal trolls who frequent HotAir, sucking the intelligence out of the place.
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 8:14 AM
You’re getting too amped up.
Everyone talks tough online. Don’t worry about it.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 8:17 AM
newsflash: Jenfidel believes you. You are talking to me.
You have stats. Neat. I love statistics. I also find it fascinating how manipulated the data is. Do you study theology as much as you do statistics? If so, you certainly know that many who claim Christ are not, in fact, of him. We have a lot of unchurched people. We also have a ton of churched people. Neither of those reflect a knowledge of Christ and proper doctrine. A look at our culture, particularly the Christian subculture is a fantastic barometer. We have shallow faith, if any at all. Do not deceive yourself. Read what Jesus said about the Laodiceans and tell me if that doesn’t smell of America. We are post Christian, if we were truly Christian at all. (Also study how humanist social contract theory informed our founding. Quite, er, enlightening…)
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Don’t patronize me, sweetie. I do my best work in the morning. A bad argument is a bad argument. I’m done in this thread anyway.
Come back to twitter, btw. :)
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 8:21 AM
All I know is that every single “coming out” story is accompanied by some sort of “I had to experiment to see if it was true” story.
I tried that line in college on the sorority girls, but to far less success… “I think I’m a heterosexual, can you help me experiment and see if it’s true?”
I’m also waiting for the first Gay Virginity Pledge where gay teens promise to save themselves for that special “one.”
Just because an unnatural urge is an urge… that doesn’t make it natural. To use a very specific word with a very specific and direct meaning… homosexuality is scientifically a “perversion” no matter how someone comes to it.
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 8:21 AM
I’m not patronizing you. I’m just giving you some friendly advice. The anonymous are not worth frustration.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 8:22 AM
You’re right. But, I’m also a loyal friend. Those things were out of line.
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Isn’t it supposed to be saving it until…marriage? Which so many want to deny gays anyway.
Not to mention, SO many straight teens wear purity rings and save sex until marriage. Must be about 5%…
JetBoy on December 3, 2009 at 8:29 AM
I have more friends than AP has blog posts, and all I can say is this:
I don’t know a single person right now who is a virgin. I used to, but they lost it eventually.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 8:32 AM
First, obfuscation is not an argument.
Second, whether the government recognizes a union or not has nothing to do with the concept of monogamy. I’m not monogamous and I wasn’t a virgin until I was married because the state told me so.
So where are the gays saving themselves for that special “one”? I’m not a particular fan of any virginity “pledge,” but it’s the concept of marriage that matters. Where are the voices (one?) in homosexuality calling for any sort of higher ideal? Do you really want to explore whether heterosexuals or homosexuals 9as a group) are more or less promiscuous?
Heterosexuals may be failing at a higher rate these days, but there is still an ideal of monogamy… and a practice still honored by millions in this country. Why doesn’t the concept have any advocates of note in homosexuality?
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 8:42 AM
The point is that the concept doesn’t exist in the homosexual community… it has no value… it makes no sense… and is not promoted in the least.
I’ve never met one heterosexual (and I never will) who lost his/her virginity because he/she was “confused” about his sexuality.
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM
heh, maybe the Jonas brothers…?
Once again, does “special one”=”marriage”? Not following you at all there. And how is it exactly that gay marriage wouldn’t promote monogamy? I dunno…in your world, straights are loving and monogamous, and gays are simply promiscuous.
JetBoy on December 3, 2009 at 8:50 AM
You’re not following because you refuse to follow.
I wrote:
Are you arguing that gays are promiscuous and “experiment” from the earliest ages because the government won’t recognize civil unions? Homosexuals are being promiscuous as some sort of protest against the prohibition of marriage?
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 8:55 AM
I’m a conservative Christian who supports gay marriage for 2 reasons.
1. We can’t base legislation on scripture. If our only basis on whether something should be illegal or not are Bible verses we’ve got a problem.
2. The sanctity of my marriage is far more threatened by straight couples who see marriage as “just a piece of paper and not even a permanent arrangement” than any gay union.
I came to reexamine my position recently, after a life long family friend from our church came out. It was NOT her choice. She struggled and suffered, alone, for decades and tried all the gay recovery crap.
I can accept that some see it as a mental illness to be treated, but to dismiss it as a choice and set all of your own sin aside to cast judgement regarding one is simply not what Jesus would do.
killtruck on December 3, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Marriage has been legal for gays in a few states for a few years. Wouldn’t the existence of married gay couples tend to increase rather than decrease the example of monogamous relationships?
Aren’t straight people similarly influenced by the previous generation, whether that generation is in long-term committed relationships or carrying on with trophy wives and second families?
dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Computer – $1000
Internet Connection – $20 per month
Hot Air ID – $0
Madison Conservative being defended by a girl – Priceless
mwdiver on December 3, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Bingo. The very fact that homosexuals want to enter into monogamous relationships would inevitably create a segment of their population in favor of monogamy.
…or “swingers”…or polyamory…or whatever else they have going on these days.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 9:22 AM
A girl with more balls than you, I might add.
*smokes until Diane finishes disemboweling fanatic trolls, then cautiously walks over*
Hey, babe! How ya doin’?
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Well, you’re free to have that warped, twisted, demented view of marriage as nothing but a promise to breed. That’s the beauty of America. Freedom to be absolutely bugs**t insane.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 9:26 AM
clarification: I was not saying you were stupid. I meant, “See? That logic is stupid.”
Just wanted to make myself abundantly clear. :)
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Huh. And you’re giving me marriage advice.
*stifled chuckle*
Heh…hee hee. Ah, you really are a nut. How long was that marriage, by the way?
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 9:29 AM
I realize that is the political correct consensus. But I really believe we could ALL be socialized to be gay.
I think we could all be socialized to find trees sexually attractive.
If we allow our “innate attractions” to wander to any number of things we could imagine that to be natural! Are sex toys, sadism, beastiality, “natural” not really, but any one of us in the right circumstances could choose those kinds of sex. Who says anything is “not natural”.
Sex is both natural and socially learned. Right and Wrong are both natural and socially learned.
We all have a choice. We all choose what we allow in our minds and what we dismiss as not worthy of us. Saying there is no choice is insulting to all of our intelligence.
That is the only difference in the end.
petunia on December 3, 2009 at 9:29 AM
But it hasn’t. Unless you have a link to a site pushing for gay monogamy as an ideal. Where is the push for “waiting” in those states? Or anywhere for that matter?
Show me where promiscuity is shunned in the gay community. It isn’t. Just because some want a form of monogamy doesn’t mean that homosexuals value monogamy.
The “hero” of the movie Philadelphia got AIDS from having sex with a stranger in a theater. Neither his actions nor the existence of these theaters was condemned. He was merely a “hero” by virtue of the fact that he was a gay man with AIDS.
Heterosexuals may be more promiscuous these days than in previous generations… but not to the degree homosexuals have always been promiscuous and promiscuity is not generally regarded as “acceptable” (and certainly not considered admirable or desirable).
Show me a gay politician who is promiscuous and I’ll show you a politician who pays no political price for it. Show me a gay employee who is promiscuous who has to worry about his reputation at work? I work in an environment that has a large population of openly gay people. Whether they have one partner or trillions makes no difference… but if I had an affair, my reputation would suffer considerably.
Promiscuity is accepted as part of the gay lifestyle. It is on equal footing with those who want to the state sanction their relationships. That cannot generally be said about attitudes among heterosexuals.
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 9:36 AM
…argued the pedophile.
Not every “attraction” is necessarily natural, equal or good.
Also see my “I had to experiment to see if it was true” point.
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Any gays that belong to any sort of church would be inherently shunning it. Nor is it like promiscuity is shunned in the heterosexual community. Watched a movie or tv show lately? Listened to music?
He had a single anonymous sexual encounter. In that movie, by the way, the event was surrounded by context of “risk” and “you could have infected your partner”. It was presented as very dangerous.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Hi…wow. What a mess I’ve made! *giggles*
One thing, though:
…don’t stoop. You don’t have to. It’s objectively sad what happened to her. Allow her that. :)
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Then how do people change their sexual attractions mid-life? I know several people who have gone from homo to straight, male and female.
Even if it were innate, so are urges to steal, kill, enslave, rape, lie, etc. So I guess the only way to satisfy the sodomy lobby on this issue is total anarchy if we’re going to be consistent.
Akzed on December 3, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Ah, yes. Equivocation. Here’s the difference, bub: one is legal, one is not. Drawing the comparison is insulting and fallacious.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 9:47 AM
It’s objectively clear how it happened, too. ;)
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 9:47 AM
The best part about religious people is that they constantly cast aspersions and speak of sin, yet continually engage in it themselves.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 8:09 AM
Not all. I try to remind people that God hates the sin but loves the sinner and that includes myself.
LSUMama on December 3, 2009 at 9:48 AM
This explains quite a bit. Your world is different than mine.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 9:53 AM
No, it isn’t.
I went to Catholic schools my entire life (K-12). I can’t name a single person from there that I still know who is a virgin.
I met people in my first two years of college who were saving it, but now, three years later, aren’t anymore.
Face it, people don’t wait.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 9:56 AM
People try to suppress things. They get tired of doing it
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 9:57 AM
I wasn’t commenting on it’s goodness, just ridiculousness of the notion that gay people just one day — POOF– choose to be gay.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Hey, if people want to save, good for them.
I don’t look down upon it, and I actually respect it, since it is very hard to do.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I covered the concept of current heterosexual norms: “Heterosexuals may be failing at a higher rate these days, but there is still an ideal of monogamy… and a practice still honored by millions in this country. Why doesn’t the concept have any advocates of note in homosexuality?”
As for gay church members who practice homosexuality (not those who feel but deny self) do they condemn pre-union gay sex? Do they openly teach that gays should wait until a union before engaging in sex and then stay monogamous for life?
They may personally shun promiscuity (and I’d like a link just to see that much), but do they teach what I’ve argued above as not only superior, but necessary and morally correct?
As for Hollywood… even in Hollywood… does anyone care if a gay partner cheats? Is there any price to be paid? Nope. But married heterosexuals do risk damage to their reputations. Granted, it’s Hollywood, so there is not much danger, but more than in the gay community.
There is talk of whether Tiger’s ONE act may have cost him some endorsement deals (even if more are revealed, his troubles are based on an assumption of “one”). Did anyone excuse him because he had “safe” sex? Why was he hounded for a statement? Would Rosie be hounded? Would it scandalize Ellen? Would she have to cancel an appearance if she was accused of “cheating”? Um, no. Because the standards are wildly different.
Of course it was presented as “very dangerous.” So what? It wasn’t the promiscuity that was being condemned, but only the failure to practice “safe” promiscuity.
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM
The only part of sexual behavior that is innate is the pleasure feedback that results from arousal. How one gets to the state of arousal is a learned, psychological phenomena. Frankly, male and female bodies are too similar in visual appearance for a visual distinction mechanism to be coded into our genes, so, unless you think homosexual behavior is based purely on a pheromone error, it has to be something you pick up. Once you do have one behavior set established, you can always add on the other (that is, learn to be bisexual), and then just avoid one of the behaviors.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Based on your in depth personal knowledge of me, I presume?
Odd how you are one of the first ones to stone people with whom you disagree, but then act shocked when someone responds negatively to you, Jen just being one example. For full disclosure purposes, I don’t know Jen, or even know if I would agree with her on many issues, but her opinions are just as valid as yours. Make no mistake,they are both opinions, not facts. It’s admirable that Diane defends you as friend, but blind defense of anyone is not based in reality. Since undoubtedly, as history suggests, you will not respond to this with anything other than some sort of slam, this is my last post on this issue. Enjoy your free reign.
mwdiver on December 3, 2009 at 10:00 AM
But all the purity rings, blah blah blah
It’s unrealistic. And you think people waited years ago in the “good ol’ days”?
hell no. they just kept it much more secret.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:00 AM
What, things like cheating on their wives with younger women?
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Tiger Woods doesn’t appreciate that
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:02 AM
So, I’m kind of wondering what TV land you live in where everyone has the opportunity to have sex. That might be true for the elite, “in” crowd, but not for everyone.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Based on you attacking me, on multiple occasions, for no reason that I can see. I don’t recall any conversations with you.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:03 AM
What is so hard for you to understand that I know him personally? Like, not on the internet? *thinks* I might need to start over with you. Let’s begin with the alphabet…
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 10:04 AM
That’s his problem.
But, since you bring it up, this seems to be more an issue of celebrities (down to small time local celebrities like prom kings).
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 10:04 AM
He made the argument, not I.
So when homosexuality was illegal, you would then equate it with pedophilia?
My argument followed his [which he has further expounded upon, which I acknowledge].
The comment to which I was referring seemed to be making the argument that innate sexual desires are what they are. I only added that such an argument makes no case as to whether such a state makes something good, bad or indifferent. So you can argue until you’re blue in the face that homosexuality is innate, that does not address whether it is good, bad or indifferent. The reference to pedophiles only makes the same argument… just because an attraction is innate, has nothing to do with its innate morality.
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Went to Catholic school K-8. Everyone from my class lost it before high school was over. I was actually the last because I wanted to wait, and I still regretted losing it once I had.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:05 AM
TV land?
EVERYONE has the opportunity to have sex. What in the world are you talking about?
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:05 AM
The only thing gay marrage will do is further ruin the fabric of our culture and line the pockets of divorce lawyers.
So long as gays can accomodate wills, benifits etc. they are covered. Gay marrage at the alter and kissing the “other” is just too creepy for most people. The closet is the best place for some activities.
People are free to do what they want, but they are not free to do things like yell fire in a crowded theater. To me, gay marrage falls under that category because it is so disturbing to a majority of people when they have to see it first hand. Theoretically most people dont care. But when it is in their face, things are different.
saiga on December 3, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Covered this:
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 10:07 AM
I lost it in college, which was pretty late compared to my contemporaries. I don’t really regret it, though. I mean, I would have regretted losing it to some stranger, but she was my friend since I was 9, and we went to fifth grade through college together. Could have happened in a worse way, so I don’t feel badly about it.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Worse things have happened in the course of human history than me losing my V-Card
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Not being a regular visitor of homosexual websites, I can’t help you there. However, isn’t the essence of endorsing a certain lifestyle “teach by example”?
Fair point, you’re right.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM
The problem is that currently gay couples can’t get the same legal treatment as straight couples.
dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM
They might be subconscious, but “innate” is really kind of ridiculous, like arguing that riding a bicycle is somehow innate. But, either way, there is still the connection between desires and actions where morality and foresight come into play.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I’m not even Catholic any more… and I waited. And I know a number of my classmates who waited.
The failure of some heterosexuals, doesn’t change the ideal.
Show me the ideal of “waiting” in the homosexual community.
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Name one way that isn’t already excessive government intrusion on the lives of straight couples.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 10:10 AM
you are one ignorant pos. i’m no f-cking genius, but i think that anyone who would attend a same sex wedding is probably gonna be ok with seeing the guys kiss each other at the f-cking end of it, not be “creeped” out by it.
Ghoul aid on December 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Innate is not my word. I was allowing it for argument’s sake. Homosexuality is obviously unnatural. In a scientific sense, it is a “perversion” of the natural.
However one comes to be attracted to anything doesn’t make any and all attractions or fetishes therefore morally equivalent.
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM
I disagree with your assumption that “being gay” is somehow learned or unlearned. Perhaps I should bore you with my life story. I was 18 when I told my parents that I was gay. It was my first week in college. I had not told my friends or any soul in high school and was extremely depressed. I was totally sexually inexperienced. I was taken to the psychiatrist’s office within three hours. And, made a promise to my parents and the psychiatrist that I would not attempt suicide.
SC.Charlie on December 3, 2009 at 10:13 AM
The mainstream failure of heterosexuals changes the ideal, as pop culture is a by-product of current trends, which is why I mentioned it.
How is it we moved from monogamy to “waiting”? There is a big difference. Either we’re talking about exclusivity, or we’re talking about chastity before marriage. Decide which we’re discussing first.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:14 AM
About half of my friends are virgins late into their twenties (in not thirties), with the rest being married or engaged. I have met the kind of people that had sex in high school, but I don’t really know them. It’s a crowd that seems isolated to the “beautiful people”.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Losing it to an older woman, who pressured you into sex that wasn’t very good, later to discover she was psychotic…creates a bit of regret.
And I’m shocked to find out you’re not a virgin, dude. I can never look and scoff at your flirtatious ploys with the ladies of HA again!
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:16 AM
That’s silly. Half the people I know wouldn’t fall into that category. This idea that only the “elite” lose their virginity is wrong headed
I can see that being bothersome
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:17 AM
LOL.
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 10:18 AM
have you ever been to the mall??? i see P-L-E-N-T-Y of couples of all ages that are walking around holding hands and all over each other and look like both have escaped from the zoo!
Ghoul aid on December 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM
“Unnatural” is kind of a loaded word.
Also, it isn’t the attractions or fetishes that are morally objectionable, but what people do in pursuit of them.
Oddly, we seem to arrive at the same (or similar) answer on this topic from completely different reasoning.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Well, we should teach by example… but we also teach by actually writing things down for people to study and consider.
If there is a gay “wait” movement out there, in the current climate how would anyone know? I can’t conceive of any moral position taken by any group that relies solely on “teach by example.”
If somebody believes it, surely it must be written down somewhere. As for gay sites… I was asking those who may frequent such sites for a link. JetBoy is Catholic and there must be other gay, non-practicing Catholics (I’m assuming he’s non-practicing) who have a site supporting the notion of non-practice (which isn’t the same as “wait” but I’d like to read it anyway).
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM
So you went to Bayside High?
I knew the people who had sex in high school, and they transgressed all the cliques.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Thay can, civil unions (in the States that allow them) cover most of the issues, the concerns that are not covered can be legally taken care of, I will agree that in some cases it can be thousands of dollars to square away some of the “benifits” to the same sex couple, but it can be done. It is much more logical to get those benifits that are not included, included into the civil union process and work it on a state issue rather than trying to change the definition of marriage to include same sex and overturn something on a federal level.
Koa on December 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Okay, some of them are just the scanky rebellious or ner’-do-well types, but I have even less contact with them.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Tiger will rake in buckets of endorsement money in the coming years, as will Kobe. Having extra-marital affairs doesn’t end a celebrity’s value to an advertiser. Within the field of golf how many duffers out there are going to look at a club in a pro shop and think “yeah, Tiger knocks the hell out of the ball with that Nike club. I’d use it except I heard he has some girls on the side.”
dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Exactly. I agree that the attractions themselves do not necessarily make one immoral (if one recognizes that the pursuit would be wrong). I’m still attracted to women, but I don’t pursue them because my ideal is monogamy. Even if I failed, I would be failing an ideal.
But that is part of my greater point… Is there an element in the gay community that argues that even though they feel the “urge” they should not act on the “urge”? That the “ideal” is to wait and then practice monongamy? Why does Tiger face more scrutiny than a gay celebrity who “failed” in a relationship, etc.?
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Oh, aren’t you quite the witty one. Who knew professed Christians were so funny? I really must go. Feel free to come up with some other fabulous retorts. I can’t wait to read them on my return.
mwdiver on December 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 8:20 AM
If you anger the ones you are witnessing to, they will not hear you.
LSUMama on December 3, 2009 at 10:25 AM
EUUUWWWWW!!
pabarge on December 3, 2009 at 10:27 AM
“Your honor, it’s just too darn hard not to steal cars.”
Akzed on December 3, 2009 at 10:28 AM
That’s not my argument.
The fact that Tiger had to release a statement and face scrutiny and condemnation (including self-condemnation) testifies to the fact that there is still an ideal in the heterosexual community… even in the immoral world of entertainment… that is not evident in the gay community.
mankai on December 3, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Those ones are already consumed with anger.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Too bad homosexuality isn’t illegal, like stealing cars is. Amazing how often some of you make similar fallacious comparisons.
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:29 AM
A rather unscrupulous comparison
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:30 AM
*sigh* Since we’re confessing sins, I was a senior high prom night statistic. My story reads like a Lifetime Original Movie starring some old 90210 star.
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 10:32 AM
The IRS doesn’t recognize civil unions or care about the unions formed by private contracts.
Simple example: Couple owns a home and small business and has two kids. The house is paid for and owned jointly by the spouses. One partner dies.
For the straight couple the surviving spouse inherits the entire house and then tries to figure out how to raise the kids as a single parent.
For a gay couple the surviving spouse inherits the house, plus gets a tax bill for as much as 55%. Don’t have the cash? OK, sell the house in addition to figuring out how to raise the kids alone.
dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 10:33 AM
The only sin is that you chose PROM NIGHT.
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:34 AM
So this is you?
MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »