Oops: OkCupid CEO once donated to a congressman who opposed gay marriage; Update: CEO regrets donation

posted at 11:21 am on April 8, 2014 by Allahpundit

And not just gay marriage. The congressman, Chris Cannon, also opposed adoptions by gay couples and laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring gays. Sam Yagan’s donation, in other words, was more of a multi-spectrum anti-gay contribution than Brendan Eich’s $1,000 gift to support Prop 8 and yet he took it upon himself to be the tip of the spear in the “Eich must go” movement. Says Rick Moran of Yagan’s past, “The gay mafia is never around when you need them.”

The Daily Caller actually had this five days ago but it’s breaking big today because of Mother Jones. Never underestimate the viral power of blue-on-blue PC purging.

OkCupid’s co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.

He’s also voted for numerous anti-choice measures, earning a 0 percent rating from NARAL Pro Choice America. Among other measures, Cannon voted for laws prohibiting government from denying funds to medical facilities that withhold abortion information, stopping minors from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion, and banning family planning funding in US aid abroad. Cannon also earned a 7 percent rating from the ACLU for his poor civil rights voting record: He voted to amend FISA to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance, to allow NSA intelligence gathering without civil oversight, and to reauthorize the PATRIOT act.

I thought the OkCupid stunt over Eich was just a publicity scam but maybe there was more to it. Maybe Yagan fretted that he was compromised because of his Cannon donation and decided to inoculate himself by sacrificing Eich, to prove his (belated) commitment to The Cause. Maybe it wasn’t even the anti-gay component of Cannon’s record that worried him. The reason there’s an uproar over Eich in the first place is because it proves that the line of impermissible private activity by employees has shifted (in Silicon Valley, at least) in a way that most of the public hadn’t realized. If it can shift once unexpectedly, it can shift unexpectedly on other issues too. When does Yagan get fired for backing a candidate who voted against abortion?

He’s going to say one of two things in his defense (or both) once OkCupid comments on this. One: His donation to Cannon wasn’t about gay issues, it was about something unrelated — tech policy or whatever. You can contribute to a candidate without endorsing every position he holds; you can’t say the same of Eich’s contribution, which was aimed specifically at gay marriage. Okay, but in that case, what issue was so important to Yagan that it justified handing over money to a candidate who voted against gay rights at every turn? Let’s hear how he prioritizes and see if his friends on the left agree.

Two: He’ll claim that he’s changed his mind on gay rights, just like Obama but (apparently) unlike Brendan Eich. (Yagan also donated to Obama in 2008, back when O was dutifully posing as a traditional-marriage supporter.) Eich never renounced his donation to Prop 8; Yagan will, presumably, happily renounce his Cannon donation now to avoid the dreaded charge of hypocrisy. I’ve never understood, though, why any former opponent of gay marriage would, after changing his mind, bring down the hammer on someone who hasn’t changed his mind yet. I used to oppose gay marriage too; practically all straights (and some gays) have at some point. And yet lots of converts on this issue seem able to transition awfully quickly from opposition to ambivalence to burning other holdouts at the stake. If Yagan’s going to distinguish himself from Eich, let’s at least have a timeline from him of how long he thinks an SSM opponent should have to “evolve” in order to spare himself from a witch hunt.

Update: The heretic recants and returns to a state of grace:

“A decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry. I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today. However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right.”

So gay rights were less important to him than profit? That’s a one-percenter for you.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Obama favours amnesty and massive immigration, which will hurt blacks disproportionately. He favours elite environmentalists over even unions.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM

blacks allowed their family structure to be attacked when they got hoodwinked into thinking the min wage was a bonanza, perpetrated by white unions, that forced them into the dependency plantation. As a strategy to overcome, they again were swindled, this time by their own black community leaders to become a monolithic voting block to access control levers in local politics thinking it would be a watershed of bounty. Unfortunately, the bounty never came because socialistic policy doesn’t work, but enough black leaders made good and convinced them to continue the strategy, (with enough time and more elected positions it will all work out). Those in the power, whatever color or gender, forsake the underlings to maintain it. The Dems, see Hispanics as the only source of long-term power and so, will as they and black leaders did before, will do to them again as they set up the next race block of voters and do to them as well.

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Don’t hold your breath.

kingsjester on April 8, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Oh, I know MJBrutus type. They demand answers, they demand people address their points. But they are sadly hypocrites who are unwilling to address the points, which were first presented to them.

MJBrutus is terrified of having to confront and address the truth, no different than the vast majority of militant pro-homosexuals.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 2:42 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Please cite some sources to back up YOUR OPINION.

kingsjester on April 8, 2014 at 2:42 PM

thuja on April 8, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Yes, I’m sure.

There are some eye-opening interviews with Sanger on You Tube, if you ever decide that protecting the welfare and well-being of the black community worth your time and effort.

lineholder on April 8, 2014 at 2:42 PM

OT but will there be a thread put up to discuss Obama’s executive order on “Equal Pay For Equal Work”?

susandiane311 on April 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM

ineholder on April 8, 2014 at 2:28 PM

The pro-life movement extremists take half a sentence from something Sanger wrote or said, ignore all context, and claim she meant the exact opposite of any reasonable interpretation of what Sanger meant. I am hardly interested in teaching reading interpretation to sociopathic liars, nor would it do any good.

thuja on April 8, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Because your support of her comments and anti-minority activism, while trying to maintain we’re the bigots is a hard line to sell you mean.

hawkdriver on April 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM

kingsjester on April 8, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Uhhh, it’s my opinion. I am the foremost expert in the entire world on what is and is not my opinion.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

And I think most of the nation (if not world) would probably agree with you, caveat being that a large portion of them would probably assign a gender requirement as well. What about consenting adult polygamists?

Komsomoletz on April 8, 2014 at 2:44 PM

I was asked for my opinion and gave it. I believe that this is the arrangement that is most reasonable and acceptable in America today.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Most reasonable and acceptable in America today? According to who? you.

Again, who made you the arbiter of what marriage ought to be?

Why do you discriminate against polygamists?

Why do you discrimiante against heterosexuals and even homosexuals, who believe and know marriage is between one man and one woman?

Isn’t amazing, how individuals like MJBrutus scream discrimination, but they have no problem discriminating. Sad, sad.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Uhhh, it’s my opinion. I am the foremost expert in the entire world on what is and is not my opinion.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM

thought that was media matters

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 2:45 PM

The pro-life movement extremists take half a sentence from something Sanger wrote or said, ignore all context, and claim she meant the exact opposite of any reasonable interpretation of what Sanger meant. I am hardly interested in teaching reading interpretation to sociopathic liars, nor would it do any good.

thuja on April 8, 2014 at 2:38 PM

This is the cover of her The Birth Control Review journal. Explain what she meant by it.

Personally, I don’t think it requires any ‘interpretation’ and will let her words speak for themselves.

Resist We Much on April 8, 2014 at 2:46 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Then, it is NOT A FACT, and neither is your claimed “mass acceptance” of homosexual sex being classified as a “marriage”.

kingsjester on April 8, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Thuja: you stated, quite plainly, that you want to impose charges of child abuse on anyone including religious people who teach that homosexuality is a sin.

Ergo, you want the state to intervene, right? To take their children away? And teaching homosexuality is a sin is easy: turn to the appropriate scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments. So, logic says, reading the Bible with your children means a charge of child abuse, and worthy of criminal punishment and your children removed.

That’s your statement, thuja. What else could you have possibly meant by saying that teaching that homosexuality is a sin should be child abuse?

Seriously, what do you mean by saying child abuse charges should be leveled against those who teach homosexuality is a sin?

Vanceone on April 8, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Yeah. People not wanting to feel like pariahs because of who they fall in love with. The unmitigated chutzpah!

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 1:48 PM

So you fully support pedophilia and bestiality right? And what about the poor B’s and Q’s of your alphabet soup grievance group. What if they want recognition of more than one relationship at a time?

Nutstuyu on April 8, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Komsomoletz on April 8, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Polygamy is outside of the definition I provided, right?

How many state legislatures allowed SSM 20 years ago?
How many state legislatures allowed SSM 10 years ago?
How many state legislatures allowed SSM 5 years ago?

I would say that over time the people of more and more states are deciding that SSM should be legal.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM

New Webster’s unabridged: Evolution…

v. to Evolve…to disingenuously recant, distance, disavow.

In bizarro lefty rat world, OK for me, not for thee.

PatHenry on April 8, 2014 at 2:49 PM

PLEASE EMAIL OKSTUPID AND DEMAND FOR YAGAN’S DISMISSAL

John the Libertarian on April 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Ha ha ha ha.

thuja defends a eugenicist who she claims has been mischaracterized – on a thread where she’s mischaracterized Eich as a hateful anti-gay bigot.

gwelf on April 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM

In this day and age, I would say that defining marriage as being between 2 consenting adults who are not blood relatives would be good.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

by the way, define an adult for sex purposes.

In Holland, it is a 12 year old

In Canada, it is a 14 year old.

So, what is an adult?

both of the above nations have gone through what we are going through now. They have accepted homosexual sex as normal and have legalized so called gay marriage. Results? Groups are now fighting to redefine the age a human being is an adult and they want it lower!! The same groups which fought for so called gay marriage and homosexual sex to be seen as normal.

In the USA, this is happening already. Left wing groups are demanding pedophilia be removed as abnormal behavior and be classified as a sexual orientation. Gawker, Slate have have at least one article, if not more, in the past 6 months supporting groups who want pedophilia redefined as a sexual orientation. The APA is also behind this push.

So, define an adult. And careful, Left wing militant pro-homosexuals will come after you if you define adult wrong.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I would say that over time the people of more and more states are deciding that SSM should be legal.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM

34 states say gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed, so your opinion should be anti-gay marriage.

sentinelrules on April 8, 2014 at 2:52 PM

I believe I made reference to all sorts of groups having delusions of persecution elsewhere on this thread.

thuja on April 8, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Uh, YOU were the one that brought up Christians teaching their children to “hate” gays and that this constitutes child abuse (a crime).

You’ve been asked repeatedly to clarify this.

And now we’re the ones who are having delusions?

gwelf on April 8, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Akzed on April 8, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Anyone else notice how most of the dates on those citations are at least five years old if not older? Has scientific research been stifled in the interest of protecting teh preshus gheys too?

Nutstuyu on April 8, 2014 at 2:53 PM

I would say that over time the people of more and more states are deciding that SSM should be legal.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM

And then again, there are judges making sure that states make this “decision” when the people of that state have voted otherwise, aren’t there?

Yes, that’s very “Democratic”.

lineholder on April 8, 2014 at 2:53 PM

In this day and age, I would say that defining marriage as being between 2 consenting adults who are not blood relatives would be good.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Why only 2? Why can’t it among 3? I have three children. Why can’t I have a wife/mother for each one? What about when my wife hits menopause but I’m still rarin’ to go? Can I add a second or third wife to satisfy the sexual needs I was born with?

Nutstuyu on April 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM

In this day and age, I would say that defining marriage as being between 2 consenting adults who are not blood relatives would be good.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

if they are consenting why would blood relative have bearing?

can’t be for health/cost or societal good otherwise that would negate the gay theme.

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Brti, if only 14 states are Pro-Homosexual Marriage out of 50 states, that would be 28%.

I don’t think you know what the word “majority” means.

kingsjester on April 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM

lineholder on April 8, 2014 at 2:53 PM

And I’ve consistently expressed dissatisfaction to those decisions.

That said, like or not, they are contributing to the acceptance of SSM.Those states that have had it imposed from the bench are nonetheless creating marriages. People are seeing that society is not crumbling at their feet because of it.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

email biz@okcupid.com

DEMAND THEY SACK YAGAN

And stop using javascript

John the Libertarian on April 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Polygamy is outside of the definition I provided, right?

How many state legislatures allowed SSM 20 years ago?
How many state legislatures allowed SSM 10 years ago?
How many state legislatures allowed SSM 5 years ago?

I would say that over time the people of more and more states are deciding that SSM should be legal.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Many of these States legislatures have ignored the will of the people, the vote of the people. Same with the activist judges who have ignored the vote of the people and overturn it. One judge, overturning the vote of the majority. This is what you call democracy?

Furthermore, as studies have shown, thanks to the media and television show, there is a false believe that homosexuals are a much larger group in our society than they really are.

STudies show people believe homosexuals are 25% of the population, when in reality they are 2% or less of the population.

Furthermore, the American media refuses to show militant pro-homosexuals in a bad light. Like the militant groups who enter Roman Catholic Churches and desecrate the Eucharist. Militant homosexual groups which enter Sunday services and start making sexual noises as loud as they can.

Militant pro-homosexual groups who are demanding Loyola University in Chicago stop listening to the Roman Catholic Church and allow so called gay marriages to take place on its grounds.

If the media bothered to report the militant actions of the pro-homosexuals, support for this radical cause would plummet. But reporting on the truth is not what the media is all about.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

gwelf on April 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM

+1

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

In this day and age, I would say that defining marriage as being between 2 consenting adults who are not blood relatives would be good.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Define “blood relative”, please.

My grandparents were fourth cousins…

ladyingray on April 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

You don’t get that children homosexuals, in our society, are judged incapable of informed consent to be suffering from a sexual deviancy disorder.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Embrace the change.

Nutstuyu on April 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

People are seeing that society is not crumbling at their feet because of it.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Unless you’re against gay marriage and lose your employment.

sentinelrules on April 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

kingsjester on April 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM

You didn’t read what I wrote (fact).
What’s new (rhetorical question)?
The trend is moving towards SSM (fact).
I only see that trend accelerating (opinion).

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Brti, if only 14 states are Pro-Homosexual Marriage out of 50 states, that would be 28%.

I don’t think you know what the word “majority” means.

kingsjester on April 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Not only that, when the issue has been placed on a ballot for people to vote on, the vast majority of the States have gone pro-natural and real marriage and not unnatural and so called gay marriage.

Legislatures and activist judges have gone against the will and vote of the people. I am unsure how this is called winning in the real world. This is called anti-democratic actions and dictatorship.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 2:59 PM

It is unfortunate that you can’t accept political disagreement and feel the need to demonize people who disagree with you.

thuja on May 8, 2013 at 10:22 PM

I am hardly interested in teaching reading interpretation to sociopathic liars, nor would it do any good.

thuja on April 8, 2014 at 2:38 PM

I’m just gonna leave that there…

The Schaef on April 8, 2014 at 2:59 PM

ladyingray on April 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

I’ve jumped through all the hoops I care to.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:59 PM

In this day and age, I would say that defining marriage as being between 2 consenting adults who are not blood relatives would be good.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Why two?

Why adults?

Why not blood relatives?

Why would you stand in the way of their love?

The Schaef on April 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

And, I believe that, in actuality, it mirrors what we are seeing on this thread. Otherwise, there would be no need for the Gay mafia to get activist judges to do their dirty work.

kingsjester on April 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

I’m just gonna leave that there…

The Schaef on April 8, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Awesome, SChaef!

Liberal double-standards and hypocrisy in full display.

Typical of Liberals/Progressives/Leftists, “do as I say, not as I do!” LOL

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

The trend is moving towards SSM getting colder (fact).
I only see that trend accelerating (opinion).

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

so you are surely against climate change/global warming?

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

So, if the trend is toward pedophilia, you would be for it.

Goebbels would have loved you.

sentinelrules on April 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Define “crumbling”

lineholder on April 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Thanks! It’s hard to have an honest conversation with someone, if you’re unsure what they actually mean. I appreciate your taking the time to help me understand you correctly.

Vanceone on April 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I hope you had as nice a weekend as I did. Pajama Church weekend is the best!

Komsomoletz on April 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Try redefining inertia-then step in front of a train.

jmtham156 on April 8, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Hey, who wrote this?

“Negroes and Southern Europeans are mentally inferior to native born Americans”

First Clue, she also wrote this.

“Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.”

Okay, and then who wrote this?

… Discrimination against gays is akin to discrimination against blacks …

And then wrote this?

Margaret Sanger is certainly a woman deserving of great praise. I suppose that the “pro-life” movement has nothing better to do but lie about her in the most disgusting ways. You may wish to consider where you’ve heard the expression “Bearing false witness against your neighbor.” I should make a historical argument to defend Margaret Sanger, but I find the febrile minds who wish to attribute to Margaret Sanger every evil of the 20th century just not deserving of the time for a good argument. Instead, I’ll simply point out that I’m much more afraid of the Chamberlain/Obama mindset of subservience to dictators with evil ideologies than I’m afraid of family planning advocates.

Answers: Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger, thuja, thuja

Again. It’s not abort abortion this time. it’s about you getting off your sanctimonious horse and quit acting like you care about Black Americans. You care about gay Americans. You’ll use any dodge to further the movement.

hawkdriver on April 8, 2014 at 3:03 PM

And I’ve consistently expressed dissatisfaction to those decisions.

That said, like or not, they are contributing to the acceptance of SSM.Those states that have had it imposed from the bench are nonetheless creating marriages. People are seeing that society is not crumbling at their feet because of it.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

In other words….MJBrutus, like so many other militant pro-homosexuals, is saying, “WHO CARES ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE!!! As long as the militant pro-homosexual agenda is shoved down the throats of Americans. As long as Liberal orthodoxy wins, dictatorships, activist judges ignoring what the voters want is a good thing!!!”

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Try redefining inertia-then step in front of a train.

jmtham156 on April 8, 2014 at 3:02 PM

;)) nice

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

In fact, I think “climate change” is bullcrap. Why do you ask?

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM

I hope you had as nice a weekend as I did. Pajama Church weekend is the best!

Komsomoletz on April 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Yes, I had a good time. Petunia on this thread I hope also got a chance to watch General Conference, as well as Professor Blather.

portlondon too, if he still believed……

Vanceone on April 8, 2014 at 3:06 PM

In fact, I think “climate change” is bullcrap. Why do you ask?

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM

so your lunacy isn’t baked in, just subject specific, good to know.

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Double standards No standards

VorDaj on April 8, 2014 at 3:07 PM

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 3:06 PM

And now I’ll explain the qualitative difference between the two topics. So-called climate change is a flawed scientific finding that has been politicized. The definition of marriage is a purely societal and political decision.

I have come to think that SSM should be allowed. I see that others in this country are trending in the same direction and look forward to when the majority does.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Hey, who wrote this?

“Negr0es and Southern Europeans are mentally inferior to native born
Americans”

Hint, they also wrote this.

“Col0red people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.”

Okay, then who wrote this?

Discrimination against gays is akin to discrimination against blacks.

But also wrote this?

Margaret Sanger is certainly a woman deserving of great praise. I suppose that the “pro-life” movement has nothing better to do but lie about her in the most disgusting ways. You may wish to consider where you’ve heard the expression “Bearing false witness against your neighbor.” I should make a historical argument to defend Margaret Sanger, but I find the febrile minds who wish to attribute to Margaret Sanger every evil of the 20th century just not deserving of the time for a good argument. Instead, I’ll simply point out that I’m much more afraid of the Chamberlain/Obama mindset of subservience to dictators with evil ideologies than I’m afraid of family planning advocates.

Sanger, Sanger, thuja, thuja

The point is get off your high horse about caring about civil rights for Black Americans. You’re a Sanger eugenist.

hawkdriver on April 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM

email biz@okcupid.com

DEMAND THEY FIRE YAGAN.

John the Libertarian on April 8, 2014 at 3:15 PM

blink on April 8, 2014 at 3:13 PM

so you know of some state that prevents men from marrying women? I thought they were all equal in that regard.

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 3:17 PM

I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular

@Litmus_Test

socalcon on April 8, 2014 at 3:17 PM

The definition of marriage is a purely societal and political decision.

I have come to think that SSM should be allowed. I see that others in this country are trending in the same direction and look forward to when the majority does.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM

My sole reason for being against SSM is because

I’m not into redefining. I would be all for some arrangement with full equality under law. Isn’t that what it is all about?

Or is there more?

jmtham156 on April 8, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Thuja: you stated, quite plainly, that you want to impose charges of child abuse on anyone including religious people who teach that homosexuality is a sin.

Vanceone on April 8, 2014 at 2:47 PM

No, I didn’t. Have you considered taking a class in reading comprehension?

thuja on April 8, 2014 at 3:20 PM

The legal definition of marriage is a purely societal and political decision.

is what I think you meant

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 3:21 PM

I have come to think that SSM should be allowed. I see that others in this country are trending in the same direction and look forward to when the majority does.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Again, how do you KNOW this to be true, MJBrutus?

Votes taken at the state do not support this trend.

Some polls do support this trend.

Which is easier to falsify? Votes? or Polls?

lineholder on April 8, 2014 at 3:21 PM

The reprobate moral relativists completely lack shame and a logical worldview. Attempting to show them their hypocrisy is a futile endeavor.

Murphy9 on April 8, 2014 at 3:22 PM

I’ve jumped through all the hoops I care to.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Aw, too bad, coward.

Because, due to your definition of “blood relatives” as the goal post, I wouldn’t be here. Gay marriage is not an issue that give a damn about, so I wouldn’t be here to give you some back-up.

If you weren’t so scared of proving your point, you might possibly find some allies…

ladyingray on April 8, 2014 at 3:22 PM

What, another liberal hypocrite?

I’m shocked – shocked, I say.

Midas on April 8, 2014 at 3:23 PM

jmtham156 on April 8, 2014 at 3:19 PM

I think that your position is reasonable and probably very popular. While I would prefer a marriage be a marriage I would certainly not object to an alternate name for some kinds of unions.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Whenever someone wants a relationship to be considered a marriage.

blink on April 8, 2014 at 3:16 PM

so I can marry the government? My neighbors speed boat? The next lotto winner?

smitty41 on April 8, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Whenever someone wants a relationship to be considered a marriage.

blink on April 8, 2014 at 3:16 PM

So, under your scope of limitations, someone could stalk another person, defines this as a relationship, and considers it to be marriage.

lineholder on April 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM

ladyingray on April 8, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Except that I declined to offer a definition of “blood relatives”. That said, I am very happy that your ancestry ultimately produced the treasure that is ladyingray :-)

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:26 PM

In fact, I think “climate change” is bullcrap. Why do you ask?

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM

There are already leftists who believe AGW “denialists” should be hounded out of their careers in a similar manner as Brendan Eich was, or even jailed.

You may want to ask Ed to delete that post. Once they’ve decided that anti-gay thought has been sufficiently purged from society, they’ll move on to the next target on the list. And “climate change denial” is very, very high on that list.

Gator Country on April 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

And now I’ll explain the qualitative difference between the two topics. So-called climate change is a flawed scientific finding that has been politicized. The definition of marriage is a purely societal and political decision.

I have come to think that SSM should be allowed. I see that others in this country are trending in the same direction and look forward to when the majority does.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Hmmmm…yeah…Hmmm…how to say this. Hmmm…

Homosexual sex IS FLAWED SCIENCE. It is denying biology!!! The definition of marriage is based on science and biology. WOW!!!

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

I think that your position is reasonable and probably very popular. While I would prefer a marriage be a marriage I would certainly not object to an alternate name for some kinds of unions.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Agree, then wouldn’t that have been an easier path to equality then pissing off half the country?

jmtham156 on April 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

The reprobate moral relativists completely lack shame and a logical worldview. Attempting to show them their hypocrisy is a futile endeavor.

Murphy9 on April 8, 2014 at 3:22 PM

The villainous moral objectivists completely lack shame and reading comprehension.

[I used amused by "reprobate". I hold moral relativism versus moral objectivism is a pseudo-argument to avoid getting tangled up in.]

thuja on April 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I’ve jumped through all the hoops I care to.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Translation: “I’m getting my butt kicked over here, and in response, yeah, I got nothin.”

Midas on April 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Gator Country on April 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Fortunately, I cannot be fired :-)

As I stated several times recently, businesses only hurt themselves when they demand political obedience to positions unrelated to getting their job done. They lose out on talent and are forced to pay up for the talent that is available from the diminished pool. The free market is not kind to political purges.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Midas on April 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

LOL. Right. I was asked multiple times by someone or another to define every word in that post including the word “the”. Sorry to disappoint.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:35 PM

jmtham156 on April 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

It probably is a better strategy. But activists usually demand the whole loaf and rarely are willing to accept half :-)

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:37 PM

No, I would not like it. I would try to convince a majority of my fellow citizens that it should be older (assuming I am living in a democracy).

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:13 PM

So you’re depriving them of their “civil rights”.

So you’re treating them as less than human.

So you hate them.

So you’re equivalent to slavers and segregationists.

northdallasthirty on April 8, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Gator Country on April 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Fortunately, I cannot be fired :-)

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Oh, oh…I smell a union leech.

Or, you are living off-welfare and food stamps while having our taxes pay for your internet so we can see your deplorable debating skills.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Except that I declined to offer a definition of “blood relatives”.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:26 PM

But you still defined and defend a limitation to what is permissible in marriage.

If there’s one acceptable limitation, why not others? Like age or even the traditional definition of the word, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Why does a word with a tradition meaning that has lasted millennium have to be redefined? When there is no penalty if same-sex couple who are legally linked, with the same rights and responsibilities as a ‘married’ couple, in a civil union prefer to define themselves in as ‘married’ even if the legal term is a ‘civil union’?

Does being denied the state’s redefinition of a word constitute a denial of ‘equality’? If so, why – particularly when a different term offers equality in terms of rights and responsibilities within that state but accurately defines that it’s not a union between one man and one woman?

The reason that word is important is just as gwelf noted – the intent is a not a desire for tolerance, or equality, but for societal recognition and celebration via identity politics. That’s why ‘marriage’ has to be selectively re-defined.

Athos on April 8, 2014 at 3:40 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Still curious about your definition of “crumbling”.

It’s a subjective term. How a person defines it reveals a great deal about their worldview and their standards for life.

lineholder on April 8, 2014 at 3:40 PM

LOL. Right. I was asked multiple times by someone or another to define every word in that post including the word “the”. Sorry to disappoint.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:35 PM

yes, MJBrutus is your typical, run of the mill militant pro-homosexual coward. When faced with arguments, which obviously destroy its logic, MJBrutus runs away.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:40 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

After your response, I was tempted to comment that your definiton and Blink’s were different, even though you argue for similar results. Then he clarified-

blink on April 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Though he could have (read “should have”) been nicer about it. Blink- not everyone who disagrees with your social opinions is a bigot, or disgusting. If you read through the comments on this thread, you’ll notice that (some) people are able to disagree without name-calling. People might take you more seriously if you try engaging them politely.

Komsomoletz on April 8, 2014 at 3:42 PM

lineholder on April 8, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Then my “worldview and standards for life” will have to remain a mystery to you. Let’s talk about the topic and not me, K?

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Update: The heretic recants and returns to a state of grace:

“We’ll decide who the racists are, thank you.”

Akzed on April 8, 2014 at 3:43 PM

The reason that word is important is just as gwelf noted – the intent is a not a desire for tolerance, or equality, but for societal recognition and celebration via identity politics. That’s why ‘marriage’ has to be selectively re-defined.

Athos on April 8, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Athos, I would add, to your excellent point, that in many cases, it is also for the destruction of traditional marriage and families.

More than one militant pro-homosexuals has been caught saying this to audiences who applauded and cheered quite loudly.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-gay-marriage-isnt-about-equality-its-about-destroy/

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Though he could have (read “should have”) been nicer about it. Blink- not everyone who disagrees with your social opinions is a bigot, or disgusting. If you read through the comments on this thread, you’ll notice that (some) people are able to disagree without name-calling. People might take you more seriously if you try engaging them politely.

Komsomoletz on April 8, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Sadly, some of us attempted to present arguments and logic, with a lot of respect towards MJBrutus and it decided to act like your typical, run of the mill, immature militant pro-homosexual. When faced with arguments it can’t deny or counter, MJBrutus insults and then runs away. Sad, but typical of those who blindly and mindlessly support so called gay marriage.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Sticking with that? How did I insult you?

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:50 PM

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-gay-marriage-isnt-about-equality-its-about-destroy/
Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Margaret Sanger published a paper called The Woman Rebel. “It was an eight-sheet pulp with the slogan ‘No Gods! No Masters!’ emblazoned across the masthead. She advertised it as a ‘paper of militant thought,’ and militant it was indeed. The first issue denounced marriage as a ‘degenerate institution,’ capitalism as ‘indecent exploitation,’ and sexual modesty as ‘obscene prudery.’” -George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood (Franklin, TN: Adroit Press, 1992), 53.

Akzed on April 8, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Sticking with that? How did I insult you?

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Sticking with that? The fact you can’t even acknowledge your immature behavior speaks volumes.

If the pro-homosexual militant movement had mature individuals, you would get a lot farther without having to destroy democracy in the process, but individuals like you and the idiots who demanded Mozilla’s resignation do so much harm and cause deep and unnecessary division.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:54 PM

How did I insult you?

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:55 PM

So while we hear a lot about ghey “marriage,” and even “marriage equality,” some of the latter with tongue in cheek, there’s no variant being promoted that doesn’t attack actual marriage.

Akzed on April 8, 2014 at 3:57 PM

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:42 PM

(Chuckling!) Classic evidence of avoidance, you know. Ironic, given your claim that people have become more comfortable with SSM because they do not see society “crumbling” around them.

I have no problems at giving my viewpoint of it.

Visual imaging OK? So visualize a structure that was built on certain foundations. Society as a whole stands on that foundation. Over time, damage is done to those foundations. One group of members of that society attempt to protect and preserve those foundations. Doing so means protecting things of value to society that have existed since that foundation was built (if not before).

This group of people finds themselves undermined time after time by another group of citizens who believe that things of value to society are limiting and prevent societal progress. The ones wanting to see societal progress would willingly forsake those things of value to society from the past without considering the manner in which it could be a danger to the very foundation on which that society was established.

That’s basically how it is for traditionalists trying to protect traditional values these days.

“Crumbling” has been going on for a long time. We’re just trying to preserve what’s left in what ways we can.

lineholder on April 8, 2014 at 3:58 PM

attack actual marriage.

Akzed on April 8, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Attack actual marriage?

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Margaret Sanger published a paper called The Woman Rebel. “It was an eight-sheet pulp with the slogan ‘No Gods! No Masters!’ emblazoned across the masthead. She advertised it as a ‘paper of militant thought,’ and militant it was indeed. The first issue denounced marriage as a ‘degenerate institution,’ capitalism as ‘indecent exploitation,’ and sexual modesty as ‘obscene prudery.’” -George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood (Franklin, TN: Adroit Press, 1992), 53.

Akzed on April 8, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Akzed, but that is just it. I find it amazing that for decades the same groups, which have claimed marriage is simply an antiquated practice. Marriage is nothing more than a ridiculous piece of paper that no dignified person should engage in, are now desperate to allow a group of individuals to supposedly marry.

So, these Left wing radical groups and individuals have to make up their minds

Is marriage a good thing or as the Left has been telling us for decades a horrific thing that enslaves women?

I know quite a few Liberals who refuse to get marry because they claim marriage is enslavement and antiquate. They say it is unnecessary for today’s society. Almost immediately, they turn around and demand I go along with them and agree so called gay marriage must happen and it is good for society.

Cpt. Kirk on April 8, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Fortunately, I cannot be fired :-)

As I stated several times recently, businesses only hurt themselves when they demand political obedience to positions unrelated to getting their job done. They lose out on talent and are forced to pay up for the talent that is available from the diminished pool. The free market is not kind to political purges.

MJBrutus on April 8, 2014 at 3:33 PM

It isn’t your problem, so it can be safely hand-waved away, huh?

Has it ever occurred to you that if the people demanding these purges don’t get their way by intimidating businesses into getting rid of the “heretics” on their own, that they’ll just turn to the government to get the job done by hounding them out of business with the regulatory apparatus?

Gator Country on April 8, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6