Michele Bachmann is one of the few people in Congress I actually trust and admire.

Metro on March 6, 2012 at 10:01 PM

God bless you for recognizing a sincere person

Our country is only one activist judge away from making it so.

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual anti-incest are attracted to their siblings. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women siblings getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual anti-polygamy are wannabe polygamists. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women a man and multiple women getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual anti-pedophile are secretly pedophiles. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women a child and a grown man getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual anti-black are in the closet secretly black. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women getting married someone’s skin color effect your marriage your own skin color?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

He didn’t even get confrontational, he was very respectful. But he had done his homework. He just asked them the kind of questions that liberal “news media” people ask conservatives, from the other side.

The results were hilarious. They tied themselves in knots.

The problem with them is they want to filibuster and get into yelling contests. The hosts need to keep control and not let them do that.

Gingrich is wonderful in his interviews. The one with David Gregory was masterful.

I would like to see him downticket somewhere doing interviews. The problem with him is that he has to be the one in the spotlight. He might be a good adviser but the top spot has to go to someone that can moderate his goofiness.

You know what, I’m sorry that I was born 20-30 years after you. I’m sorry that I live in Wisconsin, instead of Texas. I’m am truly sorry that you had to go through all of the persecution that I didn’t have to, because of all of the blood, sweat and tears the previous generation put in into creating a better world for me.

But you are just so spiteful, so abrasively uncomfortable with gays and lesbians that I literally don’t even know how to respond to you. What you had done to you, how you’re probably still facing discrimination living in a homophobic of a place such as Dallas: I honestly can’t even begin to imagine.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Oh, the endless amusement value.

For some reason, you think that pointing out the rank stupidity of sexually harassing your coworkers and then claiming the company is “homophobic” when you are fired is being “spiteful”.

Apparently you have some sort of thought process that leads you to the belief that mocking someone who claims Viagra ads make them have bareback sex and take meth is “abrasively uncomfortable”.

Perhaps best of all, you believe that going on national TV and screaming for the death of all Republicans is somehow normal, intelligent behavior.

And then branding everyone in Dallas, a place where you likely have never been, “homophobic” without even knowing them, and then claiming they make children kill themselves….wow.

Screw that. It’s wrong to sexually harass people. It’s irresponsible and stupid to blame your promiscuity and drug use on advertising. It’s downright hateful to wish someone dead because of their political affiliation, and saying that people are homophobic and want children to die just because of where they live.

But you can’t acknowledge or admit that because you aren’t capable of holding gays and lesbians accountable for their behavior. You just blame everyone else.

I’m sorry you were so retarded emotionally and intellectually that you think it’s acceptable to do any of these things because you’re gay. And frankly, all the previous generation did was produce a generation of spoiled-brat children like you with zero morals, value, or character and a whiny, screaming insistence that you can do whatever you want because you’re gay.

You exemplify the gay and lesbian community’s demand that it be judged by its sexual orientation instead of by the content of their character.

Which is necessary in your case, because you have no character.

I’ve heard all the “because I am”, or the “did you know when you were heterosexual?” I’d just like to see the proof of why homosexuals should be able to legally redefine marriage as anything other than 1 man, 1 woman.

If marriage IS redefined as anything other than 1 man, 1 woman, then eventually it can be defined as ANYTHING that a court or legislature deems it to be. Forget religion or nature, I’m talking about a legal system where no “victim” is ever satisfied with an outcome.

It will take another 25 or 30 years, but if marriage has been redefined legally, there will be calls to redefine “consenting” and “adult.” At that point, like it or not, marriage can then be any combination of adults, children or animals. And if you seriously doubt that these people don’t already live among us, you have never seen the signs at any big, leftist rally or protest.

We’re not scared of a slippery slope because we’ve already slipped off the mountain. Thankfully I’m closer to the grave than the cradle. I’m not sure I want to see what this country looks like in another 30 years.

This is one of the dumbest arguments out there. A marriage would be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. No pedophiles, no polygamy. One adult and one other adult. Don’t act like this is a gateway to people marrying cows.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:28 PM

So you’re ok with incest, but not polygamy. Got it.

But of course you realize that the ones who want to take it beyond that to include pedophilia will lobby to have the legal age of ‘adult’ altered downwards…

… and others will use the stepping stones to expand it beyond ‘two’ consenting adults to ‘two or more’…

You can’t argue that this won’t be the case, given the clear recent history of the push to legalize gay marriage – at least not and be remotely intellectually honest about your argument.

No, I just sometime’s struggle with intolerant people when I’m not in a nice mood. Because when dealing with intolerant people, such as yourself, it’s always nice to reflect upon how you’re the cause of the destruction of the lives of a fair number of my friends and acquaintances.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Oddly enough, the most intolerant folks I’ve ever encountered are sitting – figuratively – in *your* chair, being utterly and virulently intolerant of anyone that dares disagree with them.

Odd that, eh?

And yet you argue that throwing out one arbitrary distinction could never lead to throwing out another arbitrary distinction.

Why couldn’t it?

tom on March 6, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Isn’t that suggesting this debate isn’t important from either side?
We already know that Homosexuals get Civil Unions. The difference is about the title. As long as churches, mosques, and synagogues have the rights respected, who cares? Likewise the people likening it to civil rights, out protesting on behalf of gay marriage are carrying on a cultural war over linguistics.

No, just a attorney taught this by a very left leaning family law professor several years ago. Cause it’s the actual legal truth, it’s what to expect. This lesson left a lot of libs in class speechless.

I notice you didn’t address the actual point I made, just arm-flailed.

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 4:53 PM

You are kidding, right? You, as an attorney, are trying to tell me that it would be impossible to write a law that would distinguish same sex marriage from incestuous same sex marriage? I will do it right now “You can get married to a person of the same sex as long as you are not blood-related.” Hey look, I did it! It took a whole 5 seconds. I hope you didn’t pay much for that law school.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 4:56 PM

No one is arguing that you can’t write a law distinguishing same-sex marriage from incestuous same-sex marriage, except you. It’s also trivially easy to write a law that marriage is exclusively between husband and wife.

The attempt to force same-sex marriage is an attempt to throw out laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman as arbitrary. And the point is that the distinction between incestuous and non-incestuous marriage is just as arbitrary.

And yet you argue that throwing out one arbitrary distinction could never lead to throwing out another arbitrary distinction.

Why couldn’t it?

Yup. Simple answer: Because homosexuality is not deviant sex, is a normal expression of human sexuality (as defined by the APA, APA, AMA, ACA, etc. medical community) and does not have the negative social impacts of polygamy, rape or incestual relationships.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Simple, but wrong in your very first point. Homosexuality is deviant sex. Launching a campaign to encourage the dictionary writers to change the definition of homosexuality to normal does not make it normal.

At its most basic, you’re pushing for people to make a value judgement that homosexuality is perfectly okay, then trumpeting that value judgement as proof when in fact it will never be more than an opinion.

Furthermore, it does have negative social impacts, as testified by multiple homosexuals over the years, and their attempts to mitigate the shame they feel by pushing to rename their condition as “being gay,” sponsoring “gay pride” events, and pushing for special laws to ensure they are never discriminated against. Even the current push for same-sex marriage is all about “normalizing” their essentially deviant behavior.

Then, we have the push to redefine anyone who does not approve of homosexuality as a “homophobe.”

The reason we keep having the conversation about same-sex marriage is because homosexuals do not feel normal, and want to be able to claim that they are normal in every way.

Which is also why same-sex marriage in all 50 states would not fix anything. The government can declare homosexuality to be normal and healthy, but that would not in itself make homosexuality normal and healthy.

Will you stand with pedophiles and use the same arguments? You should because it’s just a lifestyle choice. And if men want to marry children who are we to stop them. So what if it’s just another way of further damaging the sanctity of marriage./SARCASM

shick on March 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

This is one of the dumbest arguments out there. A marriage would be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. No pedophiles, no polygamy. One adult and one other adult. Don’t act like this is a gateway to people marrying cows.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Really? You say a marriage should only be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. If the only important factor is a) consent and b) adult, then there’s no reason to presume that marriage shouldn’t include multiple consenting adults.

In fact, if you’re going to draw any kind of moral lines around marriage, the only one that makes any sense is that it should be between a man and a woman. If you throw away that line, there’s no rational reason to draw another one around the number two. Now you’re being unfair to bisexuals.

The whole same-sex argument is about it being unfair to draw lines between people who want to be married. Throw out one line, and all the others will follow.

Last week, Cameron told Morgan he thinks homosexuality is “unnatural and … detrimental and … ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” Cameron’s remarks shocked not only Morgan, but also the online universe: The exchange trended on Twitter for about 36 hours.

Have we really reached the point where such a mundane observation is shocking?

What we really have is a culture where expressing anything less than complete acceptance and approval of homosexuality is controversial. Most people who instinctively feel that “there’s something wrong with that” know perfectly well that saying it out loud can get you in trouble.

Unnatural? Obviously. Unhealthy? Unhealthy for who? For a society, homosexuality is obviously unhealthy, since the propagation of society requires reproduction, which simply does not occur with homosexual activity. For an individual, there are certain health risks that apply to homosexuals and not to normal people.

But here’s the big one: Is it abnormal? Absolutely, in the sense of being comparatively rare and the opposite of normal human sexuality.

But the real battleground now is whether it is abnormal in the psychological sense. Recently, there was no question, since it was officially considered a form of mental illness. There has of course been a huge push to redefine it as “normal” healthy behavior. But is there any real evidence that the former consideration was wrong?

There is at this point in time a very facile but shallow belief on the part of many that homosexuality is now proven to be inborn, and perfectly normal. This belief is not really borne out by the evidence.

And of course there remains the fact that homosexuality is sinful from a Christian standpoint, and will remain that way. While you can always find nominal Christians who will excuse any behavior at all, there is simply no denying that anyone who takes the Bible seriously as definitive of Christian belief will inevitably have to face the fact that it unambiguously and repeatedly identifies homosexuality as a sin, and even an abomination.

Naw, you just are just going Bill Clinton on me ’cause you can’t challenge me on any of which I’ve said.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 7:05 PM

My question to you has been the SAME since the beginning. You’re just upset that my question makes you look stupid.

You conveniently forget the word ‘and’…

I didn’t forget the word, “and”. The fact that you used “and” doesn’t change the fact that you were implying that polygamy is marriage based on deviant sex since you were asked why one should be allowed and not the other. Otherwise, why would you mention that homosexuality isn’t deemed as abnormal sex.

But I get it – you are now seeing the stupidity of your claim, and are backing away from it.

So, again, why are you so hateful towards people that desire to have sex with more than one person during their life?

You’re claiming that the medical community has deemed polygamy as deviant sex because of some supposed negative social impact or something.

Are you now backing away from this claim, or do you think that I’ll stop asking you to support your claim if you simply act stupid?

blink on March 6, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Naw, you just are just going Bill Clinton on me ’cause you can’t challenge me on any of which I’ve said.

… and when you go back and quote me …

Yup. Simple answer: Because homosexuality is not deviant sex, is a normal expression of human sexuality (as defined by the APA, APA, AMA, ACA, etc. medical community) and does not have the negative social impacts of polygamy…

You conveniently forget the word ‘and’, which is a conjunction used to present non-contrasting items or ideas. As in the ‘medical community declares homosexuality to be a normal expression of human sexuality’ is one idea and ‘polygamy, rape and incestual relationships have negative social impacts’ is another separate and non-contrasting idea.

So, President blick, have any thoughts on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is?

Yup. Thanks for bringing that up? (Were you trying to be helpful?) It’s no secret that the medical community turned face as knowledge of the human mind and our psychology advanced. What we know today verses a few decades ago, verses even before that is impressive.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:18 PM

That wasn’t an advancement, it was a deliberate and well documented corruption.

If you claim gays should have a right to marry … by what principle do you deny anyone…polygamy?

artman1746 on March 6, 2012 at 4:06 PM

…homosexuality is not deviant sex, is a normal expression of human sexuality

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM

You’re also trying to claim that the desire to have sex with more than one person is an abnormal expression of human sexuality.

How on earth do you justify such a claim?

If you claim gays should have a right to marry … by what principle do you deny anyone…polygamy?

artman1746 on March 6, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Yup. Simple answer: Because homosexuality is not deviant sex, is a normal expression of human sexuality (as defined by the APA, APA, AMA, ACA, etc. medical community) and does not have the negative social impacts of polygamy…

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Your claim is made quite clear here.

You’re claiming that the medical community has deemed polygamy as deviant sex because of some supposed negative social impact or something.

Are you now backing away from this claim, or do you think that I’ll stop asking you to support your claim if you simply act stupid?

Nope! It showed up at 6:10PM.

As I said, “(homosexuality) is a normal expression of human sexuality (as defined by the APA, APA, AMA, ACA, etc. medical community) …”

Which the APA and APA both literally almost word-for-word state on their webpages, while the ACA and AMA concur in longer statements of positions.

Honestly. I don’t even know why you tried to take on the medical community.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Nowhere in here did you answer my question.

You claimed that the medical community has deemed the desire to have more than one sexual partner as deviant.

Yet you haven’t supported this claim at all.

Honestly. I don’t know why you tried to LIE about the medical community.